0
-1
1
Washington Post: Analysis | Discussing the gaps in ‘2000 Mules’ w/Dinesh D’Souza
MY SAY: Philip Bump is being intellectually dishonest. He's talking about form when he should be talking about function. The evidence is clear, and as a former grand jurist I can tell you that ANY grand jury would indict on this evidence. The threshold for indictment is the 51 percent rule. If it is more likely than not that a crime was committed and that John or Jane Doe committed the crime then you have a true bill of indictment. That's how our justice system works. Dinesh D'Sousa is not a prosecuting attorney making a legal case against alleged criminals in a court of law, he is presenting EVIDENCE of a crime and showing you WHO did it. Those two facts are not disputable, so Bump goes around the elephant in the room to discuss the color of the drapes. Another WaPo FAIL.
MY SAY: Philip Bump is being intellectually dishonest. He's talking about form when he should be talking about function. The evidence is clear, and as a former grand jurist I can tell you that ANY grand jury would indict on this evidence. The threshold for indictment is the 51 percent rule. If it is more likely than not that a crime was committed and that John or Jane Doe committed the crime then you have a true bill of indictment. That's how our justice system works. Dinesh D'Sousa is not a prosecuting attorney making a legal case against alleged criminals in a court of law, he is presenting EVIDENCE of a crime and showing you WHO did it. Those two facts are not disputable, so Bump goes around the elephant in the room to discuss the color of the drapes. Another WaPo FAIL.
discussing-gaps-2000-mules-with-dinesh-dsouza
Posted from washingtonpost.comPosted in these groups: 
Election 2020
Election 2020
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 1
1
1
0
Downvoted for misrepresenting the legal process. The "51% rule" is not the threshold for indictment, the threshold is probable cause, a much lower level. Second, D'Sousa isn't presenting evidence, he's presenting fiction which has been debunked.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
You're wrong. Have you ever served on a grand jury before? I have, for 31 days. Probable cause is the threshold for searches, seizures, etc. Voting me down was a low blow, something I thought was even lower than you, my troll would ever go. Now you need to vote yourself down for misrepresenting the legal profession, I will not stoop to your level. I remember my duty as a grand jurist very well, and the instructions and processes we received and performed, respectively. The threshold for indictment is very low, which is where the phrase, "A grand jury could indict a ham sandwich," comes from. The idea in American justice is that it is better to set free a guilty man than to convict an innocent man, is foundational. Perhaps you learned that in law school? The indictment is not a guilty verdict, but sets in motion the wheels of justice where in court the standard of conviction is either beyond a reasonable doubt, or on the preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). D'Sousa's evidence has NOT been 'debunked,' but is leading to serious official investigations, which should have taken place immediately following the fraudulent 2020 presidential election. If you turn a blind eye to the evidence you are no better than the perpetrators of these crimes. Why would you defend the mules? Aren't you the least bit curious as to who PAID the mules to stuff ballot boxes? I thought attorneys were all about the search for the TRUTH, not covering it up.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
MAJ Montgomery Granger Having JUST gotten off grand jury, Capt Gregory Prickett is correct. Probable cause is the standard for indictment. And, yes, it is LOWER than 51%.
We were consistently told that our job was not to EVALUATE the evidence. We were only to look at two things: If the evidence was obtained properly, andif, ASSUMING THE EVIDENCE IS TRUE, the charges being sought were valid. Was there a PROBABLE CAUSE to charge those crimes.
We were consistently told that our job was not to EVALUATE the evidence. We were only to look at two things: If the evidence was obtained properly, andif, ASSUMING THE EVIDENCE IS TRUE, the charges being sought were valid. Was there a PROBABLE CAUSE to charge those crimes.
(1)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Clip from Tombstone
MAJ Montgomery Granger - I keep forgetting that you're a conspiracy theorist who doesn't believe in the Constitutional rights of anyone who doesn't look or think like you. BTW, I lost count of how many cases I've presented to the grand jury to get an indictment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBlszagUKjk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBlszagUKjk
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google