Laurene:
That dude makes it seem as though only Republican Party is dysfunctional. There are Manchin and Sinema aren't running for reelection partly because the Dems forced them out. They basically voted 90 percent with Joe Biden but it wasn't enough.
After Joe Biden the Dems would start nominating AOC, Warren and Rashida to top positions.
Kamala is a creep and would be farther to the left of Biden.

Manchin and Sinema voted in line with Democrats 90% of the time just like Liz Cheney voted with Republicans 90% of the time.

Its the pretense about liberals, we are the good people the others are terrible

The Dems will probably look towards Newsome next election cycle. I was actually hoping we would see a Newsome vs DeSantis sometime soon thats if the extremists don't cancel them

raumdeuter:


Manchin and Sinema voted in line with Democrats 90% of the time just like Liz Cheney voted with Republicans 90% of the time.

Its the pretense about liberals, we are the good people the others are terrible

The Dems will probably look towards Newsome next election cycle. I was actually hoping we would see a Newsome vs DeSantis sometime soon thats if the extremists don't cancel them

Newsome is seen as a California liberal not even in the like of Jerry Brown... He's progressively in line with Warren and AOC but he'd run for the presidency some time in the future. Andy Beshear or John Bel Edwards would fit a national profile but they can't win a national primary in today's democratic party.

Regardless of how it sways politics in different lands, my personal view on abortion is simple, straight, and comonsensical.

I am against abortion as a wanton act to protect a libertine lifestyle.

But I am not a pro-life extremist.
Abortion is God-given science in the case of:

* Child pregnancy.

* Rape pregnancy.

* Incest pregnancy.

* Threat to the life of the mother.

The unborn child is life. But the life we have seen, (the mother), is superior to the life we have not seen, (the unborn).

When abortion cannot be avoided, it should be carried out, to the extent permitted by circumstances, before it is obscenely clear that a life is being wasted.

Laurene:

Trump promises peace regardless of his flaws. I believe if he wins, Ukraine would be forced to make peace with Russia which is good for world stability.

Crippling Ukraine is not the way to force them to make peace with Russia. First World War allies crippled Germany and it only led to World War 2. Nigeria crippled Biafra and it has led to instability ever since. And there's nothing to indicate Russia wouldn't be emboldened to attack elsewhere or others.

Dump promises peace, but his flaws cause so much division at home that I think he'd just import the wars into the United States of America, or at least make some need to hold their noses and refuse to acknowledge the possible conflict he's bound to cause while they vote for him.

Hopefully, most would be like raumdeuter for whom all the nose holding doesn't remove the dump stench.

raumdeuter:

Even if I like Trump policies, I can't support him because of personal reasons. For example in my county GOP, Trump has started endorsing people for local elections some that he probably didn't know theor antecedents just because they came to him or kissed his ring harder. Some of them don't even have conservative principles, never attended meetings locally, never shown up to the constituency just that they met with Trump and he endorsed them. By election time they just flash their Trump endorsement No background on them or whatever they did in the past. A few of them Won primaries in my state and are likely going to win election without checking their bonfides

You can't just run a party based on having your loyalists everywhere.

So, you don't vote based on sentiment after all, but on evidence and facts. No wonder we lefty woke libtards appreciate you somewhat.

In putting his loyalists there, he is kicking out traditional Republicans, and a lot of them would be so disgruntled like you that they'd rather hold their noses and vote Biden, we hope.

raumdeuter:


It will be disingenuous to blame one side when Democrats have ruled white house for 12 of the last 16yrs and voters dissatisfaction is this high. The easier thing for me to do is to lay the blame solely at the feet of Democrats but you are even doing worse and trying to blame the Republicans solely who have ruled white house for 25% of the time

And where is Manchin today? He is leaving the Senate, where is Sinema he is leaving the senate, the leading voices in the Democratic party are the AOC, the Sanders, Warren who some of their positions would have been treasonable 40yrs ago yet you claim the Democratic party is moving right? No the Democratic party is moving way to the left

What was the Democratic policy on LGBT say 30yrs ago and what is it now? What was the democratic party policy on crime 30yrs ago, what of on immigration? Does that look like its moving right or left?

