I guess he can kiss his integrity goodbye

He can explain that to his kids too

Georgia lawmakers react to judge's ruling allowing Fani Willis to stay on Trump case: 'Wholly insufficient'

Reactions from Georgia lawmakers poured in on Friday after a judge ruled that embattled Fulton County DA Fani Willis could remain on the case investigating alleged election interference by former President Donald Trump.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee issued a ruling Friday that Willis, who was accused of an improper romantic relationship that she attempted to cover up with special counsel Nathan Wade, could remain on the case if she fired Wade which prompted pushback from Georgia Republicans.

"The ruling by Judge McAfee seems to clearly identify impropriety between the DA and Mr. Wade," Georgia Republican State Rep. Josh Bonner told Fox News Digital. "Unfortunately, it does not address the purely partisan nature of the case brought by a rogue District Attorney more interested in scoring political points than prosecuting criminals in Fulton County."

"Judge McAfee clearly found significant impropriety between Fani Willis and Nathan Wade," Georgia Republican Lt. Gov Burt Jones told Fox News Digital. "If Fani Willis acted in the best interest of her constituents, she would resign immediately, but we know her inflated sense of self won’t allow that to happen. Regardless, the Georgia Senate investigatory committee will continue its work on behalf of the Georgia taxpayer to hold her accountable."

Georgia Republican State Senator Jason Anavitarte told Fox News Digital it is "indisputable" that Willis "willfully concealed" her relationship with Wade.

"Rather than owning up to the relationship, admitting poor judgement and removing SADA Wade from this case as soon as it was revealed, DA Willis doubled down and spent the better part of 3 months continuing to obfuscate if not downright lie to the court," Anavitarte said.

"Judge McAfee openly acknowledged that there is an ‘odor of mendacity' and "reasonable questions about whether the DA and…SADA testified untruthfully.’ Despite all this, Judge McAfee chose to offer DA Willis an escape hatch that should have been voluntarily activated as soon as the relationship was uncovered, firing Nathan Wade," he continued. "To me, that is wholly insufficient. Prosecutors should be held to the highest ethical standard. Clearly Judge McAfee failed in this account. Now it is incumbent on the nearly created Prosecuting Attorney Qualification Commission to determine whether DA Willis committed perjury. I suspect complaints to that end are forthcoming."

Georgia Republican State Sen. Bill Cowsert, who is leading a special Georgia Senate committee probe on Willis, told Fox News Anchor Martha MacCallum on Friday afternoon that he is "not surprised" by the judge's move but agreed that Willis would be best served to recuse herself from the case.

"I feel confident that's what she'll do," Cowsert said. "There's just no way a jury will give any credibility to her further involvement, it will undermine her own mission of prosecuting these individuals if she stays personally involved. It's just been a series of really poor choices."

Some Democrats have backed Judge McAfee’s decision including Georgia State Sen. Derek Mallow who told Fox News Digital that the judge "clearly exercised jurisprudence" by reviewing the case and finding the "best process to move forward" to "remove any presence of impropriety in this case."

"I think that is a good direction to head into, as this case does have merits and it needs to go before a jury," Mallow explained. "And I think that the judge has done his due diligence in his ruling. That's why you have judges, to make those type of rulings. I still fundamentally believe my role and opinion in all of this is that there's a separation between the judicial and the legislative branches."

"Of course, I support the judge's ruling for the case to move forward. I hope that the district attorney will make the needed separation there so that the case can move forward, and that the evidence and facts will come out, and a jury, the peers of all those involved, will make a determination and find guilt or innocence."

McAfee said in his ruling that the defendants "failed to meet their burden of proving that the District Attorney acquired an actual conflict of interest in this case through her personal relationship and recurring travels with her lead prosecutor."

"However, the established record now highlights a significant appearance of impropriety that infects the current structure of the prosecution team – an appearance that must be removed through the State’s selection of one of two options," he wrote, adding that Willis and her whole office can choose to step aside, or Wade can withdraw from the case.

Yeah, this fraud's troubles are far from over.

https://twitter.com/PhilHollow.../1768802815777092025



https://twitter.com/PhilHollow.../1768829171508355265

Ya mon!

This Twitter thread is long so you'll have to go the link to read it all as it is all screenshots of the complaint filed.

