What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

everlast75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120275880#Comment_120275880

This appears to be the general consensus.

everlast75

As predicted....

https://twitter.com/costareports/status/1628435089334870019?s=20

Overheal

IDK why he's so ragey, he only just got done thinking the whole thing exonerates him and the woman didn't say anything that confirms her bias either way for or against trump? Other than sounding like she would have geeked out to swear in a former president.

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump-fumes-over-grand-jury-forepersons-media-tour-angrily-dismisses-georgia-probe-all-i-did-was-make-two-perfect-phone-calls/

archermoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120276504#Comment_120276504

Because he's a ragey idiot?

everlast75

Maybe this might be why he's in a bad mood...

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1628507449559842818?s=20

duploelabs

Boxes moved from leased office to MAL subsequent to the search, which sounds all above board of course

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/12/trump-was-issued-subpoena-for-folder-marked-classified-evening-briefing-discovered-at-mar-a-lago?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Overheal

The FBI seems to think Trump is playing she’ll games with the boxes

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120275655#Comment_120275655

Talk about a clusterfcuk of a system that would allow someone in to such an influential position and then to go on a media tour as she is doing.

I mean, leaving Trump out of it, it just leave things so wide open to coercion and manipulation, it should concern anyone looking for rule of law to be applied in a rigorous and professional manner.

archermoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120286749#Comment_120286749

People serving on grand juries in the US aren't professionals. They're just regular citizens whose names came up for jury duty.

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120286830#Comment_120286830

I understand that. And I don't have an issue with it. Justice systems throughout the world operate on a principle of peer involvement and in my mind each citizen is as entitled as the next to be involved in the process.

What I do have an issue with is the publicity tour while the situation is still be explored and the identity of someone involved is openly and widely known.

It might not be possible to keep their identity private over an extended period but they shouldn't be shining a light on their involvement as this person is doing.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120286830#Comment_120286830

And lest we forget, this is Georgia's 'special grand jury.' They can't issue indictments. What's special is that the duration of the special grand jury is more than a court term. Now, that implies if the special grand jury makes recommendations, the prosecutor can empanel a regular grand jury that can in fact issue indictments - when then are tried in Court (grand juries don't preside over trials.)

Grand Jury in Georgia last 2 months (court term.) So, when it starts up and it looks like it will, 2 months till indictments if not sooner. then a trial can begin, and that can last, well, who knows.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/georgia/articles/2022-01-20/explainer-whats-a-special-grand-jury-and-how-does-it-work

archermoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120286851#Comment_120286851

Eh, an unemployed 30 year old woman who was foreperson on a grand jury was interviewed by several news organizations. The grand jury she served on wasn't a secret grand jury. The AP reported that she was the foreperson and did an interview with her. Several other organizations also asked her to do interviews. Was she supposed to tell them no? She didn't do anything against the laws governing special grand juries in Georgia, nor against the instructions from the judge as to what they could talk about publicly, and she made a point of not answering questions that were inappropriate. At least in one case she refused to answer a question that she thought legally she could answer because it didn't seem right to her to do so.

It is unusual for the foreperson of a grand jury to give out interviews? Sure. But then again it is also unusual for a sitting President of the US to conspire to try and overthrow an election that he lost. As far as unusual things go I'd have to say the interviews are pretty far down on the list.

duploelabs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120286939#Comment_120286939

If you've served on a jury here, at whatever court level, and talk to the press about the case you served on then you can be found in contempt of court, this should apply here but obviously doesn't because Murica

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120286939#Comment_120286939

Neither exists in a vacuum though. Her single comment during a media interview (which she didn't have to do) about wanting to subpoena Trump just because she'd be the one to have to swear him in risks affecting part of the investigation into a sitting President of the US conspiring to try and overthrow an election he lost.

It was an incredibly stupid comment from her, and the glee with which she told it certainly didn't help either. Given the seriousness of the case, she'd have been better not doing any interviews at all in case she did say something that jeopardised the grand jury.

archermoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120286955#Comment_120286955

It all depends on the local laws. In general one of the things the judge in the case will cover before they release the jury is telling them clearly what they are and are not allowed to talk about. Which happened in this case. And she was obviously very careful to not only not go over the line, but not even come close to it.

archermoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120286981#Comment_120286981

She thought it would be cool to have a close interaction with Trump. What about that jeopardises the case?

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120287003#Comment_120287003

Because it can be used by Trump to argue that the grand jury was biased against him and that they're investigating him for show.

We all know that's not true, and the evidence will surely show that's not true. But legal experts have suggested it'll likely be used by Trump to try and have any indictments dismissed.

Her comments likely didn't end up jeopardising the case, but they could have.

archermoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120287054#Comment_120287054

Her fangirling over the chance that she could've met Trump shows bias AGAINST him? If anything it shows bias for him. She thought it would've been cool if she could have sworn him in. Sure, Trump's lawyers will bring up all sorts of crazy stuff to try and get any indictments against him dismissed. That was going to be the case whether she was interviewed or not. But unless his lawyers actually find something reasonable to object to they'll get laughed out of court. Like happened with almost all of the court cases he filed trying to get the election overturned in the first place.

