Oops! Georgia’s ‘Get-Trump’ Grand Jury Forewoman Accidentally Confirms The Recommended Charges Are Bunk
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 3 years ago • 124 commentsBy: Margot Cleveland (The Federalist)
"Jury in Georgia Trump Inquiry Recommended Multiple Indictments, Forewoman Says," The New York Times blared with its midday breaking news headline on Tuesday. But it is what followed that revealed the real story: that the grand jury recommended bogus charges based on the Fulton County district attorney's misrepresentation of evidence.
"We definitely started with the first phone call, the call to Secretary Raffensperger that was so publicized," Emily Kohrs, the forewoman of the special purpose grand jury said, noting that prosecutors played the recording for jurors the first day. "I will tell you that if the judge releases the recommendations, it is not going to be some giant plot twist," Kohrs continued. "You probably have a fair idea of what may be in there."
Yes. Yes, we do: bunk.
Since Fulton County's Democrat District Attorney Fani Willis first sought to impanel a "special purpose grand jury" — "special purpose" because it can only make recommendations and cannot indict — to assist in her investigation "into any coordinated attempts to unlawfully alter the outcome of the 2020 elections in this state," she has misrepresented the substance of Donald Trump's Jan. 2, 2021, telephone conversation with Georgia's Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.
Just as the Times did in its article yesterday, Willis falsely stated that during Trump's conversation with Raffensperger, the then-president requested that "the Secretary 'find 11,780 votes' in the former President's favor."
But as I've been forced to detail time and again because the corrupt media continue to lie about the conversation, the transcript of the call established that Trump "did not request that Raffensperger 'find 11,780 votes.' Period. It never happened." Rather, during that "telephone conversation between Trump's legal team and the Secretary of State's office, Trump's lawyer explained to Raffensperger that 'the court is not acting on our petition. They haven't even assigned a judge.'"
And it was because the Fulton County judge responsible for assigning a judge to hear Trump's election lawsuit — ironically, the same Judge Chris Brasher who authorized Willis' special purpose grand jury — held up his legal challenge that Trump's legal team reached out to Raffensperger, requesting the secretary of state's office investigate the evidence of widespread violations of election law.
The transcript of Trump's call with Raffensberger confirms this fact, with lawyers for the then-president ticking "off the numerous categories of illegal votes of which they had concrete evidence — some 25 categories." Here, the DA appears to have pushed a second falsehood, with Willis reportedly asserting in a subpoena that during that call, Trump's lawyer, Cleta Mitchell, "parroted claims of voter fraud.'"
Mitchell did no such thing. She was not pushing claims of voter fraud but instead wanted the secretary of state's office to investigate violations of Georgia election law.
The grand jury, however, only knew the facts Willis decided to share with the group. The jurors, who came from all walks of life — including the 30-year-old unemployed forewoman — also needed to rely on the DA's office to decipher the meaning of any criminal statutes.
And from Kohrs' statements to the press, we know that the prosecutor's office focused the grand jury's attention on Trump's telephone conversation with Raffensberger, opening the proceedings by playing a recording of the call. But the transcript of that call has been released and confirms both that Trump never asked Raffensberger to "find" him the votes and that his legal team asked the secretary of state's office to investigate the evidence of illegal voting.
Yet the DA framed the case as one about fraud, with the grand jury writing in its report that it "heard extensive testimony on the subject of alleged election fraud from poll workers, investigators, technical experts, and State of Georgia employees and officials, as well as from persons still claiming that such fraud took place," and concluding, "by a unanimous vote that no widespread fraud took place in the Georgia 2020 presidential election that could result in overturning that election."
So the grand jury's view "that perjury may have been committed by one or more witnesses testifying before it," is meaningless. And that Kohrs said the special purpose grand jury recommended more charges, and that the list is not a short one, means nothing. Those conclusions flowed from the case Willis presented to the Fulton County jurors — a case built on deceptions about a telephone call.

"Kohrs called on Willis to take “decisive action,” now that the fate of the investigation is in her hands."
