"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.”

edition.cnn

this article sounds like it's direct from the tucker carlson school of journalistic integrity...

Willis falsely stated that during Trump's conversation with Raffensperger, the then-president requested that "the Secretary 'find 11,780 votes'

the transcript of the call established that Trump "did not request that Raffensperger 'find 11,780 votes.'

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.

Trump's argument, as pathetic as it was, was that more than 11,780 votes were illegally counted in Georgia.

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.

cnn

OK, you know that. You know that. You have no doubt about that. And you will find you will be at 11,779 within minutes, because Fulton County is totally corrupt and so is she, totally corrupt.

And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

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.

What I read is Trump saying he wants to find the votes that he should have had anyway. 

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. 

That's all he is essentially, a thug, thief, grifter, mafia don except most mafia dons aren't complete and utter psycho/sociopaths and malignant narcissists like this scumbag former 'president' and his criminal enterprise of an 'administration'.

dev provided that phone call in post 1.1 where he asked for the exact amount of votes that were 'missing'

LOL!

Of course, you don't see him as doing anything illegal.  You never do.

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.

Yes, that is exactly what is happening.  You and others here defend everything he does, the majority of which is illegal.

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.

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. 

Did you read the transcript?  He talks about fraud and issues all thru it.

cnn

We had, I believe it’s about 4,502 voters who voted but who weren’t on the voter registration list, so it’s 4,502 who voted but they weren’t on the voter registration roll which they had to be. You had 18,325 vacant address voters. The address was vacant and they’re not allowed to be counted. That’s 18,325.

Smaller number — you had 904 who only voted where they had just a P.O. — a post office box number — and they had a post office box number and that’s not allowed. We had at least 18,000 — that’s on tape we had them counted very painstakingly — 18,000 voters having to do with [name]. She’s a vote scammer, a professional vote scammer and hustler [name]. That was the tape that’s been shown all over the world that makes everybody look bad, you me and everybody else.

Where they got — number one they said very clearly and it’s been reported they said there was a major water main break. Everybody fled the area. And then they came back, [name] and her daughter and a few people. There were no Republican poll watchers. Actually, there were no Democrat poll watchers, I guess they were them. But there were no Democrats, either and there was no law enforcement. Late in the morning, they went early in the morning they went to the table with the black robe, the black shield and they pulled out the votes. Those votes were put there a number of hours before the table was put there. I think it was, Brad you would know, it was probably eight hours or seven hours before and then it was stuffed with votes.

They weren’t in an official voter box, but they were in what looked to be suitcases or trunks, suitcases but they weren’t in voter boxes. The minimum number it could be because we watched it and they watched it certified in slow motion instant replay if you can believe it but slow motion and it was magnified many times over and the minimum it was 18,000 ballots, all for Biden.

You had out-of-state voters. They voted in Georgia but they were from out of state, of 4,925. You had absentee ballots sent to vacant, they were absentee ballots sent to vacant addresses. They had nothing on them about addresses, that’s 2,326.

And you had drop boxes, which is very bad. You had drop boxes that were picked up. We have photographs and we have affidavits from many people.

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.

Your endless defense of the turd is undeniable and unreal.

Why didn't you read it with an honest and open mind?

the majority of which is illegal.

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?

the majority of which is illegal.

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. 

No, that's what you do when I don't agree with your partisanship and defense of that turd.

You see no wrongdoing on his part.

Unreal.

You and your pals insult when you lose the argument, which is always.

That's all you have is nuh uh responses.

I'm not going anywhere.

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. 

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.

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. 

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

Still defending the turd I see.

Prove it or fuck off

It's true.

Is that all you have?  Insults?

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.  

Did you read the transcript?  He talks about fraud and issues all thru 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. 

He believes a pathological liar!

Unreal!

No need to prove the truth.

[deleted]

Then there should be no problem with the DA bringing charges against Trump.  We'll just have to wait and see.

Why people keep making excuses for him is inexplicable. 

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.

I insult the former 'president' all the time but he deserves all that and more

So all you have is insults and defense of the indefensible.

So all you have is insults

Mirror, mirror on the wall???

Point out MY insults.  You cannot.

Snuffy can speak for himself.

Why do you feel the need to speak for him and all of your other little buddies?

I was correct as usual. You have nothing.

[Deleted]

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. 

"Because all we have to do Cleta is find 11,000-plus votes"

But they couldn't find 11,000 votes.

"by a unanimous vote that no widespread fraud took place in the Georgia 2020 presidential election that could result in overturning that election."

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....

A Republican elections official in an upstate New York county is accused of illegally using personal identifying information of voters to apply for absentee ballots that are alleged to have been used in 2021 elections,   the Department of Justice said Tuesday .

