Grand Jury Undermines Democracy By Reviewing Evidence
American democracy suffered another procedural setback Tuesday when a federal grand jury declined to indict former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson for allegedly lying to Congress about President Donald Trump’s conduct surrounding January 6. Jurors reportedly examined the evidence before reaching their decision, reviving the antiquated notion that prosecutors must persuade citizens rather than simply hand them a list of the president’s enemies and wait for the signatures.
The rejection, formally known as a “no bill,” exposed a dangerous weakness in the justice system: Ordinary Americans serving on grand juries apparently retain the authority to say no. Constitutional specialists warned that the discovery could disrupt Washington’s expanding political-retribution industry, which depends on courts treating presidential grievances as self-authenticating evidence. Trump described the ruling in characteristic terms: “This was probably the least grand jury ever assembled, because a truly grand jury indicts everyone I don’t like immediately, before evidence makes the whole thing complicated and very unfair.”
Hutchinson testified before the House committee investigating the January 6 attack and has maintained that her statements were truthful. Her continued freedom now threatens to establish a chilling precedent under which witnesses may criticize a powerful official, cooperate with Congress and remain uncharged several years later. Prosecutors could consequently be forced to demonstrate probable cause, a burdensome relic from the period when federal law enforcement was expected to distinguish criminal cases from presidential mood boards.
Administration officials are reviewing possible reforms, including shorter grand jury presentations, fewer inconvenient documents and a streamlined process in which one federal employee asks how many counts the president would prefer. Another proposal would replace citizen jurors with a large rubber stamp, eliminating the risk that independent thought might again contaminate justice. Until those safeguards are enacted, the country remains exposed to citizens who believe evidence matters, defendants who expect due process and witnesses who fail to understand that contradicting Donald Trump is itself the nation’s highest crime.
* None of the quotes in this article were spoken by an actual person. More info.