Fox Anchor Calls Grand Juries ‘Undemocratic’ Just After Calling For One For Hillary Clinton

632

Conservatives are in panic-mode over the news that special counsel Robert Mueller has impaneled a new grand jury and the probe has expanded into looking into possible financial crimes by individuals close to Donald Trump. Defenders of the amateurish president are left flailing as they repeatedly bring up Hillary Clinton in order to somehow justify any possible collusion between the Trump campaign and a hostile foreign government. That’s exactly what Fox News anchor Gregg Jarrett, a former defense attorney, did but in an even more unusual manner.

On Thursday, Jarrett called grand juries an “undemocratic farce” but that was just one day after writing an op-ed asking why a grand jury had not been impaneled for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information, The Hill reports.

Jarrett was weighing in on Mueller’s decision to impanel a grand jury in the investigation into Russia’s interference in last year’s presidential election.

“There’s only one other nation in the world other than the U.S. that employs a grand jury — it’s Liberia,” Jarrett said Thursday on “Hannity.”

“And there’s a reason why, because everybody now realizes that grand juries are an undemocratic farce,” he said.

“The defense is never there to cross-examine witnesses and to challenge the evidence. Prosecutors spoon-feed only incriminating evidence and nothing exculpatory. It is as undemocratic as you can get, it is the antithesis of justice,” he continued.

“And it’s even worse here because Robert Mueller impaneled a Washington, D.C., grand jury, where Donald Trump got a mere 11,000 votes compared to Hillary Clinton’s 260,000 votes. I daresay there is probably not a single person on that grand jury that likes Donald Trump. So it is doubly unfair,” Jarrett concluded.

Jarrett’s comments came one day after he penned an op-ed on FoxNews.com in which he called on Mueller to also investigate Hillary Clinton.

“There is something fundamentally unfair when a special counsel is appointed to investigate the winner of a presidential contest, but not the loser,” Jarrett wrote.

“There is much to investigate. Did Comey usurp the authority of the Attorney General in terminating the Clinton email investigation? How could downloading more than a hundred classified documents onto Clinton’s private and unsecured email server not constitute crimes under the Espionage Act? Why were five people given immunity while others invoked the Fifth Amendment, yet no grand jury was impaneled?” Jarrett asked.

It’s almost as if conservatives don’t realize that Hillary Clinton is not the President. Hey, I know, maybe investigate the 2012 attack in Benghazi just one more time; they might find something after the eleventy hundredth probe. Hillary Clinton testified during Benghazi committee hearing for 11 long hours and didn’t break a sweat, by the way.

Note to our readers: Please share/tweet our articles. Trump supporting trolls targeted our site’s account and reported it en masse, without cause. This triggered a seemingly automatic suspension. Twitter support has failed to address this issue. Thank you!


Featured image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, under Creative Commons license 2.0.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 DeepStateNation.com