• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

The Georgia Criminal Case Against Trump

Do you agree with him? Or are you capable of a more sophisticated analysis?

I've done it. I've plead the 5th when called as a witness for a friend of mine. It's a similar story to many others that have plead the 5th. He was at my house for a length of time, we were smoking weed, he was accused of something while we were smoking. I got on the stand, gave the times he was there and when asked what we were doing I plead the 5th.

I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy.
 
So Trump has got away with yet another clearly criminal act - trying to browbeat and threaten a governor into falsifying his state's election results, no less. TANJ, not in the US anyway.
 
I haven't read any decisions but can anyone explain why Willis was disqualified?? Obviously it was stupid of her to have an affair with the lead prosecutor, but since when did that constitute "a conflict of interest"?? Her interest is the same as the lead prosecutors--to prosecute criminals, like Trump. Conflict of interest is when you have some problematic relationship to the defendant, there was none here. So aside from some nebulous argument of impropriety, I don't get it.
 
Last edited:
Whatever the decision says, it isn't what they really mean. It is inappropriate to prosecute Dear Leader of The Party.
 
I haven't read any decisions but can anyone explain what Willis ws disqualified?? Obviously it was stupid of her to have an affair with the lead prosecutor, but since when did that constitute "a conflict of interest"?? Her interest is the same as the lead prosecutors--to prosecute criminals, like Trump. Conflict of interest is when you have some problematic relationship to the defendant, there was none here. So aside from some nebulous argument of impropriety, I don't get it.
Conflicts of interest are not simply about problematic relationships with the defendant. They can arise any time the prosecutor has an interest which diverges from the public interest. A relationship to the defendant can obviously create such a conflict, but that's not the only way. A romantic relationship between Willis and Wade which predated his hiring can create such a conflict, because her choice to hire Wade rather than someone else could be conflicted. If Wade was paying Willis for his hiring, that also creates a conflict of interest because Willis benefits financially from both hiring Wade and from pursuing the prosecution.

You can read the full decision here:
A note about what this decision is and isn't. What it is not is an examination of the evidence of the conflict of interest. For the purpose of the appeal, the court took the trial court's findings about that evidence as established. So for example, when the trial court said that there was an "odor of mendacity", the appeals court took that conclusion as given. What the appeals court is doing, the only thing it is doing, is deciding if, given the trial court's finding of fact, its remedy is the correct remedy. And the appeals court is saying that no, it isn't. Given the findings of fact that the trial court made, it should have gone further in its remedy.

I'm not terribly surprised. The original ruling was sort of a copout. The judge basically said, yeah, it looks like Willis and Wade are liars, and this whole thing stinks. But then his solution of allowing her to just fire Wade wasn't really a solution, because if Willis stinks, then just removing Wade doesn't fix things. The judge was up for election, and he probably didn't want to take that step because it would have hurt his chances. So he didn't. But he still put it on the record that the whole thing stinks. And so the appeals court made the call that he wasn't willing to make to boot her off the case.
 
Conflicts of interest are not simply about problematic relationships with the defendant. They can arise any time the prosecutor has an interest which diverges from the public interest. A relationship to the defendant can obviously create such a conflict, but that's not the only way. A romantic relationship between Willis and Wade which predated his hiring can create such a conflict, because her choice to hire Wade rather than someone else could be conflicted. If Wade was paying Willis for his hiring, that also creates a conflict of interest because Willis benefits financially from both hiring Wade and from pursuing the prosecution.

You can read the full decision here:
A note about what this decision is and isn't. What it is not is an examination of the evidence of the conflict of interest. For the purpose of the appeal, the court took the trial court's findings about that evidence as established. So for example, when the trial court said that there was an "odor of mendacity", the appeals court took that conclusion as given. What the appeals court is doing, the only thing it is doing, is deciding if, given the trial court's finding of fact, its remedy is the correct remedy. And the appeals court is saying that no, it isn't. Given the findings of fact that the trial court made, it should have gone further in its remedy.

