Trump grand jury report in Georgia to be partially released
February 16, 2023 6:03 AM Subscribe
The judge overseeing the grand jury in Georgia, tasked with investigating Trump's potential interference in the 2020 election, will likely release the Introduction and Conclusion of the report today, as well as a section identifying concerns about witnesses lying under oath. Earlier this week, the same judge announced that the jury’s specific recommendations would remain secret, until District Attorney Fani T. Willis has made charging decisions.
The way the article was written, I expect that these releases will happen in the next few hours. I made the post to give a place for discussion of that today. I get the sense that the online editors of the papers view their own stories in the same way... with internet news, there really no longer is a "today's paper" and "tomorrow's paper", but rather a developing/living article for each story. But, yes, I guess I could have waited until there was a headline from the content of the release!
posted by pjenks at 6:55 AM on February 16, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by pjenks at 6:55 AM on February 16, 2023 [1 favorite]
Surely this time…
posted by Artw at 7:00 AM on February 16, 2023 [12 favorites]
posted by Artw at 7:00 AM on February 16, 2023 [12 favorites]
I don't mean to criticize the post pjenks -- if you might have waited a few hours the NYT could have done so as well! There has been so much speculation about whether Trump will ever be held accountable for anything ever that at this point the only story I actually have patience for is one where he is headed towards sentencing.
posted by cubby at 7:13 AM on February 16, 2023 [14 favorites]
posted by cubby at 7:13 AM on February 16, 2023 [14 favorites]
Speculation about when and if Trump will ever be held accountable for his actions remind me of that math exercise which blew my mind in grade school, i.e. if Trump gets half as close to justice every day as he was the day before, when will he reach it?
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:30 AM on February 16, 2023 [33 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:30 AM on February 16, 2023 [33 favorites]
On the other hand, this could be a death-by-a-thousand-paper-cuts approach to taking him down, which just prolongs things for him and I don't mind that quite so much, because the longer it takes the more likely his fan club will also start getting fed up with him - and they're the people we REALLY need to also get rid of.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:32 AM on February 16, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:32 AM on February 16, 2023 [6 favorites]
Well, we sent Nixon, Oliver North, and Agnew to jail for their treasonous crimes. Reagan certainly paid for Iran-Contra, right? So there's no reason to believe Trump will get off.
posted by cccorlew at 7:48 AM on February 16, 2023 [17 favorites]
posted by cccorlew at 7:48 AM on February 16, 2023 [17 favorites]
Lucy, football, rinse, repeat.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 7:59 AM on February 16, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 7:59 AM on February 16, 2023 [5 favorites]
Reagan certainly paid for Iran-Contra, right?
What?
posted by saturday_morning at 8:24 AM on February 16, 2023 [2 favorites]
What?
posted by saturday_morning at 8:24 AM on February 16, 2023 [2 favorites]
Well, it's out, and it doesn't quite live up to the buildup. The Washington Post is hosting the doc. (looks like it is not paywalled)
There is just one passage that really says anything:
"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."
The rest is about the mechanics of the grand jury process. As has been noted, the real "meat" of the report (specific findings for specific people) are still confidential.
posted by anhedonic at 8:26 AM on February 16, 2023 [5 favorites]
There is just one passage that really says anything:
"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."
The rest is about the mechanics of the grand jury process. As has been noted, the real "meat" of the report (specific findings for specific people) are still confidential.
posted by anhedonic at 8:26 AM on February 16, 2023 [5 favorites]
Ah! Well. Nevertheless,
posted by pjenks at 8:29 AM on February 16, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by pjenks at 8:29 AM on February 16, 2023 [5 favorites]
CCorlew was making a joke…
posted by holyrood at 8:30 AM on February 16, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by holyrood at 8:30 AM on February 16, 2023 [4 favorites]
Oh. Sorry. Sarcasm filter indisposed this morning.
posted by saturday_morning at 8:30 AM on February 16, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by saturday_morning at 8:30 AM on February 16, 2023 [4 favorites]
Worth noting, for the record (and as the story notes) that the grand jury interviewed some 75 witnesses, including "Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, U.S. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani" as well as "poll workers, investigators, technical experts, and State of Georgia employees and officials."
And the grand jury found "by a unanimous vote that no widespread fraud took place in the Georgia 2020 presidential election that could result in overturning that election.”
So, spitballing... if they heard from a big bunch of trenches-level election officials and believed them, but found that other witnesses lied and should be indicted for perjury... maybe, just maybe, Kemp, Graham and/or Rudy are looking at indictments? I'd take that.
posted by martin q blank at 9:01 AM on February 16, 2023 [3 favorites]
And the grand jury found "by a unanimous vote that no widespread fraud took place in the Georgia 2020 presidential election that could result in overturning that election.”
So, spitballing... if they heard from a big bunch of trenches-level election officials and believed them, but found that other witnesses lied and should be indicted for perjury... maybe, just maybe, Kemp, Graham and/or Rudy are looking at indictments? I'd take that.
posted by martin q blank at 9:01 AM on February 16, 2023 [3 favorites]
Don't forget, perjury during the Lewinsky affair is the issue which Clinton was "officially" impeached over. ("Officially" is in quotes because come on, we know that it was really about "he's a popular Democrat with some power and we don't like that".)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:10 AM on February 16, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:10 AM on February 16, 2023 [3 favorites]
Reagan certainly paid for Iran-Contra, right?
"I don't remember."
