Not sure any of your opinion is true though some bits are worse than others.

A relationship in the prosecution team has no relationship to Trump's crimes. This is a terrible president any criminal just like Trump only needs to find out about a relationship in the prosecution team to undermine the case against them based on nothing.

There was never a case against Willis. There was never a connection between her relationship and Trumps crimes.

Fani Willis is not the first DA in history to have an office relationship interesting that they chase a woman over it when they have never been concerned about any man's relationship.

It was disgraceful for McAfee to have even briefly considered taking the case, there was no case.

Hi Leroy. Your DL orchestrated a campaign to overturn a Georgia presidential election. He called election officials in Georgia and demanded an extra 11,800 votes.

The meeting alone was highly questionable. Candidates never meet privately with election officials, especially to do "deals". Your DL had already been implicated in a plot to steal Georgia voting machines.

When Raffensberger failed to act corruptly, your DL's team forged fake electoral certificates with the Georgia State seal, had them signed by fake electoral delegates and handed them to Vice Prez Mike Pence to count on Jan 6.

This is, without a doubt, the biggest case of electoral fraud the US has ever seen. It involves the candidate himself, his lawyers and 26 co-conspirators in a classic RICO case.

Your DL has no hope of defending it. Over 90% of these cases end in convictions. In this one, your DL's caught on tape directing the crime.

I can understand why you'd focus on Fanni's boyfriends, dear. In four year's time, your DL is set to stand trial.

STOP THE STEAL !!!

Leroy wrote on Jan 19^th, 2025 at 1:36pm:


Quote:


No it was thrown out because the relationship had a bad look to it. the term in the ruling was case was damaged by "appearance of impropriety," . Obvious irrelevant BS.

One of the Judges dissented (2 - 1 ruling) and there will be an appeal, likely to be successful as the ruling here is an over reach. This court simply does not have the authority to make this ruling.

LAND, Judge, dissenting.

Because the law does not support the result reached by the majority, I respectfully dissent. I am particularly troubled by the fact that the majority has taken what has long been a discretionary decision for the trial court to make and converted it to something else entirely. If this Court was the trier of fact and had the discretion to choose a remedy based on our own observations, assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, and weighing of the evidence, then perhaps we would be justified in reaching the result declared by the majority. But we are not trial judges, and we lack that authority. Given the unique role of the trial court and the fact that it is the court which has broad discretion to impose a remedy that fits the situation as it finds it to be, we should resist the temptation to interfere with that discretion, including its chosen remedy, just because we happen to see things differently. Doing otherwise  violates well-established precedent, threatens the discretion given to trial courts, and blurs the distinction between our respective courts.

Our role as appellate judges is critically important, but it often requires restraint. We are here to ensure the law has been applied correctly and to correct harmful legal errors when we see them. It is not our job to second-guess trial judges or to substitute our judgment for theirs. We do not find the facts but instead defer to the trial court's factual findings where there is any evidence to support them. "We review the trial court's ruling on a motion to disqualify a prosecutor for abuse of discretion. Such an exercise of discretion is based on the trial court's findings of fact which we must sustain if there is any evidence to support them." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Neuman v. State, 311 Ga. 83, 88 (3) (856 S.E.2d 289) (2021).

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 relationship, 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
https://casetext.com/case/roman-v-state-2042 Franks link.

A point that seems missed here is the DA should not have lied to the judge.

Normally this would not be a problem, Fani just leaves the case and another DA takes over, as simple as that. The case does not require Willis to be the prosecutor, it can be any DA. Why is it so important for Willis to be involved?.

Leroy wrote on Jan 19^th, 2025 at 6:29pm:


Do you think your DL should have approached Raffensberger to begin with? How about filing fake electoral certificates with Congress?

Do you think he should have done those things as asitting prez, dear?

Leroy wrote on Jan 19^th, 2025 at 6:39pm:


I see. You didn't have any influence on the Manson murders either, dear.

Do you think Manson should have been put on trial for them?