Fani Willis Survives, But Not Unscathed

David Thornton

David Thornton is a freelance writer and professional pilot who has also lived in Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia and Emmanuel College. He is Christian conservative/libertarian who was fortunate enough to have seen Ronald Reagan in person during his formative years. A former contributor to The Resurgent, David now writes for the Racket News with fellow Resurgent alum, Steve Berman, and his personal blog, CaptainKudzu. He currently lives with his wife and daughter near Columbus, Georgia. His son is serving in the US Air Force. You can find him on Twitter @CaptainKudzu and Facebook.

Related Post Roulette

49 Responses

  1. Pinky
    Ignored
    says:

    “Which is worse? Engaging in an extramarital affair and lying about it or trying to steal an election and lying about it?”

    Trump and Willis were both using novel and questionable readings of the law to influence the presidential election. It’s fortunate that Trump failed.Report

  2. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    To be perfectly honest, I think that if the defendant is bad enough, having a prosecutor willing to ignore some silly rules is unquestionably a good thing. Criminals *SHOULD* be locked up. Innocent citizens should not have to put up with criminals among them!Report

    • North in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      And as questionable as that opinion is it’s also moot because what Willis did was completely irrelevant to the prosecution she was pursuing. At best she wanted to get laid. At worst she wanted to get laid and give her lover a payday. Either way her actions were entirely orthogonal or opposed to the goal of successfully prosecuting Trumps election interference in Georgia. She’s either an idiot or utterly self absorbed to think this wouldn’t blow up in her face. Fish her.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to North
        Ignored
        says:

        Would anyone’s opinion change if the defendant was John Q. Felon?

        Mine wouldn’t.

        What’s funny is that a lot of these police and procedural shows on tv have all sorts of storylines of romances and tangled relationships between cops and prosecutors, judges and defense lawyers and every other kind of coupling.

        I don’t remember any of them presenting it as some sort of sordid scandal or a reason to question the outcome of the case.Report

        • North in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          If John Q Felon used the relationship to throw sand in the gears of his prosecution and I became aware of it I’d say “That’s not a capable DA” and I’d be disinclined to vote for her re-appointment. So I’d say my opinion wouldn’t change.

          Since she was going after Trump Willis either assumed that her affair wouldn’t come to light (in which case she’s an idiot) or that it wouldn’t matter (in which case she’s a terrible self entitled politician). In isolation I’d agree her workplace affair is either simply ill advised (in the best case it was just an affair scenario) or unethical (in the worst case it was a grift scenario) but not germane to Trumps’ guilt or not. That said her indulging in it on a case as high profile as this suggests, as I previously noted, that she’s either an utter idiot or she’s got her head so far up her posterior as to make Newsome and the French Laundry look savvy. I remain comfortable in my disgust with her- fish her.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to North
            Ignored
            says:

            Again with tv- When John Q. Felon throws sand in the gears of the prosecution, this is called “Getting Off On A Technicality” and is commonly used as a justification for some vigilante to kill him while the audience cheers.Report

            • North in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              Ok, sure, but even TV says that if the prosecution takes actions that allow the Felon to get off on a technicality it’s still their responsibility and it haunts them if they’re a good person or undoes them if they’re a bad one.

              And this is also not TV- it’s real life. If a middle aged white man thinks with their dick and craps the bed on something important the public needs them to do we all think that is awful and they’re idiots. I see no reason to change that thought process because the subject is a middle aged black lady. I honestly hope the dick was really good for Ms. Willis because she flash fried her whole career and reputation for it.Report

      • Koz in reply to North
        Ignored
        says:

        And as questionable as that opinion is it’s also moot because what Willis did was completely irrelevant to the prosecution she was pursuing. At best she wanted to get laid. At worst she wanted to get laid and give her lover a payday.

        Legally, there is a narrow enough context to where that might hold. As a practical matter, it’s ridiculous.

        In practice, it’s difficult but not completely impossible to directly litigate a prosector’s decision to charge (or not charge) a case.

        In political terms, I suspect Trump has already won this case, and contrary to the imagination of libs (and me!) he’s won all the recent litigation against him. But the libs and the OP haven’t gotten the memo on that yet.

