Would You Prefer that Fanni Willis Simply Resign from the Trump Case?

[Supposn]

SeymourFlops, justice delayed is justice denied.
Both Georgia's District Attorney Willis and the Federal Justice Department failed to obtain and file their indictments in sufficient time to deal with the trial-delaying motions. I also doubt if anyone in D.A. Willis's office could have foreseen the question of who paid what portion of her and Wade's romance expenditures, would additionally delay Judge McAfee's decision regarding the defendants' pretrial motions.

A lawyer offered his opinion as if and when any of both trials begin this year, the jury wouldn't be able to render a verdict prior to the Republican National Convention or prior to election day. (I know of and highly regard that lawyer's judgment and opinions). In that case, it's likely Republicans will nominate an indicted alleged criminal accused of attempting to overthrow the 2020 elections.

Republicans may or may not win the 2024 presidential elections. After the 2020 general elections, and prior to January 2025, if Donald Trump is found guilty (of attempted to effectively overthrow the 2020 presidential elections), would the Supreme Court then rule that he's ineligible to be sworn in as President of the United States? Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Seymour Flops]

SeymourFlops, justice delayed is justice denied.
Both Georgia's District Attorney Willis and the Federal Justice Department failed to obtain and file their indictments in sufficient time to deal with the trial-delaying motions.

I also doubt if anyone in D.A. Willis's office could have foreseen the question of who paid what portion of her and Wade's romance expenditures, would additionally delay Judge McAfee's decision regarding the defendants' pretrial motions.

Fani Willis could have foreseen it. She should’ve known something like that might happen as soon as she decided to give all that money to her married lover. She was greedy and horny and made a bad decision.

A lawyer offered his opinion as if and when any of both trials begin this year, the jury wouldn't be able to render a verdict prior to the Republican National Convention or prior to election day. (I know of and highly regard that lawyer's judgment and opinions). In that case, it's likely Republicans will nominate an indicted alleged criminal accused of attempting to overthrow the 2020 elections.

Yes, they have already made up their mind. That is Republican voters have made up their mind that the indictments have no merit, and they are going to pick their own candidate, and not let Democrat activists in the justice system decide for them.

Republicans may or may not win the 2024 presidential elections. After the 2020 general elections, and prior to January 2025,

if Donald Trump is found guilty (of attempted to effectively overthrow the 2020 presidential elections), would the Supreme Court then rule that he's ineligible to be sworn in as President of the United States? Respectfully, Supposn

First, I doubt it seriously. Second, I seriously hope not.

Sir, I don’t think that the Democrats and the media know what kind of fire they’re actually playing with. Did you see that poll that showed that the majority of Americans believe that Biden is behind the indictments of Trump, and that he’s doing it in order to win the election?

That doesn’t even address whether Trump is guilty or not guilty of the crimes he’s accused of. Or should I say whatever he’s accused of that they are claiming is a crime. I can’t get a poster on here to say here’s what Trump did and here is the criminal statue you violated.

Anyway, the majority of Americans see the indictments as a political attempt to win an election by other means, besides getting the most votes. Maybe They’re wrong. I can’t see inside each prosecutors heart. I suppose it’s theoretically possible that each one of them is nothing more than a dedicated non-partisan crime fighter who have to be reminded occasionally that “oh yeah! the defendant is running for president, isn’t he?”

But many Americans are firmly convinced that the indictments are part of a coordinated political witchhunt intended to rob them of their choice for president.

If the well armed and highly knowledgeable, Americans lose faith in electing their leaders, what do you think they will do next?

 

[Supposn]

Fani Willis could have foreseen it. She should’ve known something like that might happen as soon as she decided to give all that money to her married lover. She was greedy and horny and made a bad decision.

Yes, they have already made up their mind. That is Republican voters have made up their mind that the indictments have no merit, and they are going to pick their own candidate, and not let Democrat activists in the justice system decide for them. ...

... Anyway, the majority of Americans see the indictments as a political attempt to win an election by other means, besides getting the most votes. Maybe They’re wrong. I can’t see inside each prosecutors heart. I suppose it’s theoretically possible that each one of them is nothing more than a dedicated non-partisan crime fighter who have to be reminded occasionally that “oh yeah! the defendant is running for president, isn’t he?”


But many Americans are firmly convinced that the indictments are part of a coordinated political witchhunt intended to rob them of their choice for president. ...

