The Idiocracy of Donald J. Trump

[gehringer_2]

15 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Really? Pull Dump out and put a normal american citizen in this situation. The DA HIRES their side piece to prosecute them, that seems like a fair trial? 

I can understand that the system has to sanction poor behavior in a prosecutor and the way to do that is to hammer their cases, but this a case where any line to fairness for the defendant is purely incidental. If anything, the DA making a sub optimal hire out of personnel preference is an advantage to the defense because a non-deserving hire by definition is likely be less competent. There is nothing in that for the defense to argue makes their defense more difficult.

[Tigeraholic1]

3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I can understand that the system has to sanction poor behavior in a prosecutor and the way to do that is to hammer their cases, but this a case where any line to fairness for the defendant is purely incidental. If anything, the DA making a sub optimal hire out of personnel preference is an advantage to the defense because a non-deserving hire by definition is likely be less competent. There is nothing in that for the defense to argue makes their defense more difficult.

So you are saying the defendant haa a better chance of getting the charges dismissed?

I have seen local cases where a defendant asks to have a trial moved due to the media attention and their lawyers argue they can't get a fair trial due to the tainted jury pool (massive media coverage locally). Almost every time they allow the trial to be moved to a different county. I would think this would fall under some type of variance like that.

[VegasTiger]

I don't understand the conflict. They're already on the same side. Are they more on the same side if they are dating?

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

So you are saying the defendant haa a better chance of getting the charges dismissed?

I have seen local cases where a defendant asks to have a trial moved due to the media attention and their lawyers argue they can't get a fair trial due to the tainted jury pool (massive media coverage locally). Almost every time they allow the trial to be moved to a different county. I would think this would fall under some type of variance like that.

I don't think Trump is going to get any changes of venue when he works the media to a higher volume than any direct news reporting about his cases, and it hard to see how a relationship between two members of the prosecution team has anything to do with the procedural soundness of a trial, but the state of American jurisprudence is such that logic is pretty immaterial anymore.

[romad1]

 

[gehringer_2]

11 minutes ago, VegasTiger said:

I don't understand the conflict. They're already on the same side. Are they more on the same side if they are dating?

It's just noise generated by politics. It's a sloppy kind of logical attribution: "Prosecutorial misconduct must be prejudicial to the defense." - well, not really. The prosecutor can have 10 yrs of unpaid tickets for not feeding the parking meters at the courthouse parking lot. Unacceptable conduct - still has nothing to do with any cases. If there are relationship rules in the office, then fine - they should be followed.

Edited March 15, 2024 by gehringer_2

[Tigeraholic1]

3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

 it hard to see how a relationship between two members of the prosecution team has anything to do with the procedural soundness of a trial

The problem is one hired the other specifically for this case. I mean a rookie out of law school would be to say a sexual relationship by a prosecuting attorney would be able to get that case thrown out. 

[1776]

10 minutes ago, VegasTiger said:

I don't understand the conflict. They're already on the same side. Are they more on the same side if they are dating?

Well, if you’ll pardon the expression, it’s kind of like they’re in bed together. 

Hope this helps. 😉

[Tigeraholic1]

13 minutes ago, VegasTiger said:

I don't understand the conflict. They're already on the same side. Are they more on the same side if they are dating?

Because as an american we are afforded the right to be judged in a court of law by an non-biased court. DA banging the SP seems a little a little biased. 

[gehringer_2]

Just now, Tigeraholic1 said:

The problem is one hired the other specifically for this case. I mean a rookie out of law school would be to say a sexual relationship by a prosecuting attorney would be able to get that case thrown out. 

but on what grounds actually relevant to the  administration of justice? Propriety may be violated here, and as I said, there may be policy issues inside the office, but where is the line of logic that gets you to an impingement on any defendent's rights? 

[VegasTiger]

Logic is right out the window.

[Tigeraholic1]

10 minutes ago, romad1 said:

 

Good, now pin Trump to the wall. 

[gehringer_2]

8 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Because as an american we are afforded the right to be judged in a court of law by an non-biased court. DA banging the SP seems a little a little biased. 

the judge and the jury need to be unbiased, you can't claim 'bias' for the prosecutor - it's his role to be biased, that's whose bringing the case. Its an advocacy system. The prosecutor tries to win case, the defense to stop them. Neither is 'unbiased' in the trial. If you are hired to prosecute the case how does your professional interest in winning get any higher than it already is just because you get it on with another member of the office? There is no bias here that is inherent to the defendant, which is what would matter. 

