Second grand jury in Georgia

[Tommy Carcetti]

Just wondering if we know when the second grand jury in Georgia will convene to consider the first (Special) grand jury's recommendations?

Will we know? Are they already convening?

I ask because Georgia criminal law is not my forte.

[lark]

1. I read that it was going to be convened in March.

Hoping for indictments by May/June timeframe.

[gab13by13]

2. I heard the same

[Silent3]

3. This apparently is what counts as "imminent" n/t

[Fiendish Thingy]

7. The "imminent" comment was in reference to Willis' decision making

On what charges to seek, not the timing of grand jury indictments.

Willis has, or will be, making her charging decisions based on the recommendations from the special grand jury.

Then, based on her decisions on which crimes and individuals to seek indictments for, she will present her evidence to the grand jury, which will then weigh the evidence and return indictments or not.

The length of time it would take the grand jury to weigh the evidence and make a decision on indictments is beyond Willis’ control, and not connected to her “imminent” comment, no matter how much some may want it to be. The only time limit is once convened, the grand jury expires in 60 days.

[Silent3]

13. We're getting to the point, even if you're optimistic that our system is "working"...

...that if Trump is finally held to account for something, anything at all, the actually implementation of punishment -- be it jail time or house arrest or whatever, isn't likely to happen for another two years, with two years having already passed since these crimes were committed.

If the best we can hope for is a four-year response to a blatant coup attempt, the overall system is badly broken, and is sadly lacking in providing deterrence value for future coup attempts.

[Fiendish Thingy]

37. My focus isn't on deterrence value, it's on justice

Although I’m pretty sure any average person who might have considered joining a conspiracy to overthrow the government has been deterred by the 20 year sentences given out for seditious conspiracy.

If the best we can hope for is a four-year response to a blatant coup attempt, the overall system is badly broken, and is sadly lacking in providing deterrence value for future coup attempts.

That’s your opinion, not supported by evidence.

Here’s mine:
Certainly, lengthy sentences given to (formerly) powerful people would also have some deterrent effect, no matter how long it takes to put them in prison. And some people will never be deterred, even if the death penalty was an option.

[Silent3]

40. Deterrence is THE most important function of a justice system

Deterrence, and, when possible, enforced recompense.

Making people suffer for their crimes, in and of itself, is just vengeance. It’s a form of vengeance I’m all for, by the way — I won’t try to pretend I don’t want to see Trump and his cronies suffer for what they’ve done. But that is the lowest calling for a justice system, not its highest. (It’s also the part of the justice system that keeps angry mobs with torches and pitchforks at bay.)

The time value of swift justice here is that any would be coup plotters, the kind who can be frightened off by potential punishment, will see plenty of opportunity to duck punishment and keep working to rig the system to avoid that punishment. I’m sure many right now are looking ahead to the next elections as their chance to finish what Trump started, and put people in power who will bail them out, even reward them for their treachery.

Can I prove this? It would be difficult to perform a controlled experiment comparing frequency and success of coup attempts under different justice system responses. I haven’t done a thorough deep-dive into all comparable historical parallels — but I doubt you have either, so I see no reason that your assumption that speed of response doesn’t matter at all merits being treated as a default hypothesis.

[Fiendish Thingy]

43. Lots of studies out there on murder rates in states with/without death penalty

Of course, countries without due process, or even trials, just quickly execute whoever they think are criminals. Does that deter more crime? Perhaps, but at what cost?

You keep complaining that the justice system isn’t moving fast enough- what would you do differently? Describe specifically (not just more money and more people) how you would make it possible for the gathering of evidence and testimony to move faster than it already does.

Would you require new rules that require an investigation to close within 90 days and seek indictments with whatever evidence the investigators have managed to gather in that time?
(Hint: that would definitely be quicker, but also result in more acquittals and dismissals- not very deterrent)

Have you forgotten that the DOJ must interact with the judicial system, and the courts enforcing the constitutional right to due process (which Trump uses to delay justice) is a necessary part of a democracy? Would you amend the constitution to limit due process in the name of expediting justice, for the sake of timely deterrence?