I'm not terribly surprised. The original ruling was sort of a copout. The judge basically said, yeah, it looks like Willis and Wade are liars, and this whole thing stinks. But then his solution of allowing her to just fire Wade wasn't really a solution, because if Willis stinks, then just removing Wade doesn't fix things. The judge was up for election, and he probably didn't want to take that step because it would have hurt his chances. So he didn't. But he still put it on the record that the whole thing stinks. And so the appeals court made the call that he wasn't willing to make to boot her off the case.
It's a crap decision. Trump and his cabal was and is guilty as can be. And the GOP politicians got their buddies on the Georgia Supreme Court to find a way for them to avoid accountability. Just like the US Supreme Court did. Laws can't possibly apply to rich white people. The idea that America is a system of laws and not people has been totally destroyed.
 
I haven't read any decisions but can anyone explain why Willis was disqualified?? Obviously it was stupid of her to have an affair with the lead prosecutor, but since when did that constitute "a conflict of interest"?? Her interest is the same as the lead prosecutors--to prosecute criminals, like Trump. Conflict of interest is when you have some problematic relationship to the defendant, there was none here. So aside from some nebulous argument of impropriety, I don't get it.
I'm not even sure it is stupid. It's not a conflict of interest. It is entirely irrelevant.
 
It's a crap decision. Trump and his cabal was and is guilty as can be.
That's... not how due process works. Prosecutorial misconduct isn't ignored on the basis of how guilty the defendant is.
The idea that America is a system of laws and not people has been totally destroyed.
... he said, while demanding that the system of laws be ignored.
 
It'll be nice if another prosecutor takes over the case and prosecutes it to a successful guilty verdict. The case does not rest on Fawny, but on all of the evidence of guilt.
 
Conflicts of interest are not simply about problematic relationships with the defendant. They can arise any time the prosecutor has an interest which diverges from the public interest. A relationship to the defendant can obviously create such a conflict, but that's not the only way.
A romantic relationship between Willis and Wade which predated his hiring can create such a conflict, because her choice to hire Wade rather than someone else could be confllicted If Wade was paying Willis for his hiring, that also creates a conflict of interest because Willis benefits financially from both hiring Wade and from pursuing the prosecution.

You can read the full decision here:
A note about what this decision is and isn't. What it is not is an examination of the evidence of the conflict of interest. For the purpose of the appeal, the court took the trial court's findings about that evidence as established. So for example, when the trial court said that there was an "odor of mendacity", the appeals court took that conclusion as given. What the appeals court is doing, the only thing it is doing, is deciding if, given the trial court's finding of fact, its remedy is the correct remedy. And the appeals court is saying that no, it isn't. Given the findings of fact that the trial court made, it should have gone further in its remedy.

I'm not terribly surprised. The original ruling was sort of a copout. The judge basically said, yeah, it looks like Willis and Wade are liars, and this whole thing stinks. But then his solution of allowing her to just fire Wade wasn't really a solution, because if Willis stinks, then just removing Wade doesn't fix things. The judge was up for election, and he probably didn't want to take that step because it would have hurt his chances. So he didn't. But he still put it on the record that the whole thing stinks. And so the appeals court made the call that he wasn't willing to make to boot her off the case.
Thanks I will eventually read the decision. But the highlighted is I think where you go wrong. Her relationship to the prosecutor may be stupid, as I already conceded, but it does not affect her or his ability to prosecute the case. How could it? The public's interest is in seeing a competent prosecution. If one argued that an element of impropriety precludes this, then obviously the correct remedy is not to destroy the case completely, as virtually everyone agrees this ruling has done. The bottom line is that this was an invented problem by Trump's team, and as usual because he is the dictator-elect, he gets his way. If there was any real legal teeth to the argument they made here, our entire legal system would collapse and millions of prisoners should be set free. Because there was nothing really unusual in her behavior, you can bet that something analogous occurs in every legal agency in the country. (in fact I saw it first hand in my criminal defense days!) The only reason this ever saw the light of day is because Trump made it an issue, he created the illusion of something being wrong or unfair just as he convinced a huge chunk of the electorate that the last election was stolen. Then his legal team obfuscates the whole thing, and his cult blindly accepts their conclusions.
 
