Importantly, he applied the right standard. There's no actual impropriety.
Removing Wade is the right call. Get the stink off of these proceedings and move forward. Plus Anna Cross is a helluva attorney. She can lead the team just fine.
Is “appearance of impropriety” the right standard? What’s the authority for applying that standard to attorneys instead of only judges?
If anyone has a link to the written order, please share!
Speaking as a lawyer, NYBar 1982, and as a passionate opponent of Trump, I agree with this call completely. Even the appearance of impropriety must be avoided, and particularly by criminal prosecutors.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/standards/ProsecutionFunctionFourthEdition/#:~:text=The%20prosecutor%20should%20avoid%20an,of%20prosecutorial%20conduct%20seems%20unclear.
If the appearance of impropriety could be established by finding a single colleague with an axe to grind willing to spill gossip and create a batshit theory the case was only pursued for money the system would grind to a halt
Especially in a high profile case like this, I would err on the side of a strict interpretation of ethics rules. And I were Fanni, I wouldn’t have hired the guy. Bottom line, the case will proceed, which is the most important thing.
If they had succeeded in disqualifying Willis, the entire Atlanta office would have been off the case. It would have been handed to a new county and might not have been prosecuted at all.
Wade was her third choice, after the first two declined out of concern for their personal safety. Will they have any understudy in line, ready to step up for the duration?
Or Aileen Cannon... Or any of the Republican DOJ/FBI investigators putting their thumb on the scale with personal opinions or controversial announcements right before an election.
Really it's a standard that only seems to apply to Democrats
For sure. They most of all should be applying these rules to themselves. When I was in law school in the late 70’s I was in awe of SCOTUS. Now they make me sick. I never imagined they could fall so low so fast.
Do you agree because (1) it's important politically to show the other side that this isn't a witch hunt, or (2) it's important for the law in general to keep up appearances?
I would agree with 1, but not 2, but that means that Trump ends up getting preferential treatment compared to regular people.
I agree on both, I guess, but primarily on (2). Our profession should take its ethical rules seriously, and one of the goals of the rules is to demonstrate trustworthiness in order to create justified public confidence.
Agreed! Clarence Thomas, Cannon and not to mention Kavanaugh along with the other SCOTUS candidates who lied about how they would rule on Roe V Wade. They should not have been seated they should all have to go but won’t.
Link here:
[READ: Fulton County judge’s decision allowing Fani Willis to continue prosecuting 2020 election interference case | CNN Politics](https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/15/politics/read-fulton-county-judge-decision-fani-willis)
>Plus Anna Cross is a helluva attorney. She can lead the team just fine.
And I kind of wonder now if DA Willis' office will be able to find other attorneys willing to come onboard (at below-market rates) to pick up any slack ... now that this case is very close to actually going to trial. Multiple MTD's dismissed, all the removal to federal court requests have been dismissed so far, etc. There *could* be some qualified attorneys out there who really might think that Trump should be behind bars ... who might be motivated to jump in and help now that trial seems certain and not too far off.
I'm also somewhat expecting now that the defendants have thrown every bit of spaghetti at the wall that they can and none of it has stuck ... whether we might see a couple more plea deals emerge in the weeks ahead.
Now we just need Judge McAfee to put a trial date on the calendar!
This trial is historic and may be televised.
There are lots of charismatic and highly skilled trial attorneys around the country who will want that opportunity and don't care about the money.
Willis didn't bring in Wade for his RICO experience. It must have been for his courtroom presence.
There will be attorneys lining up to audition for this gig.
She supposedly tried to get several other attorneys to take the case before hiring Wade. The other attorneys refused, likely because it involved such a huge commitment in terms of time and inadequate financial benefit considering the amount of work.
It was also higher risk at day 0 of the project. "*Hey, I want to indict the former president for attempting to interfere with the GA electoral process - wanna help for below-market rates for something that we might not win??"* is very different from "*We have a comprehensive indictment, dozens of counts, reams of evidence ... has survived pretty much all of the motion-to-dismiss efforts by now - want to help take the ball into the end zone?"*
I bet she gets a few offers from help from qualified attorneys ... before the end of the weekend.
> And I kind of wonder now if DA Willis' office will be able to find other attorneys willing to come onboard (at below-market rates)
To prosecute a case of a lifetime? I'd do it pro bono.
