Release of full Georgia special grand jury report on Trump and allies blocked by judge Brad Reed

[JohnSJ]

"Fulton County Judge Robert McBurney on Monday denied the release of a full special grand jury report on former President Donald Trump and his allies' attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

In his ruling, McBurney sided with Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who had argued that releasing the full report to the public would potentially hinder her ability to bring charges in the future.

As noted by Lawfare Blog's Anna Bower, McBurney argued that releasing the full report could create due process concerns for some of the named individuals, although a redacted version of the report will be released on Thursday, February 16.

The judge also wrote that the special grand jury had fulfilled its mandate by providing a "roster of who should (or should not) be indicted, and for what, in relation to the conduct (and aftermath) of the 2020 general election in Georgia."

https://www.rawstory.com/fulton-county-trump/

[Ocelot II]

1. Good. The details shouldn't get out there; that would create problems

for the prosecution - I'm glad the judge sided with Willis.

[Ohio Joe]

2. Good - nt

[brer cat]

3. Good decision.

[malaise]

4. Get thee to the greatest page

RFN

[fightforfreedom]

5. Indictments are coming, make no mistake.

We don't know who yet, but Rudy and the fake electors were named as targets. Trump, along with Meadows and two other lawyers were all involved in the infamous phone call. Justice is coming.

[LymphocyteLover]

25. yes!

[Johnny2X2X]

6. So another grand jury makes decisions on indictments

Anyone have any idea on their timeline?

[gademocrat7]

7. Hoping Burt Jones goes down.

He is now the Lt. Governor of Georgia and met with Giuliani and other fake electors.

[pandr32]

8. Excellent!

[MyOwnPeace]

9. Good! Now let's get on with the CHARGES!!!!!

LOCK THEM UP!
LOCK THEM UP!
LOCK THEM UP!

[angrychair]

10. Report is officially buried

The DA is obviously going to do nothing as is made clear in the line:
"potentially hinder her ability to bring charges in the future"

This seems to be the official burial of the Georgia case.

[fightforfreedom]

12. No, you are not reading it right.

[angrychair]

13. It's obvious

We have heard "any day now" literally for years. It literally become it's own joke.
Willis's decision went from "imminent" to "eventually make a decision"
It's burying it like all the other cases. I can't begin to wrap my mind around why but listening to Maddow's 'Ultra' made it clear that rich white people are immune to consequences.

[Fiendish Thingy]

23. Have we?

I’ve been following the investigations as closely as the limited public information will allow, and I haven’t heard anyone connected to any of the various investigations say “any day now” (I ignore any TV lawyers or other pundits who claim to know anything about the state of the investigations).

About 10 days ago, DA Willis opposed the release of the Special Grand Jury report, saying indictment decisions were “imminent”; that timeline has apparently been paused pending resolution of this dispute over what to release from the Special GJ report.

So, it’s clear that your claim

We have heard "any day now" literally for years.

Is not supported by any factual evidence.

[angrychair]

26. The "any day now"

Was about trump cases in general, not the specific Georgia case.
He has managed to escape any legal repercussions for decades.
I now see this Georgia case appears to be no different.

I hope I'm wrong. I don't think I will be.

[Fiendish Thingy]

28. Again, no evidence to support your assertion

Blathering TV lawyers aside, no one in an official capacity in any investigation has claimed Trump would be prosecuted “any day now”.

You just made it up.

If you’re upset that TV lawyers with no inside knowledge of the investigations have been saying “any day now” for years (which ones?), then turn off your TV.

[angrychair]

31. It's interesting

People cling to my use of the phrase "any day now". That was just my words, my was of alluding to Willis's use of the term "eminent" which we now know to be hyperbolic.

I'm not listening to TV lawyers, I'm listening to the statements from the Fulton county DA, NYAG, NYC district attorney and the DOJ. None inspire confidence that anything will ever come of anything.

[Fiendish Thingy]

34. Willis used the term "imminent" 10 days ago

You said “we’ve been hearing ‘any day now’ for years”

From whom?

[Beastly Boy]

27. Please pay attention to the context before taking today's quiz

And now, the quiz:

1. What does Willis' "decision is imminent" statement refer to?

2. What does Willis' "eventually make a decision" statement refer to?

3. Cite an example of any professional prosecutor using the term "any day now".

4. Cite an example of a legal neophyte using the term 'any day now" as a sarcastic remark that completely misses the target.


Bonus question for extra credit: In your own words, describe the difference between 1 and 2 when taken in context.

Second bonus question for extra credit: In your own words, describe the difference between 3 and 4 when taken in context.

[angrychair]

29. Sarcasm and personal attacks

Doesn't change the reality that time after time, no matter if the case is state or federal, trump just walks between the rain drops and avoids accountability. Not just over the last 6 years but at least the last 40 years.
People continue to defend the legal process despite the fact, that when it comes to the wealthy and well connected, they are rarely held accountable.
That said, I recently finished listening to Maddow's 'Ultra' even in the cases in which these people were committing overt crimes and trying to subvert the US government, there were very few criminal consequences to their actions. Many got to continue their lives and behavior to subvert the government for years later.
It is my opinion that is the situation here. These people, including trump, will get to continue subverting and undermining democracy with no real consequences.

[Beastly Boy]

30. This is a defense, not an attack.

And clearly, it is not personal.

It's a test of how accurate your narrative is. Judging by your response, it appears you don't wish to be subjected to this test. While i merely questioned the accuracy of your statements, not your motives or integrity, you are declining to comment on their accuracy altogether. The only personal thing in this exchange is that you are personally confirming my suspicions.

