A jury of citizens chosen at random would do a better job of investigating Hilary/Obama/Russians than William Barr.
Juries have no other power than determining guilt.
Wrong -- they also make sentencing decisions.
And there is latitude on what their power is. They can be assigned additional powers as needed. There is no strait jacket imposing absolute limits onto juries.
They have no investigative power and are barely even allowed to ask questions (and when they do, it is only outside of the courtroom, via requests to the Judge).
All that is subject to adjustment as needed.
What we need is an investigation system modeled on juries, not with the same exact limits you're referring to in the particular jurisdiction you're familiar with. The jury system is not uniformly the same everywhere in the world or in the U.S., but varies from one jurisdiction to another.
The basics of it is that a small group of citizens chosen at random from the citizenry is charged with making a decision. In some cases they do ask questions and investigate, but in most trials they only hear the evidence and then deliberate on that. The latitude to them depends on what matter they are deciding.
Grand juries do much more than just hear the evidence and render a verdict.
Basically all they do is sit in silence listening to evidence and arguments and are then instructed to come to a decision based on . . .
In Perry Mason TV shows that's all they do. But not all juries are Perry Mason juries. It's not true that there is a uniform jury system like you're describing which fits all juries of any kind.
. . . decision based on only the evidence and arguments heard in the courtroom (and then in accordance with particulars of the law in question).
Full stop.
Obviously all they do is in accordance with the law in question. But the law is not the same everywhere in all situations throughout the universe for every kind of legal procedure. There are different kinds of juries and different forms of legal procedures. What we need is an investigating procedure patterned after that of juries, where the investigators are chosen randomly from among the citizens, like jurors are chosen.
It can be achieved similarly to how the jury system works. Or Grand Juries which now have some power to investigate public officials and expose corruption.
Where do you live that has jurors
investigating anything at all?
In San Diego a few years ago a grand jury investigated Mayor Susan Golding and recommended prosecution of the mayor for misconduct, which could have led to her being removed from office.
https://apnews.com/ec7b8d97b299d2ddaf7a0ee8848bcd1f The D.A. did not follow through on the recommendation.
Grand juries often investigate something needing attention and issue their findings, recommending some action to be taken. Similar to the House proposing budgets which the Senate and President must approve.
A grand jury could be empowered to issue orders, like legislation, but so far they are not given that power.
Do you know what that entails or are you mistaking a colloquial term for a term of art, as the power to investigate is a very clearly defined one that has zero to do with jurors.
You apparently have never heard of grand juries.
And even if "juries" or "jurors" are limited as you define them, we don't have to accept your definition or any particular limits based on what you think is the standard. We can modify the function of "juries" as needed. There is a need for this investigating function to be performed somehow, and the partisan elected representatives are obviously incapable of carrying out this function.
Also a partisan politically-appointed Attorney General is incapable of performing this function objectively.
The partisan office-holders need to return to their proper function and turn the investigating function over to someone else who is non-partisan and someone not in power, who can judge from the outside what is wrong with these ones holding power. Those battling it out inside the partisan power struggle are incapable of judging objectively what is wrong in the power structure and who in power needs to be corrected, because the latter are loyal only to their party rather than to the society, because what mainly matters to them is to preserve and extend the power of their political party or clique.
So what you are necessarily referring to is granting special powers of the State to jurors, effectively making them prosecutors and/or police officers, with the same authority--and autonomy--to act and wield the power of the State.
Only investigating power. To issue subpoenas and require testimony, and then issue findings. Are you saying it would be dangerous to let ordinary people play this role, to ask questions and determine what the truth is? Are you saying only specially-chosen demagogues in power over us can be entrusted to ask the questions and determine the truth? or that only the Blue Fanatics or the Red Fanatics version of the truth can be allowed, and whichever Party is in power dictates The Truth which is imposed onto us all? based on the current Red or Blue Narrative?
Iow, you are arguing to turn jurors away from what they are now and into a government sanctioned, government mandated policing arm of the State with special powers to act.
Only power to investigate. To ask questions and determine the truth. Grand juries already perform such a function. And trial juries do something similar even if more limited. Juries can be changed to take on broader functions as needed. You think they should not be allowed to do what they are needed for? that they should be restricted against doing something we need them to do?
Like, I don't know, a chamber of some sort, only instead of being duly elected--and thus their qualifications publicly vetted--they are what? Randomly chosen by lottery?
There could be some "qualifications" such as residency requirements or non-felony background, perhaps high-school education level, etc. But they should not be selected based on their ability to give speeches to manipulate an audience -- like Barrack Obama and Ronald Reagan and Adolf Hitler gained popularity with their speech-making ability. The investigators should be ordinary non-criminal persons capable of judging those in high positions of power.
Have you ever sat on a jury? If so, imagine giving the people you served with the power--and enforcement--to independently investigate you any time any one of them chooses, because that's what you're suggesting.
Their function would be to investigate only those holding high office, or high positions of power. The power elite.
Why do you want to shield the elitists in power from being questioned by those over whom they exercise authority?
All of American jurisprudence.