२३ फेब्रुवारी, २०२३
"[Emily] Kohrs, 30, said she was trying to carefully follow the rules for jurors set out by the judge, Robert C.I. McBurney...."
"Judge McBurney has not barred the jurors from talking, though they are restricted from discussing their deliberations. [Trump's lawyers], however, said that Ms. Kohrs, in discussing the case, had in fact divulged a number of matters that they believed constituted 'deliberations,' including details about some witnesses’ invoking of the Fifth Amendment under questioning, and jurors’ discussions about 'who to call, why to call them' and 'what battles they wanted to fight'.... But in an interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Judge McBurney said he told jurors that deliberations are only 'the discussions they had amongst themselves when it was just the grand jurors in the room.' By contrast, if a witness or prosecutor was in the room, 'that’s not deliberations,' he said. 'They’re not prohibited from talking about that, nor are they prohibited from talking about the fruit of their deliberations, which would be the final report.'"
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७५ टिप्पण्या:
The Walls Are Closing In...
https://twitter.com/InvestigateJ6/status/1627767555745107984
See why they were hiding this?
A question from the lawyers here.
This is not a Georgia Grand Jury.
I don't know what it is. I do not know under what legal framework the AG used to convene this group. It has been stated this body has no power to issue an indictment.
While it is called a Special Grand Jury, I have seen no reporting about its legal footing.
This kook, sounds like the prosecution coached here about what information they wanted in the public sphere. As it appears it is not legally formed, nothing that has been said, is outside the rules of Grand Juries.
The added footnote, the same people coaching this speaker would be the same people to bring any legal consequences.
What I learned from this story is that some states do not treat grand juries with the same caution most states do. It’s a dicey subject because due process depends on how seriously participants take the proceedings and this lady’s unserious presentation is a violation of the spirit if not the law. Yet another norm, grand jury secrecy, that the Left will violate in its frenzied pursuit of Trump. Again the promised “return to normalcy” that Biden ran on is still eluding us.
" By contrast, if a witness or prosecutor was in the room, 'that’s not deliberations,'"
My understanding was anything inside the GJ room must be protected by the lawyers, and the GJ.
however witnesses are free to discuss their testimony.
So it IS a kangaroo court.
I don't know Georgia law, but this sounds unlikely. In Florida,the ban is total. The only exception is that witnesses are free to discuss their own examination.
The identity of witness, the substance of their testimony, etc., is important information about the jury's investigation--in this case, a criminal investigation. The point of the ban is to allow the jury to conduct an investigation in secrecy.
So the judge is covering for the looney.
Figures.
I don't know Georgia law, but this sounds unlikely. In Florida,the ban is total. The only exception is that witnesses are free to discuss their own examination.
The identity of witness, the substance of their testimony, etc., is important information about the jury's investigation--in this case, a criminal investigation. The point of the ban is to allow the jury to conduct an investigation in secrecy.
McBurney is sane and judicious. And not unkind. This woman is being manipulated by DA Willis. What to make of that -- well, even if I don't like the outcome, I trust McBurney will do the right thing.
Willis needs to stop playing games with case. She has work to do.
Her comments revealed a distasteful character who enjoyed her power more than is seemly, but the clips i saw are unlikely to support a motion to overturn whatever decision they finally make.
I think we have merely been treated to a view of the sausage being made.
If you look at her eyes and facial acrobatics, she reminds me of Peter Strzok during his Congressional testimony on the Russia Collusion case. He had the same demonic glee in his eyes. At least we can be comforted knowing the foreperson of the grand jury was among our best and brightest.
No wonder Democrats love our public education system.
No woman must be made to feel bad about, or responsible for, anything, ever.
they have yet to challenge anything in court
Because the court hasn't formally given them something to challenge, so they are challenging what the court is doing in the realm of public opinion and media.
The case will be dismissed. It's noise.
Apparently, "Idiocracy" was a documentary.
warlock trial
@Althouse, I guess this answers my question to you from yesterday. Thanks.
Trump had to be destroyed because he violates our "norms."
Privacy for jurors? Confidential deliberations? Secret testimony?
Nah. Let it all hang out. Publish names and addresses and where their kids go to school. Televise the whole proceedings. Put bodycams on everyone. Run it like a reality show, and give fat contracts for jurors’ tell-all books.
Odd, to say the least, if it's true that the jurors were not admonished not to discuss what went on in the grand jury.
