The Trump Indictment Thread

Renzatic said:
America has been handed two bowls of shit. You can choose the solid, old turd that's long past it's freshness date, but at least it doesn't stink anymore (Biden), or you can take the bowl of steaming, runny diarrhea, a few questionable lumps floating therein, and also maybe poison (Trump).
Click to expand...

The important question is: which one has more corn?
 
Eric said:
Sounds like she'll stay on.

apnews.com

Prosecutor leaves Georgia election case against Trump after relationship with district attorney

The judge had ruled either Nathan Wade or DA Fani Willis had to leave the case over their romantic relationship.
apnews.com apnews.com
Click to expand...

No proof of perjury in Judge McAfee's ruling. He's done a pretty good job thus far.

Asking Wade to step down and allowing Willis to stay on is a good resolution. That said, while I'm not a fan of how this whole thing came about and the way Willis was treated, I would be ok with her stepping down NOW that sh'es gotten a ruling. Not before, because I'm not ok with giving these defendants an unwarranted break. And I still feel a bit uneasy about her stepping down, but I agree with some of the takes from experienced lawyers who have pointed out Willis' initial argument should have been more subdued and focused on facts.

But I'm also not a fan of "Well, there's doubt now, so she should be replaced". Creating doubt is what Trump always wants to do, because it affords him the cover to continue his antics while avoiding accountability. There will always be "doubts" about whoever prosecutes Trump, because that's the end goal with his cult, and his cult always listens.

On the plus side, Wade will now have to be replaced, hopefully with someone even better who will be able to more successfully ensure none of these rat bastards get off the hook. Well done, Trump team.
 
GermanSuplex said:
No proof of perjury in Judge McAfee's ruling. He's done a pretty good job thus far.

Asking Wade to step down and allowing Willis to stay on is a good resolution. That said, while I'm not a fan of how this whole thing came about and the way Willis was treated, I would be ok with her stepping down NOW that sh'es gotten a ruling. Not before, because I'm not ok with giving these defendants an unwarranted break. And I still feel a bit uneasy about her stepping down, but I agree with some of the takes from experienced lawyers who have pointed out Willis' initial argument should have been more subdued and focused on facts.

But I'm also not a fan of "Well, there's doubt now, so she should be replaced". Creating doubt is what Trump always wants to do, because it affords him the cover to continue his antics while avoiding accountability. There will always be "doubts" about whoever prosecutes Trump, because that's the end goal with his cult, and his cult always listens.

On the plus side, Wade will now have to be replaced, hopefully with someone even better who will be able to more successfully ensure none of these rat bastards get off the hook. Well done, Trump team.
Click to expand...
Agreed, at this point it will be nothing but a distraction.

Now they need to do Clarence Thomas.
 
GermanSuplex said:
Asking Wade to step down and allowing Willis to stay on is a good resolution. That said, while I'm not a fan of how this whole thing came about and the way Willis was treated, I would be ok with her stepping down NOW that sh'es gotten a ruling.
Click to expand...

From a CBS story:

"The district attorney may choose to step aside, along with the whole of her office, and refer the prosecution to the Prosecuting Attorneys' Council for reassignment," McAfee wrote in his 23-page decision."

I suspect that would cause another delay getting a different DA/office up to speed.
 
I just realized if immigrants are smart all they have to do is get together and setup a fundraising dinner for trump and he will praise them with open arms. worked great for coke and tictok
 
GermanSuplex said:
No proof of perjury in Judge McAfee's ruling. He's done a pretty good job thus far.

Asking Wade to step down and allowing Willis to stay on is a good resolution. That said, while I'm not a fan of how this whole thing came about and the way Willis was treated, I would be ok with her stepping down NOW that sh'es gotten a ruling. Not before, because I'm not ok with giving these defendants an unwarranted break. And I still feel a bit uneasy about her stepping down, but I agree with some of the takes from experienced lawyers who have pointed out Willis' initial argument should have been more subdued and focused on facts.

But I'm also not a fan of "Well, there's doubt now, so she should be replaced". Creating doubt is what Trump always wants to do, because it affords him the cover to continue his antics while avoiding accountability. There will always be "doubts" about whoever prosecutes Trump, because that's the end goal with his cult, and his cult always listens.