Again, it I agree it sounds bad superficially, and it's certainly unprofessional,  but justice wise there is really no there there.

Edited March 15, 2024 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

17 minutes ago, romad1 said:

 

Perhaps the red hat spin on this will be, the Deep State and their enemy-of-the-people media running dog lackeys are so maniacal in their quest to get Trump that they forced this guy to resign immediately, perhaps with threats to his life, because absent that, he would never have left his girlfriend's side and foregone the opportunity to GET TRUMP. 😁

Edited March 15, 2024 by chasfh

[Tigeraholic1]

5 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

the judge and the jury need to be unbiased, you can't claim 'bias' for the prosecutor - it's his role to be biased, that's whose bringing the case. Its an advocacy system. The prosecutor tries to win case, the defense to stop them. Neither is 'unbiased' in the trial. If you are hired to prosecute the case how does your professional interest in winning get any higher than it already is just because you get it on with another member of the office? There is no bias here that is inherent to the defendant, which is what would matter. 

Again, it I agree it sounds bad superficially, and it's certainly unprofessional,  but justice wise there is really no there there.

integrity should still stand shoulder to shoulder with a court of law. Especially when we are talking about the integrity of the election of a U.S. President. Even though Trump has lowered everyones idea of what that election means we have to try to right the ship and keep the truth crystal clear for future generations. 

[chasfh]

9 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Because as an american we are afforded the right to be judged in a court of law by an non-biased court. DA banging the SP seems a little a little biased. 

If they were on opposite sides of the case I can see how that would raise questions of a possible fix. And if this were a DA and, say, a police evidence specialist who could potentially use their expertise to surreptitiously adulterate evidence to unfairly bolster the DA's case, same thing. But these are two lawyers on the same team, who presumably have no more way to corruptly manipulate the outcome of the case than any other two lawyers on any other prosecutorial team. So why does it matter that they're ****ing, or even that she supported him financially in any way? How specifically is this prejudicial against Trump's case?

[gehringer_2]

3 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

integrity should still stand shoulder to shoulder with a court of law. Especially when we are talking about the integrity of the election of a U.S. President. Even though Trump has lowered everyones idea of what that election means we have to try to right the ship and keep the truth crystal clear for future generations. 

I get that Willis should face any proper consequences of unprofessional conduct, but not that there is any reason any of that should accrue to the benefit Trump's case-  because they are in the final analysis separate issues.

[Tigeraholic1]

17 minutes ago, chasfh said:

If they were on opposite sides of the case I can see how that would raise questions of a possible fix. And if this were a DA and, say, a police evidence specialist who could potentially use their expertise to surreptitiously adulterate evidence to unfairly bolster the DA's case, same thing. But these are two lawyers on the same team, who presumably have no more way to corruptly manipulate the outcome of the case than any other two lawyers on any other prosecutorial team. So why does it matter that they're ****ing, or even that she supported him financially in any way? How specifically is this prejudicial against Trump's case?

I see your point and I get it. If they happened to be assigned to the same case I can see through your and everyone else in this threads lens. The red flag with me is one hired the other while they were in a relationship. In most any corporation that would not be allowed to happen. PLUS it leaves a huge hole for Trump to attempt to jump through in appeals court.

Edited March 15, 2024 by Tigeraholic1

[chasfh]

4 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

I see your point and I get it. If they happened to be assigned to the same case I can see through your and everyone else in this threads lens. The red flag with me is one hired the other while they were in a relationship. In most any corporation that would not be allowed to happen. PLUS it leaves a huge hole for Trump to attempt to jump through in appeals court.

OK, and Trump challenged it, and he got some action. Not the action he wanted, which was a complete dismissal of the case with the court's apology, but he got more than he should have as it specifically relates to how it affects the the prosecution and resolution of the case, which is not at all.

You point out that most any corporation would not allow this to happen, and that's true as far as it goes. But do we have any idea whether there is a specific prohibition on intraoffice dating at the Fulton County DA? Forced to bet, I'd have to bet no, because if there were, that would surely have been cited as reason #1 for the action.

