'Decisions are imminent' on charges in Trump's effort to overturn 2020 election in Georgia

[BumRushDaShow]

Last edited Tue Jan 24, 2023, 03:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: CNN Politics

CNN — Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis suggested Tuesday that the special grand jury investigating Donald Trump and his allies’ efforts to upend the 2020 election in Georgia has recommended multiple indictments and said that her decision on whether to bring charges is “imminent.”

A hearing is underway in an Atlanta courtroom on whether to publicly release the special grand jury report. Willis, a Democrat, opposes the release, citing her ongoing deliberations on charges. “Decisions are imminent,” Willis told Judge Robert McBurney. “We want to make sure that everyone is treated fairly, and we think for future defendants to be treated fairly it’s not appropriate at this time to have this report released,” she said.

The special grand jury, barred from issuing indictments, penned the highly anticipated final report as a culmination of its seven months of work, which included interviewing witnesses from Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani.

Its final report is likely to include some summary of the panel’s investigative work, as well as any recommendations for indictments and the alleged conduct that led the panel to its conclusions. Donald Wakeford, Fulton County’s chief senior assistant district attorney, also argued to the judge that it would be “dangerous” to release the report before any announcement related to possible charges is made.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/politics/fulton-county-trump-grand-jury-hearing/index.html

---

Full headline: ‘Decisions are imminent’ on charges in Trump’s effort to overturn 2020 election in Georgia, Fulton County DA says

Article updated.

Original article -

CNN — Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis suggested Tuesday that the special grand jury investigating Donald Trump and his allies’ efforts to upend the 2020 election in Georgia has recommended multiple indictments and said that her decision on whether to bring charges is “imminent.”

A hearing is underway in an Atlanta courtroom on whether to publicly release the special grand jury report. Willis opposes the release, citing her ongoing deliberations on charges. “Decisions are imminent,” Willis said.

The special grand jury, barred from issuing indictments, penned the highly anticipated final report as a culmination of its seven months of work, which included interviewing witnesses from Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani.

Its final report is likely to include some summary of the panel’s investigative work, as well as any recommendations for indictments and the alleged conduct that led the panel to its conclusions.

[Botany]

1. "has recommended multiple indictments and her decision on whether to bring charges is imminent."

Don't tease me just do it.

[RKP5637]

2. K&R!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

4. I'm guessing that is the equivalent to a

"2 minute warning" to the media to be "ready" (for whatever they decide).

As a note - this special grand jury can't "indict". The D.A. can decide to hand selected info associated with the case put together by that special grand jury, over to a regular grand jury to review.

[LiberalLovinLug]

40. As always....I'll have to see it to believe it.

[DENVERPOPS]

3. I apologize for my legal ignorance

but isn't this somewhat an exercise in futility, due to the fact that any decision of guilty would be appealed all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Serious question to legal scholars......................After both Trump's impeachments being overturned by the Senate, I wonder if this wouldn't be much the same when/if it reached the supreme court........

[BumRushDaShow]

6. This case is being handled by a county in the state of Georgia

NOT by a federal prosecutor.

So "states rights" and all, which is why the SCOTUS had waived away all those whining lawsuits from the Kraken crew and their minions like Graham, who were being told to testify in GA. Those SCOTUS rejections gave them no other recourse and forced the sea monsters to testify.

This is for violation of GA state law.

[former9thward]

32. A state criminal case can certainly go to the US SC.

Almost every criminal case has federal issues state law or not.

[BumRushDaShow]

36. I didn't say it couldn't

But what I DID say was that when these types of things HAVE gone there, they were waved away.

This is what I posted -

which is why the SCOTUS had waived away all those whining lawsuits from the Kraken crew and their minions like Graham, who were being told to testify in GA. Those SCOTUS rejections gave them no other recourse and forced the sea monsters to testify.

It happened many times where in PA for the same types of nonsense from the loons here trying to throw out our election law (Act-77) that the GOP here WROTE and almost unanimously voted for (save for 1 member), and then who suddenly didn't want it anymore, and instead wanted to declare it "unconstitutional" so they could throw out our votes, and overturn our electoral count.

There were over 60 cases filed (64 per this), some state and some federal, and all but one that THEY lost, a couple being appeals of the PA State Supreme Court decisions eventually taken to the SCOTUS. A good list is here - https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/politics/elections/2021/01/06/trumps-failed-efforts-overturn-election-numbers/4130307001/

By the numbers: President Donald Trump's failed efforts to overturn the election

William Cummings, Joey Garrison and Jim Sergent USA TODAY
Published 5:01 AM EST Jan. 6, 2021 Updated 10:50 AM EST Jan. 6, 2021

(snip)

The U.S. Supreme Court twice refused to take up Trump-endorsed lawsuits that sought to overturn the results of the Nov. 3 election.

