this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2024
32 points (100.0% liked)

politics

20365 readers
3339 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Georgia’s Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis cannot continue prosecuting the 2020 presidential election interference case against Republican President-elect Trump and 14 of his allies.

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago (3 children)

So...

Working in the legal realm, I have a few things to say about the outcome of this:

  1. She was absolutely fucking right to bring this case. No ifs ands or "alternative facts". These pieces of shit didn't just break the law, they went out of their to try and subvert it after the fact and have the laws rewritten to preclude prosecution.

  2. Georgia was the worst place to bring this case, but the ONLY state it would have worked knowing the distribution of judges, the timeline of events, and the people involved.

  3. She should have fucking known better. What a dumbass move to hire a known associate for investigation work, let alone someone you had fucked.

All of this culminating into what you see here, which on its face sounds like a Trump getting away with a crime, but really is just any tiny little nagging thing a defense attorney can bring against the charges.

Bottom line: as a prosecutor, you should know better than to invite something like this into a case to prevent EXACTLY this kind of bullshit.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Is this over or can the state still proceed?

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

In theory, the state can proceed with a new prosecutor.

In practice, this case is dead in the water.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There's more to it than that.

  1. This was not a case of two prosecutors who happened to also be lovers. Their personal lives are their own business. They could post videos on Onlyfans for all that it matters. But these were lovers who were also using state and federal funds, to pay for travel expenses, hotel rooms, etc. in order to cover up the affair, essentially benefitting personally and financially from Trump's prosecution. Some theories going around are saying she intentionally made the entire case needlessly complex by bringing in so many co-defendants in order to increase the budget, and by extension increase their personal financial benefit. Given the horrendous testimony given by Wade during that hearing and the evidence that's out there, this theory isn't without merit.

  2. You are correct that she was right to bring the case. That in and of itself is not the issue. It was that she brought the case while trying to see how much she could enrich herself and her lover in the process. She ended up tainting the entire tree and now as a result all of the fruit is poisoned. The case itself was rock-solid. The problem is that she covered it in so much shit that she ruined the whole thing.

  3. It happened in GA, so GA is the only state where it would make sense. And her own actions leave open the chance that she intentionally dragged her feet in order to increase her own personal gain. She was not constrained by Merrick Garland and the DOJ; she could have brought this case a fuck of a lot sooner and kept it simple by keeping it to Trump and only the most important cronies, instead of indicting every coffee boy Trump ever shook hands with.

  4. "Should have known better" is the understatement of the year. Her actions through the entire thing ranged from incompetence to negligence to outright corruption. And what makes her particularly stupid in this case is that she was handed a slam dunk case that a first year intern could have handled that would have literally made her career. All she had to do was literally the bare fucking minimum: Keep her hands clean and put on a competent prosecution, and she literally would have been able to dictate the rest of her own career. But instead, she decided to try to shave a little extra off the top for herself and ended up tanking the case, both of their careers, and trust in the entire system in the process. She should be disbarred and criminally charged.

It's taking "Fucked around and found out" to both literal and extreme levels.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Seems a sane analysis.

[–] ghostface@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

One concede counselor, on one stipulation that point 3 be moved to point 1

As someone who watches more law n order than he should