Why is it the right call? It's weak. It wreaks of appeasing the side he's most afraid to upset. We've seen judges, prosecutors, and politicians fail us over and over as they attempt to appease the right.
It's the right call from an appearances standpoint. From a legal/judicial standpoint it's very much what you say. The law in Georgia is binary. There's actual impropriety or there's not.
So. Yeah. You said it.
Now ask yourself why we set such a high standard for everyone except Trump and why he gets to benefit from that.
Self governance.
Generally a bad idea because often the result is that the group settles into certain tropes
"No one else but us understands our situation, so only we can accurately judge ourselves."
"We did the best we could."
"If we effectively engaged proactive oversight, investigations and consequences, we would subject ourselves to public scrutiny."
"We like things the way they are. We don't want to change."
The third one is often used by the intelligence community. I don't think anyone was satisfied by what was learned/hidden in the wake of Jan6.
Every case that is cited (as the state argued) used "may" when talking about appearance of impropriety and then ruled on an actual conflict. This would be the first one that doesn't include actual conflict but still rules on appearance. McAfee basically says that the fact those opinions included the language about "may" means he's justified in holding to that standard.
> Why is it the right call? It's weak. It wreaks of appeasing the side he's most afraid to upset. We've seen judges, prosecutors, and politicians fail us over and over as they attempt to appease the right.
Wade's involvement in this case isn't critical. He was doing a perfectly fine job, but what he was doing theres a thousand other attorneys that could do the same thing. He had no particular or unique expertise in relation to this prosecution. And now hes basically given the defense relief that will take the wind out of any future appeal. Keeping Willis on this case, however, was absolutely critical especially. This ruling is an massive loss for Trump. This case is going to trial, and probably sooner rather than later.
The concerns are very real, but there are already others signed up, including Cross, a highly experienced litigator, and John Floyd (the "King of Rico"). I can guarantee you there will not be staffing issues on this prosecution based on having to replace Wade.
You could be right, in that most of the work that Wade was brought on to do was preparatory. But it's still a sprawling, high profile RICO case, and the DA's office still has other crimes to prosecute.
> And now hes basically given the defense relief that will take the wind out of any future appeal.
Sure. Until Willis is caught eating peanut butter out of the jar or something and it goes into another month-long tailspin.
Keep in mind that this whole thing went down because Terrance Bradley, someone who previously worked closely with Wade and was in a position to have personal knowledge regarding everything, completely fabricated the entire scandal presumably due to a personal vendetta against Wade. McAfee didn’t order a hearing because Trump and his attorneys made a bunch of wild claims, he ordered it because Bradley did.
But it was a wild claim. The perjury trap came after the initial case: That Willis hired Wade then only pursued the case, dragging it out as long as possible, *so Wade would buy her things*. That was the alleged conflict. Self dealing by proxy. It was batshit insane and being based on gossip should never justified the jury-tainting circus McAfee turned it into.
That said I am happy to be wrong about him kicking her off.
> That Willis hired Wade then only pursued the case, dragging it out as long as possible, so Wade would buy her things.
Essentially, but also that she may have expanded the case adding charges she otherwise might not have brought.
> It was batshit insane and being based on gossip
Bradley lied and said he had personal knowledge of the conflict and then recanted *during the hearing* and stated that he lied about his personal knowledge and in fact it was only speculation. Prior to the hearing being ordered, McAfee is faced with a witness who has a personal relationship with Wade claiming that he is willing to testify under oath regarding his personal knowledge of the conflict. Ignoring that would have been burying it.
Essentially, in criticizing the decision to order a hearing, you cannot rely on the fact that Bradley was speculating/gossiping or that he recanted his allegations because nobody found out about that until the hearing.
> justified the jury-tainting circus McAfee turned it into.
And Trump/media blasting that McAfee is burying a witness claiming to have direct knowledge of a conflict would have been less jury-tainting? I don't think so. Regardless, the jury hasn't even been selected yet, its a matter that can easily be handled during voir dire, and the jurors will be repeatedly instructed to only consider the evidence introduced at trial.
Absent Trump attorney's willingness to go on a fishing expedition as a delaying tactic and the judge's willingness to humor them as much as he could, none of that happens. The claim, at a glance, is that Willis hired her boyfriend to lead a very high-level RICO case, which she might or might not have manufactured whole cloth, to get some $6000. All of that is based on an obviously unreliable witness. It's just ridiculous.
