Unethical (And Depressing) Quote Of The Month: Georgia Grand Jury Foreperson Emily Kohrs

“I wanted to hear from the former president, but honestly, I wanted to subpoena the former president because I got to swear everybody in, and so I thought it would be really cool to get 60 seconds with President Trump, of me looking at him and be like, ‘Do you solemnly swear,’ and me getting to swear him in…I just…I kinda just thought that would be an awesome moment!”

—Emily Kohrs, the foreperson of the Atlanta grand jury that investigated Trump’s 2020 election fraud claims for the past eight months.

Kohrs was asked, “What did you personally want to hear from the former President?” by her MSNBC inteviewer, as Kohrs supported subpoenaing Trump for alleged crimes. Giggling , that was her reply.

And she didn’t even realize how ludicrous the answer made her, the inquiry and our justice system appear. You can see the video here. I’ll be on the nearest bridge, pinning a note to my Red Sox warm-up jacket and preparing to leap to my death.

Thrilled with her proverbial 15 minutes of fame, this juvenile fool—who, I will repeat just to maybe get some company on that lonely bridge—personally supported subpoenaing a former President of the United States as part of an investigation into potential criminal wrongdoing because she thought it would be “really cool” to get to swear him in—has been giving babbling, borderline illegal interviews to CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, and the Associated Press, teasing reporters by almost breaching grand jury confidentiality, and maybe doing so. “Why this person is talking on TV, I do not understand,” CNN’s Anderson Cooper said. “She’s clearly enjoying herself. Is this responsible?”

No, of course not. Nor is it responsible to elect this woman, who is the mental equivalent of the idiots who jump up and down waving when a TV camera catches them in the background during a news report or a baseball game, as the foreperson, which is what her fellow jurors did. CNN legal analyst Elie Honig also noted the obvious, saying, “We’re talking about – indicting any person, you’re talking about potentially taking away that person’s liberty – we’re talking about potentially former president for the first time in this nation of history. She does not seem to be taking that very seriously.”

Indeed, babbling Emily may have already doomed any prosecution of Trump coming out her grand jury.

Don’t Georgia grand juries get any instruction or training? Was Kohrs absent that day? Why didn’t someone stop her after her first outrageous interview? For that matter, why didn’t a responsible journalist remind her that grand jury proceeding are secret and must remain so?

Wait, that’s a dumb question: there are no responsible journalists.

What an indictment of our system of justice! You wonder why prosecutors can, as they say, “indict a ham sandwich”? This is why: ordinary citizens like Kohrs who might lose to a ham sandwich in a game of Junior Scrabble.

Jurors who reveal grand jury proceedings can be prosecuted for obstruction of justice. In the interest of future criminal investigations, Kohrs should be punished for her conduct, if not by fines or imprisonment, then by being forced to dress up like a clown and entertain at pre-school children’s birthday parties.

Well, that’s it for me! I’m off to the bridge…


Pointer: Arthur in Maine

15 thoughts on “Unethical (And Depressing) Quote Of The Month: Georgia Grand Jury Foreperson Emily Kohrs

  1. I’ve been following this story all day.

    When even Anderson Cooper is calling you out, you definitely did something you shouldn’t have. The MSM isn’t dismissing or rationalizing this either. She may have cost the Democrats that conviction they pretend they desperately want just because she believed the hype that Donald Trump isn’t deserving of the same fairness and objectivity as everyone else.

  2. I was a Grand Jury Foreman more than a decade ago. At least in my experience, there was no election. I was apparently selected by the judge who was tasked with managing the court processes and personnel. I was called in advance by the judges secretary to schedule an instructional meeting with the judge. I have no idea why I was selected but if memory serves me I was given a background questionnaire which requested demographic and educational information. Maybe I was selected because I worked in a job that required confidentiality or maybe it was because I had an MBA, I just don’t know.

    During that training session which lasted a couple of hours, the judge explained processes and my responsibilities as foreperson regarding ensuring accurate reporting and managing the other jurors. The issue with of ensuring secrecy was drilled over and over.

    The notion that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich was obvious given that jurors only hear from the prosecutions witnesses. Knowing that, I tried to ask questions that may provide a more balanced picture. In all, I believe we returned indictments on all but two or three cases presented.

    The last line in this comment is as much information I have disclosed over the years.

    People need to realize that indictments are simply one sided arguments designed to convince average people to say their is probably fire behind the smoke. They should also realize that a public indictment can harm innocent people. I for one believe that only those adjudicated as guilty should have their names publicized.

    • Chris wrote, “The notion that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich was obvious given that jurors only hear from the prosecutions witnesses.” Exactly. The grand jury process is set up for the purposes of obtaining an indictment. If there is so little evidence to support an indictment, then the probably of obtaining a conviction is even more remote. That is why the Zimmerman indictment was so disturbing: The AG took the case away from the grand jury when she realized that the grand jury would not return an indictment and overcharged him with first degree murder. It was purely political on her part.

      As for this lady, I suspect she is giddy because of the newly found fame and she isn’t thinking of the damage she has just done to any potential prosecution, assuming there is one. She either didn’t understand her role as foreperson or didn’t care. Nicely done.

      • johnburger2013 wrote, “As for this lady, I suspect she is giddy because of the newly found fame and she isn’t thinking of the damage she has just done to any potential prosecution, assuming there is one.”

        I think that giddiness is part of her core personality and my gut tells me that she doesn’t give a damn about any problems her interviews may cause, she’s a narcissist and it’s all about her.

        Did anyone of the interviewing “journalists” actually bother to confirm that she was the actual foreperson of the Grand Jury or is she a total fake? I haven’t been able to find a list of the Grand Jury members.

        • This whole 15-minutes of fame certainly seems to run rampant in her generation, doesn’t it?

          I can only see a few reasons as to why someone who was certainly given instructions on talking to the media would do something this dunderheaded.

          1. Her generation values media darlings, like social media influencers, so much that they think they can say or do anything and that any publicity is good publicity.

          2. She is completely ignorant of how our system of justice is supposed to work and didn’t take any instructions she received seriously.

          3. She has been hyperpartisanized by the Left so thoroughly that she really thinks that some people don’t deserve due process and that wanting to swear in Donald Trump is sufficient cause to vote for an indictment.

    • There not their. This damn autocorrect fails basic grammar rules. That should be expected given so few know the difference between fewer and less or when to use lie instead of lay.

  3. Was it actually a Grand Jury? I have seen it referred to as a ‘Special Grand Jury’, which nowadays could mean ‘not actually a Grand Jury, but we would like you to assume it is the same as an actual legal, constitutional, Grand Jury’

    • This is what I’m wondering. I can’t tell from the clip I’ve seen whether she loves him and wanted to have that moment of getting to talk to him one-on-one, even if it was just swearing him in, or if she hates him and wants to see him interrogated to expose all of his “crimes”.

      The impression I got from her tone of voice and body language was that she is a fangirl. I could be wrong, but I thought it might end up being like the Covington boys where (almost) everyone jumps to the wrong conclusion based on a short video.

  4. I read that some radical leftists are consumed with rage over this woman’s display, claiming that prosecution of Trump has now become impossible. If so, I’ve little doubt they’ll invent something else to go after Trump because their TDS compels them.

    • She’s a product of their derangement. Somehow, they don’t understand that people like her come out of the whole Trump is the Exception to the Rule narrative they’ve been pushing.

      Another example of how the Left devours its own. Remember how Justice Bader-Ginsburg’s legacy became tarnished in the Left’s eyes when she had the nerve to die during Trump’s administration? Imagine their idolism come crashing down if they were ever presented with her opinion on Roe v Wade?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.