A state judge overseeing the election-interference case against former president Donald Trump in Georgia has scheduled a hearing for Feb. 15 to hear evidence regarding accusations that Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis (D) and her lead prosecutor engaged in an improper relationship and mishandled public money.
Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee also wrote in his order that Willis must respond to the accusations in writing by Feb. 2. They first came to light last week in a filing from one of Trump’s co-defendants, former campaign aide Mike Roman. The order was obtained by The Washington Post and has since appeared on the case docket.
Willis has declined to directly address the explosive accusations. McAfee’s order appears to be forcing her to do so in televised court proceedings, a development that could at least be embarrassing for the district attorney and at worst derail the investigation completely.
In his filing, Roman called for Willis and the lead prosecutor, Nathan Wade, to be removed from the case, and also for the charges to be dismissed against Trump and 14 co-remaining defendants. A spokesman for Willis on Thursday repeated the only statement the office has issued on the allegations so far — that “we will respond in court.”
Well, if one is going to put it like that:
To be 'successful' a prosecutor bringing any public case must be like Caesar's wife. That means their character, and case, must be spotless. If it can be proven that she has a political agenda to 'get Trump' at any cost, then there is grounds to overturn the case on the basis of frivolous waste of the court's time.
When bringing a case that addresses efforts to unlawfully undo an election loss, one must first have a wee bit of proof. Prima Facie: The election was not overturned, and Trump left very publicly.
So, we are venturing into territory of 'could have happened' rather than what AKSHULLY HAPPENED. This is murky legal territory now. Willis needs to prove thought-crime, and although that may be fascinating to witness as a thought-experiment, one can say she is frivolously spending public money. A leap of faith is not how it works in a court system, where evidence is still valued, and any self-respecting judge, no matter what political leaning, must recognize that.
Upvote for “AKSHULLY”. Artful use of English language. Keep up the good work.👍🏻
TOTALLY Agree...We don't get writings like this on the board AND I do enjoy a VERY WELL WRITTEN response with PROPER ENGLISH!!!!!
WOWZA!!!😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎
I'd give you an updoot but you're at 17 now, and I like that mojo for you. And us.