Funny touch for the NYT to note that no one has yet challenged this woman's actions in court. They happened, what, yesterday?
Grand juries are usually given the power to indict. Not this one. All it does is make recommendations. Would someone familiar with Georgia law care to explain.
Interesting response from the judge. I have NEVER heard the rules around Grand Juror's public disclosures applied so "liberally".
She's made it clear that she and her Grand Jurors hate Trump and see this Grand Jury as a chance to destroy him. I don't know where this trial is being held, but if its the same jury pool, Trump needs to DEMAND a change in venue. Interesting how the SCOTUS allows all this, because its Trump.
Also, Republicans should be DEMANDING trials of all Republicans and Conservatives in DC be moved. Liberal/Leftists no longer even pretend to follow the law. They practice warfare aka "Lawfare". Of course the Center-Right is always 10 steps behind the Left, playing checkers while they're playing 3-D chess. So nothing will be done.
It is perfectly good reporting by the New York Times.
But the original reporting has mostly been with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Here is the link to the AJC story -- not paywalled -- where Judge McBurney gave the AJC an interview. My reasoned guess is that Judge McBurney would never have given an interview but for Emily Kohrs' series of interviews. But that he did so to eliminate any doubt about whether her interviews had violated court rules (they didn't), and to lay down a marker for any/all of them to not discuss the Special Grand Jury deliberations in the future.
The AJC story also laid out the vagaries of "defense counsel" making moves. (Defense counsel for whom, I wonder... there aren't any charges, so there aren't any defendants. Counsel for investigative targets? Counsel for grand jury witnesses?) Or just thinking about making moves. Or just talking about thinking about making moves. Possible moves. Depending on the next three or four stages of the criminal process in Georgia.
Anyway; here is the link:
https://www.ajc.com/politics/trump-attorneys-special-grand-jury-probe-a-clown-show/ZTR6VUWXGFC2BMOCX6FH6DAPCI/
This just makes a mockery of the whole thing. Nobody could watch this woman's interview and come away feeling good about this process.
What we are seeing now is the defilement of the Rule of Law as an institution.
Joe Biden is a rapist. Joe Biden has taken billions of dollars from foreign enemies.
Yet the "Law" does not apply to him and his family.
It only applies to the enemies of the Regime.
This is how systems are corrupted and destroyed. A two tier system of law is the historical norm. There is no moral principle behind it. Only might makes right.
Shitheads like Chuck are incompatible with a free high trust society. This regime and it's supporters are just terrible people.
All of them.
And when the pendulum swings back the decent people and citizens of the United States need to remember just how terrible and disgusting these people are.
In Arizona and, I believe, most states the law precludes grand jurors from disclosing "the procedings," not merely the deliberations.
Of course, a surprising number of our courts today are run by kangaroos who evidently can't read the law, but think they are allowed to invent it. Hence, "The Judge told me ...."
Do we still call it a witch hunt when the witches are impaneled on the Grand Jury?
The import is more about what Kohrs revealed than what she disclosed.
Forget it Jake, this is Chinatown, on steroids... and there is no shame.
People are upset but it seems to me it's a good thing--the sooner people understand what makes up the practical function of the sacred "rule of law," with its manifest bias, unseriousness, and clear low standards the sooner they'll treat headlines like "The Grand Jury Says X" with the disdain they deserve.
It's been fun over the last few years watching Very Principled People shred any personal credibility they may have once had--sure this or that is improper or violates a given norm but darn it Trump is a bad guy and we have to get him! Democracy itself is at stake; what's a little impropriety or injustice when balanced against the Fate of the Nation?!
Lawfare is real. Using the power of the State to attack your political opponents without even pretending to apply some neutral, fair principle or rule is now the standard operating procedure. If a federal Special Prosecutor can't get him we'll pressure New York; if New York can't get him we'll work something up in Georgia--at some point SOMEONE must be found guilty of some kind of process crime, surely.
The rule of law, indeed.
LLR Chuck: "It is perfectly good reporting by the New York Times."
Every bit as "perfectly good" as the 7 years of russia collusion lies that were awarded Pulitzer Prizes no doubt.
Of course, in LLR Chuck world, "perfectly good" always means "serves democratical political interests".
Can't wait until The Witch Trial of Donald Trump by Emily Kohrs is made into a podcastumentary.
