re: Landry/Murrill press conference Wednesday at 2pm

quote:

---

Here we go again

---

quote:

---

I wasn't on the Grand Jury.

---

You said that the charges must have had merit. So, what was the merit? Don't chickenshit out of this.

I'll save you the embarrassment, you only said that because you side with the disturbing tactics of New Orleans because you have a political ax to grind with Murrill and Landry. Not because there was any evidence of crime.

There was no crime. There was no threat. There was no merit to the indictment. The fallout is proof. This post from YOU:

quote:

---

A Grand Jury determined the charges did have merit, which, IMO, demonstrates that the charges had some merit.

---

is political bias, extreme appeal to authority, ignorance, and/or just plain stupidity. The correct response from you would be to state: I mispoke, and that specifically with this case, the entire ordeal is corrupt and has no merit.

But you won't. WIl you?

quote:

---

It looks like you're treating an indictiment like a guilty verdict.

---

That's projection from you and your ilk.

quote:

---

Landry has been a total bust.

---

If you say this then he must be doing a great job

quote:

---

So you don’t believe choosing to prosecute any individual frivolously is a violation of that individual’s civil rights?

---

Maybe, if the DA/prosecutor was the one who brought the charges (or if she had pressed the charges to trial in the face of contrary evidence, rather than NP'ing them- which is what happened here.)

But I believe that members of a grand jury (and/or petite jury) should have the highest degree of legal immunity, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the "charges" at issue were frivolous, pointless, and politically motivated. I think that immunity has to be baked in for the institution to work.

The only exception I can think of is bribery, which I doubt happened here.

quote:

---

Nice pivot. But failed again. You stated the indictment had merit. What is the merit?

---

I said that a Grand Jury indictment demonstrates that the charges must have had some merit.

quote:

---

Nice pivot. But failed again. You stated the indictment had merit. What is the merit? I gave you the law that the indictment claims AG violated, i want you to now reference the letter that is the cause of the indictment and state what part of the letter breaks the law.

---

I wasn't on the Grand Jury. I didn't personally evaluate anything and make the determination to indict.

You seem to be desperate for me to defend the indictment.

quote:

---

I wasn't on the Grand Jury. I didn't personally evaluate anything and make the determination to indict.

---

And the grand jury indictment being unsealed behind closed doors, in violation of the law, didn't bring up any red flags to you?

It's a saying i hate, but a New York judge in the 80's stated:

quote:

---

The phrase is most commonly traced to Sol Wachtler, then Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals. In a 1985 interview with the New York Daily News, he criticized the grand jury system, saying district attorneys had so much control that they could get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich” if they wanted.

---

So your blind acceptance to the word "indictment" should be questioned with scrutiny. Don't you think?

quote:

---

Grand juries typically hear only the prosecutor’s side of the case, with no defense presentation, cross-examination, or judge actively filtering evidence. As a result, they almost always return an indictment (the “true bill”) when the prosecutor asks for one. The “ham sandwich” is just a colorful way of saying the bar is extremely low—an indictment can be obtained against nearly anyone (or anything) with minimal evidence.

---

Do you disagree with that statement above? Or were you not aware that an indictment doesn't have much of a defense, and should even doubly so be questioned if it is handled specifically the way this particular NO indictment was handled?

quote:

---

Of course, for some reason the poli board doesn't seem to care when black people are indicted so no one is worried about Hutson or Bianca Brown.

---

There it is folks….. the retarded leftist pulls the race card so she can play the white savior main character role.

The fact that this dumb bitch keeps bring up Hutson being indicted by a legal and legit grand jury, an official who allowed a jail break (among other things) to happen under her watch, says more about you than anyone else in this thread. If Hutson was white or a republican, you’d have a totally different opinion on the subject. Once again, just another disgusting leftist playing the white savior main character role

quote:

---

The other interesting thing is that the bond for murrill was $400,000! That’s extremely high.

---

When Murrill indicted the former sheriff of Orleans in April, the bond was set at $300,000.

Looks like Orleans is going tit for tat with the State, but Orleans doesn't have the power that the State has.

quote:

---

It’s interesting though

---

More of the same.

quote:

---

When Murrill indicted the former sheriff of Orleans in April, the bond was set at $300,000.

---

Charges seem to have a bit more to it than the Murrill indictment. The AG also didn't break the law by arresting reporters and shutting the doors on the indictment proceedings. Kind of a big differentiator there, don't you think?

quote:

---

In late April 2026, a special grand jury (brought by AG Liz Murrill’s office) returned charges related to the high-profile May 2025 jailbreak in which 10 inmates escaped from the Orleans Parish jail (reportedly through a hole left by a ripped-out toilet).

Hutson faced a 30-count indictment, including multiple counts of malfeasance in office, conspiracy to commit malfeasance, filing/maintaining false public records, and obstruction of justice.
Brown faced a 20-count indictment on similar charges (malfeasance, conspiracy, false public records, and obstruction).

The allegations centered on failures in jail security, staffing, funding claims, and related administrative/records issues spanning Hutson’s term. Both pleaded not guilty. Bonds were set at $300,000 for Hutson and $200,000 for Brown.

---

quote:

---

Looks like Orleans is going tit for tat with the State, but Orleans doesn't have the power that the State has.

---

Explain what this means. You stated that the indicment had merit. I asked for your proof. You then stated that "well if there is an indictment there must be merit, right". I stated why there was no merit. So here you are again, assuming that the State is acting the same as Orleans when clearly they are not. One followed the law, one did not.