Lopen's Left Arm @ LopensLeftArm @sh.itjust.works

Posts

30

Comments

636

Joined

2 yr. ago

I could care less, as long as they get the job done. It has no bearing on the case whatsoever.

If you read the article at all, you'd know that this person's unsubstantiated testimony is literally all that Trump's team has to support their contention. And this person is an ex-employee who only left because she was going to be fired for subpar performance. She has a grudge and zero credibility, and there is no evidence to support her claims.

Willis and Wade both testified under oath that their relationship did not start until well later, after he was hired, and other witnesses testified in support of this.

This is nothing more than a distraction and delaying tactic by Trump's team.

Who cares what Trump supporters use to dismiss the outcome? They were going to dismiss it anyway, they can't be reasoned with.

At worst, this is an ethics complaint against Willis. It has no bearing on the case whatsoever, and certainly doesn't reach the f grounds for disqualification. An attorney doesn't have to be pure as the driven snow to do her job, and there's nothing about this relationship that in any way impacts her ability to prosecute this case.

She hired him before the relationship began, and the relationship ended before the trial began. The relationship she had with him is not an actual conflict of interest, there was no benefit at any point she gained by his position.

Also weird picking a guy who cannot constitutionally hold the office he's running for. Cenk is not a natural born citizen of the United States, he can no more be president than Elon Musk or Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Your argument is essentially, "Don't vote for the incumbent polling with the highest chance of winning against Trump, instead vote for this literal no name candidate you've never heard of! Sure he doesn't meet the most basic requirements for the office, but there's this article here where it says he has a case in a court, so go ahead and throw your vote behind him!"

What absolute irresponsibility to be pushing this kind of bullshit when Trump is on the ballot.

He absolutely is not eligible, as he is not a natural born citizen of the United States, a constitutional requirement he does not meet. Supreme Court precedent has upheld this in rulings on the 14th amendment. If at any time in your life you were not a U.S. citizen - something which is indisputably true for Cenk - you cannot be president of the United States.

This guy is a clear spoiler intended to disrupt American elections, and you're either a bad faith actor complicit in his fraud or a pitiable rube who's been taken in by his song and dance.

All of the above.

Nothing, he was 'armless!

Ah yes, let's all vote for the guy who is not constitutionally eligible for the office. Brilliant move.

Mine's a Stormlight Archive reference

Imagine letting Hitler come to power because Hitler's opponent wasn't as nice as you hoped.

If "he's not Trump" isn't enough for you, you're part of the problem.

The only reason this was in the news was because Trump's team alleged a conflict of interest that has been shown to be utterly baseless. The only one attempting to gaslight anyone here is you, insisting on some widespread "public perception" of conflict of interest - despite the Trump team's allegations having zero evidence - which will somehow magically impact the case.

Wade was appointed before their relationship began, and it ended before the trial began. There is zero evidence showing anything untoward ever took place, and zero reason to believe it ever did - unless the unsubstantiated claims of Trump's people are sufficient for you, in which case you're already beyond reasoning with.

This absolutely is a nothingburger, and your faux defeatism is frankly disingenuous.

The only perception of a conflict of interest is in your chicken little, doom-and-gloom imagination. There was an allegation made of a conflict of interest by Trump's team, one for which no evidence was offered and which was supported solely by the unsubstantiated testimony of a noncredible ex-employee.

It's only in the news because it's part of the legal trial, as a go-nowhere manuver by Trump's team. Once it's been dismissed as the speculative nonsense it is, it will be out of the news except in quotes from Trump's aimless rants. And anyone influenced by that is already a diehard Trump supporter anyway, no one is having their perception in any way altered by this.

We're having this conversation because you're under the mistaken impression that the Trump team's baseless claims will have any impact on the outcome. They won't.

What I'm aware of is that the specious, unsubstantiated charge of conflict of interest by Trump's team lacks any evidence supporting it whatever, and that the court is likely to rule as such accordingly. "Public perception" is not dictated by whatever nonsense one party throws out, regardless of substance. There is no conflict of interest, and no evidence at all has been presented that there is one. Any members of the nebulous "public" you're so worried about who nevertheless believe there is a conflict of interest are believing it based solely on the Trump team's assertions alone, and those people were already on board with whatever nonsense Trump claims.

So no, this manuver by Trump's team will have no bearing whatsoever on the case.

Your responses are bordering on the absurd, literally all that Trump's team has been able to provide to support their nonsense is a single disreputable ex-employee with a grudge. This from a team known to throw any kind of nonsense they can as a delaying tactic, all of which inevitably prove to be baseless.

This will have zero bearing on the case, your vague allusions to "public perception" are so ephemeral as to be non-existent. This is nothing more than another Hail Mary attempt by a desperate team with no substantive ground to stand on, and it will soon be ruled to be exactly that in court. Anyone dumb enough to still buy into Trump's teams claims afterwards is already beyond reasoning with and is already a diehard supporter of his.

Your hunch and feelings about Fani Willis are just as irrelevant. The law provides the answer for the standards which need to be met to disqualify her, and they weren't met. End of story.

No, law is not secondary to public perception in a motion in a court of law to disqualify the prosecuting attorney for a conflict of interest. That is purely a matter of law, and what the public thinks about it is utterly irrelevant. The outcome of the motion to disqualify her will be adjudicated on the evidentiary standards in the law, not on the feelings and perceptions of the public.