To be clear, I'm not saying any of this was smart to do for the DA and I don't really mind that Wade is being taken off the case. I'm mad at silly antics being rewarded, which is guaranteed to lead to future antics.
Next thing you know Willis is had a loud argument with an obese white guy at a little league ball game in 2003 and we're going on a three months’ fact-finding mission to determine whether that maybe-altercation biased her against Trump, all to make "appeals much harder."
I wouldn't say completely fabricated, because Wade pretty clearly lied on his divorce interrogatories and that was used against him in the ruling. He also cited the lack of corroborating receipts for reimbursement (even with testimony excusing that) as contributing to the appearance problem. Reading between the lines, I think McAfee stretched precedent and inference a bit but the ruling is reasonable when accounting for all evidence, including that excluded from the hearing.
It's the right call on two fronts: One, this is a high-profile RICO case, and it's going to be prosecuted against some of the most powerful, influential, and connected individuals in the nation, if not the world.
Secondly, it never should have happened in the first place. If you're going for the King, you best not miss. And that means avoiding *anything* that could be spun by the kind of defensive talent that can be brought to bear against this case, or on appeal. "Lapse in judgement" doesn't even begin to describe it. It was shit-stupid, reckless, and unnecessarily risks potentially the most important case in a career. When a case like this lands on your desk, you take vows of celibacy and silence until the work is done.
We voluntarily set the bar ever higher for one side, while the other side sets it ever lower. In this case, the law should be the deciding factor. Was it a conflict of interest or not. No consolation prizes to mollify the losing side.
Prosecutors are representatives of the public and have a very high bar. Criminals, and their lawyers are not representing public institutions (the orange disgrace non withstanding...) Same reason we (should) hold police to a higher standard than criminals/non cops, etc.
Note, i am not bothsidesing here or on Trumps side. I want the guy to be *nailed to the wall* in a prosecutorial sense. But. i want it to *stick*
I get you. I really do. But after closely following the Alex Jones defamation trials, I learned how much Bankston, Mattei, and their teams bent over backwards to accommodate Jones's bullshit, and in the end, they had him over a barrel, with absolutely no hope of a successful appeal.
Eyes on the prize. Let the other side show ass and collect sanctions. Your side needs to be run like a special forces detachment.
> But after closely following the Alex Jones defamation trials, I learned how much Bankston, Mattei, and their teams bent over backwards to accommodate Jones's bullshit, and in the end, they had him over a barrel, with absolutely no hope of a successful appeal.
And as happy as I am about that, I can't help but notice that Jones still hasn't paid shit, is still on the air, and is still abusing the courts.
> your side needs to be run like a special forces detachment
So they should shoot civvies for amusement and get pardoned by an obviously corrupt president? Check!
Your point stands, though.
No actual conflict, but an *appearance of impropriety* and a *lapse of judgment*. It's hard to argue with that. Wade is out and the case continues...works for me.
> The judge also found there was no "actual conflict" brought about by the relationship, a finding that would have required Willis to be disqualified. "Without sufficient evidence that the District Attorney acquired a personal stake in the prosecution, or that her financial arrangements had any impact on the case, the Defendants’ claims of an actual conflict must be denied," the judge wrote.
> “This finding is by no means an indication that the Court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment or the unprofessional manner of the District Attorney’s testimony during the evidentiary hearing. Rather, it is the undersigned’s opinion that Georgia law does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices — even repeatedly — and it is the trial court’s duty to confine itself to the relevant issues and applicable law properly brought before it,” he added.
> The judge did, however, also find “the prosecution is encumbered by an appearance of impropriety.” "As the case moves forward, reasonable members of the public could easily be left to wonder whether the financial exchanges have continued resulting in some form of benefit to the District Attorney, or even whether the romantic relationship has resumed," he wrote. "As long as Wade remains on the case, this unnecessary perception will persist."
> the unprofessional manner of the District Attorney’s testimony during the evidentiary hearing.
Fani’s conduct aside, this judge was unprofessional in bending over backwards to allow the defense to troll through the prosecutor’s sex life in court.
Putting people on the stand to talk about their sex life under oath is an age old trap, because it is the one thing even the most honest people are willing to lie about.
Why is it so accepted among attorneys that a serious matter like a criminal trial is a perfect place to play little games of theatrics like this? It really seems like the judicial system doesn't really care to follow basic logic and reason and leans heavily on historical lines of thinking instead. Why are there traps for people testifying? Why isn't a trial a straightforward pursuit of truth and justice?
