Posted on 02/21/2023 5:24:56 PM PST by bitt
Georgia – Last week a Fulton County judge ordered parts of the grand jury report in the garbage Trump 2020 election investigation to be released as the prosecutor considers charges against Trump and his allies.
The grand jury concluded that “one or more witnesses” lied under oath and recommended perjury indictments.
“A majority of the Grand Jury believes that perjury may have been committed by one or more witnesses testifying before it,” the report said.
“The Grand Jury recommends that the District Attorney seek appropriate indictments for such crimes where the evidence is compelling,” the report said, according to CNBC.
The forewoman of the jury, Emily Khors, suggested that the jurors recommended indicting Trump in an interview with the New York Times.
Khors did not offer any other details about who specifically was recommended for charges.
The New York Times reported:
A special grand jury that investigated election interference by former President Donald J. Trump and his allies in Georgia recommended indictments of multiple people on a range of charges in its report, most of which remains sealed, the forewoman of the jury said in an interview today.
“It is not a short list,” the forewoman, Emily Kohrs, said, adding that the jury had appended eight pages of legal code “that we cited at various points in the report.”
She declined to discuss who specifically the special grand jury recommended for indictment, since the judge handling the case decided to keep those details secret when he made public a few sections of the report last week. But seven sections that are still under wraps deal with indictment recommendations, Ms. Kohrs said.
Asked whether the jurors had recommended indicting Mr. Trump, Ms. Kohrs gave a cryptic answer: “You’re not going to be shocked. It’s not rocket science,” adding “you won’t be too surprised.”
“We definitely started with the first phone call, the call to Secretary Raffensperger that was so publicized,” said Ms. Kohrs, whom The Associated Press first named and spoke with on Tuesday about the election meddling investigation.
“I will tell you that if the judge releases the recommendations, it is not going to be some giant plot twist,” she added. “You probably have a fair idea of what may be on there. I’m trying very hard to say that delicately.”
...MORE
P
Bring it on, bitch!
Probably the one who asked “Can we declare Trump guilty and skip the indictments?”
Judge: You have to wait for the opening arguments and the presentation of evidence. This is the first day. Sit down, please.
Since they have NO power to indict ANYONE, much less a President of the USA then and former now— this should prove interesting for this politically motivated fake@ss biotch from Fulton Corruptocrat County. Raffensberger is on the chopping block so they talk big. Not going to happen, no matter how much they “imply”. What utter shite.
I guess Trump is now a Ham Sandwich!
Yes— sit down, shut up... JUROR! and let’s see what DISCOVERY brings... namely the utter crap you have willfully entertained as... facts. They are not. Discovery is a biotch, biotch. How much was this “juror” paid by the NY Slimes to say NOTHING at all of any provenance or value, legally. Only more schoolyard nyah,nyah from a stupid bee itch.
In Atlanta? That (indicting Trump) would be almost as easy as getting a DC court/prosecutor/judge/jury to send American patriots to the DC gulag.
I thought the grand jury proceedings are secret.
And as for the jury “writing” their report they didn’t write a damn thing, it was all spoon fed by the prosecutor.
Trump could do nothing more than fart into the microphone from this point on until the election and I’ll still vote for him just to spite these people.
Ham sandwich
I thought the grand jury proceedings are secret.
________________
And verdicts of the SCOTUS were also sacred.
I guess the last place of secrecy is in the confessional. Until a lefty pope gives the nod.
Here is what Trump said. People can make up their own mind if that is “opposing election fraud” as you said, or not.
“All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have,” Trump says, according to audio of the call. “There’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, that you’ve recalculated.”
The whole point is now the media has their headline, that’s all that matters.
What was the race of this Forewoman?
And is she a Democrat?
Even an activist?
For perjury?!
I dont recall Trump testifying.
She’s the right race to be racist on this jury.
Who knew Soviet show trials could be such a good thing? Obama knew.
“All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have,” Trump says, according to audio of the call. “There’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, that you’ve recalculated.”
Those two quotes by Trump did not follow each other in the official transcript which the Reuters piece puts together which is disingenuous to say the least and takes the quotes totally out of context of the entire conversation. This is why quoting the MSM has to be done only after much investigation. Reuters is scum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.