No. If she didn’t have indictments coming, she would have no basis for opposing the report’s unsealing, and the judge would know she’s trying to cover up her failure.
28 Likes
Looking forward to Trump’s projection filled response
4 Likes
Let’s get this party started quickly…
4 Likes
.
2 Likes
Could be interesting reading; what is important is not which witnesses lied, but rather for whom they lied. Perhaps that information will be provided.
8 Likes
He’s not going to have a response, or at least not much of one, to what’s getting unsealed on Thursday. The only three parts the court is unsealing are:
- The introduction, i.e., “We were convened to investigate some stuff.”
- Part XIII, i.e., “We think some of the witnesses lied to us, but we’re not naming them.”
- The conclusion, i.e., “So we recommend charges against the people identified above (but again, no names in this part).”
29 Likes
And that eventually landed Haldeman and Ehrichman’s asses in jail.
4 Likes
Just indict the muthaf*ckers!
1 Like
The judge added that the report does not name any of those suspected of lying to the grand jury.
I am willing to hazard a guess as to those who probably did lie.
9 Likes
If this all proves to have been a big tease and no significant indictments ensue Willis will have thrown away her future. Which is why I think she will go for it.
3 Likes
If she totally crapped out, it’s unlikely she would have asked the special grand jury to issue a report that would inevitably become public sooner or later. And the judge makes it quite clear that the report names people recommended for indictment.
31 Likes
Probably administrative, giving the DA’s office time to make redactions.
Not a lawyer, but this seems like the right answer to avoid compromising the indictments/prosecutions.
3 Likes
The judge makes it quite clear in his order that the reason he’s holding back the bulk of the report is that it implicates people (plural) who were not afforded an opportunity to present their side of the story to the grand jury. Pursuant to some precedent, that presents an issue of due process that prevents the report (for now) from being made public.
30 Likes
IANAL…but that doesn’t stop me from cheerleading this
11 Likes
Actually I heard the opposite that the GJ did recommend people be indicted although this GJ did not have the power to do so under GA law. We shall see.
1 Like
I’m ok with her preparing a good case, closing loopholes
4 Likes
Implies she’s building a case. I assume prosecuting a high-profile case is already difficult and public release of GJ findings puts extra pressure on the jury, but of course she may well have other reasons
4 Likes
14 Likes