Jason Schofield , the Republican Board of Elections commissioner of Rensselaer County, was arraigned Tuesday on an indictment charging him with unlawfully using the names and dates of birth of voters to fraudulently apply for absentee ballots for 2021 elections in his county, prosecutors said in a news release.

cnn

All he has is PD&D, pay no mind to anything he says.

When it comes to election fraud Democrats wrote the book. Republicans are merely playing catch up.

michigancapitolconfidential 0

Jason Bauer, a former Oakland Country Democratic Party official,   was sentenced   to one year of probation and $2,600 in fines for his involvement with a 2010 fake Tea Party scheme. Bauer is the second person involved in the plot to be sentenced. Former Oakland County Democratic Party Chair Mike McGuinness pleaded no contest in October to charges of perjury and forgery. Capitol Confidential broke the story of the fake “Tea Party” in July of 2010 in the article, “ Democratic Party Political Director Linked to Mysterious Tea Party Political Party .”

cnn

Expelled former Democratic congressman Michael “Ozzie” Myers has been sentenced to 30 months in prison for federal election fraud dating back to 2014, the Justice Department said Tuesday, and was immediately taken into custody.

Myers, 79, pleaded guilty in June to conspiracy to deprive voters of civil rights, bribery, obstruction of justice, falsification of voting records, and conspiring to illegally vote in a federal election as part of scams to stuff ballot boxes for certain Democratic candidates in Pennsylvania elections between 2014 and 2018, the DOJ said in a news release.

Prosecutors said some of the candidates were running to be judges and had hired Myers, who would use portions of “consulting fees” from his clients to pay others to interfere with election results.

Myers, who had been expelled from Congress in 1980 and served time in prison after taking bribes from an undercover FBI agent as part of the ABSCAM investigation, was also sentenced Tuesday to three years of supervision upon release and ordered to pay $100,000 in fines, the press release said.

“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. 

Republicans are merely playing catch up

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.

foxnews

CNN's Anderson Cooper and Elie Honig discussed Kohrs' interview Tuesday night and wondered if her media blitz was "responsible."

"First of all why this person is talking on TV, I do not understand. Because, she’s clearly enjoying herself, but I mean, is this responsible? She was the foreperson of this grand jury," Cooper said. 

Honig said it was a "horrible idea" and that the prosecutors were likely "wincing."

"Mark my words, Donald Trump’s team is going to make a motion, if there’s an indictment, to dismiss that indictment based on grand jury impropriety. She’s not supposed to be talking about anything, really. But she’s really not supposed to be talking about the deliberations. She’s talking about what specific witnesses they saw, what the grand jury thought of them. She says some of them we found credible, some we found funny. I don’t know why that’s relevant, but she’s been saying we found this guy funny or interesting. I think she’s potentially crossing a line here. It’s gonna be a real problem for prosecutors," Honig continued.  

There's no other side to this created drama/lies/from the former 'president' and his supporters/enablers.  

It doesn't surprise me that this is your response.  You are constant in an inability to see the bigger picture.  Do you honestly think that if the DA does indict Trump (or really anybody else on his team) that their lawyers won't bring this up as an argument to dismiss the entire grand jury proceedings?  I guess there's no bottom to  your partisanship. 

There is no bottom to your defense of that turd and no wrongdoing on his part.

Unreal.

There is no bottom to your partnership and defense of that turd.

And show me where the fuck I have defended him in this fucking seed.  I know you can't so you'll do your usual bullshit.  

Put up or shut the fuck up

That's all you do is defend the indefensible

Just gotta have the last word also

show me where the fuck I have defended him in this fucking seed

"I don't see where Trump did anything illegal" - 1.1.6

"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?" - 1.1.17

"Prove what he has done is illegal or just go away." - 1.1.21

"Ethical?  No.  Justifiable?  Yes, show me a politician who doesn't do everything they can to win an election." - 7.1.3

"I don't see where Trump did anything illegal" - 1.1.6

Not a defense, merely an observation.

"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?"

Reciting facts isn't a defense.

"Prove what he has done is illegal or just go away."

Again (sigh), not a defense, he is simply imploring for sanity rule and people provide proof for their claims.

"Ethical?  No.  Justifiable?  Yes, show me a politician who doesn't do everything they can to win an election."

Your entire post is a continuing, fine example of someone confused about what "defending" means.

Yeah, but that's all they got.  Seems like such a waste of time when all someone can do is continue to redefine what words mean.  

Seems like such a waste of time when all someone can do is continue to redefine what words mean.

"Ethical?  No.  Justifiable?  Yes, show me a politician who doesn't do everything they can to win an election."

