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.
Well, if one is going to put it like that:
To be 'successful' a prosecuter bringing any public case must be like Ceasar'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 grounds 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 though-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.