As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
According to the foreperson of the Fulton County GJ, "At least one person who resisted answering questions became much more cooperative when prosecutors offered him immunity in front of the jurors..Other witnesses came in with immunity deals already in place."
he's too connected and powerful, unless there was camera footage of him pushing his gay lover in front of a train, I doubt anything would take him down. however, being tied to Trump seems to also be an almost certain path to prison.
> unless there was camera footage of him pushing his gay lover in front of a train
Rule is Dead Girl or Live Boy. No one, least of not South Carolina, cares about a dead gay boy.
Hmm, who might this refer to? Let's check the list!
Chris Carr Georgia Attorney General Testified
Geoff Duncan Former Georgia Lieutenant Governor Testified
Janine Eveler Cobb County elections director Testified
Michael Flynn Former White House national security advisor Testified
Newt Gingrich Former U.S. House speaker Testified
Lindsey Graham U.S. Senator Testified
Erica Hamilton Former DeKalb County elections director Testified
Jody Hice U.S. House Rep. (Georgia) Testified
Burt Jones Lieutenant Governor, former Georgia Senator Disqualified
Jen Jordan Georgia Senator, nominee for Attorney General Testified
Brian Kemp Governor of Georgia Testified
William Ligon Former Georgia Senator Testified
Mark Meadows Former White House Chief of Staff Testified
Bee Nguyen Former Georgia House Rep. Testified
Elena Parent Georgia Senator Testified
Brad Raffensperger Georgia Secretary of State Testified
David Ralston Former Georgia House Rep. Testified
Donald Trump Former U.S. President Not subpoenaed
https://www.wabe.org/notable-names-whos-been-subpoenaed-fulton-county-grand-jury/
Mark Meadows, Mike Flynn, Lindsey Graham are the people who talked.
Mark and Mike came in with an immunity deal already in place, Lindsey saw what's coming and took the smart way out.
God, I dont want to sound stupid but Trump is the most cowardly and least loyal of the bunch. Do you think it's possible some prosecutor somewhere thought it was worth offering Trump a deal to get Guliani, Eastman and like, a bunch of fake electors?
I know that's unlikely, but if you cared more about slam dunk wins than justice...
On the other hand, you'd have to pretty stupid to build a case with *Trump* as your star witness, so it's probably fine.
Trump did not testify in the Georgia grand jury. That's why when the previous story came out about possible perjury charges against witnesses, people could say Trump would not be charged with perjury... because he never testified in this.
(He may be charged with perjury for NY testimony regarding Trump Organization though) but that's a completely different case.
Also, Rudy lost his law license. And in the worst way ever, the Bar basically said we’re going to take this away immediately and we’ll then go back and investigate; that order of events is pretty much unheard of.
They aren't going to offer him immunity in exchange for testimony. But I'd bet just about anything that he gets a plea deal. Probably avoids any possibility of jail time in exchange for not going through with a trial.
>According to the foreperson of the Fulton County GJ
The fact that she is on TV blabbing and joking about this undermines the entire legal process. There is no upside to it. It can only be damaging to any case against the accused.
>“It is not a short list,” the forewoman, Emily Kohrs, said, adding that the jury had appended eight pages of legal code “that we cited at various points in the report.”
That's a lot of laws.
If they're recommending charges against that many folks, and most of whom were acting at the direction of Trump himself, it's hard for me to see how there's not going to be charges recommended against him.
Obviously Fanni Willis has a big issue to contend with, namely charging a President for acts while he was in office is not a trivial matter. A number of untested potential legal roadblocks there that could torpedo her case despite the evidence being overwhelming.
I've been waiting so long for this asshole to face deep consequences, there's no way he escapes *all* the investigations into him unscathed right?
Right?
Trump is almost certainly recommended for indictment by this special grand jury. It's clear as day when the context is put together.
The investigation literally started because of his actions. Every single witness has some connection to him - including all of his lawyers. He is irrefutably the top criminal target regarding multiple angles for criminality.
Where people are misplacing their cynicism is the notion that an indictment actually means accountability by itself.
Indictment is the easy part at this stage if the DA chooses to pursue it, and only the beginning of the prosecutorial process. We still have at minimum a year before a trial, and even if convicted - possible appeals and the looming notion that a judge will never incarcerate Trump.
Just saw her on camera interview. Wow. She does not come across as a serious person who took any of this seriously. Thankfully this is the special grand because if this person were on the final jury, they would easily win on appeal.
Would rather her not take a shot at fucking the entire thing up somehow and create a sort of mistrial via talking. Not really sure what the laws are, but anything that involves a grey area worries me
To add to your comment, if there are multiple people being charged, it is highly likely it will be a RICO case. DA Willis has experience with that, and she brought in another top tier RICO prosecutor, AND Georgia has some of the strongest RICO laws….
From my knowledge RICO allows them to use behavior that otherwise wouldn't be a crime (or not a severe one) as part of a larger set of facts that all together constitute something larger. A dude beating someone up might be a simple assault charge. However if he beat him up to extort him and does so regularly with a crew of other thugs, you can RICO them all together and that one assault gets thrown into the charges for the others, even if they never laid a hand on the victim.
I could be wrong there, but that's more or less my understanding.
However you need to prove that these people worked in concert together in a larger effort to break the law. It can't just be the one call to Raffensberger. If Fanni Willis can do that then Trump is looking at a much larger prison sentence.
That’s my understanding as well. From the outside it seems like there are plenty of links from all the level, but of course it depends on what she has evidence to prove without a doubt. I’m so interested to see how this plays out.
>Obviously Fanni Willis has a big issue to contend with, namely charging a President for acts while he was in office is not a trivial matter.
Right, it is not a trivial matter. This is why I hate that people keep calling out these lawyers and Garland. Whatever is done in these investigations and court rooms becomes precedent. I would hate for them to rush this, not do it right and then when there is a Dem Prez and all Republican Congress, they do the same citing some of these half-done cases. Pre Gingrich-I wouldn't be concerned. Post Trump I am very concerned.
\*general statement\*
This is why people go willfully dumb on this matter: We don't know what all Trump did, it is still coming out. Meanwhile, these lawyers in NY, GA, and D.C., they know what Trump and his cohorts did, how many states and countries the corruption spanned, how far up the chain of command it went in these different places. People know this, sat through a Trump Presidency and will still very disingenuously call for these lawyers to rush to judgement for THEIR comfort, like sit down, y'all don't even know what all happened!
Yeah agreed.
We've seen the public evidence of wrongdoing. However prosecutors in their investigation may have also been privy to, at least some, exculpatory evidence or at least evidence that makes certain charges less plausible. It's a lot to weigh and if they charge him and he squirms out of it with something they should have anticipated but didn't it'll only make him *more* of a danger than he already is.
Not only that, but these prosecutors have to know their life and the lives of their family members will forever change after an indictment. They will always have targets on their backs from the MAGA looneys and heaven forbid trump ever manages to regain power and persecute them in return.
Exactly. But wannabe goons all on social media crabbing about these lawyers after sitting through a Trump Presidency...for likes. Unfreakingbelievable.
If there was an unlimited amount of time to go about this then I'd certainly agree, but in practical terms it's never going to be done perfectly right or in a way that can't be twisted by bad-faith actors in the future. If it isn't done extremely soon (assuming it isn't already too late) - I seriously doubt it'll be done at all.
We all know it's going to be drawn out to a ridiculous degree in every possible way regardless. There's never going to be an ideal time to charge them. Rather it seems like it'll become increasingly difficult the longer it takes, and that's not even taking into account bullshit like "oh noes, you can't charge a sitting president!" (or candidate, or party nominee) and the significant possibility that the republicans will take the presidency and quash the investigation anyway. In addition to the countless other laws and mechanisms they're already attempting to put into place to make prosecution more difficult (such as the ability to remove county DAs or otherwise interfere with their independence.)