Justify: verb - show or prove to be right or reasonable.

Justify synonyms: rationalize, defend, vindicate, uphold, sustain, legitimize

Yes, some folk clearly try to redefine words in an attempt to claim they aren't 'defending' an indefensible piece of shit who was blatantly trying to coerce an election official into 'finding' thousands of extra votes that didn't exist that would make him the winner instead of the miserable fucking loser he is.

Anyone who is attempting to 'justify' Trumps actions is fucking defending him. This fact is pretty obvious for anyone with above 5th grade reading comprehension. It doesn't matter if it's your "opinion" that he's not guilty, by expressing your opinion you are defending him. I'm not really sure why this is so hard for some to understand. I guess those who just don't want something to be true decide to just reject facts and reality in favor of tickling their own ears with lies and regurgitated rightwing rhetoric.

who was blatantly trying to coerce an election official into 'finding' thousands of extra votes

And there the key word was FIND, not INVENT.

if it's your "opinion" that he's not guilty, by expressing your opinion you are defending him. I'm not really sure why this is so hard for some to understand.

Not everyone thinks like you. Do you understand that?

Well aren't I the lucky one then to have someone come along to tell me exactly what I'm thinking then.  You should hire yourself out to the courts, you could help the prosecution tell the juries exactly what the plaintiff's are thinking...  

You have your opinion and I have mine.  I don't try to tell you why I think your opinion is wrong because in this country we are all allowed to form our own opinions, and I also realize that it would be a huge waste of my time to even try.  But by all means continue with your quest and jump in to show people what they really are thinking...  

Seems like such a waste of time when all someone can do is continue to redefine what words mean.

Today's "woke" adherents thrive on redefining laws, words, biological genders, literature, and historical facts so yes, it's a waste of time to try to engage in a rational conversation with people who are irrational.  

This is Trump, from the transcript

...We have some incredible talent said they’ve never seen anything … Now the problem is they need more time for the big numbers. But they’re very substantial numbers. But I think you’re going to find that they — by the way, a little information, I think you’re going to find that they are shredding ballots because they have to get rid of the ballots because the ballots are unsigned. The ballots are corrupt, and they’re brand new and they don’t have a seal and there’s the whole thing with the ballots. But the ballots are corrupt. And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal,

it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer.

And that’s a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

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 have to wonder about the mental states of those who continually find no wrongdoing on his part and continue to defend him no matter how many times they say they are not defending him, WE know that they defend him and continue to support/enable all the lies from this monumental POS of a 'human being'.

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.

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?

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. 

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.  

Let me ask you this, was what Trump did on that phone call ethical or even justifiable? 

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 ...

Furthermore, grand jury hearings happen in private, behind closed doors. What happens before the grand jury is not something the prosecutor can talk about to the public and the jurors can never talk about what occurred in the grand jury. georgiacriminallawyer

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.

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?

[Deleted] 

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.

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. 

Endless defense of the indefensible.  It's dumbfounding and mind boggling.

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.

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. 

Actually it's always.

Wow, that is alot of posts without saying anything about the actual seed.   

Maybe sitting grand juries but not once they are dismissed...

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.

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.

"I know ten-year-olds with more brains and maturity.  It was embarrassing for her. She made a mockery of our justice system"

"Kohrs violated every grand jury rule on secrecy and her oath to maintain confidentiality."

thegreggjarrett

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..

lawfareblog

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 ...

Georgia’s special purpose grand juries cannot return a “true bill” of indictment. But they do possess the power to issue comprehensive public reports, albeit after review by the supervising judge.

So, all of Emily Kohrs' giggling fantasies of being the foreperson who will be able to indict Trump are for naught.

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.  

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.  

I am positive it isn't far off.

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?

But Ms. Kohrs is doing a disservice to impartial justice. The Atlanta paper reports that she swore in one witness while “holding a Ninja Turtle Popsicle she had just received at an ice cream party thrown by the DA’s office.” She said serving on the jury was “really cool.” Ms. Kohrs said she has never voted, although she told the AP she tends to agree more with Democrats.

wsj

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 ...

'Oddball' Trump grand jury foreperson Emily Kohrs dealt a 'terrible blow' to prosecution, Andrew McCarthy says

'She basically flouted the secrecy rules of the grand jury,' McCarthy told Fox News Digital

foxnews

Except the Judge presiding over the Georgia grand jury has said that the forewoman has not broken his rules...

amp.cnn

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.

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.  

McBurney declined to comment on whether he believed Kohrs crossed a line about what special grand jurors were allowed to divulge during her media appearances. "It's not for me to assess," the judge said.

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.