Fani Willis inquiry is about to have a Round 2

That is absolutely hilarious. Due process also includes the possibility that the indicted person is innocent and is found not guilty.

We know that no one could get due process if you were on the jury

 

This is absurdly false. Due process includes everything in the "process," including the start of the investigation all the way to include post-conviction processes. For example, selective or vindictive prosecution is a due process violation. Not having a warrant is a due process violation. Utilizing unconstitutional laws to start an investigation is a due process violation. There is a lot that goes on before an indictment, let alone a trial, that is subject to due process. The statement that due process ONLY exists if there is an indictment or trial is something only a fascist would say. After even the tiniest bit of actual research is performed, I await your disavowment of this fascist post.

Also, an "accused" person is indicted. Once again, fascism.

Due process is a good thing. Embrace it. It's a bedrock of American democracy. I know people want their "diety's" political opponent in prison without proper due process so they won't have to actually win an election, but that's just more fascism speaking.

 

Exactly! In a trial!

Which can only happen in a trial. The purpose of this is to IMPEDE a trial. That's not due process.

Look... please try to be honest for once. If not with me, at least with yourself. If you, or any MAGA in this thread, were interested in due process, you would be interested in finding out the truth. And you would be CONCERNED that the prosecutor might be removed. Because if there is no trial, you don't KNOW if he's guilty of a felony.

I say again: due process INCLUDES a trial. Due process is about the indicted person going to trial, being confronted with the evidence, and being declared guilty or not guilty. You are celebrating the possibility that there is NO trial. So no. You DON'T care about due process. You care about your "deity" being set free even if he IS a corrupt politician. So you have now lost any credibility, past, present or future.... when you criticize corruption in politics.

 

What nonsense. There is no criminal unless you mean Fani's ripping off the tax payers.

 

No, you can file motions and/or sue to protect your due process rights and what normally happens is a judge steps in to protect them.. even if there's no trial or indictment yet. Basic information! Stop defending fascist criminal justice system processes. Fulton County DA's office is not the Gestapo.

Look... please try to do a basic level of research for once. This is common sense and common knowledge. We shouldn't even be having this discussion.

 

You'll notice how the possibility of someone being found innocent never even entered your mind

 

And this kind of reminds me of the people that throw that word around...

 

Yes you can! You are not getting the point. That is a technical matter between the accused and the court system that DOES need to be resolved. But OUR concern, as citizens, is to not elevate a criminal to the WH. Only those who belong to a political cult cheer because their candidate might be set on a technicality. The rest of us want to KNOW the facts about the candidates that solicit our votes.

Now... with that in mind, how should we interpret the fact that YOU, and the other MAGAs in this thread are happy because the American people WON'T get the opportunity to know that before they vote?

This is a serious question. Be it because of a valid technicality, or because of delay tactics by the accused, voters will NOT know. MAGAs in this thread have expressed being HAPPY for that. The question is why. An honest answer would be welcome.

I'll reiterate: We ALL agree that the system SHOULD work the way it works. Regardless of whether the defendant is Trump, Biden or Harvey Weinstein... But why would YOU (or any MAGA who rejoices because of the delay) not want We The People to KNOW before the elections. One would think that if you are so sure that he's innocent, you'd be anxious for a jury of peers to exonerate him before people vote. Why is that NOT so?

If any of those MAGAs has a SERIOUS answer, please do share...

 

The point is you have made a series of false statements because the basic function of the judicial system is not a similar system to the Gestapo that you have been advocating for. Your due process rights do not begin at trial. It's an absurd statement to say that your due process rights only kick in long after your rights have already been violated or you need to settle every due process violation with a trial which suggests a jury verdict. It's not my fault if people do not research and present disinformation over BASIC information about our judicial system and Constitutional rights. Your due process rights kick at the earliest stages of an investigation... long before an indictment or trial.

 

Or, what is even more significant: it never entered YOUR mind!