Just some highlights though:

https://twitter.com/PhilHollow.../1768922075522277883



https://twitter.com/PhilHollow.../1768922096598683770



https://twitter.com/PhilHollow.../1768922117721219455



https://twitter.com/PhilHollow.../1768922139573518784



https://twitter.com/PhilHollow.../1768924140852097056

I understand why many people in Georgia might be upset about this woman’s activities as a paid government employee, but why do we believe that her difficulties may benefit Mr. Trump in any meaningful way? If she had been fired or still decides to quit the case, isn’t there a strong chance that another prosecutor—and very likely a more competent one—would pick up things?

I admit that I haven’t attempted to follow all of what may be legitimate legal analyses of the matter, but what if the case goes forward? Do we believe that her personal situation is really some sort of guarantee that it will ultimately be quashed or (unlikely, IMO) result in acquittals?

quote:

Originally posted by pbslinger:
pence just said in a FOX interview he's not endorsing DT.

WHO
F-ING
CARES


Not meant to be a slam toward you, slinger...

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I understand why many people in Georgia might be upset about this woman’s activities as a paid government employee, but why do we believe that her difficulties may benefit Mr. Trump in any meaningful way?

The anti-Trump lawfare assholes are upset because their plans are being derailed left and right; by the Supreme Court decision, by the delays in the Alvin Bragg case that was set to begin on March 25th, and now by the Fani Willis debacle. People like Andrew Weissmann, who worked with Robert Mueller in the Russia case against Trump, want Willis gone because they don't think she can pull it off:



Trump is clearly towering over Biden at this moment, and time is running out. The Democrats will not see Trump in prison, what they hope is to hang a "convicted felon" tag on him before November. But even this will not sway voters.

https://www.washingtonexaminer...reland-gets-nervous/

This is long, LONG overdue. There is no better person for this job than Scott.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobi.../1768791242433864127

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
This is long, LONG overdue. There is no better person for this job than Scott.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobi.../1768791242433864127

NEW: Lara Trump announces RNC will hire Scott Presler to lead its legal ballot harvesting operations

NO MERCY!!!

LEAVE.
NO.
DOUBT.

Scott Presler looks weird as hell. Purple shirt, woman's looking hair, weird face. That is the best they could do? Did they borrow him from Obama's group?

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
Scott Presler looks weird as hell. Purple shirt, woman's looking hair, weird face. That is the best they could do? Did they borrow him from Obama's group?

Judgemental much? Dude is brilliant.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
People like Andrew Weissmann, who worked with Robert Mueller in the Russia case against Trump, want Willis gone because they don't think she can pull it off:

Ah, so I am not the only one who believes the Democrats may be better off with this clown off the case—?
I was beginning to wonder.

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
Scott Presler looks weird as hell. Purple shirt, woman's looking hair, weird face. That is the best they could do? Did they borrow him from Obama's group?

...


...

Let me, uhh, let me ask you a question.

Are you actually c1steve, or are you just someone using his account?

Because, well, c1steve would probably know to not post something like that. Then again...

Just, uhh, let me know if I need to restrict s1steve's account because someone else is using it. Or, perhaps I need to restrict c1steve's accout because it is c1steve using it. Point is, somebody needs some restrictions. Yep.

Let me know, 'k? Gonna need some kind of answer from whoever.

ooh! I know! c1steve became a foster dad and a Third Grader is playing with his computer. That would explain it.

Anyway, just chime in whenever

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
Scott Presler looks weird as hell. Purple shirt, woman's looking hair, weird face. That is the best they could do? Did they borrow him from Obama's group?

You clearly don't have a clue who Scott Presler is or how much he's done for our cause. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, has done more for getting out Republican voters than Scott Presler. You need to educate yourself before showing your ass in such an ignorant manner.

That was me, and it was an honest question. After the Bill Barr backstabbing, I trust no one. I don't really care about how someone looks, but if they look unusual I may wonder why.

When I was 20, I had long hair, just like so many young persons trying to fit it. Once an adult, leaving appearance fads aside is a sign of maturity. I know nothing about the RNC people, inc. Mr. Pressler, except that 60 RINOs were just let go. As I stated, I would look long and hard at a person's past and present before giving them an important job. Perhaps living in Calif. has made me cynical and suspicious. If he is as done as good a job as you state, then that sounds great.

