what does that imply to you? — flannel jesus

That she hired him for non-professional reasons.

"Mike Roman, a former Trump campaign official and co-defendant in the Georgia election-interference case, accused Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade of lying about when their romantic relationship started.

In a 122-page motion filed Friday night, Roman’s attorney wrote that Wade’s former law partner, Terrence Bradley, will soon testify that the pair’s relationship started before Willis appointed Wade to the state case involving former president Donald Trump and more than a dozen co-defendants, or before she even became district attorney. If true, the testimony is said to challenge the Georgia prosecutors’ previous claims that they started dating after Wade was already named to the case."
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fani-willis-lied-about-timeline-of-dating-relationship-with-trump-prosecutor-co-defendant-says/

The plot thickens.

What bearing does any of this have on the question of whether Trump and his co-defendants are guilty of election interference? What is it about this "improper" romantic relationship that should stand as grounds to disqualify her?

It seems to me that it is nothing more than an attempt to distract and shift focus. It may play well with some voters, but it has no legal merit with regard to the charges against Trump, Roman, and the others.

What bearing does any of this have on the question of whether Trump and his co-defendants are guilty of election interference? What is it about this "improper" romantic relationship that should stand as grounds to disqualify her?

It seems to me that it is nothing more than an attempt to distract and shift focus. It may play well with some voters, but it has no legal merit with regard to the charges against Trump, Roman, and the others. — Fooloso4

I think you can convict Trump by just playing the call to Raffensperger, but I won't be on the jury. None of this changes the facts of the case. But it's serious enough for the judge to hold a hearing about it, and we may have Wade's partner testifying under oath that Willis is lying when Willis says she and Wade weren't in a relationship when she steered the plum assignment over to him. It looks bad. When you go after someone like Trump, you have to be impeccable. The potential jury pool is watching this mess. It may be enough for Willis to be removed from this case.

The potential jury pool is watching this mess. It may be enough for Willis to be removed from this case. — RogueAI

Maybe. Some jurors are capable of separating what the defendants did from what she did. I don't know if the fact that Trump's affairs and cover ups do not sway voters means that such things no longer matter so much or if they are just willing to overlook it when it comes to Trump. In any case, the prosecution may not be willing to find out.

I think you can convict Trump by just playing the call to Raffensperger, but I won't be on the jury.

Then it's good thing you are nowhere near a jury. Why would anyone convict Trump for a phone call in which he is taking care that the laws of the land are faithfully executed? That's the job of a president. No wonder the justice system is such a mess.

That is not quite correct. The job of the president (amongst other things) is to insure that federal laws are enforced. Trump is being charged with breaking state laws under which the president does not have authority. Trump has been arguing in court that even tho these are state laws they fall within the “outer perimeter” of his responsibilities. I’m skeptical of this line of reasoning but I’m not a constitutional scholar -and neither are you

My point was that he was ensuring the law was faithfully executed, which was his job, not that he was being charged with state crimes.

An election crime is generally a federal crime if:

• The ballot includes one or more federal candidates
• An election or polling place official abuses their office
• The conduct involves false voter registration
• The crime intentionally targets minority protected classes
• The activity violates federal campaign finance laws

https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes/election-crimes-and-security

It's a hard choice - between a narcissist con man and a supporter and facilitator of genocide and ethnic cleansing. — unenlightened

Trump also supports genocide.

"Look, the other guy does it too." seems like a weak defence in law, and an even weaker justification in political discussion. This principle works both ways though. So my only remaining question is, "Was democracy always a sham, or has it only just become one recently?"

My feeling is that in the UK at least, there was a moment after WW2 when something like a democratic choice existed, and the people voted for social security and national health as a real alternative to the rule of capital and privilege. In the US, that never seemed to happen ?

Look, the other guy does it too." seems like a weak defence in law, and an even weaker justification in political discussion. — unenlightened

You painted it as two choices, between a supporter of genocide and a narcissist. That’s not true. The other guy indeed does it too, even more brutally. It’s not a defense of anything.

Trump also supports genocide. — Mikie

Source?

Oh that’s a hard one. Try…anything he’s ever said about Israel, and every policy decision he ever made re: Israel. Have fun.

Try…anything he’s ever said about Israel, [...] — Mikie

[...] and every policy decision he ever made re: Israel. — Mikie

Trump Peace Plan


So far, no genocide support.

If you've got something, please share it.

It's a hard choice - between a narcissist con man and a supporter and facilitator of genocide and ethnic cleansing. I think I prefer the nut-job myself, but it's your call, America. — unenlightened

:up:

If I had to, at gunpoint, vote, I would choose the guy who probably would have done the same thing but actually didn't over the guy who actually did. That would be Trump.

And I don't think that Trump will ever top the level of opportunism, cynicism, and moral emptiness of Biden, who paid for Israel to do what it is doing and refused to support a ceasefire so he could help counteract his image as a weak president, and only now, realising the deep unpopularity of this war among important sectors of his potential voters, is loudly criticising the Israeli response as "over the top". You gave them 17 Billion to do it, Joe. You don't get to walk away with clean hands now, mate. Own it.

Trump had supported Israel's far right government to the very end, and no doubt would again. If you’re not familiar with his policies, there’s plenty of information out there.

True, Trump has mumbled all kinds of things lately because he likes that this is bad for Biden. Like the border problems. But like his four years in office, he would be giving aid and encouragement to Israel as well if in office. Maybe he would say some nice words about doing it better, etc — but so does Biden. That he would support a ceasefire is ridiculous.

That would be Trump. — Baden

It’s kind of interesting watching people convince themselves into voting for Trump, almost out of spite. As if that’s the answer to awful Biden administration foreign policies. It’s insane.

I said "at gunpoint" as a hypothetical to make a point. As things stand, were I American, I would vote for neither. If that's your definition of insanity, then, yes, I am insane.

We had a similar disagreement the last time. Hopefully, you've realised by now that arguing with a crazy person is a waste of time. I know I have. :flower:

Every American president supports Israel, is "pro-Israel".

My impression of Trump is that he didn't cater particularly to Israel's hard line, since they were an obstacle to normalization of Middle-East relations, which is what is required for the US to dial back its military involvement in the region. Trump also pushed for a two-state solution, for example, showing that he was not a stooge for Likud.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68266447

Donald Trump has said he would "encourage" Russia to attack any Nato member that fails to pay its bills as part of the Western military alliance.

At a rally on Saturday, he said he had once told a leader he would not protect a nation behind on its payments, and would "encourage" the aggressors to "do whatever the hell they want".

The ironic thing is that article 5 has only ever been invoked once; when the USA was attacked on 9/11.

Does Trump think it's just a protection racket?

Does Trump think — Benkei

No

Does Trump think it's just a protection racket? — Benkei

And would he be wrong to think that?

There's no obligation on spending 2% of GDP so strictly speaking no.

I love it when you speak strictly. :love:

But loosely, it's a protection racket, eh? You can get behind with your payments, but eventually ...

I know it’s hypothetical. But it seems in keeping with a general trend.

We’ve disagreed before, yes. I don’t like Biden, but Trump is still worse. You feel differently. I still think that’s a mistake. I retract the insanity part — that was exaggerated.

The sooner the US disengages from Europe, the better (for Europe).

I don’t like Biden, but Trump is still worse — Mikie

OK, well, I suppose I'm not going to continue to argue over which is better, shit or puke. But anyhow, your position is understandable from a practical point of view.