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

Posts

30

Comments

636

Joined

2 yr. ago

No it is not secondary. In order for Willis to be disqualified, an actual conflict of interest needs to be proved. Trump's team is trying to remove her, alleging a conflict of interest. There is no evidence of any such conflict of interest.

Willis and Wade both testified under oath that their relationship began in Spring of 2022, and that she had not profited in any way from Wade's appointment or position. The only thing Trump's team have to contest this is the testimony of a single noncredible ex-employee. There is no evidence whatever to corroborate this, evidence which is required in order to achieve the outcome Trump's team is pushing for.

Your disagreement with the District Attorney's hiring standards, or those of her choice in relationship partners, have zero bearing on whether or not there is a case to disqualify her. There isn't. Evidence is needed to prove an actual conflict of interest exists, and no such evidence exists, period.

I said no such thing. I said the supposed ethical problems with eating animals referenced by OP are not ones I think apply to most animals, and so it is ethical to eat them.

Yes there absolutely is a need for evidence, specifically under the applicable Georgia statues, as you'd already be aware if you'd bothered to read the article.

It’s worth repeating that the law in Georgia requires that an actual conflict of interest exist for disqualification of a prosecuting attorney. The conflict cannot be theoretical or speculative.

No such evidence of a conflict of interest was ever brought forward, only the testimony of one noncredible ex-employee.

I didn't say it was a good plan, lol. I wouldn't put it past him to try.

Yes it absolutely is too late for someone else to step in. You're voting for Biden or you're holding the door open for Trump. The sooner you come to terms with that, that better you'll feel about it.

Basically, the entire case against Willis rests on the testimony of one former employee who only left because she was given the option of leaving or being fired for subpar performance. No evidence supports any impropriety, the whole thing was essentially an excuse for a character assassination flimsily supported entirely by the unsubstantiated testimony of a disgruntled ex-employee.

Yep, they're throwing anything and everything they can at the wall trying to make something stick. His whole plan is to delay until he can get elected, then try to pardon himself of everything.

If they had two brain cells to rub together, they already would.

I don't think they apply to most animals either, so yes.

Texas can't be its own country because, back when it was its own country, it voluntarily relinquished that independence to join an indivisible union as one of the constituent states under a federal government. There is no provision allowing Texas to rescind that admission and regain independence, secession is not an option.

Oh, the Texas Secessionist folks are already all over calling it that, don't you worry!

!grilling@sh.itjust.works

Bill Cosby's comedy albums

The pulverized remains of what must've been thousands upon thousands of Doritos. A shipping truck must've lost a big box or two, there was orange dust all over the road and bags scattered everywhere.

Texas entered into the Union voluntarily, and was under no obligation to do so. Had Texas wanted to remain independent, it could very easily have done so. Instead, it joined the Union, an indivisible entity with a government which has supremacy over its own in matters under its constitutional purview.

The situations in Ukraine and Taiwan are not remotely comparable.

And should it come to the point where the Guard is nationalized and ordered to ignore Abbott's order, I agree that they would do so. Same with the case where Abbott would be arrested, I agree that these guardsmen are not going to attempt to prevent it.

None of that changes the fact that the political realities make the federal government actually ordering one of those options very dicey at present. While I'm in agreement that they absolutely should go ahead and do so, I can clearly see why they're reluctant at the moment, as this would no doubt further inflame animosity, which is part of why Abbott is doing this in the first place.

There is no separating the citizen Abbott from the Governor of Texas Abbott, and the political realities are that this is a move which they are unwilling to take right now due to the increased animosity and tensions at play.

Like I said, I agree that he should be arrested immediately and thrown in prison; hell, I think there's a case for the federal government to take over management of the entire state, but I'm not blind to the fact that the political realities make that difficult and I can certainly see why the federal authorities aren't rushing to do so.

Because Abbott is arguing that the Constitution gives him the authority to do what he's doing, and the case is much less cut-and-dry than if he openly defied an injunction from the Supreme Court. Plus, arresting the sitting governor of a state isn't something that's entered into lightly, and federal authorities obviously want to have their ducks in a row before making such a move. Abbott is playing chicken with them and basically daring them to do something to see how much he can get away with.

Obviously I'd be all in favor of throwing that sack of shit to rot in a federal prison right now, but there's a lot more reluctance to pull the trigger on something like that at the levels of power that matter on decisions like that.