I understand middle and it means compromise, no policy is as white and black as baby live or cut in half. There are compromises to be made
to make progress in any situation else we stall and nothing moves at all


On your thoughts about remain in Mexico. What is wrong with "bribing another country" We have been bringing countries for decades in the past to achieve stability in our homeland? The bribe of Mexico vs the chaos we have in the land now which is worse.
So we first break the system that is controlling the situation and now go to find a solution to what we spoilt

Abraham accord basically is to broker peace between Israel and their neighbors so we don't have to be bogged down with never ending ME crisis and deaths. It gives the responsibility to control to the neighbors culturally similar and familiar with Palestine.
There are many Arab countries who are opening up Saudi Oman Bahrain UAE Qatar are now embracing liberal ideas. Women can drive, as an example, These countries need Western money in form of tourism money and oil sales. To get these money flowing and mutually beneficial, control the extremist and terrorists(Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa) on your side and US on our side we ensure flow of business, You get to host WWE MMA fights, you host world cup, you make more money. Make money instead of hiding in bush to be throwing bombs and strapping your kids with suicide vest

Now compare to where we are today. Since then how many have died. Is that ok for the Palestinians? over 35k people dead, 80% of their land destroyed, On the Israel side 1500 killed on October 7 over 200 hostage many rockets flying in everyday

Is this worse than the Abraham accord? Will Palestinians prefer their current situation to the "terrible Abraham accord"

Well, you would have a point if we were a dictatorship. But we aren't. The Dems did the best they could given the divided government they had. They passed the bills they could. Look at ObamaCare and the Infrastructure package. What bill have Republicans past in the last 50 years that have made life better for the avg. American? Name one. Republicans run on obstruction (Tea Party), then nothing gets done. When nothing gets done, Fox News amplifies that the government doesn't work, blame Dems and tells people to elect more Republicans. Those Republicans continue to obstruct. Rinse repeat, while Dem presidents come in and deal with Recessions and wars and try to right the ship. And you don't have to take my word for it, just listen to conservative Ken Buck on why he is resigning.

Manchin and Sinema were both corporist Dems. Manchin is from one of the poorest states yet voted against a program to give coal workers free community college educations to help them transition into newer jobs. Wouldn't that have helped his state? And Sinema was a lobbyists wet dream. Glad they are gone.

You can argue about AOC, Sanders and Warren but they all have policies they have run on. What policy do any of the Republican leaders have? Show me them. Where is this health care plan Republicans have been talking about for a decade. Again you have one side who is genuinely interesting in getting things done and the other? And btw you should look up what Warren did with the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. That agency alone changed the landscape for millions of Americans dealing with scum financial companies.

As for Palestine, would you have told the Black slaves to continue to be slaves because it would save their lives.? One of my favorite speeches growing up was Patrick Henry's speech Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death. The sentiment rings true here. And here is my favorite section,

Somewhat long:

"They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? F"orbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Laurene:

Ironically, nobody has abused the justice system more than the democrats... We've seen it countlessly.

I keep hearing this. Give me one example of abuse of the justice system and a similar comparison. In fact I think it has been the Republicans who have abused the system. So, I'll start.

Hunter Biden was charged criminally for not paying his taxes on time. He has since paid them. Compare his situation with that of Trump's pal Roger Stone. Stone's situation was worse. More taxes owed, didn't pay for a longer time. He wasn't charged criminally but civilly, to get him to pay the taxes. Why were the two situations handled vastly differently?

Laurene:

Ronna McDaniel was Mitt Romney's niece so did he elevate her to same position too? Does it matter as long as they deliver? You guys would find fault in anything.

You are Nigerian and think it is ok that Trump hired his daughter to run the RNC? One of Nigerians biggest problems is corruption and nepotism. Given how much Nigeria is struggling because of that, why would you ever be comfortable with that anywhere?

