GA - Former President Donald Trump indicted, 10 counts in 2020 election interference, violation of RICO Act, 14 Aug 2023

[IzzyBlanche]

We don't know that they did, but if the special grand jury believed that Meadows committed perjury when he testified to them, they have every responsibility to recommend that he be indicted for it.

However, the report also said that a "majority of the Grand Jury believes that perjury may have been committed by one or more witnesses testifying before it" and recommended that the district attorney seek "appropriate indictments" for crimes where the "evidence is compelling." The jurors "received evidence from or involving 75 witnesses," the report said, the "overwhelming majority of which information was delivered in person under oath."

Majority of Georgia grand jury "believes that perjury may have been committed" in Trump 2020 election probe

The grand jury probed efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[BritsKate]

Do you have a link that states they could not indict him?

A special grand jury doesn't have the ability to indict but they do have investigative powers to subpoena witnesses, compel evidence, and they can sit longer - and a normal grand jury that can indict was also later convened. Special grand juries are used in complex cases in Georgia and so ordered by a majority of Superior Court judges.

It's being misrepresented as a reason the indictments aren't valid. In actuality, TWO grand juries found probable cause and a majority of Superior Court judges believed a special grand jury was necessary because of the complexity of the case which I personally believe kinda scuppers the notion that Ms. Willis is a one woman crusader with a political agenda.

Fani Willis investigated. Asked the Superior Court to appoint a special grand jury which they did. Special grand jury sat for seven months and heard from 75 witness and ultimately gave a report to the court recommending several indictments (I think it's still mostly under seal). Then, Fani Willis continued her investigation and eventually convened a grand jury that can only sit for a maximum of two months to hear the evidence and they ultimately indicted since they can. There's nothing atypical in that that I can discern. I personally wholeheartedly believe it makes the case against Trump even stronger. JMO

What's a special grand jury and how does it work?

The foreperson on a special grand jury that investigated whether former President Donald Trump and his allies illegally interfered in the 2020 election in Georgia raised some eyebrows this week.

apnews.com

 

[MyBelle]

She called a special grand jury because they investigate only one case and can sit for longer than two months, which is exactly what a complex investigation like this called for. Special grand juries cannot, however, indict so the regular grand jury had to be used for that part. It's an entirely appropriate use of the grand jury system in Georgia.

Reporters and attorneys don't agree with you and neither do I.

JMO

By speaking out, could foreperson in Georgia Trump probe undermine a future case?

The foreperson of the Georgia grand jury probing election interference by former President Trump has publicly telegraphed some of her panel's closely held findings.

abcnews.go.com

Legal experts tell ABC News that Kohrs' remarks, which quickly ricocheted across cable news and the internet, could complicate any future cases and, more broadly, undermine the public's confidence in the criminal justice process.

"She shouldn't be doing this," Dan Abrams, ABC News' chief legal analyst, said of Kohrs' public comments. "It isn't helpful to the perception of the objectivity of the criminal justice system, and it starts to feel like she's putting pressure on the district attorney to actually move forward with charges."

 

[KellySleuth]

Reporters and attorneys don't agree with you and neither do I.

JMO

By speaking out, could foreperson in Georgia Trump probe undermine a future case?

The foreperson of the Georgia grand jury probing election interference by former President Trump has publicly telegraphed some of her panel's closely held findings.

abcnews.go.com

Legal experts tell ABC News that Kohrs' remarks, which quickly ricocheted across cable news and the internet, could complicate any future cases and, more broadly, undermine the public's confidence in the criminal justice process.

"She shouldn't be doing this," Dan Abrams, ABC News' chief legal analyst, said of Kohrs' public comments. "It isn't helpful to the perception of the objectivity of the criminal justice system, and it starts to feel like she's putting pressure on the district attorney to actually move forward with charges."

Lol...they are weighing in on whether the jury foreperson should have spoken publicly, something that's unusual but is allowed in GA. That is all.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Reporters and attorneys don't agree with you and neither do I.

JMO

By speaking out, could foreperson in Georgia Trump probe undermine a future case?

The foreperson of the Georgia grand jury probing election interference by former President Trump has publicly telegraphed some of her panel's closely held findings.

abcnews.go.com

Legal experts tell ABC News that Kohrs' remarks, which quickly ricocheted across cable news and the internet, could complicate any future cases and, more broadly, undermine the public's confidence in the criminal justice process.

"She shouldn't be doing this," Dan Abrams, ABC News' chief legal analyst, said of Kohrs' public comments. "It isn't helpful to the perception of the objectivity of the criminal justice system, and it starts to feel like she's putting pressure on the district attorney to actually move forward with charges."

This is about the special grand juror speaking publicly. There is nothing in that article claiming that Willis's use of the special jury system was inappropriate. She's not even mentioned, in fact.

 

[MyBelle]

Lol...they are weighing in on whether the jury foreperson should have spoken publicly, something that's unusual but is allowed in GA. That is all.

You apparently didn't read the entire article. Abrams said her words would undermine the public's confidence in the criminal justice process.

I think she succeeded in doing just that. She's certainly given a lot of ammo to the attorneys. No wonder Trump is laughing at the DA.

JMO

From the link:
But experts agreed that her public remarks could be cited in future litigation, possibly as evidence of bias in a motion to dismiss a case, or in a motion to change venues.

