excalibur
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 18,149
- 34,371
- 2,290
Well, of course he should have. The entire case is a house of cards, aided with White House interference.
And chilling to the First Amendment.
nypost.com
And chilling to the First Amendment.
...
Their personal controversies have derailed the case and mired the prosecution in scandal. Ethically, this should not have been a difficult question. They should have stepped aside.
That conclusion is more than evident in McAfee’s decision, which shreds their claims on the stand and outside of the courthouse.
The court describes Willis’ controversial speech at a church as “’playing the race card … to cast racial aspersions at an indicted Defendant’s decision to file this pretrial motion.”
He hammers Willis for her lack of professional judgment and stresses, with perhaps an unintentional pun, that “providing this type of public comment creates dangerous waters for the District Attorney to wade further into.”
McAfee also indicates that the testimony of Wade failed to resolve questions of filing false statements to a prior court and that his testimony on when the relationship began stood contradicted.
McAfee has done a fair job throughout the case. Moreover, he makes a valid point when he notes that this evidence does not establish a strong basis for claiming that the case was brought or pursued due to this relationship or possible financial gain.
Indeed, the purpose of this case was not personal but political.
While the indictments contain some valid criminal charges, they are largely minor offenses like unlawful access to voting areas. The overall racketeering claim used to ensnarl Trump is forced and weak.
The problem is that the court casts doubt on Wade’s testimony on the relationship, but ignores that Willis effectively ratified those claims in her own testimony.
...
The defense removed the lead special prosecutor while leaving Willis carrying more baggage than Amtrak.
Their personal controversies have derailed the case and mired the prosecution in scandal. Ethically, this should not have been a difficult question. They should have stepped aside.
That conclusion is more than evident in McAfee’s decision, which shreds their claims on the stand and outside of the courthouse.
The court describes Willis’ controversial speech at a church as “’playing the race card … to cast racial aspersions at an indicted Defendant’s decision to file this pretrial motion.”
He hammers Willis for her lack of professional judgment and stresses, with perhaps an unintentional pun, that “providing this type of public comment creates dangerous waters for the District Attorney to wade further into.”
McAfee also indicates that the testimony of Wade failed to resolve questions of filing false statements to a prior court and that his testimony on when the relationship began stood contradicted.
McAfee has done a fair job throughout the case. Moreover, he makes a valid point when he notes that this evidence does not establish a strong basis for claiming that the case was brought or pursued due to this relationship or possible financial gain.
Indeed, the purpose of this case was not personal but political.
While the indictments contain some valid criminal charges, they are largely minor offenses like unlawful access to voting areas. The overall racketeering claim used to ensnarl Trump is forced and weak.
The problem is that the court casts doubt on Wade’s testimony on the relationship, but ignores that Willis effectively ratified those claims in her own testimony.
...
The defense removed the lead special prosecutor while leaving Willis carrying more baggage than Amtrak.
Judge throws Fani Willis a lifeline, when he should have tossed whole case against Trump
Ethically, this should not have been a difficult question. Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis and Special Counsel Nathan Wade should have stepped aside.
nypost.com
