Georgia State Senators move to impeach PFW (Phony Fani Willis)

[West]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-state-senator-moves-impeaching-da-fani-willis-trump-charges

Citing her politically, possibly criminal, motivated targeting of political opponents. 

Right on

[Rebound]

“America is under attack. I’m not going to sit back and watch as radical left prosecutors politically TARGET political opponents,” he says, as he targets his political opponent.

The deed is done. The grand jury has indicted and the charges are filed. Fire Willis and the trial will go on; it can’t be stopped now.  The voters will just elect another DA to continue the prosecution. 
 

The trial will follow the law. The judge will follow the law. The jury will follow the law.  

[West]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

“America is under attack. I’m not going to sit back and watch as radical left prosecutors politically TARGET political opponents,” he says, as he targets his political opponent.

The deed is done. The grand jury has indicted and the charges are filed. Fire Willis and the trial will go on; it can’t be stopped now.  The voters will just elect another DA to continue the prosecution. 
 

The trial will follow the law. The judge will follow the law. The jury will follow the law.  

The United States needs a competent leader who's not going to raise the price of gasoline by 2 dollars a gallon as Joe has done and drives up grocery prices/inflation by 7%

[robosmith]

29 minutes ago, West said:

The United States needs a competent leader who's not going to raise the price of gasoline by 2 dollars a gallon as Joe has done and drives up grocery prices/inflation by 7%

Even AFTER the latest price increase HERE, gas is only up by a $1 / gal and prices at the grocery stores are back to pre-pandemic levels for what & where I buy. Of course as always, I shop the sales. 

[Rebound]

10 hours ago, West said:

The United States needs a competent leader who's not going to raise the price of gasoline by 2 dollars a gallon as Joe has done and drives up grocery prices/inflation by 7%

Gas prices are way down. 
Biden 2024

Edited August 18, 2023 by Rebound

[Aristides]

Willis was elected, she would just get elected again.

[Deluge]

13 hours ago, West said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-state-senator-moves-impeaching-da-fani-willis-trump-charges

Citing her politically, possibly criminal, motivated targeting of political opponents. 

Right on

Love it. 

The GOP should be doing this all over the country. 

12 hours ago, Rebound said:

“America is under attack. I’m not going to sit back and watch as radical left prosecutors politically TARGET political opponents,” he says, as he targets his political opponent.

The deed is done. The grand jury has indicted and the charges are filed. Fire Willis and the trial will go on; it can’t be stopped now.  The voters will just elect another DA to continue the prosecution. 
 

The trial will follow the law. The judge will follow the law. The jury will follow the law.  

The left has nothing to do with the law. The judge will be replaced, the jury will be instructed as to what the law actually is, and leftism will lose, once again.

Edited August 18, 2023 by Deluge

[Aristides]

You mean the judge who was appointed to the bench by a Republican governor?

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

Love it. 

The GOP should be doing this all over the country. 

Thanks for admitting you favor undermining democracy, THE LAW and US judicial PROCESSES. ?

 

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

The left has nothing to do with the law. The judge will be replaced, the jury will be instructed as to what the law actually is, and leftism will lose, once again.

You have no idea "what the law actually is" in GA, Mr. Amateur Legal Eagle. LMAO

[Deluge]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

1. Thanks for admitting you favor undermining democracy, 

2. You have no idea "what the law actually is" in GA, Mr. Amateur Legal Eagle. LMAO

1. I favor undermining democrats - there's a difference. Every registered democrat in our legal system should be interrogated if not interrogated and prosecuted. 

2. It's being interpreted by democrats so that's strike three on the first swing - it saves time that way.  

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, Deluge said:

1. I favor undermining democrats - there's a difference. Every registered democrat in our legal system should be interrogated if not interrogated and prosecuted. 

2. It's being interpreted by democrats so that's strike three on the first swing - it saves time that way.  

^DELUGINAL

[Deluge]

3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

^DELUGINAL

You mean "RIGHT! ALWAYS RIGHT!"

And thank you, robobobo, it's nice when clarity penetrates that thick skull of yours.

[WestCanMan]

14 hours ago, Rebound said:

“America is under attack. I’m not going to sit back and watch as radical left prosecutors politically TARGET political opponents,” he says,

You're a little late to the party if you missed all the FBI's lies, witch hunts, entrapment schemes and crimes. And the IRS. Etc. 

[Rebound]

14 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You're a little late to the party if you missed all the FBI's lies, witch hunts, entrapment schemes and crimes. And the IRS. Etc. 

Nonsense.  You guys just want to burn down the world.  Two FBI agents on the Russia case sent some trash talking text messages. That’s not entrapment.  You don’t know what entrapment is.  