Seymour Flops, you, and the many other Trump supporters make suppositions that are not shared by myself and the many who are firmly opposed to Donald Trump, and many others who are lesser opposed or consider themselves as not particularly opposed to Donald Trump.
[Whatever are the individual opinions of the judges and members of juries participating in the adjudication of Trump's court cases; (i.e. I have hope and reason to believe they'll uphold their oaths that bind them to the law).]

Judge McAfee has determined your supposition of Fani Willis being substantially the primary financial supporter of her and Nathan Wade's personal relationship, has not been proven by the preponderance of evidence and testimony. Similarly the accusation that they or anyone of them had a nefarious vested interest in the outcome of the trial passed over the “preponderance hurdle”. (As you pointed out, “preponderance "is much lesser hurdle than is “beyond reasonable doubt”.

Much of the judge's and the courts time and efforts were dedicated to judging those points of the defendant's pr-trail motions.
The judge discarded a few points of the indictment against Trump, but otherwise, he has not found the indictment to be without merit; (i.e. the case against Trump can be prosecuted in court). Respectfully, Supposn

... Sir, I don’t think that the Democrats and the media know what kind of fire they’re actually playing with. ...
... If the well armed and highly knowledgeable, Americans lose faith in electing their leaders, what do you think they will do next?

Seymour Flops, Hitler was jailed after the seditious 1924 Bavarian riot against the German government. After the world's economic depression began, (it's considered to have become apparent in 1929 within Wall Street's security markets), the Nazi Party began receiving the most, but not the majority of votes cast in Germany's political elections. Hitler was asked to accept the office of chancellor and form a German coalition government in 1933. He then utilized the power of his German government and his Nazi Party' offices to further consolidate his power and effectively end democracy in Germany. In 1934, he became the Fuhrer of Germany.

You don’t think that we who are opposed to Donald Trump “know what kind of fire” we're dealing with? Those who don't, should know. When Trump supporters' post threats, “If the well armed and highly knowledgeable, Americans lose faith in electing their leaders, what do you think they will do next?” I know that we must at any or all costs stop another Hitler from emerging. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Seymour Flops]

Seymour Flops, you, and the many other Trump supporters make suppositions that are not shared by myself and the many who are firmly opposed to Donald Trump, and many others who are lesser opposed or consider themselves as not particularly opposed to Donald Trump.
[Whatever are the individual opinions of the judges and members of juries participating in the adjudication of Trump's court cases; (i.e. I have hope and reason to believe they'll uphold their oaths that bind them to the law).]

Judge McAfee has determined your supposition of Fani Willis being substantially the primary financial supporter of her and Nathan Wade's personal relationship, has not been proven by the preponderance of evidence and testimony. Similarly the accusation that they or anyone of them had a nefarious vested interest in the outcome of the trial passed over the “preponderance hurdle”. (As you pointed out, “preponderance "is much lesser hurdle than is “beyond reasonable doubt”.

Much of the judge's and the courts time and efforts were dedicated to judging those points of the defendant's pr-trail motions.
The judge discarded a few points of the indictment against Trump, but otherwise, he has not found the indictment to be without merit; (i.e. the case against Trump can be prosecuted in court). Respectfully, Supposn

Thank you for your lengthy and very accurate description of how courts work. Is your point that you always agree with every court decision no matter what?

If that’s not your point, then I’m not sure what the point is?

Seymour Flops, Hitler was jailed after the seditious 1924 Bavarian riot against the German government. After the world's economic depression began, (it's considered to have become apparent in 1929 within Wall Street's security markets), the Nazi Party began receiving the most, but not the majority of votes cast in Germany's political elections. Hitler was asked to accept the office of chancellor and form a German coalition government in 1933. He then utilized the power of his German government and his Nazi Party' offices to further consolidate his power and effectively end democracy in Germany. In 1934, he became the Fuhrer of Germany.

Thank you for the history lesson. Is your point that Trump is like Hitler? If not, I’m not sure the point. If so, I’m not sure why I would want to keep reading anything you write.

You don’t think that we who are opposed to Donald Trump “know what kind of fire” we're dealing with? Those who don't, should know. When Trump supporters' post threats, “If the well armed and highly knowledgeable, Americans lose faith in electing their leaders, what do you think they will do next?” I know that we must at any or all costs stop another Hitler from emerging. Respectfully, Supposn

Hitler and the Nazis hated democracy. Having used the process of democracy to obtain power, he tried to end it. He replaced it with a fascist bureaucracy that went after “political enemies. “

No political opponents were allowed to run against them. Any of that tried were gone after by the prosecutors and courts of the regime.

Yes, we should definitely learn a lesson from that and never let it happen again.

 

[Supposn]

Thank you for your lengthy and very accurate description of how courts work. Is your point that you always agree with every court decision no matter what?

If that’s not your point, then I’m not sure what the point is?

Seymour Flops, similar to most voters, I do not agree with every court decision I read or otherwise encounter; but I yield as I'm impelled to yield to the decisions of our courts.

I responded to the following remarks within your posts: “... Anyway, the majority of Americans see the indictments as a political attempt to win an election by other means, besides getting the most votes. Maybe They’re wrong. I can’t see inside each prosecutors heart. I suppose it’s theoretically possible that each one of them is nothing more than a dedicated non-partisan crime fighter who have to be reminded occasionally that “oh yeah! the defendant is running for president, isn’t he? … But many Americans are firmly convinced that the indictments are part of a coordinated political witchhunt intended to rob them of their choice for president. ...”.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
The point of my response was, I do not believe as you believe, the grand juries that voted for those indictments against ex-president Donald Trump and his other co-defendants, and the judges that accepted those indictments on behalf of their courts weren't acting in full compliance of their sworn oaths and their duties within our government's justice systems;
(i.e. I do not believe or suppose “the majority of Americans see the indictments as a political attempt to win an election by other means, besides getting the most votes”.

I don't doubt the majority of those who did or will vote for Donald Trump believe “the indictments [against Trump and his co-defendants] "are part of a coordinated political witchhunt intended to rob them of their choice for president”; but I doubt if the majority of USA's voters believe so. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Thank you for the history lesson. Is your point that Trump is like Hitler? If not, I’m not sure the point. ...
... Hitler and the Nazis hated democracy. Having used the process of democracy to obtain power, he tried to end it. He replaced it with a fascist bureaucracy that went after “political enemies. “
No political opponents were allowed to run against them. Any of that tried were gone after by the prosecutors and courts of the regime.
Yes, we should definitely learn a lesson from that and never let it happen again.

Seymour Flops, Trump supporters don't understand and/or disregard the historical examples of Hitler. Regarding your remark “Hitler and the Nazis hated democracy. Having used the process of democracy to obtain power, he tried to end it. He replaced it with a fascist bureaucracy that went after “political enemies ...”, effectively that's what Donald Trump has and is expected to continue attempting to do.

Note throughout the German government's Nazi administration, they did retain the political concepts of democracy, (i.e. democratic elections), within their nation's laws and regulations. They always wanted to retain the appearance of ostensibly continuing to be a democratic republic. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Delldude]

Trump supporters don't understand and/or disregard the historical examples of Hitler.

We've been seeing his examples on display by the democrats for several decades now.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Seymour Flops, Trump supporters don't understand and/or disregard the historical examples of Hitler. Regarding your remark “Hitler and the Nazis hated democracy. Having used the process of democracy to obtain power, he tried to end it. He replaced it with a fascist bureaucracy that went after “political enemies ...”, effectively that's what Donald Trump has and is expected to continue attempting to do.

You must be kidding.

It’s EXACTLY what Dems have been doing since Trump descended the escalator. Word-for-word.

Note throughout the German government's Nazi administration, they did retain the political concepts of democracy, (i.e. democratic elections), within their nation's laws and regulations. They always wanted to retain the appearance of ostensibly continuing to be a democratic republic. Respectfully, Supposn

Which party has its chief political rival under multiple indictments and arrests after years of investigations, many of which led to no successful prosecutions?

Which party has tried to use the courts to de-ballot its leading political opponent and projected winner of the presidency?

Which party conducted a raid on the home of the people’s choice and physically barred his lawyer from observing the search?

Which party has Trumped up charges against protesters who objected to the irregularities of the 2020 election and has held many for years, having never once arrested illegal protesters outside of USSC justices’ homes?

 

[Delldude]

This just in..............pretty interesting viewpoint.

NEW: Frank Luntz Warns CNN Seizing Donald Trump's Properties Will Backfire: "You Are Going to Elect Donald Trump"
"He’s going to go up in the polls just like he went up every single time they indicted him."
"If the New York Attorney General starts to take his homes away, starts to seize his assets, it's all going to be on camera, pundits are going to sit there and scream about this, and you're going to create the greatest victimhood of 2024."
"You are going to elect Donald Trump."
"Why is Donald Trump beating Joe Biden when he's got 85 indictments? Felonies? Trump is leading, and in the seven swing states, Trump is up by the margin of error in five out of seven; why is that happening?"
Luntz, who isn't a Trump supporter, realizes that the American people do not want to see their country turn into a banana republic.
Americans do not want to see the party in power imprisoning political adversaries and confiscating their assets, not for clear crimes like murder or bribery, but rather based on novel and dubious interpretations of the law.
If the legal system can be weaponized against a former president, what hope does an ordinary American citizen have?

 

[Supposn]

... Which party has its chief political rival under multiple indictments and arrests after years of investigations, many of which led to no successful prosecutions?
Which party has tried to use the courts to de-ballot its leading political opponent and projected winner of the presidency?
Which party conducted a raid on the home of the people’s choice and physically barred his lawyer from observing the search?
Which party has Trumped up charges against protesters who objected to the irregularities of the 2020 election and has held many for years, having never once arrested illegal protesters outside of USSC justices’ homes?

SeymourFlops, I see no need to further explain my previous response to those accusations you've repeated. As I previously responded:

. Similar to most voters, I do not agree with every court decision I read or otherwise encounter; but I yield as I'm impelled to yield to the decisions of our courts. … The point of my response was, I do not believe as you believe, the grand juries that voted for those indictments against ex-president Donald Trump and his other co-defendants, and the judges that accepted those indictments on behalf of their courts weren't acting in full compliance of their sworn oaths and their duties within our government's justice systems.
(i.e. I do not believe or suppose “the majority of Americans see the indictments as a political attempt to win an election by other means, besides getting the most votes”.

I don't doubt the majority of those who did or will vote for Donald Trump believe “the indictments [against Trump and his co-defendants] "are part of a coordinated political witchhunt intended to rob them of their choice for president”.

Seymour Flops, upon these points of our discussions, I believe the majority of USA's voters do not agree with the majority of Republican voters. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Seymour Flops]

. Similar to most voters, I do not agree with every court decision I read or otherwise encounter; but I yield as I'm impelled to yield to the decisions of our courts. … The point of my response was, I do not believe as you believe, the grand juries that voted for those indictments against ex-president Donald Trump and his other co-defendants, and the judges that accepted those indictments on behalf of their courts weren't acting in full compliance of their sworn oaths and their duties within our government's justice systems.
(i.e. I do not believe or suppose “the majority of Americans see the indictments as a political attempt to win an election by other means, besides getting the most votes”.

I don't doubt the majority of those who did or will vote for Donald Trump believe “the indictments [against Trump and his co-defendants] "are part of a coordinated political witchhunt intended to rob them of their choice for president”.

Seymour Flops, upon these points of our discussions, I believe the majority of USA's voters do not agree with the majority of Republican voters. Respectfully, Supposn

Supposn, we will see come November.

 

[Supposn]

Delldude and Seymour Flops, I'm firmly opposed to ex-president Donald Trump; however, I'm troubled by the recently completed NY state civil fraud case of NY state vs. Donald Trump. The court found him liable for falsely signing off on inflated evaluations of assets to obtain loans or more favorable terms for loans.
I wonder if there are NY state precedents for their prosecuting such a case? What injury did NY state as the plaintiff suffer? If due to Trump's acts others suffered or were put at greater financial risk, why aren't they directly or indirectly claiming for damages? Suppose the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was directly or indirectly put at risk because a bank failed to diligently confirm the valuations. Why isn't the bank held liable for failing to uphold their fiduciary responsibilities?

If there's little or no NY State precedence for such a case, it's conceivable the state chose to prosecute Trump only due to the great sums of money involved. But in this case, there's certainly the conceivable appearance of politically selected prosecution and NY State has shamed themselves. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Seymour Flops, upon these points of our discussions, I believe the majority of USA's voters do not agree with the majority of Republican voters. Respectfully, Supposn

Supposn, we will see come November.

Seymour Flops, yes, we will see in November. It's nice that we can agree on something. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Delldude]

If there's little or no NY State precedence for such a case, it's conceivable the state chose to prosecute Trump only due to the great sums of money involved. But in this case, there's certainly the conceivable appearance of politically selected prosecution and NY State has shamed themselves. Respectfully, Supposn

James ran on getting Trump. Can you hear me now?

(AP) — Letitia James fixated on Donald Trump as she campaigned for New York attorney general, branding the then-president a “con man” and ″carnival barker” and pledging to shine a “bright light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings.”Sep 28, 2023

NY Attorney General Letitia James has a long history of fighting Trump and other powerful targets

New York Attorney General Letitia James is no stranger to picking fights with powerful targets. Just ask Donald Trump.

apnews.com

Loading…

www.wsj.com

 

[Supposn]

Delldude, you ignored the first clause of my post's first sentence, "If there's little or no NY State precedence for such a case". I suspect, but I do not know that there isn't more than little or no NY State precedence for such a case. But I'm only speculating, I don't know that to be a fact. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

... If the legal system can be weaponized against a former president, what hope does an ordinary American citizen have?

Delldude, I'm among the majority, of USA's voters who are in agreement on the following four, (4) points: (1) Those judges that have determined a United States presidents can be held accountable for their actions while in office. (The Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on this facet of Trump's legal appeals), but we also expect that they will fully uphold our U.S. Constitutional concept of a nation bound by government's written constitutions, statutes, and regulations rather than by individuals' or our population's less consistent concepts and opinions.​

(2) We're also in agreement with those jurists and those court's juries that have thus far determined in regard to the January 6, 2021 mob attack upon the Washington D.C. Capitol Building, there were individuals who directly or indirectly supported and otherwise conspired to better enable that attack. Some of those individuals have already been tried and found guilty of “seditious conspiracy” against the government of the United States. The Supreme court has not ruled against any of those guilty of seditious conspiracy verdicts.

(3) We're also in agreement with the Supreme Court's decision which, contrary to Colorado's Supreme Court, determined that Colorado may not prohibit Donald Trump's name from appearing in their state's ballots of nominated presidential candidates. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously repudiated the Colorado's Supreme Court regarding this question.​

(4) We also agree that regardless of our individual opinions, the democratic republic government of the United States will be transformed to be an authoritarian, (i.e. a fascist) government rather than a democratic-republic type of government if we fail to uphold the decisions of our own U.S. Supreme Court. That court's our nation's final court of appeals that evaluates our nation's laws and how they may or may not be applied.

I don't know if the majority of USA's Republican voters concur with our nation's majority of voters on all four, (4) of these previously discussed points. Respectfully, ​

James ran on getting Trump. Can you hear me now?

(AP) — Letitia James fixated on Donald Trump as she campaigned for New York attorney general, branding the then-president a “con man” and ″carnival barker” and pledging to shine a “bright light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings.”Sep 28, 2023

NY Attorney General Letitia James has a long history of fighting Trump and other powerful targets

New York Attorney General Letitia James is no stranger to picking fights with powerful targets. Just ask Donald Trump.

apnews.com

Loading…

www.wsj.com

Delldude and Seymour Flops, I'm firmly opposed to ex-president Donald Trump; however, I'm troubled by the recently completed NY state civil fraud case of NY state vs. Donald Trump. The court found him liable for falsely signing off on inflated evaluations of assets to obtain loans or more favorable terms for loans. ... If there's little or no NY State precedence for such a case, it's conceivable the state chose to prosecute Trump only due to the great sums of money involved. But in this case, there's certainly the conceivable appearance of politically selected prosecution and NY State has shamed themselves.

I don't know if the majority of U.S. voters agree with me on this point of our discussions?

Respectfully, Supposn

​

 

[Delldude]

We also agree that regardless of our individual opinions, the democratic republic government of the United States will be transformed to be an authoritarian, (i.e. a fascist) government rather than a democratic-republic type of government if we fail to uphold the decisions of our own U.S. Supreme Court.

Lost it a couple decades ago.

 

[Supposn]

Lost it a couple decades ago.

Delldude, I disagree with you. Despite the Senate not yet holding check Supreme Court justices as answerable to other than themselves regarding their compliance to some standards of ethics, the USA is still a republic that's a democratic republic.

Trump and his supporters attempted to overthrow the 2020 election which determined that he would not be re-elected for the next presidential 4-year term. If he's able to again become president, he will in the USA as Hitler did in Germany, effectively transform us to be governed as an “authoritarian” rather than as a “democratic republic” type of national government. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Delldude]

If he's able to again become president, he will in the USA as Hitler did in Germany, effectively transform us to be governed as an “authoritarian” rather than as a “democratic republic” type of national government.

You're being governed now under authoritarian rules and leadership and don't realize it.

Notice Biden blames everything on MAGA republicans? Hitler did it with the Jews.

 

[TheParser]

That Willis character is going nowhere.

In fact, she is a shoo-in to win reelection soon. (After all, it is Atlanta!!!)

She is as sassy as ever, just recently warning Mr. Trump of the impending train coming toward him.