Fani Willis needs to step down

[AUFAN78 3,897]

 

[AU9377 4,931]

8 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

 

Possibly.  People should not confuse her short comings with the very valid indictments and charges she is prosecuting.  If she is removed, the charges will still be prosecuted, as they should be.

[AUFAN78 3,897]

14 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Possibly.  People should not confuse her short comings with the very valid indictments and charges she is prosecuting.  If she is removed, the charges will still be prosecuted, as they should be.

More like absolutely. We can argue validity of charges,  but that wasn't the point of the Dan Abrams segment. Probably help if you'd watch things in their entirety. 

I've seen you mention this at least twice. It must be really worrying you. Why is that? 

[AU9377 4,931]

3 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

More like absolutely. We can argue validity of charges,  but that wasn't the point of the Dan Abrams segment. Probably help if you'd watch things in their entirety. 

I've seen you mention this at least twice. It must be really worrying you. Why is that? 

It isn't a worrying thing.  When it comes to distrust of people in the legal profession regarding the propensity to enrich themselves in any way possible, I am almost never shocked.  Unfortunately, that is a people problem more than a system problem.  The issue with Willis is something that should have set off alarms the minute she hired someone that she had been in a relationship with, if that is what occurred.  That is an issue separate and apart from the election interference cases altogether.  Until the facts are revealed, we really don't know.

I do find it comical that some of you have chosen this issue to be outraged about, while looking for reasons to excuse behavior by Trump that is much more criminal and much more damaging to our constitutionally guaranteed right to vote.  If things are as some have alleged, I will be the first to say that she should be removed from office.  There are other good prosecutors capable of carrying out the work. 

[AUFAN78 3,897]

9 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

It isn't a worrying thing.  When it comes to distrust of people in the legal profession regarding the propensity to enrich themselves in any way possible, I am almost never shocked.  Unfortunately, that is a people problem more than a system problem.  The issue with Willis is something that should have set off alarms the minute she hired someone that she had been in a relationship with, if that is what occurred.  That is an issue separate and apart from the election interference cases altogether.  Until the facts are revealed, we really don't know.

I do find it comical that some of you have chosen this issue to be outraged about, while looking for reasons to excuse behavior by Trump that is much more criminal and much more damaging to our constitutionally guaranteed right to vote.  If things are as some have alleged, I will be the first to say that she should be removed from office.  There are other good prosecutors capable of carrying out the work. 

I'm not outraged and I'm definitely not surprised having worked with and/or socialized with attorneys over the years. They're human and flawed like the rest of us. So, I'm certainly not surprised by your comedic misinterpretation. If you had watched the segment in its entirety you'd know it had nothing to do with excusing Trump. I simply viewed the segment and felt it worthy of commentary. 

[DKW 86 7,424]

trump case is preceding as planned. But as the judge said: "What were you thinking?" This case has nationwide visibility. Pulling this in front of the national stage was just stupid. 

The BF has been paid $700K for a case he is not close to being the best and most qualified prosecutor available. Being stupid is expensive and I feel that she is about to find out. 

[AUFAN78 3,897]

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/fani-willis-hearing-nathan-wade-rcna139001

[AU9377 4,931]

The hearing is about burdens.  She is a constitutionally elected official.  As of yesterday's hearing, the defendants asking for her to be removed have not met their burden of proving that she derived a financial benefit from the prosecutorial decisions being made.  Even if we assume that 3 vacation trips were totally paid for by Nathan Wade, that total amount is not substantial when compared to the total compensation.

I agree that the total compensation is ridiculously high, but the truth is that it is also not uncommon.  There are contracts like the one he works under throughout the state.  I have seen rural counties enter contract agreements and pay $250,000 for what amounts to minimal services.  When something complicated comes up, those contracted professionals then bring in additional attorneys and the cost triples.  The cost is not what this hearing is about.

The hearing is limited to a finding of whether or not a conflict exists based on the DA receiving financial benefit as a result of the appointment.  Does anyone believe that they wouldn't have taken those trips but for his contract with Fulton County?  The man was a municipal court judge and had a substantial income before the appointment.

None of the circus impacts the facts of the underlying case.  When you cannot mount a defense based on your client's actions, you mount one that attacks those prosecuting you.

[aubiefifty 16,791]

On 1/25/2024 at 10:54 AM, AUFAN78 said:

More like absolutely. We can argue validity of charges,  but that wasn't the point of the Dan Abrams segment. Probably help if you'd watch things in their entirety. 

I've seen you mention this at least twice. It must be really worrying you. Why is that? 

dude you have too high opinion of yourself if you think we are worried about something you posted....................lol

Edited February 16 by aubiefifty

[aubiefifty 16,791]

On 2/15/2024 at 10:52 PM, AUFAN78 said:

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/fani-willis-hearing-nathan-wade-rcna139001

that was a bad joke 78. i just could not help it but you are welcome to come back at me anytime. i am running a no argue policy at the moment so i might crack anotherjoke ut nothing serious.

[auburnatl1 4,920]

On 2/16/2024 at 10:41 AM, AU9377 said:

The hearing is about burdens.  She is a constitutionally elected official.  As of yesterday's hearing, the defendants asking for her to be removed have not met their burden of proving that she derived a financial benefit from the prosecutorial decisions being made.  Even if we assume that 3 vacation trips were totally paid for by Nathan Wade, that total amount is not substantial when compared to the total compensation.