Mike (MJB Wolf) said... Yet another norm, grand jury secrecy, that the Left will violate in its frenzied pursuit of Trump.
Nobody cries for Richard Nixon but recall that Watergate grand jury *transcripts* were published in what was about as close to real time as was possible in the early 1970's; printing direct quotes only stopped because the reporter decided it might hinder the proceedings:
NY Times 4.26.73 Anderson Won't Print More Jury Testimony
Daily grand jury leaks that couldn't be rebutted helped convince Nixon resignation was his only option.
Note from the article an update on how many confidential documents were mysteriously discovered in the National Archives and promptly published to attack Nixon and Republicans during that time, too. Dirty tricks are bad, though.
Hey who was prosecuted for the 3 or 4 separate illegal leaks of Trump's tax documents, anyway? I guess I missed those headlines. Oh well; rule of law!
Chuck drops another turd. No wonder he was banned. That young woman is getting her moment of fame and loving it. There was never going to be an indictment of Trump. She provides clear evidence of the phoniness of the whole war on Trump by the left.
I don't really care if she talks or not. I care that she is a loon
I've been on a jury for a lawsuit, so I have s9me idea what questions they ask to disqualify jurors, but I don't know if similar rules apply to special grand juries in Georgia.
Based on her comments about 'no surprises' and ' lwhat you would expect she clearly has a strong opinion that people who had not seen the grand jury information would believe that Trump was guilty. That only makes sense if, before the grand jury started she believed Trump 2as clearly guilty.
What business does she have being on a grand jury?
Like Trump’s dopey Raffensperger phone call it appears this woman’s idiotic nattering is a gross violation of norms but likely does not technically violate the law.
Interestingly, if you simply replace a couple of proper names from this clip from Wikipedia on "Gulliver's Travels," it reads like a perfectly good NYT account of the continued obsessive pursuit of Donald Trump.
"At first, the Lilliputians are hospitable to Gulliver, but they are also wary of the threat that his size poses to them. The Lilliputians reveal themselves to be a people who put great emphasis on trivial matters. For example, which end of an egg a person cracks becomes the basis of a deep political rift within that nation. They are a people who revel in displays of authority and performances of power. Gulliver assists the Lilliputians to subdue their neighbours...
Gulliver is charged with treason for, among other crimes, urinating in the capital though he was putting out a fire..."
eliminate any doubt about whether her interviews had violated court rules (they didn't), and to lay down a marker for any/all of them to not discuss the Special Grand Jury deliberations in the future.
So which is it Chuck. Court rules allow the Jurors doing a media tour, Or court rules demand Jurors to stay silent?
If more come out and do interviews, what is the penalty? Why is the Foreperson exempt?
I am still waiting for an answer to exactly what law or rule guides this "special" group. Since it does not have the power to do anything.
If I had to put money down I'd bet the Fulton DA takes recommendations from this special grand jury to indict several witnesses for perjury, files 1 or 2, makes a big show of not wanting to indict a few others but declining, and in the end either drops the perjury cases or has them dismissed. I'd bet against any charges being filed against Trump but I wouldn't bet a lot. Most of the non-process crimes under discussion would turn on the mindset of the individuals involved (did they really believe there was possible fraud/irregularities Raffensperger should investigate or were they only pretending to believe that in order to perpetuate a criminal fraud) and be difficult to definitively prove.
Just filing some/any charges would probably be enough of a victory for Dems/the DA and at any rate the process would take years to reach any (legal) resolution.
But, who knows: assuming people won't do things that'd make them look bad has obviously been a bad bet since this whole mess started.
At 11:03: "proceedings", not " procedings". Sorry.
ZeroHedge's article on this chick is amusing. When you've lost Anderson Cooper...
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/lunatic-forewoman-trump-georgia-case-shocks-media-overt-bias-trump-lawyers-pounce
Michael K said...
...
...There was never going to be an indictment of Trump.
...
You're suggesting that Trump is never going to be indicted? In Georgia? Or anywhere?
That sounds like a terrific bet to me. You formulate it; exactly how Trump "is never going to be indicted." You choose the stakes.
Earnest Prole: "Like Trump’s dopey Raffensperger phone call it appears this woman’s idiotic nattering is a gross violation of norms but likely does not technically violate the law."
