“The appeals court is expected to rule on the disqualification issue by March 2025, though it could issue a ruling sooner.”

  • MiltownClowns@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    24 days ago

    Its an ethical violation, which aint great, but mostly its fodder for the defense. Its provided the appearance of impropriety, and when you’re going after trump you need to be above reproach. Otherwise this shit will happen. Trump slings mud, and while everybody is trying to figure out what’s going on he moves on to cause another fire. Because his strategy is never to win, but to outlast. Fanni was supposed to lay siege to the Trump fortress and bring it down, but attacked without paying hede to her own defenses and now a straight forward plan of attack has become a quagmire with a crisis of leadership due to an unforced error.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      24 days ago

      Its provided the appearance of impropriety

      Why does that matter? These fuckers think that a woman having a job is an impropriety.

      I’m dead serious, I just do not get it. It’s like a cyclical argument. Why is this prosecution in trouble? Because they did something that gives Trump ammunition to attack the prosecution. What did they do? They gave Trump ammunition to attack the prosecution. What was the “ammunition”? The ammunition was the act of giving Trump ammunition to attack the prosecution. And on and on

      If she was dating the person who appointed her to the case, sure. Potential for bias/corruption. If she was dating a defense counsel, sure. If she was dating a witness, sure. She was dating another consultant on her own team. Who gives a flying fuck? Would anyone have a problem with a husband and wife team on the same prosecution? They’re working together, there’s no potential for bias or corruption or anything.