        In the bigger picture, libs want to campaign in a world of Orange Man Bad, but for now at least we’re living in a world of Orange Man Not That Bad, and that’s negating what we expect the Demo message to be in the fall.

        If anything, the best news for the Demos right now is that even if they’re losing, they’re still within striking distance. I still think that Biden reelection is an undervalued asset, simply because once the campaign heats up, Trump will do some more heretofore unknown or unforeseen things that will remind the voters why he was at 40% approval when he was President.

        But libs aren’t doing themselves any favors, which is just as well for me I suppose.Report

        • North in reply to Koz
          Ignored
          says:

          In political terms Willis’ idiocy has caused events to occur that will place the conclusion of Trumps trial for Georgian election interference beyond November of this year which is, unambiguously, a political loss for the Democratic and law&order side because by that point Trump will either have won the election and be beyond Georgia’s prosecutorial reach or will have lost the election and his likely conviction would simply be bouncing the rubble of his life. You’re saying somewhat the same thing I am.

          I remain mostly calm about the larger electoral picture because voters (as opposed to us odd, numerically small political junkies) are mostly not paying attention to the question of the election yet. All indications are that, when you ask them about a Trump vs Biden rematch, their reaction is incredulity or disbelief that this will be the choice presented to them in November. Thus polling now is simply a snapshot of knee jerk impressions of Biden qua Biden- not Biden vs Trump. Trump has also mostly laid low and Bidens people have mostly kept their powder dry regarding advertising and messaging. Neither of these will continue to be the case now that the nominations are mostly sewn up.Report

          • Koz in reply to North
            Ignored
            says:

            reply misthreaded, see below.Report

          • Philip H in reply to North
            Ignored
            says:

            Presidents can not pardon themselves from state charges, and states have no policy I’m aware of against proceeding to try a sitting president. Trump is not out of the woods if his trial is delayed.Report

            • Marchmaine in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              Depends what we mean by out of the woods. I don’t think states have the power to imprison the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief.

              I don’t think presidents (ex or current) have anything like total immunity, but any judgements would sit in abeyance until after his term (if elected).

              A Federal crime, like Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator? Hard to say how the constitutional powers would be inveigled against themselves. Probably the basis for the prudential wisdom of the 1973 DOJ to opine that it would be policy not to indict a sitting president. Which, ironically, would bring us full circle to the correct course of action… impeachment for inciting a riot against another branch of government.Report

            • North in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              If Trump is re-elected then he could easily lean on the Republican Governor of GA to make any GA prosecution go away.Report

              • Philip H in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                He could – and a good strongman probably would. Of course the GA Governor and Trump aren’t exactly besties at the moment.Report

              • North in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                In a world where Trump was back in the Whitehouse I would put my money on the slot that said that the GOP in general would swiftly knuckle under to just about anything Trump asked for. Would you want to be covering the other side of that bet?Report

              • Philip H in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                IN a world where he’s President again I’m likely out of a job, since I’m both senior civil service and unabashed leftist. Can’t cover bets when I have no cash, though for the record I still don’t expect very GOP official to role over for him.Report

              • InMD in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s also my thinking. It was good that there were still a decent number of non-Trump loyalist Republicans floating around in 2020 but I wouldn’t rely on that continuing to be the case, especially if he wins re-election.Report

              • North in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah if he wins re-election Kemp will, de minimis, squash the GA prosecution to a slow crawl so it’s off Trumps’ radar until after his term ends. But if I had to guess I’d anticipate Kemp would simply find a way to smother it quietly.Report

    • Slade the Leveller in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Did no one see this for the modest proposal that it is?Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Slade the Leveller
        Ignored
        says:

        There are pretty much three groups of people in this debate:

        1. Fani did nothing wrong! NOTHING!
        2. Fani needs to be removed entirely.
        3. March Madness! I hope Duke loses.

        We don’t have to worry about the #3s. The #3s don’t have to worry about anything. It must be nice.

        The fact that both the #1s and #2s are irritated can be used as a sign that the right output was picked: Hey. Both sides are upset!

        But I think that we’re in a place where if this is an important prosecution, then we ought to have a non-stupid prosecutor in charge of it. Seriously, democracy is on the line.

