Select Page

Georgia Judge Releases Grand Jury Information on Overturn of 2020 Presidential Election … What?

Georgia Judge Releases Grand Jury Information on Overturn of 2020 Presidential Election … What?

Atlanta (Fulton County) District Attorney Fani Willis formed a Special Grand Jury to consider possible criminal charges against unspecified individuals in conjunction with efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia.  Fulton County Judge Robert McBurney recently released a portion of the Grand Jury’s report.

There were two revelations.  First, that the Grand Jury unanimously declared that there was no evidence of sufficient vote fraud to overturn the election in the Peach State, but there was sufficient evidence for Willis to file formal criminal perjury charges against “one or more” of those who testified before the Grand Jury.

The Special Grand Jury did not issue indictments – as one might have expected – because a “special” grand jury cannot indict.  In a previous commentary, I questioned why Willis called for a Special Grand Jury.

We do not know who the individual or individuals may be, so this commentary focuses on the judge’s decision to release that partial information.  Personally, I would call it judicial malpractice.

The deliberations of grand juries are supposed to remain secret until an official, and complete finding is made public.  It is a crime to reveal any information regarding the deliberations.  That includes the jurors, the prosecutors, and the witnesses.  They are not supposed to reveal the names of the targets of the investigation or the testimony of witnesses – although that is almost impossible to conceal in high-visibility cases.  Witnesses are allowed to make public their own participation but not the testimony itself.

Even when a grand jury makes its report, the names of peripheral individuals are often replaced with “Witness A” or “Person B” – as we have seen in many criminal filings.  The reason for the secrecy is to avoid the appearance of wrongdoing by persons not being accused or indicted.  It is to avoid false accusations in the court-of-public-opinion.

Of course, the privacy of grand juries is routinely violated.  Testimony is leaked to the media without legal consequences.  It is just another case in which the law is rarely enforced.

The information that McBurney released serves no good or essential public purpose.  It violates the spirit if not the law, and actually creates unnecessary biased speculation in the media – the court-of-public-opinion.

Since the case involved the actions of President Trump, his aides, and supporters, the release of the partial report set off a whirlwind of baseless speculation.  Was Trump among those recommended for indictment?  What about former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows?  Rudy Giuliani?  Was perjury the only criminal recommendation?  If so, then Trump is off the hook since he never testified.

North Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham was asked by reporters if he was worried about being indicted for perjury.  He said he was not.  It is a question that never needed to be asked except for McBurney’s release of partial information.

The major speculation was about Trump, of course.  Since he was never subpoenaed or even invited to testify, his lawyers suggest that was a sign he was not a target.  That is one way to look at it, but targets are not always brought in to testify.  The Grand Jury may have a recommendation regarding Trump.  Who knows?  So, it is all empty speculation.

There is also another step in the process.  Based on what the judge revealed, it will be up to Willis to decide whether to prosecute based on the Grand Jury’s recommendations.  That is not a slam-dunk in this case.  She has to independently determine if the evidence is sufficient to file charges AND get convictions.  Those decisions can be debated in the public arena based on reality – not speculation based on vague hints, as the Judge created.

Remember, the information revealed by McBurney said that “a majority” of the grand jurors recommended criminal indictments against some nameless individual or individuals.  That means that some jurors did not see criminal perjury – and that suggests that the cases may not be very strong.

What we do not know is critical.  What was the majority – 51 percent or 99 percent?  That makes a huge difference.  And if there are multiple recommendations, what were the percentages in each case?

Those decisions can be debated based on reality – not speculation based on vague hints.

All this speculation based political biases being applied to minimal information was unnecessary.  Even worse, it is corrosive to honest public discourse.  It creates misinformation and disinformation.

In my opinion, this is a situation in with the judicial profession should give Judge McBurney more than a slap on the wrist.  Of course, nothing will happen because we do not live under the rule-of-law, we live under the rule-of-judges.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.


  1. dave

    Graham is a Senator from South Carolina. Get your facts right if you want to write an article

  2. Fred Tucker

    Much hoopla about NOTHING! Yes the 2020 elections was stolen look no further than here >
    why did you feel the need to publish.

    Biden was installed, like a toilet.
    Trump should be POTUS for he won in 2020.
    You know it
    I know it
    We ALL know it

  3. Joseph

    Larry, Senator Graham is from South Carolina.

  4. frank stetson

    Wah…… whenever it does not go your way, it’s a horror. When it does, it’s legal.

    I don’t think there’s any way to give this judge a slap on the wrist, much less “more than a slap on the wrist.” At least any legal way.

    I thought that too about the forewoman release, which you did not mention and seems even more egregious. However, under Georgia law, as long as she doesn’t talk about the actual deliberations, that’s legal too.

