Rockdoc said:
So Wade gets to keep all his money and head to the bank, no problem. Smiling all the way.
Yeah biggest losing prosecutor; at what $600K plus billings with a daily booty call!
Rockdoc said:
So Wade gets to keep all his money and head to the bank, no problem. Smiling all the way.
Why would he head to the bank? He keeps that money stashed all around his house - like all black people do.Rockdoc said:
So Wade gets to keep all his money and head to the bank, no problem. Smiling all the way.
So was everyone else. Even MSNBC was lamenting she would be gone because her behavior and lying was so over the top they couldn't even defend it.LMCane said:
once again all the Trump fans who spent weeks proclaiming Willis would be gone and the case would collapse.
proven wrong once again.
Ag with kids said:Why would he head to the bank? He keeps that money stashed all around his house - like all black people do.Rockdoc said:
So Wade gets to keep all his money and head to the bank, no problem. Smiling all the way.
BMX Bandit said:
sounds like dumb ruling. No time to read it, maybe over the weekend.
You are so gleefully, disgustingly transparent! You are the problem with the republican party!LMCane said:
once again all the Trump fans who spent weeks proclaiming Willis would be gone and the case would collapse.
proven wrong once again.
will25u said:
Wasn't the whole case built around Wade and the "SPECIAL GRAND JURY"?
It's a ridiculous ruling. If there is a "compromised" situation, as the judge found, the responsibility for such compromise should fall on the one with the authority and higher ethical duty, who in this case is Fani Willis, yet this coward refused to rule her disqualified out of fear of political fallout. This is Fulton County and had he gone all the way, it's not out of the question that the retaliation to him physically as well as the political suicide it would bring.nortex97 said:Foreverconservative said:
Lying to the court is fine as long as you're a democrat.
That is the literal meaning of the ruling.
TXAggie2011 said:BMX Bandit said:
sounds like dumb ruling. No time to read it, maybe over the weekend.
It's an in the weeds of Georgia law ruling. He says there is no actual conflict but there is an appearance of one.
And then spends some time quoting Georgia cases that allow for appearance of impropriety to be cured (my word) in various ways that fall short of removing the whole prosecution.
Quote:
"Yet reasonable questions about whether the District Attorney and her hand-selected lead SADA testified untruthfully about the timing of their relationship further underpin the finding of an appearance of impropriety and the need to make proportional efforts to cure it."
Yes...Foreverconservative said:
This verbiage right here that is at the top of the first page I post bothers me as wellQuote:
"Yet reasonable questions about whether the District Attorney and her hand-selected lead SADA testified untruthfully about the timing of their relationship further underpin the finding of an appearance of impropriety and the need to make proportional efforts to cure it."
So since she didn't actually say their names it's okay for her to imply as she didQuote:
However, the speech did not specifically mention any Defendant by name. Although not
improvised or inadvertent, it also did not address the merits of the indicted offenses in an effort to
move the trial itself to the court of public opinion. Nor did it disclose sensitive or confidential
evidence yet to be revealed or admitted at trial. In addition, the case is too far removed from jury
selection to establish a permanent taint of the jury pool. As best it can divine, under the sole
direction of Williams, the Court cannot find that this speech crossed the line to the point where
the Defendants have been denied the opportunity for a fundamentally fair trial, or that it requires
the District Attorney's disqualification.
Drahknor03 said:
This is a direct plea to the appeals court: "Take this away from me, I'm begging you!"
Comment of Steve Sadow, lead defense counsel for President Trump in the Fulton County, GA case, on the Court's disqualification ruling:
— Steve Sadow (@stevesadow) March 15, 2024
Â
"While respecting the Court’s decision, we believe that the it did not afford appropriate significance to the prosecutorial misconduct of…
So I've read Judge McAfee's opinion on Fani Willis/Nathan Wade disqualification, and I think it will still create a lot of problems for Willis going forward (even after Wade withdraws)
— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) March 15, 2024
McAfee avoids outright DQ by using an extremely stringent legal standard for DQ: Actual…
Matt Hooper said:
I agree.
Fani Willis did not impress as being very bright, BUT.......if she has a since of what is best for me and how to get out of this self-created mess, this seems to be her escape hatch.
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
Is this order subject to interlocutory appeal? Mandamus relief?
To answer the question, I think its subject to discretionary interlocutory appealGenericAggie said:speak english please?ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
Is this order subject to interlocutory appeal? Mandamus relief?