And let's not forget that you are commenting a single very specific application of the legal process. I am defending this specific single application of that process, an I will not be distracted into discussing your general impressions on the subject.

[angrychair]

33. Willis used the term "Eminent"

I used the term "any day now" simply in reference to the use of the term "eminent". Wasn't aware we were in a law school class and I had to be specific and accurate in my terminology. Nor that I was obligated to answer anyone's questions.

Trump has repeatedly escaped consequences and there is absolutely no evidence that will change. I have zero faith the legal system has the stomach to manage these type of cases and history seems to bare that out.

[Beastly Boy]

35. Don't take this as a personal attack, but you are not being consistent.

"We have heard "any day now" literally for years" is the term you used in your past post. It cannot possibly refer to Willis, because she made her statement less than a month ago.

You used the term "imminent" (not eminent, but I am no grammar nazi) from an earlier statement from Willis to compare it to "eventually make a decision", both quotes out of context and without citing references to either, the latter one being of unknown origin. A rather shaky foundation for for making any kind of an argument, especially considering that you later take offense when challenged to verify it. You are not obligated to answer any questions, but your refusal to back up your statements make them, to put it charitably, questionable. It doesn't take a law degree to be specific and accurate.

And once again, I am not biting. I will not be distracted into discussing your faith in the legal system. You keep it, I am not interested in matters of faith when it comes to matters of law.

[angrychair]

36. "Literally for years"

Relates to more than the case out of Fulton county. That is just one piece in a much bigger picture.

Apologize for the word usage, yes "imminent" is the right word.

Willis used the term in late January to Judge McBurney.
Link for full context: https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/politics/fulton-county-trump-grand-jury-hearing/index.html

The "eventually make a decision" was my paraphrasing a line from the article quoted in the OP:

In his ruling, McBurney sided with Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who had argued that releasing the full report to the public would potentially hinder her ability to bring charges in the future.

To be clear if I said "faith" in the judicial system that was a bad choice of words. My opinion is shaped by the history of past judicial proceedings involving trump and his close associates. They seem immune to any consequences for their actions or any dubious actions by Trump going back decades. Time will tell if I'm wrong.

[Beastly Boy]

38. So "any day now" and "literally for years" is not based on Willis' statements.

It is merely part of a wholesale judgement, reflected through the prism of your opinions, which you take for granted. Good to know. This being the case, I acknowledge that this part of your argument, which allows you to pass sweeping conclusions based on anecdotal data, is an impenetrable self-sustaining ecosystem, and I will not use the above terms as evidence of flawed argumentation on your part in addressing just one piece of a bigger picture, which is your views on the Willis matter.

We now agree that "eventually make a decision" is a paraphrase, not a quote. It refers to Willis' argument, which the judge concurred with, that releasing the full report may potentially hinder her ability to bring charges in the future.

A few days earlier, while requesting a judge's ruling, Willis "said that her decision on whether to bring charges is “imminent.” , as per your source.

First statement, in context: her decision on whether to bring charges is “imminent". She is in the process of deciding whether to bring charges, and her decision is imminent. This implies that the decision to file charges has not yet been made, but is close to being made

Second statement, in context: releasing the full report may potentially hinder her ability to bring charges in the future. It implies that the decision has been made, and she is now concerned releasing the report may hinder her ability to bring charges in the future. Not her decision on whether to bring charges, but her ability to actually bring charges.

To a reasonable person, this progression suggests movement from deciding whether to bring charges to intending to bring charges. Furthermore, it suggests that the decision on whether or not to bring charges has been made in favor of bringing charges.

How all of this can possibly be interpreted as "The DA is obviously going to do nothing" is beyond me. It is totally logic-defying.

[Qutzupalotl]

37. Releasing the full report now would have hindered her.

The judge did not. So Willis is not hindered from bringing charges.

[democrank]

11. Good decision

Maybe this will lead to Trump getting a jumpsuit the same color as his face.

[Joinfortmill]

22. ROFL

[Takket]

14. Good. I am concerned drumpf will "insinuate" that some "true patriots"

Should murder people that were witnesses to prevent them from testifying. Those documents need to be kept secret.

[Buns_of_Fire]

15. No, not the *full* report. But if I remember correctly,

they will be releasing the introduction, the conclusion, and one other part that worries that some of the witnesses were lying through their teeth.

This works for me. All I'm really interested in at this point is their conclusion. I probably wouldn't read the fine-point stuff that I probably wouldn't understand anyway. I'll happily let DA Willis work her legal magic on those parts.

[wryter2000]

18. Thank you

I should have read the whole thread before posting.

[Buns_of_Fire]

19. You're welcome. May we both be pleasantly surprised.

[republianmushroom]

16. 24 months and counting

[gab13by13]

20. Nothing should be released,

we have no need to know about an ongoing investigation/prosecution.

I have no problem with Fani, she didn't dilly dally around. I wish that DOJ had run a parallel investigation with her.

[MissMillie]

32. I'm with you on this

I think getting a fair grand jury depends on less information being out there. The more people know in advance, the more the defense can claim jury bias.

(Although, I do believe that there are people out there who are not paying close attention, so I don't think it's impossible to find a grand jury.)

I had hoped Willis would seat a grand jury before any release of anything.

[Joinfortmill]

21. Oh, boy. Tickity, Tockity.

[H2O Man]

24. Recommended.