Democrats Should Know Their Unhinged Lies Harm Their Base, Too
Kamala Ran to the Border and Suddenly Believes it Shouldn't Be Wide Open
WATCH: FOX Weather's Bob Van Dillen Rescues Woman Trapped In Car By Flood...
Friendly Reminder: Kamala Harris Wants Disaster Aid Given Based on 'Equity' (and It's...
EXCUSE US?! DOJ Reports They Were Notified of INTENTIONALLY Faulty Welds on Subs,...
Democratic Congresswoman's Crazy Video Proves (Once AGAIN) We Need Term Limits
NO LIE Detected: Netanyahu Calls UN a 'Swamp of Antisemitic Bile'
Director of Female 'Ghostbusters' Reboot STILL Blaming Trump for Film's Failure
Terrorist Loving Professor Gets Mocked, Learns EXACTLY Why Israel Is Justified in Taking...
Cue the World's Tiniest Violin! Just Stop Oil Eco Terrorists Sentenced to Nearly...
Nate Silver Throws Shade on Allan Lichtman's 2024 Election Prediction
'A Slap in the Face': Border Patrol Union Statement on Kamala Harris' Border...
We Are LAUGHING: Iowahawk Roasts Hezbollah As Only He Can
Glenn Greenwald Points Out the Democrats Massive Hypocrisy Problem
Idiot FL Democrat Blames Hurricane Helene on Ron DeSantis Removing 'Climate Change' From...

In the Trump RICO Case, the Georgia Court of Appeals Spanks the Fani

Aaron Walker
Aaron Walker  |  8:45 PM on June 05, 2024
meme

Regular readers know that in the Georgia RICO case, Trump’s lawyers mounted a challenge to Fani Willis (and her staff) serving as the attorneys in this case, but the court only disqualified her boytoy romantic partner, Nathan Wade.

Advertisement

(For the record, we are always going to pronounce it as ‘fanny’ because it makes us giggle. If her mother didn’t want it pronounced that way, she should have spelled her name differently, such as ‘Fauni.’ Or Fani could have just used her middle name (Taifa), like most lawyers who hate their first names.)

In response to the judge’s ruling allowing this Fani to continue to butt into the case, Trump’s team filed an interlocutory appeal. We explained this procedure before in the context of Trump’s D.C. case, so we will quote ourselves now:

Normally, no appeal happens until the case ends in the trial court, a.k.a. the district court. But sometimes it makes sense for the courts to hear an issue before the case is done. That’s an interlocutory appeal. Here, they were hearing Trump’s claim that he was immune from prosecution or that it violated double jeopardy, presumably because if Trump won on those issues, the case might partially or completely go away.

And just as with the D.C. case, if Trump’s team wins this interlocutory appeal, the entire case might go away, which is a good reason to grant such an interlocutory appeal. Thus, it was good news when we heard the other day that the Georgia Court of Appeals has accepted Trump’s interlocutory appeal:

As you might guess, the Court of Appeals is the mid-level appeals court in Georgia. The trial court is below it, and the Supreme Court of Georgia is above it. But this stuff can be confusing because the highest state court in New York and the highest territorial court in D.C. is also called the Court of Appeals—yet another reason why neither should be a state.

And, for the record, like in every other American jurisdiction we are aware of, interlocutory appeals are discretionary in Georgia. That means they didn’t have to decide to hear this case. They wanted to hear it. Take that information however you want.

Recommended

Democratic Congresswoman's Crazy Video Proves (Once AGAIN) We Need Term Limits
justmindy
Advertisement

But the real spanking of the Fani comes from the predictable follow up: The RICO case is paused while the appeal is heard and that means it is almost impossible for there to be a verdict before the election.

And we all know this is about influencing the election. Seriously, are we all supposed to think it’s just an accident that Trump was facing four different criminal cases during an election campaign, on issues that date back at least as far as 2021? So in this case, injustice delayed is injustice denied, or at least significantly reduced.

Co-defendant David Shafer, who hilariously argued the other day why the New York City verdict proves you should vote for Trump, had a picture of the order:

Still, it is correct to say that this order isn’t very surprising:

The cut off text reads:

Just like in the federal system, a case can only be ‘open’ in one court at a time to prevent various judges from working at cross-purposes or making inconsistent orders.

So while the Fani Willis DQ matter is before the Appeals Court, the entire case is paused. 

Not sure there is anything significant to make of that.

And yes, this is the normal course of how courts typically operate and it certainly makes sense, here. If the court decides to spank the Fani disqualify Fani and her staff from the case, during or after the case is completed, it could completely blow up the entire case, invalidating pretty much everything the prosecution had done. So, in the name of judicial efficiency (i.e. not wasting everyone’s time), they put the trial on pause.

Advertisement

Thus, this pause is what should normally happen. Then again, normally a judge wouldn’t sit in judgment of a former president and current candidate for the presidency when that judge had donated money to defeat him in the last election, so ‘what normally happens’ is only occasionally an indicator of what will happen when it comes to Trump.

So, in isolation, it’s pretty ordinary. But the real Fani spanking comes in the timing of all of this, as explained here:

In the linked story, it explains that:

The case had already seemed like a longshot to go to trial before this year’s presidential election, with a long list of complicated pretrial matters still pending before Judge Scott McAfee. The Georgia appeals court order blocks McAfee from advancing those issues while Trump and other defendants mount an appeal over allegations of ethical lapses by Willis. That appeal is scheduled for oral arguments on Oct. 4, with a decision from the appellate court likely to take several months after that.

