DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Continued from above...
When witnesses appeared before them, the jurors in the front row were so close they could have reached out and touched them.
One of the jurors described how the 75 witnesses they heard from or were told about fell into three buckets. The first set, who they questioned early on, were generally forthcoming. The second was witnesses who needed to receive subpoenas but were willing to talk. The third was people who clearly did not want to be there and had fought their summons. They were the last witnesses jurors heard from, and many had at least at one point been close to Trump.
“It was like night and day when that second group finished and we got to the third,” the juror said. “The tone in the room completely changed, like overnight.”
Prosecutors generally took the lead on questioning witnesses and recommending who to subpoena, but jurors would step in to ask their own questions. Jurors said prosecutors took pains not to give their opinions, only offering guidance on what was illegal under the law. Several jurors said prosecutors never tipped their hand about who might be charged.
Among the most compelling witnesses, various jurors said, 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 Rudy Giuliani. Another mentioned Eric Coomer, the onetime executive for Dominion Voting Systems, who left his job after being vilified. Also mentioned was Tricia Raffensperger, the wife of Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who broke down when describing the vitriol and threats leveled at her, one juror said.
“I was pretty emotional throughout the whole thing,” a juror said. “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.”
The jurors heard first from Bo Rutledge, dean of the University of Georgia law school and a former clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Rutledge, who appeared under subpoena, explained presidential election law and repeatedly told jurors he was nervous because he didn’t want to make mistakes.
Former. U.S. Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler each testified. Both lost runoff bids which took place as Trump railed against election fraud in the state.
Perdue, a key Trump ally, was asked about a meeting at Truist Park in December 2020, during which he told Gov. Brian Kemp he wanted the legislature to convene a special session to challenge Biden’s victory, a juror said.
One grand juror recalled U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham’s testimony about Trump’s state of mind in the months after the 2020 election.
“He said that during that time, if somebody had told Trump that aliens came down and stole Trump ballots, that Trump would’ve believed it,” the juror said.
Taking the Fifth
Some of the more trying days were when a witness invoked his or her Fifth Amendment right not to answer questions.
“When people would take the Fifth over and over, we could kind of go, ugh” one juror said. “Not because we’re like, oh my gosh you’re guilty, whatever. It was like we’re going to be here all day.”
Two of the jurors estimated that as many as 10 witnesses invoked their Fifth Amendment rights, some doing so even when asked to describe their education. In the prior interview, foreperson Kohrs said high-profile witnesses like Flynn, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and attorney Rudy Giuliani refused to answer some, if not most, of prosecutors’ questions.
On some occasions, when a witness invoked the Fifth, a prosecutor would play video of speeches, TV interviews or testimony the witness had given elsewhere.
“I don’t know if it was like cruelty, but they’re like, if you’re going to take the Fifth, we’re going to watch you,” one of the jurors said.
Another juror said the panel was told repeatedly by prosecutors that they should not perceive someone invoking his or her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination as an admission of guilt.
“They were very passionate about saying: ‘I need you to understand that,” she said.
A notable moment came as prosecutors were questioning a witness who said he possessed additional evidence of election fraud at his office.
“‘I mentioned something like, ‘oh, I’d like to see that.’ One of the DA’s team stood up immediately, left, came back in and he handed a subpoena to the witness still sitting there,” a juror recounted, declining to disclose who the witness was.
At another point, they learned a man babbling about election fraud had appeared on the third floor of the courthouse. He never breached the jury room.
The Trump question
Jurors’ accounts of the proceedings largely aligned with Kohrs’. But one area where they differed involved the jury’s role in the decision not to subpoena or voluntarily ask Trump to testify. One of the male grand jurors pushed back on Kohrs’ use of the collective “we” during her previous interviews.
“I think the president just was one where we chose to focus our energies elsewhere, because it would be more productive in the long run,” Kohrs previously told the AJC.
That statement raised questions among some critics about whether Kohrs had improperly disclosed jury deliberations. But the other jurors told the AJC that the group had never discussed summoning Trump during its deliberations, suggesting it was prosecutors’ decision. In response, Kohrs said in a text that she “trust(ed) their recollection. And honestly with so much we talked about, it’s definitely possible I got it mixed up a bit.”
One of the jurors said he believed the special grand jury already had the information it needed and that Trump had he been summoned would likely have invoked the Fifth Amendment, which he reportedly did more than 400 times when he sat for a deposition last summer with the New York Attorney General’s office.