You are probably mistaking the faked, misquoted, purposefully mis-edited reports of that phone call based on the lies that Raffensberger and his staffers shared with the legacy media prior to the ACTUAL transcript being found and released which exposed those purposeful misrepresentations.
You seem particularly vulnerable to such transparent disinformation campaigns.
A grand jury, with a "special" caveat, maybe.
Seems to be a lot of lynch in today's Georgia. Democrats as usual.
It's not so much that she's been talking that bothers me.
It's that such a partisan loon can form the backbone of our system of "justice."
Do we still call it a witch hunt when the witches are impaneled on the Grand Jury?
Sure you can, it is just in this case, it is the witch doing the hunting rather than witch being hunted.
Earnest Prole said...
Like Trump’s dopey Raffensperger phone call it appears this woman’s idiotic nattering is a gross violation of norms but likely does not technically violate the law.
How would we know all the dopey stuff without Prole's 95 IQ hot takes?
Thanks for what you do here prole.
"Chuck said...
Michael K said...
...
...There was never going to be an indictment of Trump.
...
You're suggesting that Trump is never going to be indicted? In Georgia? Or anywhere?
That sounds like a terrific bet to me. You formulate it; exactly how Trump "is never going to be indicted." You choose the stakes."
Granted, I don't read everything you post, Chuck (Thank GOD), but I don't recall you ever being right about anything. I sometimes wonder if you advise Biden on foreign policy, since it would explain how he could maintain a steady stream of inanity for near on 50 years.
You are probably mistaking the faked, misquoted, purposefully mis-edited reports of that phone call based on the lies that Raffensberger and his staffers shared with the legacy media prior to the ACTUAL transcript being found and released which exposed those purposeful misrepresentations.
The ACTUAL transcript in all its ALL-CAP glory?
NBC News posted the entire call on YouTube the day after — January 3, 2021 (go see for yourself; all it takes is google and seven seconds’ worth of curiosity). “The real transcripts” sounds like something OJ Simpson would say. Like Trump you’re not even trying anymore.
Re: hombre:
In Arizona and, I believe, most states the law precludes grand jurors from disclosing "the procedings," not merely the deliberations.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(2)(B) similarly bars grand jurors from disclosing a "matter occurring before the grand jury." But this is a Georgia grand jury, and Georgia law may just not provide similar protections. I skimmed the Georgia code on grand juries and criminal procedure and nothing jumped out at me, though there might be a secrecy provision in there somewhere.
Maybe the rules for grand juries in Georgia are different than the federal rules. It's hard to imagine a federal judge tolerating a grand juror talking to the press like Kohrs has done.
Drago: "You are probably mistaking the faked, misquoted, purposefully mis-edited reports of that phone call based on the lies that Raffensberger and his staffers shared with the legacy media prior to the ACTUAL transcript being found and released which exposed those purposeful misrepresentations."
Earnest Prole: "The ACTUAL transcript in all its ALL-CAP glory?
NBC News posted the entire call on YouTube the day after — January 3, 2021 (go see for yourself; all it takes is google and seven seconds’ worth of curiosity). “The real transcripts” sounds like something OJ Simpson would say. Like Trump you’re not even trying anymore."
LOL
There were two relevant phone calls dummy. The first to Raffensberger on Jan 2 had the transript released on Jan 3, as you mentioned.
But what you failed to mention, and I'm sure it was just a simple, innocent oversight, sort of in the vein of an Adam Schiff "oversight", is that it was the second phone call made a few days later between Trump and Frances Watson, Raffensberger's lead "investigator" (snort), that Raffensberger and his Zuckerburg funded flunkies couldn't wait to feed lies to the media about and caused an much larger hullabaloo.
Raffensberger and his corrupted crew created false Trump quotes out of thin air and those were used to advance the impeachment narrative that you and I guess your dem pals so desperately wanted.
Now, a transcript of THAT (note: all caps there Ernie) call was said to not exist.....and thus the Raffensberger crew's lies (Watson and Jordan Fuchs) went far and wide with the usual suspects applauding the attack all the live long day...until, gee whiz, the transcript of that call was found after all....in the trash folder on Watson's government issued phone.
Gee, I wonder how that happened?!!
Naturally, far too late as always, but the Washington Post and others had to print retractions.
So, in the end, as always, if its true that I'm "not even trying anymore" then that would still beat the heck out of you since its not clear you've ever really tried.
I guess that's what makes you such a good "California moderate" (if memory serves) who clearly doesn't believe in much, and you don't believe much in those things quite passionately.
