Whacky Trump Grand Jury Forechick Goes on TV to Talk about Deliberations

[Lord Long Rod]

So what? She has a right to her beliefs and opinions! Most of us have a "stiffy" for seeing Trump prosecuted.

Right. Who gives a **** about fairness, eh red man?

 

[Lakhota]

The judge clarified what Emily Kohrs could say. She didn't say anything she wasn't allowed to say. In fact - she could have said even more. Go Emily!

BTW, the OP thread title is a lie. Emily Kohrs is not allowed to talk about "deliberations" - and she did not.

 

[BackAgain]

Trump bum kissers wouldn't be parroting Trumpy media if it weren't about Trump.

Shitlip: see if you can cobble another random collection of words together using the word “Trump” a bit more often.

 

[Chillicothe]

She violated GA law,

Which law?
How did she violate it? Specifically.
What little of her I have seen indicated that she was checking notes she took of the judge's instructions for the GJ members....checking them during the interview. She seemed to be motivated to adhere to whatever rules the judge provided.
------------------------------------------------------

She is literally giddy over the thought of Trump facing criminal charges.

Well, I cannot say if her behavior is "giddy". But, it seems clear that after she and her 22 other GJ colleagues listened to the testimony and put eyeballs on the behavior and demeanor of any number of witnesses she seems to have come to the conclusion that some folks need an indictment.
She didn't name who. Nor did she name what they needed an indictment for. Nor who amongst her GJ colleagues said what about who, or voted in any manner whatsoever.

I have no doubt the prosecuting staff wishes she'd just go off to Cancun and get a tan instead of doing a media tour; however, her job ended, what? ....January 9th? So she is free to spout off about her experience provided it does not violate the judge's rules or the law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"What she did is a felony you blabbering liar."

What was the felony? Specifically.
What did she lie about? Specifically.

If you assert it poster MikeTx.....then be able to back up your own words.
It's what adult men do. Responsible men with gravitas and maturity.
I know you know that.

So, do it.
Give us your credible sources that back up your words.

 

[ThisIsMe2]

The judge clarified what Emily Kohrs could say. She didn't say anything she wasn't allowed to say. In fact - she could have said even more. Go Emily!

BTW, the OP thread title is a lie. Emily Kohrs is not allowed to talk about "deliberations" - and she did not.

Weeelllll…kinda yes and kinda no. When asked about if trump was going to be indicted, while she didn’t come out say it directly, she basically tip toed all around it, but up big yellow arrows pointing toward it and did the wink wink nod nod about it…and at the end of it said “there will be no plot twist”. So while she didn’t come out and say it…she did come out and say it…

 

[Lakhota]

Weeelllll…kinda yes and kinda no. When asked about if trump was going to be indicted, while she didn’t come out say it directly, she basically tip toed all around it, but up big yellow arrows pointing toward it and did the wink wink nod nod about it…and at the end of it said “there will be no plot twist”. So while she didn’t come out and say it…she did come out and say it…

Well, smartass, according to what the judge said today - she could have said whether Trump was going to be indicted. She could have named everyone who was going to be indicted. It was also discussed on Lawrence O'Donnell tonight.

 

[ThisIsMe2]

Well, smartass, according to what the judge said today - she could have said whether Trump was going to be indicted. She could have named everyone who was going to be indicted. It was also discussed on Lawrence O'Donnell tonight.

Hmmm, wouldn’t that be talking about the deliberations? If the judge said she could say it, then when asked, why did she not say it? why did she act like it was something she couldn’t say and had to dance around it and give a ‘not so cryptic’ answer. If she was allowed to say it, the she should have said it. Hell, she wouldn’t even come out and say how many people were going to be indicted.

 

[Chillicothe]

She DID NOT say Trump would be indicted, or Mark Meadows, or Rudy Giuliani, or Lindsey Graham.......she fingered not one single individual. She simply said that in her opinion there are people the GJ was investigating that could be indicted.

She did not say who.
She did not say what for.
She did not say which Juror voted which way for which individual.

Sure, the prosecutors wish she wasn't out there talking to the press. They would --naturally --want to control all flow of information, but this kind of stuff happens. It is just one more pothole in legal practice that needs to be routinely addressed when any possible defendant brings it up as an aspect of their defense. Unless she yet says something really egregiously wrong ..... it will probably be just a small hiccup to Fani Willis's team of prosecutors.

And remember this gal is only one of 23 jurors. As the cake bakes, we will likely learn how overwhelming ---or not ---- the vote was to indict any single individual.

Of course, the proof of the pudding will be what does DA Willis bring to judge McBurney's court. We do know from what docs have been released to date that the 23 member GJ stated this:
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.

So, for us, from our perspective, and given the waypoint this legal action is at....well, we can only wait to see what Willis does with that recommendation for perjury charges.

There may be bigger fish about to be fried. Who knows? I don't. And I suspect no one else on this gossipboard does either. Tho I could be mistaken on that.

 

[BlindBoo]

Pretty cringey stuff. Not a good representative of grand juries. And I'd imagine that a prosecuting attorney wouldn't like that performance.

