469

Georgia special grand jury recommended charges in election case for Sen. Graham and 2 ex-senators (apnews.com)

submitted 1 year ago by kescusay@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

51 comments fedilink hide all child comments

And you can read the full report yourself here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23944944-georgia-special-grand-jury-report

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Fapper_McFapper@lemmy.world 81 points 1 year ago

I won’t comment on why these traitors were not indicted. Just want to make sure everyone knows the names of these fucking traitors.

The nine-page report showed jurors recommended charges against 39 number of people, compared to the 18 who were charged along with former President Donald Trump. The names of those not indicted included Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham of Georgia, former U.S. Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue of Georgia and former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn.

[-] there1snospoon@ttrpg.network 57 points 1 year ago

Lindsay Graham is from South Carolina, don’t blame us Georgians for him, we have two Dem senators at the moment.

[-] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

[-] idunnololz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Moneyyy pweeeeeaaasssseeeeeer

[-] Fapper_McFapper@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I copied that text straight from the article. But you are correct.

[-] there1snospoon@ttrpg.network 4 points 1 year ago

What is it with shitty editors in the news nowadays

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] WagesOf@artemis.camp 21 points 1 year ago

Perhaps it's a not indicted yet situation. Once circus at a time?

[-] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago

I think Lindsey has flipped, and several of the others, too.

These prosecutors aren’t fucking around, and these are serious charges. How many people are actually willing to go to prison for trump, who very obviously cares only about himself and will throw even his own family under the bus?

Lindsey famously said if the GOP backed trump, it would be their downfall. He’s not a loyalist, and he’s a proven coward – the exact type of person who would flip on trump.

[-] ZeroCool@feddit.ch 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I agree that it's likely Lindsey Graham may have flipped. I've long suspected Lindsey only fell in line with Trump because he's got dirt on him. The sniveling little weasel did a complete 180° on Trump after going golfing with him at one of Trump's properties. Something happened that turned a vocal Trump critic into one of his biggest cheerleaders in a single afternoon and I highly doubt it was the result of a policy discussion.

[-] MsPenguinette@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

So is there a time limit in which the DA would need to indict before having to go back to a grand jury? Or is this something g that will always sit over their heads as something that could be charged whenever?

[-] Wodge@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

I believe it's 5 years for the statute of limitations on these particular crimes. They have plenty of time. Trump is the focus, and once that trial is either over, or well underway, indictments will come to the remaining unindicted.

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I believe the judge doesn't think further indictments are likely:

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 has indicted Trump and 18 other people under the state’s anti-racketeering law.

If he truly believes that not releasing the names of the unindicted protects their due process rights, then it only makes sense the reason he considers the issue moot now is because they will remain unindicted.

[-] Granite@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

Idk but I see the logic of getting Trump convicted and then it makes it easier to go after the other big fish.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 43 points 1 year ago

Even more fun? Trump's eighteen co-conspirators starting into a legal wood chipper will be telling and telling prosecutors LOTS more about Lapdog Lindsey, Traitor Flynn, Dummy Turdue and Kelli Fluffler that the grand jury didn't yet hear.

The party is just getting started, friends.

[-] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago

Don’t forget, Graham is not just any other senator. He is the ranking republican leader on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Beyond fucked up.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

Why didn't she take that fucker down? Damn it! One of the most evil people in the U.S. government. Truly.

[-] kescusay@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago

Because she's extremely careful, and decided she didn't have enough to make a conviction stick.

Yet.

Give it time. She's an excellent prosecutor, and she's doing her job extremely well. She's going after the people who are easily the most provably guilty first. This is a broad, far-reaching infestation of corruption and treachery, and I think she and Jack Smith are only getting started.

[-] grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

If Trump takes the stand and is under oath, he will say anything he can to shift culpability to others.

[-] Neato@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

Allowing Trump to take the stand is probably the 2nd worse move his lawyers could make. The first is, naturally, being Trump's lawyer.

The odds of Trump perjuring himself is so incredibly high.

[-] minorninth@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Trump can do whatever he wants.

He’s never once listened to his lawyers before. Why would he do so now?

[-] ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yes, but would his credibility (plus the available evidence) be enough to convict someone else, like Graham?

[-] grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure, that's not something I know much about. I do know that utterances under oath can be used to open new investigations and as testimonial evidence in other trials but I'm not sure how that works.

Let's hope?