In a one-sentence denial, the Supreme Court on Dec. 8 rejected a request from Pennsylvania Republicans that sought to overturn Biden's win in the state. The challenge, led Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., claimed that the Republican-led state legislature's expansion of absentee voting violated the state's constitution.

Three days later, the Supreme Court refused to let Texas challenge the election results in four battleground states critical to Trump's defeat. The court said Texas did not demonstrate "a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections."

(snip)

[getagrip_already]

8. No, and no....

First, the impeachments weren't overturned. The impeachment was by the house and stands. The senate didn't convict, but that is not overturning.

And scotus has yet to rule in tfgs favor on the matter of the law wrt to him personally.

So no reason to believe they will carve out any exceptions for him now.

[DENVERPOPS]

14. Thx for the info nc

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. Your advice boils down to: Give up, hand the keys to the Authoritarians, go home. No, no, no. . nt

[DENVERPOPS]

13. I posed a sincere legal question

I did not give advice............sorry if you interpreted it that way..........

[Bernardo de La Paz]

15. You called the effort futile. Are you now saying you routinely advise people to do futile things?

Calling it FUTILE is you advising people to drop it. If that is not your advice, then write clearly.

As to your "legal question", even tRump has appealed all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. So, no, your premise is bogus. Just because appeals all the way to the SC are possible does NOT make it FUTILE.

[secondwind]

17. Take it easy, big fella! We are all good people in here.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. Yes. But nonsense needs to be stepped on or it propagates. . . . . nt

[Orrex]

21. No one appointed you the gatekeeper for nonsense

Nor have you demonstrated any qualifications that make you particularly suited to the role.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

24. I'm not gatekeeping. Nothing I posted said they can't post. I call it nonsense. Poster doesn't

It's called discussion.

Calling premises and conclusions nonsense does not prevent people from writing nonsense. They continue to be as free as ever to post nonsense, restrained only by the amount of effective thought they apply.

[Orrex]

27. Right.

Brow-beating and condescension are the hallmarks of respectful discussion, as are the disingenuous cries of “what did I do?” when called out for them.

I don’t know if it’s insulting or simply sad that you think that no one can see through the shtick.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

30. You mischaracterize me again

I wrote nothing that could be construed as "what did I do?".

I know what I did. I picked up the poster's response to the OP and called that response essentially nonsense. If people think that is "browbeating" and are disturbed by condescension, what are they doing on public forums?

You can call it browbeating if you like, but the poster did not deal with the issue and neither are you. You and they seem more interested in attacking my writing than the points.

I wrote:

As to your "legal question", even tRump has appealed all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. So, no, your premise is bogus. Just because appeals all the way to the SC are possible does NOT make it FUTILE.

[DENVERPOPS]

20. Thank you

I am not formally educated, and I was truly just asking a question trying to made sense of it all.................

I have been screaming my head off from the roof tops since a few months before HW and friends corruptly appointed Reagan.......
Obviously, I am not the type person to just "give up"..........just trying to continue to understand this entire conflagration of bull shit we have been seeing out of the Republicans, esp for these past 6+ years...........

AND given what the USSC did, in spite of the constitution, and lacking any legal authority what-so-ever, to throw the 2000 election to W, even the "supreme rulers of the land" they are wide open as far as how they will decide on anything.

I apologize for all the fracas, I felt I was merely asking a question..............

[Orrex]

19. You are complaining that someone has asked a reasonable question

The poster isn’t proposing that we hand the keys to authoritarians; that’s your deliberate mischaracterization of the question so that you can fell justified in scolding the poster, rather than considering the very real and legitimate concern that Trump will appeal for years any decision against him, and it’s likely that he’ll remain free in the meantime.

Why is it important to you (and to people like you) to make others feel stupid simply for asking questions that do not meet with your vaunted approval? If you find such questions so intolerable—for whatever reason—you can simply ignore the question.


Your opinion carries absolutely no more weight than that of the person who asked the question, nor anyone else’s.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

26. "Your opinion carries absolutely no more weight". You are correct. But you contradict yourself

You contradict your own statement when you in another post accuse me of "gatekeeping".

Your two statements are fighting each other.

Poster also wrote it is "futile". People usually strongly advise against doing futile things. So it was not a mischaracterization on my part.

[Orrex]

29. The poster wasn't issuing a formal treatise

The poster was expressing reasonable anxiety and frustration, not to to be taken as a literal writ of action. You then took it upon yourself, as you often do, to scold the poster for having opinions and a mode of expression that differ from yours.

I know the routine, and sadly it’s not unique to you.

Keep on scolding, if that’s what gives you a special feeling, but don’t pretend innocence when people call you out for it. It lacks sincerity.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

31. Neither was I issuing a formal treatise. I don't have to and neither do they. :eyes:

I was not scolding the poster for having opinions. Again you mischaracterize my writing.