We disagree that deterrence of other, future criminals is the primary, most important element of the Justice system.

For me, the primary value of justice is bringing appropriate consequences to the convicted defendants, to stop their own criminal behaviour, and deter future criminal behaviour by the convicted defendants, by incarceration if necessary.

[Silent3]

45. What would I do differently?

Before I get into that -- how the death penalty effects murder rates is a terrible parallel for what's being discussed here. First of all, I'm mostly talking about swifter justice, not necessarily harsher (though that can be considered in some cases too). Murder is also often a crime of passion, carried out without much forethought, and often committed by young, mentally unstable, and/or socially isolated men.

That's a very different thing from established political insiders plotting an overthrow of the government.

At any rate... an incomplete list of things I'd consider changing:

• Treat people involved in a possible overthrow of the government as an imminent threat, the same way we'd treat a serial killer on the loose. It is not considered a violation of our principles of justice to make it difficult-to-impossible for a likely serial killer to get out on bail. Nor is it a violation of those principles to apprehend such a person swiftly, rather than waiting until you've plotted out an entire strategy to win a conviction in court with 99% certainty.
  
  
• The more power a person takes on in government (or in the private sector too), the less they should get the benefit of mens rea. I'm not talking about depriving people of consideration for making simple human mistakes, but about not letting someone like Trump get a huge benefit of the doubt, for example, about whether he explicitly knew he was stirring up the crowd to violence. When you're President, you'd damned well better know better, or you shouldn't be in that job in the first place.
  
  It is beyond ludicrous that a powerful person like a President can do the equivalent of a mobster saying, "Nice business you have there. Be a shame if anything happened to it", and then investigators and prosecutors are saddled with an enormous evidentiary burden that amounts to trying to be mind readers, and having to nail down powerful corroborating evidence that what anyone with half a brain can tell is a threat is really a threat.
  
  
• Much, much less patience with people refusing to testify to Congress or in court. Even if you think you will have to invoke the 5th or argue for something like executive privilege, you fucking show up and make those claims, question by question, in person, right away.
  
  
• Subpoenas for evidence should be processed faster too. Instead of letting such things drag out for months and months (like trying to get Trump's tax returns), a much shorter time-limited appeal period where the benefit of the doubt goes to Congress and or the courts if time runs out. To prevent abuse of this, create criminal penalties for those who abuse this subpoena power -- let that be the thing that can drag out in the courts for a long time.
  

I won't claim this is a thorough, sufficiently detailed, or optimal set of possible reforms. But I think these ideas point in a good direction, and are hardly the stuff of totalitarian nightmares.

[Fiendish Thingy]

46. Nice bullet points, but you fail to explain how to do them

Process subpeonas faster? How do you do that and not deprive someone of due process?

Treat white collar insurrectionist criminals like serial killers, and hold them in custody while awaiting trial? How do you do that without circumventing due process?

All your bullet points suggest that powerful people should have fewer rights than average citizens, and somehow that would make Justice “swifter”.

Nor is it a violation of those principles to apprehend such a person swiftly, rather than waiting until you've plotted out an entire strategy to win a conviction in court with 99% certainty.

So, assuming the judiciary branch goes along and doesn’t dismiss the charges, how does one prevent the slippery slope of unidentifiable (no uniforms or badges) federal agents abducting individuals in unmarked black vans, without warrants or probable cause, and holding them indefinitely?

What you suggest would circumvent/ignore large sections of the constitution, in order to meet your standard of “swifter” Justice.

Would you be comfortable with Attorney General Marjorie Taylor Greene utilizing these tools for Swift Justice?

[Silent3]

47. There is no sense in which someone fighting for months to avoid appearing in court...

...or in front of a Congressional panel is "due process". Your rights are protected by pleading the fifth, or voicing other objections to particular questions, when you appear. If special situations might need other rules, so be it... I'm obviously not going to concoct a bulletproof legal regimen in a few paragraphs. But please, let's not pretend that so-called "due process" isn't simply being abused to play for time.