        And if it’s a silly political partisan prosecution intended to take Trump down a peg on his way to the White House, well… why shouldn’t the prosecutor take a handful of vacations while it happens? Like you don’t like vacations?

        As it is, it’s a result that clarifies nothing, moves nothing, helps nothing, and hinders nothing.

        But, yes, both the #1s and #2s are upset.Report

  3. Koz
    Ignored
    says:

    You’re saying somewhat the same thing I am.

    Yeah, sorta. What you wrote is fine as far it goes, but I think you’re underselling the point quite a bit. The Willis controversy does create legal avenues for Trump to delay the case past the election, but it goes quite a bit beyond that as well.

    It shows that libs are corrupt, that Demos are incompetent, that the lib narrative about Trump is bullshyt that can’t stand up to scrutiny, that the lawfare against Trump is malicious and ignorable. Not conclusively necessarily but in combination with other like things we’re definitely heading in that direction.

    Thus polling now is simply a snapshot of knee jerk impressions of Biden qua Biden- not Biden vs Trump.

    I’m with you on this one. To my mind, there’s a big, big difference between a voter who supports Trump and intends to vote for him in November, and one who actually pulls the lever for him in the voting booth.

    That, and I suspect the best case for Orange Man Bad isn’t going to come from libs, Demos, or resistance GOP like the OP, but from Trump himself. Those two things are the bullish case for Biden.

    But there’s a lot of things in the bullish case for Trump. From a big picture point of view, I am influenced by the fact that now the vibes and the polls are consistent with each other and showing a Trump win. Whereas before Trump was polling well vs Biden but it was a headscratcher because the vibes were horrible.

    The commonality between those two things (the Georgia case and the horse race) is that libs, including the libs here, want to amplify and leverage Orange Man Bad. To the extent that I was rooting for the Demos (obviously I’m not), I think that’s a bad idea. For the American voter, the impulse for Orange Man Bad is at its lowest ebb now than it’s been for five years or so. So it’s a poor strategy to double down on Orange Man Bad in a world where Orange Man Isn’t So Bad.

    If the libs and Demos want to go for Orange Man Bad, they need to argue and win their case on the merits. That’s not happening now, and if they try, I think they will have to defend themselves on issues that they really want to bury.Report

    • North in reply to Koz
      Ignored
      says:

      Well I’m not a right winger huddled shivering on the Dems porch hoping that ol’ Joe will whip Trump and give your party back to you while muttering imprecations about ol’ Joe. So of course I wouldn’t buy into that silly stuff. Ms. Willis’ misbehavior, even cast in its worst light, is utterly picayune compared to the naked graft and corruption on the right which, while it’s not a reason to defend her idiocy, doesn’t speak to Trumps guilt at all. Anyone who honestly thinks it does wasn’t “gettable” anyhow. Trump is, let us remember, on tape demanding that Kemp “find him some votes” in this particular case. In the classified documents case, let us remember, that Trump is on tape bragging to donors about how he shouldn’t have had the stuff he kept while his minions are on video tape moving said stuff around like a Benny Hill skit to try and hide it from lawyers. The Stormy Daniels case in NY was the only one that even half way fits your narrative as malicious prosecution. And even the fact that the Dems have proceeded haltingly and hesitantly on the Classified documents case or with Ms Willis crapping the bed on the GA case both speak against the idea of some malicious left wing conspiracy to frame an innocent Trump. A conspiracy wouldn’t assign Willis or pussy foot around the way they did on the Confidential Docs case.

      But the ship has sailed on both of them. Thanks to Ms. Willis’ mendacity and thanks to both Garlands timidity and the naked corruption of Judge Cannon Trump will evade final rulings on the most open and shut cases against him prior to November 2024. Which certainly is a political loss for the Dems and the country. But the “This one legal case will rid us of Trump” has always been a mirage. He has to go down at the ballot box or he won’t go away.Report

      • Philip H in reply to North
        Ignored
        says:

        He has to go down at the ballot box or he won’t go away.

