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

[ThisIsMe]

Yes, dumbass, bias based on all the evidence.

My mistake. It should have been “before she recommended indictiments”

 

[Lesh]

Maybe, but they are going to question that, and try to make it look like she was biased from the beginning.

Of course they will but it's bullshit.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Quote her saying who was going to be indicted as well as the rules of that special grand jury

Go back and listen to her first interview, she didn’t come out and say it, but when asked if trump was on the list of indictments, she danced all around it, pointed to it and said “there would be no plot twists”. So, that’s a way of saying “yes” without actually saying the word “yes”.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Of course they will but it's bullshit.

How do you know? Because you hate trump, there’s no possible way she could have been biased before the jury?

It hasn’t even been looked into yet, and already you are denying and making excuses. Maybe we should wait for some facts to come out first?

 

[ThisIsMe]

She doesn't make the decision as to who will be indicted. That's done by the DA and another grand jury. Damn, you're really stupid.

I never said she makes the decision who will be indicted, but the jury makes recommendations as to whom would be indicted.

 

[Lesh]

How do you know? Because you hate trump, there’s no possible way she could have been biased before the jury?

It hasn’t even been looked into yet, and already you are denying and making excuses. Maybe we should wait for some facts to come out first?

Because that's what you folks do. Attack the messenger

 

[Lakhota]

Go back and listen to her first interview, she didn’t come out and say it, but when asked if trump was on the list of indictments, she danced all around it, pointed to it and said “there would be no plot twists”. So, that’s a way of saying “yes” without actually saying the word “yes”.

The judge said she was allowed to say Trump's name - but she didn't. Damn, you people are morons!

 

[Lesh]

Go back and listen to her first interview, she didn’t come out and say it, but when asked if trump was on the list of indictments, she danced all around it, pointed to it and said “there would be no plot twists”. So, that’s a way of saying “yes” without actually saying the word “yes”.

Without saying yes.

So she didn’t say that.

Thank you

 

[Lakhota]

I never said she makes the decision who will be indicted, but the jury makes recommendations as to whom would be indicted.

A "special" grand jury in Georgia only makes indictment recommendations to the DA. Then, the DA decides who s/he wants to indict - and then a different grand jury does or does not indict.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Because that's what you folks do. Attack the messenger

Yeah, politics sucks doesn’t it? People do things to score political points. Am I attacking the messenger here? No, I’m saying that there is an appearance of bias when she gave the interviews, for someone on a grand jury, that might be a problem. They need to investigate to see if she maybe had prior bias against trump, because as far as I’m aware, a jury is not supposed to be biased when making decisions on cases.

 

[Chillicothe]

"They need to investigate to see if she maybe had prior bias against trump, because as far as I’m aware, a jury is not supposed to be biased when making decisions on cases."

I'm quite OK with the judge asking for a face2face with the former foreperson and asking a series of questions based upon transcripts of her interviews.

And, I'm quite OK with the Trump attorneys putting forth her statements as a possible defense issue. That's what defense attorneys are supposed to do.

So, it'll play out it in due time.
I suspect, tho I don't know for sure, that if the woman had said something egregiously wrong.....she'd have been summoned PDQ to meet with either the prosecutors or the judge.
But based on the judge's instructions she has hewed close to the line....but didn't seemingly do anything flagrantly wrong.

I'm speculating this is tempest in a tea-pot. Here today, gone tomorrow.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The judge said she was allowed to say Trump's name - but she didn't. Damn, you people are morons!

No, that’s not it at all. Go back and read the link that was posted, the judge said that any information about recommendations for indictment should remain under seal.

However, that article is all over the place and contradicts itself. In the next paragraph it says “What witnesses said, what you put in your report, those are not off-limits,”

And the goes on to say “
McBurney declined to comment on whether he believed Kohrs crossed a line about what special grand jurors were allowed to divulge during her media appearances.”

And the judge responds to that with “It’s not for me to assess,”

So in one moment, they are saying that what she said should have been under seal, and the next they are saying it wasn’t off limits.

So…what is it? Are they free to discuss…and elude to who was recommended for indictment…or not? Either the judge is being contradictory or the way CNN wrote the article is.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I'm quite OK with the judge asking for a face2face with the former foreperson and asking a series of questions based upon transcripts of her interviews.

And, I'm quite OK with the Trump attorneys putting forth her statements as a possible defense issue. That's what defense attorneys are supposed to do.

So, it'll play out it in due time.
I suspect, tho I don't know for sure, that if the woman had said something egregiously wrong.....she'd have been summoned PDQ to meet with either the prosecutors or the judge.
But based on the judge's instructions she has hewed close to the line....but didn't seemingly do anything flagrantly wrong.

I'm speculating this is tempest in a tea-pot. Here today, gone tomorrow.

Maybe, but it’s not a good idea for someone in a jury or grand jury to go out on tv and make statements that indicate a bias. It raises questions.

 

[Lesh]

Yeah, politics sucks doesn’t it? People do things to score political points. Am I attacking the messenger here? No, I’m saying that there is an appearance of bias when she gave the interviews, for someone on a grand jury, that might be a problem. They need to investigate to see if she maybe had prior bias against trump, because as far as I’m aware, a jury is not supposed to be biased when making decisions on cases.

So you admit the attacks on this woman is just politics.

Like I said

 

[Lesh]

Maybe, but it’s not a good idea for someone in a jury or grand jury to go out on tv and make statements that indicate a bias. It raises questions.

There's always gonna be "questions"

It's bullshit

 

[ThisIsMe]

So you admit the attacks on this woman is just politics.

Like I said

No, you missed the very next sentence.

THAT response was in general that people do things, especially here on USMB, because people want to score points. You talked about attacking the messenger, which is what I responded to.

 

[ThisIsMe]

There's always gonna be "questions"

It's bullshit

Of course in your mind it’s bullshit, because this is a trial against trump. Had this been a grand jury against any democrat, the left would be saying “throw the case out! The jury was biased!”

 

[Chillicothe]

It raises questions.

Yes, it does. Which, if they are serious and sincere questions....by the judge, or the prosecutors....they can be judiciously and thoroughly addressed, and fall what may.

As far as 'questions' from the defense attorneys? Well, then we need be very guarded on their sincerity, their intentions. They have every right to raise 'em.....but, I'd trust the judge's conclusions more than the defense attorneys.

 

[Lesh]

Of course in your mind it’s bullshit, because this is a trial against trump. Had this been a grand jury against any democrat, the left would be saying “throw the case out! The jury was biased!”

Nope

 

[Lesh]

No, you missed the very next sentence.

THAT response was in general that people do things, especially here on USMB, because people want to score points. You talked about attacking the messenger, which is what I responded to.

What? You talk out of both sides of your mouth? Color me shocked