CNN: Judge rules Fanny stays on the case!

Damocles said:
He must read all the discovery, etc. I don't think it resets the case but it delays it. I shouldn't write posts on the phone I truncate and idiots get the wrong idea of what I mean.
Click to expand...

I suspect there is a second chair prosecutor who knows more about the case than the first chair, that is usually the situation. They will need to get a new lead, it won’t delay any significance, plus the guy being forced out will unofficially stay on for a while.
 
Damocles said:
He must read all the discovery, etc. I don't think it resets the case but it delays it. I shouldn't write posts on the phone I truncate and idiots get the wrong idea of what I mean.
Click to expand...

And normal people will get the idea you meant what you wrote, twice.
 
Jarod said:
I suspect there is a second chair prosecutor who knows more about the case than the first chair, that is usually the situation. They will need to get a new lead, it won’t delay any significance, plus the guy being forced out will unofficially stay on for a while.
Click to expand...

There are two other prosecutors on the case. Which was the genesis of her idiotic statement that this was racially motivated, because the other two prosecutors are white. Yes Fanni, but they also weren't sleeping with you.
 
martin said:
I think Willis will see it as a vote of no confidence and resign. Either way it's a win for Trump. Everything will now go on hold until a new prosecutor is brought in and is ready to proceed.
Click to expand...

Silly. No delay will occur because of this….
 
QP! said:
Optics were fine, aside from the love affair issue, making it salacious.


It simply is not a good argument to say 'XYZ has never done ABC' as a way to suggest they should not be doing ABC.

If that was true, i would offer right now 'The Judge Scott McAfee, being the newest Judge in the circuit, has never heard any big cases, let alone arguably the biggest in State history and thus the optics are not good that he has this trail'.


Same goes for Aileen Cannon, on the Trump florida case.

But NO ONE is pushing the 'optics do not look good' as they have not got caught up in any other scandals tangential to the cases they are on.


No one has done a thing, until they are given a chance to do a thing, and if everyone was excluded for that reason, then no one would ever get there.

Wade as both a lawyer and judge, prior, has PROVEN himself across many areas in law, each of which he was new to, until he was not. He has received accolades in his roles, and been hired as Special Counsel by both GOP and Dem D.A.'s in other districts. He had never worked as a Special Counsel, until he did.

If any D.A wants to give him his first Special Counsel job (which someone did before Fani) and he proves not up to the task, that is on them, and the accused only BENEFITS. But simply because he 'has not done it yet' is NOT a reason to question optics and if it was then it applied to him getting his FIRST Special Counsel job. His first time as a Judge. And to Scott McAfee and Aileen Cannon handling their first big cases.
Click to expand...

"or appearance of conflict" is in the law, it's not some extra-textual legal theory.

and they're both guilty of perjury.

they should both be disbarred at the very least.
 
volsrock said:
Since this judge has now finally ruled, Trumps team can Appeal his ruling. Had this judge never agreed to hearing the case, then there would be no appeal until a verdict, but now it is fair game to be seen my a federal judge.

Thus this is NOT over.
Click to expand...

Wrong, Trump can Appeal, but it doesn’t stop or slow down the case. You should look up interlocutory appeal, this is not one.
 
anonymoose said:
Are you saying McAfee’s ruling was bad?
Click to expand...

No.

I am saying that his choice to give this a full public hearing was a wrong one when the first step should have been a closed door session to determine if the accusation was meritorious.

The FIRST thing he needed to address was 'what is the substance of the accusation that would lead to a finding of 'Actual Conflict' and he should have questioned the accusers on that and forced them to 'show their work'.

Instead they started with all the salacious stuff and even McAfee commented really nothing that rose anywhere near the bar of Actual Conflict.


If they started that way the accusers would have put forth 'the few inexpensive holidays and gifts and their view that 'this case was manufactured and being strung out to get Wade paid, so Fani could benefit. And NOTHING MORE'.

Those points were easily dismissed by McAfee who pointed out, in his ruling that Fani had done several things,that denied that narrative. Firstly she offered the case to others not named Wade. She offered plea bargains to the lead accusers client. It was her pushing to move as fast as possible to get the case to court, while the defense were the ones stalling. She also paid Wade at the BOTTOM end of the legal pay scale in Georgia when she could have authorized much more.

ALL things that speak to a DA who was not looking to put Wade in, and not looking to drag this out.

Based on that McAfee could have ruled they did not have an evidentiary basis to get a full hearing, and avoided all the salacious stuff.
 
Damocles said:
The ruling ensures this starts over. The conflict cannot exist, either he leaves or the office is removed... when he leaves a new prosecutor starts things over.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect.