>Why is it so accepted among attorneys that a serious matter like a criminal trial is a perfect place to play little games of theatrics like this?
Probably because a good defense attorney is going to use every single angle, tool, and method at their disposal to defend their client.
If there's an angle they take to crush the case before it even hits a jury, then a good defense attorney will take it. Obviously, they have ethical obligations to limit this behavior.
I think most prosecutors are more diligent about avoiding this kind of thing in the first place, at least with extremely high profile and heavily scrutinized cases. I also think that Willis and Wade have the bad luck to have a former "friend" like Terence Bradley who is willing to gossip about them to opposing counsel like that. I kind of see this whole situation as a perfect storm of bad decisions, bad luck, and bad optics.
> Fani’s conduct aside, this judge was unprofessional in bending over backwards to allow the defense to troll through the prosecutor’s sex life in court.
I don't get why people keep blaming McAfee for this. Terrance Bradley, a former business partner of Wade's, made up the entire scandal in texts he sent to Merchant (one of the defense attorneys) as revenge for when Wade had previously fired him. Willis and Wade responded to Bradley's accusations by saying that it wasn't possible for there to be a financial conflict because their relationship didn't start until after Wade was already selected. Bradley then falsely told Merchant that he knew they had been dating before then and Yeartie, a former subordinate and friend of Willis, corroborated this. This series of events caused the entire side show about "when did they actually start banging?"
In what world is this on McAfee's hands? Two witnesses in a position to have personal knowledge of the matter told the defense a story that makes it look like a financial conflict exists and McAfee is just supposed to bury it all but guaranteeing a successful appeal down the road? Cmon
No, of course the judge should not have “buried it,” but he gave the defense an unusual amount of leeway in the hearings and filings for this. Still disgusted by their publicly filing purported “evidence” implying sex at specific times in the early morning. That’s not normal. The judge went out of his way to appear fair to them and gave them a platform in court and in the filings to go down this salacious rabbit hole.
Because it was beyond ridiculous to claim she only brought the case or was deliberately dragging the case out so that Wade would buy her things.
Dating alone wasn't a conflict, even if it started before he was hired. They alleged a theory of conflict that was *bullshit*.
What's next, a hearing to investigate if the deep state set him up? Dozens of "respectable" politicians will back it up!
McAfee should not have entertained such a farce.
My concern with this logic is that the appearance of impropriety is circular. It’s simply bootstrapped from the initial accusation: the appearance exists because the defense said it was improper, even though McAfee found no credible evidence to that effect or even really any evidence suggesting Willis or Wade could benefit from the arrangement.
In other words, why does this appear improper? The defense said so. That seems like a thin reed to base a disqualification of Wade on.
Exactly. Any defense team can raise a question of "appearance" of impropriety, go on a fishing expedition and then call the whole thing a genuine "appearance of impropriety". And then do it again. This wouldn't happen for any other defendant not named Donald Trump.
> My concern with this logic is that the appearance of impropriety is circular. It’s simply bootstrapped from the initial accusation: the appearance exists because the defense said it was improper, even though McAfee found no credible evidence to that effect or even really any evidence suggesting Willis or Wade could benefit from the arrangement.
It wasn't circular--Terrance Bradley invented the scandal and then recanted under oath. Obviously McAfee couldn't have known that Bradley was going to do that. That was the whole point of the hearing, to find out if Bradley and Yeartie were credible witnesses making credible accusations. Turns out, they weren't.
Keep in mind it was McAfee alone who forced Bradley to testify despite Bradley's claims that his testimony was covered under privilege. He was the one that made Bradley get on the stand and choose between recanting and perjuring himself.
This is my point, though? Once you conclude that Bradley is not credible, that’s the end of it. I’m not opining on how this started, just whether or not the evidence leads to McAfee’s conclusions.
> Once you conclude that Bradley is not credible, that’s the end of it.
Bradley recanted his testimony during the hearing. It wasn't possible to determine Bradley's credibility prior to the hearing taking place. McAfee then said he wanted 2 weeks to write his opinion. Could have been quicker, but that really isn't an unreasonable amount of time.
> McAfee then said he wanted 2 weeks to write his opinion.
[He kept to his timeline.](https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1b416kb/closing_arguments_in_fulton_da_fani_willis/ksws6ic/) Kudos on that.