I told you this story is going to get worse.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/14/company-paying-fbi-informant-trump-connections

If you aren't following emptywheel you should be.

When I first read some of her posts, I thought she was nuts. But majority of the things she wrote, cam to fruition, including this Smirnov story, how the Durham prosecution would unfold, etc. etc. Her writing is dense, but she is absolutely brilliant at breaking down legal issues. Noone is perfect, but I respect her journalism.

https://trumpdebtcounter.com/

IjeBos:
If you aren't following emptywheel you should be.

When I first read some of her posts, I thought she was nuts. But majority of the things she wrote, cam to fruition, including this Smirnov story, how the Durham prosecution would unfold, etc. etc. Her writing is dense, but she is absolutely brilliant at breaking down legal issues. Noone is perfect, but I respect her journalism.

You are too trusting of the FBI. They started the Russian hoax, a total fabrication by Hillary Clinton friends Fusion GPS via Cris Steele . They investigated and destroyed peripheral Trump supporters over trivial matters, none of them. Involving collusion - eg lying to FBI & Congress: process crimes. There was no basis at all for them to investigate. It was a dirty hit job. According to Peter Strzock There was no there there Their propaganda wing was MSM , the wapos, NYT, buzzfeed, MSNBC, CNN etc And don't forget 'pencil neck' Adam Schiff.

Regarding Smirnov. He was a trusted Confidential Human Source CHS for many years during the Obama administration. He was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by FBI over the years. He filed a report in 2020 which FBI kept away from Congress till Grassley obtained a copy, then they was forced to acknowledge its contents after 3 full years. They trusted Smirnov enough not to charge him for lying then until it bacame imperative to blow up JBiden impeachment proceedings by indicting him.

Full redacted FBI form.
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fd_1023_obtained_by_senator_grassley_-_biden.pdf


Full contents in Italic below. A lot of spelling errors due to copy paste formatting an translations.

