Fanni removed

How about not even going there? Again, HUGE case. Lots of spotlight. Maybe the "relationship" could wait? I mean, do we have any sense of professionalism here?

 

It's pretty funny that the AG's office leveled these corruption charges against Trump, while operating in a very corrupt manner. That should tell you all you need to know.

 

Come on man. A first year law student would have known, but she's not corrupt? Okay...

 

Stand by, this disqualification issue isn't over. Apparently 43 years of well settled Georgia case law requires that there be a showing of ACTUAL conflict or actual impropriety in order to disqualify Willis. The trial court found the defendants did not meet that burden and the appellate court did not find differently.

The opinion of this three judge panel is not likely to stand.

See Judge Land's dissenting opinion.

"Here, the trial court expressly found that appellants failed to show that the district attorney had an actual conflict of interest, failed to show that she received any material financial benefit as a result of her relationship with Nathan Wade, failed to show that she had a personal stake in the conviction of any defendant, failed to show that her relationship with Wade involved any actual impropriety on her part, and failed to show that their elationship, including their financial arrangements, had any actual impact on the case. Because there was some evidence presented to the trial court that supported these findings, we are bound to accept them. Neuman, 311 Ga.
at 88 (3). The majority does not dispute these findings. Rather, it holds, with the citation of no supporting authority and apparently for the first time in the history of our state, that the mere existence of an appearance of impropriety, in and of itself, is sufficient to reverse the trial court’s refusal to disqualify the district attorney and her entire office. As shown below, the law does not support this outcome; rather, it compels precisely the opposite."

"Where, as here, a prosecutor has no actual conflict of interest and the trial court, based on the evidence presented to it, rejects the allegations of actual impropriety, we have no authority to reverse the trial court’s denial of a motion to disqualify. None. Even where there is an appearance of impropriety. Our binding precedent and the doctrine of stare decisis require our restraint and do not permit us to impose a different remedy than the one chosen by the trial court simply because we might see the matter differently and might have chosen to impose another remedy had we been the trial judge.

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/12/trumpgaappealsopn121924.pdf

 

Define corrupt. Not recusing yourself for personal impropriety isn’t corruption, it’s inexcusably bad judgment. There’s a difference.

 

Slight correction. There has never been a finding of actual impropriety, only the appearance of impropriety. Sounds picky, but HUGE legal difference.

 

My understanding is DA's don't get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to impropriety, lack of disclosure and conflict of interest. Not to mention she had guilt written on her forehead during her testimony and acted like a buffoon there as well. A 'lack of judgment' indicates she recognized her failure and made amends to the fullest extent she could. She did the exact opposite, however and defiantly doubled down on the situation. Has she even apologized for her lack of candor? And you want to equivocate on her corrupt status? The 'she's an idiot' excuse doesn't cut it either, because surely she didn't get to Fulton County DA being an "idiot."

 

Where it will finally die the death it deserves...

 

WRONG (again.) This is a more solid case than the NY hush money case. 4 co-defendants have pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate. There will be more. Your complete unfamiliarity with RICO prosecutions is showing.