Edited August 18, 2023 by Rebound

[West]

12 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Nonsense.  You guys just want to burn down the world.  Two FBI agents on the Russia case sent some trash talking text messages. That’s not entrapment.  You don’t know what entrapment is.  

You mean the same two that started a fraudulent investigation into a political campaign? 

[Rebound]

5 minutes ago, West said:

You mean the same two that started a fraudulent investigation into a political campaign? 

Nothing fraudulent about it. Sorry, that’s just the spin you want to put on it. 
Russia DEFINITELY interfered in the 2016 election

Trump DEFINITELY welcomed Russia’s interference, even though it was illegal. 
Trump’s campaign DEFINITELY were connected to this interference. Roger Stone knew in advance when Wikileaks would release emails which Russia stole from Clinton. 
 

That is much more than sufficient probable cause.  It just is. 

[West]

Just now, Rebound said:

Nothing fraudulent about it. Sorry, that’s just the spin you want to put on it. 
Russia DEFINITELY interfered in the 2016 election

Trump DEFINITELY welcomed Russia’s interference, even though it was illegal. 
Trump’s campaign DEFINITELY were connected to this interference. Roger Stone knew in advance when Wikileaks would release emails which Russia stole from Clinton. 
 

That is much more than sufficient probable cause.  It just is. 

Yeah it was. They lied to obtain a FISA warrant

[WestCanMan]

3 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Nonsense.  You guys just want to burn down the world.  

You're so intentionally clueless that it's painful.

FYI using the FBI and IRS to commit crimes to target political opponents is "burning down the world" if anything is.

Entrapment is when the FBI creates their own kidnapping plot and times it to be unravelled 1 month before the election. Turns out that they were offering people free money for guns and ammo, they came up with the ideas, etc. More than 50% of the "kidnappers" were FBI agents and their own participants. Then the first two guys that they charged got off on an entrapment defence - well after the election. 

You know very well about all of the FBI skullduggery of the last 5 years. It wasn't just a 1-off. It's systemic. The FBI is rotten to the core. 

Russian collusion: more FBI lies, bias, crimes.

Hunter laptop: more FBI lies and bias, resulting in the NYPost being banned from social media for telling the truth.

Jan 6th/Ray Epps: more FBI lies and malfeasance.

Can you recall the last time the NYT or WashPo were banned from social media for telling the truth? Do you think that's likely to happen any time soon? 

Of course not. They lie all the time and they'll never be banned. If they tell the truth it's only when convenient. 

3 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Nothing fraudulent about it. Sorry, that’s just the spin you want to put on it. 
Russia DEFINITELY interfered in the 2016 election

This is your level of understanding after 6 years? 

God-damn you're stupid.

[reason10]

17 hours ago, Rebound said:

“America is under attack. I’m not going to sit back and watch as radical left prosecutors politically TARGET political opponents,” he says, as he targets his political opponent.

The deed is done. The grand jury has indicted and the charges are filed. Fire Willis and the trial will go on; it can’t be stopped now.  The voters will just elect another DA to continue the prosecution. 
 

The trial will follow the law. The judge will follow the law. The jury will follow the law.  

Nope. The existence of a trial is the ABANDONMENT of the law, since LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMITTED NO CRIME.

The trial is illegal. The jury pool is tainted.

In the end, an upper court will throw out this latest attempt at ELECTION TAMPERING and Trump will be back on track to kicking Unelected Joe's NAZI AZZ in the next election.

[Rebound]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You're so intentionally clueless that it's painful.

FYI using the FBI and IRS to commit crimes to target political opponents is "burning down the world" if anything is.

Entrapment is when the FBI creates their own kidnapping plot and times it to be unravelled 1 month before the election. Turns out that they were offering people free money for guns and ammo, they came up with the ideas, etc. More than 50% of the "kidnappers" were FBI agents and their own participants. Then the first two guys that they charged got off on an entrapment defence - well after the election. 

You know very well about all of the FBI skullduggery of the last 5 years. It wasn't just a 1-off. It's systemic. The FBI is rotten to the core. 

Russian collusion: more FBI lies, bias, crimes.

Hunter laptop: more FBI lies and bias, resulting in the NYPost being banned from social media for telling the truth.

Jan 6th/Ray Epps: more FBI lies and malfeasance.

Can you recall the last time the NYT or WashPo were banned from social media for telling the truth? Do you think that's likely to happen any time soon? 

Of course not. They lie all the time and they'll never be banned. If they tell the truth it's only when convenient. 

This is your level of understanding after 6 years? 

God-damn you're stupid.

Nothing but truth. 
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said, referring to emails Mrs. Clinton had deleted from the private account she had used when she was secretary of state. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily.” 
— Donald Trump

 

”Entrapment is when the FBI creates their own kidnapping plot and times it to be unravelled 1 month before the election.”

