which is the reason for the saying that it's possible to indict a ham sandwich. In federal court a typical grand jury consists of 23 people, and only a majority - 12 - is needed to indict. We can't say they (or maybe only 12 of them) screwed up, because they heard only the no-doubt slanted evidence presented by the compromised rookie prosecutor.

Aware of a madman's crazy tweets illegally ordering an indictment

based only on evidence presented to them, not on anything they may have heard elsewhere. Also, a grand jury decision is only a probable cause determination, not a finding of guilt.

They have no rules while we adhere to every one

They count on it

on things they've heard on TV or social media, or that they heard from a friend, or just think might be true? I don't.

Because they just facilitated that

This case will probably crash and burn as soon as it gets before a judge. I'd rather see a weak indictment than jury nullification.

And the next
And the next

Trump can sell indictments as proof of guilt

Or diminish the severity of indictments to show his indictments were no big thing

Lawrence O'Donnell broke it down on his show last night. He is convinced that the grand jury was never shown the report from the inspector general that argued the case that McCabe lied.

They could have slammed the door on all of this
Now, the door is wide open

It's not a determination of guilt, which still must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Plus testing the grand jury's gullibilty

D.C. refused indictments and now the attempts have stopped

With Trump it's go go go