“Personally, I hope to see her take almost any kind of decisive action, to actually do something,” Kohrs said. “There are too many times in recent history that seem to me like someone has gotten called out for something that people had a problem with, and nothing ever happens.”
this article sounds like it's direct from the tucker carlson school of journalistic integrity...
Some people live in denial.
It's very simple: Let's hear the phone call.
Trump's argument, as pathetic as it was, was that more than 11,780 votes were illegally counted in Georgia. Unfortunately for him, there was no evidence of that.
By repeatedly badgering Georgia election officials to "find" evidence that they already knew didnt exist, and then telling those officials they could be in trouble if they didnt find the votes for him, he was acting like a Mafia don.
Lock his ass up.
Is that the way you read it?
The way I think a rational person reads that is: Georgia is a red state (or was), there must be at least 12,000 more votes for me than for Biden out there.
CNN did put out the transcript of the phone call and there is attached an audio file which I assume is the actual call but I didn't listen to it.
In going thru that CNN transcript, I don't see where Trump did anything illegal as been insinuated as asking for Raffensperger to illegally find votes. What I read is Trump saying he wants to find the votes that he should have had anyway. In reading thru this I really don't see how the DA can make criminal charges against Trump. But we shall see, it's been said so many times a good DA can indict a ham sandwich with a grand jury.
Why should he have "had these votes anyway"? It is a trip to watch you guys twist yourself into pretzels about stuff like this.
They KNOW why Trump lost Georgia. Tens of thousands of Republican voters didnt vote for him. They voted for down ballot Republicans but left the top line blank.
I didn't say he did, Trump said he did. Stop fucking accusing people of something that just isn't true. You continually accuse people of defending Trump when that's not what is happening. My post was in showing that CNN did post the phone call in question and provided a transcript. And I read thru the transcript and did not find where Trump illegally pressured Raffensperger to find votes for Trump. I then finished up my post stating that while I didn't see where Trump did anything illegal we would have to wait for the DA to either indict or drop it.
Trump says, to the highest election official in Georgia "I just want to find 11,800 votes, which is one more than we have ". Trump didnt have 11,779 votes, he had hundreds of thousands of votes. He intended to say "which is one more than I need", but his reptilian brain knew it was better to misspeak than distinctly give himself away.
This was a 62 minute long phone call in which Trump repeatedly brings up the 11,800 number. What does that tell us? All he wanted to do was be declared the winner. He didnt say find out about voter fraud , he said find something that will give me one more vote than Joe Biden. It is unconscionable for people to defend ths.
Then he suggests that Raffensberger and other state election officials could be in trouble if they dont find the votes.
For gods sake just stop.
Snuffy provided the actual transcript in 1.1.6 or haven't you made it that far yet? And again, in 1.1.17.And it isn't even a link so yuo should be able to read it without worries about fictitious viruses.
Well of course he brings up the 11,800 number. He lost the state by 11,799 votes and yes he wanted to win the state. Show me a candidate who runs who doesn't want to win? Don't be ridiculous.
Did you read the transcript? He talks about fraud and issues all thru it.
Seems to me a lot of issues were brought up. I'm not saying all or any of them are correct but they were brought up in the phone call.
My suggestion to you is that you read the full transcript with an honest and open mind. There are things in there that might allow you to have an open discussion about the subject instead of your usual lambast attack on anybody who doesn't follow your party line. Just because I'm not in lockstep with you doesn't mean I'm defending Trump.
Where are the arrest records?
All you seem to do is insult people. Why don't you actually come up with a real argument sometime?
Prove what he has done is illegal or just go away. The nuh uh responses are very old.
He can talk about a Martian invasion if he wants, it doesnt make it credible. The state of Georgia had already recounted the votes and had certified the election. And Republicans were in charge of that process.
Trump repeating conspiracy theories does not make them viable, or make them something the state of Georgia need act on.
Why did Trump personally harangue this man in a 62 minute phone call from the president? Obviously it was to intimidate him.