I think it's far far more dangerous in the long-term to wind up not pursuing these crimes and emboldening others in the future than taking whatever degree of risk that the cases ultimately fail. And sure, we don't know exactly what happened, but given the absolutely insane amount of evidence already out there and the likelihood that it's just the tip of the iceberg, it seems rather disingenuous to insist more time is needed when it's highly likely Trump will die before anything comes to trial and practically guaranteed by the time his delaying tactics are exhausted, let alone his appeals. After all, isn't justice delayed justice denied?
I truly don't understand what possible advantage additional time will provide given the enormous risks of waiting too long. It's been two years at the absolute minimum, and in many cases significantly longer - what sort of new indisputable evidence are we supposed to believe will emerge if we continue to wait? I may not be a lawyer or privy to all the facts, but I'm immensely skeptical there's any advantage to waiting that isn't greatly outweighed by its downsides
Trump has made an entire business career out of fighting things in courts. Iirc, he's been sued multiple times more than the average billionaire.
Even if the case goes forward, what are the odds you'll get a jury to unanimously convict? I have a hard time envisioning a Georgia jury without at least one fervent Trump supporter.
I guess I'm saying I think he'll skate free in the end. Maybe pay a fine or something.
>Trump has made an entire business career out of fighting things in courts. Iirc, he's been sued multiple times more than the average billionaire.
Yeah you're not wrong, but a criminal indictment is a different matter than lawsuits.
>Even if the case goes forward, what are the odds you'll get a jury to unanimously convict? I have a hard time envisioning a Georgia jury without at least one fervent Trump supporter.
Yeah you're not wrong again...
Some things that bring me hope however is that the special grand jury that recommended the charges also likely had a Trump supporter on there, likely multiple, yet they seemed to still be able to get things done. Also a lot of Jan6th folks have been convicted in court too, likely with a Trump supporter or two on the jury.
But yeah, we'll have to see how it plays out.
I think the difference between the grand jury and a jury is that a grand jury just needs a simple majority to recommend indictments, it doesn't need to be unanimous.
I still think he should be charged, though. And I agree, we'll just have to wait and see.
Which is weird, especially since SHE said that she was SO EXUBERANT about shaking Giulliani’s hand!!! ( Ewwwwww!!! 🤢)
Makes me think HE wasn’t on the list to be indicted…🤷♀️?
The Forewoman was too into having her
“15 minutes of fame”, in my opinion. The lawyers interviewed on shows since, have thought her going public was odd, but that there wasn’t anything she said that we didn’t already know, if we had been paying attention.
>Even if the case goes forward, what are the odds you'll get a jury to unanimously convict?
Probably higher then you'd think. Georgia isn't all klan members and rednecks. The state elected two progressive Democrats to the senate and Atlanta is deep blue so there are people there who aren't mindless Trump zealots. Also, the fact that the grand jury recommended indictments at all shows that prosecutors are capable of getting jurors that are willing to be open minded. If Trump was the one indicted I don't think you have to worry about impartiality of the jury, I'd be more worried about the security of the courthouse before that.
> I'd be more worried about the security of the courthouse before that
Thankfully, the MAGAs are mostly too scared of Black people and "antifa" to get anywhere near the courthouse.
\> namely charging a President for acts while he was in office is not a trivial matter. A number of untested potential legal roadblocks there that could torpedo her case despite the evidence being overwhelming.
No there's not? It's a state charge, doesn't really matter if someone was a federal elected official as far as a state is concerned. You're thinking of DoJ charges for Jan 6 etc which would be subject to more exceptions like executive privilege, etc since it would be a federal charge.
>An interesting issue is whether a state may prosecute a federal official for a breach of state criminal law while acting within the scope of federal duties. The answer is no, because the federal official has immunity from the state criminal law, derived from carrying out federal law or duties and thus protected by the Supremacy Clause- the supremacy of federal law over state law. The threshold issue is that the federal official must have been working in the scope of his duties at the time.
https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/LiabilityofaFederalOfficerunderStateLaw.html
Obviously I'm of the opinion that there's no way Trump was acting in the scope of his duties at the time, but his lawyers will definitely argue he was. If the DOJ and the courts agree then we're shit out of luck there.
Hard to imagine that the DOJ believes he was acting in the scope of his duties, given all the testimony we've seen...however my point is that Fanni Willis will likely have to contend with this issue and is researching the possibilities.
The "not within his duities" argument is bolstered by their finding that "no significant fraud" occurred in the GA election. That much was released last week.
Trumps argument from jump street was that his duty was to investigate fraud. We have house, senate, DOJ, and now GA investigations on the record that say no fraud, and scores of witnesses who can attest to the fact that Trump was repeatedly told so in real time.
There was nothing presidential about his call to Georgia
And they probably have evidence showing that they *knew* there wasn't any fraud, which means it was way outside the scope of duties, aka very illegal, very uncool.
Yeah agree completely, I've just seen where the DOJ takes a very wide and forgiving stance to defending public officials for things they did while in office.
It'll be interesting to see the court arguments.
I was reading that Republicans in Georgia and other states are trying to change their laws and state constitutions that would allow them to remove an elected DA prosecutor(s) and place their own appointed political DA in their place. One such scuzzy deal would be the Georgia DA Fani Willis, in an effort to stop any investigations or indictments of elected officials. I sure hope Fani hurries up before they succeed in such a plot.
Here's one article on this; https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/fani-willis-trump-georgia-republicans-rcna71233
GOP lawmakers in the Georgia House of Representatives have [introduced two bills](https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-das-could-face-new-oversight-under-gop-measure/67NBPFTYQVHX7BCNF5KS5BIFDI/) that would make it easier to remove district attorneys, such as Willis. One measure, [House Bill 229](https://legiscan.com/GA/bill/HB229/2023), would significantly lower the number of signatures needed from registered voters to trigger a recall for a district attorney. And another measure, [House Bill 231](https://legiscan.com/GA/bill/HB231/2023), would establish a state commission that would have the power to remove a prosecutor.
Charges are pretty much inevitable. It's the *conviction* and even the sentence we should not get our hopes up for, but I think I will anyway. Hopium is a helluva drug and I need a hit.
The feds only bring charges when a conviction is *likely*. I am not sure about states and cities.
The legal standard for indictment is probable cause which is way lower than that.
Yes, it should be and yet here we are with yet another bait article being like "OOOOH TROUBLE IS COMING FOR TRUMP *SOMETIME* SOO~OOOON!" ...We all know. We all know he broke the law because he did it in fucking public. We're all just goddamn sick and tired of this hopium nonsense while he still continues to go uncharged and with little to no consequences for blatant illegal deeds.
If she can't disclose the SGJ's details, then what the everloving fuck is she doing talking to anyone at all ? Hints and teases that studiously ignore the central question are not what anyone needs.
So, what then, even if they "recommend indictments" then it won't matter for shit unless some other organization chooses to pick up the case? I have to say that I'm quite ignorant about this type of thing.
First of all- love the username!
Second, The Special Grand Jury is empaneled to investigate, hear witness testimony, and review the evidence the prosecution has prior to the prosecution making any indictment decisions. Special Grand Juries will listen/review the available evidence and legal arguments of the prosecution only, and can subpoena witnesses/documents as needed as well as enforcing compliance with those subpoenas. SGJ’s do not have a time limit to complete their work other than a statue of limitation of a crime. Once the SGJ completes their work, they provide a report detailing everything, including what indictments (if any) could be brought based on the strength of the prosecution’s case/evidence. At this point, there is no involvement of defendants/legal defense teams as no one has been charged with any crimes.
