Latest News

March 23, 2023

You’re probably wondering how a New York grand jury could still vote to indict Donald Trump after the bombshell testimony on Monday from Michael Cohen’s former legal adviser Robert Costello. He eviscerated Cohen as a convicted perjurer and pathological liar willing to say or do anything to avoid charges against himself, and who previously admitted to Costello that he arranged the hush money payments to two women without Trump’s knowledge. Cohen’s testimony to the contrary is the rickety foundation of Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s ridiculous case. So how could any grand jurors vote to approve such a divisive and unprecedented indictment based on that obvious pile of rancid fertilizer?

Well, there are two answers:

1. It’s a New York grand jury, and the target is Donald Trump.

2. This is likely the first time the grand jurors have heard a single word of evidence in Trump’s favor. Even then, Costello said he had to sneak it into his answers because Bragg was trying to keep him from revealing it. And he was shocked to learn that the grand jury hadn’t seen the hundreds of pages of evidence he’d provided to Bragg; they’d only been shown six cherry-picked documents.

At that link, Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett points out the many flaws in the case and the nakedly political motivations for it, as well as Bragg’s hiding of exculpatory evidence from the grand jury, which he calls “reprehensible” and “unconscionable.” Unfortunately, it’s hardly unusual.

There’s a reason the cliché exists that you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. That’s because all they hear is the prosecution’s side. The defendant isn’t allowed in the room; he has no attorney there to give his side or to cross-examine witnesses or call defense witnesses; and there’s no exculpatory evidence presented unless the DA feels like presenting it (hint: they seldom do.)

In short, it’s exactly like Nancy Pelosi’s January 6th Kangaroo Kommittee.  

So if an indictment does come down, don’t judge the grand jurors too harshly because they know not what they do, and Alvin Bragg has done his darnedest to make sure of that.

If they had been allowed to hear both sides, I assume this is what they would have said to Mr. Bragg; and if this hot mess actually goes to trial, let’s hope it’s what the trial jury will say:

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

More Stories

The Overseas Elections

Very Fine People

Raked over the coals

Plan for action after AG Garland’s contempt of Congress

No Comments