"ETHICAL ASH HEAP" ???...Is the Wall Street Journal, right?? About the Democrats & Fani Willis election interference effort onto Trump?

[Phactotum]

Everyone who is honest, knows that the WSJ is clearly a political 'wrag' for those who hate Trump. Rupert Murdoch's son [Lachlan] has long disliked Trump. So, it is a miracle, whenever they publish any info which favors Trump and shames Democrats' lack of integrity regarding Trump.

On February 15th, FOX-News' Bret Baier pointed out... how the WSJ published some words about "ethical ash heap" in terms of what Fani's flagrancies can result in for Trump's path to the White House. So, consider these 2 questions:

Do you think the WSJ hit this one on the head? Do you think the unethical Democrats will stress for WSJ to fire the columnist who published that??

 

[1srelluc]

Leftist dems have no shame....I figure since Willis got up and acted (typically) all black and disrespected they won't do shit to her.

On the flip side Trump has gotten stronger.

 

[Curried Goats]

Leftist dems have no shame....I figure since Willis got up and acted (typically) all black and disrespected they won't do shit to her.

On the flip side Trump has gotten stronger.

You can't talk about no shame and be taken seriously when one of the defendants in that case, who's set to be the Republican nominee for President, is an adjudicated sexual assaulter. Fani Willis is unqualified to try a case because of unfounded allegations by criminal defendants but a sexual assaulter can be your nominee for President? How hard do you want us all to laugh at you?

 

[Phactotum]

You can't talk about no shame and be taken seriously

Did you see Fani's performance?? If so... then what if folks "talk about" the judge? And how he allowed Fani to carry on disrespectfully, toward the Prosecutor, yet Trump got sanctioned for the EXACT same behavior when he was on the witness stand in Georgia?
Was the judge, shameful?
Should the GA jurists be 'taken seriously' for their doublestandard when it comes to Trump on the witness stand vs. Democrats on the witness stand?

Do you have a problem with any maniacal magistrate that Trump faces, in Georgial??

 

[JoeB131]

Everyone who is honest, knows that the WSJ is clearly a political 'wrag' of the Democratic Party. So, it is a miracle, whenever they publish any info which favors Trump and shames Democrats' lack of integrity.

On February 15th, FOX-News' Bret Baier pointed out... how the WSJ published some words about "ethical ash heap" in terms of what Fani's flagrancies can result in for Trump's path to the White House. So, consider these 2 questions:

Do you think the WSJ hit this one on the head? Do you think the unethical Democrats will stress for WSJ to fire the columnist who published that??

WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

For all the caterwauling, I'm still not seeing how an adult relationship between two coworkers is anyone's business but theirs.

It's like you clowns learned nothing from the whole Lewinsky thing.

 

[JoeB131]

Did you see Fani's performance?? If so... then what if folks "talk about" the judge? And how he allowed Fani to carry on disrespectfully, toward the Prosecutor, yet Trump got sanctioned for the EXACT same behavior when he was on the witness stand in Georgia?
Was the judge, shameful?
Should the GA jurists be 'taken seriously' for their doublestandard when it comes to Trump on the witness stand vs. Democrats on the witness stand?

She wasn't disrespectful to the "prosecutor", she was disrespectful to the lawyer for the clowns Trump is on trial with.

This judge needs black votes to keep his job. He's not going to fall on his sword for Trump even if the law supported Trump's position (which it doesn't.)

Do you have a problem with any maniacal magistrate that Trump faces, in Georgial??

Nope. I want Trump in prison. I want him stripped of all his wealth and disgraced.

 

[1srelluc]

WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

For all the caterwauling, I'm still not seeing how an adult relationship between two coworkers is anyone's business but theirs.

It's like you clowns learned nothing from the whole Lewinsky thing.

Well supposedly the law profession has it's own ethical standards.....Let's see if they apply to black lawyers.

That said, ethics and the law profession would seem to me to be strange bedfellows given they are all professional liars.

Of course those two still will have to answer for the alleged misspending of public funds.....Maybe.

 

[Curried Goats]

Did you see Fani's performance??

I did.

If so... then what if folks "talk about" the judge? And how he allowed Fani to carry on disrespectfully, toward the Prosecutor, yet Trump got sanctioned for the EXACT same behavior when he was on the witness stand in Georgia?