But the same juror said, “with the benefit of hindsight, we should have sent a voluntary invitation to former President Trump and just invited him.” He said he changed his mind after the Manhattan DA asked Trump to appear before that grand jury investigating hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels.
Jurors said it took them four days to complete their final report, although they noted it had been a work in progress. Prosecutors provided a list of relevant laws, but the jurors said they wrote the report themselves.
When they wrapped up, in mid-December, there was no celebration or fanfare — the jurors simply went home.
On Feb. 1, they gathered at the courthouse again for a mandatory meeting to discuss their “continuing obligations” as jurors. Willis thanked them for their service. McBurney told them they were allowed to publicly discuss witnesses, what prosecutors said and what was in the final report but not the substance of their deliberations.
Prosecutors told the jurors that their notes would be destroyed, an announcement that angered one of the jurors, who had been toying with writing something about his experience. And they promised to send jurors a pen and coffee mug as a mark of their appreciation. Jurors said they’ve received neither so far.
‘It’s gonna be massive’
Looking back, several participants said they were honored to be a small part of history but were glad that they got to do so anonymously.
One juror expressed appreciation for the behind-the-scenes look the group received of Georgia politics and the ballot-counting process. Another indicated he had grown more jaded after it became clear that some witnesses were telling the grand jury one thing about the election under oath and then casting doubt on the system when they returned to the campaign trail, sometimes hours later.
The group said they had no idea what Willis planned to do in response to their recommendations. But many described an increased regard for the elections system and the people who run it.
“I can honestly give a damn of whoever goes to jail, you know, like personally,” one juror said. “I care more about there being more respect in the system for the work that people do to make sure elections are free and fair.”
Said another juror: “I tell my wife if every person in America knew every single word of information we knew, this country would not be divided as it is right now.”
The grand jurors said they understand why the public release of their full final report needs to wait until Willis makes indictment decisions.
“A lot’s gonna come out sooner or later,” one of the jurors said. “And it’s gonna be massive. It’s gonna be massive.”
When witnesses appeared before them, the jurors in the front row were so close they could have reached out and touched them.
One of the jurors described how the 75 witnesses they heard from or were told about fell into three buckets. The first set, who they questioned early on, were generally forthcoming. The second was witnesses who needed to receive subpoenas but were willing to talk. The third was people who clearly did not want to be there and had fought their summons. They were the last witnesses jurors heard from, and many had at least at one point been close to Trump.
“It was like night and day when that second group finished and we got to the third,” the juror said. “The tone in the room completely changed, like overnight.”
Prosecutors generally took the lead on questioning witnesses and recommending who to subpoena, but jurors would step in to ask their own questions. Jurors said prosecutors took pains not to give their opinions, only offering guidance on what was illegal under the law. Several jurors said prosecutors never tipped their hand about who might be charged.
Among the most compelling witnesses, various jurors said, 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 Rudy Giuliani. Another mentioned Eric Coomer, the onetime executive for Dominion Voting Systems, who left his job after being vilified. Also mentioned was Tricia Raffensperger, the wife of Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who broke down when describing the vitriol and threats leveled at her, one juror said.
“I was pretty emotional throughout the whole thing,” a juror said. “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.”
The jurors heard first from Bo Rutledge, dean of the University of Georgia law school and a former clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Rutledge, who appeared under subpoena, explained presidential election law and repeatedly told jurors he was nervous because he didn’t want to make mistakes.
Former. U.S. Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler each testified. Both lost runoff bids which took place as Trump railed against election fraud in the state.
Perdue, a key Trump ally, was asked about a meeting at Truist Park in December 2020, during which he told Gov. Brian Kemp he wanted the legislature to convene a special session to challenge Biden’s victory, a juror said.
One grand juror recalled U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham’s testimony about Trump’s state of mind in the months after the 2020 election.
“He said that during that time, if somebody had told Trump that aliens came down and stole Trump ballots, that Trump would’ve believed it,” the juror said.
Taking the Fifth
Some of the more trying days were when a witness invoked his or her Fifth Amendment right not to answer questions.
“When people would take the Fifth over and over, we could kind of go, ugh” one juror said. “Not because we’re like, oh my gosh you’re guilty, whatever. It was like we’re going to be here all day.”