FD-1023
Aulhorized for public release by Ranking Member Grassley/Chairman Comer
UNCLASSIFIED
FEDERAL ~UREAU OF INVESTIGATION
CHS REPORTING DOCUMENT
(alternate transliteration Vadim Pojarskii) was assigned by Burisma to manage the acquisition, and he was
planning to travel to Washington, D.C. in March, 2017.J
2019 Telephone call. After the aforementioned 2016 telephone call, CHS had no Interactions with
Zlochevsky/Bursima whatsoever, until 2019. In 2019, CHS met with Ostapenko in London to discuss various
business matters (which had nothing to do with Zlochevsky, Burisma, or the gas/oil industry; CHS noted that
CHS's meeting with Ostapenko took place at a "Russian coffee house near l<nightsbridge Street located near
Harrods department store,• and that Ostapenko's fiance fives in London). At some point during this meeting,
Ostapenko advised CHS he was going to call Zlochevsky. At this time, CHS understood Zlochevsky was living
somewhere in Europe (NFI). During the call, Zlochevsky asked CHS and/or Ostapenko if they read the recent news
reports about the investigations into the Bidens and Bursima, and Zlochevsky jokingly asked CHS 1f CHS was an
"oracle" (due to CHS's prior advice that Zlochevsky should not pay the Bidens and instead to hire an attorney to
litigate the allegat ions concerning Shokin's investigation). CHS mentioned Zlochevsky might have diffiOJlty
explaining suspicious wire transfers that may evidence any (Illicit) payments to the Bidens. Zlochevsky responded
he did not send any funds directly to the "Big Guy" (which CHS understood was a reference to Joe Biden). CHS
asked Zloehevsky how many companies/bank accounts Zlochevsky controls; Zlochevsky responded it would take
them (Investigators) 10 years to find the records (i.e. illic.it payments to Joe Biden). CHS told Zlochevsky if he ever
needed help in the future and wanted to speak to somebody in the US government about that matter, that CHS
could Introduce him to someone.
Regarding the seemingly open and unsolicited admissions by PoJarsKII and Zlocnevsky about the purpose for their
retention of Hunter Biden, and the "forced0 payments Zlochevsky made to the Bidcns, CHS explained it is very
common for business men in post-Soviet countries to brag or show-off. Additionally, it is extremely common for
businesses in Russia and Ukraine to make "bribe" payments to various government officials. CHS noted that in
corporate budgets for other Russian and Ukrainian businesses which CHS has inspected in the past, CHS observed
budget-line-items in Russi.an called 0
Podmazat" (transliterated by CHS) , which literally translates to •oil, lubricate,
or make things run smoothly,• which companies routinely use to account for anticipated bribe payments. As such,
given the pervasive necessity to bribe government officials in Ukraine and Russia, CHS did not perceive Pojarskii's
or Zlochevsky's statements to be unusual, self-serving, or pretextual. Additionally, regarding Important business
meetings, it is also common in Ukraine and Russia for persons to make covert recordings. However, CHS has only
met Zlochevsky in person on one occasion and has spoken to him only twice on the telephone; as such, CHS is not
able to provide any further opinion as to the veracity of Zlochevsky's aforementioned statements.
II I
On June 29, 2020, CHS provided the following supplemental reporting:
Regarding CHS's aforementioned reporting that Zlochevsky said - "he has many text messages and 'recordings'
that show he was coerced to make such paymentsu - CHS darified 2Iochevsky said he had a total of "17
recordings" involving the Bidens; two of the recordings included Joe Biden, and the remaining 15 recordings only
Included Hunter Biden. CHS reiterated that, per Zlochevsky, these recordings evidence Zlochevsky was somehow
coerced into paying the Bidens to ensure Ukraine Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin was fired. Zlochevsky stated he
has two "documents (which CHS understood to be wire transfer statements, bank records, etc.), that evidence
some payment(s) to the Bidens were made, presumably in exchange for Shokin's firing.
Regarding aforementioned Oleksandr Ostapenko (alternate spelling, Alexander Ostapenko), who originally
introduced CHS into this matter, Ostapenko currently •works in some office for the administration of President
Zelensky (Nfl)", and also works for Valery Vavilov, who is the founder/CEO of cryptocurrency and blockchain
technology business BitFury.
Synopsis:
Summary of CHS's meeting with executives of Burisma Holdings
FD-1023 Page 3 of 4 FEDERAL BUREAU Of INVESilGATION
UNCLASSIFIED


I believe that the FBI has something on him and they are blackmailing him to disown the statement.

Does Burriama owner have 17 recordings of Hunter and Joe? The FBLie can't answer this because one day they will be released, it's easier to beg Smirnov to disown it now. Plausible deniabilty for their actions.

As for Hunter $5m bribe, I explained how $83, 333 every month paid to him adds up to $1,000,000 per year. Burisma paid him for 5 years. 2014-2019 , a total of $5m.
As for Joe Bidens $5m alleged payments, one day, One day, One day the details will be exposed.

Burisma owner is quoted saying the payments were convoluted, would take 10 years to uncover them.
Laughable now that Smirnov was paid by someone who has ties to Trump.Why would Trump pay for info that was kept secret by FBI ? Hell he didn't even know about the allegations, he would have made it public before elections. Makes absolutely no sense. The document had been blackholed by FBI, it was of no importance to anyone, until an FBI whistleblower spoke out last year.
The IRS investigators of Hunter Biden taxes through Special Counsel David Weiss ( appointed by Bill Barr ) did not even know about these allegations until 3 years later. They are assisting FBI to investigate HBiden taxes, the FBI hides this crucial allegations. Wow.
David Weiss. What does he do? He makes a plea deal with Hunter about his gun possession charge and absolves Hunter of any other imaginable crime including his taxes. Judge rejects the plea deal. David Weiss. David Weiss. He then indicts Smirnov for 'lying' to the FBi and blows JB impeachment apart.Cant make this stuff up.
Finally where is Smirnov right now? Incarcerated because he is a flight risk, those pesky Russians might aid his escape. 😝😝😝.

