General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGeorgia grand jury recommended indictments for more than a dozen people in Trump probe, foreperson s
This will be fun to watch
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/georgia-grand-jury-recommended-indictments-dozen-people-trump-probe-fo-rcna71675
"There are certainly names that you will recognize, yes. There are names also you might not recognize," Emily Kohrs said in an interview that will air Tuesday on NBC News Nightly News.
She said the list of recommended indictments is "not a short list."
"There are definitely some names you expect," she said, declining to name any specific names as per the instructions of the judge who presided over the grand jury.
"I dont think that there are any giant plot twists coming. I dont think there's any giant Thats not the way I expected this to go at all moments," she said. I would not expect you to be shocked."
Cha
(304,419 posts)GreenWave
(8,832 posts)lapucelle
(19,518 posts)mn9driver
(4,559 posts)Its great that we know there are indictments coming, but this grand jury person is skating very close to the edge of disclosing information that could end up derailing things, or at the very least, angering the judge who is overseeing this.
Im not a lawyer, but this smells a bit like laying the groundwork for things to get thrown out. I hope Im wrong, but we will see.
LetMyPeopleVote
(153,746 posts)LuckyCharms
(18,733 posts)Why is this person making these comments publicly? Doesn't seem kosher.
badhair77
(4,549 posts)Add in her laughing and saying to Kate Baldwin, I will be sad if nothing happens. According to Dana Bash, who spoke to one of trumps former attorneys whos still connected to his legal team, they think this is gold, not only legally but politically. She needs to stop having her moment of fame. She was just giggling during the CNN interview.
LetMyPeopleVote
(153,746 posts)I am enjoying the Deadline White House legal blog
Link to tweet
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/georgia-grand-jury-forewoman-trump-rcna71666
First, recall that the special grand jury doesnt have the power to return indictments. Instead, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has to do that through a regular grand jury. It's unclear what progress she has made on that front, despite her telling a court (and the world) last month that decisions from her office were imminent. The bottom line is that theres no direct legal significance to the special grand jury recommending charges.
Yet, whenever Willis considers or has considered what charges to bring, shes thinking about how those charges will fare at a potential trial, where shed have to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump and/or whomever she accuses is guilty. So while there isnt a direct legal significance to the special grand jurys recommendations, its useful to have had a dry run, of sorts, in the special grand jury, albeit one at which the prosecution controls the flow of information. That the foreperson who, as a lead grand juror, takes on an administrative role reportedly said its recommendations won't be too surprising could suggest an obviousness to the alleged criminality at play that reassures Fulton County prosecutors.
On that note, consider as well a story from The Associated Press on Tuesday that interviewed Kohrs. The AP report reinforces that any trial, while based on the admissible evidence, will ultimately come down to jurors and witnesses personalities and common sense. For example, Kohrs reportedly said that Cassidy Hutchinson, who memorably offered damning congressional testimony about Trump's actions on Jan. 6, was more forthcoming than her former boss, Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. Kohrs also reportedly said that Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, another pivotal witness who was pressured by Trump to find Republican votes, was a really geeky kind of funny.
Though perhaps seemingly insignificant observations, trial lawyers know that these sorts of personal connections and assessments can be critical. Thats all the more important because, at the end of the day, all of this legal wrangling is done in the shadow of a jury trial, where the human element and narrative come to the fore. If there is a trial over Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, a good prosecutor will likewise argue to a jury that "it's not rocket science."