Georgia special grand jury recommended charges against 39 people

Link

We are finding out today that the special grand jury in Georgia recommended 39 people be indicted, a whole 20 more than the 19 the prosecutors decided to charge. Among those not charged are Sen. Lindsey Graham, Gen. Michael Flynn, and Senators Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue of Georgia. The list of names was released at the request of the grand jury.

Why were they not charged?

There are many reasons Willis might have chosen not to charge all those recommended, including immunity deals with some, federal protections for others or insufficient evidence to prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Example:

In an interview on a right-wing cable news channel in mid-December 2020, Flynn said Trump “could take military capabilities” and place them in swing states and “basically rerun an election in each of those states.” He also traveled to the South Carolina home of conservative lawyer Lin Wood in November 2020, where Wood has said meetings were held to discuss possible ways to influence the election results in Georgia and elsewhere. The special grand jury also recommended charges for Wood.

Basically, what Flynn did in this case is covered under the 1st Amendment; he said we should do something militarily and he went to talk to someone at their home. He may have been a part of the conspiracy, but he didn't actually tamper in the election. He didn't call anyone and ask for votes or intimidate election workers. He didn't breach any voting equipment. He just made statements.

The prosecutors likely did not want to focus on any of that. This time around.

They are focusing on the core 19 people that actually did things to interfere in the election, as opposed to just exercising their 1st Amendment right to speak. However, it does not mean these other twenty folks are off the hook. They are not in the first batch of indictments, but that does not mean they won't be in the second. There is a limitation as to how long a prosecutor can wait, but with the first trials coming so soon, new charges could be filed immediately after the first trials.

Any of these other twenty who were not charged by the prosecutors should be retaining lawyers right now to discuss their options and their future. If they are not, they are stupid. Lindsey Graham is definitely talking to his lawyers right now regarding what this means for him. Others should as well.

If the first trials go poorly for the defendants, these other twenty should be very concerned. At that point a conspiracy will have been legally established and shorter sentences may be sought for lesser offenses.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney ordered the partial release of the report in February but declined to immediately release the panel’s recommendations on who should or should not be prosecuted. The judge said at the time that he wanted to protect people’s due process rights.

McBurney said in a new order filed Aug. 28 that the due process concerns were moot since a regular grand jury had indicted Trump and 18 other people under the state’s anti-racketeering law. All have pleaded not guilty.

a reply to: Mahogany

Yup...I saw that earlier.
Fanni is definitely an ass, over reaching on quite a few of these. Didn't she campaign on getting Trump regardless?

I"m not voting for Trump (voting Libertarian), but come on ... even I can see that this is ridiculous.

a reply to: Mahogany

All manufactured witch hunts.

Trump hurts you guys 24/7/365.

It’s a mental disorder that you guys should drop everything and seek help for.

It's a Grand Jury. It's run by the Prosecutor. The Jurors only see what the Prosecutor wants them to see in the context that he wants. There's no Defense, rebuttal or any other side presented to them.

It's been weaponized from what it is supposed to be.

There were days where all of the GJ members were not present. They had 24 and only needed a quorum of 16. They were however all allowed to vote.

Is this how it works? Also, there were 24 but there are many where votes were not recorded.

What kind of kangaroo court is this?

Trump is in here for a phone call, an email and saying the Federal Election was a farce. Those are the things that are being used for RICO.

Corrupt as....

a reply to: matafuchs

I'd actually like to see him convicted of it.
Not because I hate Trump, but, because I want to see his appeal.
The TDS afflicted keep trotting out that the Courts threw out all of the lawsuits over election irregularities. That's dead wrong. The lawsuits never made it to Court because the Courts said that the people bringing the lawsuits lack the standing to bring the suit. NO evidence was ever presented, nothing was ever argued before the Court.
If Trump is convicted, all of this can be presented at his appeal. Standing no longer has anything to do with it.

a reply to: JIMC5499

That's not how an appeal works. You can't appeal a case just because you lost. You have to be able to illustrate the was a procedural error or an error in the judge's interpretation of the law.

