...I guess; I'm not sure how material his testimony was to whether Ms. Willis should be disqualified, but as I had a little lunch break I watched it and thought, first of all, that he sort of oozed southern charm (maybe this is my northern bias, or whatever, coming out); and also that he was a good example of the kind of fact witness you want to hear from. He sat there comfortably as if everyone was in a conference room just having a conversation, saying what he did know and what he didn't know with only a modicum of digression.
A shit show is an understatement. I’m guessing she might call the opposing attorney a cracker before this is all over today.
had any proof that she reimbursed Wade in cash. She responded with: "The testimony of one witness is enough to prove a fact. Are you telling me I'm lying?" Well then I guess that means that the testimony of one of her underlings that the relationship started prior to when she claims it did is a fact. Interesting theory from a prosecutor. Not to mention her constant race-baiting.
Also, “The Democrats” didn’t do this. One Democrat did.
I believe the case against Trump is legitimate. I just can’t believe the person in charge of bringing the case and the DA who appointed that special prosecutor acted in this manner. This is an incredibly important case - it was important that that the people prosecuting it were above board and beyond reproach. Instead, she appointed her ducking booty call, went on vacations with him, and reimbursed him travel expenses in cash.
It absolutely affects the case and puts into peril an incredibly important case that needed to be prosecuted. I just can’t believe neither of them thought this would come back to bite them in the ass.
If she's disqualified, her whole office is disqualified, and a state official gets to decide who takes over. That official is a Republican (I have no idea if he's a MAGA Republican or a Brad Raffensperger Republican).
I didn’t check the NYT’s work.
but in Illinois the Attorney General or another local prosecutor often comes in to prosecute the case if the local prosecutor is conflicted out. I would guess in Georgia that likely means a prosecutor not real interested in moving forward with the case.
According to the article, the head of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, a Republic, decides how to reassign the case. So yes, disqualification of Willis could have a significant impact on what happens going forward.
Her office has paid him hundreds of thousands of dollars in connection with this matter. He allegedly then spent money on her in the context of their romantic relationship. She said she paid him back for whatever he spent on her (in cash which can't be tracked).
the conflict of interest?
whereby he makes more money by pursuing the prosecution, and then spends that money on you. I.e., the DA potentially reaps financial benefit from prosecution of the matter. I've not been following this by the minute and don't have a strong opinion as to the truth of the allegations. But if true, that strikes me as a pretty egregious conflict. Am I missing something?
or dismissal for violations of policy but I won't hold me breath on those. She is elected so I suspect that is different than being an employee or an organization - similar to Trump.
As for conveniently paying in cash - she is obviously a liar. But proving she's a liar, whatever the standard is, might be difficult.
As for him, he's probably a tax cheat but I won't hold my breath on that either.
I think she's obviously stupid, but that's a different thing.
...If the DA was romantically involved with counsel for a defendant, that could be a problem--each party could question whether they were getting effective representation. But if the romantic involvement is between two lawyers working together on the same side of the same case, I don't see the conflict. It doesn't seem to be a problem if they are married; why is it a problem if they aren't married?
See this piece:
Why Fani Willis Is Not Disqualified Under Georgia Law (Norman L. Eisen, Joyce Vance, and Richard Painter, justsecurity.org, January 21, 2024).
I’d agree. Two government lawyers on one side of the case who are both regular, salaried government employees wouldn’t have any financial incentive to continue a prosecution by virtue of their romantic involvement. But here, you have an attorney in private practice hired as special prosecutor being paid by the hour. If he’s using money paid to him by the DA to treat the DA to vacations or other benefits, that could in theory impact the DAs incentive to continue the case and seek conviction as opposed to “pursing justice.” Again, I don’t opine on the facts at all, but if it were the case that Willis is paying her lover by the hour and he’s spending that money on her, I think that would be problematic.
....anyone working on a hourly-rate basis. Was Ken Starr motivated to keep the Whitewater investigation going because the longer it went on, the more he'd be paid? Etc., etc.
special prosecutor were funneling some of that money back to the salaried romantic partner who awarded him the contract.
I don’t think the defense has proved that, at least by my reading of how yesterday’s hearing went.
The financial benefit to the official who decides who gets the hourly rate. Again, I offer no opinion on the facts here.
relationship had ended by the time she appointed him to work on the case.
If I’m reading the judge correctly, he’s not buying what the defense lawyers are selling.
Prosecution starts its case in the morning.
on the veracity of the allegations. But the allegations, if true, strike me as a blatant conflict of interest. And regardless, if she ever had a romantic relationship with this guy, it was an absolutely boneheaded decision to hire him to prosecute such a high profile, politically charged matter.
opinion, the optics could not possibly be worse. So I agree with you. Unbelievably presumptuous carelessness. I have no opinion on the strictly legal consequences.
Boneheaded is an understatement. On one hand, the charges could potentially be thrown out if the DA is disqualified and a Trump-friendly replacement gets to make the decision on a new prosecutor. On the other hand, whether or not anyone gets convicted on this doesn't really matter because Trump now gets to continue to bang the drum (with some evidence this time) on how the system is rigged against him and and he's being treated unfairly. Regardless of outcome, Trump and his supporters will extrapolate this one incident to try to argue that all charges against trump are rigged. While those arguments will be convincing for people already in Trump's camp and unconvincing for never-Trumpers, the real question is whether or not it will sway enough of the few still on the fence to have an impact on the election.