Georgia has opened (ETA: criminal) investigation into Trump's election meddling and 'find me votes'

[Aldebaran]

From her interview: She volunteered and no one else was interested.

And then she apparently volunteered to go on TV and be irresponsible with the information she had. Not exactly the kind of juror I'd want determining my case. Saying things like, “How often does something actually happen? I would love to see something actually happen. Don’t make me take back my faith in the system,” Kohrs said. “The only thing I would be disappointed in, at this point, is if this whole thing just disappears. That’s the only thing that would make me sad.” doesn't show her to be unbiased as a juror.

Foreperson on Georgia grand jury investigating Trump and 2020 election: 'I don't think you will be shocked' by indictments

The foreperson of the Atlanta-based grand jury that investigated former President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election told CNN on Tuesday that the panel is recommending multiple indictments and suggested "the big name" may be on the list.

www.cnn.com

 

[Hans Blaster]

And then she apparently volunteered to go on TV and be irresponsible with the information she had. Not exactly the kind of juror I'd want determining my case. Saying things like, “How often does something actually happen? I would love to see something actually happen. Don’t make me take back my faith in the system,” Kohrs said. “The only thing I would be disappointed in, at this point, is if this whole thing just disappears. That’s the only thing that would make me sad.” doesn't show her to be unbiased as a juror.

Foreperson on Georgia grand jury investigating Trump and 2020 election: 'I don't think you will be shocked' by indictments

The foreperson of the Atlanta-based grand jury that investigated former President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election told CNN on Tuesday that the panel is recommending multiple indictments and suggested "the big name" may be on the list.

www.cnn.com

I won't claim she wasn't flakey, or attention seeking. (Millenials, what ya gonna do.) She clearly enjoyed her moment in the spotlight. (I believe the reporters only knew her name to find her because as foreperson she signed the various warrants.)

That said, she doesn't have a vote on indictment (in the GA system, investigative grand juries only investigate and summarize crimes they think they have found, they do not indict) nor if anyone is indicted, on conviction.

 

[Tuur]

I won't claim she wasn't flakey, or attention seeking. (Millenials, what ya gonna do.) She clearly enjoyed her moment in the spotlight. (I believe the reporters only knew her name to find her because as foreperson she signed the various warrants.)

That said, she doesn't have a vote on indictment (in the GA system, investigative grand juries only investigate and summarize crimes they think they have found, they do not indict) nor if anyone is indicted, on conviction.

Once upon a time, grand juries were selective and limited to "upstanding citizens." It's easy to see the potential for abuse there, so then grand juries were opened up to all who qualify. That's usually to be old enough to serve on a jury and not convicted of a felony. I think that now grand jurors are simply drawn at random and don't face the questions that traverse jurors do. I've only served as a traverse juror, so I don't know.

Basically grand juries look to see if there's enough evidence for a trial. For counties, they also do things like inspect jails and make various recommendations.

An incident that happened when a grandfather served as a grand juror comes to mind. The prosecutor had it in for someone who's potential case came up, and one or two on the grand jury had the same interest, and enough voted to return a true bill. My grandfather said it was clear there was insufficient evidence (which also implied the grand jury votes didn't have to be unanimous).

When the case went to trial, the disgusted judge tossed it. When the judge isn't happy, no one is happy, and he called the grand jury in and raked them over the coals because there was insufficient evidence for a trial.

That's come to mind with this case. Is there sufficient evidence? Don't know. But the content of those interview might imply bias, and, depending on the judge, he might toss it. At the very least, the lawyers of any defendants will bring up the suggestion of bias in their opening and closing remarks.

And that's why she should have kept her mouth shut.

 

[SimplyMe]

At least they picked the best fore-person they could find.

It sounds to me as if you've never served on a jury before.

 

[SimplyMe]

Once upon a time, grand juries were selective and limited to "upstanding citizens." It's easy to see the potential for abuse there, so then grand juries were opened up to all who qualify. That's usually to be old enough to serve on a jury and not convicted of a felony. I think that now grand jurors are simply drawn at random and don't face the questions that traverse jurors do. I've only served as a traverse juror, so I don't know.

Basically grand juries look to see if there's enough evidence for a trial. For counties, they also do things like inspect jails and make various recommendations.

An incident that happened when a grandfather served as a grand juror comes to mind. The prosecutor had it in for someone who's potential case came up, and one or two on the grand jury had the same interest, and enough voted to return a true bill. My grandfather said it was clear there was insufficient evidence (which also implied the grand jury votes didn't have to be unanimous).

