in a grand jury the prosecutor essentially waives the decision of whether or not to go to trial (that's their regular duty, to take evidence from cops and decide if a charge and trial is warranted based on the evidence they're given by law enforcement). and then the prosecutor honors the will of the grand jury of whether or not to go to trial. the prosecutor has some leeway, basically in how they present evidence and what they say to the grand jury. but in general they're tied to the decision of the grand jury.

its basically a way for the prosecutor to avoid heat for putting someone on trial (i.e. "blame the grand jury, i wasnt sure but they called for a trial") and/or a way for a certain jurisdiction to get the community more involved in justice. this is essentially how it works:




and honestly after reading up on grand juries to answer your question i came across the info that only America really does these, so its perfectly fine for you a foreigner to not understand how/why they operate. my b.

Grand juries do not draft indictments. Prosecutors do. But since impeachment is a political and not a legal one (albeit one that mirrors certain aspects of legal processes), the House drafts the articles in lieu of an actual prosecutor.

This post was edited by Surfpunk on Jan 30 2020 12:15pm

and one could even say the speaker acts as a prosecutor of sorts and is even responsible for filing the impeachment papers which are basically an indictment.

Ok, that makes sense, particularly the "avoid heat for putting someone on trial" part.



Yeah, as ^Surfpunk said, my point was about grand juries deciding on an indictment which was written by the prosecutor or DA, while in the case of impeachment, the House acts as prosecutor and grand jury all in one.
So, coming back to what you wrote earlier:


1. is a valid argument, but 2. falls apart. By being prosecutor and grand jury in one, the House's articles of impeachment do in fact imply a judgement on the scope and the cogency of the evidence. Also, your last sentence is clearly not accurate. The House doesnt just rule on whether the evidence merits a trial when it impeaches a president, it also lays out the framework for the trial in the Senate, and it implies finding the president guilty of very severe misconduct.

You're right though that the House vote on impeachment doesnt imply a final verdict on removal and still leaves room for the Senate to do further work (e.g. collecting further evidence).

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 30 2020 12:31pm

Thanks.

Honestly, I am just fucking around.

i think its less black and white even than our two posts. a grand jury has the ability to subpoena people and get evidence entered into the proceedings. which is basically what the house did, called it's own witnesses, etc.

and i think the media and general public laid out the framework for the house's impeachment. obviously that's not congruent to how exactly grand juries work, but the police also dictate how a prosecutor handles the grand jury with the evidence they provide.

30 years ago that would be fine, because the media had a sparkling reputation. now adays tho the idea of the media setting up impeachments is scary. then again so are collections of calls, transcripts, classified materials leaking, etc. its just the technology age we live in.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jan 30 2020 12:39pm

It's not just the media age, it's also the fact that hyperpolarization and filter bubbles have increased the power and importance of the media. In a world where more and more people fall into two opposing camps which cant agree on anything, not even basic facts, and in a world where most of the media has given up the pretense of impartiality, the ability of particular news outlets to shape the way people perceive the world has arguably increased compared to the 80s and 90s. Of course Trump, the most polarizing president in decades, is guilty of accelerating this trend.

i agree and disagree. the media is better now at shaping how 50% of people think. whereas in the past anchors like Walter Chronkite could reasonably sway 100% of people. polarization works both ways.

I should have clarified, the health stuff is real. The other stuff is the fuckery.

I figured as much haha.