Grand juries are one of those things that was developed with good intentions, but in reality, it’s a worthless and potentially dangerous weapon used by potentially corrupt individuals to destroy lives.

Thanks once again to President Donald J. Trump, the grand jury process is yet another swamp creature being exposed.

Like Trump, even I did not know a lot about the grand jury process until it was used against him and I began hearing all these legal experts say, “A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich.”

Well that got my attention because I admit my own guilt of not being fully informed. I was always one of those persons who heard so and so was, “indicted by a grand jury,” and thought it was a big deal to be indicted.

The first grand jury was convened here in 1635, more than a century before we would even become a country, and it originated in England during the medieval era.

That should tell you everything you wanted to know about the concept of the grand jury process.

On the surface, the intent is to simply pack up to 23 people in a room and let the prosecutor provide “evidence” to determine if there is probable cause to move forward with charges.

The problem: There is no defense, no judge, no official court staff and it’s all done in secret.

Prosecutors with personal or political ambitions or agendas can essentially tell a grand jury anything they want to get an indictment whether it’s relevant or would even be admissible in actual court.

It is the equivalent of trying a case on social media where a case is decided by the general public based on rumors and misinformation.

So for some Americans, when the news breaks that so and so got “indicted,” there are gasps and instant judgments of guilt. We say, “Oh boy, that guy is in trouble now.”

In reality, an indictment doesn’t mean a thing. It has no value whatsoever and does more harm than good. So why is this irrelevant and ancient process still in place when in reality you really could indict a ham sandwich with a grand jury?

And why are taxpayers still paying for a system that denies citizens due process and solely benefits a potentially corrupt and ambitious prosecutor?

In some cases, like Brian Kohberger who is accused of slaughtering four college students in Moscow Idaho, the defense is being refused access to what was presented to a grand jury to get the indictment.

The Kohberger case is an interesting one by the way and if you were like me and assumed this guy is guilty just because he was arrested and indicted, we might be wrong. We’ll see, but there is a lot of suspect information out there pointing toward something a lot bigger than Kohberger.

And we also saw the Alvin Bragg grand jury indictment that didn’t even lay out a crime. It was an indictment for the sake of an indictment all because it’s Trump.

But oh boy, the left wing media went nuts with it and has proudly rejoiced in reporting, “Former President Trump indicted,” for this crime and that crime. Well, it doesn’t mean anything.

Even when someone is formally charged, we are supposed to assume innocence until proven guilty. We aren’t very good at that because we are too quick to judge. But to assume guilt based on what we now know about being indicted by a grand jury has reached the level of – God help me – being an ignorant liberal.

But it’s the perception of what an indictment means that is used by corrupt justice officials and the leftist lame stream media. They know the impact of the word “indictment” on the American public and they are running this pony into the ground.

How can the grand jury process be considered fair? And in today’s world of the Internet, any news of an indictment for any American citizen is there forever.

Get indicted and look for a job? Google search pulls up the indictment and the employer moves on to the next candidate. Online looking for your soulmate? If he or she is doing their homework, the indictment comes up in a search and your soulmate passes you by.

The consequences of an indictment can be catastrophic, but in reality doesn’t mean a damn thing.

This is the most unconstitutional process of our judicial system I have ever seen and it needs an outright abolishment, or at the very least, a major tweak in how the process works.

At the absolute least, a judge should be required to monitor and weigh in on the prosecutorial actions and the accused should have some representation. In short, a mini trial before an actual trial.

A grand jury is only getting one side and it would be very liberal of us to assume that what is being presented is on the up and up.

The secrecy aspect of a grand jury was solely designed to protect whistleblower testimony. Prosecutors have taken advantage of that concept and made all grand juries secret whether it involves a whistleblower or not.

And if it does involve a whistleblower, it’s easy to clear out the public and hear whistleblower testimony in private, but again, with a judge and a member of the defense present.

This process is a perfect example of how absolute power will corrupt absolutely. It’s a shameful, disgusting and embarrassing part of our American judicial system that screams for change.

It’s also a fine example of why we, as Americans and patriots, must remain vigilant, must keep ourselves informed and must share our truth.