Georgia special prosecutor bills time for talking to White House Counsel

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

16 hours ago, AU9377 said:

The question is whether she had the authority to appoint whoever she wants.  The answer to that is yes.  That comes with her title. 

So she picks her lover, who has little experience in a trial like this, and pays him an extraordinary salary?  The decision and consequences comes with her title also.

16 hours ago, AU9377 said:

The judge in this case needs to take the bull by the horns and move on.  Deciding either way is likely to result in an appeal, but that appeal doesn't have to be something that impedes the prosecution.  That appeal can be preserved for post verdict. 

This is the whole issue isn’t it.  The case is tried and verdict assessed before the election and appeals later when the damage is done.  The judge has to rule now IMO.  The defendant should have all the questions answered before the trial, not after.

[AU9377 4,931]

12 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

So she picks her lover, who has little experience in a trial like this, and pays him an extraordinary salary?  The decision and consequences comes with her title also.

This is the whole issue isn’t it.  The case is tried and verdict assessed before the election and appeals later when the damage is done.  The judge has to rule now IMO.  The defendant should have all the questions answered before the trial, not after.

What conflict exists the prejudices the defendants?

A sitting U.S. President called and demanded that the Secretary of State find 11,000 plus votes.  Next, he undertook a plan to replace legitimate electors with his chosen electors. He called the governor of Georgia and demanded that he call a special session of the legislature to void the results of the election. What part of that sounds ok?

Edited February 25 by AU9377

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

7 hours ago, AU9377 said:

What conflict exists the prejudices the defendants?

A sitting U.S. President called and demanded that the Secretary of State find 11,000 plus votes.  Next, he undertook a plan to replace legitimate electors with his chosen electors. He called the governor of Georgia and demanded that he call a special session of the legislature to void the results of the election. What part of that sounds ok?

Those allegation are not OK, but to get to trial one would hope the prosecutors are all on the up and up, if they are not we need new ones.

ETA: 

 

Sounds reasonable to me.

Edited February 25 by I_M4_AU

[AU9377 4,931]

14 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Those allegation are not OK, but to get to trial one would hope the prosecutors are all on the up and up, if they are not we need new ones.

ETA: 

 

Sounds reasonable to me.

The charges are not based on filing false papers and making false statements to courts.  People stating that taints the entire conversation.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

9 hours ago, AU9377 said:

The charges are not based on filing false papers and making false statements to courts.  People stating that taints the entire conversation.

Is this true with all the defendants? or just Trump?

[AU9377 4,931]

39 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Is this true with all the defendants? or just Trump?

I would have to look at all 19 and I honestly don't know.  That is a fair point.  The fake electors could have some sort of document charges.  Of course, even pointing out FAKE ELECTORS should make people more than a little concerned about what was taking place.

[AUFAN78 3,897]

5 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Of course, even pointing out FAKE ELECTORS should make people more than a little concerned about what was taking place.

Totally agree, but one could argue precedent even if the cases are slightly different.

"The attorneys included examples of when prominent Democrats evoked the Hawaii scenario during the tight 2000 presidential contest and even in the immediate aftermath of the Trump-Biden race. In other words: Democrats were for the concept of alternate electors before they were against it."

[AU9377 4,931]

1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

Totally agree, but one could argue precedent even if the cases are slightly different.

"The attorneys included examples of when prominent Democrats evoked the Hawaii scenario during the tight 2000 presidential contest and even in the immediate aftermath of the Trump-Biden race. In other words: Democrats were for the concept of alternate electors before they were against it."

The difference is in the purpose.  Trump's gang had a plan.  Get the governor to call a special session of the state legislature. Have the legislature pass legislation voiding the results of the election.  Pass an additional piece of legislation appointing the Trump delegate slate.  They knew that the courts would get involved and likely put the brakes on the plan at some point, however, they could then argue that neither slate of electors should be counted for either candidate. The thinking was that this could then put the outcome of the election into the House of Representatives, which the Republicans had just assumed the majority.

I have never believed that it was a good idea to charge most of those fake electors with a crime.  Most of them had no idea what was actually happening.  Prosecutors at every level can't help themselves usually and over charge the heck out of what is in front of them.

[AUFAN78 3,897]

4 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

The difference is in the purpose.  Trump's gang had a plan.  Get the governor to call a special session of the state legislature. Have the legislature pass legislation voiding the results of the election.  Pass an additional piece of legislation appointing the Trump delegate slate.  They knew that the courts would get involved and likely put the brakes on the plan at some point, however, they could then argue that neither slate of electors should be counted for either candidate. The thinking was that this could then put the outcome of the election into the House of Representatives, which the Republicans had just assumed the majority.