 

This is not about ME. It's about an indicted criminal who wants to be President. Clearly that doesn't matter to anybody who is member of a political cult. They prefer to discuss ME....

For a fraction of a second there I thought that maybe you were getting it. Now I KNOW you DID get it, but just don't care... And that's why you change the subject to... ME.

Thanks anyway.

 

Right, it's about your repeated false statements as the quote you selected states. More research is needed. Due process rights exist in America from the onset of any criminal investigation. They don't exist when you get to trial. Don't shoot the messenger just because I was correcting a promotion of a Gestapo-style criminal justice system.

 

So Republican and Democrat control decides whether an "act" is bad enough... So who decides when a president publicly denies military aide to a country, already authorized by Congress, whether that is impeachable?

 

May 9, 2024
A congressional committee has asked former Fulton County special prosecutor Nathan Wade to testify behind closed doors about his relationship with DA Fani Willis.
In a letter dated Thursday, U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, asked Wade to appear for an interview and to produce numerous documents related to his work on the Georgia election interference case.
Jordan cited allegations that Wade and Willis profited from what he called the “politically motivated prosecution” against former President Donald Trump and 14 other defendants.
“The committee understands that Ms. Willis reportedly compensated you and financed her politically motivated prosecution using a mixture of taxpayer funds, possibly including part of the $14.6 million in federal grant funds that her office received from the Department of Justice between 2020 and 2023,” Jordan wrote.

https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/us-house-committee-wants-nathan-wade-testify
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/e...9 JDJ to Wade re follow up and TI request.pdf

 

No, it would be something determined by courts, whether an act is private or official.

Impeachable is a political question, and not actually even the issue at stake here. The defense argument is that impeachment is the ONLY recourse against ANYTHING a president does. SCOTUS seems to be leaning towards distinguishing between private and official acts in terms of deciding whether impeachment is the only recourse. Your example clearly falls under official acts as you presented it, but criminal private conduct could certainly lead to bad official conduct.

 

So we are back to the Congressional impeachment and removal first before it is considered a crime that can be prosecuted second..

 

For an official act? Yes. None of Trump's indictments are for official acts.

 

Both Smith's and Georgia are...

 

Is taking classified documents home after no longer being president and refusing to return them an official act... no.. .no it's not.

Is it an official act to try to overturn the results of an election? No... no it's not.

Official acts are duties that fall to the president. Diplomacy, policy, not political campaigns. We don't want to paralyze future presidents by punishing them for making the wrong call. We don't want presidents to feel they're above the law, either, though. Like Nixon: "If the president does it, it's not illegal.."

 

Why are Republican Orange Stain sycophants attempting to Obstruct Justice ?

They should all be investigated and indicted.

 

Jordan Demands Nathan Wade Testify Before Judiciary Committee

Were Fani and Wade billing the US Taxpayers for their Sex Vacations?



Jordan indicated that "there are serious concerns about your role in the politically motivated prosecution initiated by Ms. Willis against President Donald J. Trump. You have reportedly "profit[ed] significantly" from Ms. Willis's prosecution."

'Jordan set a May 16 deadline for Wade to produce materials related to the case and his role as well as to schedule his testimony before the committee.'

 

Why the courts?... it was decided by Congress with impeachment the first time, why would it not be impeachable this time?

 

Jordan can go pound sand until he is indicted for corruption.

 

I am not sure if we're talking about the same thing... What I am referring to is when it is permissible to prosecute a former president in the regular courts for something he did while president without considering the impeachment process. This should come down to whether it was an official act or a private act. Courts would determine it because that is where the charges would end up. A lower court decision on the matter (whether trial can proceed or not due to it) could be appealed if the defense believes the conduct in question is official rather than private.

 

"Is taking classified documents home after no longer being president and refusing to return them an official act... no.. .no it's not."
As the precedent has already been set.....yes, actually it is an official act... He gets to determine what is official and what is personal. Because he was the president..