“A lot’s gonna come out ... and it's going to be massive" - Fulton County grand juror
Five grand jurors, who had spent eight months weighing testimony in the attempted election rigging case in Georgia, spoke to the Atlanta Constitution Journal. They did not go into much detail, but they painted a memorable picture. As one of the jurors, commenting on the eventual release of their report, said:
“A lot’s gonna come out sooner or later. And it’s gonna be massive. It’s gonna be massive.”
To many, this will be just another false alarm in the one-term ex-President’s interminable legal saga. The various potential criminal cases against Trump have taken an eternity — longer when you add the last two years to the 22 months of the Mueller investigation and the two no-result impeachments of the 2020 election loser. One cannot blame anyone who feels that Trump will once against skate — as he has been doing for 50 years.
This time, however, there is a difference. The commentary is not from a paid media talking head or a hired gun spraying opinions on cable. Instead, it is from someone in the room where it happened. Who was privy to everything the witnesses and lawyers had to say in the grand jury room.
The DA in charge of the case, Fani Willis, promised indictments would be “imminent” — without ever specifying how long “imminent” is. Those expecting an announcement in weeks have been disappointed, as three months have passed since the grand jury ended its session. However, for people interested in seeing justice done, the fact that it has taken this long may be good news.
If the jurors had not recommended indictments, Willis would likely have already said so. She would hurt her reputation by dithering, only to later announce she would take no action. If the jurors had recommended indictments — but Willis did not think there was sufficient evidence to bring a case — why would a juror categorize what will come out as “massive?”
The delay in announcing indictments could be the result of two factors. One, the sheer number of potential defendants — and the fact state RICO charges may be on the table — could mean Wills needs time to get her ducks in a row. Two, when she announced indictments were imminent, her message might have been to the lesser fish that this was their opportunity to cut deals in exchange for testimony — and negotiations are ongoing.
The jurors provided other tea leaves. When asked why they had not called on Trump to testify, one said he believed they already had the information needed - and did not need to listen to Trump invoking the fifth amendment hundreds of times. Yet the same juror also said,
“with the benefit of hindsight, we should have sent a voluntary invitation to former President Trump and just invited him.”
He does not sound like a man who thinks everyone is innocent. If your information points to 'not guilty,' why would hindsight suggest bringing in a witness?
If the jurors agreed people had committed crimes, you have to ask if Trump was involved. The answer lies in the three tapes of him demanding officials find the votes to make him the winner. Trump can not claim people were doing things without his knowledge.
Two jurors said that as many as ten witnesses invoked their Fifth Amendment rights, some doing so even when asked to describe their education. While that does not legally indicate guilt, it does suggest somebody had committed crimes.
Jurors added that, when a witness took the Fifth, the prosecutors would often play video of them making speeches or TV appearances, which provided at least a partial response to the questions they refused to answer.
Very telling is the reaction to the testimony of rank-and-file election officials. Among the most compelling witnesses were Fulton County poll workers Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss, who had received death threats after being singled out by Trump and his then-attorney Giuliani.
One juror said:
“I was pretty emotional throughout the whole thing. I wouldn’t cry in front of any of the witnesses, but when I would get in my car, I was like, I just left that and I have to just go do my job now?…. I just know things that are hard to know.”
What could be “hard to know?” Presumably, not innocence. If the evidence had shown no attempted election rigging, the juror would not have been rendered so distraught by the attacks. Her emotional rawness strongly suggests that she thought these two women, simply doing their job, were unfairly targeted because the crimes were real.
Another juror described how the 75 witnesses belonged to one of three groups — those who testified voluntarily, those who had to be subpoenaed but were willing to talk, and those who did not want to be there and had fought their summons.
“It was like night and day when that second group finished, and we got to the third. The tone in the room completely changed, like overnight.”
Again, this does not point to innocence.
Fani Willis is also not the Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg. He famously slow-pedaled his fraud case against Trump and the Trump organization by saying he would not authorize indictments. He claimed he had insufficient evidence Trump and others were screwing over banks and insurance companies with false valuations of the organization's assets. This foot-dragging was so egregious two of his top prosecutors resigned.
There has been no such friction in Willis’ office — not even any off-the-record kvetching. Her team appears to be on the same page and proceeding apace.
Of all Trump’s legal challenges, I think the Stormy Daniels case is a yawner — even if found guilty, he will not serve jail time. The January 6 case will take years. There is a ton of evidence, but prosecutors will need time to tie it all together and prove Trump’s state of mind.
I do not know why we have not heard anything recently about the stolen classified documents case. Trump’s guilt is clear-cut. However, I bet the discovery of Biden and Pence’s sloppy paperwork practices has muddied the waters. Not legally, Trump’s bad acts were deliberate and ongoing, and he lied about it — but politically. And that could lead to reasonable doubt.
I think indictments will arise from the Georgia case. The recordings alone are damning. And I sense that the jurors have recommenced legal action against many people. At one point, the Jury’s foreperson, Emily Kohrs, appeared to be giving the defense material to work with. However, that has died down, and she seems to have done no damage.
The other jurors referred to Kohrs' smug “I know something, you don’t know” attitude — and one set the record straight.
“I just felt like we, as a group, were portrayed as not serious. That really bothered me because that’s not how I felt. I took it very seriously. I showed up, did what I was supposed to do, did not do what I was asked not to do, you know?”
One of the strengths of the American criminal justice system is juries — both grand and petit. Anyone who has ever been on one knows that when judging another person’s guilt or innocence, they take the job incredibly seriously — just as this grand jury has done.
Fingers crossed.