All your bullet points suggest that powerful people should have fewer rights than average citizens

They clearly have, effectively, far more rights than the average citizen now. I merely suggest more balance, and that with power comes more responsibility. I mean, please, what precious constitutional right is lost when a speech like what Trump gave on 1/6 is treated as pretty direct evidence of inciting a riot?

...federal agents abducting individuals in unmarked black vans, without warrants or probable cause...

Since I have no idea what fever dream all that emerged from, I can't even begin to answer. It certainly has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

What you suggest would circumvent/ignore large sections of the constitution, in order to meet your standard of “swifter” Justice.

What sections of the Constitution do you think I've circumvented or ignored? Have you read the thing? It's not very long. I believe you're speaking as if a lot of legal precedent -- important, not to be dismissed too lightly without good reason, but not to be treated as beyond reproach -- is part of the Constitution itself. It isn't.

Would you be comfortable with Attorney General Marjorie Taylor Greene utilizing these tools for Swift Justice?

With a bit more detail work put into these ideas than I can muster here, yes, especially if, as I discussed, there were criminal penalties for abusing that power.

[lark]

9. Yeah, she corrected herself, "legally imminent"

[Takket]

36. this is absurd..............

a grand jury has already reviewed the evidence and recommended indictments. now drump gets potentially up to another 4 months of living the high life in mara lago before he even gets indicted?????????????????????? i sure hope if i ever get recorded breaking the law on the phone that i also get 30 months of tiptoeing around before i get charged with anything.

this two tiered system sucks

[bigtree]

4. regular grand juries are already convened

Last edited Wed Feb 22, 2023, 01:28 PM - Edit history (1)

...two of them. She's likely already begun presenting them with evidence from the SGJ.

from AJC:

There are two now in operation until the end of February that meet twice a week. Two more will start up in March for two-month terms.

Unlike the special grand jury, which was focused on just the elections inquiry, regular grand juries hear dozens of cases on any given day, from arson to murder.

Willis would presumably re-present some evidence and testimony heard by the special grand jury and perhaps use portions of the special grand jury’s final report to bolster her argument.

read more...

[gab13by13]

6. Not what the experts on Deadline Whitehouse said,

Fani needs more time, she must basically go through the same process again.

Justice takes time, that’s why it’s important to start investigating promptly.

[Fiendish Thingy]

10. Putting all your faith in a single news program is bound to lead to disappointment

And, as is often the case, misinterpretation.

Post a clip from Nicolle’s show where a TV lawyer says Willis must “basically go through the same process again”, because I believe that is a false statement.

The evidence has already been gathered, and all witnesses have been interviewed; that process doesn’t need to repeated.

From the Special Grand Jury’s recommendations, Willis now decides which charges to seek against which individuals, then selects the relevant evidence against those individuals to present to the regular grand jury.

That’s not “going through the same process again”.

[gab13by13]

15. Yeah you got me,

Basically the same process. The hard work is done but Fani is still going to have to call the same witnesses.

I get credit for saying Fani is way ahead of DOJ, well Jack Smith.

[Fiendish Thingy]

38. Who says she is going to have to call *any* witnesses?

Willis can present the transcripts of sworn Special Grand Jury testimony to the regular grand jury, she doesn’t have to call witnesses to the stand.

You keep making stuff up, do you expect you won’t be challenged on your fabrications?

[fightforfreedom]

19. Thank you.

[bigtree]

21. lol

...stop this misinforming word salad.

She can basically take the SC evidence and combine it with whatever she has already and put it before the regular GJ, asking for whatever indictments she thinks are merited.

...move away from McCain's campaign manager who though Sarah Palin was 'cool,' and listen to Lawrence's 'Last Word' podcast.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-last-word-with-lawrence-odonnell/id1316084734?i=1000601025129

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. My guess is she will wait until a new jury is seated in March

Thanks for the AJC link! Very informative!

[fightforfreedom]

22. That would make sense.

[Bev54]

5. When the report came out, it was reported that they were already seated

[gab13by13]

8. Andrew Weissmann said

Fani will need more time so will probably wait for a new grand jury. She can indict with the present grand jury but she will be pushed for time.