This sort of thing is not allowed in America, whether you want to admit it or not.
Go back and re-read what I posted. I never said that what Trump did was credible or viable. All I said was that I didn't find anything in the text of the phone call to rise to the level of a criminal indictment. But I also stated that I was waiting on what the DA would do.
Also waiting for you to go back thru my postings to show where I admit this sort of thing should be allowed in America. Hell, I agree that it should not be allowed but it happens all the fucking time with people in power who allow that power to go to their heads and lets them think they are untouchable. No elected official should be allowed to harass or intimidate others for political reasons.
If you want to be taken seriously all the time , stop defending Trump by saying all the things he did are not illegal.
That IS defending him, especially when taken as a whole.
Start denouncing him, all the time he comes up, or you always catch flak over it.
The country will never get past all this until we all throw him under the bus.
All the way thru this I'm talking about the fucking phone call. I have denounced him, you seem to refuse to acknowledge it unless I'm in lockstep (or is it goosestep) with you. So FUCK OFF
Prove it or fuck off
You have two ways you can prove yourself. You can either prove I'm still defending Trump or you can prove I have insulted you in this seed. Go for it.
Yes I read it.
Trump is a pathological liar. If you dont know that after almost 8 years of him being in presidential politics you never will.
There is actual evidence in the form of video statements by his associates and advisers such as Roger Stone and Bannon, that even before the election took place Trump intended to cry "fraud" if he lost. And that is exactly what happened.
Why people keep making excuses for him is inexplicable.
[deleted]
Then there should be no problem with the DA bringing charges against Trump. We'll just have to wait and see.
You keep making this up. You cry about how I defend him yet when asked to provide actual lines as proof that I defend him you continue to deflect to I should know how bad Trump is and that should explain it all. I've said too many times that I look bigger picture. Any charges the DA brings against Trump will not be from anything he did except for exactly what he did with regards to the 2020 election and the State of Georgia. Anything else he did in the past 8 years (or even anything he did since he was born) is immaterial to the discussion at hand which is potential charges from the DA in Georgia.
So I'm just done conversing with you on this seed. You and your sycophants can now have the last word as I expect more bullshit from you.
Mirror, mirror on the wall???
The rest of the comments were removed for being off topic about a member
who is not the topic...
Gotta agree with him. Immunity deals?
Even some of the liberal media talking heads have said her tour might be problematic. Having her get a new job might be problematic also considering she was acting like a 15 year old. Ah, the things we will do for our 15 minutes of fame.
"Because all we have to do Cleta is find 11,000-plus votes"
That is one of the many many many times Trump brings up "11,000" plus votes in the transcript of that phone call. He brings it up again and again like the mentally ill person that he is . Trump evidently believed the lies of Giuliani and whatever other morons he had down there stirring up trouble. The REPUBLICAN secretary of state of Georgia point blank tells Trump there are no 11,000 votes to find. They had already done a recount and a certification of the election results by that point.
Trump wanted to berate this man and harrass this man until he agreed to "find" 11,780 votes. That is as plain as day. Trump deserves to be prosecuted for trying to rig an election result in Georgia.
Keep going with all this crap Vic. People like you will destroy the Republican Party, to the benefit of the rest of us.
But they couldn't find 11,000 votes.
Love the legalese they used. They are not saying there wasn't fraud in the presidential election. Just that there wasn't enough of it that would result in overturning the election.
Fraud by any other name is still fraud. Illegal is illegal. Democrats never believe that the law applies to them. Their two tier justice system is the envy of third world dictators everywhere.
Get Trump at all costs! Screw the law!
Hahaha Omg....
When it comes to election fraud Democrats wrote the book. Republicans are merely playing catch up.
0
Want to continue this? Just about broke Google with the search.
“When it comes to election fraud Democrats wrote the book. Republicans are merely playing catch up.”
So you are comfortable in where we would be headed with that assertion?
As an election judge, the number of people it would take to clandestinely contaminate an election makes that assertion nearly impossible…particularly given the bipartisan makeup of those charged with processing the vote.
