FULTON COUNTY, Ga. — A coalition of media organizations is urging the Georgia Supreme Court to release the full Fulton County special purpose grand jury report that investigated whether former President Donald Trump and others tried to influence the 2020 election.
A new motion in the case was filed Wednesday asking the Court to revisit the coalition's request - and soon. This renewed push comes after Trump and 18 other people were formally charged in the Fulton County District Attorney's investigation into election interference.
11Alive and its parent company, TEGNA, joined local Atlanta news outlets and national names such as The New York Times Company and The Washington Post in saying the push is ultimately for transparency. The coalition is known as "Media Intervenors" in the filings.
Portions of the report were released in February. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert C. I. McBurney allowed only three sections to be made public citing concerns for the due process rights of anyone named. The Court ultimately sided with McBurney's reasoning, saying it would revisit the question.
"Media Intervenors submit the time to revisit the question is now," the new motion reads.
The coalition reiterated its initial arguments, adding that the indictment - which also includes "a broad array of individuals" - wipes away any due process concerns as defendants will have a way to argue their case, likely in court.
The sweeping 98-page indictment names the former president and 18 co-defendants and includes 41 charges. Records show Trump faces 13 counts, including violation of Georgia's RICO statute. Other high-profile names, such as Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows, are among the co-defendants listed in the indictment.
Trump's charges stem from his alleged efforts to interfere with Georgia's 2020 election results. "Media Intervenors" argue that the public has a right to know about possible wrongdoing, especially with potentially high-profile participants such as a sitting U.S. president - and the full special purpose grand jury report could offer this insight.
"For the same reasons the Indictment is a public record, the Final Report should be published to permit the public to understand the scope and scale of the investigation that informed the Indictment's charges," the filing reads.
In the motion, the media groups do acknowledge the need to redact portions of the report with an explanation, such as omitting names of identifiable people and institutions where no indictment was returned.
With the option to redact, and with defendants given the opportunity to respond to allegations of the criminal charges brought against them in the formal indictment, the coalition said the reasons for not releasing the report are now moot.
"The Final Report should now be published," the motion concluded.