It is VERY COMMON, as you can see in other trials, such as the Alvin Bragg, where in the last couple weeks he added a new lead prosecutor who worked with Letisha James, in her Trump case, that when the case gets close to being argued in court, they often bring in new special prosecutors to actually argue the case.

Wade was more akin to work horse, second lawyer, in this case. He was doing all the nitty gritty gathering and investigation stuff and his work will remain for any who come in next.

even if Wade was not forced to recuse or step out, no one would have been surprised if Fani brought in a new lead lawyer, in the weeks just before walking in to court, when she would be engaging with the former POTUS sitting across the bench. She would be then pay the big bucks to get that top person, that she was not willing to pay Wade to do all the leg work, to get it to that point.
 
Jarod said:
How many of you were Trumpped?

Every single time you get Trumpped.

Another corrupt Judge? Hahahahahahahahaha!

Cnn.com
Click to expand...

something I find hilarious with you nazi leftists is how you find certain judges corrupt based solely upon whether you disagree with their decisions.......much like all the trumpers do.

how do you feel about yourself, knowing that you're not any fucking different than the trump supporters?
 
Hermes Thoth said:
"or appearance of conflict" is in the law, it's not some extra-textual legal theory.

and they're both guilty of perjury.

they should both be disbarred at the very least.
Click to expand...
False, and oh stupid.

... The question here is whether Willis’s and Wade’s apparent mistakes have any bearing on the election conspiracy prosecution in a way the law would require their removal from the case.

The motion filed by defendant Michael Roman seeks primarily to do just that – to disqualify Willis and Wade from further participation in this case. Under Georgia law, however, even if all the factual allegations regarding Willis and Wade were true, there would be no basis for disqualifying them from prosecuting Roman or any of the other defendants in the election conspiracy case.

The key point is that regardless of whether the factual circumstances involving Willis and Wade give rise to separate ethical concerns with respect to his hiring, such questions do not affect the propriety of the prosecution against Roman and his co-defendants. Questions about gifts and related matters go to Willis’s and Wade’s obligations to the Fulton County District Attorney’s office, and have no connection to assuring the defendants a fair trial. These allegations are as irrelevant to the trial as allegations in other situations that prosecutors took office supplies for personal use, drove county vehicles for personal errands, or plagiarized portions of their student law review notes. All of those are legitimate issues—for prosecutors’ offices and those with oversight responsibilities to address—but such allegations do not bring criminal prosecutions to a stop or require that cases be transferred to a different office. Defense attorneys cannot use allegations of prosecutorial ethics violations, real or imaginary, that have nothing to do with a trial to delay or force prosecutors off of a case.

As a matter of both common sense and Georgia law, a prosecutor is disqualified from a case due to a “conflict of interest” only when the prosecutor’s conflicting loyalties could prejudice the defendant leading, for example, to an improper conviction. None of the factual allegations made in the Roman motion have a basis in law for the idea that such prejudice could exist here – as it might where a law enforcement agent is involved with a witness, or a defense lawyer with a judge. ...


cite
Click to expand...

Georgia Law is very specific as to the high standard for FORCED RECUSAL and it requires ACTUAL CONFLICT. An example would be if Fani was dating a defense lawyer or the judge. Something that COULD PREJUDICE THE CASE.

It is very common, all across America, for lawyers on the same side of cases (defense of prosecution), or even lawyers and police or lawyers and judges to date. It might be an HR issue but is NOT alone reason for forced recusal.
 
Damocles said:
He must read all the discovery, etc. I don't think it resets the case but it delays it. I shouldn't write posts on the phone I truncate and idiots get the wrong idea of what I mean.
Click to expand...

anonymoose said:
Maybe not but there will be delays.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You guys do not seem to understand that lawyers can play very different roles in big, high end cases.

A case like this, that can often take 1-2 years to actually end up being tried, RARELY has the D.A hiring the top litigation Prosecutions, who speciality are arguing in court, and who want a $1000 or more per hour at the beginnings to do all the leg work Wade did at near the very bottom of the Lawyers pay scale for Georgia of $250/hr. The top guys just would not do it. D.A's offices have budgets and are very scrutinized over how much they spend, particularly come election time.

So as with the Alvin Bragg case, the closer it gets to being in court the more you see them bring in the higher priced talent who will do the final work and often present the case. It DOES NOT slow the case down. It is how they are designed to begin with, for this to happen.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
something I find hilarious with you nazi leftists is how you find certain judges corrupt based solely upon whether you disagree with their decisions.......much like all the trumpers do.

how do you feel about yourself, knowing that you're not any fucking different than the trump supporters?
Click to expand...

When do us 'leftists nazi' ever lose in court versus you magats, for you to make that claim.

Give an example?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top