The judge in the "Special Grand Jury" advised jurors that they could talk?

[kentuck]

I heard this on an excerpt of Lawrence's show. If that is true, it is a surprise that more of them have not come forward. The interview by the "forewoman", Emily Kohrs, has created quite a controversy.

Usually, with a "Grand Jury", they are advised not to talk.

However, this was a "special grand jury", with no authority to indict. They were assembled to give "recommendations" to the DA. They were not commanded to remain silent.

If the DA agrees with the recommendations, she will request that a Grand Jury, with the authority to indict, file their charges.

If she decides not to take it to the Grand Jury, then what we have heard from the "Special Grand Jury" is probably all we will get from the Georgia investigation. Very few would expect the investigation to end there.

After two years of investigation, the information from the "forewoman" is the most the public has received since the investigation began, notwithstanding the January 6th Committee. For the general public, it may have seemed like a breath of fresh air.

Soon, we will know who the real Grand Jury is going to indict and the excitement over the "forewoman's" comments will likely subside.

It is imminent.

[Jarqui]

1. There is more than one recording of Trump calling to implore folks in GA

to do something about Trump losing that state.

Link to tweet

His lawyers might make a fuss but the crime is the crime and the evidence is the evidence. The jury writing a report does not change the crime or the evidence of who did it.

[kentuck]

2. I heard Trump say...

"I made two perfect phone calls".

So, you may be right.

[Jarqui]

9. If you check out that link, the woman from the jury reports more than one.

Intent is probably something they have to prove. Those recorded 'perfect' phone calls are almost 'perfect' evidence of intent. The one we heard was bad. More than one ... that's bad news for Trump and his mob.

[getagrip_already]

3. They were issued guidelines on what they could say....

There were guardrails. They couldn't discuss jury deliberations for example, and she didn't.

She also didn't name names. Probably another rule.

She was very general, and really only provided color commentary.

Why did she do it? She was probably the subject of a full court press by the media. They probably told her something would come out, and if you don't get in front of it the media will run over you with it.

But I doubt we will find out until this is far behind us.

The judge hasn't sent out clarifying instructions, so it is likely he is ok with what she said.

[agingdem]

4. I'm beginning to think the definition of "imminent"

has been revised..one month ago D.A. Fani Willis said "decisions are imminent"..."imminent" as in close/near/approaching/immediate..between "imminent" and "not so fast" we got a handful of pages stating the obvious: no voter fraud in the 2020 general election, witnesses may have lied in their testimony..

If the jury foreman wanted to poke Judge McBurney in the eye, she succeeded

[bucolic_frolic]

5. I feel she is trying to ensure the recommendations don't get snuffed

and preparing the public for the inevitable indictments. I doubt she's rogue.

[kentuck]

7. I do think the general public views her much differently than the Mainstream Media.

And I do not think they view her as negatively.

She cracked open the door and people want to see what is behind it.

[bigtree]

6. true

Tamar Hallerman @TamarHallerman 1h (AJC reporter)
Judge McBurney, who oversaw the special grand jury, also clarified what he told jurors they could and couldn’t discuss publicly. No: discussions they had amongst themselves. Yes: things that unfolded when witnesses, prosecutors were in the room https://www.ajc.com/politics/trump-attorneys-special-grand-jury-probe-a-clown-show/ZTR6VUWXGFC2BMOCX6FH6DAPCI/

[Samrob]

8. Is that judge a Trump judge? nt

[emulatorloo]

12. No. He's a Georgia judge. He was first appointed by Gov Nathan Deal in 2012.

Happily Google is still our friend!

https://ballotpedia.org/Robert_C._McBurney

Personally I don’t see anything wrong or ‘Trumpian’ with his instructions as quoted by bigtree. YMMV

[dpibel]

13. Georgia much more likely

https://ballotpedia.org/Robert_C._McBurney

[emulatorloo]

14. Thanks for the correction. Not enough coffee yet! Should not post until after at least 3 cups.

Fixed.

Thanks!

[CanonRay]

10. I believe she never talked about specific people

r specific testimony, so as far as I can see, she didn't violate confidentiality.

[gab13by13]

11. She did nothing wrong.