No, that is NOT the definition of entrapment. That’s the definition you invented.  But you don’t get to invent your own laws.  Entrapment requires coercion on the part of the government. If the government offers to sell you cocaine and you buy it… no entrapment. If they offer to cut you in on a cocaine distribution system they’ve already set up… no entrapment. If they tell you they’ll hurt your sister if you don’t join their cocaine scheme… THAT is entrapment. 
Offering to help you get weapons, training you on the use of the weapons, making illegal schemes with you… these things are NOT entrapment. It is only when they coerce you to break the law.  

Edited August 18, 2023 by Rebound

[WestCanMan]

5 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Nothing but truth. 
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said, referring to emails Mrs. Clinton had deleted from the private account she had used when she was secretary of state. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily.” 
— Donald Trump

You know that he was just making fun of leftards, right? Or are you honestly so stupid that you think he'd just ask Russia for help on national TV like that? 

(you probably definitely shouldn't answer that honestly if you don't want to embarrass yourself further)

Quote

”Entrapment is when the FBI creates their own kidnapping plot and times it to be unravelled 1 month before the election.”

OMG, you just said something intelligent for once. My opinion of you popped right up off of the flatline as if someone just zapped it with a defibrillator.

Quote

No, that is NOT the definition of entrapment. That’s the definition you invented.  But you don’t get to invent your own laws.  Entrapment requires coercion on the part of the government. If the government offers to sell you cocaine and you buy it… no entrapment. If they offer to cut you in on a cocaine distribution system they’ve already set up… no entrapment. If they tell you they’ll hurt your sister if you don’t join their cocaine scheme… THAT is entrapment. 
Offering to help you get weapons, training you on the use of the weapons, making illegal schemes with you… these things are NOT entrapment. It is only when they coerce you to break the law.  

 No, entrapment doesn't require 'coercion' you fool. Stop using words that you don't understand. 

It's when the police create an opportunity for you to a commit a crime that you weren't interested in committing yourself, and make it tempting for you to do so.

Eg, if you have never shown an interest in robbing a bank, and they say "We have some great bank-heist guys and a really easy, foolproof plan to rob a bank, do you wanna do it?" and you say "No", and then they offer you increasingly smaller and easier roles to play which are still lucrative, like "just listening to a police scanner and giving someone a signal", until you finally accept: that's entrapment.

If the police can't prove that you had a real interest in robbing a bank before they started offering you money, support, etc, it's not entrapment. If they just find you on the street corner and say "Hey dude, do you wanna make $50K just for monitoring a police scanner for 30 minutes?" and you say "Dang, it takes me 3 years of prostituting myself 40 hrs a week to make that much money. Heck yeah!", it's entrapment. Your regular job had nothing to do with bank robbery and you never indicated that you had an interest in doing that. The police just came up to you and presented you with an offer that was tempting.

An example of greasing the rails for you is if you're sitting in a prison cell, talking about robbing a bank when you get out, and someone snitches, and then the police manage to insert an undercover agent into your group, and he hatches the plot, it's not entrapment. You're all screwed.

The exact standard varies among jurisdictions of the free world, that's the standard that had to be met in that trial according to the judge. 

In this case, alleged kidnappers weren't even interested in free money to help in their plot to kidnap the governor. They expressed a hatred for Whitmer and the police offered them a chance to do something about it.

If someone was actually interested in committing that crime before the police showed up they'd jump at that chance. Police/prosecutors never actually proved that the guys involved actually wanted to do it before they started scheming. The alleged perpetrators showed several times that they weren't that interested. The FBI just pushed and prodded and cajoled because they needed this October Surprise story in order to influence the election.

It neatly tied up all the FBI/Dems' false narratives about conservatives, Trump supporters, etc. 

[robosmith]

Georgia Republicans Want to Impeach Fani Willis. They’re Going to Fail.

Quote

A Republican Georgia state senator is so mad that Donald Trump was indicted that he is moving to impeach the investigating district attorney—even though his plan has no chance of working.

....

Here’s where Moore’s plan falls apart. In order to call a special session, either the governor or three-fifths of both the state House and Senate have to call one. This is clearly laid out in Article V of the Georgia state constitution. (Moore cites Article IV, which deals with the venue for a civil lawsuit.)

 

Moore also is the only member of the state legislature who has signed the letter. While Republicans have the majority in the state assembly, they only make up three-fifths of the Senate. House Democrats are unlikely to agree to Moore’s proposal.

Kemp is also unlikely to call a special session. He has been one of the most vocal Republicans to rejecte Trump’s claims that the Georgia election was fraudulent.

AKA, going DOWN IN FLAMES. LMAO

[robosmith]

14 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You know that he was just making fun of leftards, right? Or are you honestly so stupid that you think he'd just ask Russia for help on national TV like that? 

