will25u said:

---

LAWFARE: A DC-area grand jury refused to indict Letitia James for a second time, days after a federal judge tossed the original charges. Democrats remain virtually untouchable in the DC region while Republicans get targeted nonstop.

New York AG Letitia James escaped indictment… pic.twitter.com/HOsT2Rq4QA

— @amuse (@amuse) December 4, 2025

---

I was today's years old when I learned Norfolk, Va qualifies as "DC Area."

If ever we are attacked on a grand scale, I only hope our enemy saturates the DC area and NYC

one safe place said:

---

If ever we are attacked on a grand scale, I only hope our enemy saturates the DC area and NYC

---

Ummm, I think this has already happened.

Question is how do we evict the enemy (metaphorically of course)…

Makes you wonder what Halligan told the grand jury the first time around to get an indictment.

Some folks are evidently perfectly fine with that, especially when it goes against Trump.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

What should she have told them? James committed a very obvious crime. There's no refuting that. Sadly, democrats are not ethical people.

We have two systems of justice in America.

---

He's a lib and doesn't care, as long as the Dems get to slide by. He thinks they're above the law.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

What should she have told them? James committed a very obvious crime. There's no refuting that. Sadly, democrats are not ethical people.

We have two systems of justice in America.

---

We all know she made two "misstatements about the law" (one was an outright lie, the other was being misleading) when she presented the Comey indictment. She's not above being questioned if she lied doing this one as well.

Rockdoc said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

What should she have told them? James committed a very obvious crime. There's no refuting that. Sadly, democrats are not ethical people.

We have two systems of justice in America.

---

He's a lib and doesn't care, as long as the Dems get to slide by. He thinks they're above the law.

---

Evidently you missed my take on the Henry Cuellar pardon. **** right off with your accusations.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

What should she have told them? James committed a very obvious crime. There's no refuting that. Sadly, democrats are not ethical people.

We have two systems of justice in America.

---

We all know she made two "misstatements about the law" (one was an outright lie, the other was being misleading) when she presented the Comey indictment. She's not above being questioned if she lied doing this one as well.

---

We all know James lied multiple times in loan documents. Knowingly. Shes a thief, at best.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

What should she have told them? James committed a very obvious crime. There's no refuting that. Sadly, democrats are not ethical people.

We have two systems of justice in America.

---

He's a lib and doesn't care, as long as the Dems get to slide by. He thinks they're above the law.

---

Evidently you missed my take on the Henry Cuellar pardon. **** right off with your accusations.

---

Yeah like we don't know what you are. Lol

I don't know what they are, but the posts suggest a bias that only trends in one direction. That's fine, but people should admit it.

I no longer care if someone thinks I am biased, cause I am. Maybe jaded, overly cynical. But its the product of the constant baseless attacks against Trump and friends followed by the complete defense of Comey, James., Willis, Biden (all of them), drug runners, Maryland dads, cat eating Haitians, etc.

That and you can see the signs much more readily these days. The "kill em all" hoax was apparent from the moment it broke. Given what the Seditious 6 had done you knew something was coming. Then common sense would tell you Hegseth is not going to be ousted by such an outrageous accusation. And there was no "let's wait on the facts". The usual folks went straight to war crimes.

Here, they will fall all over themselves to protect… Letitia James? That is their hero? Ghetto **** for Brains Tish who struggles with sentences over 10 words. Yet they think she can provide false, misleading information on mortgage forms and that is okay because Team Blue is best.

Call em out. And defend Trump and Rs at every turn. Never give the libs a grain of sand, as their goal is to take you whole mountain and drown you in their sea of misery.

Yes I am biased too. We all are. Be proud of what you are and don't go on a cursing rampage when you are called out, unless you are feeling guilty about it. People can call me whatever they want. I'm ok with it.

It isn't in question that James (or Comey) committed criminal acts. James denies it, but the proof is in black and white. She's a liar.

Both are trying to get off on technicalities, but they still brazenly committed the crimes.

Rockdoc said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

What should she have told them? James committed a very obvious crime. There's no refuting that. Sadly, democrats are not ethical people.

We have two systems of justice in America.

---

He's a lib and doesn't care, as long as the Dems get to slide by. He thinks they're above the law.

---

Evidently you missed my take on the Henry Cuellar pardon. **** right off with your accusations.

---

Yeah like we don't know what you are. Lol

---

You also seem to ignore that I voted for Trump. But you just keep on keeping on.

Like I said in the Cuellar thread. Be very wary of those claiming to have voted for Trump then proceed to attack, refuse to support, or die over a single issue like a pardon they don't agree with.