New witnesses and evidence are not introduced during an appeal.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: JIMC5499

That's not how an appeal works. You can't appeal a case just because you lost. You have to be able to illustrate the was a procedural error or an error in the judge's interpretation of the law.

New witnesses and evidence are not introduced during an appeal.

What????

Complete bullsh!t.

Your credibility is now in negative territory.

a reply to: Threadbare

No. But all of the evidence you DID introduce into your trial can be. So if I am convicted because I said there was election interference, and then i can prove it on appeal, it would be overturned....right?

a reply to: RazorV66

I guess the American Bar Association doesn't know what they're talking about:

An appeal is not a retrial or a new trial of the case. The appeals courts do not usually consider new witnesses or new evidence. Appeals in either civil or criminal cases are usually based on arguments that there were errors in the trial s procedure or errors in the judge's interpretation of the law.

Source

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: RazorV66

I guess the American Bar Association doesn't know what they're talking about:

An appeal is not a retrial or a new trial of the case. The appeals courts do not usually consider new witnesses or new evidence. Appeals in either civil or criminal cases are usually based on arguments that there were errors in the trial s procedure or errors in the judge's interpretation of the law.

Source

Convictions can always be appealed.

Prosecutorial misconduct will be a huge thing to watch for in these cases.

a reply to: RazorV66

A popular misconception is that cases are always appealed. Not often does a losing party have an automatic right of appeal. There usually must be a legal basis for the appeal an alleged material error in the trial not just the fact that the losing party didn t like the verdict.

a reply to: Mahogany

Lindsey Graham is off the hook because a few minutes after he told Capitol Police to shoot the Trump supporters, Ashli Babbitt was dead.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: RazorV66

I guess the American Bar Association doesn't know what they're talking about:

An appeal is not a retrial or a new trial of the case. The appeals courts do not usually consider new witnesses or new evidence. Appeals in either civil or criminal cases are usually based on arguments that there were errors in the trial s procedure or errors in the judge's interpretation of the law.

Source

Anyone can get their case appealed or at the very least, ask for an appeal.
If you think Trump won’t be able to get an appeal with the snap of a finger, you are insane.
He was the president.

If you weren’t happy with the outcome of your trial, there is something you can do: file an appeal. With the help of a knowledgeable lawyer, you could get your sentence reduced or even overturned.

However, an appeal isn’t just a simple do-over. There are rules about who does and doesn’t get an appeal, what questions are considered, and what evidence is admissible during one. Here’s an overview.

speightslaw.com...

a reply to: RazorV66

There are rules about who does and doesn’t get an appeal,

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: RazorV66

There are rules about who does and doesn’t get an appeal,

One more time.

If Trump gets convicted and you think he won’t be allowed to appeal, you are crazy.

a reply to: RazorV66

I never said he would or wouldn't get an appeal. All I said is that you can't appeal just because you didn't like the outcome of your case and that you usually can't enter new evidence in an appeal.

You said I was wrong. I quickly showed that you were in fact the one that was wrong and now you're trying to move the goalposts.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: RazorV66

I never said he would or wouldn't get an appeal. All I said is that you can't appeal just because you didn't like the outcome of your case and that you usually can't enter new evidence in an appeal.

You said I was wrong. I quickly showed that you were in fact the one that was wrong and now you're trying to move the goalposts.

It says it right there in the link I posted on Georgia law.

Any conviction can be appealed, even if you don’t like the outcome.

Will they give everyone an appeal? No

You are moving the goalposts, you said you can’t appeal just because you lost……that is not true.

Cases are appealed all the time hence why they have Appellate courts.

Fulton County will most likely try to give them "The Chair"
Why do you think the good folks of Georgia try their best to avoid that area ?

If California ever does secede from the Union , I hope Fulton County goes with them .