What exactly is the conflict? *
by Manor76 (2024-02-15 17:36:15)

In reply to: It could affect the case. I am not certain about Georgia  posted by wpkirish

Cannot Reply Return to Political

This user did not provide content for this post

Allegedly, the DA hired her boyfriend to prosecute Trump
by manofdillon  (2024-02-15 18:12:19)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

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).

I’m aware of those allegations. My question is where is
by Manor76  (2024-02-15 18:23:39)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

the conflict of interest?
Paying your romantic partner to prosecute a matter
by manofdillon  (2024-02-15 18:27:35)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

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?
Perhaps no conflict. Maybe just grounds for disbarment
by Raoul  (2024-02-15 21:02:34)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

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 don't think she's obviously a liar.
by NDBass  (2024-02-15 21:29:16)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

I think she's obviously stupid, but that's a different thing.
Disbarment? *
by ACross  (2024-02-15 21:22:55)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

What if they are married?...
by Kbyrnes  (2024-02-15 18:55:30)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

...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).
If their compensation didn’t depend on continuing the case
by manofdillon  (2024-02-15 19:48:38)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

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.

The motivation you cite could be imputed to...
by Kbyrnes  (2024-02-15 23:50:20)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

....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.
I think the issue would arise if the hourly-rate paid
by Barrister  (2024-02-16 07:31:56)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

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.

Exactly. It’s the hourly rate plus
by manofdillon  (2024-02-16 10:26:43)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

The financial benefit to the official who decides who gets the hourly rate. Again, I offer no opinion on the facts here.

If I recall her testimony correctly, their romantic
by Manor76  (2024-02-15 18:37:41)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

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.

Like I said, I'm not following closely enough to opine
by manofdillon  (2024-02-15 18:45:50)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

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.

"an absolutely boneheaded decision": in the court of public
by sorin69  (2024-02-16 08:17:40)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

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.

Trump wins either way.
by Dutch  (2024-02-16 12:29:01)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

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.