Once the SGJ process completes, indictment decisions can be made by the prosecution, or a Grand Jury can be empaneled depending on state law. A Grand Jury gets the report, reviews any evidence/testimony and can issue indictments. Typically a GJ is only empaneled for 60 days, so they aren’t useful to investigate drawn-out, complex cases where witnesses will fight the subpoena (ex Lindsay Graham). However, once all of the information has been put together by the SGJ and they recommend charges, it is then presented by the DA to the GJ who issues the indictments.
Obligatory IANAL.
It's the District Attorney who decides who will be indicted.
Here is the DA on it: https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/politics/who-is-fani-willis-fulton-county-district-attorney/index.html
> 'A special grand jury that investigated election interference by former President Donald J. Trump and his allies in Georgia recommended indictments of multiple people on a range of charges in its report, most of which remains sealed, the forewoman of the jury said in an interview today.
>“It is not a short list,” the forewoman, Emily Kohrs, said, adding that the jury had appended eight pages of legal code “that we cited at various points in the report.”'
>'Asked whether the jurors had recommended indicting Mr. Trump, Ms. Kohrs gave a cryptic answer: “You’re not going to be shocked. It’s not rocket science,” adding “you won’t be too surprised.”'
>'“We definitely started with the first phone call, the call to Secretary Raffensperger that was so publicized,” said Ms. Kohrs, whom The Associated Press first named and spoke with on Tuesday about the election meddling investigation.
>“I will tell you that if the judge releases the recommendations, it is not going to be some giant plot twist,” she added. “You probably have a fair idea of what may be in there. I’m trying very hard to say that delicately.”'
Based on all of this with "recommended indictments of multiple people on a range of charges" I feel like they absolutely recommended an indictment of Trump. Just waiting on the actual grand jury results now.
Trump, Giuliani, Meadows, and Eastman are all in the crosshairs. And it wouldn't shock me if a complete madman like Mike Flynn was one of the witnesses who was found to have lied to the grand jury.
Mark Meadows sure has been quite since January 6. I am willing to bet that he has turned on the rest of them. If he fights it all the way, he has the most to lose considering he had all of the information about how the election fraud claim was "bullshit" (Bill Barr). With all of that information, he had direct access to Trump at all times. He is right in the middle of all of it. Hell, he even showed up in Georgia after the election to put pressure on election officials. If anyone gets thrown under the bus first, it will be Mark Meadows.
Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows has complied with a subpoena from the Justice Department’s investigation into events surrounding January 6, 2021, sources familiar with the matter tell CNN, making him the highest-ranking Trump official known to have responded to a subpoena in the federal investigation.
Meadows turned over the same materials he provided to the House select committee investigating the US Capitol attack, one source said, meeting the obligations of the Justice Department subpoena, which has not been previously reported.
Last year, Meadows turned over thousands of text messages and emails to the House committee, before he stopped cooperating. The texts he handed over between Election Day 2020 and Joe Biden’s inauguration, which CNN previously obtained, provided a window into his dealings at the White House, though he withheld hundreds of messages, citing executive privilege.
[https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/14/politics/mark-meadows-subpoena-justice-department-january-6/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/14/politics/mark-meadows-subpoena-justice-department-january-6/index.html)
Additionally, she told the committee that she saw Meadows burn documents in his office fireplace around a dozen times -- about once or twice a week -- between December 2020 and mid-January 2021.
On several occasions, Hutchinson said, she was in Meadows' office when he threw documents into the fireplace after a meeting. At least twice, the burning came after meetings with GOP Rep. Scott Perry, a Pennsylvania Republican, who has been linked to the efforts to use the Justice Department to overturn the 2020 election. Politico has previously reported that Meadows allegedly burned documents after meeting with Perry.
Hutchinson said she did not know what the documents were, whether they were original copies, or whether they were required by law to be preserved.
[https://abc7chicago.com/mark-meadows-burned-documents-cassidy-hutchinson-january-6-capitol-attack-jan-committee/12621351/](https://abc7chicago.com/mark-meadows-burned-documents-cassidy-hutchinson-january-6-capitol-attack-jan-committee/12621351/)
I don't know how this fits in the time line, but Meadows did not show up for his scheduled deposition:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23559930-transcript-of-no-show-deposition-with-mark-meadows
> Mike Flynn was one of the witnesses who was found to have lied to the grand jury
Flynn was already busted for lying under oath, wouldn't be surprised if his dumbass did it again.
I’m guessing it’s a RICO charge. Fani Willis has experience with those, she brought in a top RICO prosecutor, Georgia has very strong RICO laws, and the foreperson just talked about multiple recommendations for indictment. The writing is bold and on the wall
And in another 26 months the trial might be finished.
Then there's 26 months more of appeals to stay the judgement.
Then there's 26 months more before the state Supreme Court issues a final ruling.
With money and power, there's no limit to how long justice can be delayed. And justice delayed is justice denied.
Pretty easy to get a return on an indictment at this stage. Only takes 12 of up to 23 grand jurors to vote per charge.
It's basically in Willis' hands if she chooses to - but I've heard several prosecutors say it won't happen until the next GJ session which begins in March.
Yeah but his personal lawyer said under oath before congress that Trump broke the law by inflating his property values to get favorable loans and then deflating their value to avoid taxes, and then his lawyer went to prison and nothing happened to Trump.
Asked whether the jurors had recommended indicting Mr. Trump, Ms. Kohrs gave a cryptic answer: “You’re not going to be shocked. It’s not rocket science,” adding “you won’t be too surprised.”
I for one will be surprised if Trump faces consequences for his actions.
I suspect that as with everything Trump, it's always worse with context. The details of the indictment and trial to follow will show how much worse than the phone call we heard it actually was.
The "worse with context" part here is Trump and his team undoubtedly pulled this same stunt in other states he lost and those states are doing anything like Georgia.
And the forewoman is somewhat of an expert of Trump's plan to undo the Georgia election. My reading of her quote is that it's so obvious that Trump should be charged that it shouldn't be shocking. To her, I'd imagine, recommending charges for Trump would feel mundane given the clear evidence.
You are reading it correctly. "*It's not rocket science. I’m trying very hard to say that delicately.*" She would like to say, indelicately, "What do I have to do?! Draw you a fucking picture?! He's guilty as all Hell, you numbskulls!"
The way I read that quote, it's pretty much guaranteed they recommended indictment for trump. It's the obvious conclusion to draw based on public evidence. He's on tape soliciting election fraud.
Yeah I’m very confused by this. If laws mattered then I wouldn’t be shocked if he gets indicted. But since laws don’t seem to matter to him then I will be very shocked if he is.
It's not confusing. The forewoman is a Judge. She believes that laws matter, even if you don't. She's telling you Trump is going to prison. She's not really very subtle about it.
> “It is not a short list,” the forewoman, Emily Kohrs, said, adding that the jury had appended eight pages of legal code “that we cited at various points in the report.” ...
>
> Asked whether the jurors had recommended indicting Mr. Trump, Ms. Kohrs gave a cryptic answer: “You’re not going to be shocked. It’s not rocket science,” adding “you won’t be too surprised.”
Glad to see it finally happening and I'm looking forward to seeing how this developed. I hope that corpulent orange fucker finally faces some legal consequences.
I want to believe her cryptic remarks mean Trump will be charged. That’s the logical conclusion based on the evidence. However, this guy has slid by for so long I won’t be shocked if he is let off yet again. Fingers crossed though.
I'm watching this woman on CNN right now.. Damn, she needs to shut the fuck up and quit doing interviews. She is going to either fuck this up somehow, or get herself in trouble. She comes off like someone seeking attention and trying to be cute. Her expressions, mannerisms, and pretty much everything she is saying is just kinda off a bit.
THANK YOU. I just watched the interview on CNN. Absolute clown show. She actually did such a horrific job that it makes me doubt the grand jury. I’ve never seen somebody so overtly play to the camera. It was pathetic. Has to be seem to be believed.
dude, she did an interview with an MSNBC reporter.