Thus, the only firm date in terms of the appeal is October 4, when oral arguments are set. Unless the court changes its mind about the need for oral arguments or their timing, it will not rule before that date. And we won’t bore you with the details, but even if the Court of Appeals hands down a ruling on October 5 (unlikely), it would basically be procedurally impossible to even start the trial before the election, let alone to have a verdict.

So ... what is going on here? It all depends on whether you think they are just keeping their heads down and treating this as an ordinary legal issue, or if you think this is politics. If they are just treating it as an ordinary legal issue, they might be extremely concerned about problems in the selection of Wade and the impact of that issue on the entire case. In other words, they might think there is a good reason to spank the Fani. If you think it is politics, then the Court of Appeals might be delaying the trial for a number of reasons. You might claim that they are trying to protect Trump. You might claim that they are protecting the election process—that they see these trials as judicial interference with the election and they are acting to prevent that. Or you might think that they hate Trump and they think that the judicial interference in the election is actually helping Trump and therefore they don’t want another verdict to increase his support. We won’t pretend to know enough about this court to even attempt to guess at their motivations, except to say that we think they are doing the right thing, regardless of their motives.

Advertisement

Other reactions:

Well, it’s not completely over. In theory Trump might still be tried between election day and inauguration day. And if he wins the election and they attempt to have a trial after that, there might be a constitutional crisis. Can a state try a sitting president for a state crime? We might be about to find out.

(And since we have seen some people on Twitter/X saying Trump could pardon himself of the charges in New York City, we will reiterate that 1) there is a huge question of whether or not a president can pardon himself or herself, and 2) there is no question that a president can’t pardon anyone for state criminal offenses. The president can only pardon people for federal offenses and he or she might not be able to pardon themselves or anything.)

Sir, the term is Outlaw President.

Either lawfare will end or the republic will. Or republic can’t survive prosecutors constantly turning the act of running for an election into a crime.

Advertisement

Hey! We are pretty sure he self-identifies as an Outlaw.

This is an important point. For several weeks during the New York City trial, Donald Trump was told he couldn’t defend himself in the court of public opinion, and he was told that he couldn’t do very much campaigning because he had to be in court every day of the trial. That is bad enough, but if he had four of those cases going on, this would all be a significant burden on his ability to run for President—and we have to think that was partially the goal of this lawfare. 

He’s making a good point. A motivated prosecutor could almost certainly find some alleged, technical crime in her tryst with Wade and her decision to appoint him to the case, with enough evidence to bring to trial. If Democrats want lawfare, maybe Republican officials in Georgia should bring it. 'Their rules,' as the saying goes.

To be fair, it would be hard for the Court of Appeals to dismiss the case before the election.

Advertisement

Seriously, the current fetishization of black women is weird. We like black women as much as any other category of human beings, but the constant hammer-like focus on them, particularly by Democratic politicians, is off-putting.

Here’s hoping he is right.

She is referring to one of Trump’s lawyers who was responsible for this attempt to spank the Fani.

Heh.

Sure, Jan. This kind of logic all reminds me of the episode of South Park called Butt Out! when Rob Reiner led a plan to kill Cartman and blame it on the tobacco companies, so they can encourage people to stop smoking. Cartman ends up hiding behind a tobacco company employee to save his life from an angry mob, resulting in this dialogue:

Rob Reiner: Give us the child!

Kevin Harris: We will not!

Rob Reiner: There, you see that?! The tobacco company won't give us the kid! And do you know why?! Because they know that if they give us that kid, then we'll kill him! And when our commercial goes on the air, it will lose them business!

Advertisement

That’s about when the angry mob realizes Reiner is wrong and stops supporting him.

It’s the same logic, with this ‘J’ person—assuming he wasn’t just being sarcastic. The courts are interfering which judicial interference with the election. It is not fair for the courts to stop the abuse of the legal system to try to throw the election to Biden, therefore the courts opposing this pro-Biden agenda clearly have a pro-Trump agenda. Or something… 

Finally, we get his:

Okay, we don’t care who you are, that’s pretty good, and pretty funny.

Tags: ABUSE COURT CRIME ELECTION LAW PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Democratic Congresswoman's Crazy Video Proves (Once AGAIN) We Need Term Limits
justmindy
He's Dead, Jim. DEAD! Giorgia Meloni Ends 'Little Macron' After He Tries Picking a Fight With Her (Watch)
Sam J.
Terrorist Loving Professor Gets Mocked, Learns EXACTLY Why Israel Is Justified in Taking Out Hezbollah
Amy Curtis
Kamala Ran to the Border and Suddenly Believes it Shouldn't Be Wide Open
justmindy
Friendly Reminder: Kamala Harris Wants Disaster Aid Given Based on 'Equity' (and It's Unconstitutional)
Amy Curtis
EXCUSE US?! DOJ Reports They Were Notified of INTENTIONALLY Faulty Welds on Subs, Aircraft Carriers
Amy Curtis

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
TRENDING ON TOWNHALL MEDIA
Advertisement
Most Popular
Democratic Congresswoman's Crazy Video Proves (Once AGAIN) We Need Term Limits justmindy
Advertisement