On the plus side, Wade will now have to be replaced, hopefully with someone even better who will be able to more successfully ensure none of these rat bastards get off the hook. Well done, Trump team.
Click to expand...

I’m not surprised by this outcome. It’s really the only way MaCAfee could rule without completely engraving either side. I think dumping Wade is a positive as Willis is now compelled to hire another prosecutor with more experience for this particular set of circumstances. Of all the cases against Trump, this is by far the most important and frankly a prosecutor with zero RICO experience doesn’t seem like the best choice.

McAfee’s primary role here was to rule on whether on not Willis’ relationship with Wade caused a conflict of interest prosecuting Trump. While Willis’ behavior is unbecoming, I don’t think it warrants throwing out the case. Booting Wade is an entirely reasonable solution.

McAfee however clearly wanted to avoid was dealing Willis’ potentially illegal actions and behavior post this relationship coming to light. And in all fairness I’m not sure that was a road he should have gone down- it’s an independent issue at this point and is irrelevant to the Trump prosecution. He pretty much laid out a case, citing unprofessional behavior and insinuating she had lied to the court, for an ethics and/or bar investigation to handle. The question not whether Trump can get a fair trial from Willis, it’s should Willis retain her credentials based on her poor judgement and subsequent dishonesty.

I was surprised to see that the Judge’s statement was far harsher than I ever expected.

Although Willis succeeded in that she remains on the case, I think it’s hard to see this as anything but a benefit to Trump. The case has inevitably been delayed and now there is a very dark shadow looming over Willis. Her impropriety, or the appearance of such, will only serve as a distraction. Public trust and respect is gone- likely from other professionals as well. If there is a jury involved they will likely be tainted. And you can be sure Trump and his people will exploit this to the max. And you can be sure anyone with power who has the slightest affection for Trump will be sure to throw every road block at Willis- starting with Jim Jordan.

In the interest of effectively prosecuting these specific and very serious charges against Trump, I think Willis needs to step down. It’s not like this will likely be sorted by the elections anyways- not that that should technically be a determining factor. I’m far from the only one saying this being a moderate- WAPO and CNN, not exactly Pro-Trump outlets, share the same concerns. At this point, keeping Willis on the case can only harm the prosecution.

Considering there are other allegations against Willis (ie misappropriation of funds and then firing the whistleblower which is probably a wrongful termination suit), I just see this as a recipe for disaster. What happens if some revaluation about her gets drugged up in the middle of the trial. Clearly she has too much baggage at this point.

If people want to see Trump seriously tried for allegedly interfering with the electoral process- which should be a concern of everyone right, left or center,- then Willis needs to step aside. This case will inherently be a circus because Trump is involved, but we don’t need to make it a 3 ring circus.

If Willis stays on I have strong feeling the spotlight will end up back on her as it has been. And if and when the prosecution falls apart, people will be regretting the failure to substitute her.
 
If Willis stepped down tomorrow and she was replaced with Jesus Christ, this discussion would end up exactly the same. Republicans in Congress would open a congressional hearing to determine if the virgin birth was true, Georgia statehouse officials would begin investigating Jesus Christ for bias and blasphemy, and we’d be having this exact same debate on whether Christ is qualified to judge Trump, and if in fact we don’t need god almighty to handle the job. Turns out, the almighty is Trump, so he can’t be tried after all.

That’s where this logic is getting us, and these unreal purity tests, along with a justice system that seems intent on not holding this fat criminal dumbass accountable, all because he’s a rich white politician. To put the cherry on top, he gets to go about pretending to be Nelson Mandela while receiving more deference and delays than has ever been afforded any of the minorities he demeans. He’s being treated like a king and pretending he’s a slave. 🖕🏼
 
GermanSuplex said:
That’s where this logic is getting us, and these unreal purity tests, along with a justice system that seems intent on not holding this fat criminal dumbass accountable, all because he’s a rich white politician. To put the cherry on top, he gets to go about pretending to be Nelson Mandela while receiving more deference and delays than has ever been afforded any of the minorities he demeans. He’s being treated like a king and pretending he’s a slave. 🖕🏼
Click to expand...
As an attorney, I gotta say, it’s a horrendous self goal by Willis. I get the purity test thing, but, man, you can’t lie on your disclosure forms and you can’t get on the stand and lie in court when you’re an attorney at the podium, let alone the D.A. and under oath in the witness’ seat.