Instead, we hear that there is the "significant appearance of impropriety that infects the current structure of the prosecution team", and that "as the case moves forward, reasonable members of the public could easily be left to wonder whether the financial exchanges have continued resulting in some form of benefit to the District Attorney, or even whether the romantic relationship has resumed ... an outsider could reasonably think that the District Attorney is not exercising her independent professional judgment totally free of any compromising influences. As long as Wade remains on the case, this unnecessary perception will persist."

In other words, the judge is setting the rule all by himself, independent of what the actual policy might be, based solely on what "outsiders" might think, and not, pointedly, that the resulting relationship is either de jure or de facto prejudicial against Trump's case. He already rejected that idea when he wrote that the Trump team "failed to meet their burden” in proving that Willis’s relationship with Wade—along with allegations that she was financially enriched through trips the two took together—was enough of a “conflict of interest” to merit her removal from the case. Mainly because there was no conflict of interest in any real sense.

IOW: the judge was skeeved out by their canoodling and clutched his pearls worrying about what people must think.

[Tigeraholic1]

6 minutes ago, chasfh said:

OK, and Trump challenged it, and he got some action. Not the action he wanted, which was a complete dismissal of the case with the court's apology, but he got more than he should have as it specifically relates to how it affects the the prosecution and resolution of the case, which is not at all.

You point out that most any corporation would not allow this to happen, and that's true as far as it goes. But do we have any idea whether there is a specific prohibition on intraoffice dating at the Fulton County DA? Forced to bet, I'd have to bet no, because if there were, that would surely have been cited as reason #1 for the action.

Instead, we hear that there is the "significant appearance of impropriety that infects the current structure of the prosecution team", and that "as the case moves forward, reasonable members of the public could easily be left to wonder whether the financial exchanges have continued resulting in some form of benefit to the District Attorney, or even whether the romantic relationship has resumed ... an outsider could reasonably think that the District Attorney is not exercising her independent professional judgment totally free of any compromising influences. As long as Wade remains on the case, this unnecessary perception will persist."

In other words, the judge is setting the rule all by himself, independent of what the actual policy might be, based solely on what "outsiders" might think, and not, pointedly, that the resulting relationship is either de jure or de facto prejudicial against Trump's case. He already rejected that idea when he wrote that the Trump team "failed to meet their burden” in proving that Willis’s relationship with Wade—along with allegations that she was financially enriched through trips the two took together—was enough of a “conflict of interest” to merit her removal from the case. Mainly because there was no conflict of interest in any real sense.

IOW: the judge was skeeved out by their canoodling and clutched his pearls worrying about what people must think.

Pearl clutching? We are talking about prosecuting a former president and current front runner to slide into that seat again. Maybe he just wanted to get it right? This gets all layed at the feet of Willis. It was her and her poor decision alone to hire her boy toy. The case is allowed to move forward with zero distractions now.

[chasfh]

 

What are the chances someone on the Trump team engineered the docs dump through a friendly Potemkin in the Manhattan DA's office to bury the prosecution in a paper blizzard and force them to ask for a delay to review everything? I'm not saying I believe it.

[chasfh]

1 minute ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Pearl clutching? We are talking about prosecuting a former president and current front runner to slide into that seat again. Maybe he just wanted to get it right? This gets all layed at the feet of Willis. It was her and her poor decision alone to hire her boy toy. The case is allowed to move forward with zero distractions now.

So justice isn't blind? Huh.

Whoda thunk.

[chasfh]

18 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Pearl clutching? We are talking about prosecuting a former president and current front runner to slide into that seat again. Maybe he just wanted to get it right? This gets all layed at the feet of Willis. It was her and her poor decision alone to hire her boy toy. The case is allowed to move forward with zero distractions now.

In all seriousness it should not matter whether it's the president of the United States or the president of the He-Man Woman Hater's Club. The things that matters are, is there a conflict of interest raised by the relationship, and is the relationship in and of itself material to the disposition of the case? The answer to both questions is, to all appearances, "no". So all discussion of distractions and whatnot is immaterial, except perhaps to what the judge feels personally comfortable with, and his personal comfort should not be a matter of jurisprudence.

[1776]

Speaking of Fanny, …. anybody remember this band from the early 70’s? I saw them open at the Peach Tree Festival at Rockingham Speedway in August of 1972. 

[Tigeraholic1]

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

So justice isn't blind? Huh.

Whoda thunk.

America or at least the folks that care are watching. That also goes back to my earlier point if a random citizen were in this scenario I would hope the judicial system would take similar steps. I don’t view it as a political grand standing.