Will Georgia indict? May find out tonight! Update: Posted Jan 9 finally indicted Aug 14.

[Moonbeam]

Watching Rachel Maddow while working on a TV and heard news may come tonight if Georgia will prosecute Trump.

 

[Moonbeam]

Special Grand Jury report due with aim to establish if criminal evidence present to warrant indictment. May or may not actually trigger actual indictment, however.

 

[pete6032]

They have smoking gun evidence so my guess is they won't prosecute.

 

[Moonbeam]

GDPR Support

www.ajc.com

Jury itself wants its report made public.

 

[Fenixgoon]

GDPR Support

www.ajc.com

Jury itself wants its report made public.

I saw that over at cnn. WTF wouldn't the report be public?

Either way, the information should be out. If they recommend to not indict, there better be damn good reasons.
If they do recommend to indict, the reasons should be made known to the public if for nothing else than history and precedent (there would be damn good reasons, not that conservatives would care)

 

[trenchfoot]

I saw that over at cnn. WTF wouldn't the report be public?

Either way, the information should be out. If they recommend to not indict, there better be damn good reasons.
If they do recommend to indict, the reasons should be made known to the public if for nothing else than history and precedent (there would be damn good reasons, not that conservatives would care)

They really don't because they've been conditioned to ignore the ongoing expos-e of incriminating truths about their operatives in the Congress and the business interests that own their asses. Anything goes for them because they have nothing of substance to offer their working class voters except more tax cuts for the wealthy and a redirect of monies spent that directly benefits their middle class and their poor over to their aristocrat class.

And to add contempt and avarice to their war against democracy, instead of cleaning up their act and getting back to the business of governance, their temporary ownership of the House is going to be used to launch bullshit investigations to smear the Democrats with as a means to distract attention away from the horrible job of representing the real concerns, wants and needs of their rank and file members while mind-fucking them into focusing on things that have nothing to do with improving the economic quality of life for these members ie- 2A, gays, abortion and "religious freedoms" that would allow them to legislate their religious beliefs into law.

 

[woolfe9998]

I saw that over at cnn. WTF wouldn't the report be public?

Either way, the information should be out. If they recommend to not indict, there better be damn good reasons.
If they do recommend to indict, the reasons should be made known to the public if for nothing else than history and precedent (there would be damn good reasons, not that conservatives would care)

The grand jury did specifically request that its findings be released. However, it's solely up to the judge at this point. It's also up to the judge whether there will be an indictment.

 

[HomerJS]

The grand jury did specifically request that its findings be released. However, it's solely up to the judge at this point. It's also up to the judge whether there will be an indictment.

I thought DAs decide if there are indictments?

 

[senseamp]

Grand jury should either indict and give report to prosecutor if they believe a crime was committed, or STFU if there's no crime. That's their role in the process.

 

[Moonbeam]

I thought DAs decide if there are indictments?

I think a judge has to approve a prosecutors request for a special grand jury so the judge will also determine if the evidence gathered should be made public and I gather , also, that where the evidence is deemed insufficient to bring charges despite what the grand jury believes, if the judge says no the info is usually not released. It would be unfair in the eyes of the law, at least in my opinion, that if no charges will be made the information just become a taint on the person who will not be charged anyway.

Also Apparently the grand jury can sue the judge to have their info released if they feel strongly enough about it.

 

[iRONic]

Grand jury should either indict and give report to prosecutor if they believe a crime was committed, or STFU if there's no crime. That's their role in the process.

Re: Taylor, B. Kentucky DA Daniel Cameron says hello.

Edit: The grand jury in that case wanted public release also.

 

[fskimospy]

Grand jury should either indict and give report to prosecutor if they believe a crime was committed, or STFU if there's no crime. That's their role in the process.

Not the role of these special grand juries, no. (they don't indict)

The grand jury wanting to make this public strongly suggests they think an indictment should be issued.

 

[Brainonska511]

Not the role of these special grand juries, no. (they don't indict)

The grand jury wanting to make this public strongly suggests they think an indictment should be issued.

Also, giving it to the prosecutor to decide is a good way to see the issue completely buried. See: Mark Meadows and the "home" he voted from by absentee ballot.

 

[Pens1566]

Also, giving it to the prosecutor to decide is a good way to see the issue completely buried. See: Mark Meadows and the "home" he voted from by absentee ballot.

I don't think there's an option for anything else with this type of GJ in GA. They conduct their business, state they're done, a judge agrees/disagrees, and then the findings are always sent back to the prosecutor. These GJ are statutorily prevented from doing anything else.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't think there's an option for anything else with this type of GJ in GA. They conduct their business, state they're done, a judge agrees/disagrees, and then the findings are always sent back to the prosecutor. These GJ are statutorily prevented from doing anything else.

I have heard that some juries sue to have their finding released when the judge says no. Sounds like a good checks and balance measure to me. What's to prevent a judge from trying to protect a guilty person as a prosecutor may want to charge a person without sufficient evidence.

 

[thilanliyan]

Now I almost want him to stay out of jail so he can cause chaos within the GOP.

 

[dawp]

Witnesses who testified in front of the Georgia grand jury investigating Trump 'may have lied under oath,' judge says

A judge said he'll release three portions of a special grand jury's secret report into efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia.

www.businessinsider.com

..

things just keep getting couriouser and couriouser

 

[woolfe9998]

Witnesses who testified in front of the Georgia grand jury investigating Trump 'may have lied under oath,' judge says

A judge said he'll release three portions of a special grand jury's secret report into efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia.

www.businessinsider.com

..

things just keep getting couriouser and couriouser

Your article says the judge just ruled that three portions of the report will be released to the public, which includes the introduction and conclusion. So we should be seeing those, perhaps later today.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Your article says the judge just ruled that three portions of the report will be released to the public, which includes the introduction and conclusion. So we should be seeing those, perhaps later today.

it's about fucking time.

"imminent" in lawyer-speak is much different than in the rest of the world, apparently.

 

[JEDI]

Georgia (Repub country) indicting Trump will relieve the pressure off the DOJ

 

[Perknose]

Looks like the Grand Jury called for perjury indictments.

“A majority of the Grand Jury believes that perjury may have been committed by one or more witnesses testifying before it. The Grand Jury recommends that the District Attorney seek appropriate indictments for such crimes where the evidence is compelling.”

 

[Fenixgoon]

Looks like the Grand Jury called for perjury indictments.

“A majority of the Grand Jury believes that perjury may have been committed by one or more witnesses testifying before it. The Grand Jury recommends that the District Attorney seek appropriate indictments for such crimes where the evidence is compelling.”

while i'm happy, i also will be pissed if one of said witnesses isn't "Donald J Trump"

 

[Perknose]

while i'm happy, i also will be pissed if one of said witnesses isn't "Donald J Trump"

Don't know, but my feeling is, "likely not." And I'm pretty much ok with that. Going after Frump himself is a political minefield which raises the bar for any conviction. And to go after him and have him beat the rap "because slick lawyers" would not be good.

Plus, I want the Fat Fucker to continue to divide the GOP with his Presidential bid, please!

 

[eelw]

Miss Lindsay stopped in congress hallways, “Are you concerned about these findings?” He replied nope and ran away.

I’d love if he’s one of the accused, but don’t he is. Going to be Giuliani, Eastman and orange monkey lawyers.

 

[Pens1566]

while i'm happy, i also will be pissed if one of said witnesses isn't "Donald J Trump"

Almost assuredly isn't because I don't believe he provided testimony. Now, Senator Graham on the other hand ...