Trump allies should be worried about Georgia prosecutor: ‘She knows what they said under oath’

The special grand jury report may not have offered any bombshell evidence against Donald Trump and his allies, but a legal expert explained that it showed just enough to suggest trouble on the horizon.

The Fulton County special grand jury issued a nine-page report the concluded there had been no widespread election fraud in Georgia’s presidential election in 2020, and they believed at least one of the witnesses who testified before them should be indicted for perjury, and MSNBC legal analyst Chuck Rosenberg said district attorney Fani Willis might have all she needs to press charges.

“I just wanted to remind viewers of one important thing that’s missing from the report, and that’s the record of all of the witnesses who went in front of that special grand jury and under oath testified,” Rosenberg said. “So there’s no mention of what they said in the report, there’s no compendium of the evidence that they gave.

“But all of that evidence is in the possession of the district attorney. She knows what everyone said, she knows what they said under oath [and] she can use that evidence to build her case.”

IN OTHER NEWS: ‘Trump lost Georgia for a sixth time’: Analysts predict Trump indictment after Fulton County report drops

“So I don’t want people to think that the special grand jury simply met and wrote a nine-page heavily redacted report,” he added. “Rather, they met for months, they heard from scores of witnesses, and everything those people said in the grand jury under oath is evidence of the underlying case and can be used by the district attorney, so the report is somewhat interesting.”

“It’s not all that revelatory, but all that work that the special grand jury did is all available to the district attorney and will inform her prosecutive decision and inform, if there are trials down the road, what evidence jurors at those trials hear.”

Watch video below or at this link.


02 16 2023 11 24 54

youtu.be

Related articles

Mediaite One Sheet: CBS Civil War, FCC vs Talk Shows, CNN Profits Crater

Today, we launch our brand new newsletter of media newsletters, which we are providing today as a free preview, featuring Bari Weiss, Minneapolis, and Davos.

The post Mediaite One Sheet: CBS Civil War, FCC vs Talk Shows, CNN Profits Crater first appeared on Mediaite.

These Gen-Z Trump voters don’t want JD Vance in 2028

A recent focus group of 18- to 24-year-old Trump voters suggests weaknesses for Vance among young Republicans.

Trump’s Claims About Greenland

Prior to announcing on Jan. 21 that he has...

Trump’s Numbers, Second Term

Summary Since President Donald Trump returned to the White House: Job...

Laughter erupts as James Comer blanks in House hearing: ‘I wasn’t paying attention’



A hearing room for the House Oversight Committee erupted into laughter Wednesday after the committee chair, Rep. James Comer (R-KY), blanked on a question asked by a Democratic committee member.

Wednesday’s hearing saw the committee fiercely debate whether to hold Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress for defying a congressional subpoena to testify about their connections to Jeffrey Epstein and his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell. Challenging the measure was Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM), who pressed Comer on whether the committee had already been informed that the Clintons were willing to testify on the record.

“It's my understanding that you guys have received correspondence by phone, email and a written letter from the attorneys from the Clintons offering to [testify] on the record, with you, with the staff... is that correct?” Stansbury asked.

“I didn't... I wasn't paying attention to your question,” Comer admitted, sparking an eruption of laughter in the room, including from Stansbury, who moved to ask her question again, albeit more slowly.

“Okay – we're pursuant to a motion you brought for contempt, and the claim is that you have made reasonable accommodations and that [the Clintons] have not been responsive,” Stansbury repeated.

“But they have transmitted correspondence to all of the members of the committee – including yourself – including a letter from their attorneys stating that they have offered by phone, by email to meet with you, on the record, to give sworn statements. Is that correct?”

Comer’s first reaction was to speak of how the Clintons had been given “five months” to appear before Congress before being pressed by Stansbury again: “yes or no,” she asked.

“You all are trying to create a false narrative!” Comer fired back. “You've had five months, you should have gotten to the Clintons before the contempt vote!”

Stansbury asked once more for Comer to answer her question, but was met with silence as Comer’s aides could be seen speaking with him quietly.

“Just to be clear for the public, his staff are advising the chairman to not answer that question,” Stansbury alleged.

Comer fired back at Stansbury once more.

“No, the staff said they couldn't understand what the hell you were saying because you blabbered for three minutes!” Comer said.

The Clintons have, in fact, refused to testify before Congress, and despite having been issued congressional subpoenas. Both have challenged Comer’s authority to demand they testify, and have accused the lawmaker’s request of being politically motivated.