>

If by law it should be public then it should be public. If there's reluctance to relay the findings then obviously relaying the information goes against certain political agendas
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. >

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. >

It will be challenging for Trump’s lawyers for sure! Although Buckhead is Fulton and has plenty of wealthy Republicans… >

Exactly, not that any of them would be caught dead serving on a jury. >

True! >

Well the good news is that the prison golf team is about to get a lot stronger next year... >

But, I heard the prison golf league is very tough on anyone that uses the foot wedge. >

Atlanta DA doesn't want the special grand jury report public because trump and his minions have a nasty habit of harassing witnesses. >

That's definitely one reason. >

Then indict him already. >

There is a criminal grand jury coming, or it may have already been empaneled.  They don't tend to be advertised. >

What, no billboards!? Where’s the fun in that?! >

that's silliy. 
in the South i get most of my important information from BILLBOARDS ON THE HIGHWAY!!!
/s >


In an Atlanta courthouse, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis said the report, from a special grand jury, should not be released "at this time." She said its release might impact the rights of multiple defendants if her office brings criminal charges.  
McBurney appeared skeptical that he had any authority to keep the report private. He pointed out that the district attorney's office, witnesses, and jurors themselves were all free to talk about the report's contents. Refusing to publish it, he said, would be an additional gag on a subject of great public interest. >


jurors themselves were all free to talk about the report's contents

Have any of them talked yet? >

…because it would taint the jury pool and other prosecutions.
But nice way to stoke a bit more emotional response out of creating ambiguity >

Only a problem if said DA does NOT indict, try, convict and JAIL Marmalade Moses. They USE the stuff the Grand Jury found, no problem. The DA decides to CONCEAL said stuff, BIG problem. >

Add a fucking "yet" to the title.
Atlanta DA doesn't want the public to see it YET, until the prosecution etc. >

Exactly. Only complete twits would think otherwise. >

Grand jury is never public until it goes to trial. >

Not in Georgia and their 2-grand-jury system apparently >

I don't think he knows about second grand jury, Pip. >

I never say "lol" but I actually lol'd a bit, so I think an LOL is merited here.  LOL. >

The media banding together to push for a reveal irks me. They do such a poor job at everything except trying to generate ratings that I hate that they get to call their activities as supporting "public interest." 
They do nothing to educate the public. They only incite, tease, mislead but never inform. The public can wait a little bit to have this information. What are we going to do with it? It is not going to change anyone's mind about anything. Even if there is someone who doesn't have a hard and fast opinion on trump who will review this information and changes their mind, it won't do anything for the millions of other people who either want the guy convicted or exonerated in court. >

Tired of waiting for justice? I sure am. >

The reason is: she wants the state and federal indictments to remain separate, because no one can pardon the state conviction. If a Republican becomes president, he or she would be able to pardon Trump for the federal conviction. >

Not yet. You forgot that part. >

Before the Orange One gets sent to Hell I want to see live video of him in an orange jumpsuit and handcuffed and chained to the other prisoners. Shuffling down the hall to yet another sentencing hearing. >

Wont brian kemp, or the next republican governor of georgia, just pardon trump if he is actually convicted of something?
Same thing with any federal indictments
Republicans have a long track record of party over law/people. They will protect their own, especially with trump. >

I did not know that, thank you. >

Go, Fani, go! >

Releasing it before charges are even levied taints the jury pool and gives Trump's lawyers a way to pack the jury(ies) with MAGA. >

How could they even pick an unbiased jury in this country? You’re either MAGA or you’re absolutely not. >

We've already seen MAGA people on juries shield those in the Trump orbit from culpability. On the flipside, when that happened, another MAGA person on the same jury called bullshit strongly and got the person to relent. This case study shows that Trump likely won't be able to be fully shielded, but perhaps will gain the benefit of a partial political shield in the courtroom. >

This is NOT an accurate headline. 
The DA wants the report released — just not until she makes her decisions around indictments. 
And that is a perfectly reasonable stance . >