If you have doubts, sign up to become a judge and it will put your fears to rest. I’d encourage everyone here to do the same.
Uh huh. It is always, ALWAYS, the fault of someone else.
So republican voter fraud is ok because a Dem was caught....
Some warped logic there...
And another side to the drama. I had to wonder when this person first started giving interviews as it's my understanding that members of a grand jury in Georgia are never supposed to speak about their time on the jury.
This is Trump, from the transcript
No evidence of widespread illegal voting was ever found in Georgia. Trump did destroy the lives of at least two Georgia poll workers though, who received death threats after Trump falsely accused them of counting votes fraudulently.
Still, we have the right defending this mentally disturbed piece of shit.
The country is a long way from getting past all this.
I've served on several grand juries. You are correct in that we were not allowed to speak about what happened in our room to anyone not on the jury. Although we were allowed to take notes during presentations, all of our notes were collected and shredded prior to leaving the room at the end of each day. Also, we were patted down and bags were checked prior to leaving, just in case someone tried to sneak out their notes.
Any juror who speaks out, especially while on jury duty, risks contempt of court charges.
Going by the responses on this seed, it amazes me that the left/progressives are dismissing this so readily. Even disregarding any potential legal issues that this juror could face, her actions also seem to open a door for Trump's lawyers to try to get the entire grand jury proceedings dismissed if the DA does indict Trump.
Just cannot get my head around the mindset that would rather accuse someone of defending Trump over this than actually look at the potential impact on indicting Trump or his team.
Your argument is that because Trump expressed debunked beliefs about the election and then demanded that the election officials investigate his conspiracy theories that makes it all ok or legal.
A trial will decide whether or not it was legal.
Let me ask you this, was what Trump did on that phone call ethical or even justifiable?
That is the question you have to answer.
Trump is the most dishonest and corrupt president in the history of the United States, and all you conservatives can do is defend him by saying , "it wasnt illegal".
God help our country.
I never served on one of these but can't they talk after they are dismissed?
That is not what I said at all. All I said was that based ONLY on the transcript of the phone call I did not see illegal activities but that I will wait for the DA to either indict or drop the case.
Ethical? No. Justifiable? Yes, show me a politician who doesn't do everything they can to win an election. You cannot as such a person does not exist. IMO he went too far but he was still trying to win the election.
As for the rest of your comment, just take it down a notch. Stating I did not see illegal activity in the context of that phone call is not defending him, it's defending the legal process and due process. As I've said several times now, the DA is the one to either indict or drop the case. Nothing I say will make a difference. As for Trump being the most dishonest and corrupt, that is your opinion. As we don't have the same information on all the other presidents in this countries past I am unwilling to call him the most dishonest and corrupt.
What I found with regards to jurors from a grand jury about their actions after the grand jury is dismissed is ...
I understand the judge has not prohibited jurists from talking with the press but I think these actions skate the line and potentially the juror could find herself in legal trouble down the road. At a bare bones minimum it opens a door for Trump lawyers to request that the grand jury proceedings be dismissed should the DA go forward with indictments. Not saying the proceedings will or should be dismissed, but it opens a door for the lawyers.
That is kinda what I thought. The records are usually sealed.
I guess I have watched too many of those crime shows where they interview jurors.
Well if we can't trust Hollywood then what are we left with? hehe
Seems to me their findings are already sealed and talking about it wouldn't change that outcome/opinions. Am I wrong?
This is all nonsense. Name another sitting president that made a one hour phone call to an election official spreading conspiracy theories that he wanted to use to have that official declare him the winner.
Your argument is absurd.
And yes, when you say that you are defending Trump whether you realize it or not.
It is ridiculous that we have to go through this shit from one or another of you every damn day on this site.
Do you really think Donald Trump might be as innocent as a ham sandwich ?
They can "out" a witness and put that person at risk. As "hearsay" evidence is allowed in a grand jury, the release of that evidence could taint potential jurors in a criminal proceeding. Have to remember that a grand jury, especially in Georgia, is really just to 'advise' the DA and there are no other outcomes after that. The DA would still need to bring charges and win in an actual criminal trial.
