Fulton County Grand Jury Was Totally Unhinged, Reveals Election Lawyer

[RhodyPatriot]

They're all unhinged.

Every last one of 'em.

 

[PeanutGallery]

So what you're saying is that men shouldn't be allowed to make laws which affect only women's lives, like say, Abortion laws???? I'd be good with that.

When Roe v. Wade was passed in the USSC, there wasn't a woman juror at the time. Sandra Day O'Conner was years away from getting confirmed. So, are you saying that those men shouldn't have been allowed to rule on that case?

 

[Esdraelon]

Wasn't she on that call too? That Cleta? Nothing partisan about her opinion........

There is no credible dispute about the existence of the precedent for contesting elections and the measures that are taken to legally contest the vote. It's been done several times in our history. The most likely situation here is that most or all of these defendants will be found guilty in Ga. and the cases overturned on appeal. Of course, that appeal will take place after the election but the efficacy of this smear campaign is becoming less and less, the more obvious the corruption of the Left becomes to the people.

 

[The Duke]

Looks unhinged to me.

WYEHO?

 

[The Duke]

When Roe v. Wade was passed in the USSC, there wasn't a woman juror at the time. Sandra Day O'Conner was years away from getting confirmed. So, are you saying that those men shouldn't have been allowed to rule on that case?

It doesn't affect her Canuck ass anyhow, FYI. I'm sure Castro Jr. lets wimmens kill all the babies they want to in Canuckia.

 

[PeanutGallery]

It doesn't affect her Canuck ass anyhow, FYI. I'm sure Castro Jr. lets wimmens kill all the babies they want to in Canuckia.

Oh, she's Canadian?!? Then in that case, stay in your lane.

 

[BackAgain]

The Federalist??? William F. Buckley is rolling in his grave over what they've done to his newspaper.

• Overall, we rate The Federalist Questionable and far-Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that always favor the right and promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and numerous failed fact checks.

The Federalist - Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Lol

Media bias faux check.

 

[BlindBoo]

the precedent for contesting elections

Is done by the individual states. By Jan 2 when the desperate phone call was placed, all the states had certified their elections, the EC had voted and already sealed the Dirty Don loss. There were no open cases or valid disputes (in court) in any of the swing states when the EC voted, unlike 1960.

The Qult is strong and his followers are willing to destroy the American experiment based on nothing but the known lies of a known liar.

 

[The Duke]

Is done by the individual states. By Jan 2 when the desperate phone call was placed, all the states had certified their elections, the EC had voted and already sealed the Dirty Don loss. There were no open cases or valid disputes (in court) in any of the swing states when the EC voted, unlike 1960.

The Qult is strong and his followers are willing to destroy the American experiment based on nothing but the known lies of a known liar.

Trump could be saying "I lost fair and square" and I still would know that election was all kinds of frauded.

C'mon man, they started trying to rig the next election in January of 2017 and never stopped.

TIP , National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, ballot harvewsting, same-day registrations..

You telling me Democrats magically stopped trying to cheat the election in November of 2020?

No. Just the opposite. They went all out to install a pedo potato.

 

[airplanemechanic]

The article in the Federalist has a lot of good information 1st hand from a would be defendant. She explains how the jury forewoman did not understand what she was reading. She also shined a light on the anti-Trump bias of the jurors. Why do you reject real information?

Dude, it's how shallow liberals are. They don't read the OP, they don't read the article, they read the title and if they don't like it, they check the source. THAT'S IT. Then if it's one they don't like, they attack the source and leave.

I posted an article from a source they didn't like a few days ago. WITHIN that article, was the direct link to the BLS data that the article derived its information from. Liberals said it was a biased source. So I said ok, and posted a link DIRECTLY to the BLS website stating EXACTLY what the article did. What did I hear after that?

Crickets.

Liberals are fucking scum.

 

[WEATHER53]

That's what it's suppose to mean by "jury of your peers."

Instead it’s jury of those most willing to indict

 

[BackAgain]

Is done by the individual states. By Jan 2 when the desperate phone call was placed, all the states had certified their elections, the EC had voted and already sealed the Dirty Don loss. There were no open cases or valid disputes (in court) in any of the swing states when the EC voted, unlike 1960.

The Qult is strong and his followers are willing to destroy the American experiment based on nothing but the known lies of a known liar.

Even assuming your premises are all true, your rancid ass conclusion doesn’t follow, you hack.

 

[BlindBoo]

Even assuming your premises are all true, your rancid ass conclusion doesn’t follow, you hack.

Feel better? It was fun though, listening to a Republican debunk every single one of that Orange Fucks lies about the Ga vote, a Republican!

 

[BackAgain]

Feel better? It was fun though, listening to a Republican debunk every single one of that Orange Fucks lies about the Ga vote, a Republican!

Wtf are you babbling about?

 

[Marener]

Dude, it's how shallow liberals are. They don't read the OP, they don't read the article, they read the title and if they don't like it, they check the source. THAT'S IT. Then if it's one they don't like, they attack the source and leave.

I posted an article from a source they didn't like a few days ago. WITHIN that article, was the direct link to the BLS data that the article derived its information from. Liberals said it was a biased source. So I said ok, and posted a link DIRECTLY to the BLS website stating EXACTLY what the article did. What did I hear after that?

Crickets.

Liberals are fucking scum.

I mean, Cleta is not a good source to take too seriously.

But in the end, she wasn’t even indicted so I don’t know what she’s even complaining about.

But bonus points to the article for trying to claim that there’s nothing wrong with fake electors. Hawaii in 1960 is a totally different circumstance and does not apply to Trump’s fraud.