Fine.  Indict already! >

Our democracy is damaged and in need of repair under the heading of trust.
This psycho Trump took the classic fascist pathway dividing the nation while exploiting the relatively new platform known as the Internet and its mass reaching social media to ply his narcissist freak show. Now Trump's spectacle has spawned any number of filthy emulators, the names of which you all know and the media henchmen like Steve Bannon and Alex Jones and the Fox Noose creeps.
The only answer that satisfies justice with the promise to re-instate our Democracy as irrefutable including the well challenged 2020 POTUS election, is to take this filthy fascist psycho Trump and his surrogates before the full fury of the law. If Trump and his co-conspirators do not meet with the full extent of the law, next time the insurrection won't fail. >

Pursuing facts is apparently a liberal practice. >

Makes sense if there is to be an indictment coming.  You can't let trump baby make the case of a prejudiced jury against him because the information is out there.  I want to see everything too, but damn, I'll wait if someone will actually hold him to accountability.  I can see the findings after or during the trial.  I just want that pos to pay for his crimes; for trying to destroy and continuing to have a hand in the ongoing destruction attempts of this country. >

I think that means she's planning on indicting him. Why would she want to give his lawyers a heads up on what evidence they have against him? >

Why. We all know exactly what happened. >

If they plan on scuttling the investigation, that shit needs to go public. If they withholding pending charges/trial that’s fine. If it goes to trial all the important information should come out during the trial. >

Sounds like a boring sensible reason not to release it too early. >

Public opinion is not a legal indictment. As long as the DA is ready to indict, I don’t see a problem. >

Headlines are a helluva drug >

God is she a master of suspense. Fine, for the reasons laid out in the article, I'm in. We've waited this long. I swore up and down since 2016 that Trump would commit crimes as President, lose reelection to a moderate in 2020, and be exonerated from his presidential crimes in 2023.
And shit, I'd happily be wrong about the last one. >

Because it might lead to a mistriañ in thd judges eyes >

It is important to keep a case secret. How people don't grasp this I don't understand. 
They never open the books on RICO case, and this is basically what we have, except with treason. >

It’s important to keep an investigation secret, not a legal indictment. The Constitution requires an open legal process when the courts are involved. Once DA Willis elected to go with a special grand jury, she can’t then keep that report secret. A lot of people are confused about secrecy regarding an investigation and think it extends to a legal complaint. Processes that occur in a court room should be open to the public at some point. >


at some point.

Yes. Later. Just not now. Not yet. >

BECAUSE THE CASES AGAINST SHITLER ARE STILL ONGOING.
Duh. >

Oh I already “see” the right spin on this: “so, what are they trying to 🫣hide? Probably more Russer, Russer, Russer, one big nothing burger.”
When, in reality, she may be closer to indicting trump for the first time in his entire criminal career and for RICO charges. >

I mean yes, that’s how grand jury’s work. For better or worse they are not public like a trial…. >

"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. 
She doesn't want to violate anyone's rights because that's how a good defense attorney gets cases thrown out. She wants to nail each and every one of treasonous assholes. >

How is she violating a defendant’s rights by releasing the evidence that shows he broke the law? >

It might be something related to putting together a jury that hasn't been tainted. >

Prosecutors are allowed to conduct a grand jury investigation without sharing the details of the investigation until they are ready to hand down indictments. The statement that they are imminent is not even necessary. It’s not the judges investigation nor the judges decision. It would be appealed and lose even if the judge tried to act like a prosecutor. >


Prosecutors are allowed to conduct a grand jury investigation without sharing the details of the investigation until they are ready to hand down indictments.

BINGO! >

Terrible headline designed to sow discord. >

So >

Clocks ticking..... >

Lock him up! >

Disappointing but understandable to anyone that's not a complete idiot. >


Atlanta DA doesn't want the public to see the special grand jury report into Trump's efforts to overturn Georgia's 2020 vote

Misleading. She simply, and justifiably, doesn't want the public to see the report before she has even decided whether to charge Trump or not. In other words, the report will eventually be made public, just not at this particular moment. >

Grand juries are supposed to be secret >

As a stakeholder of America, the employer of all public employees; WHY the fuck would I care a mouth full of spit about what they want.
They can produce the public records or be removed. >

Any grand jury decisions involving PUBLIC officials should have their results be just that: PUBLIC. >

Wake me up when Trump goes to trial or pleads guilty. >

I feel like Green Day should Remake Wake Me up When September Ends with this idea >

Given the law and the grand jury’s vote to release their report, I don’t really understand why the DA thinks she has a solid case for not releasing it.