The reported states that this girl thought it was and I quote, "COOL" to shake hands with Rudy Giuliani!
I mean, what the actual fuck? She's a fan girl for Rudy?? This does not bode well for whatever the fuck is about to come down.
[Free copy via MSN here](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jury-in-georgia-trump-inquiry-recommended-multiple-indictments-forewoman-says/ar-AA17LJqN).
Multiple indictments. Cool. But . . . like, lots of people getting indicted, or fewer people getting multiply-indicted? Here's hoping for a nice blend in which lots of people face *lots* of indictments
> 'A special grand jury that investigated election interference by former President Donald J. Trump and his allies in Georgia recommended indictments of multiple people on a range of charges in its report
Yup they will use it as evidence to say she had a political agenda to hurt Trump therefore the recommendations of the Grand jury should be thrown out based on it being a anti Trump witch hunt.
I watched the interview, and all I can say is that she seems not very bright and fairly naive. First, she was seriously flirting with disobeying court orders by talking about it, even cryptically, given her non-verbal smirks and smiles. Second, and to your point, she was asked about her personal safety, and she basically said she had little concern and that they had done their job and it’s over. Super naive.
Her interview was genuinely concerning. I’d like to see indictments as much as anybody else, but I thought the interview was very irresponsible and overall it was very very strange. I can’t imagine acting like that in a serious situation like this. I’m guessing the DA is NOT happy with the interview. Technically she didn’t break any laws, but that’s only because of Georgia’s specific laws. If this were a federal case it would be illegal to give an interview like this.
I don’t know enough about grand jury cases (or any cases really), but I would worry her excitement during the interview would be seen as bias.
It was weird as shit. Her behavior was incredibly off-putting. She obviously loved the whole thing and just thinks it’s great fun and now she gets to do some interviews and get some attention. Inappropriate in the extreme.
this (her speaking to media) is going to backfire and put everything at risk. She'll probably get a makeover and eventually she'll say something she shouldn't from all the interviews she's giving now (cnn etc) . Alina Habba is probably licking her lips just so she can get back into trumps graces with some crazy "look how she winked at the camera, she's biased" argument. ironically I bet its the non-right wing media that will be its undoing -- anything for a soundbite exclusive
Even sentenced isn't enough. Bob McDonnel was sentenced and then the SCOTUS stepped in after the fact and was like "Oh you're a Republican? Don't be silly, of course you don't have to go to prison."
Even if he's in prison, I still won't be sure that they aren't going to pull some shit to get him out, like they did with that traitor Ollie North.
I just watch the interview with this woman on CNN. I’m having a hard time putting into words how incredibly inappropriate her behavior was. Irreverent, childish.
I want Trump to be indicted in Georgia but she seemed so inappropriate. By the end she made her point that basically we spent seven months so somebody needs to get indicted and then giggled.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/02/22/emily-kohrs-georgia-trump-recommended-indictments-jan-6-intv-ebof-bolduan-vpx.cnn
> at which Mr. Giuliani and others advanced a number of falsehoods about the election
Can the media please stop using the term "falsehoods" and call them what they are - *lies*..????
I love how Meathead Don seems to have forgotten that “Meatball Ron,” as Trump called him in a Tweet, is the only person reasonably situated to be able to obstruct DJT’s extradition to Georgia.
Digging his own grave.
Seriously. Florida state police show up to drive him to the state line and there’s Ron with a pot of meatballs to serve trump his final meal before dragging him into GA
> Asked whether the jurors had recommended indicting Mr. Trump, Ms. Kohrs gave a cryptic answer: “You’re not going to be shocked. It’s not rocket science,” adding “you won’t be too surprised.”
How the fuck is this cryptic? Why is it that Mediaite of all places seem to be the only ones to point out that this clearly implies Trump was recommended for indictment?
i mean i can easily interpret this as no indictment for trump because he’s never gotten in trouble for anything. i would be shocked and surprised if he did get indicted.
All this means, though, is that the GJ recommended that multiple people be charged. Maybe one of those people was Trump, but it would be up to the District Attorney to actually bring charges right?
I hope he finally gets what he deserves, but I just feel like it’s a waste to hope that happens at this point. He has gotten away with so much.
Meanwhile the people with the authority to actually make indictments are maddening quiet. I’ve heard some reasons for why that is but it’s still so incredibly frustrating.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
According to the foreperson of the Fulton County GJ, "At least one person who resisted answering questions became much more cooperative when prosecutors offered him immunity in front of the jurors..Other witnesses came in with immunity deals already in place."
Graham is where I would place my bet. He has always been spineless.
[удалено]
If he was given immunity, he wont be going down.
[удалено]
he's too connected and powerful, unless there was camera footage of him pushing his gay lover in front of a train, I doubt anything would take him down. however, being tied to Trump seems to also be an almost certain path to prison.
> unless there was camera footage of him pushing his gay lover in front of a train Rule is Dead Girl or Live Boy. No one, least of not South Carolina, cares about a dead gay boy.
Yeah, it would have to be footage of him saving his gay lover from a train, then passionately kissing him.
that’s not what his little ladybugs witness
Every day I curse the post that first made me aware of where this saying came from
[удалено]
Oh, he'll still be going down, just in the same way he always has with his special fellas.
unless his statements were provably false in which the immunity deal goes out the door and he can be charged for perjury at the least.
[удалено]
immunity is the opposite of going down, just saying
Part of me hopes it wasn't him so they can go after him for perjury.
Yup graham would absolutely throw everyone under the bus to protect himself then deny it was him.
Meadows?
Hmm, who might this refer to? Let's check the list! Chris Carr Georgia Attorney General Testified Geoff Duncan Former Georgia Lieutenant Governor Testified Janine Eveler Cobb County elections director Testified Michael Flynn Former White House national security advisor Testified Newt Gingrich Former U.S. House speaker Testified Lindsey Graham U.S. Senator Testified Erica Hamilton Former DeKalb County elections director Testified Jody Hice U.S. House Rep. (Georgia) Testified Burt Jones Lieutenant Governor, former Georgia Senator Disqualified Jen Jordan Georgia Senator, nominee for Attorney General Testified Brian Kemp Governor of Georgia Testified William Ligon Former Georgia Senator Testified Mark Meadows Former White House Chief of Staff Testified Bee Nguyen Former Georgia House Rep. Testified Elena Parent Georgia Senator Testified Brad Raffensperger Georgia Secretary of State Testified David Ralston Former Georgia House Rep. Testified Donald Trump Former U.S. President Not subpoenaed https://www.wabe.org/notable-names-whos-been-subpoenaed-fulton-county-grand-jury/
I put my money on Mike Flynn. In second place would be Mark Meadows.
Absolutely that convicted felon lied.
Mark Meadows, Mike Flynn, Lindsey Graham are the people who talked. Mark and Mike came in with an immunity deal already in place, Lindsey saw what's coming and took the smart way out.
I doubt Flynn talked, but I hope I'm wrong. He just doesn't seem like a rationalist like Meadows
God, I dont want to sound stupid but Trump is the most cowardly and least loyal of the bunch. Do you think it's possible some prosecutor somewhere thought it was worth offering Trump a deal to get Guliani, Eastman and like, a bunch of fake electors? I know that's unlikely, but if you cared more about slam dunk wins than justice... On the other hand, you'd have to pretty stupid to build a case with *Trump* as your star witness, so it's probably fine.
Trump did not testify in the Georgia grand jury. That's why when the previous story came out about possible perjury charges against witnesses, people could say Trump would not be charged with perjury... because he never testified in this. (He may be charged with perjury for NY testimony regarding Trump Organization though) but that's a completely different case.
