Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So, she can only hire her lover when prosecuting Trump? She can't do so prosecuting a less high-profile case. A case that doesn't cause her to need to abandon her home and exposes her to this kind of scrutiny.Bring the case and I can funnel $700,000 to my lover
Don't bring the case, he doesn't get squat.
???So, she can only hire her lover when prosecuting Trump?
Not sure what that has to do with the legal and ethical conflictShe can't do so prosecuting a less high-profile case. A case that doesn't cause her to need to abandon her home and exposes her to this kind of scrutiny.
100% Particularly when her lover has zero prosecutorial experience, and more significantly when she is bringing a novel RICO theory against a former President of the United States and he has zero experience in RICO cases.I appreciate the answer. Does it make logical sense though?
I'll refresh your memory. It's the case where your last statement to me was this.I only watched part of the hearing today. I do not have sufficient information to say more than comment on her pissy attitude.
I believe you made a mistake by talking of a case that frankly, is not ringing any bells at all for me.
I do not like watching cases in courts primarily since they are moving at a snails pace.
I simply can't help you today.
Seems to me you don't really have a problem here to make inferences. This while the burden of proof is heavier. Why is that?YES, I believe I did reply to your question. At least in my own words and not your words.
I doubt you believe that there are cases where both sides are justified as truth. Take the Simpson case, do you believe his jury got it right by refusing to convict him? Was his argument with merit? This is why your posit can be difficult to say yes or no to. It depends as my law professor told the class.
What corruption is that? Rumor & innuendo? Willis testified for hours & she took every one of those hacks & handed their asses back to them.Ruined her case? How can there even be a case now when the DA is exposed as a cheater and a crook?
It is her CAREER that ought to be ruined---- such corruption ought to get you disbarred from practicing law, period.
???
Not sure what that has to do with the legal and ethical conflict
100% Particularly when her lover has zero prosecutorial experience, and more significantly when she is bringing a novel RICO theory against a former President of the United States and he has zero experience in RICO cases.
My point is that if you content she brought the case simply to slush money to her lover. She could have done so in a case that wouldn't have caused her personal harm.
That might be an argument (one I don't agree with) to question the prosecution. A prosecution that has so far survived 2 Grand Juries and several motions to dismiss, and has produced several guilty pleas. It still doesn't get you to proving the case was brought to benefit her lover. It says nothing about her motive. You're simply assuming you know her motive.100% Particularly when her lover has zero prosecutorial experience, and more significantly when she is bringing a novel RICO theory against a former President of the United States and he has zero experience in RICO cases.
I tried hard to decipher what you are going on about. Then and today.I'll refresh your memory. It's the case where your last statement to me was this.
Seems to me you don't really have a problem here to make inferences. This while the burden of proof is heavier. Why is that?
Yeah but guilty pleas as to what? She can get guilty pleas for chewing tobacco.My point is that if you content she brought the case simply to slush money to her lover. She could have done so in a case that wouldn't have caused her personal harm.
That might be an argument (one I don't agree with) to question the prosecution. A prosecution that has so far survived 2 Grand Juries and several motions to dismiss, and has produced several guilty pleas. It still doesn't get you to proving the case was brought to benefit her lover. It says nothing about her motive. You're simply assuming you know her motive.
My point is that if you content, she brought the case simply to slush money to her lover. She could have done so in a case that wouldn't have caused her personal harm.
Ham sandwich (did you happen to see the loon that lead the Grand Jury?)That might be an argument (one I don't agree with) to question the prosecution. A prosecution that has so far survived 2 Grand Juries and several motions to dismiss,
Slap on the wrist or spent seven figures defending? Which would you choose?and has produced several guilty pleas.
Conflict or appearance of conflict. No proof of motive necessary.It still doesn't get you to proving the case was brought to benefit her lover. It says nothing about her motive. You're simply assuming you know her motive.
Yes inferences. When you say to me you can't determine the truthfulness of witnesses in the E Jean Carrol case because your law professor told you this is a hard thing to do (without really telling me anything beyond that.) But 3 days later you are assuming one witness is telling the truth and 2 are lying because you feel you detected a discrepancy; I'm going to question it.I tried hard to decipher what you are going on about. Then and today.
Inferences?????
Be so kind and point out the conflict of interest here.Greedy sex-starved Fani Willis likely ruined her case with Trump, experts say.
CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig said Tuesday that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis may have destroyed her election interference case against former President Donald Trump.
Willis appointed her romantic partner Nathan Wade as special prosecutor in the case, which a Trump co-defendant alleges is a conflict of interest because of benefits she received based on their relationship. Judge Scott McAfee will consider a motion Thursday to disqualify Willis based on the allegations.
I think her problems continue to multiply,” Honig asserted. “So the allegation that several defendants, including Donald Trump, have made is that there‘s a conflict of interest, that she has been in this personal romantic relationship with one of the outside people brought in to prosecute this case. She has since admitted that that‘s true, and that there was an intermingling of finances that creates a conflict of interest.”
Wade purchased airline tickets to Miami and San Francisco in Willis’ name, according to bank statements contained in a filing in his divorce case.
“Yesterday, there was a hearing, a zoom hearing that we were able to see where the DA‘s office said, ‘Judge, you should just throw this out. There‘s not even a need to hold a hearing.’ Well, the judge said, ‘I disagree. There‘s some serious disputed facts here. Therefore, we‘re going to have a hearing on Thursday.’ That‘s going to be really interesting to watch, but that is going to be a really problematic proceeding for the DA,” Honig said.