        Equally importantly the GOP needs to be beaten at the ballot box consistently for some time. Trump is a symptom – horrible though he – of a larger shift in the Party’s direction. His authoritarian tendencies are now firmly entrenched in many states and t hat all has to be unwound as well.Report

      • Koz in reply to North
        Ignored
        says:

        Ms. Willis’ misbehavior, even cast in its worst light, is utterly picayune compared to the naked graft and corruption on the right which, while it’s not a reason to defend her idiocy, doesn’t speak to Trumps guilt at all.

        You’ve written this a couple times, but I think you’re underselling things quite a bit. There would be more to say for that if this were a Medicare fraud case, or a carjacking, or a man beat up his ex-girlfriend. In that happened, the policy rationale for prosecution would be obvious. Then, even if the prosecutors were corrupt, the case could stand or fall on its own merits. That’s not the case here. This is a very dubious theory, and the first key development is the decision to charge it. In that case, the reality that the prosecutors are not acting in the public interest, but instead are clearly acting for self-aggrandizement on many levels, means the case itself is very likely corrupt.

        Again from before, it’s difficult to litigate the decision to file criminal charges, that’s the only reason why the case exists at all.

        But the stink around Fani Willis and her office is going to taint everything she does. Which, I suspect is good enough for Trump to win the case politically and create opportunities for Trump to win legally as well.

        For me, the Jack Smith Florida case is very strong. All the others seem to be flawed in one or another way. The more he loses from malicious prosecution and getting outlawyered, the more fundamentally innocent he seems to the American voters.Report

        • North in reply to Koz
          Ignored
          says:

          The man is on tape inveigling at Kemp to find him some votes to flip Georgia red, I’m confused how Willis’s extracurricular activities impinge on that case?

          I could see you saying this stuff about the NY Stormy Daniels case but Georgia? I don’t see it.Report

          • Pinky in reply to North
            Ignored
            says:

            Ideally we’ll have 12 jurors who listen to the submitted evidence, walk through the prosecution’s theory of the case, and consider the defense’s arguments, all within the framework of the charges as explained by the judge.Report

          • Koz in reply to North
            Ignored
            says:

            Ok, so what? Is that a crime? I don’t think so. Maybe another prosecutor could legitimately or successfully argue an arm’s length case for it, but it’s pretty clear that Fani Willis can’t.

            On a kinda related note, I’m pretty clear the Georgia case had a bunch of Georgia state RICO counts, I think it’s how they got all the defendants in the case.

            In general, my thoughts on RICO are influenced by Ken White. His basic argument is, unless it’s the DOJ going after the mob or some other organization with an army of lawyers, it’s bullshyt. Most of the time it’s prosecutors or lawyers showing a basically irrelevant middle finger to the opposite parties.

            This case is a little different in that this is state RICO as opposed to federal RICO. I don’t know how much this changes things. But it would be nice to see Ken White say or write some things in Trump’s defense. Unfortunately I’m not expecting that to happen since he turned himself into a pretty nasty hack over the last five years or so.Report

            • DavidTC in reply to Koz
              Ignored
              says:

              Ok, so what? Is that a crime? I don’t think so.

              That specific crime would be GA § 16-4-7. Criminal Solicitation

              A person commits the offense of criminal solicitation when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct.

              And that crime being solicited would be violating their oath of office which is § 16-10-1.

              And, those charges just got dropped from the case by the judge, because the indictment didn’t actually explain the details of how what was asked would be a violation of the oath. (Not because it would not violate their oath of office, it would, but because the prosecution did not actually write down how. They dropped the ball there, they’ll have to refile those charges.)

              It will be interesting to see what sort of weird cognitive dissonances this causes, as Republicans like to pretend these calls are the _entire_ case, so…are they going to admit they were dropped and the case continued? Are they going to have to start explaining the rest of it, the more serious parts? Or will they pretend nothing happened?

              On a kinda related note, I’m pretty clear the Georgia case had a bunch of Georgia state RICO counts, I think it’s how they got all the defendants in the case.

              Okay, so to remind everyone of the seriousness of what is going on in Georgia: What happened in Georgia wasn’t just ‘Trump begging for votes’.

              Trump’s people forged official Georgia documents, ‘Certificate of ascertainment’, which is the stuff the Pence had to stand there and read off. The official pieces of paper saying ‘This person gets to cast one of Georgia’s electoral votes’, and then Congress says ‘Yeah, sounds right’, and then later those electors meet and do it.