Fani Willis . Judge to release findings today.
At close he said he would reopen case for more evidentiary hearing . He also said he already had a draft. He has not reopened, meaning his mind was made up.
What more evidence came up after the hearings?
For the defence more phone records,expert witness on those records; two other witnesses willing to testify that the relationship started much earlier than in their testimony; one of those witnesses willing to testify that she heard Willis tell Bradley to keep his mouth shut; another witness saw Wade dining at a table with Bradley who had testified they had not spoken in years.

For Fani Willis. Some guy from Napa valley who said she once bought wine in cash from him.😄😄😄

Nah not looking good for her.
Judge should throw her under the bus. He will win praise for that. But then he will lose the election in the 70% democrat district.
He will get very good offers from lawfirms.

The judge has made a ruling. As I mentioned, the precedent established was that there needed to be an "actual conflict." The judge determined that there was no actual conflict. However, he took an unusual step and stated that there was an "appearance of impropriety." Consequently, he requested either Willis or Wade to leave. I believe Wade leaving was the correct course of action from the outset, but I fail to see how the judge legally arrived at that decision given that the law and legal precedents are quite clear. It appears that he aimed to appear fair rather than adhere to Georgia law.

Edit: In my honest opinion, I believe this ruling is ultimately flawed. The notion of an "appearance of impropriety" can be manipulated quite easily. Why does the appearance hold significance if there is no actual conflict or bias against the defendants? This ruling establishes a precedent that could allow future defendants to exploit the same loophole. In my view, it's a dangerous ruling.

I agree with the ultimate outcome, but I'm not fond of the judge contorting the laws to achieve it.

basilico:
Fani Willis . Judge to release findings today.
At close he said he would reopen case for more evidentiary hearing . He also said he already had a draft. He has not reopened, meaning his mind was made up.
What more evidence came up after the hearings?
For the defence more phone records,expert witness on those records; two other witnesses willing to testify that the relationship started much earlier than in their testimony; one of those witnesses willing to testify that she heard Willis tell Bradley to keep his mouth shut; another witness saw Wade dining at a table with Bradley who had testified they had not spoken in years.

For Fani Willis. Some guy from Napa valley who said she once bought wine in cash from him.😄😄😄

Nah not looking good for her.
Judge should throw her under the bus. He will win praise for that. But then he will lose the election in the 70% democrat district.
He will get very good offers from lawfirms.

The judge's ruling appears to be flawed and illogical. By stipulating that Prosecutor Fani Willis can only proceed with the case if she dismisse Wade, the judge has made an erroneous/risible decision. legally, it is untenable to disqualify only one. Such a contradiction.

I'll take it a step further here: the judge actually generated the "appearance of impropriety" by permitting the hearing to proceed as it did. As stated in the ruling, there was no prejudice to the Defendants, and given the inherently adversarial nature of the system, a relationship between prosecutors shouldn't inherently result in prejudice to defendants.

The judge in conducting this hearing in this way created the appearance of impropriety, and then he felt compelled to take action based on that appearance he himself created.

benalvino3:

legally, it is untenable to disqualify only one. Such a contradiction.

I'm confused by this language.
Which law/precedent mandates him to disqualify both?

So, Fanni stays. Case against dump continues.

DaHighLife:
The judge has made a ruling. As I mentioned, the precedent established was that there needed to be an "actual conflict." The judge determined that there was no actual conflict. However, he took an unusual step and stated that there was an "appearance of impropriety." Consequently, he requested either Willis or Wade to leave. I believe Wade leaving was the correct course of action from the outset, but I fail to see how the judge legally arrived at that decision given that the law and legal precedents are quite clear. It appears that he aimed to appear fair rather than adhere to Georgia law.

Edit: In my honest opinion, I believe this ruling is ultimately flawed. The notion of an "appearance of impropriety" can be manipulated quite easily. Why does the appearance hold significance if there is no actual conflict or bias against the defendants? This ruling establishes a precedent that could allow future defendants to exploit the same loophole. In my view, it's a dangerous ruling.

