And they definitely screwed up and posted something and then quickly took it down when a Reuters reported. But that was a two page document. You can see that here.
I read that this is called a charging document. It's basically the list they were going to ask the jury to indict on. The jury was still voting and obviously the indictment involved many more people. So it's a different document.
This was already on the internet with the Grand Jury charging President Trump in behalf of the citizens of Georgia . When at the same time live the Atlanta Constitution was saying they are still waiting for the jury to vote. How can we have this information if the jury still had not voted. This is the reason the DA refused to answer this question I suspect.
Tuesday's court clerk statement said: "While it may have appeared that something official had occurred because the document bore a case number and filing date, it did not include a signed 'true' or 'no' bill nor an official stamp with Clerk Alexander’s name, thereby making the document unofficial and a test sample only."
They just keep digging their own hole deeper. From it was fake to it was not stamped and sealed . It became official when the jury voted and finished it's business. If it were not official they would not stamp and sign it. But the point is nothing gets leaked from a Grand Jury until they have voted and been officially released. There is the problem the leak while the jury was still seated.
Grand Juries are done in secrecy. Nothing gets leaked until the jury has voted. Then what transpired is sealed, Only the charges are announced. They can indict a ham sandwich. Because it is a one sided hearing with witnesses. There are no defense attorneys that counter the claims or cross examine.
Two separate things are going on here.
The indictment document with the jurors name was not posted until late Tuesday night. It's 80 something pages https://greatawakening.win/p/16c28oSEgF/here-is-the-indictment/c/
And they definitely screwed up and posted something and then quickly took it down when a Reuters reported. But that was a two page document. You can see that here.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F3gt0xPa8AAy4YS?format=jpg&name=large
I read that this is called a charging document. It's basically the list they were going to ask the jury to indict on. The jury was still voting and obviously the indictment involved many more people. So it's a different document.
This was already on the internet with the Grand Jury charging President Trump in behalf of the citizens of Georgia . When at the same time live the Atlanta Constitution was saying they are still waiting for the jury to vote. How can we have this information if the jury still had not voted. This is the reason the DA refused to answer this question I suspect.
This just came out.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/georgia-court-acknowledges-releasing-trump-document-website-2023-08-15/
Tuesday's court clerk statement said: "While it may have appeared that something official had occurred because the document bore a case number and filing date, it did not include a signed 'true' or 'no' bill nor an official stamp with Clerk Alexander’s name, thereby making the document unofficial and a test sample only."
They just keep digging their own hole deeper. From it was fake to it was not stamped and sealed . It became official when the jury voted and finished it's business. If it were not official they would not stamp and sign it. But the point is nothing gets leaked from a Grand Jury until they have voted and been officially released. There is the problem the leak while the jury was still seated.
I don't see it as a leak. I see it as a screw up.
Like I said it's a charging document.
It's the charges they were going to present to the grand jury to vote on.
Now there were a bunch of defendants and a bunch of charges, so it's possible they had voted on Trump and were voting on the others
Grand Juries are done in secrecy. Nothing gets leaked until the jury has voted. Then what transpired is sealed, Only the charges are announced. They can indict a ham sandwich. Because it is a one sided hearing with witnesses. There are no defense attorneys that counter the claims or cross examine.
Yup