None of it goes to the merits of the underlying case, of course, but Willis, and Wade, should probably be disbarred, and that may still happen. Nobody who watched the hearings would believe either one of them was telling the truth, not to mention the proven lies that were put in writing in interrogatory responses, gift disclosures, etc.
 
Cmaier said:
None of it goes to the merits of the underlying case, of course, but Willis, and Wade, should probably be disbarred, and that may still happen. Nobody who watched the hearings would believe either one of them was telling the truth, not to mention the proven lies that were put in writing in interrogatory responses, gift disclosures, etc.
Click to expand...

So how would that work? Say the GA Bar opens an investigation into Willis. Would that affect the her standing as DA? Maybe not officially, but theoretically? Could she still run the case with an investigation on going? Could the county/state suspend her pending the outcome of the investigation? Would any finding that disbarred her have any bearing on the case? Other cases she has been involved with?
 
Herdfan said:
So how would that work? Say the GA Bar opens an investigation into Willis. Would that affect the her standing as DA? Maybe not officially, but theoretically? Could she still run the case with an investigation on going? Could the county/state suspend her pending the outcome of the investigation? Would any finding that disbarred her have any bearing on the case? Other cases she has been involved with?
Click to expand...
Lots of questions. An investigation wouldn’t affect anything until it’s over. Same as John Eastman can still practice law now. She could still be D.A. In the meantime. In fact, at any given time, tons of lawyers have investigations going on - as you might imagine, disgruntled clients, beating people in court, etc. causes lots of complaints. She is an elected official, so she would stay in office until the end of her term, she’s disbarred, or the state decides to do something about it (if they have the authority to do so).

It would have no effect on the case - nothing she’s alleged to have done has prejudiced any of the defendants in any way. The defense theory is silly - she is prosecuting the case because she wanted to have the state pay her boyfriend, so her boyfriend could spend money on her? Ridiculous. And, at the same time, they argue she is prosecuting the case because of politics. Which is it?
 
IMO they should've removed her, in the end she's a stain on the case that will give Trump firepower throughout as she appears corrupt and biased, whether true or not.

In the end it looks like none of these trials will happen before the election and we know that's his goal. So it begs the question what happens if he wins?
 
Eric said:
IMO they should've removed her, in the end she's a stain on the case that will give Trump firepower throughout as she appears corrupt and biased, whether true or not.

In the end it looks like none of these trials will happen before the election and we know that's his goal. So it begs the question what happens if he wins?
Click to expand...
Welp, at least there’s nothing he can do about the two state cases (though I imagine the state of Georgia will carry his water on that one).
 
Today:

h8mrunm4froc1.jpeg
 
Cmaier said:
As an attorney, I gotta say, it’s a horrendous self goal by Willis. I get the purity test thing, but, man, you can’t lie on your disclosure forms and you can’t get on the stand and lie in court when you’re an attorney at the podium, let alone the D.A. and under oath in the witness’ seat.
Click to expand...

Well, I hate to sound Trump-ish, but you absolutely can lie on the stand if it cannot be proven you are lying. I suppose she absolutely could have committed a grave error by criminally lying about something that wasn’t a crime to admit to, but it’s also entirely possible no evidence exists to refute her claim because she’s telling the truth.

I do understand the arguments for removing her, my problem is that this is the game Trump likes to play, and at some point, we have to stop playing along. We are not going to find an infallible, independent, apolitical savior who gets the stamp of approval from everyone.

I have my doubts, but I’m not comfortable assuming she lied. That’s a crime, and I’m sure the Trump camp will be hard on proving if indeed she did. But if she told the truth, then all we have is a relationship that essentially meant nothing and means even less now.

Criticism against Willis is warranted, but it should be based on the evidence. The relationship should have never happened, or Wade should not have been on the team. She is paying for that mistake, and the case may too. That criticism is warranted. I’m not comfortable going a step further in assuming she perjured herself when the initial claims were never proven (embezzlement or self profiting of sorts), nor was Willis even removed from the case.
 

Similar threads

Eric
GOP bracing for Trump indictment soon after Election Day
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
GermanSuplex
GermanSuplex
Back
Top