The "voted for Trump… but" is a dog whistle for squishy middles, CMs, RINOs, libs in disguise, etc.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Like I said in the Cuellar thread. Be very wary of those claiming to have voted for Trump then proceed to attack, refuse to support, or die over a single issue like a pardon they don't agree with.

The "voted for Trump… but" is a dog whistle for squishy middles, CMs, RINOs, libs in disguise, etc.

---

Exactly! It's not that I don't believe him, but I don't believe him.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

What should she have told them? James committed a very obvious crime. There's no refuting that. Sadly, democrats are not ethical people.

We have two systems of justice in America.

---

We all know she made two "misstatements about the law" (one was an outright lie, the other was being misleading) when she presented the Comey indictment. She's not above being questioned if she lied doing this one as well.

---

We all know James lied multiple times in loan documents. Knowingly. Shes a thief, at best.

---

You sell her short. She lied in insurance documents as well.

STRIKE TWO

Court posts records showing the grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia rejected Justice Dept's proposed indictment against Letitia James

Norfolk grand jury did the same earlier this month

Will feds try again with grand jury in Richmond today?https://t.co/L8dK7k3syP pic.twitter.com/3ZRJzr8dru

— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) December 18, 2025

will25u said:

---

STRIKE TWO

Court posts records showing the grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia rejected Justice Dept's proposed indictment against Letitia James

Norfolk grand jury did the same earlier this month

Will feds try again with grand jury in Richmond today?https://t.co/L8dK7k3syP pic.twitter.com/3ZRJzr8dru

— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) December 18, 2025

---

Post the names and bank records of the GJ members. This **** needs to stop.

If Dems want to go this route, vigilante justice will become the norm. If that's what they want, gon toting, god fearing, freedom loving patriots will answer the call.

Are you high?

Leticia "Don't Call me Ham Sandwich" James

HTownAg98 said:

---

Are you high?

---

No, just well past the game Dems have been playing. They want a fight, we will give it to them.

We are way beyond a negotiated truce. Dems / libs / leftists no longer deserve a seat at the table.

Did the folks spewing hate, vitriol and lies in their unrelenting quest for absolute power were not going to be met with resistance?

Well that's not going to happen. Grand jury secrecy has been around well before our constitution was written.

If this is the second time it's happened, with two different grand juries, then maybe it's time to drop this case and move on. The proving the willful intent was always going to be a problem, especially when there's conflicting documents. I don't know if she did this deliberately or not, but that's going to be an element they were going to have to prove.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Well that's not going to happen. Grand jury secrecy has been around well before our constitution was written.

If this is the second time it's happened, with two different grand juries, then maybe it's time to drop this case and move on. The proving the willful intent was always going to be a problem, especially when there's conflicting documents. I don't know if she did this deliberately or not, but that's going to be an element they were going to have to prove.

---

Grand juries do not use beyond a reasonable doubt standard. They only determine probable cause that a crime has been committed.

Of course not. But one of the elements that at this stage has to get past probable cause was if she knowingly did it. If there's five documents that indicate the home was for a secondary residence, and two that say it's for a primary residence, that "knowingly" part becomes difficult to prove.

Do grand juries consider intent or do they only consider the possibility of a crime having been committed?

agent-maroon said:

---

Do grand juries consider intent or do they only consider the possibility of a crime having been committed?

---

If intent is an element of the crime, then yes, they must consider it

Quote:

---

If intent is an element of the crime, then yes, they must consider it

---

Probable cause determinations by considering the issue is still different than having it proved to them.

For instance, what they can take into account:

• Is that her signature?
• Is it notarized? (Necessitating photo ID for the notary)
• Did she read it or her lawyer did? (And that is secondary.)

Circumstantial evidence of intent. Those they can consider since James was never on the stand in front of them. Enough for probable cause? Likely.

Enough for a trial with a defense and beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury? Different question.

4:06 PM: ABC News publishes that the Letitia James grand jury declined to indict. 4:39 PM: The grand jury actually returns the decision in open court. 33 minutes. A federal judge documented it. Someone was feeding reporters from inside the grand jury in real time.

Full article… pic.twitter.com/Oxu9yRNI3F

— Sam E. Antar (@SamAntar) December 19, 2025

will25u said:

---

4:06 PM: ABC News publishes that the Letitia James grand jury declined to indict. 4:39 PM: The grand jury actually returns the decision in open court. 33 minutes. A federal judge documented it. Someone was feeding reporters from inside the grand jury in real time.

Full article… pic.twitter.com/Oxu9yRNI3F

— Sam E. Antar (@SamAntar) December 19, 2025

---

And that means the grand jury was tampered with.