90
Trump’s Georgia election interference case paused as court considers disqualifying lead prosecutor
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
90 points (98.9% liked)
politics
18645 readers
4607 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Go back and watch their testimony at the hearing. Saying there is a "suggestion of corruption" is like saying "Trump may have told a fib or two in his time". They were playing all sorts of shell games with the money and doing everything they could to cover it up, which means they knew their behavior was improper at best. Every case they worked on together was tainted by their actions because their relationship and the actions they were taking at the very least give the appearance of impropriety, even if they didn't specifically do anything improper regarding the Trump case. And the appearance of impropriety is typically the standard for recusal.
She shouldn't have gotten involved with Wade in the first place while handling such an important case. But beyond that, as soon as the scandal broke, they should have at least tried to salvage the case by recusing themselves and handing the case off to someone else. And now, the fact that they didn't had the effect of giving Trump exactly what he wants, as the case is now going to be delayed at the very least (some estimates say the delay could take the case to as far as 2026) or outright dismissed if either the appelate court or Supreme court rules that she should have been removed.
And for the record, Trump case aside, I'm of the school of thought that she should be fired and/or disbarred just based on the relationship she had with Wade. And I think if she weren't caught up in such a high profile case, she would have been.