1. Okay, *she* can’t question him, but she can appoint another attorney who can.
    Furthermore, this fake elector can also be brought up on charges by another lawyer working for the state.
    And if THAT doesn’t work, appeal the ruling by the state supreme court.

  2. I hope she appeals it. He is either a critical witness or a criminal defendant either way he needs to answer before the grand jury.

  3. The cover up is hugeeee
    But America seems to be pulling together to NOT LET TREASON go unpunished


  4. She doesn’t have to investigate the guy. Someone else can. No, she can’t appoint that someone.

    1. So your saying a Democratic prosecutor, can never investigate or charge a Republican?

      I don’t think so.
      Truth is non political!

  5. So someone’s actions towards potentially aiding a coup are dispelled by conflict of interest? Yes…justice indeed.

    1. @Wayne Slater I would agree on anything but questions. She’s not determining guilt or anything. And consistency is important. I’m thinking Clarence Thomas.
      Safe decision though.

    2. I think you misspelled something it is spelled coop. And the whole investigation thing is a pile of CS.

    3. @Wayne Slater So a Democratic DA was helping a Republican to fund raise? I just don’t get why that would be a thing. Like what the actual f? If you could explain further that would be great. Thanks in advance.

  6. Well, someone else can question him. Conflict of Interest my eye. This Judge just made matters worse for those hiding behind lies.

    1. Would you prefer that the entire case be lost based on this one small item that can be handled in another way? The judge made the right call.

  7. That’s fine just like she said pass it on to another prosecutor when the time comes and just press charges that’s all

  8. If he was one of the fake electors he should definitely be investigated and brought up on charges. But if she did fund raise for his political opponent then I’d say that the judge got it right

    It isn’t enough to not act inappropriately, you have to also avoid the appearance of acting inappropriately

    1. @David Marcoot I agree, but the previous comment is correct. Letting her continue would quite possibly have gotten any case brought by her against him thrown out. This will save time and avoid having any conviction thrown out on appeal.

    2. @Wilamina Brown I agree with you. Besides, he isn’t scot-free. Not by a long shot, cos another prosecutor could investigate and indict him.

  9. FFS only in America……how about this judge looks into conflict of interests into the Thomas’s 😡

    1. Because that’s not something that can be tried in Georgia. That’s a federal case. Merrick Garland is the one responsible for prosecuting Clarence and Ginni Thomas.

    2. Every single 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in which Clarence Thomas voted on the majority side should be placed under review or changed to a 4-4 verdict. His opinions should all be stricken from the Court records.

  10. The wickness and corruption in high places reach unto corrupt judges and the voter has bring these folk to bear their sin. Vote them out of office.

  11. This is a good call… that being said, one conflict of interest isn’t going to stop the train from rolling over Kemp and Trump.
    I’m glad to see everyone involved is crossing all the t’s to make sure there is zero chance for appeal or claim of fraud.
    Keep going!

  12. I can see how it would appear as a conflict, and how the office of DA could potentially be abused, but at the same time how do you even avoid the situation if the DA is an elected position? The DA is going to be a member of one party or the other, so you can’t just make the opposing party off-limits from the arm of the law.

    1. you give that one case to someone else is how you avoid it. If a DA has a relationship with someone, whether it’s a private one or a public one that could create bad optics regardless of their ability to remain objective, you pass the case off to someone else who doesn’t have a conflict. It happens all the time.

      And yeah, I agree with the other reply, it’s entirely possible the judge actually just saved this case, as a conflict would be an easy, automatic reason to appeal.

    2. she legally and according to the model rules of professional conduct to which she is bound by, allowed her to do what she did.

  13. It was REALLY dumb of the DA to literally host a democratic candidates campaign event. Really tarnishes crediblity and impartiality factor, and wildly inappropriate. Idk what she was thinking doing that, during this high profile case no less. I’m sure Fox News will rant about this for hours. Not like they wouldn’t anyways.

    That said this judges ruling is also ridiculous and there’s far worse examples of this behavior on the other side that are going uncriticized and *unpunished*.

    1. It does seem dumb that she did that but the judge’s ruling is not ridiculous, he’s being careful. The entire case might have been tossed if this one thing weren’t detected and dealt with in another way. I think that’s why we’re all so frustrated. This is a veritable mole hill compared to what say, Ginni and Clarence Thomas have so far gotten away with.

    2. She did that prior to Mr. JONES running. It does not change things but these guys are above the law and always have been.

    3. @Anthony Rubio Did you even bother reading the last half of my post or are you being a clown on purpose?

  14. That makes perfect sense though. Please avoid such conflicts of interest going forward DA Willis, or we stand to lose the opportunity to properly investigate and indict lawbreakers that did attempt to overthrow the democratic process.

  15. Hilarious. A Supreme Court justice can decide on a case involving his wife and basically endorse specific candidates who support cases he is deciding on, but someone with a proven clean record and no questionable ethics can’t even question someone. Not even ask them questions.
    GD our country has some effed logic.

  16. Lesson learned here is that there is reasonable justification and now a real world example of why no one currently holding an elected office should participate in fundraising or campaigning for others running for office.

  17. She should’ve never endorse anyone for a political office during her investigation because it’s going to question her credibility. Let’s hope this doesn’t put in to question the entire work she has done.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.