I have never believed that it was a good idea to charge most of those fake electors with a crime.  Most of them had no idea what was actually happening.  Prosecutors at every level can't help themselves usually and over charge the heck out of what is in front of them.

Well sure. There is always a plan. I was just pointing out the precedent was part of the plan. You nor I have to like it, but IIWII. 

[Cardin Drake 1,828]

 Trump's gang had a plan.  Get the governor to call a special session of the state legislature. Have the legislature pass legislation voiding the results of the election.  Pass an additional piece of legislation appointing the Trump delegate slate. 

Is it a crime to lobby the governor to call a special session to examine election results? It sounds like ordinary politics to me. 

[AU9377 4,931]

3 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

 Trump's gang had a plan.  Get the governor to call a special session of the state legislature. Have the legislature pass legislation voiding the results of the election.  Pass an additional piece of legislation appointing the Trump delegate slate. 

Is it a crime to lobby the governor to call a special session to examine election results? It sounds like ordinary politics to me. 

The Sec of State had already conducted a recount and an audit and determined that the results were valid. Asking for a special session for the purpose of getting a different result isn't examining results, it is an attempt to discard the results and the will of the voters.  Had anyone else done this, Republicans would have been calling for his head on a stake. 

[AU9377 4,931]

All of the theatrics aside, this will come down to whether or not Scott McAfee, the judge, decides to remove Willis from the case. I doubt that he will find an actual conflict, but he may decide that Willis and Wade were misleading or failed in their duty to be responsive to the court and that the appearance of impropriety alone requires the assigning of another Prosecutor.  He could also split the baby and allow other prosecutors within her office to proceed with the prosecution, but require they work independently of Willis. 

If she is removed, she has herself to blame.  However, it is also disgraceful the manner in which Trump crazies do everything from threaten the lives of prosecutors and judges that are doing their job to Trump himself acting like a spoiled child every time he is in front of a nut house.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 1/21/2024 at 11:33 AM, homersapien said:

Unprofessional maybe

“Maybe”? 

You scientists are a weird bunch.

[DKW 86 7,424]

On 1/22/2024 at 11:55 AM, AuburnNTexas said:

If you will notice I said I was not saying if Trump was innocent or guilty. My point was there can not be corruption in the prosecution whether that corruption is related to the crime and also there can't  be the appearance of political bias that you get when Fulton County prosecutor interfaces with Biden's White House council.

I am not against the investigation, but because of the involvement between DA and Chief Prosecutor they may need to start over without either the Prosecutor or the DA involved.

If the Prosecution in any case can be shown to have the appearance of corruption, or being ethically challenged, etc that sets up automatic grounds for appeal. Even if you win, what did you win? You go to appeal and get an otherwise valid case tossed over the actions of the prosecutors. You sully up the public's view of the case and damage the case of the next person to come in and re-try the case. This was an unforced error on many levels. Is trump guilty? I think he is. I cant imagine calling any entity associated with vote collecting and asking/demanding they change the outcome of an election. Folks, even Fox News people IRL KNEW this was BS. 

Edited March 1 by DKW 86

[Cardin Drake 1,828]

This testimony is really a problem for Fani:

From Red State: The AAF says that's a violation of Georgia campaign finance law, "Nothing in this Code section shall permit or authorize a candidate to utilize campaign funds for the purpose of making gifts, loans, or investments directly to: (A) The candidate…" The complaint document continues:

The statute is unambiguous – and the facts are not in dispute – as Ms. Willis described in her testimony, she placed the money that was intended for her campaign into a "fungible" slush fund with other moneys that she would use for various other purposes, including reimbursing her boyfriend for leisure travel.

[AU9377 4,931]

1 hour ago, Cardin Drake said:

This testimony is really a problem for Fani:

From Red State: The AAF says that's a violation of Georgia campaign finance law, "Nothing in this Code section shall permit or authorize a candidate to utilize campaign funds for the purpose of making gifts, loans, or investments directly to: (A) The candidate…" The complaint document continues:

The statute is unambiguous – and the facts are not in dispute – as Ms. Willis described in her testimony, she placed the money that was intended for her campaign into a "fungible" slush fund with other moneys that she would use for various other purposes, including reimbursing her boyfriend for leisure travel.

So.. you have an issue with that, but no problem with Trump's conduct?