That's... not how due process works. Prosecutorial misconduct isn't ignored on the basis of how guilty the defendant is.

... he said, while demanding that the system of laws be ignored.
It wasn't prosecutorial conduct. That is just an excuse. Nothing is beneath the GOP. Anything to avoid accountability.
 
This will make scummy defense lawyers across the USA rub their hands with glee. Did any of the prosecution team have sex with anyone even tangentially connected to the same team? Then the whole case can be dismissed for impropriety, just like this one!
 
Thanks I will eventually read the decision. But the highlighted is I think where you go wrong. Her relationship to the prosecutor may be stupid, as I already conceded, but it does not affect her or his ability to prosecute the case. How could it?
It's not her ability to prosecute the case which is the issue in this conflict. Her motive to prosecute the case is. If she has a motive to prosecute the case other than the merits of the case itself, that's a conflict of interest.
The public's interest is in seeing a competent prosecution.
That's one of the public's interests. But the public also has an interest in whether or not the case is prosecuted at all. And while I'm sure you think that they do, that's not how conflicts of interest work. The decision is supposed to be made by someone with no personal stake in it.
If one argued that an element of impropriety precludes this, then obviously the correct remedy is not to destroy the case completely, as virtually everyone agrees this ruling has done.
The case is probably destroyed because there are probably no other prosecutors who want to pursue it, because it's not actually a very good case.
The bottom line is that this was an invented problem by Trump's team
First off, this is primarily the work of Ashleigh Merchant, who is a lawyer for one of the other defendants, NOT Trump. Second, it wasn't invented by her. She brought it to the court's attention, but that's what lawyers are supposed to do. They are supposed to present the best defense they can provide to their clients. And that's what she did.
If there was any real legal teeth to the argument they made here, our entire legal system would collapse and millions of prisoners should be set free. Because there was nothing really unusual in her behavior, you can bet that something analogous occurs in every legal agency in the country.
If Willis's behavior is actually the norm among prosecutors (who are held to a higher standard than defense attorneys, BTW, because they have more power), then the legal system is already a farce.
The only reason this ever saw the light of day is because Trump made it an issue, he created the illusion of something being wrong or unfair just as he convinced a huge chunk of the electorate that the last election was stolen. Then his legal team obfuscates the whole thing, and his cult blindly accepts their conclusions.
Again, you are operating under a significant misunderstanding of the facts of the case. This wasn't Trump's legal team. His team joined in on the appeal, but they weren't in the driver's seat.
 
It's not her ability to prosecute the case which is the issue in this conflict.
Her motive to prosecute the case is. If she has a motive to prosecute the case other than the merits of the case itself, that's a conflict of interest.
That's one of the public's interests. But the public also has an interest in whether or not the case is prosecuted at all. And while I'm sure you think that they do, that's not how conflicts of interest work. The decision is supposed to be made by someone with no personal stake in it.

The case is probably destroyed because there are probably no other prosecutors who want to pursue it, because it's not actually a very good case.

First off, this is primarily the work of Ashleigh Merchant, who is a lawyer for one of the other defendants, NOT Trump. Second, it wasn't invented by her. She brought it to the court's attention, but that's what lawyers are supposed to do. They are supposed to present the best defense they can provide to their clients. And that's what she did.

If Willis's behavior is actually the norm among prosecutors (who are held to a higher standard than defense attorneys, BTW, because they have more power), then the legal system is already a farce.

