Georgia grand jury recommended indictments for more than a dozen people in Trump probe, foreperson s

[LetMyPeopleVote]

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

The Georgia grand jury that investigated possible interference in the 2020 election by Donald Trump and his allies recommended indictments against over a dozen people, the jury foreperson said Tuesday — a list she said "might" include the former president.

"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 don’t think that there are any giant plot twists coming. I don’t think there's any giant ‘That’s not the way I expected this to go at all’ moments," she said. “I would not expect you to be shocked."

[Cha]

1. Yes, this is what I was wondering about..

Link to tweet

[GreenWave]

2. The dirty dozen _

[lapucelle]

3. The forewoman seems to be playing the coy "I know something you don't know" game to the hilt. N/T

[mn9driver]

4. This behavior is concerning.

It’s 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.

I’m not a lawyer, but this smells a bit like laying the groundwork for things to get thrown out. I hope I’m wrong, but we will see.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. The chairperson of this grand jury appears to comply with rules

Link to tweet

[LuckyCharms]

6. I don't know. Maybe it's me.

Why is this person making these comments publicly? Doesn't seem kosher.

[badhair77]

7. She's talking more on CNN during AC.

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 trump’s former attorneys who’s 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]

8. Why it matters (and doesn't) if the Georgia special grand jury recommended Trump charges

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

The Times’ report suggests that Trump, arguably the ringleader of the plot to overturn the 2020 election that he lost, may be on the special grand jury's list of recommended people to charge. So if he is, let’s talk about what that means — and what it doesn’t.

First, recall that the special grand jury doesn’t 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 there’s no direct legal significance to the special grand jury recommending charges.

Yet, whenever Willis considers or has considered what charges to bring, she’s thinking about how those charges will fare at a potential trial, where she’d have to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump and/or whomever she accuses is guilty. So while there isn’t a direct legal significance to the special grand jury’s recommendations, it’s 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. That’s 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."