Trump Criminal & Civil Cases | GA Supremes DQ Willis

[lawtig02]

I'm not a lawyer but ,from the little I know, assuming logic follows law or vice versa doesn't ring true.

The lesson learned from this discussion is that human nature causes us to defend to the death, against all logic and morality, the person who signs our paychecks.

 

[lawtig02]

I didn't realize that the decision disqualifying Fani had absolutely no legal basis. I mean, I suspected it was bullshit, but the judges DID NOT EVEN TRY to articulate a rationale for their decision. This was the entirety of their legal analysis:

"While we recognize that an appearance of impropriety generally is not enough to support disqualification, this is the rare case in which disqualification is mandated and no other remedy will suffice to restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings.4"

And the footnote only provides a half-hearted attempt to distinguish other on-point cases. But at no point does the opinion even offer an explanation of its assertion. It admits that the law is on Fani's side, but says this is a rare case that needs different treatment. Why? Nobody can tell.

I'm beginning to understand Ramrouser now. The quality of lawyering on display in this case -- the defendants, the advocates on both sides, the judges on this panel -- is horrifically poor. Some of the worst I've ever seen.

Yeah, that's Georgia. Sadly, NC is becoming the same with GOP dominance of SCONC.

 

[superrific]

Yes, but if the "fake electors" discussions and actions by the parties involved were so hare brained, crazy and fraudulent, it could not have been within the scope of the Lt Gov's duties. The Counsel determined, as a matter of law, that the Lt Gov's participation in voting as an alternate elector on Dec 14, 2020 was within the normal scope of his duties. That's got to have an impact on the other defendants who participated in this voting.

1. It's unclear how you don't know this, but Burt Jones was not the LT Governor at the time. He was a state senator.

2. According to this article from FOX, your characterization of these events is flagrantly dishonest. FOX is reporting that

Twenty-one months passed while he mulled a decision. Last year, in an interview with the FOX 5 I-Team, Skandalakis cited difficulty finding a prosecutor with enough resources to take on the case.

"Most of them – I know from my personal knowledge – that Pete has asked have refused," former Gwinnett County District Attorney Danny Porter told the I-Team. "What I suspect has taken time is that Pete has been searching for someone to take the case, and nobody wants to touch this case. It’s radioactive to DAs, whether they’re Democrats or Republicans."

This article was from April 2024.

Lawsuit demands Skandalakis step down as special prosecutor of Lt. Gov. Jones

The appointment of a special prosecutor in the election interference case of Lt. Gov. Burt Jones is in dispute.

www.fox5atlanta.com

3. Also, I know that law is not your strong point, but The Counsel's determination -- which you have conveniently failed to provide -- has no legal significance whatsoever (except for Burt Jones), especially given the corrupt process by which it happened.

4. "Voting" is not a synonym for conspiracy. Try again.

 

[Ramrouser]

What the COA's was saying was that this case brought by Fani's office was the first of its kind, where a County DA's office brought criminal charges against an ex President of the United States (and President elect). If you're going to bring such an action, where the entire nation and world are watching, you better not engage in actions which have an appearance of impropriety since this will cause the nation and world to lose confidence in the American judicial system. In an "ordinary" case, this wouldn't be enough but this prosecution is unique.

The Georgia appellate court had an interest in protecting the State from further embarrassment and they exercised that right. Thank goodness.

 

[lawtig02]

What the COA's was saying was that this case brought by Fani's office was the first of its kind, where a County DA's office brought criminal charges against an ex President of the United States (and President elect). If you're going to bring such an action, where the entire nation and world are watching, you better not engage in actions which have an appearance of impropriety since this will cause the nation and world to lose confidence in the American judicial system. In an "ordinary" case, this wouldn't be enough but this prosecution is unique.

The Georgia appellate court had an interest in protecting the State from further embarrassment and they exercised that right. Thank goodness.

 

[superrific]

What the COA's was saying was that this case brought by Fani's office was the first of its kind, where a County DA's office brought criminal charges against an ex President of the United States (and President elect). If you're going to bring such an action, where the entire nation and world are watching, you better not engage in actions which have an appearance of impropriety since this will cause the nation and world to lose confidence in the American judicial system. In an "ordinary" case, this wouldn't be enough but this prosecution is unique.

Yeah, that's not a legal argument. That's just a word salad wrapping the core idea, which is "must help Dear Leader."

Note that "the first of its kind" actually cuts against your side. If this was the first of its kind, and you say that makes it different, then there was no concrete standard for Fani to follow. You idiots keep trumpeting this stupid line, "this type of prosecution has never happened before" as if it helps your side. The reason, of course, that there have not been these types of cases before is that our presidents have not been criminals. With the exception of Nixon.