I was scolding the poster's opinion. It think it is nonsense to call charging and prosecuting tRump "futile" (poster's words). That was his opinion that I was scolding.

[Karma13612]

44. Why are you scolding at all?

That isn’t what we do here. We share opinions, ask questions, debate and even comfort.

Scolding belongs nowhere.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

45. I shared my opinion of the poster's opinion. That's debate. I scolded their opinion for nonsense

Their opinion was anti-democratic. They used the word futile, saying that embarking on the process of charging tRump was FUTILE.

That's not comforting, it's not true, it's defeatist. That opinion deserved to be scolded. They are free to post their opinion, and I'm free to post a counter-opinion.

At no time did I impugn their person, unlike those scolding me personally. Further, I responded directly to user's question:

As to your "legal question", even tRump has appealed all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. So, no, your premise is bogus. Just because appeals all the way to the SC are possible does NOT make it FUTILE.

But you haven't. Four posters also responded directly to the poster, essentially agreeing with me with posts like "No and no" and one singled out the use of the word "futile".

But you and Orrex haven't.

[GB_RN]

38. Impeachments Can't Be Overturned...

Several reasons: 1) there's no mechanism for it in the Constitution; 2) impeachments are political events and not civil/criminal events, and thus 3) outside the purview of the US Court system.

Any "charges" brought by the House of Representatives - aka, "high crimes and misdemeanors", as mentioned in the Constitution - aren't necessarily crimes. To paraphrase Gerald Ford, they are whatever 218 members of the House of Representatives say they are.

Conviction in the Senate, again, is merely a political event, and only results in removal from office - and possibly a lifetime ban from ever serving again.

[Fiendish Thingy]

41. No, it wouldn't be futile

And comparing a state prosecution to impeachment is apples to oranges.

Remember, every time A case with Trump as a named party has come before the current SCOTUS, they have ruled against him.

[Skittles]

43. thank you

I too very much appreciate it when DU's legal eagles chime in, the law confuses me greatly; yes INDEED

[MOMFUDSKI]

5. Saw a blip on the TV machine that

she wants docs kept under seal for now. WHA???

[Bernardo de La Paz]

10. Read the OP. They must be kept sealed because charging decisions are being made. . . nt

[BumRushDaShow]

11. Am wondering

if there might be a timing issue because of all the old rumors of "something happening" from Jack Smith some time in February or March or whatever.

This is all speculation.

I know there are multiple elections-related cases going on simultaneously - both federal and state (GA, AZ & CO), and involving many of the same "players".

[ancianita]

22. Yeah, Smith and Willis

might be deciding the best way to handle the fake electors cases, since he's been aggressively getting documents, issuing subpoenas, etc., from across states, re the federal level fraud, as well.

I don't know, but maybe if she's going by GA law, they could be issuing different charges, and then logistics around each jurisdiction's due process, etc.

[getagrip_already]

12. She doesn't want the evidence to leak to defendents yet...

Her stated reason was to not violate the rights of future defendants.

She doesn't want them to know what she has yet. That will come in a controlled way via indictment I suspect.

[former9thward]

34. Possible defendants know what she has.

Everyone, including witnesses, have lawyers. Lawyers talk to one another. The only ones who don't know what she has are the general public.

[Justice matters.]

16. She has to present the case(s) to a regular Grand Jury and ask them to vote to indict.

Today's report is from a specific Georgia Special Grand Jury that can only recommend indictments, not actually vote on them.

She wants to keep their recommendations to indict secret to give her time to present the evidence to a regular GJ.

[trusty elf]

7. .......

[FredGarvin]

23. Some are saying that really big fines

might be levied.

No one is going to jail.

[FakeNoose]

35. Yes but a criminal conviction is the important thing

If Chump is convicted of this crime, it's almost certainly the end of his sad/nasty/pathetic political career. He'll be forced to end his grifting because he won't be able to run for president any more.

If he's convicted in Georgia and he doesn't go to prison, does it really matter? The federal government - Dept. of Justice - is already making plans for Chump's future. There will be many warrants, trials, convictions and sentences and it really won't matter what happens in Georgia. As long as he's convicted, that is.

Big fines are OK too, it means he'll have less money to pay his lawyers. Pretty soon there will be no lawyers left in the country who will take his cases.

[Scrivener7]

42. A President tried to overturn an election and he gets fined? If anyone is going

to hold tfg's feet to the fire it is Willis and/or Tish James.

If this turns out to be just fines, that will be a terrible outcome.

[ancianita]

25. Wonder if by "imminent" she means in a few days, after a regular grand jury

examines the special grand jury's report.

[republianmushroom]

28. like it

24 months and counting

[onetexan]

33. Ditto. Make it imminent as in today. Im dyin' from old age having to wait here

[phoenix75]

37. Me too!

[ificandream]

39. I'm glad she's hinting at it ...

She's letting Donnie twist in the wind...