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:21 AM on February 16, 2023 [13 favorites]
"I don't remember."
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:21 AM on February 16, 2023 [13 favorites]
Georgia grand jury recommends perjury indictments in Trump election meddling probe
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:27 AM on February 16, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:27 AM on February 16, 2023 [2 favorites]
The grand jury decided there was no wide-spread election fraud (duh); decided that several witnesses committed perjury and should be prosecuted; and the bits about whether Trump committed crimes are still unreleased. That's all...encouraging?
posted by Eddie Mars at 9:37 AM on February 16, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Eddie Mars at 9:37 AM on February 16, 2023 [1 favorite]
The editorial boards really want Trump stories, no matter how much of a non story the story is
posted by eustatic at 10:34 AM on February 16, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by eustatic at 10:34 AM on February 16, 2023 [5 favorites]
If you're feeling pretty done with the WaPo these days, the awesome Atlanta public radio station WABE has a freely available version
posted by hydropsyche at 2:14 PM on February 16, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 2:14 PM on February 16, 2023 [4 favorites]
Speculation about when and if Trump will ever be held accountable for his actions remind me of that math exercise which blew my mind in grade school, i.e. if Trump gets half as close to justice every day as he was the day before, when will he reach it?This reminds me of one of my favorite jokes:
An infinite number of mathematicians walk into a bar. The first mathematician says to the bartender, "I'll have a beer." The second says, "I'll have half a beer." The third says, "I'd like a quarter of a beer please." The bartender sighs, says "you're all a bunch of idiots," and pours two beers.
posted by Juffo-Wup at 2:52 PM on February 16, 2023 [6 favorites]
Yeah, any day now. They just want to be sure the trap is *just right*. Honest.
posted by Dark Messiah at 3:08 PM on February 16, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by Dark Messiah at 3:08 PM on February 16, 2023 [4 favorites]
"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."
Way to soft pedal any conclusions. This statement is just about as strong as a fart in a windstorm.
"A majority..." 98%? 51%? "...may have been..." Really? Ah, maybe, we're guessing, who knows. Only "...one or more..." So just one sacrificial lamb might suffice?
"...appropriate..."? Lately appropriate has come to mean a walk-away for the rich and powerful.
I would have been more impressed by a bit of strength behind the wording:
The Grand Jury believes perjury has been committed by multiple witnesses testifying before it. The Grand Jury strongly recommends that the District Attorney deliver indictments for all crimes under compelling evidence.
I'm no lawyer, so that probably isn't what the GJ would say. But surely they could have put a little oomph behind it?
posted by BlueHorse at 4:56 PM on February 16, 2023
Way to soft pedal any conclusions. This statement is just about as strong as a fart in a windstorm.
"A majority..." 98%? 51%? "...may have been..." Really? Ah, maybe, we're guessing, who knows. Only "...one or more..." So just one sacrificial lamb might suffice?
"...appropriate..."? Lately appropriate has come to mean a walk-away for the rich and powerful.
I would have been more impressed by a bit of strength behind the wording:
The Grand Jury believes perjury has been committed by multiple witnesses testifying before it. The Grand Jury strongly recommends that the District Attorney deliver indictments for all crimes under compelling evidence.
I'm no lawyer, so that probably isn't what the GJ would say. But surely they could have put a little oomph behind it?
posted by BlueHorse at 4:56 PM on February 16, 2023
I get the disenchantment, but I am glad people are still trying to hold him accountable.
posted by AdamCSnider at 7:02 PM on February 16, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by AdamCSnider at 7:02 PM on February 16, 2023 [4 favorites]
says "you're all a bunch of idiots," and pours two beers.
I've usually heard this one as "You guys have got to learn your limits".
posted by solarion at 9:06 PM on February 16, 2023 [6 favorites]
I've usually heard this one as "You guys have got to learn your limits".
posted by solarion at 9:06 PM on February 16, 2023 [6 favorites]
This article at Lawfare provides useful commentary about the nature of the Grand Jury report. The report is very short, perhaps nine pages or so.
It contains no "factual findings or evaluations of evidence." Instead it is "a 'roster' of who should be indicted and who should not and for what." It has no narrative of events or specific evidence of crimes.
The article also states "The grand jury, moreover, explains that it 'contained no election law experts or criminal lawyers' and thus lacked expertise to evaluate certain things."
They also acknowledge that Willis and her team might not come to the same conclusions as the grand jury itself did. It appears as if the ball is completely in Fani Willis's court (to coin a phrase).
If this description is correct then all the sturm und drang anticipated by the press is premature. That will come if and when the succeeding Grand Jury issues indictments.
posted by Metacircular at 2:58 AM on February 17, 2023
It contains no "factual findings or evaluations of evidence." Instead it is "a 'roster' of who should be indicted and who should not and for what." It has no narrative of events or specific evidence of crimes.
The article also states "The grand jury, moreover, explains that it 'contained no election law experts or criminal lawyers' and thus lacked expertise to evaluate certain things."
They also acknowledge that Willis and her team might not come to the same conclusions as the grand jury itself did. It appears as if the ball is completely in Fani Willis's court (to coin a phrase).
If this description is correct then all the sturm und drang anticipated by the press is premature. That will come if and when the succeeding Grand Jury issues indictments.
posted by Metacircular at 2:58 AM on February 17, 2023
« Older Consider the Lobster | Into the rest of the 21st century Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by cubby at 6:31 AM on February 16, 2023 [19 favorites]