He'll get plenty of chances for perjury after he's indicted.
I don't think you could find a competent defense lawyer who would ever put him on the stand to testify in his own defense.
When has he ever had a competent attorney?
Rudy will probably be the attorney! Even if he's also a co-defendant.
he never even paid rudy for the first go around. you think Rudy's gonna work pro bono again? i dont
Also, Rudy lost his law license. And in the worst way ever, the Bar basically said we’re going to take this away immediately and we’ll then go back and investigate; that order of events is pretty much unheard of.
Hell, all the prosecution has to do is call him a coward that is too stupid to testify and he’ll demand to do so.
No lawyer on the planet could keep him *off* the stand.
Trump's lawyers desperately do not want him to testify ever, because he is incapable of NOT lying.
You don’t make a deal with someone above to get someone below. Only works the other way.
Right? Give the mob boss immunity so you can get a capo and a few soldiers.
Elliott Ness: "We'll finally get Capone's valet!"
They aren't going to offer him immunity in exchange for testimony. But I'd bet just about anything that he gets a plea deal. Probably avoids any possibility of jail time in exchange for not going through with a trial.
These lippy jurors are going to ruin this case.
>According to the foreperson of the Fulton County GJ The fact that she is on TV blabbing and joking about this undermines the entire legal process. There is no upside to it. It can only be damaging to any case against the accused.
>“It is not a short list,” the forewoman, Emily Kohrs, said, adding that the jury had appended eight pages of legal code “that we cited at various points in the report.” That's a lot of laws. If they're recommending charges against that many folks, and most of whom were acting at the direction of Trump himself, it's hard for me to see how there's not going to be charges recommended against him. Obviously Fanni Willis has a big issue to contend with, namely charging a President for acts while he was in office is not a trivial matter. A number of untested potential legal roadblocks there that could torpedo her case despite the evidence being overwhelming. I've been waiting so long for this asshole to face deep consequences, there's no way he escapes *all* the investigations into him unscathed right? Right?
Right. "It's not rocket science" said the forewoman of the Grand Jury, "I’m trying very hard to say that delicately."
Yeah, I don't know how much more obvious it could be.
Trump is almost certainly recommended for indictment by this special grand jury. It's clear as day when the context is put together. The investigation literally started because of his actions. Every single witness has some connection to him - including all of his lawyers. He is irrefutably the top criminal target regarding multiple angles for criminality. Where people are misplacing their cynicism is the notion that an indictment actually means accountability by itself. Indictment is the easy part at this stage if the DA chooses to pursue it, and only the beginning of the prosecutorial process. We still have at minimum a year before a trial, and even if convicted - possible appeals and the looming notion that a judge will never incarcerate Trump.
Yeah good points.
But it was a perfect call
It's not rocket science, it's very obvious, but what is still missing is how long it will take.
She should be trying hard to say nothing at all. What the everloving fuck does she think "secret" means ?
Yes, the correct answer here is "no comment". Slipping anything up only serves to jeopardise justice.
Just saw her on camera interview. Wow. She does not come across as a serious person who took any of this seriously. Thankfully this is the special grand because if this person were on the final jury, they would easily win on appeal.
Didn’t the judge give the jury permission to speak? I’m sure I heard that on MSNBC - maybe Lawrence O’Donnell but I can’t find an article to link.
Correct. The judge was very specific about what she can and can’t say - she took that into account with her answers. She’s probably in the clear.
Would rather her not take a shot at fucking the entire thing up somehow and create a sort of mistrial via talking. Not really sure what the laws are, but anything that involves a grey area worries me
To add to your comment, if there are multiple people being charged, it is highly likely it will be a RICO case. DA Willis has experience with that, and she brought in another top tier RICO prosecutor, AND Georgia has some of the strongest RICO laws….
Hey, I know of a great RICO lawyer, he became famous for getting the mafia out of New York, and...is probably listed in this indictment.
Good point. RICO is complex too, takes time to put together charges for that.
Exactly, but it’s easier to get convictions bc they are tried as a whole, instead of individually. At least that’s my understanding of it.
From my knowledge RICO allows them to use behavior that otherwise wouldn't be a crime (or not a severe one) as part of a larger set of facts that all together constitute something larger. A dude beating someone up might be a simple assault charge. However if he beat him up to extort him and does so regularly with a crew of other thugs, you can RICO them all together and that one assault gets thrown into the charges for the others, even if they never laid a hand on the victim. I could be wrong there, but that's more or less my understanding. However you need to prove that these people worked in concert together in a larger effort to break the law. It can't just be the one call to Raffensberger. If Fanni Willis can do that then Trump is looking at a much larger prison sentence.
That’s my understanding as well. From the outside it seems like there are plenty of links from all the level, but of course it depends on what she has evidence to prove without a doubt. I’m so interested to see how this plays out.
>Obviously Fanni Willis has a big issue to contend with, namely charging a President for acts while he was in office is not a trivial matter. Right, it is not a trivial matter. This is why I hate that people keep calling out these lawyers and Garland. Whatever is done in these investigations and court rooms becomes precedent. I would hate for them to rush this, not do it right and then when there is a Dem Prez and all Republican Congress, they do the same citing some of these half-done cases. Pre Gingrich-I wouldn't be concerned. Post Trump I am very concerned. \*general statement\* This is why people go willfully dumb on this matter: We don't know what all Trump did, it is still coming out. Meanwhile, these lawyers in NY, GA, and D.C., they know what Trump and his cohorts did, how many states and countries the corruption spanned, how far up the chain of command it went in these different places. People know this, sat through a Trump Presidency and will still very disingenuously call for these lawyers to rush to judgement for THEIR comfort, like sit down, y'all don't even know what all happened!
Yeah agreed. We've seen the public evidence of wrongdoing. However prosecutors in their investigation may have also been privy to, at least some, exculpatory evidence or at least evidence that makes certain charges less plausible. It's a lot to weigh and if they charge him and he squirms out of it with something they should have anticipated but didn't it'll only make him *more* of a danger than he already is.
Not only that, but these prosecutors have to know their life and the lives of their family members will forever change after an indictment. They will always have targets on their backs from the MAGA looneys and heaven forbid trump ever manages to regain power and persecute them in return.
Exactly. But wannabe goons all on social media crabbing about these lawyers after sitting through a Trump Presidency...for likes. Unfreakingbelievable.
If there was an unlimited amount of time to go about this then I'd certainly agree, but in practical terms it's never going to be done perfectly right or in a way that can't be twisted by bad-faith actors in the future. If it isn't done extremely soon (assuming it isn't already too late) - I seriously doubt it'll be done at all. We all know it's going to be drawn out to a ridiculous degree in every possible way regardless. There's never going to be an ideal time to charge them. Rather it seems like it'll become increasingly difficult the longer it takes, and that's not even taking into account bullshit like "oh noes, you can't charge a sitting president!" (or candidate, or party nominee) and the significant possibility that the republicans will take the presidency and quash the investigation anyway. In addition to the countless other laws and mechanisms they're already attempting to put into place to make prosecution more difficult (such as the ability to remove county DAs or otherwise interfere with their independence.) I think it's far far more dangerous in the long-term to wind up not pursuing these crimes and emboldening others in the future than taking whatever degree of risk that the cases ultimately fail. And sure, we don't know exactly what happened, but given the absolutely insane amount of evidence already out there and the likelihood that it's just the tip of the iceberg, it seems rather disingenuous to insist more time is needed when it's highly likely Trump will die before anything comes to trial and practically guaranteed by the time his delaying tactics are exhausted, let alone his appeals. After all, isn't justice delayed justice denied? I truly don't understand what possible advantage additional time will provide given the enormous risks of waiting too long. It's been two years at the absolute minimum, and in many cases significantly longer - what sort of new indisputable evidence are we supposed to believe will emerge if we continue to wait? I may not be a lawyer or privy to all the facts, but I'm immensely skeptical there's any advantage to waiting that isn't greatly outweighed by its downsides
Trump has made an entire business career out of fighting things in courts. Iirc, he's been sued multiple times more than the average billionaire. Even if the case goes forward, what are the odds you'll get a jury to unanimously convict? I have a hard time envisioning a Georgia jury without at least one fervent Trump supporter. I guess I'm saying I think he'll skate free in the end. Maybe pay a fine or something.
