Here’s another thought to chew on. Yes, we can metaphorically chew on thoughts:
“ The grand juror who might have said too much”
That’s my today’s daily Politico Playbook email feed headline/subject line.
The first part of the email/story/article reads this way:
“ Did EMILY KOHRS just save DONALD TRUMP from prosecution in Georgia?
Kohrs is the 30-year-old woman from the Atlanta area who was between retail jobs last year when she was suddenly tasked with one of the most sensitive jobs in America: forewoman of the special grand jury investigating whether Trump and his allies committed any crimes in trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia.
The Kohrs-led jury listened to secret testimony for eight months last year and issued its findings and recommendations in a mostly secret report last week. The next step in the process is for FANI WILLIS, the district attorney of Fulton County, Ga., to decide whether she wants to indict anyone, which would require impaneling a new grand jury with the power to issue criminal charges.
With their work finished, Kohrs and her colleagues were instructed by the judge overseeing the case that, per Georgia law, they were permitted to talk to the media about their experience but not about their deliberations.
By all indications, Kohrs was not actually seeking publicity. Her first interview this week was with the Associated Press, which said it “identified Kohrs after her name was included on subpoenas obtained through open records requests.” The initial Associated Press piece on Tuesday was quickly followed by ones in the Atlanta Journal Constitution and The New York Times the same day. By Tuesday night Kohrs had jumped to network TV with an interview on NBC News. Yesterday she popped up on CNN. By the end of the day, Kohrs was no longer responding to media inquiries.
There were a few things that stood out about her media tour:
— She seemed to be complying, or at least attempting to comply, with the prohibition against revealing deliberations. She told colorful stories about the experience of being a grand juror, including what it was like to encounter LINDSEY GRAHAM, RUDY GIULIANI, and BRIAN KEMP and some of the jokes that witnesses told. (“When she asked DAVID RALSTON, the former Georgia House speaker who died in November, if he swore to tell the truth during his testimony last July,” the NYT reported, “he told her ‘it was the first time in 60 years he had said “I do” to a woman,’ Ms. Kohrs said.”) She often paused in her interviews to think through whether she was allowed to answer a question or not.
— But she also may have crossed the line. She revealed, for instance, that the grand jury decided not to invite Trump to testify because it wasn’t worth the fight that he would put up.“
——-
I’ll cut off the rest of the article (fair use or just not necessary to repeat the bits about lawyers who may now want to block prosecution because Kohrs ‘let the cat out of the bag … or didn’t … or so what?’
———
Are there any social scientists out there studying this stuff?
Is it relevant to anything that we use regular and sideline media outlets to randomly share all these discombobulated snippets about our national social life. Or is it just like a bunch of birds chirping away from the tree tops, or like the flock of geese squawking away non-stop each morning from the riverbank outside my back door?
Be happy, squawk away,
- Emerson