Not to worry. I'm sure you'll just drop back to the inevitable fall back position you cats generally adopt at this point: It was fake but accurate.
Chuck,
You stated that her interviews hadn't violated any court rules. Each Georgia Grand Juror must swear to "keep the deliberations of the grand jury secret unless called upon to give evidence thereof in some court of law in this State" in order to serve on the Grand Jury. This is clearly stated on page 10 of the Georgia Grand Jury Handbook (Grand Jury Oath of Office).
Please explain how you reached your conclusion. If violating the oath allowing them to join a Grand Jury doesn't violate a court rule, what else do you believe they would need to do?
Well, at least Raffensberger is investigating Stacey Abrams for election fraud relating to her "nonprofit."
Just an observation.
Tina Trent: "Well, at least Raffensberger is investigating Stacey Abrams for election fraud relating to her "nonprofit."
Just an observation."
Are you certain its Raffensberger investigating Abram's non-profits or is it the Georgia Ethics Commission.
Because I find it highly implausible Raffensberger would ever investigate any democratical for anything.
So let's review now that we're a full day's worth of comments into this.
Many commenters presumed, and still presume, that Emily Kohrs has done something terrible, or illegal, and perhaps terribly illegal, in discussing aspects of her Special Grand Jury Service. Notwithstanding my supplying the hyperlink to the AJC story in which the Fulton County Judge supervising the Special Grand Jury seems to have no concerns about what Ms. Kohrs has said in interviews.
Oh well. I tried.
But now, just to hammer the point in a truly delightful way, we have Georgia Trumpublican state senator Brandon Beach of Alpharetta, proposing brand new legislation that would require new secrecy provisions related to Georgia Special Grand Juries.
Talented and hard-working AJC reporter Tamar Hallerman has begun to break the story on her Twitter page:
https://twitter.com/TamarHallerman/status/1628909903145213957
In other words, the interviews that Special Grand Jury Foreperson Emily Kohrs did were NOT illegal, but now state senator Beach wants to make it illegal. Y'all.
As you'll see at the link, Ms. Hallerman notes that Beach "was a prominent 2020 election skeptic. He was involved in GA efforts to appoint a slate of 'alternate' GOP electors, one of the key interests of the special grand jury." As a reporter, she "was never able to confirm Beach was subpoenaed by the grand jury, though a largely unnamed group of state legislators tried to fight their subpoenas as a unit last summer and lost. Beach has long declined to comment on the investigation..."
... But in an interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Judge McBurney said he told jurors that deliberations are only 'the discussions they had amongst themselves when it was just the grand jurors in the room.' By contrast, if a witness or prosecutor was in the room, 'that’s not deliberations,' he said. 'They’re not prohibited from talking about that, nor are they prohibited from talking about the fruit of their deliberations, which would be the final report.'"
=============
Very much interested in seeing these criteria applied to leak of 'draft Dobbs decision'.
... so which came first?
In other words, the interviews that Special Grand Jury Foreperson Emily Kohrs did were NOT illegal, but now state senator Beach wants to make it illegal. Y'all.,
Then how can the Judge threaten jurors, if they speak up?
I wish you would clean your screeds up.
In other words, the interviews that Special Grand Jury Foreperson Emily Kohrs did were NOT illegal, but now state senator Beach wants to make it illegal. Y'all.
Isn't that exactly what Pelosi did trying to clean up the electoral count act? To prevent happening what Trump attempted? So what Trump attempted is NOT a crime.
iowan2: "Isn't that exactly what Pelosi did trying to clean up the electoral count act? To prevent happening what Trump attempted? So what Trump attempted is NOT a crime."
Shhh!
Consistency ain't really a thing for our resident lefties like LLR Chuck.
it was the second phone call made a few days later between Trump and Frances Watson
What part of “Trump’s dopey Raffensperger phone call” is unclear to you, and why are you babbling about some other dopey Trump call I didn’t mention in my comment?
Everyone is sympathetic that reading is hard for you, but you abuse the excuse.
iowan2 said...
"In other words, the interviews that Special Grand Jury Foreperson Emily Kohrs did were NOT illegal, but now state senator Beach wants to make it illegal. Y'all."
Isn't that exactly what Pelosi did trying to clean up the electoral count act? To prevent happening what Trump attempted? So what Trump attempted is NOT a crime.