When the case went to trial, the disgusted judge tossed it. When the judge isn't happy, no one is happy, and he called the grand jury in and raked them over the coals because there was insufficient evidence for a trial.

That's come to mind with this case. Is there sufficient evidence? Don't know. But the content of those interview might imply bias, and, depending on the judge, he might toss it. At the very least, the lawyers of any defendants will bring up the suggestion of bias in their opening and closing remarks.

And that's why she should have kept her mouth shut.

Except, again, this grand jury did not have the ability to indict anyone, it was a special grand jury empaneled merely for investigation purposes. Other, normal, grand juries will get the information found and determine if there is cause for an indictment.

 

[DaisyDay]

And then she apparently volunteered to go on TV and be irresponsible with the information she had. Not exactly the kind of juror I'd want determining my case. Saying things like, “How often does something actually happen? I would love to see something actually happen. Don’t make me take back my faith in the system,” Kohrs said. “The only thing I would be disappointed in, at this point, is if this whole thing just disappears. That’s the only thing that would make me sad.” doesn't show her to be unbiased as a juror.

Foreperson on Georgia grand jury investigating Trump and 2020 election: 'I don't think you will be shocked' by indictments

The foreperson of the Atlanta-based grand jury that investigated former President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election told CNN on Tuesday that the panel is recommending multiple indictments and suggested "the big name" may be on the list.

www.cnn.com

They are supposed to be unbiased BEFORE they hear the evidence, not afterwards.

 

[Aldebaran]

They are supposed to be unbiased BEFORE they hear the evidence, not afterwards.

Has all the evidence already been heard, or is the case still ongoing?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Has all the evidence already been heard, or is the case still ongoing?

The grand jury has seen all the evidence it's ever going to see.

 

[DaisyDay]

Has all the evidence already been heard, or is the case still ongoing?

The grand jury was dismissed after hearing the evidence presented to them. Their job was completed; they are not a part of the next step.

 

[Tuur]

They are supposed to be unbiased BEFORE they hear the evidence, not afterwards.

The problem is that some things Kohrs said may be construed to mean pre-existing bias. In particular is the Ninja Turtle ice pop she said was from an ice cream party given by the prosecutor and which she held while swearing in a witness. What is a member of a grand jury doing at a party given by the prosecutor during the hearings? That does not look good. If she told the truth, what is the prosecutor doing inviting members of a grand jury to a party during hearings?

 

[Pommer]

The problem is that some things Kohrs said may be construed to mean pre-existing bias. In particular is the Ninja Turtle ice pop she said was from an ice cream party given by the prosecutor and which she held while swearing in a witness. What is a member of a grand jury doing at a party given by the prosecutor during the hearings? That does not look good. If she told the truth, what is the prosecutor doing inviting members of a grand jury to a party during hearings?

I’m not intimately knowledgeable about special grand jury proceedings in Georgia, are you?

 

[Tuur]

I’m not intimately knowledgeable about special grand jury proceedings in Georgia, are you?

If you have ever been on any jury, you know that all involved are warned against jury tampering. This includes any contact with either party outside of court proceedings. Jurors are usually told to inform the court if any such contact is made. Even if refreshments were provided to the jurors, such has to be done by the court, not either party.

A prosecutor hosting a party where those of a sitting grand jury are present does not look good. It has the look of impropriety. If this happened as Kohrs said, it's not going to help the prosecutor. The lawyers for defendants will latch on this and claim the grand jury was biased.

What happens from that point will depend on the judge. Like it or not, Kohrs doing interviews and especially that one bit about holding an ice pop from an ice cream party given by the prosecutor is going to cause problems that would have been avoided by the foreperson keeping her mouth shut.

 

[perplexed]

I’m not intimately knowledgeable about special grand jury proceedings in Georgia, are you?

??? Courts are very careful about what material they release to the public, as they should be, Isn't it safer to tell everyone to keep their mouths shut about all details until they check that it is OK to release.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Fulton County investigators have another recording of a Trump phone call pressuring a Georgia official​

Fulton County investigators have an audio recording of a phone call that former President Donald Trumpmade to the Georgia House speaker to push for a special session to overturn Democrat Joe Biden’s 2020 victory in the state, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The Fulton County special grand jury, which investigated Trump’s actions in the state after the 2020 election, heard the recording of Trump’s call to David Ralston, according to five of the jurors who spoke anonymously to the AJC. A source confirmed to CNN the existence of the recording, which hasn’t been made public.

The recording adds to what’s known about the pressure campaign by Trump and his allies on Georgia officials. It’s the third audio recording of the former president’s phone calls to Georgia officials that is known to exist.

Ralston, who died last year, described his December 2020 call with Trump during an interview the following day.

