Input | Output |
---|---|
Link | Youtube |
Published | 2023/02/24 |
Theme | |
Status | article incomplete |
Beau says:
Beau addresses recent interviews in Georgia regarding potential cases against Trump, indicating they're unlikely to derail legal proceedings due to being part of a special purpose grand jury process and occurring before the trial.
Legal observers
Insights on the potential implications of the interviews on public perception and political discourse.
#Georgia #Trump #LegalAnalysis #GrandJury #Interviews
Well, howdy there, internet people.
It's Bo again.
So today, we are going to talk about Georgia and interviews
and everything that's kind of happened over the last few
days regarding that.
And we're going to try to answer the big question that
has been coming in, which is, do all of these interviews
stand a chance of derailing the potential cases
against Trump and his circle.
Now, I need to start by saying this is way outside
of my scope.
This is way outside of my scope.
So I've been looking at all the different legal analysis
and just kind of going through it.
There's a pretty general consensus
that the answer is no.
This really doesn't matter.
It's not going to derail a case.
It's annoying, but not damaging.
is really what seems to be the take.
And the reason it's not damaging comes down
to three different kind of points.
The first is that this isn't actually the grand jury.
This is the special purpose grand jury.
This isn't the one that's going to hand down an indictment.
This is an investigative one.
It makes a recommendation.
The second is that there's nothing
she can say that's going to be more
prejudicial to a potential juror than all of the media coverage
that has already existed.
So this is just something new added on top of it.
It's not anything different than what's already been in the news.
And then the third thing is it happened before the trial,
most importantly before jury selection.
And weeding out any jurors that might have been swayed by this,
that would occur during that process.
So the prosecution and the defense
will go through jury selection.
And anybody that might have been swayed by these interviews
should be removed from the jury pool during that process.
Therefore, they don't stand a chance
of impacting the actual trial.
So that's the general tone of most of the analysis.
You have some outliers, but they are outliers.
And just to catch everybody up, if you have no idea what I'm
talking about, one of the people on the Special Purpose Grand
Jury there in Georgia that was looking into Trump,
they've been doing all kinds of interviews.
And they've reportedly been sticking
to the instructions provided by the judge
about what they could and could not talk about.
But it would certainly be less of a headache
for the prosecution if they weren't doing this,
if they weren't going around and talking about it.
The person has provided their opinions
on how trustworthy people appeared
and whether or not they wanted to testify
and all kinds of stuff,
which is generally not for public consumption at this point.
So that's what's been going on.
It's generated a lot of conversation
about whether or not the interviews themselves
might damage the case.
It seems as though the consensus is no,
for the reasons provided earlier.
And then the other side note is that according
to some reporting that has looked at her Pinterest account,
she's a witch.
I don't know if that's true.
But given all of the witch hunt claims,
I can't help but find it humorous.
Anyway, it's just a thought.
Y'all have a good day.
{{Shirt}}
{{EasterEgg}}