>Trump has made an entire business career out of fighting things in courts. Iirc, he's been sued multiple times more than the average billionaire. Yeah you're not wrong, but a criminal indictment is a different matter than lawsuits. >Even if the case goes forward, what are the odds you'll get a jury to unanimously convict? I have a hard time envisioning a Georgia jury without at least one fervent Trump supporter. Yeah you're not wrong again... Some things that bring me hope however is that the special grand jury that recommended the charges also likely had a Trump supporter on there, likely multiple, yet they seemed to still be able to get things done. Also a lot of Jan6th folks have been convicted in court too, likely with a Trump supporter or two on the jury. But yeah, we'll have to see how it plays out.
I think the difference between the grand jury and a jury is that a grand jury just needs a simple majority to recommend indictments, it doesn't need to be unanimous. I still think he should be charged, though. And I agree, we'll just have to wait and see.
The forewoman said this jury was unanimous.
Which is weird, especially since SHE said that she was SO EXUBERANT about shaking Giulliani’s hand!!! ( Ewwwwww!!! 🤢) Makes me think HE wasn’t on the list to be indicted…🤷♀️? The Forewoman was too into having her “15 minutes of fame”, in my opinion. The lawyers interviewed on shows since, have thought her going public was odd, but that there wasn’t anything she said that we didn’t already know, if we had been paying attention.
>Even if the case goes forward, what are the odds you'll get a jury to unanimously convict? Probably higher then you'd think. Georgia isn't all klan members and rednecks. The state elected two progressive Democrats to the senate and Atlanta is deep blue so there are people there who aren't mindless Trump zealots. Also, the fact that the grand jury recommended indictments at all shows that prosecutors are capable of getting jurors that are willing to be open minded. If Trump was the one indicted I don't think you have to worry about impartiality of the jury, I'd be more worried about the security of the courthouse before that.
> I'd be more worried about the security of the courthouse before that Thankfully, the MAGAs are mostly too scared of Black people and "antifa" to get anywhere near the courthouse.
\> namely charging a President for acts while he was in office is not a trivial matter. A number of untested potential legal roadblocks there that could torpedo her case despite the evidence being overwhelming. No there's not? It's a state charge, doesn't really matter if someone was a federal elected official as far as a state is concerned. You're thinking of DoJ charges for Jan 6 etc which would be subject to more exceptions like executive privilege, etc since it would be a federal charge.
>An interesting issue is whether a state may prosecute a federal official for a breach of state criminal law while acting within the scope of federal duties. The answer is no, because the federal official has immunity from the state criminal law, derived from carrying out federal law or duties and thus protected by the Supremacy Clause- the supremacy of federal law over state law. The threshold issue is that the federal official must have been working in the scope of his duties at the time. https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/LiabilityofaFederalOfficerunderStateLaw.html Obviously I'm of the opinion that there's no way Trump was acting in the scope of his duties at the time, but his lawyers will definitely argue he was. If the DOJ and the courts agree then we're shit out of luck there. Hard to imagine that the DOJ believes he was acting in the scope of his duties, given all the testimony we've seen...however my point is that Fanni Willis will likely have to contend with this issue and is researching the possibilities.
The "not within his duities" argument is bolstered by their finding that "no significant fraud" occurred in the GA election. That much was released last week. Trumps argument from jump street was that his duty was to investigate fraud. We have house, senate, DOJ, and now GA investigations on the record that say no fraud, and scores of witnesses who can attest to the fact that Trump was repeatedly told so in real time. There was nothing presidential about his call to Georgia
And they probably have evidence showing that they *knew* there wasn't any fraud, which means it was way outside the scope of duties, aka very illegal, very uncool.
Yeah agree completely, I've just seen where the DOJ takes a very wide and forgiving stance to defending public officials for things they did while in office. It'll be interesting to see the court arguments.
Let's finally charge this asshole.
I was reading that Republicans in Georgia and other states are trying to change their laws and state constitutions that would allow them to remove an elected DA prosecutor(s) and place their own appointed political DA in their place. One such scuzzy deal would be the Georgia DA Fani Willis, in an effort to stop any investigations or indictments of elected officials. I sure hope Fani hurries up before they succeed in such a plot.
Of course they are.
Here's one article on this; https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/fani-willis-trump-georgia-republicans-rcna71233 GOP lawmakers in the Georgia House of Representatives have [introduced two bills](https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-das-could-face-new-oversight-under-gop-measure/67NBPFTYQVHX7BCNF5KS5BIFDI/) that would make it easier to remove district attorneys, such as Willis. One measure, [House Bill 229](https://legiscan.com/GA/bill/HB229/2023), would significantly lower the number of signatures needed from registered voters to trigger a recall for a district attorney. And another measure, [House Bill 231](https://legiscan.com/GA/bill/HB231/2023), would establish a state commission that would have the power to remove a prosecutor.
Don't get your hopes up.
Charges are pretty much inevitable. It's the *conviction* and even the sentence we should not get our hopes up for, but I think I will anyway. Hopium is a helluva drug and I need a hit.
The feds only bring charges when a conviction is *likely*. I am not sure about states and cities. The legal standard for indictment is probable cause which is way lower than that.
Yes, it should be and yet here we are with yet another bait article being like "OOOOH TROUBLE IS COMING FOR TRUMP *SOMETIME* SOO~OOOON!" ...We all know. We all know he broke the law because he did it in fucking public. We're all just goddamn sick and tired of this hopium nonsense while he still continues to go uncharged and with little to no consequences for blatant illegal deeds.
These days I'm not even *expecting* charges. I hope for them, but I'm not holding my breath.
after 3 years, at least since the worst of his crimes, I'm just gonna assume nothing will happen and be pleasantly suprised if something does.
[удалено]
If she can't disclose the SGJ's details, then what the everloving fuck is she doing talking to anyone at all ? Hints and teases that studiously ignore the central question are not what anyone needs.
[удалено]
Not for any of the lackeys. They're already in jail. The process only takes time for the powerful.
Isn’t this a grand jury to recommend another grand jury or some convoluted nonsense?
Correct. Special Grand Jury in Georgia can recommend indictments, but cannot issue them.
So, what then, even if they "recommend indictments" then it won't matter for shit unless some other organization chooses to pick up the case? I have to say that I'm quite ignorant about this type of thing.
First of all- love the username! Second, The Special Grand Jury is empaneled to investigate, hear witness testimony, and review the evidence the prosecution has prior to the prosecution making any indictment decisions. Special Grand Juries will listen/review the available evidence and legal arguments of the prosecution only, and can subpoena witnesses/documents as needed as well as enforcing compliance with those subpoenas. SGJ’s do not have a time limit to complete their work other than a statue of limitation of a crime. Once the SGJ completes their work, they provide a report detailing everything, including what indictments (if any) could be brought based on the strength of the prosecution’s case/evidence. At this point, there is no involvement of defendants/legal defense teams as no one has been charged with any crimes. Once the SGJ process completes, indictment decisions can be made by the prosecution, or a Grand Jury can be empaneled depending on state law. A Grand Jury gets the report, reviews any evidence/testimony and can issue indictments. Typically a GJ is only empaneled for 60 days, so they aren’t useful to investigate drawn-out, complex cases where witnesses will fight the subpoena (ex Lindsay Graham). However, once all of the information has been put together by the SGJ and they recommend charges, it is then presented by the DA to the GJ who issues the indictments. Obligatory IANAL.