(you probably definitely shouldn't answer that honestly if you don't want to embarrass yourself further)

OMG, you just said something intelligent for once. My opinion of you popped right up off of the flatline as if someone just zapped it with a defibrillator.

 No, entrapment doesn't require 'coercion' you fool. Stop using words that you don't understand. 

It's when the police create an opportunity for you to a commit a crime that you weren't interested in committing yourself, and make it tempting for you to do so.

Eg, if you have never shown an interest in robbing a bank, and they say "We have some great bank-heist guys and a really easy, foolproof plan to rob a bank, do you wanna do it?" and you say "No", and then they offer you increasingly smaller and easier roles to play which are still lucrative, like "just listening to a police scanner and giving someone a signal", until you finally accept: that's entrapment.

If the police can't prove that you had a real interest in robbing a bank before they started offering you money, support, etc, it's not entrapment. If they just find you on the street corner and say "Hey dude, do you wanna make $50K just for monitoring a police scanner for 30 minutes?" and you say "Dang, it takes me 3 years of prostituting myself 40 hrs a week to make that much money. Heck yeah!", it's entrapment. Your regular job had nothing to do with bank robbery and you never indicated that you had an interest in doing that. The police just came up to you and presented you with an offer that was tempting.

An example of greasing the rails for you is if you're sitting in a prison cell, talking about robbing a bank when you get out, and someone snitches, and then the police manage to insert an undercover agent into your group, and he hatches the plot, it's not entrapment. You're all screwed.

The exact standard varies among jurisdictions of the free world, that's the standard that had to be met in that trial according to the judge. 

In this case, alleged kidnappers weren't even interested in free money to help in their plot to kidnap the governor. They expressed a hatred for Whitmer and the police offered them a chance to do something about it.

If someone was actually interested in committing that crime before the police showed up they'd jump at that chance. Police/prosecutors never actually proved that the guys involved actually wanted to do it before they started scheming. The alleged perpetrators showed several times that they weren't that interested. The FBI just pushed and prodded and cajoled because they needed this October Surprise story in order to influence the election.

It neatly tied up all the FBI/Dems' false narratives about conservatives, Trump supporters, etc. 

Speaking of STUPID, you don't understand that the LAWS in the US VARY BY STATE.

In CA, entrapment is:

Quote

What makes entrapment illegal?

Entrapment is a situation where the police or government agents try to lure an accused into acting the crime they are accused or suspected of, and it is legally allowed as long as it is not coerced. However, if a civilian orchestrates the scheme, it is not entrapment.

LMAO

[WestCanMan]

8 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Speaking of STUPID, you don't understand that the LAWS in the US VARY BY STATE.

Speaking of stupid, you apparently don't understand the meaning of this very concise statement:

Quote

The exact standard varies among jurisdictions of the free world, that's the standard that had to be met in that trial according to the judge. 

WTF do you think the above means? Does it mean:

1)The legal definition of entrapment is the exact same everywhere in the world, or 

2) The exact standard varies among jurisdictions of the free world....

If I was you I'd just flip a coin, it will increase your chance of getting it right by 50.00%.

Quote

In CA, entrapment is:

LMAO

Good for California, I guess? 

FYI the police can't coerce you to do anything and then charge you for it, idi0t. It doesn't just ruin their entrapment schemes. From your own link:

Quote

It is entrapment when the police guarantee that the conduct is not illegal and promises that the offense will go undetected, offers extraordinary rewards, and appeal to friendship or sympathy.

If any of them were used, you can maintain your innocence and argue that the officers are guilty of California entrapment. 

I'm not sure why the art about coercion is there, it's not the only way to use the entrapment defence.

Again, your reading comprehension just failed you. It's a huge part of the reason that you're a leftist in the first place. 

[robosmith]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Speaking of stupid, you apparently don't understand the meaning of this very concise statement:

WTF do you think the above means? Does it mean:

1)The legal definition of entrapment is the exact same everywhere in the world, or 

2) The exact standard varies among jurisdictions of the free world....

If I was you I'd just flip a coin, it will increase your chance of getting it right by 50.00%.

Good for California, I guess? 

FYI the police can't coerce you to do anything and then charge you for it, idi0t. It doesn't just ruin their entrapment schemes. From your own link:

I'm not sure why the art about coercion is there, it's not the only way to use the entrapment defence.

Again, your reading comprehension just failed you. It's a huge part of the reason that you're a leftist in the first place. 

You claimed: "No, entrapment doesn't require 'coercion'"

But Rebound never said it is REQUIRED. He said ONLY coercion made entrapment ILLEGAL.

As evident by the LIST of all the entrapments he told you were NOT ILLEGAL.

And that is TRUE IN CALIFORNIA, dumbo.