No. What Kohrs did was not a crime because it was not a crime. Because she didn't discuss "deliberations." Only her own impressions and involvement.
But now that state Senator Beach has gotten into this publicly, I hope Ms. Kohrs does some MORE interviews with some more national outlets and clarifies what, if any, involvement Senator Beach had. Good times, y'all!
As for the Electoral Count Act Reform, passed with bipartisan majorities in the last Congress, the idea there was to make sure that future insurrectionists who were more competent than the Trump/Navarro/Clark/Miller/Giuliani/Powell gang of discredited political hacks and disbarred lawyers could never successfully do what they wanted to do, but failed. The fact that they failed doesn't mean that they didn't commit crimes in the process. And we've got a couple-hundred top-flight prosecutors in some really prime locations looking into that. I imagine that makes you uncomfortable, and that it outrages Trump. I sure hope so, all the way around.
See you in court! That'll be Fulton County, Georgia; and Manhattan; and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
More good times!
Earnest Prole: "What part of “Trump’s dopey Raffensperger phone call” is unclear to you, and why are you babbling about some other dopey Trump call I didn’t mention in my comment?"
Comprehension can be a real barrier for some, so here, lets try it one more time for the slow "consultant" in the back.
Both calls mattered in this situation. In fact, no story about 1 phone call is complete without the other in terms of timing, the players involved, the issues at stake and overall political context. Is that why you left it out? I'll bet it is, isn't it? So your omission was either corruptly malicious, or founded on ignorance. I'll leave you to declare the answer to that "mystery".
My comment was this: ""You are probably mistaking the faked, misquoted, purposefully mis-edited reports of that phone call based on the lies that Raffensberger and his staffers shared with the legacy media prior to the ACTUAL transcript being found and released which exposed those purposeful misrepresentations."
Which perfectly encapsulates what Raffensberger and his crew did over the two calls. After the transcript for the first call was released so the earlier mischaracterizations were blown out of the water, and they were, despite your protestations, the left/GOPe-ers needed a follow up.
And the follow up was precisely what they got after the second phone call, which I specifically referenced, in which Raffensberger and his little lefty crew used to create false quotes which they attributed to Trump. And Raffensberger and his little crew knew those false quotes were lies, but they pushed them anyway. It's clear they were never going to come clean on what was really said until, despite their best efforts to hide it, the second transcript was found and blew the later lies out of the water.
The record is clear on the corruption of Raffensberger and his little cabal of Zuckerburg funded acolytes and their willingness to play along with the legacy media in advancing the lies necessary to attack Trump.
So, to summarize (because lets face it, you need it), the first phone call was not "dopey" in the slightest. It laid out areas of clear malfeasance and reasonable election integrity concerns. Idiots like you claim it was something it wasn't because that's the line that you needed to take to get to the impeachment that apparently you wanted. When it became clear that first call wasn't going to get it done for impeachment purposes, Raffensberger and crew leaped into action on the second call and launched another wave of lies in the hopes that would be enough to impeach Trump.....until the second transcript was discovered and blew that one out of the water.
But by then the political damage was done. As was no doubt intended.
Not to worry though Mr Moderate, GOPe-er (wink wink) Raffensberger remains quite the little busy beaver in trying to turn GA into a permanent blue state via ranked choice voting. I suspect Kemp is waiting to see if he has any future at the national level (spoiler: he does not) before committing to the Make GA Blue plan with Raffensberger as they both head out the door in 2026.
LLR Chuck: "See you in court! That'll be Fulton County, Georgia; and Manhattan; and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia."
There's nothing "true" "principled" "conservatives" like more than single-party, partisan controlled, soviet-style star chamber show trials.
LOL
And to think, LLR Chuck STILL thinks his faux conservative schtick is still viable!
But in an interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Judge McBurney said he told jurors that deliberations are only 'the discussions they had amongst themselves when it was just the grand jurors in the room.' By contrast, if a witness or prosecutor was in the room, 'that’s not deliberations,' he said. 'They’re not prohibited from talking about that, nor are they prohibited from talking about the fruit of their deliberations, which would be the final report.'"
Bullshit. If "grand jury secrecy" means anything, it means you can't blab about what a witness said (since there was no confrontation), it means you can't discuss anything presented by the prosecutor (same reason).