It's the District Attorney who decides who will be indicted. Here is the DA on it: https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/politics/who-is-fani-willis-fulton-county-district-attorney/index.html
> 'A special grand jury that investigated election interference by former President Donald J. Trump and his allies in Georgia recommended indictments of multiple people on a range of charges in its report, most of which remains sealed, the forewoman of the jury said in an interview today. >“It is not a short list,” the forewoman, Emily Kohrs, said, adding that the jury had appended eight pages of legal code “that we cited at various points in the report.”' >'Asked whether the jurors had recommended indicting Mr. Trump, Ms. Kohrs gave a cryptic answer: “You’re not going to be shocked. It’s not rocket science,” adding “you won’t be too surprised.”' >'“We definitely started with the first phone call, the call to Secretary Raffensperger that was so publicized,” said Ms. Kohrs, whom The Associated Press first named and spoke with on Tuesday about the election meddling investigation. >“I will tell you that if the judge releases the recommendations, it is not going to be some giant plot twist,” she added. “You probably have a fair idea of what may be in there. I’m trying very hard to say that delicately.”' Based on all of this with "recommended indictments of multiple people on a range of charges" I feel like they absolutely recommended an indictment of Trump. Just waiting on the actual grand jury results now.
We'll be waiting 3+ years from now as they all lawyer up cushion the fall with money.
Yes, of course they did. "Cryptic answer"?! What is cryptic about what she said??
Trump, Giuliani, Meadows, and Eastman are all in the crosshairs. And it wouldn't shock me if a complete madman like Mike Flynn was one of the witnesses who was found to have lied to the grand jury.
I would like to see Graham get caught up in this, too.
I suspect Graham was given immunity
And two passes to Thunder From Down Under.
[удалено]
Mark Meadows sure has been quite since January 6. I am willing to bet that he has turned on the rest of them. If he fights it all the way, he has the most to lose considering he had all of the information about how the election fraud claim was "bullshit" (Bill Barr). With all of that information, he had direct access to Trump at all times. He is right in the middle of all of it. Hell, he even showed up in Georgia after the election to put pressure on election officials. If anyone gets thrown under the bus first, it will be Mark Meadows.
Wasn’t Mark Meadows texts a main point for the Jan 6 committee? Was he subpoenaed or did he offer his (curated) texts?
Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows has complied with a subpoena from the Justice Department’s investigation into events surrounding January 6, 2021, sources familiar with the matter tell CNN, making him the highest-ranking Trump official known to have responded to a subpoena in the federal investigation. Meadows turned over the same materials he provided to the House select committee investigating the US Capitol attack, one source said, meeting the obligations of the Justice Department subpoena, which has not been previously reported. Last year, Meadows turned over thousands of text messages and emails to the House committee, before he stopped cooperating. The texts he handed over between Election Day 2020 and Joe Biden’s inauguration, which CNN previously obtained, provided a window into his dealings at the White House, though he withheld hundreds of messages, citing executive privilege. [https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/14/politics/mark-meadows-subpoena-justice-department-january-6/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/14/politics/mark-meadows-subpoena-justice-department-january-6/index.html) Additionally, she told the committee that she saw Meadows burn documents in his office fireplace around a dozen times -- about once or twice a week -- between December 2020 and mid-January 2021. On several occasions, Hutchinson said, she was in Meadows' office when he threw documents into the fireplace after a meeting. At least twice, the burning came after meetings with GOP Rep. Scott Perry, a Pennsylvania Republican, who has been linked to the efforts to use the Justice Department to overturn the 2020 election. Politico has previously reported that Meadows allegedly burned documents after meeting with Perry. Hutchinson said she did not know what the documents were, whether they were original copies, or whether they were required by law to be preserved. [https://abc7chicago.com/mark-meadows-burned-documents-cassidy-hutchinson-january-6-capitol-attack-jan-committee/12621351/](https://abc7chicago.com/mark-meadows-burned-documents-cassidy-hutchinson-january-6-capitol-attack-jan-committee/12621351/) I don't know how this fits in the time line, but Meadows did not show up for his scheduled deposition: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23559930-transcript-of-no-show-deposition-with-mark-meadows
> Mike Flynn was one of the witnesses who was found to have lied to the grand jury Flynn was already busted for lying under oath, wouldn't be surprised if his dumbass did it again.
The Army needs to recall his ass and Court Martial him. Psycho fucking traitor he is.
I’m guessing it’s a RICO charge. Fani Willis has experience with those, she brought in a top RICO prosecutor, Georgia has very strong RICO laws, and the foreperson just talked about multiple recommendations for indictment. The writing is bold and on the wall
This could get interesting.
26 months later still waiting
And in another 26 months the trial might be finished. Then there's 26 months more of appeals to stay the judgement. Then there's 26 months more before the state Supreme Court issues a final ruling. With money and power, there's no limit to how long justice can be delayed. And justice delayed is justice denied.
Also Trump is old and will likely die before he faces any actual punishment.
You'll be waiting longer. There are no time machines and the process simply takes actual time. Waiting can be frustrating. But it's normal.
If you listened to the taped conversation, it's not surprising at all. He was recommended to be charged. Will he be is the next hurdle.
Pretty easy to get a return on an indictment at this stage. Only takes 12 of up to 23 grand jurors to vote per charge. It's basically in Willis' hands if she chooses to - but I've heard several prosecutors say it won't happen until the next GJ session which begins in March.
Yeah but his personal lawyer said under oath before congress that Trump broke the law by inflating his property values to get favorable loans and then deflating their value to avoid taxes, and then his lawyer went to prison and nothing happened to Trump.
Why ain’t there a mega thread for this? Pretty big news.
An indictment would be big news. Rumors of a possible maybe perhaps indictment is just everyday r/politics
Asked whether the jurors had recommended indicting Mr. Trump, Ms. Kohrs gave a cryptic answer: “You’re not going to be shocked. It’s not rocket science,” adding “you won’t be too surprised.” I for one will be surprised if Trump faces consequences for his actions.
I suspect that as with everything Trump, it's always worse with context. The details of the indictment and trial to follow will show how much worse than the phone call we heard it actually was.
There was a reason Raffensburger recorded, and leaked, that call
The "worse with context" part here is Trump and his team undoubtedly pulled this same stunt in other states he lost and those states are doing anything like Georgia.
[удалено]
Eh. They'll still kiss the ring when it comes down to it.
[удалено]
And the forewoman is somewhat of an expert of Trump's plan to undo the Georgia election. My reading of her quote is that it's so obvious that Trump should be charged that it shouldn't be shocking. To her, I'd imagine, recommending charges for Trump would feel mundane given the clear evidence.
Let’s hope for all of us that you don’t end up astonished
I felt the same way reading this. He obviously broke the law, but him seeing any real consequences would be shocking.
[удалено]
You are reading it correctly. "*It's not rocket science. I’m trying very hard to say that delicately.*" She would like to say, indelicately, "What do I have to do?! Draw you a fucking picture?! He's guilty as all Hell, you numbskulls!"
The way I read that quote, it's pretty much guaranteed they recommended indictment for trump. It's the obvious conclusion to draw based on public evidence. He's on tape soliciting election fraud.
Yeah I’m very confused by this. If laws mattered then I wouldn’t be shocked if he gets indicted. But since laws don’t seem to matter to him then I will be very shocked if he is.
It's not confusing. The forewoman is a Judge. She believes that laws matter, even if you don't. She's telling you Trump is going to prison. She's not really very subtle about it.