Peter Navarro. American hero

https://www.breitbart.com/radi...ht-for-donald-trump/

It is crucial to continue to fight for former President Donald Trump, Peter Navarro, who faces prison for failing to comply with a congressional subpoena in a continuing battle of lawfare against Trump and those connected to him, said during an appearance on Breitbart News Saturday, offering these parting words: “Don’t cry for me, Argentina; fight for Donald Trump.”

Navarro served as a trade adviser to Trump and faces prison next week for refusing to comply with an order from the now-defunct House January 6 select committee. He filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court asking for intervention, and they have asked the Justice Department to respond by Monday afternoon — a day before he is due to be imprisoned. Meanwhile, Navarro also has a book coming out, The New MAGA Deal, which explores “the future policies and bold initiatives” of a second-term Trump administration.

“Do you believe they’re doing this to you because of what you stand for and because of the things that you talk about in this book — they are trying to silence you and keep you from being at Trump’s side pushing this America First agenda?” host Matthew Boyle asked.

Navarro confirmed there are a few chapters on lawfare, but he ultimately said he was indicted and held in contempt by a Democrat Congress when former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had control.

“I was indicted and prosecuted by a Democrat Department of Justice. I was stripped of every single defense before I even got to a jury trial by the judge in the case, and at the jury trial, I didn’t notice — it’s an astonishing statistic, Matt — it’s like 95 percent of the voters who voted in the 2020 election in the District of Columbia voted for Biden — 95 percent,” he said, pointing that out to draw a greater perspective on the jury pool.

“I’m going into prison, basically, at the hand of Democrats. So take it from there,” Navarro said, adding that he always believed this case was destined for the Supreme Court.

“This isn’t about me, okay. This is about the constitutional separation of powers and the sanctity of what’s called executive privilege, an institution that goes back to George Washington. … And what’s ironic about this whole thing is the Department of Justice itself across … Democrat and Republican administrations for more than 50 years have said that you can’t subpoena the president or his alter egos, that he’s a senior White House adviser. You can’t just do it. You can’t do it. [It] violates the separation of powers. So if I go to prison and I lose this on appeal, the separation of powers will be over as we know it, and executive privilege will have died a slow death at the hands of the Biden regime. And that’s not good because the Democrats shouldn’t want that either,” he explained.

“This is a battle I’m fighting on principle on behalf of the Constitution. I did what I did to obey my oath of office. And I’m honored that this got to the Supreme Court, where I thought it would eventually get. Let’s see what happens,” he said, adding that they would not be deciding on the main appeal itself but “whether simply I should be released, pending appeal, which, by the way, is the norm for cases like mine.”

“My attorneys were very, very upset at that regional decision in the District Court,” he said, adding, “So there we are, you know. Don’t cry for me, Argentina; fight for Donald Trump right now.”

“2024, we got to win,” he added.

^^^^^^
Thank you for that post, sdy.

As you said, Peter Navarro, American hero.

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
That was me, and it was an honest question. After the Bill Barr backstabbing, I trust no one. I don't really care about how someone looks, but if they look unusual I may wonder why.

Please read the following carefully and commit it to memory:

For many years in this forum, it has been a firm, non-negotiable policy that commenting on the personal appearance of others is strictly forbidden. Is that clear to you?

Under no circumstances should you make remarks such as you have this evening, ever, no exceptions.

It is the easiest thing in the world to make such remarks; so easy, in fact, that children can do it. It is mindless and it is juvenile, and I will not tolerate it, and the fact that you have twelve years and 4000 posts here and yet you do not know this, is somewhat astonishing.

Restrict your comments to the things which are important- the words and actions of a person. Conduct yourself as an adult. Be polite. Be mature.

I want you, please, to respond and tell me you comprehend what I've told you and that you will comply. I'm not interested in any opinions, such as anyone thinking this policy is silly or unnecessary. As I said, this policy is non-negotiable, and those who do not adhere to this policy are subject to disciplinary action, and now that I have explained this policy to you, you will have no excuse to violate it in the future.

Is all of this clear to you?

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
After the Bill Barr backstabbing, I trust no one. I don't really care about how someone looks, but if they look unusual I may wonder why.

Mike Pence, an older man with short white hair, was the one who brought Barr to the Trump administration. And both betrayed Trump. Not Scott Presler.

Presler is pure MAGA, and Pence is a has--been RINO asshole.