That's the judges fault for even entertaining this hearing. Fani warned him he was purchasing a ticket to the circus by holding this hearing in her reply brief.

Was the judge, shameful?

No, just inexperienced. He gave the defense leeway to dig into Fani's personal life and he gave her the opportunity to respond that invasivness with her raw emotions.

Should the GA courts be 'taken seriously' for they doublestandard when it comes to Trump on the witness stand vs. Democrats on the witness stand?

There is no real argument to be made that Trump has been treated worse as a defendant than others. His comments, which illicited gag orders in his previous and ongoing trials, would of resulted in average defendants being held in contempt and would have seen them incarcerated until trial.

Do you have a problem with any maniacal magistrate that Trump faces, in Georgial??

This judge down in Georgia has been more than fair to the defense. He was being more than fair and erring on the side of caution and transparency by even holding this hearing.

 

[Phactotum]

For all the caterwauling, I'm still not seeing how an adult relationship between two coworkers is anyone's business but theirs.

You are correct, that the relationship is EXACTLY between the two coworkers. However...

What the relationship can uncover and what it can show and what it can highlight, does often have a whole lot to do with things OUTSIDE of the relationship --especially in relationships concerning Prosecutors' and their propensity to commit prosecutorial misconduct.

 

[Phactotum]

There is no real argument to be made that Trump has been treated worse as a defendant than others.

True. Indeed!

His comments, which illicited gag orders in his previous and ongoing trials, would of resulted in average defendants being held in contempt and would have seen them incarcerated until trial.

I think the facts, disprove what you said.

Clearly this judge let Fani have free reign, to be disrespectful and to grandstand and to refuse to answer questions and to scream at the Prosecutor and to call the Prosecutor a liar. The Judge just sat there, silently, refusing to sanction her --and refusing to harness that mess, and force her to answer the questions posed.

Please link up a hearing where Trump was allowed to carry on that way.

 

[Curried Goats]

Well supposedly the law profession has it's own ethical standards.....Let's see if they apply to black lawyers.

That said, ethics and the law profession would seem to me to be strange bedfellows given they are all professional liars.

Of course those two still will have to answer for the alleged misspending of public funds.....Maybe.

They're not professional liars. They're professional debaters. When the former governor was on the stand talking to Trumps lawyer they had an exchange about doing whatever it takes for a client. That means stretching arguments and definitions and legal codes as far as you can until a judge makes you cry uncle. Even the judge acknowledged during Nathan Wade's testimony that when he answered "no" on his interrogatory for his divorce proceedings on whether or not he slept with or socialized with any woman during the course of his marriage, that from Mr. Wade's perspective he believed the marriage to be over and irrevocably broken in 2015 and so he answered that question truthfully as he understood it.

 

[Curried Goats]

True. Indeed!



I think the facts, disprove what you said.

Clearly this judge let Fani have free reign, to be disrespectful and to grandstand and to refuse to answer questions and to scream at the Prosecutor and to call the Prosecutor a liar. The Judge just sat there, silently, refusing to sanction her --and refusing to harness that mess, and force her to answer the questions posed.

Clearly then you didn't watch the proceedings because at one point he warned her to listen to and to only answer the question she's asked and then he stopped the proceeding all together during a heated exchange she had with Ms. Merchant.

Please link up a hearing where Trump was allowed to carry on that way.

Please learn how logic works. The absence of an example that you request doesn't prove your point.

 

[Phactotum]

Clearly then you didn't watch the proceedings because

Because you are fleecing the facts here?

at one point he warned her to listen to and to only answer the question she's asked and then he stopped the proceeding all together during a heated exchange she had with Ms. Merchant.

You imploded your own argument here.

Because she DID NOT do what the judge said, which you referenced --as the judge just continued to let her have free reign to be disrespectful, even after he warned her.

Maybe, go realize, that there is no proof she was sanction at anytime... then you will see what you missed in your reasoning and rationale.

...

Here, let Mr. Turley help you out a bit re: what you clearly did not process about the spectacle Fani put on:

Biggest takeaways after wild 2-day hearing on Fani Willis affair: 'What's done is done'

The second and final day of a court hearing of evidence in allegations that Georgia prosecutor Fani Wills had an "improper" affair with her colleague has concluded.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Phactotum]

Please link up a hearing where Trump was allowed to carry on that way.

 

[Phactotum]

...