    The only thing I care about is getting this over: The Big Lie, the January 6th insurrection, TrumpCo financial whatevers, let’s get past all this ASAP. Enough.

  5. Junius Graham

    Amen! Georgia needs to get its own house in order! They haven’t been honest about any of this.

  6. Wyatt Earp

    Hey Larry get to know which state you are talking about! Graham is NOT A NORTH CAROLINA SENATE! BUT A SOUTH CAROLINA!

  7. Wyatt earp

    You are correct! All due to these city like Atlanta are control by LIBERALS DEMOCRAT that set in these judges seat! McBurney shall be force off the bench for violation the laws in the CONSTITUTION!

  8. michael


    In the 2020 Election, the political pundits were startled that the Republicans increased their representation in the House, since the betting was that the Democrats would increase their majority. This is a case of reversion to the mean.

    Let’s back it up 4 years to the 2016 Election when Donald Trump shocked most by winning the presidency. Some within the Democrat hierarchy claimed to have an “insurance” policy. It appears that the “policy” was a concerted effort to claim that Trump and his minions colluded with Russia to help him win. The cabal knew it was untrue but the goal was to muddy and bloody President Trump to affect the 2018 midterm election. The Democrat program was to use the Russia collusion lie to stimulate voters to believe that he was a puppet of Putin. Some voters who may have wanted to vote Republican voted for Democrats thus affecting the 2018 voting. This distortion was cleared in 2020, thus the reversion to the mean.

    Now, let’s back it up to just before the 2012 Obama-Romney match-up. The then leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, repeatedly claimed that Mitt had not paid his income taxes for years. After the election, a reporter asked Reid why he had made that claim, knowing it was a lie. Reid’s response was “Romney didn’t win, did he?”

    Another example is Representative Adam Schiff. He, constantly, claimed that he, as the Chairman of the House’s Intelligent Committee, saw the evidence of the collusion but denied any such claim when he was under oath. He, also, offered a fantasy version of the call between President Trump and the Ukrainian president, from his Chair of the intelligence Committee in front of millions of U.S. citizens, which, when caught, he claimed it was a dramatization of the transcript.

    These are a few examples of the lies spewed by Democrat leadership.

    We are a Constitutional Republic. A Republic functions based upon the democratic process and a Constitutional Republic is a Republic that adheres to a Constitution.
    The democratic process is based upon ubiquitous information, thus if information were withheld, the democratic process is diminished and, possibly, rendered worthless.

    An excellent example of the democratic process being diminished is Twitter’s cutting off the New York Post’s article regarding Hunter Biden. A substantial portion of a president’s responsibilities is the maintenance of the democratic process; President Trump failed by not, immediately, forcing Twitter to reverse its action.

    Mega-disseminators of information must not employ political editing.

    The above, although showing many pieces of the BIG LIE puzzle, does not include the logistics of the election, including, but not limited to, signatures not verified, the changing of rules, during the election, and many other problematic actions.

    It appears that the 2020 Election for the Office of the Presidency violated the democratic process.

    michael zitterman
    May 24, 2021


    Definition of “democracy” from
    Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system

    We, the People must demand that we receive objective and truthful information to allow us to enjoy a functional democracy as it is defined.

    Without TRUTH, our efforts at democracy fall within the genre of “garbage in, garbage out” and our efforts at achieving a functional democracy will fail. Thus, any intentional impediment to truth must be eliminated and considered problematic and conceivably treasonous.

    If it were rational and logical to conclude that our goal is a functional democracy, it appears that an intentional and material lie or the withholding of truth by a Senator or Representative should be punished by expulsion and criminal penalties.

    Our forefathers who wrote the Constitution designed a system of checks and balances by establishing the three branches of government; legislative, executive, and judicial.

    Codified within the First Amendment of the Constitution is that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. This portion of the First Amendment enables the press or anyone else to present objective and truthful observations of our government. The First Amendment does not imply that the press or anyone is protected from untruthful information.

    Whereas the press has the freedom to present the results of observations and investigations, it cannot present knowingly false information and, if it were to do so, would be subject to financial and criminal penalties. The withholding of exculpatory information would be subject to the same penalties. The critical tools which must be utilized by the press are objectivity and truth.

    Large entities which are conduits and disseminators of information should be characterized as utilities, i.e., not proprietary.

    Based upon the above, it should be considered that these entities, Twitter, Google, and Facebook are treasonous. An effective Congress should assess substantial fines and demand an immediate reversal of the withholding of the New York Post article.

