195
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
195 points (98.5% liked)
News
35867 readers
1975 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is one of those examples that we can all point to for why Trump’s behavior as a corrupt mob-style boss is not just bravado, and anyone who tells you it is is either ignorant or has an ulterior motive.
There is no conflict of interest here, and I also firmly believe there isn’t even an appearance of a conflict of interest. A Georgia lawyer can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe there’s a specific statue that spells out that it is acceptable for a married couple to be on opposing sides of a trial. It was determined that’s entirely fine. So how could it be that two prosecutors, who happen to be fucking, while working on the same side of a trial have a conflict of interest? What, they know how each other look naked, so that gives them some legal advantage over their platonic opposition? It just doesn’t track.
I don't know about Georgia but at least in New Jersey that's not allowed. Not only that buts it's defense choice of attorney.
Several years ago, I was in legal trouble. I was recommended a lawyer by a distant family friend. That lawyer happened to be the wife of the lead prosecutor.the lead prosecutor was immediately dismissed from the case and another prosecutor appointed.
I got off with a light sentence and have cleaned up my life. That said who knows what would of happened if I had a different lawyer, the prosecutor was notorious for being hard and firm in his cases. I probably would of fared worse but he couldn't touch the case and a junior prosecutor was assigned. As I said different state so different lawyers but kind of makes sense. You can't monitor opposing benches communication or shared knowledge or deals...a lot of political questions not typically worth dealing with.
That’s super interesting, thanks for sharing your experience! The way you describe it, it actually makes a lot of sense that deference would be given to the defense side.
I’m so conflicted, because I tend to automatically sympathize with most defendants since the system is so often stacked against them. Trump has turned that upside down. Never thought I’d cheer for a prosecutor…
It's a bit rough on justice if everyone knows they just have to hire a guy's wife to get his hardass off their case. I guess it makes sure she has clients, though.
So, you hired the wife of the prosecutor as your defense? That's very different than there being a relationship between two attorneys on the same counsel having a relationship.
They're saying that the appointment itself was improper.
Which removing the appointed prosecutor would render moot, which they've already done.
Their argument is that the case was only brought so that the prosecutor would be hired and then kick back money to the DA. It's laughable on its face.
Yeah, I could see it as a conflict if she only appointed him after they started dating, but Willis testified vehemently that they only started their relationship after she appointed him. She said the witness who claimed otherwise was either lying or misremembering. I guess it comes down to who should be believed, and while I would never blindly believe any officer of the state, I think she has more credibility than Trump and his defense team.
This isn't because they were fucking.
This is because she is fucking a guy she personally selected to pay as a consultant using state funds, who then paid for vacations for her. The appearance of a conflict of interest is that it would be in her best interest to continue this case as long as possible to continue paying this dude, who will then continue using that money she's paying him to take her on vacations.
Yeah. It’s the “illegal” use of state money that’s damming imo. Well I dunno if illegal but I hope it is.