The moron got it wrong. He shouldn’t have said “one more than we have”, it should have been “one more than we need”. I can’t believe no commentators ever picked up on this. He certainly “had” 11,780 votes, he needed 11,780 more.
Maybe they all did, but had more important things to comment on. I mean anyone from smart guy to moron can use a wrong word here and there. Attacking them for it is usually lame. The fact that he was trying to overthrow democracy is the real issue.
The awkward phrasing always bugged me. I reckoned on people going with what he meant rather than what his literal words were. I would suggest that he was deliberately being confusing, but seriously, when isn’t he confusing.
The wording does acknowledge that he “had” a certain number of votes that was fewer than Biden. It establishes that he knew that he did not win Georgia, but was pressuring officials to lie and manufacture more votes than he had.
This is Trump talking. Trying to parse out what he really meant might be amusing once in a while but if you take it seriously, that way lies madness.
Update from Fulton County. Willis to submit a filing by Feb 2. So far we’ve only seen one side of the argument on any alleged impropriety by Willis so this will be worth reading. Hearing on Feb 15.
Would we say that the prosecution has played the race card in this exchange? Not sure what I think of that…
Is it “the race card” or is it speaking up about a pattern of disrespect? I would need to see some of these emails that are being referred to as unprofessional and disrespectful. It would also be helpful if the defense attorneys that are offended by the comments were to produce any emails they have sent to white, male colleagues that have the exact same tone.
Furthermore, who gives a shit? It’s about an out of court interaction between lawyers. It will have no impact on the actual court proceedings.
It just struck me as the kind of thing a desperate defense would pull, while the prosecution knows that they have the facts and the law on their side. If the prosecution had a serious issue with opposing counsel, they would take it to the judge.
It’s a weird thing to call a scandal. Like, if Fani Willis is having a torrid, ongoing affair with this dude and overpaying him based on his skills in the bedroom rather than the courtroom does this somehow mean Trump can’t be tried fairly? Fani Willis has a love life, therefore Trump is innocent on all charges? How exactly is this supposed to work? Are we really having a “they’re black, they must be guilty of something” hearing?
I don’t want to downplay Trump’s feelings about black women, but he’s played the inappropriate romance card just recently with Judge Engoron’s clerk. She had a photo posted of her and a prominent Democratic politician and Trump claimed she was having an affair with him. She wasn’t, but even if she was, so what?
My enemies do stuff, and so therefore I am innocent!
I’m against jumping to conclusions.
If Nathan Wade is, despite having what seems, at first, a thin prosecutorial resume, a man supremely gifted in the courtroom, yes, I think it reasonable for her to strongly suspect racism.
But if it turns out that Fani Willis acted incompetently, for whatever motive, Trump’s team would have gone after the prosecutor the same way regardless of race. So if Willis really made an indefensible decision to put an inexperienced prosecutor in charge of her office’s biggest non-murder case, she was wrong to claim racism, affair or no affair. If Willis acted incompetently, but there was no affair, it’s one more item in Trump’s catalog of new lows in his treatment of fellow humans of all races – a good reason not to vote for him.
From a 20,000 foot Trump perspective, facing four separate felony trials has pluses and minuses. The minuses are most obvious – including roughly four times the chances of conviction. One plus: Roughly four times the chances to find prosecutorial misconduct.
As for the absurdity of Trump complaining about facing a prosecutor weak on felony experience – yes, it is ironic. But every defendent should have the right to, without lying, use all available tools to ridicule the prosecution. And the prosecution should avoid actions that are easily ridiculed.
Wait, I just figured it out. Every Trump accusation is a confession so with that in mind…
A woman seduces a man and starts a “romantic” relationship with him. But surprise! She is actually being given orders by someone else and now the man she is sleeping with is under her control and must do as she says.
Now where could Trump have possibly gotten that idea from? He really, sincerely seems to think that this is how the world works. Hmmm…
The FBI needs to start looking for GOP owned Pizza places with basements.
I was thinking there was something wrong with the Nathan Wade story but failed to guess this would be part of it:
Fani Willis hired Trump 2020 election case prosecutor after 2 others said no
Hmmmm Can you say “another defamation suit”?
Even if it’s shown that she hired Wade inappropriately it may not be enough to get her thrown of the case, but it still dirties her up a bit. And a bit might be all the excuse the Georgia Prosecuting Attorneys Qualification Committee needs.
I’m not sure the exact mechanics of how that would work and I believe the Committee had a set back with the Georgia Supreme Court, but this could be the real intent of this motion to disqualify Willis. Sling enough mud at her so that there’s enough support for PAQC to remove her.
Obviously, all we have now are allegations and Willis has yet to offer her side of the story. But if Willis was in a relationship with Wade when she hired him to assist with the Trump prosecution, there may well be ethical issues that could prejudice Trumps ability to get a fair trial. Roman is alleging, for instance, that Willis is benefitting financially from the arrangement because Wade has paid for vacations for the both of them. This could create an incentive for Willis to prolong the trial as long as possible so that Wade continues to get paid. And so, she might refuse to consider plea bargains or other agreements with opposing counsel that she otherwise would.
All speculation on my part, but you asked how it’s supposed to work!