Sure, the prosecutor would probably have been happiest if she hadn't done any of the interviews. But her interviews aren't going to be the deciding factor on whether or not Trump is convicted of any of the crimes he has committed.

martingriff

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120286955#Comment_120286955

In case you did not know Ireland and the US are different countries and laws. As in here there can be no discussions during a trial the US generally does not

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120286939#Comment_120286939

My original post on the matter alluded to the fact that I have an issue with the system allowing her to do this, not directly with her for doing the interviews, although I do think it is completely inappropriate when it relates to ongoing investigations.

The very fact that the GJ is investigating attempts to overthrow the results of an election is reason for here to stay out of the public eye, not justification for her to look to be in it.

She is not legally trained or qualified so to put herself in a position where she is determining the legality of questions being asked is a massive red flag in my view. Wait until it is over, write the book and do your media tour if you want, not going out at this point and thinking what you are doing is not going to have an impact is at best careless, at worst, idiotic.

Overheal

I think people are also forgetting she said one of the coolest things she got to do was ‘shake Guliani’s hand’

That statement and the one fangirling about swearing in the former president don’t legally jeopardize the process nor did it implicate a bias against the witnesses.

archermoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120287229#Comment_120287229

She had an excellent reason to think that what she was doing wouldn't have an impact on the case. She and the other jurors were given instructions from the judge as to what they were and were not allowed to talk about. And she made sure she didn't cross that line.

And I haven't seen any indication that she sought any of this out. Have you seen anything indicating the she approached the news organizations rather than the other way around?

As to whether it should be legal or not, neither your nor my opinion on it really matters. That one is entirely up to the state of Georgia. Or possibly Fulton county, I'm not sure if their laws about grand juries differ from the state laws. And federal laws would only cover federal grand juries. I can say that in general such laws in the US are written from the perspective that individual rights should only be limited when there is a compelling reason to do so. This certainly causes problems sometimes, and not every locality agrees with what constitutes a compelling reason.

What I can say is that I certainly won't blame someone who is suddenly thrust into the limelight for talking about her experience to the extent that she is legally allowed to do so. An experience that she was clearly excited about having been a part of.

Rjd2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120287264#Comment_120287264

I understand for better or worse Trump having young fans, but she is what 30 or so? How the hell does anyone that age like Rudy , the guy is a laughing stock everywhere ffs.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120289386#Comment_120289386

I don't think any of it is about liking Giuliani or fangirling over meeting Trump. In another comment she said to her boyfriend about how cool it was that as the foreperson of the grand jury into Trump's election meddling, if she was in a room with Biden and Trump, they'd both know who she was and would want to talk to her.

She appears more taken with her own rise in status and attention that these people would be interested in speaking with her and would know who she was, rather than her having the opportunity to meet or speak with them.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120289386#Comment_120289386

Doesn't mean that you have to be a fan of said person. Gulliani is still someone notable from the Trump times and to be able to tell the grandkids that you once met them is of note, regardless of if you liked them or not.

archermoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120289548#Comment_120289548

Yeah she seems much more to be excited about "I got to meet {famous person}!" than being a fan of that specific person. I think she'd have been just as excited about meeting Biden.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120286955#Comment_120286955

Not after the case is closed , which in her case it is.

Her job is done.

MisterAnarchy

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1629851338069667841

Well well well what do we have here ?

It only took them 2.5 years to figure out what the dog on the street knew.

Yet another prime example of the Fake News that Trump rightly called out during his tenure.

April 18, 2020:

Then-President Donald Trump, says “a lot of people are looking” into the possibility of a lab leak, and says the theory “seems to make sense”; Dr. Anthony Fauci, then the government’s leading infectious disease expert, refutes Trump’s claim, citing a study that found the virus’ mutations are “consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisadellatto/2023/02/26/timeline-how-the-covid-lab-leak-origin-story-went-from-conspiracy-theory-to-government-debate/?sh=775f6c2237b9

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120293686#Comment_120293686

A conclusion they themselves describe as "low confidence" , meaning they don't really believe it either..

The Department of Energy and the FBI, have determined Covid-19 was leaked from a lab, according to the Journal. The FBI came to its conclusion in 2021 with “moderate confidence.” Four agencies have reportedly determined with “low confidence” the virus was transmitted naturally through animals. The CIA and one other unnamed agency remain undecided between the two origin theories.

AlmightyCushion

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120293686#Comment_120293686

Even the department of energy's latest stance is with a low degree of confidence. I may be misremembering but I don't think many of the experts completely dismissed it at being a lab leak. They dismissed that it was artificially created in a lab. This doesn't change anything. Just because it leaked from a lab doesn't mean it was artificially created.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anthony-fauci-wuhan-lab-coronavirus-source-dismissal/

from 2020. Fauci doesn't dismiss the lab leak theory as fake news or whatever just says that it still means it developed in the wild and was brought in to a lab.