This corrupt weasel of a judge is Turing "grand jury secrecy" on its head
The fact that they failed doesn't mean that they didn't commit crimes in the process.
We are over 2 years after the fact, and no grand juries, No named crimes to even get to a grand jury.
The fact is, if the Vice President refused to accept one States Votes, there exists no authority to overrule the Vice President, carrying out enumerated powers.
If what the foreperson did, was not commit a crime, with what did the judge threaten the jurors with?
I'm just trying to get your ramblings to match up.
iowan2 said...
...
If what the foreperson did, was not commit a crime, with what did the judge threaten the jurors with?
...
Where did you see any indication of Judge McBurney "threatening" any jurors? I'm just not aware of anything like that.
The basic rule with rules promulgated under GA Sec. 15-12-100, is that the jurors, if they choose, are free to discuss their own experiences and impressions as Special Grand Jurors. They may not discuss Special Grand Jury deliberations.
Emily Kohrs did not violate that rule. She did interviews in which she discussed her own experiences and impressions without discussing deliberations. Judge McBurney seems to have confirmed that she did not violate that rule. I, quite informally, regard Judge McBurney as having reinforced that rule through his own recent interviews with the media. Indicating to jurors that they should not discuss Special Grand Jury deliberations. Warning them not to break the line that their foreperson did not break.
I amaze myself sometimes, at how polite I am to people like you.
Hi Drago, yes, Raffensberger is investigating several candidate irregularities by Abrams. As I said, I'm just saying so.
For my sins, I've been in a lot of political back rooms. And unless one factors in extreme anti-Trump bias, I just don't find it strange that Trump would call Raffensberger and have those conversations. It happens all the time with both Parties. I get that Raffensberger hates Trump and made a big deal about it. But it was a super chaotic election; our House Speaker, an especially powerful position in this state, was a crook who loved Stacey Abrams despite being GOP, and Fulton and DeKalb Counties are notorious for fiddling with elections and being very "late" finding ballots.
I'd like to see all the calls Raffensberger got that night, as well as a lot of other election nights, to him and his predecessors and counterparts in other states.
That would be proper context. Again, just saying. I was a big Trump booster in 2016 but basically share Ann Coulter's view of his failures.
Go to the AJC for details. I suck at embedding links.
Tina Trent said...
Hi Drago, yes, Raffensberger is investigating several candidate irregularities by Abrams. As I said, I'm just saying so.
For my sins, I've been in a lot of political back rooms. And unless one factors in extreme anti-Trump bias, I just don't find it strange that Trump would call Raffensberger and have those conversations. It happens all the time with both Parties. I get that Raffensberger hates Trump and made a big deal about it. But it was a super chaotic election; our House Speaker, an especially powerful position in this state, was a crook who loved Stacey Abrams despite being GOP, and Fulton and DeKalb Counties are notorious for fiddling with elections and being very "late" finding ballots.
I'd like to see all the calls Raffensberger got that night, as well as a lot of other election nights, to him and his predecessors and counterparts in other states.
...
The calls in question were not on election night 2020. They were well after the fact that Trump knew or should have known that he lost Georgia, that a recount would almost certainly not save him, and that his only hope would be to engage in some unlawful pressure.
Georgia house speaker David Ralston died in November, after an an illness that had him largely incapacitated at the time of the election. Meanwhile, the infamous recorded Trump-Raffensperger calls were in December. There can be no serious claim that the respected, long-time Republican Speaker of the Georgia House gamed the election to defeat Trump while he was suffering a terminal illness.
Before those December phone calls, there was never a single word or gesture of "hate" by Raffensperger toward Trump. Raffensperger supported Trump, endorsed him and voted for him in the 2020 election.
Had I been a GA voter, I can assure you that I would have voted Biden-Kemp-Raffensperger. I don't mind a bit if there is some valid investigation of Stacey Abrams. I don't expect them to find much of anything. But let them investigate, if what you are suggesting is true. I never supported Abrams in 2018 or 2022, and never gave any credence to her election complaints in any election.
Chuck, I know precisely when that human garbage Ralston died and when the calls were made. Ralston' influence extended before and after his death with selection of new House leadership. The Georgia GOP is so screwed up that Kemp, an admirable man, is basically working with the excellent and much a maligned Kelly Loeffler to start a parallel and eventually dominant structure, with the eager support of many real conservatives.
You fail entirely to address my main point. I'm shocked, I tell you.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा