Trump’s Georgia election interference case paused as court considers disqualifying lead prosecutor (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

To quote the related NYT article, "The order means the prosecution of Donald J. Trump in Georgia is effectively frozen, at least through the presidential election."

top 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 35 points 5 months ago

Honestly, if this case falls apart, it's all on her.

Her relationship with Wade really should be her own business and irrelevant to the case. But when you're talking about what would be far and away the most important case in her career and in this country's history, you don't do anything that would even hint at the possibility of impropriety or conflict of interest. Especially against this defendant. Shoot at the king, you best not miss and all of that.

If Trump skates on this case, it's 100% on her. At this point in her career, she should have known better than to do anything that would give a whiff of impropriety once the spotlight was on her.

[-] jwelch55@lemmy.world 29 points 5 months ago

Fuck that, we should not expect people to give up their personal lives and their relationships to appease psychos.

[-] tate@lemmy.sdf.org 24 points 5 months ago

She stood for election to public office. During the campaign she literally said that she would not have sex with her employees (referring obliquely to a scandal of her predecessor).

She fucked up.

[-] kikutwo@lemmy.world 17 points 5 months ago

We don't expect that. But we do expect someone who went to law school would have the brain to see the apparent conflicts, appearance problems, and not hire them to work on the most high profile case she will ever work on.

[-] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago

This wasn't a couple of teenage lovebirds who didn't know any better. These are two career lawyers who were playing shell games with money to hide an affair while bringing charges against one of the most powerful people in the country, with unlimited resources, and a decades-long track record of finding ways to exploit even the most irrelevant weakness he can find to get his way. This was poor judgement at best.

[-] Omodi@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

There is no hint of a conflict of interest. She and her boyfriend are on the same side. There is a suggestion of corruption. She might be funneling public money to her boyfriend but that should not really undermine the case against Trump.

[-] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

There is a suggestion of corruption. She might be funneling public money to her boyfriend but that should not really undermine the case against Trump.

Go back and watch their testimony at the hearing. Saying there is a "suggestion of corruption" is like saying "Trump may have told a fib or two in his time". They were playing all sorts of shell games with the money and doing everything they could to cover it up, which means they knew their behavior was improper at best. Every case they worked on together was tainted by their actions because their relationship and the actions they were taking at the very least give the appearance of impropriety, even if they didn't specifically do anything improper regarding the Trump case. And the appearance of impropriety is typically the standard for recusal.

She shouldn't have gotten involved with Wade in the first place while handling such an important case. But beyond that, as soon as the scandal broke, they should have at least tried to salvage the case by recusing themselves and handing the case off to someone else. And now, the fact that they didn't had the effect of giving Trump exactly what he wants, as the case is now going to be delayed at the very least (some estimates say the delay could take the case to as far as 2026) or outright dismissed if either the appelate court or Supreme court rules that she should have been removed.

And for the record, Trump case aside, I'm of the school of thought that she should be fired and/or disbarred just based on the relationship she had with Wade. And I think if she weren't caught up in such a high profile case, she would have been.

[-] itsonlygeorge@reddthat.com 4 points 5 months ago

Can she just quit as lead prosecutor? Is that an option?

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 5 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The Georgia court of appeals has put a hold on the trial of Donald Trump and other defendants while it considers whether to disqualify the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, the lead prosecutor in the case.

Trump had appealed an order by the Fulton county superior court judge Scott McAfee that declined to disqualify Willis after bombshell revelations about a romantic relationship with her chosen special prosecutor.

Trump was charged alongside more than a dozen associates last year with racketeering over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election result in the state, after Georgia voted for Joe Biden to become US president.

The charges stem in part from the “perfect phone call” Trump made to Georgia’s secretary of state, Brian Raffensperger, asking him to “find 11,780 votes” and flip Georgia’s election, as well as an alleged scheme to submit an alternate slate of Republican electors to Congress in order to provide the then vice-president, Mike Pence, a rationale to reject the electoral count and send the election to the House to decide.

Trump’s lawyers subsequently argued that those statements in the “church speech” created “forensic misconduct” – an act by a prosecutor that requires disqualification in Georgia law.

In the appeal, Trump’s attorneys argue that Willis was not honest when testifying about the relationship, creating an appearance of impropriety that requires her removal.

The original article contains 726 words, the summary contains 224 words. Saved 69%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] btaf45@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

In the appeal, Trump’s attorneys argue that Willis was not honest when testifying about the relationship,

WTF??? This has NOTHING at all to do with the case against Convicted Felon Treason Trump. Using that to delay the trial against Trump is completely inexcuseable and nonsensical.

this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024

87 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19090 readers

3552 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News