See if you can answer this question: was it illegal for Trump to ask Raffensberger to find him votes, and if so, would it justify prosecution? Please show your work.

 

[lawtig02]

Yeah, that's not a legal argument. That's just a word salad wrapping the core idea, which is "must help Dear Leader."

Note that "the first of its kind" actually cuts against your side. If this was the first of its kind, and you say that makes it different, then there was no concrete standard for Fani to follow. You idiots keep trumpeting this stupid line, "this type of prosecution has never happened before" as if it helps your side. The reason, of course, that there have not been these types of cases before is that our presidents have not been criminals. With the exception of Nixon.

See if you can answer this question: was it illegal for Trump to ask Raffensberger to find him votes, and if so, would it justify prosecution? Please show your work.

Or, to bring it a little closer to home, explain how it was NOT illegal for Ray to solicit unauthorized electors to sign a ballot certifying Georgia's electoral votes for Trump, when there was not an iota of evidence that would show Trump actually won more votes in Georgia than Biden.

 

[p5mmr9]

The Georgia appellate court had an interest in protecting the State from further embarrassment

Do they? What interest does an appellate court have outside the rule of law?

 

[finesse]

Do they? What interest does an appellate court have outside the rule of law?

I had wondered that myself. I was under the impression that was literally all they were to consider.

 

[BlooVooDoo]

The Georgia appellate court had an interest in protecting the State from further embarrassment and they exercised that right.

That is neither the court’s mission or right.

 

[ChileG]

What the COA's was saying was that this case brought by Fani's office was the first of its kind, where a County DA's office brought criminal charges against an ex President of the United States (and President elect). If you're going to bring such an action, where the entire nation and world are watching, you better not engage in actions which have an appearance of impropriety since this will cause the nation and world to lose confidence in the American judicial system. In an "ordinary" case, this wouldn't be enough but this prosecution is unique.

The Georgia appellate court had an interest in protecting the State from further embarrassment and they exercised that right. Thank goodness.

Voting for a guy who tried to overturn a fair election using the power of the presidency is disgraceful. Just my opinion.
DGAF that he is escaping justice on a technicality.

 

[Ramrouser]

Yeah, that's not a legal argument. That's just a word salad wrapping the core idea, which is "must help Dear Leader."

Note that "the first of its kind" actually cuts against your side. If this was the first of its kind, and you say that makes it different, then there was no concrete standard for Fani to follow. You idiots keep trumpeting this stupid line, "this type of prosecution has never happened before" as if it helps your side. The reason, of course, that there have not been these types of cases before is that our presidents have not been criminals. With the exception of Nixon.

See if you can answer this question: was it illegal for Trump to ask Raffensberger to find him votes, and if so, would it justify prosecution? Please show your work.

It all depends on what a jury would determine was the intent of Trump in his statements to the SOS.

As we know, Trump stated to Raffensberger: "I just want to find 11,780 votes." Technically, he didn't expressly ask Raffensberger to find the votes but clearly that was implied. It is not clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether Trump was asking the SOS to commit an illegal act.

That's the way Trump talks. Trump's legal team denies that the word "find" was inappropriate in context, as President Trump was expressing his opinion that if the evidence was carefully examined the SOS would "find that you have many [ballots] that aren't even signed and you have many that are forgeries." Argument is that Trump was simply asking the SOS to reexamine the evidence.

 

[tar pal]

I believe some people ARE above the law. All of which are rich and/or well connected.

 

[superrific]

That is neither the court’s mission or right.

Yeah, it's his bizarre and inappropriate use of language that makes me question if he has legal training. I don't know, maybe they do law differently in Georgia. But most everywhere else, courts don't have rights. The concept doesn't even make sense.

A brief explainer: a right is a principle or claim that justifies a favorable outcome in an adversarial setting. Initially, when one claims a right, it's not usually in court, but it's still adversarial. For instance, you might tell snoopy police officers that you have a Fourth Amendment right not to open your house to a search unless the officer has a warrant. Their efforts to gain access are adversarial to your effort to keep them out. But ultimately it comes down to claims that can be adjudicated in court. When you tell the police officer you have a right to refuse him entry, what you are saying is that, should the police officer force his way in without a warrant, you can obtain redress in court.

Thus, it's readily apparent that courts don't have rights. Rather, they have authority -- specifically, the authority to adjudicate claims of rights. Sometimes the right can asserted on both sides; for instance, in a contract dispute, one side might say it has the right to build, and the other side says it has the right to block building until it's paid. Or the right can be an assertion by a private individual against the government, which is generally how we tend to use the word in casual discourse. There is no way to conceptualize the court as having a right. It's there, in the words of Article III, to decide cases or controversies. Rights are what it decides.

