Fanni Willis Charges Trump Before Georgia Grand Jury Vote; She’s Now Facing Potential Removal

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Another time saving pro-tip.

They could convict Trump before the trial.

Sounds reasonable.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Another time saving pro-tip.

They could convict Trump before the trial.

Sounds reasonable.

That way, they could assemble a jury AFTER the conviction and take their time afterwards.

a reply to: Klassified

What was uploaded yesterday morning was not signed by the foreperson or the judge.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: Klassified

What was uploaded yesterday morning was not signed by the foreperson or the judge.

can you show where this has happened before please.

a reply to: network dude

Technically no, because things like this are usually promptly removed when the clerk realizes they uploaded something they weren't supposed to. However, it's not super uncommon.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: network dude

Technically no, because things like this are usually promptly removed when the clerk realizes they uploaded something they weren't supposed to. However, it's not super uncommon.

Are you a lawyer, or someone working in the courts?

A clerk?

a reply to: DBCowboy
No
It’s a new member from may
B
A
M
N

a reply to: Threadbare
I’m looking for a source for second income, how do I get on the DNC list they pay you to trash these threads with BS?

a reply to: PurpleFox

You're gonna have to take time off. There's a 6 week re education camp you have to complete.

The lobotomy is free and all the kool aid you can drink.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: Klassified

What was uploaded yesterday morning was not signed by the foreperson or the judge.

Interesting. What I saw uploaded first yesterday was signed by the foreperson and dated for the 14th. I will concede that it could have been the later one instead of the first one posted, but it was labeled as the first one posted.

a reply to: Klassified

The one that was uploaded in the morning was taken down almost immediately. As far as I'm aware, Reuters were the only ones that caught it.

I saw someone mention that it wasn't even uploaded to the correct docket. The docket it was uploaded to now belongs to a sexual assault case.

Lol! You think those a….holes would let their Camelot be destroyed by those lesser beings that have destroyed Portland??? Not in DC . They would have the Army in there to sweep them out. They only want that in other cities. They don’t # where they eat. a reply to: greendust

a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm a lawyer but not US qualified though I do find your judicial system a bit baffling. Too politicized for my liking.

I'll just be watching and will see how it all pans out.

Mind you, as a lawyer, when it comes to Rudi, I know an incompetent one that I'd trust as far as I can throw him when I see one.

If he was practicing in England or Wales he'd have been subjected to a few judicial bollockings and would have been struck off years ago. Allegedly.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: network dude

Technically no, because things like this are usually promptly removed when the clerk realizes they uploaded something they weren't supposed to. However, it's not super uncommon.

Are you a lawyer, or someone working in the courts?

A clerk?

The amount of deflection on this leak is comical.
We are supposed to believe that it’s no big deal.

The pertinent point is will Trump's attorneys bring this procedural mistake up, or will they let it slide. Pretty sure it will be brought up and pretty sure it won't make a difference

Fromthe OP's original link

President Trump’s lawyers said of the documents posted online, “This was not a simple administrative mistake.”

“The Fulton County District Attorney’s Office has once again shown that they have no respect for the integrity of the grand jury process. This was not a simple administrative mistake. A proposed indictment should only be in the hands of the District Attorney’s Office, yet it somehow made its way to the clerk’s office and was assigned a case number and a judge before the grand jury even deliberated,” the lawyers wrote.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: network dude

Technically no, because things like this are usually promptly removed when the clerk realizes they uploaded something they weren't supposed to. However, it's not super uncommon.

So where did it happen last, and to whom?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: network dude

Technically no, because things like this are usually promptly removed when the clerk realizes they uploaded something they weren't supposed to. However, it's not super uncommon.

Are you a lawyer, or someone working in the courts?

A clerk?

you have PM

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: network dude

Technically no, because things like this are usually promptly removed when the clerk realizes they uploaded something they weren't supposed to. However, it's not super uncommon.

Are you a lawyer, or someone working in the courts?

A clerk?

you have PM

Thanks for the clarification.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: network dude

Technically no, because things like this are usually promptly removed when the clerk realizes they uploaded something they weren't supposed to. However, it's not super uncommon.

Are you a lawyer, or someone working in the courts?

A clerk?

you have PM

Share with the class?

a reply to: shooterbrody

No It’s a new member from may

really is that who you think that is, i think it's someone that came back after the purge. posting style is the same, makes claims and hardly ever if at all posts anything to support them, and wants to pretend to be a legal scholar.
three guesses who.