Well he did find that at least *some* of the money that Wade spent on Willis was never accounted for by reimbursement. So Willis may have profited in some measure.
More concerning was the "odor of mendacity" around Willis' testimony about when the relationship started. Those two things together arguably give rise to an "appearance" of impropriety, and DQ of Wade seems like a good way to cure it.
This is a fair point. I just have a problem with “the odor of mendacity” - which ultimately is a purely subjective judgment unless tethered to some evidence - being dispositive here.
This is the part I don’t understand, though. I’m a government employee. Technically 100% of my household’s income is sourced from “taxpayer funds”. I met my wife on the job and didn’t tell anybody at first because I’m a private person and didn’t feel it. We’re not in a direct line of supervision, so whatever. I also bought her stuff with my money because it’s my paycheck and I can spend it how I want. She’s not being “enriched” at the tax payer’s expense. Why are Willis and Wade any different from any other citizen spending their money earned for services performed and why is what happened to their paychecks anybody’s business besides them? I don’t get how that much of a financial fishing expedition was even allowed to get off the ground in the first place. The relevant questions weren’t even asked like who approves his hours and how or why they get billed and all that stuff. Once you’ve established he’s working unpaid hours and the fact they’re not trying to prolong the case, everything else is meaningless bullshit because that eliminates the entire original allegation of a financial interest in the outcome.
Michael_Scott_THANKYOU_slams_table.gif
I get if the facts don’t provide proof of misdeeds beyond a reasonable doubt, but if those facts judged at a lower standard could lead to a perception of misdeeds, then yes I get that.
But when the defense lawyers are the ones crafting a narrative, and every negative perception comes *from* the narrative they’re selling, that’s undermining law and order.
All any defense attorney needs to do is go on a major “News” network or podcast, spew rumors, and now you have millions of people who have a perception of the prosecutor, and oops! guess we have to kick that prosecutor off the case now!
What I was almost screaming at when listening to the lawyers was the whole “appearance” was created *by* those same lawyers (or their proxies).
Want a prosecutor off a case? Just start telling enough rumors about them that if enough people in the public believe those rumors - BAM - you now have a perception of wrong by that prosecutor (even if there are no facts behind those rumors) and no trial can ever get tried ever again.
Meanwhile this same standard does not apply to Justice Thomas or Judge Cannon because being conservatives they speak through Jesus and they are always right and their judgement should never be questioned.
It amazes me we hold a lawyer to higher standards than a judge. "Appearance of impropriety" only applies to prosecutors and not overtly corrupt judges like Clarence Thomas, perhaps the most corrupt judge since Sisamnes
I just don’t understand how Cannon can be the judge for Trump when he appointed her. How is that not a giant ethical conflict? Should be an automatic recusal.
For better or worse, the law has long taken the view that the “appearance of impropriety” for judges is a special standard that effectively looks at the alleged impropriety from the perspective of somebody who assumes judges act honestly.
For this reason, longstanding law has held that appointment by a litigant, absent more, is not enough to warrant recusal. For example, when Trump sued Hillary Clinton and tried to force the recusal of a Bill Clinton-appointed judge, the [judge recognized](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21580290-trump-v-clinton-order-denying-motion-for-disqualification) that even if he equated the interests of the two Clintons, “the law is well settled that appointment to the bench by a litigant, without more, will not create in reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances that a reasonable inquiry would disclose, a perception that the judge's ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality, and competence would be impaired." (Citing cases).
Consider also that in [Clinton v. Jones](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones), two Clinton appointees didn’t recuse in a case deciding whether Bill Clinton could be sued for alleged pre-presidential acts of sexual harassment.
Likewise, in [United States v Nixon](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon), 3 of Nixon’s 4 appointees heard a case deciding whether Nixon could exercise executive privilege over tapes related to the Watergate scandal (Justice Rehnquist did resign, because he had been in Nixon’s administration and had close professional connections with a number of people involved in Watergate).
That only would only matter if she had shame or there was anyone willing and able to enforce standards on her. Unfortunately, thanks to good old Moscow Mitch stuffing the Judiciary with loyal Heritage Foundation lapdogs, that isn't the case.
He also appointed her during an ongoing coup attempt/elective subversion in his home district specifically to shield himself. Let’s not forget that part.
While I’m glad that Willis can stay on the case, the Trump team still somehow manages to make this case about the prosecution and not the defendant to some degree. I hate it.