Similarly, legislatures do not have rights except in very special situations involving interbranch disputes (and even there, it's not really a "right" but that word is sometimes used). Legislatures have powers. You would not say, "the legislature has a right to regulate medical practice." You would say that it has the power to do so, and if that power is challenged, we end up with a case, decided by a court, of an individual asserting a right and the government asserts a power.

To talk about courts having rights is a basic category mistake. Again, maybe they do things differently in Georgia, but I've never seen any respectable person of legal training talk about courts that way.

 

[lawtig02]

It all depends on what a jury would determine was the intent of Trump in his statements to the SOS.

As we know, Trump stated to Raffensberger: "I just want to find 11,780 votes." Technically, he didn't expressly ask Raffensberger to find the votes but clearly that was implied. It is not clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether Trump was asking the SOS to commit an illegal act.

That's the way Trump talks. Trump's legal team denies that the word "find" was inappropriate in context, as President Trump was expressing his opinion that if the evidence was carefully examined the SOS would "find that you have many [ballots] that aren't even signed and you have many that are forgeries." Argument is that Trump was simply asking the SOS to reexamine the evidence.

I cannot imagine a world in which bar examiners would give you a license.

 

[superrific]

It all depends on what a jury would determine was the intent of Trump in his statements to the SOS.

As we know, Trump stated to Raffensberger: "I just want to find 11,780 votes." Technically, he didn't expressly ask Raffensberger to find the votes but clearly that was implied. It is not clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether Trump was asking the SOS to commit an illegal act.

That's the way Trump talks. Trump's legal team denies that the word "find" was inappropriate in context, as President Trump was expressing his opinion that if the evidence was carefully examined the SOS would "find that you have many [ballots] that aren't even signed and you have many that are forgeries." Argument is that Trump was simply asking the SOS to reexamine the evidence.

It's also the way mobsters talk.

Even on your account, Trump is still guilty because the election had already been certified. Had Raffensberger disturbed the tally at all, it would have been an illegal act. Thus, you've just admitted that Trump was indeed, beyond a reasonable doubt, soliciting illegal conduct from a public official, in full knowledge that it was illegal -- and in an inappropriate ex parte context. The only reason he was able to get that phone call was being the sitting president, which again is not a relevant legal status but an exercise in power.

So anyway, care to offer up a defense of your buddy? Or maybe you're going to sit this one out, LOL

 

[Geisterfahrer]

It all depends on what a jury would determine was the intent of Trump in his statements to the SOS.

As we know, Trump stated to Raffensberger: "I just want to find 11,780 votes." Technically, he didn't expressly ask Raffensberger to find the votes but clearly that was implied. It is not clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether Trump was asking the SOS to commit an illegal act.

That's the way Trump talks. Trump's legal team denies that the word "find" was inappropriate in context, as President Trump was expressing his opinion that if the evidence was carefully examined the SOS would "find that you have many [ballots] that aren't even signed and you have many that are forgeries." Argument is that Trump was simply asking the SOS to reexamine the evidence.

Aren’t you embarrassed to be a mouthpiece for this corrupt bullshit?

 

[superrific]

Aren’t you embarrassed to be a mouthpiece for this corrupt bullshit?

To quote the appeals court that overturned Judge Richard Myers a couple of years ago, "to ask the question is very nearly to answer it."

MAGAs don't get embarrassed. If they did, they'd never be able to leave the house.

 

[05C40]

I wonder if St. Donald of Mar-a-Lago thinks because he was always able to wriggle out of his misdeeds, cheating, lying, and such in his previous private life, he thinks because these current legal trouble can't be delayed to death or stalled until the adversary just gives up, that he actually is being persecuted by enemies? And now that for the first time in his entire life, he is being held accountable for what he just considers playing hardball, but everyone else in the world rightly see as flagrant criminal behavior, he believes "they" are out to get him and he is going to respond by using the power of government to enact a personal vendetta against those who dared to call out his blatant criminal behavior. Blatant criminal behavior that he had always previously been able to stall, delay, and deflect to death or irrelevance.

 

[dcphx]

I didn't realize that the decision disqualifying Fani had absolutely no legal basis. I mean, I suspected it was bullshit, but the judges DID NOT EVEN TRY to articulate a rationale for their decision. This was the entirety of their legal analysis:

"While we recognize that an appearance of impropriety generally is not enough to support disqualification, this is the rare case in which disqualification is mandated and no other remedy will suffice to restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings.4"

And the footnote only provides a half-hearted attempt to distinguish other on-point cases. But at no point does the opinion even offer an explanation of its assertion. It admits that the law is on Fani's side, but says this is a rare case that needs different treatment. Why? Nobody can tell.

I'm beginning to understand Ramrouser now. The quality of lawyering on display in this case -- the defendants, the advocates on both sides, the judges on this panel -- is horrifically poor. Some of the worst I've ever seen.

1. black
2. woman