              And, just because I know how people think, and the excuses the people trying to defend Trump, that while in the past we have had confusion about elector slates, all of those situations were state governments, or various parts of those governments, issuing multiple slates.

              That is not what happened here. What happened here is people walking into a room they reserved at the state capitol (So they could pretend to be the actual government) and signing forged certificates of ascertainment that claim to be issued by a state government that had no hand in creating them, with a forged state seal and forged signatures of both the Sec. of State and Governor.

              Creating official documents falsely claiming to be issued by the State of Georgia with forged signatures of state officials is, somewhat unsurprisingly, multiples felonies in Georgia.

              This is something that was completely, utterly, unarguably illegal, it is not the same as previous electoral disputes, which is a state government itself putting out multiple documents. I just want to make that clear, because there are dumbasses who argue it is like those.

              This particular set of crimes was done by Ray Smith III, a lawyer working for Trump’s 2020 campaign in Georgia. (And a bunch of people he mostly just duped into going along with it by being a lawyer and asserting it was legal.)

              And this specific set of crimes was done as part of Trump’s plan.The entire point of doing this was to have Mike Pence pretending that these forged certificates called things into dispute…they weren’t actually going to try to have them ‘accepted’, they were going to use them as a pretense to throw the election to the House. But it doesn’t actually matter how the forgeries were intended to be used, because creating them is a felony, by itself.

              It’s easy to prove this was something coordinated from the top, because Georgia was not the only state it happened it.

              That’s the RICO. The organization of crappy lawyers and fanatic weirdo he had built, committing crimes on his behalf.

              Also, on top of that, Trump’s local moron squad broke into a bunch of Georgia election computers, which is also a whole bunch of felonies, and that’s also pat of the RICO, although it’s harder to connect Trump with that.Report

              • Koz in reply to DavidTC
                Ignored
                says:

                It will be interesting to see what sort of weird cognitive dissonances this causes, as Republicans like to pretend these calls are the _entire_ case, so…are they going to admit they were dropped and the case continued?

                Republicans? I don’t think so. That’s the way the case has been portrayed in the media. In fact, that’s the way it’s been portrayed by North right here in this thread.

                If they have something else to litigate, let’s hear about that from some other lawyers.Report

              • North in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                I’ll confess readily that I was quite lazy about writing out the full brief of the GA case- I was trying to boil it down to a short phrase and ended up cutting out the worst parts. That’s on me.Report

  4. Dark Matter
    Ignored
    says:

    She was clearly doing a favor to her boyfriend, i.e. help make him famous by being involved in a big case. That’s a little sleezy but Trump’s side wasn’t able to go any further because she and he were both playing on the same side and it wasn’t a money thing.Report

    • Koz in reply to Dark Matter
      Ignored
      says:

      It surprises me a little bit how many people are willing to say this sort of thing. Just to mention a couple facts which may or may not be known to you, I don’t know how much if at all it changes your opinion.

      The corruption in the Fani Willis office goes way beyond the sexual relationship between Willis and Nathan Wade, even beyond their lies related to that.

      Nathan Wade was committing substantial financial fraud on the prosecutor’s office, presumably abetted by Willis. His billing rate was 250/hr which is not excessive. But, he was billing an obscene number of hours, eg, 24+ hours in a day in some cases. And, as near as anyone can see, he wasn’t doing any work. There was no evidence at all of his work product in the files.

      Of course, as it relates to Trump, if there is no case there is no billing and Wade has to make a living from other cases or other clients.

      The idea that the corruption of the prosecutor’s office is “move along now, nothing to see here” to do with the substance of the case against Trump, at this moment, is ridiculous.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Koz
        Ignored
        says:

        Oh please. We have several lawyers on the board and every single one of them will tell you that there is nothing unusual about having more than 24 billable hours in a day. Each one will tell you that they did the exact same thing that Nathan Wade did and they probably are doing it now.

