>

Jury selection in Fulton County is going to be challenging, but it is unlikely that political affiliation of the county is going to be sufficient ground for a change of venue.
TL;DR: DA Fani Willis doesn't want the special grand jury's report to be public, because there is information contained that is essential to future indictments and prosecutions.  The contents will become public when this goes to court.
Edit: LOL, a quickly deleted reply to me was accusing "you all are no different than the Lock Her Up Crowd".  Because apparently summarizing the facts of an article succinctly is now a partisan act. >

so you admit you read the article in direct violation of Reddit's number one tacit rule? >

Yes.
Shall I wear the French maid outfit for the spanking this time? >

Yes please, what size pineapple do you prefer? >

It was this film that made me realize hell might not be so bad after all >

I'm sure we all know enough people there, we won't be lonely. >

It's the fact that all the people who got into heaven will be watching us on the biblical equivalent of CCTV for all eternity that gives me the creeps.
There's no way they'll just be singing hymns all day. The best part about Heaven for them is going to be watching the people they hate getting extremely creatively and incredibly painfully tortured in Hell. >

Good thing neither is real. >

I like the joke about Satan showing people around Hell and it’s all nice, then they see over a fence and it’s people being burned and tortured and he says “oh those are Christians, they prefer it that way for some reason.” >

"Sometimes we torture them by insisting they choose a safe word, or by just giving them a hug afterwards." >

"The state understands the media's inquiry and the world's interest, but we have to be mindful of protecting future defendants' rights," Willis said. >


future defendants'

That is quite an important choice of words. That would suggest a decision has been made to charge? >

She literally said “decisions are imminent” >

that's good, but my imminent and her imminent might be different. time is relative.
i am eager is all i'm saying. >

Someone in lawyer world predicted that he would be indicted on or around January 23rd months ago. I wish I could find it now. >

If they're going to use it to prosecute him they can't make it public or it undermines their case.  If they don't prosecute him then it's a coverup. >

Doesn't the prosecutor have to tell the defendent what evidence they have before the trial? >

In the United States, the prosecutor is required to disclose to the defense any evidence in their possession that is FAVORABLE to the accused and MATERIAL TO GUILT or punishment as part of the discovery process. This is known as the Brady rule, named after the Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland. This includes physical evidence, witness statements, and any other information that may help the defense prepare for trial or potentially exonerate the defendant. The defense also has the right to request additional evidence from the prosecution through a process known as discovery. >

And in some states like California, the defense has to give the prosecution discovery also. Both sides know pretty much what evidence us coming in before trial. Not sure if all states have this procedure or not >

California requires discovery by the defendant in a criminal case? That sounds like crap. >

I don't need to see it.. I just need to see charges that will stick. >

100%. Here's to being cautiously hopeful about it. >

Makes sense. Don't wanna poison the jury pool. >

Doesn’t want public to see it yet.
If he’s prosecuted, doubt she’ll care about the report being public after that’s completed. >

It will make jury selection much more difficult.