CNN: Judge rules Fanny stays on the case!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
The judge said the prosecution can’t proceed unless he withdraws or she steps aside.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/0...-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb
That was a pretty good trick by the judge in a no win situation for him.
It was a ruling, and frankly a well thought out and legally sound ruling that will easily hold up under appeal. It isn't a 'trick'. The judge is doing his job. Not everything needs to be viewed through the lens of partisan politics.
Yes, another corrupt judge that came out of the Federalist Society. The irony just drips off the page.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
OK poor choice of a word, I actually agree with you but Jeezus. I don’t get the hostility towards me by you lately .
How is this response 'hostile'? I simply commented on your choice of words, which you admit was a poor choice. I'm not hostile, I have simply noted that you have become more troll than poster, and it's a waste of time to discuss a troll post. When you post something worth commenting on, you'll find my comments are not in the least bit hostile, including this last one. When you respond to a serious question with a 'Get rid of the second amendment
', it's a waste of time to respond to that. Hope that clears it up.
QP!
Verified User
Despite what idiots like TOP and others stated as a certainty, that the Judge would end the trial and exclude her, it was truly never in doubt amongst smarter people.
Top legal officials on the left and right almost all argued the threshold of removal 'actual conflict' not only has not been argued by those lawyers pushing it, but does not appear.
That something 'looks bad' in an HR type way, is NOT ENOUGH.
But Magats live off of 'looks bad' now as what they think should be enough when going after Dems, because that is typically the ONLY THING they can find, as all their prosecutions FAIL due to lack of FACTS or EVIDENCE and PROOF.
At no point was there ANYTHING even offered that got close to reaching the threshold of 'actual conflict' and that is why magats lost this.
Top legal officials on the left and right almost all argued the threshold of removal 'actual conflict' not only has not been argued by those lawyers pushing it, but does not appear.
That something 'looks bad' in an HR type way, is NOT ENOUGH.
But Magats live off of 'looks bad' now as what they think should be enough when going after Dems, because that is typically the ONLY THING they can find, as all their prosecutions FAIL due to lack of FACTS or EVIDENCE and PROOF.
At no point was there ANYTHING even offered that got close to reaching the threshold of 'actual conflict' and that is why magats lost this.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
I’m for the repeal of the 2nd. Too bad you’re not. I effectively remove my ‘good for you’ from that post.How is this response 'hostile'? I simply commented on your choice of words, which you admit was a poor choice. I'm not hostile, I have simply noted that you have become more troll than poster, and it's a waste of time to discuss a troll post. When you post something worth commenting on, you'll find my comments are not in the least bit hostile, including this last one. When you respond to a serious question with a 'Get rid of the second amendment
I happen to agree with Biden in that pubs have bastardized an outdated amendment.
lead prosecutor has to step aside ....but they did nothing wrong
Judge ruled that there was no proof of impropriety, but the mere appearance of a conflict of interest warrants asking Mr. Wade to step aside.
I’m for the repeal of the 2nd. Too bad you’re not. I effectively remove my ‘good for you’ from that post.
I happen to agree with Biden in that pubs have bastardized an outdated amendment.
Fair enough. The reality is that we have ALL turned more to trolling because there is not near enough legitimate discussion on this board. And I know you are one of those posters who would like to see more discussion. With all of the gun threads we have had on this board, it's surprising that I didn't know your position on this. I'm not sure if you haven't expressed it or if I simply missed it. Either way, it's a shame I didn't know that. But I blame general tenor of this board (and frankly all boards like this) not the posters. While I disagree with a lot of your positions, we clearly also agree on some very important ones (the need to protect our European allies for example). I try to fight my urgency to troll, but I certainly have lost that fight on many, many occasions. So I'll commit to a reset, I'll try to be less blunt and frontal, and focus on what you have to say. I consider you a very smart guy. And I would not say that about 90% of the posters here, so I'll proceed in that light. Your post gave me pause to think about how I come off, so I appreciate that. Carry on!!!! In fact, if I can find it, I'll go back and respond seriously to that question about why I might seemingly be voting against my selfish interest. That question actually has some real possibilities for a nuanced discussion. Hell, I'll just flat out start a thread, I hope you'll participate. I know who won't though. Earl.
He’s Corrupt exclamation exclamation exclamation
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Fair enough. The reality is that we have ALL turned more to trolling because there is not near enough legitimate discussion on this board. And I know you are one of those posters who would like to see more discussion. With all of the gun threads we have had on this board, it's surprising that I didn't know your position on this. I'm not sure if you haven't expressed it or if I simply missed it. Either way, it's a shame I didn't know that. But I blame general tenor of this board (and frankly all boards like this) not the posters. While I disagree with a lot of your positions, we clearly also agree on some very important ones (the need to protect our European allies for example). I try to fight my urgency to troll, but I certainly have lost that fight on many, many occasions. So I'll commit to a reset, I'll try to be less blunt and frontal, and focus on what you have to say. I consider you a very smart guy. And I would not say that about 90% of the posters here, so I'll proceed in that light. Your post gave me pause to think about how I come off, so I appreciate that. Carry on!!!! In fact, if I can find it, I'll go back and respond seriously to that question about why I might seemingly be voting against my selfish interest. That question actually has some real possibilities for a nuanced discussion. Hell, I'll just flat out start a thread, I hope you'll participate. I know who won't though. Earl.
I may start a thread about why I’m for the repeal of the 2nd. I’ve stated it many times on this site. Nobody has ever responded, I figure they didn’t take me seriously
Still don’t understand why the DA being caught fooling around, even considering some suspicious financial arrangements, had anything to do with the case of Trump being prosecuted for fraudulently trying to change the election in Georgia. How does any of this weigh against him receiving a fair trial? How does it even effect him or his trial?
TOP
Retired Teacher
Professionally and personally "Fanny's" got no credibility left... this was a great decision on the judge's part... this is just getting good...
Not that it has anything to do with the thread, but why? You know you are going to get the predictable replies which will quickly evolve into the personal crapola