This is what Fani Willis should do:

[PCIntern]

Go for broke.

She should find a judge who will sign criminal warrants on the charge of Obstruction of Justice for all the legislators who voted for this “law”. Have them served and watch the fun begin.

B cause that’s EXACTLY what they’re doing.

Lock them up!!

[montanacowboy]

1. I am getting tired of

"imminent"

[CanonRay]

4. Summer is "imminent"

but there's six feet of snow on the ground

[chicoescuela]

12. And more on the way. She is going to do the absolute minimum at the very last minute.

[Ocelot II]

2. A judge would never approve those warrants, nor should they. It's not a crime

to vote for a stupid law, even an unconstitutional one. Remember that these ideas can go in both directions...

By the way, the law allowing challenges to DAs doesn't go into effect until April of 2024 and so will have no effect on Fanni Willis' case.

[PCIntern]

5. Really....

A law which is been conceived and passed simply to remove a prosecutor who is pursuing an individual whom “they“ don’t want prosecuted? Let them fight it out, pretrial motions, and in court. Trump isn’t the only person who can file suits in this country… This is an absolute attempt to subvert the process of enforcing the law. It needs to be recognized as such.

I am tired of the righteous piddling around and pissing on their own shoes. I say, go for it…

[Ocelot II]

9. The law can be challenged in court, but no judge would issue a warrant

if a crime has not been committed and no prosecutor would ask for it, or submit it to a grand jury - it would be bad faith prosecution. It wouldn't even get as far as a fight over the validity of the warrant. It's a bad law but as I said before, passing a bad law isn't a crime; and anyhow, the legislators who voted for it would probably be protected by legislative immunity. It would be a horrible precedent, too.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

3. What law are you referring to?

[PCIntern]

6. The law in Georgia which gives the legislature

The right to fire the prosecutor.

[Fiendish Thingy]

8. Not quite that simple, and won't be in force until 2024. Nt

[Fiendish Thingy]

7. Did you forget something?

That the arraigning judge could just as easily dismiss the charges?

I don’t think she could find a grand jury to issues indictments in the first place.

[PCIntern]

10. I didn't forget that

A statement needs to be made.

[Ocelot II]

11. Trying to prosecute something *that isn't illegal* isn't making a statement;

it's malicious prosecution. It's not OK if they do it and it's not OK if we do it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. "I tried to indict the bad man for some not illegal things, but the grand jury wasn't having it"

That’s kind of an embarrassing statement, don’t you think?

You do know how indictments work, don’t you?