Anti-Trumpers Humiliate Themselves, Ruin Their Own Legal Case

A grand jury member from Georgia who was involved in the investigation of Donald Trump and his allies for alleged crimes related to the 2020 elections is now speaking up. Before also racing to blab to CNN, Emily Kohrs offered an “exclusive” interview to NBC News, making the exclusive interview less exclusive. 

The comments that we received from those appearances came out as juvenile and attention-seeking, which makes the media’s handling of her “revelations” as a serious subject all the more absurd. Trump’s attorneys are undoubtedly drooling over this.

I am not sure if she is really just scared or if she actually has a personality of a teenager but this does not make the Georgia grand jury look credible or good. Was this the kind of person the grand jury accepted as a member? What does that indicate about the prosecution’s overall investigation? There is no good response to this.

Nothing really revolutionary is said by Kohrs, but it’s how she delivers it that stands out. She might not be allowed to talk about these grand jury proceedings, for starters. She’s at best trying to walk a line she seems to have already crossed several times. She cites as an illustration how lengthy the list of indictments is. She also claims that Trump was frequently brought up during the proceedings near the conclusion of the CNN footage. There are also a number of other breaches.

Second, she just strikes me as a sleazy braggart. She constantly guffaws, makes absurd jokes, and generally gives the communist “reporters” interviewing her the creeps. If the intention was to make the procedure appear serious and impartial, that makes for awful optics.

In fact, some on the left are worried about her performance since it was so unsettling and futile (if your aim is to “get” Trump).

If the investigating prosecutors wish to keep their case alive, they may consider charging Kohrs if it turns out that she broke the law by disclosing what she did. Not doing so would be an admission that they are only concerned with political objectives.

The old saying that you can indict a ham sandwich is also supported by what Kohrs states, but they are only “suggested indictments” that need not be followed through with. She claims that there are over 12 suggested indictments in the CNN interview. What occurred in Georgia in 2020 that would warrant 12 indictments, you might wonder. Given all the information we have about the scenario, that just sounds ridiculous on its face, and the claim just emphasizes the political character of the matter. If prosecutors go further, I’d wager that any defense lawyer worth his salt will have a field day in court.