        It’s standard for being a lawyer.Report

        • KenB in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          I have no interesting opinions on Wade, but I will say (speaking as someone who is not a lawyer but who does work at a company that sometimes bills time and material) that “hours” in billing is often just a stand-in for “value” or maybe “average amount of effort”. We often have occasion to modify hours billed up or down based on who was working on the project, whether we were able to start from a template or built from scratch, etc.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to KenB
            Ignored
            says:

            Work on something for 15 minutes? Charge an hour! You can get 4 hours an hour this way.Report

            • KenB in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              We can also charge a fixed cost of $20,000 and do only 10 hours of work because it’s off the shelf, and not even bring up the question of how long we worked on it for them.

              At any time our clients are free to go to a different vendor if they feel they can get a better deal. Exactly how we decide on the bill is less important than how happy they are with the product and price.Report

            • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              When I started in the private sector, there was the minimum 15-minute billing increment (when I left it was something like 6 minutes). This was not entirely a scam. Lawyers were then notoriously sloppy about billing all their real time and this was a way of compensating for the slippage. If you had a dozen two-minute calls to make regarding multiple matters, you could either clump the 3 calls for client A and charge 15 minutes for 6 minutes of work, and so on, or call client A, then call client B, then call client C, rinse and repeat twice more, and in 18 minutes you’ve billed 2 hours and 15 minutes.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                I mean, imagine someone going into the office and working from 7- 5 on *ONE SINGLE CASE*. They can only charge 10 hours!

                At the very least, this lawyer could use some counselling.

                “You were smart enough to pass the bar but we need someone capable of producing billable hours, not merely pushing paper. Most of this stuff is done by legalzoom.com anyway.”Report

        • Koz in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          Yeah, I don’t know all the whys and wherefores of that. I know lawyers have Stupid Lawyer Tricks for that which make it acceptable to do that and even quasi-standard practice for some.

          But even the most aggressive billers put in work on their cases, and from what I’ve read there’s significant doubt about that.Report

      • Philip H in reply to Koz
        Ignored
        says:

        And yet Trump’s lawyers didn’t actually bring any of that up, and focused exclusively on the Wade-Willis relationship. Go figure.Report

        • CJColucci in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          That would be a good point most of the time. With what we’ve seen of Trump’s lawyers, though …Report

        • Koz in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          As a strong tendency, Trump lawyers are horrendous. Probably more importantly, they are much worse than they would typically be because the client is Trump.

          This is significantly related to something I didn’t appreciate as much as I should have until recently. The country really believes that Trump is being railroaded. I do too, sorta, but I counted that as a mark against Trump instead of for him. Among other things, it’s not a good idea to put Trump in a job whose significant responsibility is managing lawyers if Trump is particularly horrible at managing lawyers.

          Whatever can be said for that, either the American voters aren’t thinking that deep, or aren’t buying it. They think libs are trying to lawfare Trump out of public life, and it’s up to us in the grass roots to not let them do it.Report

          • Philip H in reply to Koz
            Ignored
            says:

            The country really believes that Trump is being railroaded.

            No, they don’t. I mean I realize that you still don’t accept that the liberals and leftists are Real Americans, but we are and we get polled too.

            Three in five Americans say they think the federal trial on Donald Trump’s 2020 election subversion case should take place before the presidential election in November, levels that have held steady since August 2023, according to a new Politico Magazine/Ipsos poll. The poll also finds that a plurality of Americans believes that Trump, if convicted, should face imprisonment over just probation, a financial penalty, or no penalty whatsoever.

            The poll also finds that Americans’ opinions on several of the indictments Trump is facing, including the federal 2020 election subversion case, the sensitive document case, the falsifying business records case, and the Georgia 2020 election subversion case, are highly divided by political identity. That said, the poll finds that over half of Americans believe Trump is guilty in at least one of the four indictments tested, levels that also vary widely across party lines.

            https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/most-americans-still-think-trump-should-go-trial-2024-presidential-election

            3 in 5 is 60% my dude, which tells me that “most” Americans want to see him tried, not that he’s being railroaded.

            The real problem with your assertion comes to the fore with the Washington Post reporting on February 2nd of this year that only 4 in 10 Republicans (who remain about 27% of voters in the US) were aware of Trump’s legal issues. SO you are trying to make the case that 60% of 27% of voters (which is what … maths …16% of voters) is “the country” who believes as you do.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *