Judging Freedom - Trump GA Jury Recommended Multiple Indictments

Episode Date: February 21, 2023

#TrumpSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, February 21st, 2023. It's about 4.43, 4.44 in the afternoon here on the East Coast of the United States. The grand jury in Atlanta, which produced a 480-page report of efforts by a group of Republicans to undo the lawful election in 2020 of Joe Biden over Donald Trump, made recommendations in that report about indictments. We know that because the forewoman of the grand jury gave an interview today to the New York Times. You'll see it in tomorrow's New York Times, or you can see it on the web, which is where I saw it. It's up there now. I don't know why she gave this interview because grand juries are supposed to operate in secret. However, generally, once the grand jury no longer exists, the reason for the secrecy dissipates and the courts don't get aggravated or animated over breaking the secrecy.

Georgia has a unique system of special grand juries and regular grand juries. This was a special grand jury. A special grand jury does not have the authority to indict. A regular grand jury does. Regular grand juries sit eight hours a day, five days a week, for weeks and weeks and months and months, and they just hear case after case after case. Remember, they're just hearing the government side and deciding whether or not the government has enough evidence to go forward with a prosecution. If they agree, then they'll vote an indictment. If they disagree, they'll vote what's called a no bill, a fancy old English phrase meaning there's no indictment. You can't prosecute this

person. That rarely happens, but it does happen. A special grand jury, and again, this is unique to Georgia. Most states don't have this bifurcated dual system of grand juries. A special grand jury produces a report for the court. Special grand jury could investigate some aspect of how the government does its job and find a lot of flaws in the way the government does its job, but no crimes. So it's not going to indict anybody, but it's going to produce a report and give the report to whoever in the government is in charge of whatever part of the government the special grand jury investigated. In this case, the special grand jury gave its report to the presiding judge of all the trial courts in Atlanta, and he released three very small parts of the report,

the introduction, the conclusion, and the part that says we think people lied to us without listing their names. All right, it was intriguing. Did you recommend that anybody be indicted? You had hundreds of witnesses who testified before you. Your targets were all those Republicans who filed phony documents claiming that they actually had been chosen by the voters of Georgia and that they were the electors sent to the electoral college to vote for Donald Trump, whereas in reality, the voters in Georgia chose the Democratic electors sent to the electoral college to vote for Joe Biden. You also examine documents that were filed by those phony electors because they committed perjury by signing documents in which they lied under oath. You also interviewed people who concocted this,

and you heard testimony about others who concocted it. So there's a long list of potential people who could be indicted by another grand jury, by a regular grand jury. In my opinion, the regular grand jury is meeting even as I speak, even though it's after 4.30 in the afternoon on the East Coast, which is usually when courthouses shut down and grand juries go home for the day. This grand jury, I believe, is working overtime to crank out these indictments. This grand jury will be the most dangerous to Donald Trump. I believe that this grand jury will indict him along with others in his inner circle who participated in this scheme to defeat the wishes of the voters in the state of Georgia. And I think those indictments

are coming soon. Now, when the reporter for the New York Times pressed this forewoman, did you indict so-and-so? Did you indict so-and-so? She said, I'm not going to tell you. I can't tell you. We didn't indict anybody. Okay. Did you recommend the indictment of so-and-so? No answer. How about so-and-so? No answer. Did you recommend an indictment of Donald Trump? Here's her answer. Quote, you're not going to be shocked. It's not rocket science. You won't be too surprised. Now, you can interpret that however you want. I interpret it as a recommendation that Donald Trump be indicted. But again, this is just a recommendation by a grand jury that heard all this evidence, all this testimony, saw all this evidence and can't indict.

The grand jury report will be read aloud. The grand jury testimony that special grand jury heard will be read aloud to the indicting grand jury. They don't have to see the witnesses. They don't have to testify again. But I think it's pretty clear that that special grand jury recommended the indictment of the former president of the United States. And if I were his lawyers, I'd be expecting it. In fact, if I were his lawyers, I'd do more than expect it. I'd be negotiating with the prosecutor right now. Pre-indictment advocacy, persuading a prosecutor why it is best for legal reasons and public policy reasons not to indict your client is often key to saving a client from an embarrassing and expensive prosecution or even a prosecution that results in the client's incarceration. It's a below-the-radar, quiet time to sit down with the prosecutor to to examine all of her evidence, and to demonstrate how you can refute that evidence and persuade her why an indictment is not in her best interest or in

the best interest of the people of Georgia. That should be going on as we speak, particularly after this interview with the foreperson of the special grand jury came out. If Donald Trump's lawyers are doing nothing, if they are not communicating with the prosecutor of Fulton County, Georgia, they are not doing their client a service. Pre-indictment advocacy, Mr. President, if you're watching this, can be the most effective time

to save a client whose the government's case against him is weak or has defects in it, now's the time to point them out. Because if you point it out after indictment, the government's not going to back down. Occasionally they do, but it's very, very rare. You want the government to back down, the time to do it is now before the grand jury returns the indictment. I think it's pretty clear that they plan to seek one of the president. And I hope his lawyers will take this advice. Judge Moore as we get it, of course, Moore is going to come out on this almost every day now or any day now.

Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. for judging freedom.