If Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis were prosecuting citizen Fani Willis and her former boyfriend Nathan Wade for perjury, conspiracy and obstruction of justice, she would have an extremely strong case.
Congratulations! Once again, you see right through the haze of criminality. These so called prosecutors should lode their licenses. To knowing lie in open court shows they both have no morals or understand ethics. The people of GA deserve more and an honest prosecutor installed. This case should be dropped as more and more data is recovered that the GA votes in 2020 were skewed and people who testified for the irregularities were not heard.
Ghislaine Maxwell is claiming in NY Appellate Court that the secret sweetheart immunity deal Dershowitz got for himself and four co-conspirators actually includes her. One of the other Epstein co-conspirators who was thereby immunized is named by the NYPost today as being SARAH KELLEN. Her job title was Assistent to Mr Epstein. I seem to remember that she has for a long time afterrwards been employed in the same job position by Dershowitz. Is this not correct?
I see a silver lining to the blatant abuse of prosecutorial discretion now on view in at least a few of the several legal actions against Donald Trump: the public is getting a rare view into both the enormous arbitrary power of prosecutors and, on the flip side, the procedural and statutory guardrails which inhibit and restrain that power. Most people have little to no contact with the criminal justice system. They imagine it to be something like television, in which guilt is obvious and legal protections for the accused are represented as little more than lies and loopholes (I'm looking at you, "Law and Order"). In the real world prosecutors absolutely must operate within formal restraints. Without those formal restraints their power quickly - prosecutors being human - becomes tyrannical.
To my original point: the prosecution of Fani Willis for perjury - particularly given the weight of the evidence against her - would do a great deal to restore public confidence in the fairness of a criminal justice system in which Fanni Willis herself probably once believed. Defendants cannot lie under oath. Neither can prosecutors. There are plenty of uncompromised officers of the court who can revisit the underlying RICO case with impartial eyes.
Your Marx-Bro (Groucho?) quotation may be accurate, but another version I've seen with "lying" inserted as a present participle modifying "eyes" is an upgrade, IMO.
One element of perjury is that the false testimony must be material.
It's probably enough to DQ Willis that she and Wade had a relationship fueled in part by public finance, which in turn, probably facilitated a money laundering operation. I don't see how it's material when that relationship began. Hence, even if she lied about when it did, what difference does it make? How is it material to the issue the court must determine?
It may have no direct bearing on the merits of her charges against Trump, but if there's solid evidence of record that, contrary to their sworn testimony, the two of them were having an affair at the time when she appointed him failing to prosecute them for perjury would make a mockery of "equal justice under law," failing to disbar them would make a mockery of ethical standards, and the charges she brought against Trump should be reconsidered by an impartial reviewer.
Yes, definitely. A lawyer who gets caught lying in court, especially while under oath, must be disciplined. This is absolutely intolerable. However, this particular bit of lying does not appear material to any issue in the underlying case.
I wondered the same thing. And yet, these 2 lawyers went to great and obviously illegal lengths to hide this. Why? Why bother? Obviously they think it's material to something. If the RICO case, what else were they worried about? It's not like this is the first intra-office fling in the history of the world.
Is the perjury material? That's a fair question. It has a fair answer.
A prosecutor (Willis, in this case) appeared to have a direct conflict of interest in the prosecution of a defendant (Trump et al) because she benefited financially from his prosecution. Imagine, to make the point extremely clear, that I approached a DA and promised to pay her to bring charges against someone whom I dislike and whom I believe broke the law. The fact that the person I dislike may have actually broken the law does not undo the obvious conflict of interest. We cannot expect perfectly disinterested prosecutors - they're human, after all - but we can insist that they forgo kickbacks for their services. Fani Willis should be prosecuted for perjury and her case returned to an honest prosecutor for an impartial review.
"The evidence of perjury is overwhelming; many individuals have been convicted on far less evidence."...100% correct! I hope the current judge has the honesty it takes to make a fair ruling....but I doubt it as he is a democrat.
There are impartial Democratic judges just as their are impartial Republican judges. I doubt party affiliation is a reliable guide to anyone's personal and professional integrity. Alan Dershowitz himself is a registered Democrat (or at least he was). I would withhold judgment until we have a judgment.
Congratulations! Once again, you see right through the haze of criminality. These so called prosecutors should lode their licenses. To knowing lie in open court shows they both have no morals or understand ethics. The people of GA deserve more and an honest prosecutor installed. This case should be dropped as more and more data is recovered that the GA votes in 2020 were skewed and people who testified for the irregularities were not heard.
