• 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

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.

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.
I am sure Trump was happy letting Merchant do the leg work, but to think they would have not raised all of the same issues she did even if she had not raised them is ludicrous. Again, her involvement was a side show to this case, which is all about Trump.

And your assertion of improper 'motive' is extremely far-fetched. She would likely have gotten the same alleged 'kickbacks' from him whether he were on the case or not, if she was in a relationship with him. They weren't alleging direct monetary payments, just things like paying for vacations. And again, it has zero to do with her motivations for prosecuting Trump, only in the alternate reality of the Trumpist cult does that make any sense. At most, it was a reason to take him off the case, and he was off the case. So what is the problem, is she can have another affair with another prosecutor handling the case? The whole thing is insane, but typical of the insanity that Trump has brought to our legal system.
 
That's... not how due process works. Prosecutorial misconduct isn't ignored on the basis of how guilty the defendant is.
So, will you at least concede that Trump is guilty as sin--is that too much to ask for?? :D
 
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.
Saying they did doesn't make it so. Does anyone believe that Trump, Meadows etc didn't work to create fake electors in Georgia?
 
I am sure Trump was happy letting Merchant do the leg work, but to think they would have not raised all of the same issues she did even if she had not raised them is ludicrous.
You don't actually know how it started, do you? Without Merchant, there very well may not have even been any motion to disqualify. Do you know why? I do. Sure, Trump's team is undoubtedly happy with her work, but that wasn't your claim.
Again, her involvement was a side show to this case, which is all about Trump.
It's all about Trump for you. It's not all about Trump for the other defendants. For them, it's about them.
And your assertion of improper 'motive' is extremely far-fetched. She would likely have gotten the same alleged 'kickbacks' from him whether he were on the case or not, if she was in a relationship with him.
That makes no sense. There would be nothing for him to kick back if he wasn't on this case. He isn't a regular prosecutor. He wouldn't be working for her at all if not for this case. He was hired for this case and only this case, he didn't work any other cases for her.

Did you not know that?
 
they'll just say they have no opinion until they've seen all the evidence in a trial that will never happen

idk why they defend this nonsense but it's neither here nor there to me
 
You don't actually know how it started, do you? Without Merchant, there very well may not have even been any motion to disqualify. Do you know why? I do. Sure, Trump's team is undoubtedly happy with her work, but that wasn't your claim.
You still aren't getting it! Without Trump, this case never ever would have been brought! So what some codefendant's attorney did to help the main DRIVER (to use your word) in this case is irrelevant. The case is about Trump--period!
It's all about Trump for you. It's not all about Trump for the other defendants. For them, it's about them.
They would not be dealing with this case at all if it were not about Trump, so no, you are wrong again--for them--it is about Trump!!
That makes no sense. There would be nothing for him to kick back if he wasn't on this case. He isn't a regular prosecutor. He wouldn't be working for her at all if not for this case. He was hired for this case and only this case, he didn't work any other cases for her.

Did you not know that?
All I am saying is that if she was in a relationship with him, and he was paying for some of their expenses, that would have happened regardless of whether he was hired as special prosecutor. You seem to be implying that she hired him specifically to get those 'kickbacks'--and that is an extreme stretch. At worst, as I said, it means he should step down--and he did. To imply that relationship was some sort of 'motivation' or incentive' to prosecute though is crazy. But that is apparently the crazy argument being made.
 
All I am saying is that if she was in a relationship with him, and he was paying for some of their expenses, that would have happened regardless of whether he was hired as special prosecutor. You seem to be implying that she hired him specifically to get those 'kickbacks'--and that is an extreme stretch. At worst, as I said, it means he should step down--and he did. To imply that relationship was some sort of 'motivation' or incentive' to prosecute though is crazy. But that is apparently the crazy argument being made.
well, not exactly. she was accused of the relationship being a motivation to prosecute, which was found to have not been the case. but because she was accused of that, it may appear to some that it was true, creating an appearance of impropriety. and this appearance of impropriety, even though there was none, is disqualifying.

is what we are led to believe is the fair thing here.
 
All I am saying is that if she was in a relationship with him, and he was paying for some of their expenses, that would have happened regardless of whether he was hired as special prosecutor.
Again, not if it was a kickback. If he was paying for her in return for her getting him the job, then it absolutely would not have happened if he had not been hired.

You might note that not once did Willis argue that there would be no conflict even if she didn't pay him back.
 
Again, not if it was a kickback. If he was paying for her in return for her getting him the job, then it absolutely would not have happened if he had not been hired.

You might note that not once did Willis argue that there would be no conflict even if she didn't pay him back.
There's a big 'if' there. And even if the if is assumed, all it does is disqualify Wade. He's gone. The rest is just Trumpian lunacy.
 
good grief, meeting with someone does not mean "colluding" with them. So no, your statement is false.
He met with the administration to talk about the case. You can object to the word collude all you want to, but the claim that the Biden administration stayed out of this is patently false. They should have, but they did not.
 
i mean, who cares. my post was the biden admin should have been more involved in this clearly political matter instead of not at all, and you point out they had one meeting one time. ok, so not at all to barely. my criticism still stands.
 
just to be clear, trump used his political connections to insulate himself from even having to go to a trial for some crimes he was pretty obviously and clearly guilty of, and that's fine to stand, it would be wrong for any other political entity to use their political power to ensure the trial even happens and the right thing to do was nothing and allow him to get away with it. and the various trials he did have to stand, where the charges and evidence was presented to a jury, he lost every time. and they won't even sentence him or enforce any consequences to him either. and regardless of all that, still you guys say it was all political. like he is the victim

this is just absolute ridiculousness to me. it's a travesty of justice, a mockery of the country and everything it stands for, and it's terrible that it was allowed to happen
 
Meeting with a member of the DOJ ...which is part of the administration is not meeting with Joe Biden. Now is it?
You are really bad at this. I said the Biden administration, not Biden himself. Biden is just a figurehead anyway, he isn't mentally capable of running the show.
 