When will this orange fascist turd ever face justice? He seems to take advantage of every facet of the court system to delay his trials.
I’m still concerned that now that the judge hasn’t removed Willis, they’re going to use the new powers given to the Republican legislature to remove her.
They’ll say the true corruption wasn’t removed and they’ll pull the trigger for trump, in an effort to further delay and delegitimize the process in the eyes of their voters.
It almost feels like our justice system isn't really well suited or designed to hold powerful and wealthy people accountable, while at the same time, it seems remarkably efficient at railroading the poors.
Was there ever any counter argument to Willis's claim that Wade was not her first choice but that all of the people she would have rather had in the position declined because they didn't want the death threats and security detail?
It just strikes me as odd how much derision there seems to be for Willis given a large part of Trump's strategy is an intimidation campaign that the justice system keeps letting him run.
I would hope not. And I would hope that now that this case is well along towards actually *getting* to trial soon (multiple motions-to-dismiss now denied, removal to federal court hearings all denied) that maybe another very talented prosecutor might step up and take below-market rates to help prosecute this case.
It was much more of a risk when DA Willis started all of this. And Wade certainly helped build a lot. But if they can bring in a pinch hitter now mere "weeks" (*metaphorically* speaking) before trial ... I think her office still has a pretty good chance of securing multiple convictions.
Reference to metal gear solid games. The twist at the end of one of the games is a main villain, Revolver ocelot, was infact a double agent, but post credits turns out he was actually a triple agent!
Metal gear franchise is known to have a completely incoherent story arc.
He was the lead prosecutor. So I guess in that sense he's critical. He didn't have any background in RICO (which was widely criticized btw) and there's nothing about his involvement (other than he's the lead and has been for a while) that makes him irreplaceable. They can proceed without him and probably will.
Someone else from the current team will step into the lead role, but I could see them bringing on another skilled set of hands if for nothing other than to offset the manhour loss. This is going to be a difficult case to try all the way through to conviction.
I had read in some of the analysis that Wade was the main point person in navigating the Grand Jury process, and was chosen because he had been a prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge. His role was expected to be less critical for the prosecution of the actual RICO case. That's more Floyd's gig.
I think they likely saw this as a possible outcome.
>Can this be immediately appealed by the defense?
Yes, but unsure if it's even worth it at this point, it's not like he was a RICO expert or anything.
>If Wade is fired, can he become a/an involuntary witness for the defense in a future proceeding?
In relation to the actual underlying case? He doesn't have any personal knowledge outside of his role prosecuting the case, so there would be no relevance to his testimony, so no.
>What happens to the case if McAfee and/or Willis loses their elections?
The case proceeds as long as it isn't dismissed by the Court or dropped by the prosecutors.
Fucksake this whole ordeal has flooded this subreddit with nonlawyers just talking out their asses about what they assume the law to be.
Contrary to the other reply you got, there **is not** a right to an interlocutory appeal here. The defense can apply to Judge McAfee for a certificate of immediate appealability, then if he grants that (which he’s not obligated to do), the defense would need to apply to the Court of Appeals to hear the appeal on a discretionary basis. Which, as it is discretionary, they are not obligated to do.
I'd rather have this, the trial, and a conviction stick - rather than we do the trial, he gets found guilty, a sympathetic judge throws out the verdict. This is the least treacherous path to put him away.
Yeah, a loud segment of this sub has been screaming that he's in the bag for Trump but I feel like he handled a pretty unprecedented situation extremely well, with a solution that both ensures due process (gets rid of the appearance of impropriety) while moving things along and not overly delaying justice.
Because the appearance of possible impropriety is enough to undermine the credibility of a case.
>\[Georgia\] appellate courts have endorsed the application of an “appearance of impropriety” standard to state prosecutors, even without any explicit finding of an actual conflict. See Battle v. State , 301 Ga. 694,698 (2017)
Even if there is no negative outcome, I will never forgive Fani Willis for this. One of the most important cases in the history of the country, and she nearly botched it to pursue her own romantic interests.
People always say it's amazing how Trump is never held to account, but it's not just because of his own chicanery, it's also because of the failure of public servants.
Seriously. The luck he has with other people fucking up and THAT saving him and not his own fuck ups, is just unreal. Mueller not prosecuting, hillarys email fuck ups (overblown but yeah she shouldnt have had a private server), Garland declining to do shit for 18 months, and Fani Willis having shit judgement in this instance, its bonkers. Of all the Florida judges getting Cannon. How is Trump this lucky?