Trump's legal team has been monitoring Kohrs' comments in the press and has already begun weighing options if charges against him are brought, sources told ABC News.

 

[thefragile7393]

I don't trust the election process anymore. I was watching the votes coming in on tv and actually saw them go down for Trump and up for Biden. Why wouldn't that sow a seed of doubt ?

That’s….happened in every election. Numbers go down and up throughout the day and process. That’s not unusual. My memory goes back to 1988 and watching CNN with my dad and watching Bush’s and Dukakis’s numbers go around.

 

[browning]

I really want to see someone ask these guys "HOW do you know this? If you have not in three years been able to produce the evidence, how it is that you know it?" Because they need to have it spelled out to their face that wishful thinking does not equate to fact. Large rallies do not equate to votes. "Everyone loves me therefore I can't lose" is not factual or even rational.



I think this is more of his "say it to make it real" strategy -- if she loses her case against him, that will make her "failed" in his eyes. And in the meantime, if he can convince his trumpers that she is evil and a loser, they will object (peacefully or otherwise, eek) as she gets closer and closer to ruining him.

The fact is a lot of people are going to keep believing it. Seeing Eastman say it who isn't just some backwoods lunatic will keep it alive.

 

[KellySleuth]

You apparently didn't read the entire article. Abrams said her words would undermine the public's confidence in the criminal justice process.

I think she succeeded in doing just that. She's certainly given a lot of ammo to the attorneys. No wonder Trump is laughing at the DA.

JMO

From the link:
But experts agreed that her public remarks could be cited in future litigation, possibly as evidence of bias in a motion to dismiss a case, or in a motion to change venues.

Trump's legal team has been monitoring Kohrs' comments in the press and has already begun weighing options if charges against him are brought, sources told ABC News.

Exactly as I said. Abrams weighed in on whether it was wise for the foreperson to have spoken publicly.

 

[MyBelle]

This is about the special grand juror speaking publicly. There is nothing in that article claiming that Willis's use of the special jury system was inappropriate. She's not even mentioned, in fact.

I didn't remotely imply that convening the special grand jury was inappropriate.

JMO

 

[MrsWatson]

That’s….happened in every election. Numbers go down and up throughout the day and process. That’s not unusual. My memory goes back to 1988 and watching CNN with my dad and watching Bush’s and Dukakis’s numbers go around.

George W and Gore was a real nail biter, too.

I remember being up til all hours.

 

[MyBelle]

I don't trust the election process anymore. I was watching the votes coming in on tv and actually saw them go down for Trump and up for Biden. Why wouldn't that sow a seed of doubt ?

I hear ya. My Georgia family sure didn't trust the election process in the 2021 Senate election.

JMO

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I didn't remotely imply that convening the special grand jury was inappropriate.

JMO

KellySleuth said:

"She called a special grand jury because they investigate only one case and can sit for longer than two months, which is exactly what a complex investigation like this called for. Special grand juries cannot, however, indict so the regular grand jury had to be used for that part. It's an entirely appropriate use of the grand jury system in Georgia."

You replied:

Reporters and attorneys don't agree with you and neither do I.

JMO

I certainly interpreted that as your implying that convening the special grand jury was inappropriate. So for clarity, what was it in KellySleuth's post that you didn't agree with and felt that reporters and attorneys don't agree with either?

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Eastman read a prepared statement to reporters gathered outside the jail before saying he wouldn’t take further questions, but later said that he felt the 2020 election had “absolutely” been stolen from Trump.

I "feel" that I absolutely deserved the 2020 Nobel Prize for Literature.

 

[Lilibet]

I "feel" that I absolutely deserved the 2020 Nobel Prize for Literature.

I absolutely agree and I will do everything in my power to make sure you get the votes needed to win the prize! :-D

 

[thefragile7393]

George W and Gore was a real nail biter, too.

I remember being up til all hours.

I was maybe 8 but my dad was glued to old school CNN and CourtTV so I’d watch the news with him and one of my memories was the numbers on the screen going up and down.

 

[BritsKate]

I didn't remotely imply that convening the special grand jury was inappropriate.

JMO

If I'm understanding correctly, your argument is that Willis weaponized Meadows testimony to the special grand jury by indicting him later. But if that's right what I want to know is why does his testifying at all absolve him from wrongdoing? Even if he had pled the 5th, who is to say that he was indicted based on his own testimony? Maybe there were documents involved or other witness testimony pointing to Meadows' culpability.

What if the special grand jury recommended an indictment against Meadows for something entirely different but Willis' investigation turned up something else? Should she still not prosecute when there clearly wasn't an immunity deal at play and he supposedly didn't invoke?

It feels like allegations of Willis' political agenda are wrapped up and around nebulous conspiracy theories.

JMO

 

[Lilibet]

George W and Gore was a real nail biter, too.

I remember being up til all hours.

Bush-Gore was endless. It wasn’t decided by the Supreme Court until Dec. 12. At the time it seemed like the electoral system was at risk. Little did we know!

 

[KellySleuth]

Bush-Gore was endless. It wasn’t decided by the Supreme Court until Dec. 12. At the time it seemed like the electoral system was at risk. Little did we know!

Seems like such an innocent time, now.

 

[MyBelle]

I'm pretty shocked Marjorie Taylor Green won again, as well.

Thanks to good 'ol Republican redistricting! smh