Two of the jurors estimated that as many as 10 witnesses invoked their Fifth Amendment rights, some doing so even when asked to describe their education. In the prior interview, foreperson Kohrs said high-profile witnesses like Flynn, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and attorney Rudy Giuliani refused to answer some, if not most, of prosecutors’ questions.
On some occasions, when a witness invoked the Fifth, a prosecutor would play video of speeches, TV interviews or testimony the witness had given elsewhere.
“I don’t know if it was like cruelty, but they’re like, if you’re going to take the Fifth, we’re going to watch you,” one of the jurors said.
Another juror said the panel was told repeatedly by prosecutors that they should not perceive someone invoking his or her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination as an admission of guilt.
“They were very passionate about saying: ‘I need you to understand that,” she said.
A notable moment came as prosecutors were questioning a witness who said he possessed additional evidence of election fraud at his office.
“‘I mentioned something like, ‘oh, I’d like to see that.’ One of the DA’s team stood up immediately, left, came back in and he handed a subpoena to the witness still sitting there,” a juror recounted, declining to disclose who the witness was.
At another point, they learned a man babbling about election fraud had appeared on the third floor of the courthouse. He never breached the jury room.
The Trump question
Jurors’ accounts of the proceedings largely aligned with Kohrs’. But one area where they differed involved the jury’s role in the decision not to subpoena or voluntarily ask Trump to testify. One of the male grand jurors pushed back on Kohrs’ use of the collective “we” during her previous interviews.
“I think the president just was one where we chose to focus our energies elsewhere, because it would be more productive in the long run,” Kohrs previously told the AJC.
That statement raised questions among some critics about whether Kohrs had improperly disclosed jury deliberations. But the other jurors told the AJC that the group had never discussed summoning Trump during its deliberations, suggesting it was prosecutors’ decision. In response, Kohrs said in a text that she “trust(ed) their recollection. And honestly with so much we talked about, it’s definitely possible I got it mixed up a bit.”
One of the jurors said he believed the special grand jury already had the information it needed and that Trump had he been summoned would likely have invoked the Fifth Amendment, which he reportedly did more than 400 times when he sat for a deposition last summer with the New York Attorney General’s office.
But the same juror said, “with the benefit of hindsight, we should have sent a voluntary invitation to former President Trump and just invited him.” He said he changed his mind after the Manhattan DA asked Trump to appear before that grand jury investigating hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels.
Jurors said it took them four days to complete their final report, although they noted it had been a work in progress. Prosecutors provided a list of relevant laws, but the jurors said they wrote the report themselves.
When they wrapped up, in mid-December, there was no celebration or fanfare — the jurors simply went home.
On Feb. 1, they gathered at the courthouse again for a mandatory meeting to discuss their “continuing obligations” as jurors. Willis thanked them for their service. McBurney told them they were allowed to publicly discuss witnesses, what prosecutors said and what was in the final report but not the substance of their deliberations.
Prosecutors told the jurors that their notes would be destroyed, an announcement that angered one of the jurors, who had been toying with writing something about his experience. And they promised to send jurors a pen and coffee mug as a mark of their appreciation. Jurors said they’ve received neither so far.
‘It’s gonna be massive’
Looking back, several participants said they were honored to be a small part of history but were glad that they got to do so anonymously.
One juror expressed appreciation for the behind-the-scenes look the group received of Georgia politics and the ballot-counting process. Another indicated he had grown more jaded after it became clear that some witnesses were telling the grand jury one thing about the election under oath and then casting doubt on the system when they returned to the campaign trail, sometimes hours later.
The group said they had no idea what Willis planned to do in response to their recommendations. But many described an increased regard for the elections system and the people who run it.
“I can honestly give a damn of whoever goes to jail, you know, like personally,” one juror said. “I care more about there being more respect in the system for the work that people do to make sure elections are free and fair.”
Said another juror: “I tell my wife if every person in America knew every single word of information we knew, this country would not be divided as it is right now.”
The grand jurors said they understand why the public release of their full final report needs to wait until Willis makes indictment decisions.
“A lot’s gonna come out sooner or later,” one of the jurors said. “And it’s gonna be massive. It’s gonna be massive.”
I'll bet after Donald dies thousands will write him in on their ballots, he will be the new Elvis, he had to fake his death and go into hiding, the deep state has an actor replacing him to hide the humiliation! 