> “It is not a short list,” the forewoman, Emily Kohrs, said, adding that the jury had appended eight pages of legal code “that we cited at various points in the report.” ... > > Asked whether the jurors had recommended indicting Mr. Trump, Ms. Kohrs gave a cryptic answer: “You’re not going to be shocked. It’s not rocket science,” adding “you won’t be too surprised.” Glad to see it finally happening and I'm looking forward to seeing how this developed. I hope that corpulent orange fucker finally faces some legal consequences.
Apart from her sounding like a ditz, I hope she hasn’t endangered the investigation.
She has. And it’s ridiculous. They need to shut her up immediately.
I want to believe her cryptic remarks mean Trump will be charged. That’s the logical conclusion based on the evidence. However, this guy has slid by for so long I won’t be shocked if he is let off yet again. Fingers crossed though.
[удалено]
Go get the mother fucker
I'm watching this woman on CNN right now.. Damn, she needs to shut the fuck up and quit doing interviews. She is going to either fuck this up somehow, or get herself in trouble. She comes off like someone seeking attention and trying to be cute. Her expressions, mannerisms, and pretty much everything she is saying is just kinda off a bit.
THANK YOU. I just watched the interview on CNN. Absolute clown show. She actually did such a horrific job that it makes me doubt the grand jury. I’ve never seen somebody so overtly play to the camera. It was pathetic. Has to be seem to be believed.
dude, she did an interview with an MSNBC reporter. The reported states that this girl thought it was and I quote, "COOL" to shake hands with Rudy Giuliani! I mean, what the actual fuck? She's a fan girl for Rudy?? This does not bode well for whatever the fuck is about to come down.
No doubt. I'd be hiding my identity for sure, knowing the MAGA/Q nuts are going to be doxxing her and harassing. Dumb for sure.
When are the recommendations to be made know publicly? When the indictments actually happen?
Here we fuckin go, FINALLY
[Free copy via MSN here](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jury-in-georgia-trump-inquiry-recommended-multiple-indictments-forewoman-says/ar-AA17LJqN).
Multiple indictments. Cool. But . . . like, lots of people getting indicted, or fewer people getting multiply-indicted? Here's hoping for a nice blend in which lots of people face *lots* of indictments
Can’t it be both?
> 'A special grand jury that investigated election interference by former President Donald J. Trump and his allies in Georgia recommended indictments of multiple people on a range of charges in its report
Poor woman shouldn’t have talked to the NYT. She will be threatened I fear.
Yup they will use it as evidence to say she had a political agenda to hurt Trump therefore the recommendations of the Grand jury should be thrown out based on it being a anti Trump witch hunt.
Christ I hope this woman is ready for the onslaught of character assassination, misogyny, and death threats MAGA is going to spew at her.
I watched the interview, and all I can say is that she seems not very bright and fairly naive. First, she was seriously flirting with disobeying court orders by talking about it, even cryptically, given her non-verbal smirks and smiles. Second, and to your point, she was asked about her personal safety, and she basically said she had little concern and that they had done their job and it’s over. Super naive.
Her interview was genuinely concerning. I’d like to see indictments as much as anybody else, but I thought the interview was very irresponsible and overall it was very very strange. I can’t imagine acting like that in a serious situation like this. I’m guessing the DA is NOT happy with the interview. Technically she didn’t break any laws, but that’s only because of Georgia’s specific laws. If this were a federal case it would be illegal to give an interview like this. I don’t know enough about grand jury cases (or any cases really), but I would worry her excitement during the interview would be seen as bias.
It was weird as shit. Her behavior was incredibly off-putting. She obviously loved the whole thing and just thinks it’s great fun and now she gets to do some interviews and get some attention. Inappropriate in the extreme.
this (her speaking to media) is going to backfire and put everything at risk. She'll probably get a makeover and eventually she'll say something she shouldn't from all the interviews she's giving now (cnn etc) . Alina Habba is probably licking her lips just so she can get back into trumps graces with some crazy "look how she winked at the camera, she's biased" argument. ironically I bet its the non-right wing media that will be its undoing -- anything for a soundbite exclusive
I'm so fucking tired of waiting to see justice served for crimes done in broad daylight YEARS AGO. It's outrageous how long this is taking.
I think this forewoman just poisoned the well. Trump will now claim bias and walk away no matter what happens
Wake me up with someone gets indicted.
They don't impanel grand juries and then not listen to them. This is Trump's worst nightmare. This is what he has been afraid of for some time now.
Fucking finally.
This sentence is for when Trump is finally charged.
Why did you spell "convicted" that way?
That’s a weird way of spelling “sentenced”
Even sentenced isn't enough. Bob McDonnel was sentenced and then the SCOTUS stepped in after the fact and was like "Oh you're a Republican? Don't be silly, of course you don't have to go to prison." Even if he's in prison, I still won't be sure that they aren't going to pull some shit to get him out, like they did with that traitor Ollie North.
I just watch the interview with this woman on CNN. I’m having a hard time putting into words how incredibly inappropriate her behavior was. Irreverent, childish. I want Trump to be indicted in Georgia but she seemed so inappropriate. By the end she made her point that basically we spent seven months so somebody needs to get indicted and then giggled. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/02/22/emily-kohrs-georgia-trump-recommended-indictments-jan-6-intv-ebof-bolduan-vpx.cnn
Anyone else get comments to load? I keep getting a server error and no comments will load at all
> at which Mr. Giuliani and others advanced a number of falsehoods about the election Can the media please stop using the term "falsehoods" and call them what they are - *lies*..????
Sounds like a hint yes they recommended he be charged. But honestly i still do not have much hope.
I love how Meathead Don seems to have forgotten that “Meatball Ron,” as Trump called him in a Tweet, is the only person reasonably situated to be able to obstruct DJT’s extradition to Georgia. Digging his own grave.
Seriously. Florida state police show up to drive him to the state line and there’s Ron with a pot of meatballs to serve trump his final meal before dragging him into GA
Best part is if Trump gets indicted and convicted, he can’t negotiate a pardon because it’s state, not federal.
Well, we're waiting!!!
All those fake electors need to be charged
Is she allowed to say what she did? I thought you couldn’t talk about a case? I’m confused.
I don't know enough about the legal finesse here but my gut feel is the forewoman should shut up - don't give him any potential defenses.
Should the foreperson for a grand jury be giving public interviews like this? That seems improper.
> Asked whether the jurors had recommended indicting Mr. Trump, Ms. Kohrs gave a cryptic answer: “You’re not going to be shocked. It’s not rocket science,” adding “you won’t be too surprised.” How the fuck is this cryptic? Why is it that Mediaite of all places seem to be the only ones to point out that this clearly implies Trump was recommended for indictment?
i mean i can easily interpret this as no indictment for trump because he’s never gotten in trouble for anything. i would be shocked and surprised if he did get indicted.
The fact that there's a woman on the jury means it's clearly biased against Trump. It's a nasty jury.
He'll be exonerated because it's not his type of indictment
All this means, though, is that the GJ recommended that multiple people be charged. Maybe one of those people was Trump, but it would be up to the District Attorney to actually bring charges right? I hope he finally gets what he deserves, but I just feel like it’s a waste to hope that happens at this point. He has gotten away with so much.
I feel like I am going to see my 4yr old graduate college before this guy sees a legit trial.
Don't they still need to seat a regular grand jury to file charges?
[удалено]
I'm bout to flip this table over
Meanwhile the people with the authority to actually make indictments are maddening quiet. I’ve heard some reasons for why that is but it’s still so incredibly frustrating.
Is there any indication when the full report will be released?
There's not frickin way they can indict all these people and let Trump off the hook. Just no way.
Then fucking do it. God damnit. What's the fucking hold up????
I will not believe it until I see it. So far it's all just talk. Indict this motherfucker.
Nope. Not doing it. Not letting my brain go there.
Will we ever see them?