[civilitty]

> That shows that your understanding of this whole process may not be what it needs to be to make the arguments you are making.

You don't even know that judges preside over grand jury proceedings. That's, like, the most fundamental aspect of the entire legal system: there is a judge deciding things.

You have no business criticizing someone's understanding of the judicial system.

[throwawayou812]

Grand juries indict people, not judges.

[civilitty]

Grand juries follow the instructions of the judge presiding over the proceedings.

[throwawayou812]

And then the grand jury, completely independent of any judge, makes a decision as to whether or not to indict. Your argument is like saying the referees decide who wins the Super Bowl.

[civilitty]

Grand juries cannot even exist independent of a judge, let alone decide things of consequence like an indictment.

What planet do you live on?

[throwawayou812]

You're actually trying to argue that judges have an active decision making role in deciding whether or not a grand jury issues an indictment? You're really destroying your own credibility and making my point for me the deeper this conversation goes.

There's an old saying: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

[civilitty]

You're actually trying to argue that judges don't play an active role in the JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

You're literally arguing that water isn't wet.