Again, you are operating under a significant misunderstanding of the facts of the case. This wasn't Trump's legal team. His team joined in on the appeal, but they weren't in the driver's seat.
Well you got one thing right, the legal system has long been a farce (which is why I left it in 1997)
But the rest of your nonsense is just parroting Trumpist talking points. If you seriously believe Trump's team wasn't 'in the driver's seat' you're deep in the cult, living in an alternate reality. This case is about Trump, not his co-defendants. It would not exist without his involvement, period.
As for the highlighted, I apologize in advance if that is spelled out somewhere and I haven't seen it yet, but how exactly is her affair with the lead prosecutor related to "motive to prosecute the case"?? I haven't seen any alleged fact that would indicate any conflict. Please point out that alleged fact.
 
Well you got one thing right, the legal system has long been a farce (which is why I left it in 1997)
But the rest of your nonsense is just parroting Trumpist talking points. If you seriously believe Trump's team wasn't 'in the driver's seat' you're deep in the cult, living in an alternate reality. This case is about Trump, not his co-defendants.
Ashleigh Merchant would beg to differ.
It would not exist without his involvement, period.
That may be true, but it's not relevant to anything I said.
As for the highlighted, I apologize in advance if that is spelled out somewhere and I haven't seen it yet, but how exactly is her affair with the lead prosecutor related to "motive to prosecute the case"?? I haven't seen any alleged fact that would indicate any conflict. Please point out that alleged fact.
Did you miss the allegation that Wade was giving her kickbacks for hiring him?
 
Ashleigh Merchant would beg to differ.
Who cares?

That may be true, but it's not relevant to anything I said.
Sure it is, it invalidates everything you said about Ashleigh Merchant (who is completely irrelevant)

Did you miss the allegation that Wade was giving her kickbacks for hiring him?
Assuming that was proven, what does that have to do with Willis' "motivation" for prosecuting the case? You act as if it that would be some incentive to prosecute, it obviously is not.
 
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
LMAO Name another prosecutor that was dismissed from a case because she had sex with another attorney in their office. Bet you dollars to donuts the case will not be continued. And not because it lacks evidence.
 
Who cares?
Her client, for starters. And you, evidently, because you're hung up on the notion that Trump and not Merchant was driving this effort to disqualify Willis. And we know Merchant was in the driver's seat, because we know how it started. Well, maybe you don't, but it's publicly available information.
Assuming that was proven, what does that have to do with Willis' "motivation" for prosecuting the case? You act as if it that would be some incentive to prosecute, it obviously is not.
Obviously it is, because she can't get kickbacks from Wade if she didn't hire him, and she only hired him to help prosecute this case.
 
LMAO Name another prosecutor that was dismissed from a case because she had sex with another attorney in their office.
You say that as if it would prove that the claims are without merit. But it doesn't.
Bet you dollars to donuts the case will not be continued. And not because it lacks evidence.
I suspect it won't be continued, but given your propensity to simply invent motives, your opinion on that front is worthless.
 
being accused of impropriety does create the appearance of impropriety. pretty airtight imo.
 
The disqualification can be appealed, but the Georgia Supreme Court is highly unlikely to rule in Willis' favor. I suggest the lesson is that we should not rely on prosecutors to save democracy.
i agree, rigging the justice system seems to be one of the steps of the plan. every case against trump is dead, so yeah biden and the dems banking on them to handle it was a pretty bad call. their strategy of staying apolitical of this pretty political problem they were elected to deal with was poor, and probably going to cost us all quite a bit. whether you're going to defend foolishness or not, you won't be spared.
 
i agree, rigging the justice system seems to be one of the steps of the plan. every case against trump is dead, so yeah biden and the dems banking on them to handle it was a pretty bad call. their strategy of staying apolitical of this pretty political problem they were elected to deal with was poor, and probably going to cost us all quite a bit. whether you're going to defend foolishness or not, you won't be spared.
Staying out of this? What a joke. The Biden admin colluded with Wade on this prosecution. They didn't stay out of it at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom