Legal Experts say Fani has ruined her case against Trump!

[forkup]

I find you to be a very dishonest person that is being extremely partisan if not an outright asshole liar

"Care", did not ask a question

Stating she did, shows that you have zero comprehension skills, or you are simply an asshole. Which is it. Being civil would be, being honest. Ask honestly, for yourself, and I might share my wisdom with you. If you continue as you just did, I can only offer ridicule in return.

you either think you are clever, insulting me, asking me to reply, to a rephrased question, when in fact it was an outright insulting rant directed at me.

You are not that smart, ask me something nicely, without lying, and maybe we can talk

where in the world do you get this crap from?

This is a question, is it not? I do see a question mark at the end.

I'm of the opinion that asking you to structure a coherent argument to support an assertion you made is a hell off a lot more polite. Than asking a question that also calls your basic premise "crap".

It's interesting that you find that insulting and dishonest.

I will not claim it doesn't have a gotcha quality to it, because it does. But only because I don't believe you have a coherent argument to support your assertion.

A belief you bolster by a post that doesn't even attempt to answer the question asked and simply attacks me for asking.



As for my partisanship. I am a partisan in my belief. But before my partisanship I'm first and foremost a principled and honest person.

That's why you'll find me in this OP. Pushing back at Berg's assertion that Willis' problems won't have a bearing on the trial. Or me stating that if proven she lied she will be in serious problems.



An honest person doesn't flinch when facts aren't favorable. Can you show the same?

 

[forkup]

.

Fat Fani is toast.

.

Only if the reports are true. Something I'll wait and see on until this evidentiary hearing.

Just like I'll see if it'll end up tanking the entire Georgia case. Something that is by no means certain.

 

[Care4all]

This case needs to be thrown out.

Why? How does her romance make Trump and conspirator's actual alleged crimes go away?

 

[Billiejeens]

Only if the reports are true. Something I'll wait and see on until this evidentiary hearing.

Just like I'll see if it'll end up tanking the entire Georgia case. Something that is by no means certain.

She admitted that it was all true.

Doesn't change the facts/narrative of the case against President Trump

 

[Blaster]

Why? How does her romance make Trump and conspirator's actual alleged crimes go away?

There were no crimes committed.

 

[elektra]

This is a question, is it not? I do see a question mark at the end.

You did not restructure a question

Just because an idiot pits a question mark behind a rant does not turn it into a question

So get off your high horse

There was no question you restructured.

If you can not admit that you are simply dishonest

 

[Care4all]

This is a question, is it not? I do see a question mark at the end.

I'm of the opinion that asking you to structure a coherent argument to support an assertion you made is a hell off a lot more polite. Than asking a question that also calls your basic premise "crap".

It's interesting that you find that insulting and dishonest.

I will not claim it doesn't have a gotcha quality to it, because it does. But only because I don't believe you have a coherent argument to support your assertion.

A belief you bolster by a post that doesn't even attempt to answer the question asked and simply attacks me for asking.



As for my partisanship. I am a partisan in my belief. But before my partisanship I'm first and foremost a principled and honest person.

That's why you'll find me in this OP. Pushing back at Berg's assertion that Willis' problems won't have a bearing on the trial. Or me stating that if proven she lied she will be in serious problems.



An honest person doesn't flinch when facts aren't favorable. Can you show the same?

If it does come down to this, can she resign and her dept continues the prosecution with the acting DA running it?

 

[forkup]

She admitted that it was all true.

Doesn't change the facts/narrative of the case against President Trump

No she admitted she had a relationship. Something that hasn't have any bearing on the case and is no reason to disqualify. What she said that might get her into serious trouble is that the relationship started AFTER she hired him. An assertion that is now being contested.

If the reports are true they have both witnes(ses), but more importantly physical evidence of this being a lie. If this is true she lied to the judge. A BIG no-no.

Until and unless I know what is true with more certainty than what I can find on some right-wing media sites I will reserve my opinion.

What I won't do is presume stuff has meaning when it doesn't.

Having a relationship with a co-worker isn't a legal ground for disqualification. Lying to a judge sure as hell is.

 

[Care4all]

There were no crimes committed.

And what does your opinion of Trump's innocence, have to do with her romance with the prosecutor?

 

[Blaster]

And what does your opinion of Trump's innocence, have to do with her romance with the prosecutor?

It shows how devious Willis is.

 

[forkup]

If it does come down to this, can she resign and her dept continues the prosecution with the acting DA running it?

A new prosecutor can and will be appointed. That prosecutor will then have to decide to continue the prosecution.

I don't know how that will go.

As I see it there's 2 competing interests.

A prosecution of this magnitude is a tremendous drain on available recourses. Both in man hours and money. A DA has much more than one case to prosecute. So whenever they take something big, that by necessity draws attention away from other cases. So they might for example choose to give a favorable plea deal to some white collar criminal because they don't have the recourses to prosecute him. Not saying they'll let rapists or something of the hook but it does have consequences.

On the other hand a prosecutor might decide this crime is so egregious that it is worth these other consequences. Willis did.


The point is this. No it doesn't make the trial go away. But also no, it doesn't mean the trial will continue either. It is literally up to the discretion of whomever replaces her. IF she gets replaced.

 

[elektra]

I'm of the opinion that asking you to structure a coherent argument to support an assertion you made is a hell off a lot more polite. Than asking a question that also calls your basic premise "crap".

You are opinion of??????

More polite?????

I did not make an assertion. I stated facts.

It is clear that you are simply trying to discredit me and are far from being polite about it. Condescending is what I think, reading your comments.

 

[Care4all]

It shows how devious Willis is.

okee dokee!

 

[forkup]

You did not restructure a question

Just because an idiot pits a question mark behind a rant does not turn it into a question

So get off your high horse

There was no question you restructured.

If you can not admit that you are simply dishonest

This was what the question was.

where in the world do you get this crap from?

Something you perceived as a question because you restructured it yourself by saying this.

where do I get the idea that the courts are corrupt

1. I am a personal witness of it.
2. I am a victim of corrupt courts
3. I have read dozens of articles, of court cases overturned for multiple reasons

people with complete ignorance should watch from the sidelines with their traps shut

To which I asked this.

What specifically do you think is corrupt in the Trump indictments, and how do you apply your personal experiences to it?

So, why don't you try to answer that question instead of trying to prove I'm dishonest. It's a deflection that simply doesn't work.

 

[Care4all]

A new prosecutor can and will be appointed. That prosecutor will then have to decide to continue the prosecution.

I don't know how that will go.

As I see it there's 2 competing interests.

A prosecution of this magnitude is a tremendous drain on available recourses. Both in man hours and money. A DA has much more than one case to prosecute. So whenever they take something big, that by necessity draws attention away from other cases. So they might for example choose to give a favorable plea deal to some white collar criminal because they don't have the recourses to prosecute him. Not saying they'll let rapists or something of the hook but it does have consequences.

On the other hand a prosecutor might decide this crime is so egregious that it is worth these other consequences. Willis did.


The point is this. No it doesn't make the trial go away. But also no, it doesn't mean the trial will continue either. It is literally up to the discretion of whomever replaces her. IF she gets replaced.

some legal eagle said there was one other hail mary, she could resign, putting the asst AG in charge, keeping in her former dept. with the case....BUT this has to be done early....I think it is likely too late now.

 

[forkup]

some legal eagle said there was one other hail mary, she could resign, putting the asst AG in charge, keeping in her former dept. with the case....BUT this has to be done early....I think it is likely too late now.

You are talking about prosecuting the presumptive nominee for the Republican ticket. It's politically fraught enough as it is.

The only way to do this is keeping it above board as much as possible.

Trying "hail Marys" in order to keep the trial on track is a very bad idea in my opinion.

 

[Care4all]

where do I get the idea that the courts are corrupt

1. I am a personal witness of it.
2. I am a victim of corrupt courts
3. I have read dozens of articles, of court cases overturned for multiple reasons

people with complete ignorance should watch from the sidelines with their traps shut

I have no doubt some injustices take place...which one alone is too many!

what I question is your stance that the who!e justice system is totally corrupt.... when it is not....even with all of our flaws, it's the best out there...and if I was ever charged with a crime, it's our court system that I would want to be tried under, and no where else!

 

[Blaster]

I have no doubt some injustices take place...which one alone is too many!

what I question is your stance that the who!e justice system is totally corrupt.... when it is not....even with all of our flaws, it's the best out there...and if I was ever charged with a crime, it's our court system that I would want to be tried under, and no where else!

Our system of justice has been tainted by over zealous prosecutors and biased jurors.

 

[elektra]

I will not claim it doesn't have a gotcha quality to it, because it does. But only because I don't believe you have a coherent argument to support your assertion

You admit that, your comment has a gotcha quality.

Then I am right, you are not being honest and in fact are a condenseding prick.

You believe the courts are 100% infallible.

You believe the thousands set free with DNA evidence and witnesses recanting testimony was wrong. That those people were guilty.

You believe the thousands of decisions of the courts that have been overturned or throw out were in fact correct.

And I am suppose to prove you wrong, when you defend the Injustice, that books have been written about.

 

[Dragonlady]

.

Y'all are scared!

Its fun!

.

No we're not scared at all. Even without Willis, the trial will go ahead.

You're projecting your own fears onto others.

Watching the Hearing this morning, what a load of bullshit this whole motion is. The prosecutor she hired was already in the process of obtaining a divorce when they met, and NONE of the salacious stories Trump and his co-defendants are promoting are in any way improper or disqualifying.

This whole process is indeed a "Hail Mary" attempt to derail this prosecution. I seriously doubt it will succeed but it does show the lengths that Trump will go to in order to destroy those prosecuting him.

Why not just have a trial on the evidence of Trump's crimes???? Because Trump will lose every single time.