What's more notable is the connection to the White House.
Ghislaine Maxwell is claiming in NY Appellate Court that the secret sweetheart immunity deal Dershowitz got for himself and four co-conspirators actually includes her. One of the other Epstein co-conspirators who was thereby immunized is named by the NYPost today as being SARAH KELLEN. Her job title was Assistent to Mr Epstein. I seem to remember that she has for a long time afterrwards been employed in the same job position by Dershowitz. Is this not correct?
I see a silver lining to the blatant abuse of prosecutorial discretion now on view in at least a few of the several legal actions against Donald Trump: the public is getting a rare view into both the enormous arbitrary power of prosecutors and, on the flip side, the procedural and statutory guardrails which inhibit and restrain that power. Most people have little to no contact with the criminal justice system. They imagine it to be something like television, in which guilt is obvious and legal protections for the accused are represented as little more than lies and loopholes (I'm looking at you, "Law and Order"). In the real world prosecutors absolutely must operate within formal restraints. Without those formal restraints their power quickly - prosecutors being human - becomes tyrannical.
To my original point: the prosecution of Fani Willis for perjury - particularly given the weight of the evidence against her - would do a great deal to restore public confidence in the fairness of a criminal justice system in which Fanni Willis herself probably once believed. Defendants cannot lie under oath. Neither can prosecutors. There are plenty of uncompromised officers of the court who can revisit the underlying RICO case with impartial eyes.
Your Marx-Bro (Groucho?) quotation may be accurate, but another version I've seen with "lying" inserted as a present participle modifying "eyes" is an upgrade, IMO.
One element of perjury is that the false testimony must be material.
It's probably enough to DQ Willis that she and Wade had a relationship fueled in part by public finance, which in turn, probably facilitated a money laundering operation. I don't see how it's material when that relationship began. Hence, even if she lied about when it did, what difference does it make? How is it material to the issue the court must determine?
It may have no direct bearing on the merits of her charges against Trump, but if there's solid evidence of record that, contrary to their sworn testimony, the two of them were having an affair at the time when she appointed him failing to prosecute them for perjury would make a mockery of "equal justice under law," failing to disbar them would make a mockery of ethical standards, and the charges she brought against Trump should be reconsidered by an impartial reviewer.
Yes, definitely. A lawyer who gets caught lying in court, especially while under oath, must be disciplined. This is absolutely intolerable. However, this particular bit of lying does not appear material to any issue in the underlying case.
When you write "the underlying case" are you referring to the case against Fanni or the case against Trump and his co-defendants?
I wondered the same thing. And yet, these 2 lawyers went to great and obviously illegal lengths to hide this. Why? Why bother? Obviously they think it's material to something. If the RICO case, what else were they worried about? It's not like this is the first intra-office fling in the history of the world.
You don't think the the set of facts Fani is trying to hide lead to a different outcome? If so, it's material, no? Why have the hearing otherwise?
Is the perjury material? That's a fair question. It has a fair answer.
A prosecutor (Willis, in this case) appeared to have a direct conflict of interest in the prosecution of a defendant (Trump et al) because she benefited financially from his prosecution. Imagine, to make the point extremely clear, that I approached a DA and promised to pay her to bring charges against someone whom I dislike and whom I believe broke the law. The fact that the person I dislike may have actually broken the law does not undo the obvious conflict of interest. We cannot expect perfectly disinterested prosecutors - they're human, after all - but we can insist that they forgo kickbacks for their services. Fani Willis should be prosecuted for perjury and her case returned to an honest prosecutor for an impartial review.
I've wrestled with this thought in my writing on government corruption at the American Thinker:
https://www.americanthinker.com/author/ron_wright/
Yes - What has happened to our justice system?
Evidence is apparent; but if pursued, the cries of “ racism” will attempt to distract from the truth.
"The evidence of perjury is overwhelming; many individuals have been convicted on far less evidence."...100% correct! I hope the current judge has the honesty it takes to make a fair ruling....but I doubt it as he is a democrat.
There are impartial Democratic judges just as their are impartial Republican judges. I doubt party affiliation is a reliable guide to anyone's personal and professional integrity. Alan Dershowitz himself is a registered Democrat (or at least he was). I would withhold judgment until we have a judgment.
I would expect GA AG Carr to see that Justice is served.