Apologies, as I'm only getting to this thread now. Like the others, I go back about 3 pages and read forward from there (necessary for the really long threads). As such, some of these quotes may be pretty dusty having occurred as far back as January of this year.
prosecution asked to start early august so it seems very unlikely.
in all current cases, the trump defense strategy is delay, delay, delay.
can't imagine for one second why trump is not jonesing to get in to court to vigorously defend his innocence.
Prosecution asks August...with elections in November? Did they really think this would be a quick slam dunk? Two other points on the timing by the prosecution. This happened in 2016, why the long wait to bring charges? Second, for an election year, aside from the actual election only 3 months after their requested start, any POTUS candidates would normally be campaigning from at least spring, with primaries in March and candidates truly gearing up for the big run starting in ...July. A month ahead of the requested court dates. Do you honestly believe there is no political motivations to having your opponent a) charged with election interference, b) called into court for multiple days during key campaign time, and c) draining his funds* during that critical period? Go back to the earlier question - why not bring this up earlier if it occurred in 2016?
As to his team's tactic of delays - trade places and ask what strategy you and your team would utilize? Delays will keep the candidate's name in the headlines, which appears to be strengthening his polling numbers, and also keeps him out of the court room and out to do campaigning. It's the right strategy given the way the democrats are charging him.
But Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee wrote that at this pretrial stage he must consider the language of the indictment in a light favorable to the prosecution. The charges do not suggest that Trump and the others are being prosecuted simply for making false statements but rather that they acted willfully and knowingly to harm the government, he wrote." (my emphasis)
A few points I'd like to pivot off of here:
- Fani has purjured herself. This is recorded fact. << Not relevant to THIS case.
- She has acted unethically (ahead of the perjury) in her selection of boyfriend/special procecutor - not relevant to THIS case, but not a good look and a notable hit to credibility
- Judge McAfee is in his first year on the bench, having worked earlier under Fani Willis as well as for Brian Kemp (Republican, GA Governer - but arguably a RINO by GA residents). This was thrown up by Trump's team as 'working for his old boss, Fani' and being impartial given Fani-McAfee would have a history and a future of working together in the GA legal system. I agree, McAfee has shown he doesn't carry bias in this regard.
- Determined in the Willis-Wade situation that one of the prosecutors had to leave, which is akin to catching two theives in your house and saying one is getting arrested while the other can go free.
- In regards to Willis' perjury or other possible grounds for discipline or disbarment - that's not his call. GA Senate controls that investigation, and they are building it. Regardless of this court decision, Willis may have ended her own career.
At the end of the day, I think Trump benefits from Willis being left on the case. She embarassed herself personally and professionally when challenged on boyfriend/prosecutor and her insistence in believing she did nothing wrong. That hurts her credibility, and shows her professional faults. It gives him more fodder for blabbing at cameras about how unfair everything is, but the benefit for his defense is that a less competent prosecutor remains lead as opposed to being replaced by someone who knows what they are doing.
To
@jasperkent 's point about nohting changing the facts of the case...yeah, this, very much this.
Aside from NOT raising this earlier, there remains the question of did he actually do something wrong. I'm hesitant to get into that too much, because I think everyone already has their mind fairly well set on if he did or didn't. If I try to step back and look at it neutraly...the statement I think was akin to "find me the needed votes", correct? Not a smooth move, but not a demand (Trump had no authority over the GA elections team) nor any threat (what threat could he level?). I see it as an ask, as any candidate would do when believing there are more uncounted votes in their favor. People will take it as they choose. Knowing Trump's blowhard personality, one that operates from expectations and a sense of grandeur, I can see this as more of the same but not necessarily interfering in anything, just asking election officials to do their job because he believes it is not complete.
*I know this is a particular point for
@alasdairm - the use of campaign funds to defend the candidate, and is he being dishonest to Repub donors? I was leaning towards yes it is wrong on his part. But as I understand it he used his own funds until he won the nomination, then after (with his DIL co-chairing the RNC) I can abide as those funds are to get the R candidate into office, and anyone donating after that nomination would know that's what's happening. Those who donated before were contributing to 'whomever the candidate will be, whatever is needed to get him into office'...so I can give some leeway there as well. Do I like any of it? No. There's lots about Trump not to like. Do I see where it makes sense to get the R candidate into the white house? Yes.
