Fani Willis blows up Meadows' motion.

[Zincwarrior]

So how could questioning the election results fall outside the scope of his official duties?

He was Chief of Staff of the Whitehouse, not Trump's private campaign manager.

 

[Zincwarrior]

I imagine, once the Fed judge denies it, he will roll. He wasn't charged in the fed indictments (yet).

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[kyzr]

Elections, electoral college etc are the one thing that does not fall under the president or something presidential duties in the constitution.... In fact, it would break the constitution. Election result belongs solely to the states

True. Checking on the progress of recounts, or asking to check unusual results is NOT illegal.

 

[Marener]

True. Checking on the progress of recounts, or asking to check unusual results is NOT illegal.

If that’s all he was doing, why did Trump keep telling them that he won?

 

[kyzr]

If that’s all he was doing, why did Trump keep telling them that he won?

Because Trump's lawyers apparently misinformed Trump.

I don't want to defend Trump. I prefer a Desantis/Biden race.

BUT, my take/prediction is that of the 91 Trump indictments there will be close to ZERO convictions that survive the appeal process.

 

[Marener]

Because Trump's lawyers apparently misinformed Trump.

I don't want to defend Trump. I prefer a Desantis/Biden race.

BUT, my take/prediction is that of the 91 Trump indictments there will be close to ZERO convictions that survive the appeal process.

So he wasn’t just asking. He was telling them what the result was. Your attempt to spin his conversation won’t work for anyone that listened.

Don’t forget, his better lawyers also told him he lost. So he can’t pass the buck. Trump believed whatever he wanted to believe.

 

[BackAgain]

Mark wants his trial moved to federal court. He must think that gives him a better chance of acquittal. In her response Fani eviscerates the standing on which Meadows made his motion. She quotes him saying, "nobody outside the beltway really cares about Trump admin officials violating the Hatch Act."

Willis then points out, "the defendant unreservedly declares that all of the alleged conduct as to Mr. Meadows relates to protected political activity that lies in the heartland of the 1st A and all the substantive allegations in the indictment concern unquestionable political activity and thus, if not covered by Supremacy Clause immunity, the charges would be barred by the 1st A. However, the defendant does not cite, or even acknowledge, the Hatch Act, the federal statute that expressly forbids such political activity for executive branch employees acting, or appearing to act, under their official authority. Having admitted that all of his pertinent activity is political, the defendant has acknowledged that all of the activity falls outside the scope of his duties and his color of office because he could never, as Chief of Staff, engage in such political activity without violating a federal statute."

Gosh, she is one smart cookie.

That’s not all that smart in the first place.

And I doubt she drafted it or even gave it any thought. A staffer did the legal research and writing. Fani signed it. That’s about it.

 

[Nostra]

Mark wants his trial moved to federal court. He must think that gives him a better chance of acquittal. In her response Fani eviscerates the standing on which Meadows made his motion. She quotes him saying, "nobody outside the beltway really cares about Trump admin officials violating the Hatch Act."

Willis then points out, "the defendant unreservedly declares that all of the alleged conduct as to Mr. Meadows relates to protected political activity that lies in the heartland of the 1st A and all the substantive allegations in the indictment concern unquestionable political activity and thus, if not covered by Supremacy Clause immunity, the charges would be barred by the 1st A. However, the defendant does not cite, or even acknowledge, the Hatch Act, the federal statute that expressly forbids such political activity for executive branch employees acting, or appearing to act, under their official authority. Having admitted that all of his pertinent activity is political, the defendant has acknowledged that all of the activity falls outside the scope of his duties and his color of office because he could never, as Chief of Staff, engage in such political activity without violating a federal statute."

Gosh, she is one smart cookie.

Where is your link, Dumbass?

 

[Lord Long Rod]

I would not be so quick to pat dipshit on the back. It was the judge that ruled against the motion. Fani just sits back on her fat ass and lets real lawyers argue the case.

 

[Chillicothe]

"And I think she is hoping that some of these other co-defendants will flip."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Ummm?
That's a bad thing?
That's a novel tactic?

Here's a clue for the cluefull: Prosecutors try to get co-conspirators, co-defendants, partners, confidantes, colleagues, friends, lovers, family, et al, ...... to flip all the time.
If a prosecutor can motivate an insider to a scheme to divulge the secret-handshakes and messaging, well, that makes prosecutions simpler. Getting a rat from inside the circle to, ummm, rat-out others is kinda sorta a well-worn tactic.

I know you know that poster kyzr.

 

[Billiejeens]

Willis is a veteran lawyer and prosecutor, kyzr a poser.

No Presidential chief of staff's duties involve and include participating in overthrowing the electoral vote of Georgia.

It's far more probable than possible that the trial will remain in the Georgia judicial system.

Wherever it lands, no illegal acts were committed.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

That's

Well according to kyzr you have no idea what the POTUS chief of staffs official duty is so therefore it could actually be election interference in the state of Georgia. Sound about correct?

what kyzr thinks in that tiny mind.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Because Trump's lawyers apparently misinformed Trump.

I don't want to defend Trump. I prefer a Desantis/Biden race.

BUT, my take/prediction is that of the 91 Trump indictments there will be close to ZERO convictions that survive the appeal process.

The doc cases are slam dunks. If he goes to trial, he is done.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So how could questioning the election results fall outside the scope of his official duties?
Willis has no clue what his "official duties" are.
All indictments will eventually fall on appeal.

How can conservatives be so willfully ignorant and dishonest.

 

[Billiejeens]

That's

what kyzr thinks in that tiny mind.

Learn how to post
John the retard

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Willis read the Constitution.

Trump tried to destroy it.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Learn how to post
John the retard

Who
are
you
to
tell
oh
never
mind

 

[kyzr]

So he wasn’t just asking. He was telling them what the result was. Your attempt to spin his conversation won’t work for anyone that listened.
Don’t forget, his better lawyers also told him he lost. So he can’t pass the buck. Trump believed whatever he wanted to believe.

If Trump ends up in prison it serves him right for being such an AH.

 

[kyzr]

How can conservatives be so willfully ignorant and dishonest.

I can post links to Law Professors who agree that the most of the 91 Trump indictments are NOT valid, i.e. "Malicious Prosecution".