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] theDoctor@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 1 year ago

So many people don’t get this but it’s extremely important. Jack Smith and Fani Willis have been extremely careful and smart in the charges they have brought. They can add more later. And many think they will. But if you are going after the mob, you better make sure your charges are in order and you have a sure fire case or it will come back to bite you.

[-] Hazor@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

People kept asking why it was taking so long to bring charges at all - this is why. Yes, the crimes are obvious and some were even committed in public view, but if you're going after high level government officials - if you're going after a former president of the United States - you better make sure you have every last detail in order. For crimes of such magnitude, you can't risk the case getting dismissed or overturned based on a frivolous detail or a minor oversight or a technicality. It has to be iron-clad and air-tight, with every 'i' dotted and every 't' crossed.

Trump isn't some common thief or vandal. He's not just a crime boss or a corrupt politician. He's a history-altering, would-be dictator who tried to stage a coup to overthrow our government. There is no room for error.

[-] Bipta@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

It's not just that he's a former president. It's also that he's:

Leader of a cult encompassing tens of millions
Probable Republican nominee in 2024

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It would be a lot more difficult to indict a sitting congressperson on something like this, particularly since these can be a plausible argument that whatever they were doing could have simply falled under their official duties.

I think it's a good move to first go after Trump and the people in his inner circle, because if that conspiracy can be proved in court, it's an easier lift to then go after the Senators and Representatives who aided it, because one jury already found the conduct to be illegal (and thus not protected in any official capacity).

[-] downpunxx@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

complete missed opportunity, probably had something to do with "resources" and "big fish", which to be fair, if I had to choose, gotta take the head off the snake, I don't know if anything stopping her from filing charges at a later date

[-] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I’m calling it now: Lindsey has flipped. He was always a reluctant trumpist, and I suspect his loyalty was based on dirt trump had on him (not just the gay stuff, but paedophelia, which trump’s cabal probably has video evidence of). His statements over the last seven years make sense in that light.

Stuff like that would ruin his reputation, make him unelectable, and may possibly get him a few years in prison if gamed properly, but what the DoJ has on him in Georgia and federally could send him to prison for the rest of his life. He’s a coward, and I can’t see him going to the mat for trump of all people.

This should be interesting.

[-] ohlaph@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Stop, I can only eat so much popcorn.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Stuff like that would ruin his reputation, make him unelectable.

I wish, I hope this is true. But you never know with republicans.

[-] Spacebar@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Statute of limitations runs out in 2026.

Get Trump behind bars and then go after Senator Shifty McWind Blow Graham and the other two ex Senator traitors.

[-] Kerrigor@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

These things can happen at the same time. It's better to sweep up as many at once as possible, versus stringing it out and allowing these dangerous people to continue to rampage through our country's sociopolitical landscape.

[-] Spacebar@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Yes. It would be better, but I'm going to trust the professional Prosecutor on this one.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.one 12 points 1 year ago

Weird that Willis put charges on a couple of the fake electors but not all of them. You'd think that scheme was a communal effort.

[-] Objects@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 1 year ago

May have flipped a couple

[-] kescusay@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Bingo. It's also possible that a few of them were basically tricked into it, and are basically victims, rather than perps.

[-] eran_morad@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Holy shit, if they get Blanche, I'm throwing a party.

[-] BigilusDickilus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Let's not besmirch Blanche Deveroux's good name here.

[-] autotldr 4 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

ATLANTA (AP) — A report released on Friday revealed that a special grand jury investigating efforts to overturn Georgia’s 2020 presidential election results recommended indictments against a much larger group than Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis ultimately charged, including one current and two former U.S. senators.

While most of the intrigue in the inner workings of the case has diminished with the filing of charges, it is notable that the special grand jury recommended many people who were not actually indicted.

The panel spent seven months hearing from some 75 witnesses before completing a report in December with recommendations for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis on charges related to attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

McBurney said in a new order filed Aug. 28 that the due process concerns were moot since a regular grand jury has indicted Trump and 18 other people under the state’s anti-racketeering law.

The parts of the report previously released in February included its introduction and conclusion, as well as a section in which the grand jurors expressed concerns that one or more witnesses may have lied under oath and urged prosecutors to seek charges for perjury.

The panel’s foreperson had said in news interviews that the special grand jurors had recommended that numerous people be indicted.

The original article contains 462 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 53%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments

this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023

469 points (98.2% liked)

politics

19233 readers

2316 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News