49
Fani Willis disqualified from Trump election case by Georgia appellate court
(www.washingtonpost.com)
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2024
49 points (98.0% liked)
politics
19238 readers
2191 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Some of the money used to fund the prosecution was used on travel expenses and hotel rooms for the purposes of helping to cover up the affair. There are numerous criminal acts in that alone and it amazes me that she hasn't faced sanctions or charges for them. This opens the door to the theory that the prosecution of Trump wasn't entirely based on the evidence in the investigation but was at least partially more of a way to fund their affair at his expense.
And yes, maybe some of it is her being punished for having an affair. But given all of the circumstances surrounding this particular affair, punishment was absolutely warranted. Their actions gave off far more than the appearance of impropriety, and absolutely tainted the entire case. She absolutely should have been sanctioned if not disbarred, and that doesn't change just because the defendant happens to be Trump.
That alone would be enough of a reason to have her removed. Appearance of impropriety and all that. She should have recused herself and had the case reassigned the minute word of the affair became public. Her staying in is what continued to taint the case.
If any of this is illegal under state or County law by all means give her the boot. That doesn't seem to be what anyone is saying though. "Conflict of interest" and "impropriety" are seemingly the worst she's guilty of.
It only takes a few simple questions. Did she fail to meet specific criteria when she hired Wade as special prosecutor? Was she required to disclose prior conflicts of interest or ones that formed during the course of the indictment? Did Wade make unauthorized purchases with the fees he was paid? Were the rights of the defendant violated? Is there any evidence their relationship has diminished their efficacy in prosecuting this case? If none of these answers are "yes" then it's 100% about optics. If any of these are a "yes" then this should've been settled months ago.