Thanks Snuffy.
Wow, that is alot of posts without saying anything about the actual seed.
Maybe sitting grand juries but not once they are dismissed...
Absolutely NOT in jurisdictions where I've served. Per the judges who swore me in, what is said and viewed behind a grand jury's closed doors is never released, not even to one's spouse.
I don't know about Georgia, but in Virginia, the Judge orders the member against describing their proceedings or the contents of their report.
Exactly.
Our top story involves the Grand Jury Forewoman going on a media tour
I read where former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman was on MSNBC. He said while she hadn't broken any laws, she had created a "marginal addition of trouble" for District Attorney Fani Willis, D.
What's the over/under on betting for when Democrats come out claiming she's really a Trump supporter doing her best to undercut any potential charges from the DA?
They probably will.
Holy shit... learned something new out of this. All this talk from Kohrs about the coming indictments is bullshit. This was a Special Purpose Grand Jury and this cannot return a bill of indictment. If the special purpose grand jury report recommends indictments then the DA needs to empanel another normal grand jury to get the true bill of indictment.
As I'm sure there are plenty of people who won't read your thread as it comes from Fox, I found another thread that does a good job of explaining the differences between a grand jury and a special purpose grand jury, explaining how this one was working out based on released reports and a lot of other pieces of the special purpose grand jury. I found it an interesting read..
I really have to wonder how a grand jury would work now that Kohrs has been talking all over the news and potentially tainting anybody who might be called to sit on the grand jury. Not to mention that should indictments be brought after all from an empaneled grand jury, one of the first actions of the lawyers will be to get the indictments tossed out due to grand jury impropriety and bias.
I don't know where this will end up, but it sure seems to be one hell of a mess the DA has to figure out.
It's really a nullification of the Justice system.
Thanks for taking the time to read my link. I greatly admire the legal wisdom of both Dershowitz and Jarrett.
And, thank you for your link ...
So, all of Emily Kohrs' giggling fantasies of being the foreperson who will be able to indict Trump are for naught.
I'm really surprised we've not yet had anybody from the left come in to promote the conspiracy theory that Emily is actually a Trumper working to break any potential indictments.
and 8.2.5 Texan1211
Give it a little more time.
I wonder how much trouble the prosecutor might be in. An ice cream party while on active jury duty? Did the DA also give each juror a paper hat to wear while deliberating and give them a goodie bag at the end of their little party?
As I've previously said, I've served on grand juries. All we ever got were two $.50 coupons per day for coffee and a $5.00/day compensation for our civil service (to make up for all of the money some people lost for having to take off from work to do their "civic duty" if their jobs didn't allow it).
And I've still not seen anybody from the left come in to acknowledge that Ms. Kohrs could be doing any damage to the prosecution. Instead all they will talk about is how guilty Trump is and how if anybody dare not walk in lockstep with them then they are defending Trump.
Will the DA even be able to empanel a regular grand jury to get indictments on anybody after the report from this special grand jury is released? It wouldn't surprise me if the Georgia case just goes away.
This is a good article ...
Except the Judge presiding over the Georgia grand jury has said that the forewoman has not broken his rules...
I didn't say anything about her "breaking rules".
The article I linked specifically discusses how difficult Kohr's giggling 15 seconds of media fame will now make prosecutors' jobs if/when a regular grand jury is impaneled.
This is the piece that boggles my mind when progressives refuse to discuss it and instead ignore it. The prosecutor will need to empanel a regular grand jury in order to get indictments in order to go to trial. Any indictments the DA gets will immediately be met with the defense lawyers pushing to get the charges and grand jury tossed out due to this.
Will it work? I don't know. But it's obvious that it has made the job of the prosecution harder.
And this prosecutor is a Democrat known to have publicly made anti-Trump comments in the past. I doubt that any defense lawyer worth his/her salt wouldn't challenge this.