I agree with the ultimate outcome, but I'm not fond of the judge contorting the laws to achieve it.

Thx. Will read it later this weekend.

DaHighLife:
The judge has made a ruling. As I mentioned, the precedent established was that there needed to be an "actual conflict." The judge determined that there was no actual conflict. However, he took an unusual step and stated that there was an "appearance of impropriety." Consequently, he requested either Willis or Wade to leave. I believe Wade leaving was the correct course of action from the outset, but I fail to see how the judge legally arrived at that decision given that the law and legal precedents are quite clear. It appears that he aimed to appear fair rather than adhere to Georgia law.

Edit: In my honest opinion, I believe this ruling is ultimately flawed. The notion of an "appearance of impropriety" can be manipulated quite easily. Why does the appearance hold significance if there is no actual conflict or bias against the defendants? This ruling establishes a precedent that could allow future defendants to exploit the same loophole. In my view, it's a dangerous ruling.

I agree with the ultimate outcome, but I'm not fond of the judge contorting the laws to achieve it.

This precedent actually establishes that Fanni shouldn't have hired her Wade. And to be honest, on a case of this magnitude she should have known better and has gotten off lightly, though I'm certain the defence will milk this all the way to appeal somehow.

DaHighLife:
I'll take it a step further here: the judge actually generated the "appearance of impropriety" by permitting the hearing to proceed as it did. As stated in the ruling, there was no prejudice to the Defendants, and given the inherently adversarial nature of the system, a relationship between prosecutors shouldn't inherently result in prejudice to defendants.

The judge in conducting this hearing in this way created the appearance of impropriety, and then he felt compelled to take action based on that appearance he himself created.

Will think about this more when I read the ruling. That's a good point. I can see a consensual relationship amongst co workers being an issue for an employer, but I never understood how an unqualified prosecutor, as MAGA wanted to say, could negatively affect a defendant. Have to think if the judge should have shut it down in the beginning. Do you have any instances of how other judges have handled similar? Also I wonder how the ruling would be influenced by the Judge being up for reelection. Not sure elections are the best way to choose Judges.

budaatum:


This precedent actually establishes that Fanni shouldn't have hired her Wade. And to be honest, on a case of this magnitude she should have known better and has gotten off lightly, though I'm certain the defence will milk this all the way to appeal somehow.

I am open to the possibility of being mistaken. Could you show a case with a similar precedent? I reviewed some of the cases cited. I did not see that precedent. In fact, one case I read mentioned that there wouldn't be an actual conflict if two married lawyers were to represent opposing sides — one as a prosecutor and the other as a defense attorney. If such a scenario did not prejudice the defendant, how could this situation?

While it was unseemly to hire him given their current relationship, the fact that he wasn't her first or second choice somewhat mitigates the severity of that.

But allow me to ask, could you tell me what potential harm or prejudice to the defendant might have occurred in a scenario where tow prosecutors are dating? I cannot think of any.

DaHighLife:


I'm confused by this language.
Which law/precedent mandates him to disqualify both?

That is BenalvinoChatGpt2.0. He has no real understanding of the things ChatGpt writes and he posts. He probably doesn't even understand what a precedent is, let alone talking about finding one for you. He also probably needs a dictionary to understand half the words in that post.

So you can ignore the gibberish.

DaHighLife:


But allow me to ask, could you tell me what potential harm or prejudice to the defendant might have occurred in a scenario where tow prosecutors are dating? I cannot think of any.

As the judge said, "perception of impropriety". And not many would argue that perception does not exist. Magas here sure would perceive impropriety, and dump definitely will claim harm and prejudice even though this ruling does not help him achieve his goal, and that would become the show while the prosecution of dump is on the side.

Fanni should have known better. Her actions are letting dump off.

budaatum:


As the judge said, "perception of impropriety". And not many would argue that perception does not exist. Magas here sure would perceive impropriety, and dump definitely will claim harm and prejudice even though this ruling that does not help him achieve his goal, and that would become the show while the prosecution of dump is on the side.