 

[Chillicothe]

Per the Federalist: "It was a surreal experience,” attorney and election-law expert Cleta Mitchell told The Federalist,.....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cleta Mitchell?
It is the Cleta Mitchell who is complaining on how she was questioned in front of the grand jury?

Is it the very same Cleta Mitchell who was there in the room advising Don Trump when he was making that notorious call to Raffensberg? And was in on the conversation?

THAT Cleta Mitchell?

One would think that as a lawyer she would have spoken up or at least held her hands up for a “time out”…….and then advised her client to be very very careful on what and how he is speaking in this situation.
It could look and smell like election interference by going through this state official who oversees elections and asking him "to find" votes.....or he could be in legal trouble. Ala' "You know what they did and you’re not reporting it,” Trump said. “You know, that’s a criminal offence. And you know, you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you...... That’s a big risk.”

But alas, she didn’t.

And she got fired by her real day-job partners.


“A volunteer lawyer for President Donald Trump’s campaign has resigned her position as a partner at the law firm Foley & Lardner after her involvement in the explosive conference call between Georgia’s secretary of state and Trump was made public. Cleta Mitchell wrote in a statement to Insider, “I have decided that it is in both of our interests that I leave the firm.” Mitchell aided the president in pressuring the Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to overturn the state’s election results in the Jan. 2 phone call, and she previously described her role as a “volunteer” for the Trump campaign in its longshot and fact-free efforts to overturn the election. In a statement released Monday, her firm said, “Foley & Lardner LLP is not representing any parties seeking to contest the results of the presidential election...We are aware of, and are concerned by, Ms. Mitchell’s participation in the January 2 conference call.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, color me skeptical that the notorious Cleta Mitchell ain't got an axe to grind.

IMHO

 

[bripat9643]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cleta Mitchell?
It is the Cleta Mitchell who is complaining on how she was questioned in front of the grand jury?

Is it the very same Cleta Mitchell who was there in the room advising Don Trump when he was making that notorious call to Raffensberg? And was in on the conversation?

THAT Cleta Mitchell?

One would think that as a lawyer she would have spoken up or at least held her hands up for a “time out”…….and then advised her client to be very very careful on what and how he is speaking in this situation.
It could look and smell like election interference by going through this state official who oversees elections and asking him "to find" votes.....or he could be in legal trouble. Ala' "You know what they did and you’re not reporting it,” Trump said. “You know, that’s a criminal offence. And you know, you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you...... That’s a big risk.”

But alas, she didn’t.

And she got fired by her real day-job partners.


“A volunteer lawyer for President Donald Trump’s campaign has resigned her position as a partner at the law firm Foley & Lardner after her involvement in the explosive conference call between Georgia’s secretary of state and Trump was made public. Cleta Mitchell wrote in a statement to Insider, “I have decided that it is in both of our interests that I leave the firm.” Mitchell aided the president in pressuring the Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to overturn the state’s election results in the Jan. 2 phone call, and she previously described her role as a “volunteer” for the Trump campaign in its longshot and fact-free efforts to overturn the election. In a statement released Monday, her firm said, “Foley & Lardner LLP is not representing any parties seeking to contest the results of the presidential election...We are aware of, and are concerned by, Ms. Mitchell’s participation in the January 2 conference call.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, color me skeptical that the notorious Cleta Mitchell ain't got an axe to grind.

IMHO

No one believed the democrat party was as looby as they are,

 

[Dragonlady]

Would that rule of yours apply to male fetuses as well? (eye roll)

You zygotes are female at conception.

Some biology of sexuality - PubMed

Some biology of sexuality

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[BluesLegend]

Meh, it's just another Dem WITCH HUNT. This makes you want to drive Democrats from our lands and send them into exile doesn't it.

 

[MinTrut]

Rumors of this were coming out even before their decision was announced. They were exactly the jury that Fani wanted.

https://thefederalist.com/2023/09/11/fulton-county-grand-jury-was-totally-unhinged-reveals-election-lawyer/​

​

It was a surreal experience,” attorney and election-law expert Cleta Mitchell told The Federalist, referring to the hours-long questioning she faced when called before the Fulton County special purpose grand jury.​

​

“I knew coming out of there that the whole thing was a loose cannon,” Mitchell said, adding that “they were definitely going to recommend indicting basically all the Trump allies — it was a completely political situation — nothing to do with the law. NOTHING.”​

​

With Friday’s release of the grand jury’s final report, Mitchell, who had represented former President Trump in his challenge to the Georgia 2020 election, is now speaking out. The report confirms Mitchell’s intuition: The grand jury recommended District Attorney Fani Willis charge a total of 39 people — “basically all the Trump allies” — not merely the 19 individuals the get-Trump prosecutor eventually indicted. The large number includes Sen. Lindsey Graham and former Republican Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, both of Georgia. Like Graham, Perdue, and Loeffler, Mitchell was recommended for charges but not named in the sprawling RICO indictment handed down last month.​

​

Now that the report is “all out in the open,” Mitchell is sharing some details of her experience, and they reveal just how unhinged from reality the special purpose grand jury — or at least its forewoman, Emily Kohrs — was.​

​

Mitchell explained to The Federalist that when testifying, she had taken with her copies of the election-contest complaint and the memorandum of law filed with the court in support of that complaint. “At some point, the chairwoman that you’ve seen on TV,” a reference to Kohrs who had made the media rounds shortly after the special purpose grand jury disbanded, “asked me what I had in my hands,” Mitchell explained.​

Lawfare.