I didn't know President Trump had a romantic relationship with Aileen Cannon. If so, I'd say you have to admit he's still a true player.
That comment was in reference to the $150 donation made by the judge. I'd still be happy to hear your view on how the DA and Special Prosecutor having a romantic relationship infringes upon Trump's rights as a defendant in any way.
Yes, agreed that it is perfectly legal and very common for judges to receive political contributions from lawyers. It's basically a judge's way of wetting their beaks, as we know campaign dollars can be stretched. If you don't chip in, good luck with your case in front of said judge.
To be clear, neither scenario makes me feel warm and fuzzy on the inside. I'm not sure that helps your case though. The POTUS is not above the law, true. But if there is ever a defendant that should get maximal defendant's rights, it's the POTUS (regardless of party). So even if Cannon is compromised by virtue of Trump nominating her to begin with, as a defendant, he shouldn't be moved to another judge who would presumably rule more harshly against him. That's the whole point of innocent until proven guilty. Defendants get the benefit of the doubt. In Willis' case, again, Trump is the defendant, so any hanky panky prior to trial by the DA and lead prosecutor should benefit the defendant. She will be removed. They just have to dot their i's and cross their t's. She's gone and likely the case with her. You get a high profile case like this with a former POTUS, the DA has to be nails. That's not just for Trump, that goes for any former president. She sent likely the best of these cases against Trump up in flames.
The law doesn't say Trump has to demonstrate how he is impacted. The law says you can't have a conflict of interest that could potentially impact the defendant in a material way. A conflict of interest in this case exists the same whether or not Trump can demonstrate how he is impacted.
Yeah, I mean, she's gone. She will forever live under the ire of angry Dems who will blame her for the people electing Donald J. Trump as POTUS again, even though Biden currently trails by 8 points in her state, a state which Biden won in 2020. (we think)
Today, Trump's lawyers amended their complaint that stated that "Wade and Willis exchanged 12,000 texts in 2021" to "Wade and Willis exchanged 12,000 interactions in 2021." Things that make you go hmm...
That's certainly a possibility because of a violation of department ethics or code of conduct but not because of a conflict of interest that affects Trump since there is no conflict of interest.
Even if that is true, how does that change what Trump did? It doesn't. Am i missing something or did their affair cause Trump to try and force Georgia pub election officials to falsify election results?
The mere fact the judge is holding hearings after Trump's attorney cited a "conflict of interest" indicates said conflict could potentially affect the defendant. After all, it's not the job of Trump's attorneys to chase down intradepartmental ethics violations and the judge would handle accordingly.
That's a valid point but I still fail to see any argument for a conflict of interest that affects Trump. It's not like she's sleeping with the Judge or one of Trump's attorneys.
You should write a letter to McAfee and tell him he's wasting his time if Willis wasn't sleeping with one of Trump's attorneys or he himself. Let us know what he says.
So your beef with me is that i didn’t include the word “lack” in my prior post, even though that’s obviously what I meant? As to your general point, perhaps you’d have one if the classified documents case was the only Trump case, but it’s not. When you’re blatantly throwing everything you can at a guy, attorneys even bragging about it, it’s reasonable for the public to think the reasons behind the next accusation is malicious/political, especially when they could have pursued Trump’s political rivals for crimes under the Espionage Act as well. I also find it amusing that you spend more time on this forum insulting people who disagree with you and reminding everyone that you’re a lawyer, than actually enlightening, educating, or providing any sort of academic legal value to this forum.