‘Her Problems Continue To Multiply’: CNN Legal Analyst Says Fani Willis May Have Ruined Trump Case
CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig said Tuesday that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis may have destroyed her case against Trump.dailycaller.com
Do you claim to know for a fact that two women who were not remotely in the place of the sexual act alleged by Carroll told the truth? My law professor said it so often I never forgot it. He said that is a case for the courts to decide. I do not however recall him saying it is hard. I want you to tell me what two are lying? What discrepancy do you mean?Yes inferences. When you say to me you can't determine the truthfulness of witnesses in the E Jean Carrol case because your law professor told you this is a hard thing to do (without really telling me anything beyond that.) But 3 days later you are assuming one witness is telling the truth and 2 are lying because you feel you detected a discrepancy; I'm going to question it.
An appearance of conflict is in NO WAY grounds for disqualification.The amount of $ the County is spending on this prosecution is at least an order of magnitude greater than any other case in her office.
And again, the bar is not just an actual conflict, but the appearance of conflict. If you don't even see an appearance of conflict in this case, I don't think I can help you any more.
Ham sandwich (did you happen to see the loon that lead the Grand Jury?)
Slap on the wrist or spent seven figures defending? Which would you choose?
Conflict or appearance of conflict. No proof of motive necessary.
www.justsecurity.org
Also raises the question of how she could go on these five/six vacations with her lover during this time. Don't you know everyone in her office was asking, "where's the boss?"
An appearance of conflict is in NO WAY grounds for disqualification.
Under Georgia law, “[t]here are two generally recognized grounds for disqualification of a prosecuting attorney. The first such ground is based on a conflict of interest, and the second ground has been described as ‘forensic misconduct.'” Williams v. State, 258 Ga. 305, 314, 369 S.E.2d 232, 238 (1988). There is no allegation of “forensic misconduct” in this prosecution. A conflict of interest may arise when the prosecutor has “acquired a personal interest or stake in the defendant’s conviction.” Id. “[A] conflict of interest requires more than a theoretical or speculative conflict. An actual conflict of interest must be involved.” Ventura v. State, 346 Ga. App. 309, 311, 816 S.E.2d 151, 154 (2018) (quoting Whitworth v. State, 275 Ga. App. 790, 793 (1)(b), 622 S.E.2d 21 (2005)).
Why Fani Willis Is Not Disqualified Under Georgia Law
Analysis of Georgia law on disqualifying prosecutors in light of allegations against DA Fani Willis and Nathan Wade.
I'm telling you that the 2 woman, plus Caroll's testimony, plus the 2 other women testifying to similar behavior, plus the store clerks, plus her family members, plus an expert witness, plus the Billy Bush tapes, plus the deposition where he was asked about the Billy Bush tapes, while no contrary evidence was provided is enough to determine guilt by a preponderance of the evidence.Do you claim to know for a fact that two women who were not remotely in the place of the sexual act alleged by Carroll told the truth? My law professor said it so often I never forgot it. He said that is a case for the courts to decide. I do not however recall him saying it is hard. I want you to tell me what two are lying? What discrepancy do you mean?
My Carroll case stuff I say here is troubling to democrats. But for some wild reason, she is believed and Trump is not believed. Why is that? She tells us she told two women. I know this is a super old case and keep thinking the Court has to dismiss it in the end.
I seriously doubt it. Not enough evidence exists to make any positive determination one way or another.Her testimony today was pretty bad for someone in her position.
There will be a new team assigned.
Well, you can go with the opinions of left wing MSNBC lawyers. I'll go with the Judge hearing the case.An appearance of conflict is in NO WAY grounds for disqualification.
Under Georgia law, “[t]here are two generally recognized grounds for disqualification of a prosecuting attorney. The first such ground is based on a conflict of interest, and the second ground has been described as ‘forensic misconduct.'” Williams v. State, 258 Ga. 305, 314, 369 S.E.2d 232, 238 (1988). There is no allegation of “forensic misconduct” in this prosecution. A conflict of interest may arise when the prosecutor has “acquired a personal interest or stake in the defendant’s conviction.” Id. “[A] conflict of interest requires more than a theoretical or speculative conflict. An actual conflict of interest must be involved.” Ventura v. State, 346 Ga. App. 309, 311, 816 S.E.2d 151, 154 (2018) (quoting Whitworth v. State, 275 Ga. App. 790, 793 (1)(b), 622 S.E.2d 21 (2005)).
Why Fani Willis Is Not Disqualified Under Georgia Law
Analysis of Georgia law on disqualifying prosecutors in light of allegations against DA Fani Willis and Nathan Wade.
The law says “disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one,” Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee said during a hearing Monday.
I seriously doubt it. Not enough evidence exists to make any positive determination one way or another.
I highly question a judge is going to remove a prosecutor on the word of a single witness when contradicted by 2 others.
I stated case law. But I agree. I'm perfectly happy with abiding with the ruling of the judge hearing the case, whatever it is. That's been my position this morning. This afternoon. And now.Well, you can go with the opinions of left wing MSNBC lawyers. I'll go with the Judge hearing the case.
Not just a claim. Something I stand by.You are talking about prosecuting the presumptive nominee for the Republican ticket. It's politically fraught enough as it is.
The only way to do this is keeping it above board as much as possible.
Trying "hail Marys" in order to keep the trial on track is a very bad idea in my opinion.
