By Mike Huckabee
February 23, 2023
|
|
“I watched this foreperson’s televised interviews in utter disbelief and...actual disgust,” FOX NEWS legal analyst Gregg Jarrett said to Sean Hannity Wednesday hight. This is the “special purpose” grand jury looking into alleged 2020 election interference by President Trump in Georgia. “I mean,” he continued, “this is a woman who acted like a vapid, immature high school teenager, smiling and gushing and laughing and joking about a very serious legal proceeding. At one point, she’s fantasizing...[he paraphrases] ‘Cool! It’ll be awesome, if only I could swear in Donald Trump as a witness.’ I know ten-year-olds with more maturity.”
Ten-year-olds know eight-year-olds with more maturity. If you haven’t yet seen the videos of Emily Kohrs’ TV appearances, take a look at just these clips from Hannity’s show, and see if Jarrett is exaggerating in any way.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6321007381112
I think Jarrett is being kind. She pulls faces that very much recall the spooky-eyed, demonically grinning ones Peter Strzok made while testifying before Congress, captured in still photos forever.
My staff writers, hailing from a background in comedy, would love to have seen a few big ol’ Three Stooges pies connecting with her self-satisfied face and would have personally launched the pies. She obviously enjoys being on camera; wouldn’t it be delightful fun to immortalize her foolishly-grinning mug that way? She deserves it, considering that what goes on behind closed doors in a grand jury room can utterly destroy people’s lives.
Jarrett said he’d spoken to a grand jury witness who said Kohrs behaved in similar bizarre fashion during testimony. “I am sure the Fulton County district attorney is absolutely livid...she violated grand jury rules of secrecy...her oath to maintain confidentiality. But the damage is done here.”
This woman has been interviewed (so far) by THE NEW YORK TIMES, AP, CNN, MSNBC and NBC NEWS. The defense, Jarrett said, would certainly make a motion to dismiss any indictments arising out of this, based on grand jury impropriety. Judging from the videos themselves and what Jarrett told Sean Hannity, those who are saying she stayed within the law and grand jury guidelines are either lying or engaging in wishful thinking. What she said during repeated TV appearances “went well beyond the publicly released information in the redacted introduction and conclusion,” Jarrett noted. And it’s true --- she giddily announced right on the air, before any indictments had been handed down, that there would be at least a dozen, including well-known people, and she certainly intimated (with an inappropriate excess of joy) that President Trump would be one of them. She could hardly wait!
With a cat-that-ate-the-canary grin, she talked about their deliberations, saying Trump had been mentioned “a lot.” She spoke of Lindsay Graham’s demeanor when he came in to testify, and Rudy Giuliani’s as well. These are just a few examples.
As Sean Hannity said on his show, the Georgia Grand Jury Handbook instructs jurors to “keep deliberations of the grand jury secret unless called up to give evidence thereof in some court of law in this state.” It prohibits them from discussing cases with their fellow grand jurors “or anyone else outside the jury room.” Well, so much for that. Why is it that the left thinks rules are only for their adversaries, never for them?
“She could find herself in legal jeopardy,” Jarrett said, “for breaching her sworn duty.” I would add that if she doesn’t, that just shows the legal system is in more of a mess than we even knew. On the other hand, if she hadn’t gone to the media, we likely would never have known how unserious a person she was.
Keep in mind, this wasn’t simply one member of the grand jury, which would’ve been bad enough --- this was the FOREPERSON. She was selected presumably because she struck others as the sanest person in the room. She should be the most reasonable, conscientious, objective, the best leader, the best communicator, someone with at least some gravitas. If this is the person they chose, what does that say about the rest of the sorry lot?
(Related side issue: Some Internet sleuth dug up her old Pinterest page and found that she seems to have an obsession with way-out topics such as healing herbs, crystal power, paganism, Wicca and witchcraft. All things considered, you’d think she wouldn’t be so giddy about being part of a witch hunt.)
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz --- not a Trump fan, either, but free to speak about the case because he is NOT a grand juror --- brought up an important point; namely, that in the phone call at issue, it’s alleged that Trump said “FIND, FIND” (the 11,000) votes, not “invent” them. “’Find’ means something that’s lost, something that’s THERE,” he said. “And there’s no basis whatsoever for indicting somebody for saying that they should find votes that haven’t yet been tabulated. That’s the big issue. And we wonder whether the grand jury heard that interpretation.”
“Grand juries by their nature are kangaroo courts,” Dershowitz said. “No cross-examination, no confrontation, no ability to have defense attorney there, and then, on top of that, leaking the material to try to bias the jury pool.” He agreed with Jarrett that this whole proceeding should be thrown out completely. If prosecutors are set on pursuing this, it’s “back to Square One.”
“...These recommendations by these rogue grand juries who have no real responsibility and have a foreperson like that should be ignored,” he added. Also, the media covering this “should’ve explained how meaningless this is.” But the possibility of getting Trump was too important to them. You know they were every bit as gleeful at the prospect as she was --- just marginally better at covering that.
In a must-read analysis of the case itself, legal expert Margot Cleveland says that the real story revealed here is “that the grand jury recommended bogus charges based on the Fulton County district attorney’s misrepresentation of evidence.”
Read her piece and see how much detail Kohrs offered THE NEW YORK TIMES. More importantly, her description of Trump’s phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger tells Cleveland that Fulton County’s Democrat District Attorney Fani Willis misrepresented the substance of that conversation to the grand jury.
Even the quote Dershowitz referred to on Hannity’s show, about Trump requesting that “the Secretary ‘find’ 11,780 votes’ in the President’s favor” did not happen, according to the call transcript. “...I’ve been forced to detail time and time again because the corrupt media continue to lie about the conversation, the transcript of the call established that Trump did not request [this]. Period. It never happened.”
Talk about misinformation. Virtually everyone who follows news and feels well-informed wrongly believes Trump told the Georgia Secretary of State to “find” him the votes. This grand jury certainly thinks so. Even, apparently, Alan Dershowitz thinks so; he just interprets that request in a more benign way.
There were other mischaracterizations by the DA as well. And with grand juries, it’s garbage-in, garbage-out. As Cleveland says, the grand jury “only knew the facts Willis decided to share with the group. The jurors, who came from all walks of life --- including the 30-year-old unemployed forewoman --- also needed to reply on the DA’s office to decipher the meaning of any criminal statutes.”
In light of the nonsense Cleveland can see was fed to the jurors, she says “the grand jury’s view ‘that perjury may have been committed by one or more witnesses testifying before it’ is meaningless.” It doesn’t even matter that the grand jury recommends charges. “Those conclusions flowed from the case Willis presented to the Fulton County jurors --- a case built on deceptions about a phone call.”
Finally, in an update from REDSTATE, defense attorneys are indeed already preparing to quash any indictments, based on the grand jury forewoman’s “media tour.”
Leave a Comment
Note: Fields marked with an * are required.