Fanni should have known better. Her actions are letting dump off.

I have to read the ruling, but the Judge's ruling seems to be off as well. Magas will always perceive impropriety even when none exist. You can't contort the law to take account for their baseless feelings of perpetual persecution (nice alliteration right?). I can't see how the standard for a prosecutor would be the "perception of impropriety". And in this case, Willis could have prosecuted this case herself. So how would it be unfair to the defense if she was sleeping with one of her prosecutors and telling him what to do? She could have just fired him and did it herself. I feel like there has to be something I'm missing as I haven't followed this fully. Because this whole thing doesn't make sense and seems ridiculous on its face.

BREAKING!

Supreme Court rules unanimously that public officials can block social media followers in limited circumstances

IjeBos:

She could have just fired him and did it herself.

But she didn't fire him, and she stupidly let herself become the case and overshadow her case against dump.

What she did was unprofessional at the least. And she's lucky she hasn't been thrown off the case by some dodgy judge, is my opinion.

budaatum:


But she didn't fire him, and she stupidly let herself become the case and overshadow her case against dump.

What she did was unprofessional at the least. And she's lucky she hasn't been thrown off the case by some dodgy judge, is my opinion.

My point is that, him being there had no impact on the outcome of the case. She is the decider. So, for the sake of this argument he is already just and extension of her will. Better yet, he is her will. She hired him as she has an office to run and other cases as well and so couldn't prosecute the case herself. Unless my understanding is wrong, I don't see how that leads to any bias to the defense. If she were the judge, yes. A defense attorney sleeping with the Prosecutor, yes.

And I think Willis may be a constitutional officer that's why the bar to remove her would be "actual conflict". So, I don't think even a dodgy judge could do so without being overturned on appeal.

But this is the strength of the Right wing movement. It gets good meaning people to argue these types of higher than legal standards on one side, while judges Like Clarence Thomas and Canon exist absent of any standard.

DaHighLife:


I'm confused by this language.
Which law/precedent mandates him to disqualify both?

You and yourself ijebos can chat about this. I am at this time busy. Cheerio 🤣

benalvino3:


You and yourself ijebos can chat about this. I am at this time busy. Cheerio 🤣

Called it. lol.
He said, "I logged in to write this post to explain that I am too busy at the moment to talk about the thing you asked about."
I guess it would take time for someone to find all those words in the dictionary and then learn what a precedent is.
Hard to chat about something you don't understand right?
Why don't you ask ChatGPT. "Hey ChatGPT, what is a legal precedent."

You are by far the least educated poster in this thread, and that says a lot.

IjeBos:


My point is that, him being there had no impact on the outcome of the case.

And the judge's decision does not claim him being there had or might have an impact on the case which has not got an outcome yet.

What the judge said is, some may perceive impropriety, and I happen to be one of those who agrees that some (read magabasilico already), will see impropriety, especially considering how low dump would go to get himself exonerated. And I wish Fanni had kept her Willis in her knickers or fuqed someone unrelated to her case instead of giving dump head.

IjeBos:


Called it. lol.
He said, "I logged in to write this post to explain that I am too busy at the moment to talk about the thing you asked about."
I guess it would take time for someone to find all those words in the dictionary and then learn what a precedent is.
Hard to chat about something you don't understand right?
Why don't you ask ChatGPT. "Hey ChatGPT, what is a legal precedent."

You are by far the least educated poster in this thread, and that says a lot.

Yeah, I am too busy to chat with someone talking to himself. Make another call 🤣

IjeBos:

So you can ignore the gibberish.

That took not long. Why give advice you can't use yourself?

IjeBos:

Called it. lol.
He said, "I logged in to write this post to explain that I am too busy at the moment to talk about the thing you asked about."
I guess it would take time for someone to find all those words in the dictionary and then learn what a precedent is.
Hard to chat about something you don't understand right?
Why don't you ask ChatGPT. "Hey ChatGPT, what is a legal precedent."

You are by far the least educated poster in this thread, and that says a lot.