Judge clears Fani Willis to continue on with Georgia 2020 election interference racketeering case against Trump
I care about fake 'contingent' electors in Georgia, not which attorneys are having sex
Update on March 15, 2024: Judge Scott McAfee ruled that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis can stay in place in the Georgia 2020 election interference racketeering case against Trump and 14 of his co-defendants. She must, however, cut legal ties with special prosecutor Nathan Wade, who she hired to work on her with this case. However, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan threatened Willis with contempt of Congress if she does not comply with a congressional subpoena as part of the committee's investigation into her office's use of federal funds.
Original post January 15, 2024
Every blue moon, I’ll click on a story that makes me think, “Well, I can’t get those brain cells back — or that time. Better go watch Frontline or some other PBS special to make myself feel smarter again.”
That pretty much summarizes how I feel about the dull scandal stories about Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and appointed lead prosecutor Nathan Wade. The same news outlets that are reporting play-by-plays of these two attorneys possibly sleeping together couldn’t be quieter with reporting the actual news story: fake electors falsely claimed that the then-president Donald Trump won Georgia in 2020.
While “news” stories are surfacing from other attorneys challenging Wade’s 24-hour salary of $250 versus billing $500 for 12 hours because “that’s more credible and along with the rate of other lawyers,” I’m more interested in the actual actions of David Shafer, Shawn Still and Cathy Latham.
ADVERTISEMENT ~ Recommended Read from Amazon
Does it strike me strange that other attorneys are picking apart the one black prosecutor versus the white woman and white man Willis also hired? Sure, but if you’ve worked in Corporate America long enough, this isn’t a great big shocker. What I don’t see every day is people impersonating public officials and forgery while claiming to be legitimate presidential electors —- and I say that as someone who was an Election Judge and a Key Judge. Our handbooks didn’t say a word about “contingent” electors after we turned in the e-poll books at our polling center.
Election judge or everyday voter, I’m not blasting Dru Hill’s “Sleeping In My Bed” while wondering which attorney is sleeping with another one. I’m way more worried about why not all 50 states “require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote” and how electors are bound by state law versus those bound by pledges to political parties.
Did you know? Joe Biden (in 2020) and Bill Clinton (in 1992) lost both Iowa and New Hampshire in 2020 and 1992.
(Source: CNN’s “How much do you know about primary elections?”)
I’m worried about why there is no Constitutional provision or federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Why is it only 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how electors vote? And what’s up with the “safe harbor deadline” for “contingent” electors in the Peach State?
The fact that some state electors have this amount of power to ignore the popular vote is the “inexperience” I lose sleep about at night. I don’t even yawn over Attorney Ashleigh Merchant taking tallies about how many RICO cases Wade has handled. (At some point, all attorneys are new to a specific type of case. How do you gain experience without someone allowing you to get the experience?) Let’s get back to what matters to voters, not juicy sitcom material.