You are really bad at this. I said the Biden administration, not Biden himself. Biden is just a figurehead anyway, he isn't mentally capable of running the show.
So so bad. ROFLMAO. The DOJ was investigating the same people for the same criminal offenses. You pretend as if this is somehow wrong. I suppose it is wrong for the NYPD to consult with the FBI.
 
At this point, the entire US has been made an international laughingstock by trump and his garbage...

Glad I'm not there- the US is in for a lousy next half decade (likely forever- its going to take the US decades to recover any legitimacy and global political 'soft' power again after trumps re-election) and already businesses are taking pre-emptive steps against any future trump temper tantrums (ie more trade embargoes/wars) by cutting out economic ties to the US...

I know the company I used to work for has already started ensuring that the US is completely out of their supply chain- both as a supplier and a market...
:yikes:

Its not as if we have any doubt of his guilt- hell its been broadcast on TV lol- by himself- it 'should' have been an open and close case, done with YEARS ago, and him in jail (where he belongs) but instead this multiply convicted criminal is going to be the new US president in a month or so...

Only in the US... (or some 'banana republic'... not a great deal of difference in many peoples eyes outside the US)
 
So so bad. ROFLMAO. The DOJ was investigating the same people for the same criminal offenses. You pretend as if this is somehow wrong. I suppose it is wrong for the NYPD to consult with the FBI.
Still behind the curve. It wasn’t the DOJ he was talking to.
 
Did he speak with Biden? No. So who gives a crap? Does it affect the evidence against Trump? Trump is a criminal. He launched a coup. His associates including his own Chief of Staff coordinated with the state parties in Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Arizona to create slates of fake electors to steal the 2020 election.

That Wade spoke with Federal officials doesn't mean that Biden had anything to with the decision to charge the Georgia defendants. But nice try.
 
I imagine that all of this is sort of academic at this point. When trump won the election, all of the criminal cases against him sort of went up in smoke. I thought the riot at the capitol he incited was the biggest crime, but there were others, including his shenanigans in Georgia that seem criminal to me. Unfortunately, the prosecutor was incompetent, and she messed up the case and let him off the hook by her actions. Anyway, regardless of what I think, the American people chose to re-elect him. That was the ultimate verdict.
 
I imagine that all of this is sort of academic at this point. When trump won the election, all of the criminal cases against him sort of went up in smoke. I thought the riot at the capitol he incited was the biggest crime, but there were others, including his shenanigans in Georgia that seem criminal to me. Unfortunately, the prosecutor was incompetent, and she messed up the case and let him off the hook by her actions. Anyway, regardless of what I think, the American people chose to re-elect him. That was the ultimate verdict.
I thought Trump should have been arrested and charged days after Biden took over.
 
I imagine that all of this is sort of academic at this point. When trump won the election, all of the criminal cases against him sort of went up in smoke. I thought the riot at the capitol he incited was the biggest crime, but there were others, including his shenanigans in Georgia that seem criminal to me. Unfortunately, the prosecutor was incompetent, and she messed up the case and let him off the hook by her actions. Anyway, regardless of what I think, the American people chose to re-elect him. That was the ultimate verdict.
i think that it would have been delayed and any mistake she made would have eventually undone the case. none of the other cases made it before a jury either, and he had committed a bunch of serious crimes. it just didn't matter.
 
Every republican politician should have Luigi in charge of their “health care.”
Would save time and money
 
This case is about Trump, not his co-defendants.
DIdn't some of his co-defendants already enter a plea of guilty? There was an excellent BBC documentary about this a few months ago, I'm sure several (including Guilliani IIRC) have done so. Do they get away scot free as well?
 
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.
State Attorney General, to be precise.

Although to be fair to Raffensberger, he'd have done T****y's bidding only for it'd have likely exposed the dodgy work he did to make sure Kemp and himself win at state level.
 
well, not exactly. she was accused of the relationship being a motivation to prosecute, which was found to have not been the case. but because she was accused of that, it may appear to some that it was true, creating an appearance of impropriety. and this appearance of impropriety, even though there was none, is disqualifying.

is what we are led to believe is the fair thing here.
What the ruling actually says is "T****y is as guilty as hell and should be hanging from a gibbet for his crimes, which in a sane country would constitue treason. But we're going to pretend this non issue is an issue to get him off because the rule of law is hurting T****y, our god-emperor".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flo
Looks like Judge A. Cannon's ruling barring the release of Jack Smith's report on Trump's attempt to overturn the election results in Georgia has been overturned by the appeal court.

A federal appellate court has cleared the way for the Justice Department to publicly release special counsel Jack Smith’s report on Donald Trump’s efforts to undo the results of the 2020 election, although the timing of that release remains unclear.

A separate portion of the document – detailing Smith’s investigation into Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents – appears likely to remain under wraps for now.
 
Looks like Judge A. Cannon's ruling barring the release of Jack Smith's report on Trump's attempt to overturn the election results in Georgia has been overturned by the appeal court.
How many of her judgements for Trump have been overturned on appeal? Seems to be quite a lot. You would think a wise judge would learn after the first few times.
 
Back
Top Bottom