I agree that the total compensation is ridiculously high, but the truth is that it is also not uncommon.  There are contracts like the one he works under throughout the state.  I have seen rural counties enter contract agreements and pay $250,000 for what amounts to minimal services.  When something complicated comes up, those contracted professionals then bring in additional attorneys and the cost triples.  The cost is not what this hearing is about.

The hearing is limited to a finding of whether or not a conflict exists based on the DA receiving financial benefit as a result of the appointment.  Does anyone believe that they wouldn't have taken those trips but for his contract with Fulton County?  The man was a municipal court judge and had a substantial income before the appointment.

None of the circus impacts the facts of the underlying case.  When you cannot mount a defense based on your client's actions, you mount one that attacks those prosecuting you.

This isn’t just a legal case, it’s a political one.  Maga is constantly hunting for a narrative that the systems corrupt and out to get trump. Dont gift wrap them one. She’s needs to go.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

 

 

[AU9377 4,931]

23 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

 

A D.A. is elected.

[Gowebb11 9,323]

9 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

A D.A. is elected.

Touché!

[AU9377 4,931]

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

This isn’t just a legal case, it’s a political one.  Maga is constantly hunting for a narrative that the systems corrupt and out to get trump. Dont gift wrap them one. She’s needs to go.

I'm no fan of hers.  That being said, as you know, the case itself and what this hearing was about are not related in any way.  In my opinion, Nathan Wade should have offered to resign from the case and have the case move forward with the rest of the prosecution in tact.  What Trump's people want is a total disqualification, thereby allowing Pete Skandalakis and his group the opportunity to sit on the case and assign it to someone who will allow it to linger and eventually not prosecute. 

From a strictly legal analysis, I don't see Scott McAfee disqualifying the entire DA's office.  There was simply little to no evidence of personal gain by Willis from deciding to prosecute.  A couple of trips that they could have afforded without the proceeds from the prosecution of the case just doesn't seem like enough. 

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

55 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

A D.A. is elected.

So was Kamala.  Your point?

[AU9377 4,931]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

So was Kamala.  Your point?

You can describe Willis in a lot of ways, but being a diversity hire is not one of them.  She ran against a longtime incumbent DA that was also a minority. 

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

18 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

You can describe Willis in a lot of ways, but being a diversity hire is not one of them.  She ran against a longtime incumbent DA that was also a minority. 

I believe The Babylon Bee is using it as satire, but you have lost all your sense on humor.

[Leftfield 2,601]

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I believe The Babylon Bee is using it as satire, but you have lost all your sense on humor.

Ah, bigoted/misogynistic humor! How droll.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

25 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Ah, bigoted/misogynistic humor! How droll.

Speaking of humorless.  Exibit A.

[Leftfield 2,601]

34 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Speaking of humorless.  Exibit A.

Well, I guess all of us can't be bigoted and misogynistic. Thanks for carrying the burden.

[DKW 86 7,424]

On 1/24/2024 at 7:56 PM, AU9377 said:

Possibly.  People should not confuse her short comings with the very valid indictments and charges she is prosecuting.  If she is removed, the charges will still be prosecuted, as they should be.

In an estimated two years...She had a kill shot lined up for her and she blew it...Her testimony may have politically looked like she was answering her critics, but in the legal system, it was nothing short of suicide. NW has no experience and no background for prosecuting a case like this. He was an awful hire. And apparently everyone knows WHY he was hired. In the long term, maybe we get someone competent to try the case. The "appearance of impropriety" standard is completely crossed here and nothing short of a miracle saves this case being presented before the election now. Restart with new DA etc and with normal procedural delays we are talking 18-24 months of delays. 

Edited February 19 by DKW 86

[AU9377 4,931]

6 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

In an estimated two years...She had a kill shot lined up for her and she blew it...Her testimony may have politically looked like she was answering her critics, but in the legal system, it was nothing short of suicide. NW has no experience and no background for prosecuting a case like this. He was an awful hire. And apparently everyone knows WHY he was hired. In the long term, maybe we get someone competent to try the case. The "appearance of impropriety" standard is completely crossed here and nothing short of a miracle saves this case being presented before the election now. Restart with new DA etc and with normal procedural delays we are talking 18-24 months of delays. 

This why she brought in others that she offered the job to before she offered it to NW.  The problem is that if she is removed, the assigning of a new prosecutor will go to a MAGA controlled panel in Georgia.  When it arrives there, it will sit for a year or more and eventually be assigned to a prosecutor that will drop the case.  The Georgia Attorney General could have brought the case, but he is a Trump disciple. 

I watched a good bit of the 2 day hearing.  The parties that brought the motion moved away from trying to prove that disqualification was justified due to some benefit being accrued.  They instead started focusing on the affidavit filed by NW that stated an approximate date that their romantic relationship began.  There was very little evidence that actually refuted that affidavit. 

It is common for a DA to appoint a friend to a position.  They are often not the most qualified person available.  It works like a perk for the system.  Once elected, they can hire and fire at will. 

[AUFAN78 3,897]

On 2/18/2024 at 2:56 PM, aubiefifty said:

that was a bad joke 78. i just could not help it but you are welcome to come back at me anytime. i am running a no argue policy at the moment so i might crack anotherjoke ut nothing serious.

Remember what I told you about my facepalm theory? 

[AUFAN78 3,897]

On 2/18/2024 at 6:41 PM, Leftfield said:

Ah, bigoted/misogynistic humor! How droll.

You poor victim. SMDH