Trump Grand Jury Excerpts on 2020 Georgia Vote to Be Made Public
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
(Bloomberg) -- A judge in Georgia ordered the partial release of a special grand jury’s report on efforts by former President Donald Trump and his allies to undermine the 2020 presidential election — including concerns that some witnesses lied — but will keep secret recommendations on any criminal charges.
Most Read from Bloomberg
New Cars Are Only for the Rich Now as Automakers Rake In Profits
US Inflation Stays Elevated, Adding Pressure for More Fed Hikes
Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney wrote in his order Monday that the special grand jury had provided the district attorney “with exactly what she requested: a roster of who should (or should not) be indicted, and for what, in relation to the conduct (and aftermath) of the 2020 general election in Georgia.”
The judge, who sits in Fulton County, which includes Atlanta, ordered the release on Thursday of three sections of the report, including the introduction and conclusion, as well as a section in which “the special grand jury discusses its concern that some witnesses may have lied under oath during their testimony to the grand jury.”
The names of the witnesses under suspicion of lying will not be released.
A coalition of media companies, including Bloomberg News, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Associated Press, The New York Times and CNN argued at a Jan. 24 hearing that there is no legal basis for keeping the report under seal. The special grand jury itself recommended its findings be made public.
The release is on Thursday in order to give Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s office time to decide if any information within those sections should be redacted.
A spokesperson for the district attorney’s office and lawyers for the media coalition did not immediately return requests for comment.
McBurney wrote that because of the way the special grand jury’s work unfolded under the direction of Willis’s office, “fundamental fairness” required keeping secret any information about charging recommendations, since future defendants may not have had a chance to defend themselves against allegations.
Unlike a regular grand jury, the special purpose grand jurors didn’t have authority to return indictments, and the group was dissolved in January after submitting its report.
The judge also said that potential targets of the investigation did not have lawyers advocating for them because the probe was by design a “one-sided investigation.”
“By all appearances, the special purpose grand jury did its work by the book. The problem here, in discussing public disclosure, is that the book’s rules do not allow for the objects of the District Attorney’s attention to be heard in the manner we require in a court of law,” McBurney wrote.
The Willis investigation has been sweeping. In March 2021, she informed state officials that she was looking into potential state law violations, including “prohibiting the solicitation of election fraud, the making of false statements to state and local government bodies, conspiracy, racketeering, violation of oath of office and any involvement in violence or threats related to the election’s administration.”
The special grand jury officially began its work in May 2022 and heard testimony from dozens of witnesses. When it submitted its final report, it recommended that the full version be released to the public.
At a hearing before McBurney in January, Willis told the judge that “decisions are imminent” on whether to pursue charges.
McBurney compared the report to court filings related to search warrants and wiretap applications that stay under seal while a criminal investigation is pending. He wrote that the public’s “right of access” normally only kicks in once a probe is finished and charges have been filed.
The judge said that witnesses did have the ability to pause the grand jury proceeding, leave the courtroom and discuss concerns with their lawyers, who could then “escalate concerns to the supervising judge if necessary (which some did quite liberally).” But that process, the judge said, is “a poor and insufficient proxy for the right to have counsel present in the grand jury room.”
--With assistance from Margaret Newkirk.
Most Read from Bloomberg Businessweek
©2023 Bloomberg L.P.