    The key elements of a functional democracy are objectivity and truthfulness.

    michael zitterman
    October 28, 2020


    DEFINITIONS: Democracy, Democratic, Democrat

    DEMOCRACY (noun): “Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.” (

    DEMOCRACTIC (adjective): Application of Democracy.

    DEMOCRAT (noun): A member of the Democrat Party, e.g., a Democrat Senator who we hope is democratic.

    We have two major political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats aka the Republican Party and the Democrat Party.
    We assume that all of our political parties employ democratic principles.

    Mischaracterizing by using the adjective, democratic, confuses people, especially young minds who “think” the Democrat Party, which is erroneously “characterized” as the “democratic” Party promotes the perception that the Democrat Party is the party of democracy. Unfortunately, the Democrat Party reflected that it did not equitably employ democratic principles in 2016 HRC vs. Sanders or the 2020 Biden vs. Sanders contests.

    Characterizing the Democrat Party as the democratic Party promotes, subconsciously, that the Republican Party must be the non-democratic party.
    We, the People, expect all political parties to be democratic.
    We are a Constitutional Republic which is a Republic that adheres to a Constitution. A Republic form of government employs the democratic process which requires ubiquitous information.
    Whereas I understand why Democrats use this moniker, the Republicans are reflecting INSANITY and are complicit in allowing this confusion.

    It’s the Democrat Party, not the democratic Party.
    Based upon the 2016 and 2020 Democrat primaries, it may not be near democratic.
    Get it?

    Comments, as always, are appreciated.

    michael zitterman
    September 27, 2020
    April 20, 2021

  9. Tony L Bell

    At one time our systems of law and governance was considered the best globally, however times change and now those qualities, once revered have now become suspect and considerably less esteemed. Of note is the reasons behind the fall. Legalism and deceit has changed the face of a nation once considered good and just, into one of suspicion, corruption and untrustworthy. America has chosen to allow “leaders” to squander the integrity of our nation for personal power, profit and ideology. All under the phony guise of diversity, equality, and equity.
    For a society that claims evolutionism over creationism, the natural over the supernatural, they simply have failed to think through the hierocracy of their stance, choosing to “believe” against nature itself, more than two genders, queer from birth, diversity over qualification, etc… you get the point. -TLB

  10. David

    Shouldn’t Judges be accountable to the law just like the rest of us? Doe3s their position as a judge make them above the law and above us common citizens? What this judge has done is against the law and their is good reason it is against the law. A Grand Jury only hears one side of this argument. There is no defense in any way shape or form. It is only the accusations. In this country you have the right to tell your side of this argument. A jury then makes a decision. Until that moment we do not know who is right or wrong. This judge should be recalled and replace with a judge who knows how to spell the word Law.

  11. Jpop

    If we a decent investigative media in this country instead one party suckups, all this shit would be water under the bridge.