Trump “would like a special session of the Georgia General Assembly,” Ralston said. “He’s been clear on that before, and he was clear on that in the phone conversation yesterday. You know I shared with him my belief that based on the understanding I have of Georgia law that it was going to be very much an uphill battle.”

 

[DaisyDay]

Fulton County investigators have another recording of a Trump phone call pressuring a Georgia official​

Fulton County investigators have an audio recording of a phone call that former President Donald Trumpmade to the Georgia House speaker to push for a special session to overturn Democrat Joe Biden’s 2020 victory in the state, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The Fulton County special grand jury, which investigated Trump’s actions in the state after the 2020 election, heard the recording of Trump’s call to David Ralston, according to five of the jurors who spoke anonymously to the AJC. A source confirmed to CNN the existence of the recording, which hasn’t been made public.

The recording adds to what’s known about the pressure campaign by Trump and his allies on Georgia officials. It’s the third audio recording of the former president’s phone calls to Georgia officials that is known to exist.

Ralston, who died last year, described his December 2020 call with Trump during an interview the following day.

Trump “would like a special session of the Georgia General Assembly,” Ralston said. “He’s been clear on that before, and he was clear on that in the phone conversation yesterday. You know I shared with him my belief that based on the understanding I have of Georgia law that it was going to be very much an uphill battle.”

Meh, ALL Donald's phone calls are PERFECT.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Georgia prosecutors considering racketeering and conspiracy charges in probe of effort to overturn Trump’s 2020 loss, source says​

Atlanta-area prosecutors are considering bringing racketeering and conspiracy charges in connection with Donald Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia, according to a source with knowledge of the investigation.

Investigators have a large volume of substantial evidence related to a possible conspiracy from inside and outside the state, including recordings of phone calls, emails, text messages, documents, and testimony before a special grand jury.

Their work, the source said, underscores the belief that the push to help Trump was not just a grassroots effort that originated inside the state.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Trump seeks to block Georgia election interference criminal charges​

Trump’s 483-page court filing argues that the grand jury “was conducted under an unconstitutional statute, through an illegal and unconstitutional process.”

The filing also notes recent comments to media outlets by the grand jury’s forewoman, and later statements by other members of the panel, calling those statements evidence that “this grand jury was improperly supervised or, worse, improperly instructed from the outset.”

And the filing claims that Fulton County DA Fani Willis “violated prosecutorial standards and acted with disregard for the gravity of the circumstances and the constitutional rights of those involved.”

 

[essentialsaltes]

Exclusive: Fulton County DA sends 'target' letters to Trump allies in Georgia investigation
In the latest sign that she is moving rapidly in her investigation into Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, Fulton County, Ga., District Attorney Fani Willis has sent so-called target letters to prominent Georgia Republicans informing them they could be indicted for their role in a scheme to appoint alternate electors pledged to the former president despite Joe Biden’s victory in the state, according to legal sources familiar with the matter.

At least 8 fake electors have been granted immunity in the Georgia Trump investigation​

At least eight of the Republican “fake electors” in Georgia have accepted immunity deals in an ongoing criminal investigation into efforts by Donald Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election there, according to a new court filing.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis had previously notified all 16 GOP fake electors in Georgia that they were targets in her investigation. Last month, Willis offered immunity deals to several of the Republicans who served as pro-Trump electors and they accepted, according to the filing.

 

[stevil]

At least 8 fake electors have been granted immunity in the Georgia Trump investigation​

At least eight of the Republican “fake electors” in Georgia have accepted immunity deals in an ongoing criminal investigation into efforts by Donald Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election there, according to a new court filing.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis had previously notified all 16 GOP fake electors in Georgia that they were targets in her investigation. Last month, Willis offered immunity deals to several of the Republicans who served as pro-Trump electors and they accepted, according to the filing.

What a lucky break for them. They shamelessly commit a crime of trying to overturn the presidential election and they get to sign immunity deals. So I guess people will again try this scheme in future and expect to not be charged. Meanwhile the Proud boys get done for seditious conspiracy. Seems the elites are untouchable, while the nobodies get hit hard.

 

[SimplyMe]

What a lucky break for them. They shamelessly commit a crime of trying to overturn the presidential election and they get to sign immunity deals. So I guess people will again try this scheme in future and expect to not be charged. Meanwhile the Proud boys get done for seditious conspiracy. Seems the elites are untouchable, while the nobodies get hit hard.

It's pretty standard practice, let the "little guys" go to be able to punish the ringleaders. Typically the immunity requires cooperation in the prosecution in those that gave them orders, or their immunity goes away.