 

[DGS49]

They are not "co-workers." He is a highly-paid professional/legal consultant, and she "holds the purse-strings" of the entity that employs him. It is clearly a violation of both published and unpublished ethical principles.

But it has nothing to do with the case against President Trump, and that case should go forward, if only to expose to the American public - the literate public, at least - how base and corrupt the case is, even if it ultimately has to go to the USSC to be correctly adjudicated.

Unfortunately, this will delay the prosecution by several months so that it will be dropped, either because Trump wins in November and would be a doddering old codger by the time his term ends, or the political objectives will be met when Trump loses.

Either way, this sideshow will, in effect, end the prosecution against Trump, even though thousands and thousands of "billable hours" will be expended in closing it out.

 

[Phactotum]

They are not "co-workers."

They are exactly co-workers. And you cannot post anything that legitimately defines them as something different.

He is a highly-paid professional/legal consultant, and she "holds the purse-strings" of the entity that employs him. It is clearly a violation of both published and unpublished ethical principles.

Once she opened the purse-strings, to hire him, that means they have to work together for months/even years, to do information sharing and strategizing on trial efforts and paths.

Such are relations of "co-workers" by definition.

Either way, this sideshow will, in effect, end the prosecution against Trump, even though thousands and thousands of "billable hours" will be expended in closing it out.

 

[Curried Goats]

Because you are fleecing the facts here?

No, because you claimed, erroneously, that the judge never admonished Fani Willis and let her act how she wanted. That's false.

You imploded your own argument here.

You certainly haven't demonstrated that. Are you denying the judge warned Fani Willis about answering the questions and at one point stopped the proceedings to address her outburst?

Because she DID NOT do what the judge said, which you referenced --as the judge just continued to let her have free reign to be disrespectful, even after he warned her.

That's your claim. Prove it.

Maybe, go realize, that there is no proof she was sanction at anytime... then you will see what you missed in your reasoning and rationale.

Who said she needed to be sanctioned? You don't think outbursts happen in court? One happened from a defense lawyer during Nathan Wade's testimony and the judge simple warned him that if it happened again he'd be removed then he kept it moving.

!
...

Here, let Mr. Turley help you out a bit re: what you clearly did not process about the spectacle Fani put on:

Biggest takeaways after wild 2-day hearing on Fani Willis affair: 'What's done is done'

The second and final day of a court hearing of evidence in allegations that Georgia prosecutor Fani Wills had an "improper" affair with her colleague has concluded.

www.foxnews.com

I don't care about Turleys opinion. His opinion doesn't prove your argument.

 

[Phactotum]

Nope.

Obviously.

And once you admit that you have no problem with ethics violations being excused, in order to make sure Trump gets prosecuted? Is when you verified that you are the model, progressive Liberal, who is okay with weaponizing our nations' supposedly-fair processes just to reach a means that you desire.

I want Trump in prison. I want him stripped of all his wealth and disgraced.

No matter how illegally or immorally or unethically a Court is, when doing so?

 

[Phactotum]

No, because you claimed, erroneously, that the judge never admonished Fani Willis and let her act how she wanted. That's false.

Nope. You are very deceitful here.

I never used the word admonished about anything. And the fact that she did not get sanction and was NOT stopped from carrying on disrespectfully when merely warned --is something every viewer can go back and see for themselves.

Like I said, your claims do not support the visual proof verifying that the judge never sanctioned her... your claims do not support the visual proof which verifies that the judge made sure to sanction Trump for the same behaviors.

Are you denying the judge warned Fani Willis

I never denied that. My focus is on, Trump got sanctioned for not heeding warnings... Fani was allowed to continue on with her disrespect, after warnings, within the obvious proof that she was never sanctioned like Trump was for the exact same behaviors.

Your word trickery will never transcend those facts.

Who said she needed to be sanctioned?

ohhhhh, I don't know... perhaps this little thing called FAIRNESS ??? I know you are a Democrat, so I had to ask since I understand you may be allergic to that term.
Thats considering Trump got sanctioned for the EXACT same behavior when disregarding the EXACT same warnings.

Your word trickery cannot transcend this reality.

I don't care about Turleys opinion. His opinion doesn't prove your argument.

I'm not going by his opinion, I am going ONLY by facts that he repeated. There is a difference. Your word trickery cannot transcend that.