[Bev54]

11. Oh yes now that you say that, the current grand jury's term is coming up.

So would they go to a whole new one or could she extend the existing one. If this current one is hearing evidence it seems pointless to have another one, or has she not even taken it to the grand jury yet?

[gab13by13]

14. The current one isn't hearing Trump evidence.

[Bev54]

16. Do you know that for sure? Link?

[gab13by13]

17. Fani Willis doesn't leak.

[Bev54]

18. Then how do you know?

[fightforfreedom]

20. Lol! Don't even bother, I have tried.

[gab13by13]

23. Remember when the wait and see crowd said

DOJ doesn’t leak, it probably is investigating Trump and his inner circle, boy was that wrong. Now that Jack Smith is in charge there are leaks all over the place.

Using that rationale, Fani Willis isn’t questioning Trump people in the present jury or we would have heard about it. I forgot the sarcasm thingy.

[fightforfreedom]

25. All I can say now is, Huh!

[Bev54]

26. The leaks are not coming from Smith

They are coming from reporters camped out in front of the buildings of the grand jury and the court along with leaks (not likely reliable ones) coming from Trump lawyers and others in his camp. I am not sure what it is you have against Garland and now Smith but it certainly seems to have clouded your thinking.

[fightforfreedom]

29. I am glad someone else is starting to notice.

Thank you.

[Bev54]

30. I have noticed for awhile, we often have a back and forth

[gab13by13]

34. I have absolutely nothing, personal, against Garland.

I love Jack Smith, never said a bad word about him.
It is the wait and see crowd who have been wrong from the beginning. No Garland was not investigating Trump, the J6 committee and Fani Willis are ahead of DOJ

The pyramid strategy of convicting Oath Keepers and Proud Boys has produced zero people flipping on Trump. The J6 committee knew who to go after, Mark Meadows, he’s the guy that Garland chose not to indict from the J6 criminal referral. Waiting to investigate is a bad strategy.

The Iowa caucus is Jan. 23rd.

[fightforfreedom]

39. You have nothing personal against Garland????????????????????????????????

[Bev54]

41. You again are offering only your opinion, along with other pundits that have said same

and then something gets released and they all seem to be surprised that Garland and Smith are so further along than they thought.. What they have gained from PB and OK is information through electronics and documents so your theory is wrong from the start. There are several reasons he did not immediately indict Meadows and most legal scholars agree that it was the right decision. Evidence from court filings points to an investigation that started almost immediately, that you and many tv pundits have missed or made up your mind that it is so, you will likely get a surprise when the indictments start, that much more was done than you will acknowledge.

[Bev54]

44. Here is another reason for putting the dimwits from the insurrection first before

Trump and his evil organizing cabal. Showing how Trump and other's words tied him directly to incitement. Just leave the lawyering up to the very very smart lawyers handling this investigation, they have strategies and reasons we don't fully understand but they do.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/02/22/trial-by-combat-rudy-giuliani-and-john-eastman-speeches-included-in-ed-badalian-exhibit-list/

[bigtree]

31. the poster has no way of knowing for sure. Not even dEadLInE wHItEhOUSE knows

from Feb. 19, AJC:

"It’s possible Willis could now be presenting evidence before a regular grand jury, though many legal experts believe that the DA may be waiting until her team’s work is ironclad before moving forward."

[fightforfreedom]

24. There is always a grand jury seated in Georgia.

Their term is two months. The new term, new grand jury, begins in March. If Willis presents her evidence to the new grand jury in March. We should know who is indicted by May at the latest.

[Bev54]

27. If she has waited. I wonder if she has utilized the existing grand jury,

if she thought that it would be quick, with the report. Maybe only my wish but I would like to see indictments by the time the grand jury term ends.

[fightforfreedom]

28. No one knows, we can only guess.

[gab13by13]

32. Lol

[fightforfreedom]

33. Huh!

[gab13by13]

35. Same thing you said about DOJ 2 years ago.

Some of us had a pretty good idea.