  12. Ac

    Opinions, opinions, and more opinions voiced under the First Amendment right of free speech. How we love the First Amendment. It allows any one in our fair land to allege any other with wrongful, illegal, and unconstitutional acts. Unsubstantiated, bias laden, and error filled commentary allegations are doubly suspect. The commentary itself alleges some nefarious activity going on and opinion holders making allegations themself allege some level of authority worthy to opine, subject specific legal expertise, and requisite contextual evidence of proof. Without which ones personal opinion is as valid as any other persons opinion.
    All opinions noisily speaking over one another while wanting a hearing when on the whole any listening goes wanting. In as much as hearing does not equate with listening.
    That’s why a court hearing is the primary parties airing details. A court trial hinges on everyone involved listening and paying attention as details are organized into two classifications, true fact and pure fiction.
    Larry often pulls up his Court of Public Opinion. This is where the whole spectrum of opinions come up as arguments seeking debate. Subjects in question are not submitted to a legitimate debate process but receive a verdict none the less. Biased, conspiracy filled, land lie infected the result is more propaganda than productive.
    Opinions can be built on legitimate base, truth in established solid facts, essentially bias free, wholistic, pro-problem solving, and leaving room for teaching (some flex ability).
    Internet based media is rating percentage greedy, cut throat, and in many cases mendacious, a favorite Larry term of endearment. FOX is having it nose dragged through its own prodigious BS knowingly broadcasted for profit and popularity points. Other self advertised conservative right wing media organizations regularly get called out when they jump ahead of true and objective factual evidence opting for greed satisfaction and ratings points on the politically right perspective.
    What is referred to as the mainstream media coverage CNN, MSNBC, and others these are not totally without fault. Media personalities on networks leaning left of middle, liberal, and/or occasionally progressive, on occasion become fodder for their boss’s political purposes. Greed monetization of news in the name of real journalism runs through corporations tasked with information gathering, condensing for public consumption, and delivering as true facts. What used to be known and came to be trusted is news reporting.
    News Commentary pushed reporting aside as opinions took over the spotlight in media broadcasting. Consumer’s choose commentators whose opinion most nearly resonates with their own opinion on politics, party affiliation, and the usual bias (prejudice) assortment. Who doesn’t prefer a political ideology echo chamber to a different information source that challenges belief structures and forces one’s rational thinking process into thinking critically? Don’t the majority regardless of right-center-left political orientation, jump on the easy train for a mindless ride? Little thinking of what train they are on, where the train is taking them, and the very real consequences in their choice, too many folks do as their parents had done, they and their crowd have always done, and see no reason why they should change.
    So, few Americans think through the surface that makes up public opinion and search for the why behind the opinions peer pressure influence has followers riding its currents.
    Fear is a powerful, lethal, morally deflating, ethically compromising, dehumanizing, and essentially destructive force. Its use and intent is creating subjects who will think as they are indoctrinated to believe, do as they see leaders modeling how to act, talk in ways they hear their political mentors talk, and believe all will be lost unless their world bends to think, do. and follow in their world view.
    Ironically, conservative Republicans in the 10’s of millions see a civil war like conflict as the only remedy. The conservative doctrine and centralized revolt against society are incompatible.
    Opinion commentary happens to be believable only to the degree the author has won the readers respect as authoritatively believable. Therefore, the author has a proven command in and understanding in the subject of the commentary.
    It is very common for commentators that they write from a perspective built from experience and purposed for others correct instruction and edification. In this commentators claim authenticity in journalism’s fold. Yet, I suggest a question can the same people who market one particular product in contrast to other products potentially more efficacious? And, as proud sponsors of that product and claimants to journalism in which of the desperate different purposes is their credibility?
    Doesn’t journalism demand a modicum of objectivity with regard to government political partisanship, that the writer’s personal opinion is omitted and true facts only produce the particular story. Salesmen do not make for authentic neutral “just the facts” journalists. Especially when commenting on paper on a story about the industry in which a particular favored product participates
    With considerable thought I have come to think of my view of government politics is one of agnosticism regarding national politics. Left-Middle-Right are party centric. Finding not one of the three tuned into critical objectivity no matter the consciences maybe as perceived by any of the three. Ultimately, truth in facts revealed, unraveled, and set out so all can see has only positive outcomes ( positive consequences) present and future. If the Republic is to be kept. Respect for truth before personal opinion must rise to be the key.
    Larry, I may write with a grandfatherly pen, but as far off the beam as others comments have been. The world can find great benefit in quieting down and listening to grandfatherly advice sound in wisdom, practical in neutrality, central in morality, reasoned in ethics, unprejudiced in mind and heart, freedom, liberty, and equality in all forms with judicial oversight.
    My grandfathers were hewed from two vey different and opposite tree varieties. Paternal had grain going left while my maternal grandfather’s grain ran deep red and to the right.
    As opposed as they were in partisan politics, they both were of one mind and in agreement on all matters grounded in Truth. The one and center point which must be our focus. That which is truth, is as it has always been, history’s magnetic north.
    Cultures and nations fail if and when the compass becomes less and less in people’s hearts, minds, and central in life lived.
    Grandfatherly words, you mock, deride, and ridicule. It speaks to your low estimation of other’s being challenged in their number of years that are accumulated. Fear and resentment of each birthday marked and age in years it celebrates is in fact a fools errand in real life non acceptance.
    Simple math adds up in years to a sum that you may think unfair, of necessity secreted, speaks of weakness, less manly, diminished faculties, and not unlike the man holding a cup nearly empty.
    The man who has no fear in life counted in years near 8 decades is the man looking at his cup sees it full to the brim. His life perception is hope and gratitude and grandfatherly consideration for those he has been allowed opportunity for a positive encounter.
    If I read them correctly, those who follow your commentary on a regular basis and indulge you in their commenting freely alternating between contrary and somewhat guarded complimentary remarks. These esteemed intellects and good gentlemen have both attained mature, sober, and possibly are of post Soc. Sec and Medicare eligibility status. These fine contributors who add both breadth and depth in interest.
    My motivation in tuning in to PBP in the first place over 3 years now was my search in discovery of varied points of view relating to news happenings in
    US government. Larry’s commentary drew my attention for his antithetical approach relative to my own as well as a take no prisoners attitude and drive in defense of the opinions forwarded in his commentary.
    Over the 3 years following PNP it was bringing Larry’s historical context into the frame gave some little light to the dark and grim portrait drawn out with each telling episode.

    Grandfathers in years gone by at the same age today are great- grandfathers.