She got a message across without using the specific words that would get her in trouble. Just like the talking heads and propagandist do on both sides of the isle. Be it a bit less polished. What a Peach.

 

[martybegan]

Well, smartass, according to what the judge said today - she could have said whether Trump was going to be indicted. She could have named everyone who was going to be indicted. It was also discussed on Lawrence O'Donnell tonight.

Which just means the Judge is in on this as well.

 

[Lakhota]

Hmmm, wouldn’t that be talking about the deliberations? If the judge said she could say it, then when asked, why did she not say it? why did she act like it was something she couldn’t say and had to dance around it and give a ‘not so cryptic’ answer. If she was allowed to say it, the she should have said it. Hell, she wouldn’t even come out and say how many people were going to be indicted.

Nope, not according to the judge.

 

[martybegan]

Nope, not according to the judge.

The hack judge.

 

[Chillicothe]

Be it a bit less polished. What a Peach.

Yeah, I think BB's observation rings true. Not polished. She's an ordinary citizen, likely never before been intensively interviewed by national reporters. She simply may have seen this as her '15-minutes of fame'...... and grasped that ring, for what it is worth.
Uncomfortable and regrettable, for the prosecutors.....but, at this point, does not appear to be fatal.
It's only a zit on the face of the proceedings. It will pass. In my opinion. Tho, I ain't no lawyer or expert in Grand Juries, or judges, or criminal indictments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which just means the Judge is in on this as well.

Oh, boy!
It doesn't take long for QAnon-think of all things conspiratorial to emerge.
Are we gonna read next from poster Marty that John F. Kennedy, Jr. is pulling the judge's strings?
Or that the judge runs a subterranean pizza joint?

I love this bar.

 

[martybegan]

Yeah, I think BB's observation rings true. Not polished. She's an ordinary citizen, likely never before been intensively interviewed by national reporters. She simply may have seen this as her '15-minutes of fame'...... and grasped that ring, for what it is worth.
Uncomfortable and regrettable, for the prosecutors.....but, at this point, does not appear to be fatal.
It's only a zit on the face of the proceedings. It will pass. In my opinion. Tho, I ain't no lawyer or expert in Grand Juries, or judges, or criminal indictments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, boy!
It doesn't take long for QAnon-think of all things conspiratorial to emerge.
Are we gonna read next from poster Marty that John F. Kennedy, Jr. is pulling the judge's strings?
Or that the judge runs a subterranean pizza joint?

I love this bar.

Another attempt to link valid concerns over the impartiality of the government, including the judiciary with a fringe group.

That's the tactic of a ******* loser.

 

[Chillicothe]

".....concerns over the impartiality of the government, including the judiciary with a fringe group."

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

....Ah, but......but the poster Martybegan, talks like, thinks like, posts like.........one of those RWNJ fringies.

Whether he is or is not, is not for me to say.
Marty himself can explain why he sounds and posts like a MAGA-QAnon-loon.
That's on him.
Not my poor avatar.

 

[martybegan]

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

....Ah, but......but the poster Martybegan, talks like, thinks like, posts like.........one of those RWNJ fringies.

Whether he is or is not, is not for me to say.
Marty himself can explain why he sounds and posts like a MAGA-QAnon-loon.
That's on him.
Not my poor avatar.

Again trying to link justified distrust of a left leaning biased government system with a fringe group.

******* pathetic.

 

[Chillicothe]

"Again trying to link justified distrust of a left leaning biased government..."

Ah, not quite.
Notably, it was the poster Martybegan......who attempted to link the esteemed judge, Robert McBurney, with nefarious and illegal actions and motivations, and the character of a 'hack'. To wit: "The hack judge."......"Which just means the Judge is in on this as well."

And notably, Martybegan did so without one scintilla of evidence, or credible detailing of improper behavior from the bench. It was am egregious and gratuitous cheap-shotting of a judge simply because Marty is unhappy. Simply because Marty is emulating the QAnon-conspiracy-think of too many MAGA-fringies.

So there is that.

 

[wamose]

They look like they were all cloned from the same ass cheek cell.

 

[martybegan]

Ah, not quite.
Notably, it was the poster Martybegan......who attempted to link the esteemed judge, Robert McBurney, with nefarious and illegal actions and motivations, and the character of a 'hack'. To wit: "The hack judge."......"Which just means the Judge is in on this as well."

And notably, Martybegan did so without one scintilla of evidence, or credible detailing of improper behavior from the bench. It was am egregious and gratuitous cheap-shotting of a judge simply because Marty is unhappy. Simply because Marty is emulating the QAnon-conspiracy-think of too many MAGA-fringies.

So there is that.

Stop half quoting me you ******* bastard.

Stop linking me to something I don't support just because you can't argue your way out of a 3 sided box.

You are a dishonest hack.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Stop half quoting me you ******* bastard.

Stop linking me to something I don't support just because you can't argue your way out of a 3 sided box.

You are a dishonest hack.

.

I've had that one in my own personal patented shut-the-****-up cage® for many months. It's not worth the breath it takes to attempt a discussion.

.