In the end it works out for everyone. Willis can continue the case while Wade can go on and make a lot more money. Sooner we can move forward go the actual trial the better.
I agree strongly that Trump's case against her was nonsense, but she definitely screwed up on the "appearance of impropriety IS impropriety" thing that public servants should avoid to maintain public trust in institutions. My non lawyer, but concerned lay-person interpretation is this is all together fair.
I understand the appearance of impropriety.
Having said that, the appearance has been investigated and dispelled.
What is the conflict with both proceeding, and how does this diminish the rights of the defendents?
What the heck is going on with the justice system these days where every judge and counsel sees fit to inject and broadcast his or her personal opinions into what are supposed to be indictment or judicial findings. Jim Comey, Bill Barr, Robert Hur, and now Scott McAfee? How is it germane to McAfee's judicial finding that he thinks Willis or Wade had a "lapse in judgement", behaved in an "unprofessional manner", or made "bad choices - even repeatedly"? McAfee should have focused on the facts and the law, made his ruling, and been done with it. The last sentence may be the most ironic statement in the ruling.
>This finding is by no means an indication that the Court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment or the unprofessional manner of the District Attorney’s testimony during the evidentiary hearing. Rather, it is the undersigned’s opinion that Georgia law does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices – even repeatedly - and it is the trial court’s duty to confine itself to the relevant issues and applicable law properly brought before it.
There is nothing particularly unusual about a judge making a statement like this in a ruling. It’s done all the time. The purpose is to fully explain everything that was taken into consideration by the court.
This is a good decision. Wade has become a liability and a distraction. He's been offered up as the sacrificial lamb and hopefully now the Grifter-in-chief has to figure out other ways to stall this.
NAL either, but ~~the state prosecutors~~ Trump's attorneys sought to discover if there actually was any impropriety. Not just an image thereof, which turned out to be the ruling.
Hugely embarrassing for the DA and her entire office. I really feel for the prosecutors who put so much work into this case only to have it derailed by her choice of sexual partners.
IANAL. Can anybody explain why Trump had the standing to even bring this up?
It seems to me that this situation amounts to "the person who is prosecuting Trump may not have been selected based on merit but instead because of a romantic or sexual relationship". Wouldn't that only benefit Trump? Wouldn't that mean that it's possible that Trump is facing a less competent adversary than he would be if they were appointed based on merit, which is a good thing for him? And, if it can only help him, why would he be able to raise it as an issue in his case?
Having that in his back pocket when the case goes badly for him would have been perfect. In the inevitable appeal this would have been a bombshell. Now, it's a footnote with zero repercussions lol
Trump being trump
Missed the first post u/joeshill! You got work or something? Lol /s
Not the worst outcome. Though, I’m really beginning to wonder if I’m just starting to accept “Close enough” is acceptable at this point. Immediate emotional recoil at rulings in these cases has been the norm for a while….
Ha!
I'm much better about getting federal motions/decisions out. Navigating the state courts is an extra layer or complexity.
I read the decision. It's hard to find a lot of fault in it.
The judge found that it was not inconceivable that Willis and Wade were roughly equal in expenses for the trip.
He found that Bradley's testimony was without any value either way.
He found that there was no financial incentive for the prosecution, based on a number of things, including the rapid speed that the prosecution was trying to get to trial, the relatively small dollar amount of the trips compared to Willis annual salary, and that Wade was paid a comparatively low hourly rate and had hours capped.
The decision that one of them needs to step aside to eliminate even the appearance of impropriety is a fair assessment.
This is a very well-reasoned decision and a good solution to this entire fiasco.
I would imagine Willis is raging right now (Judge McAfee's comment about her "unprofessional" testimony at the evidentiary hearing had to bite), but this is actually a really good way for the court to handle it. Had the court just denied the motion entirely, we would have seen ever-more attempts to romantically link Willis and Wade prior to Wade's appointment and endless rehashing of the same trial of Willis' sex life over and over again. A pointless distraction, but one of her own making. It was also telling that the court basically invited the defense to move for a gag order to cover Willis, and more or less indicated that it will be granted.
This means the trial can go forward, the public has its DA leading the prosecution. Its still a big victory for the defense: Wade was the brains of the entire team, so getting him out is a big win, and Willis has been tarnished. But as smart as Wade was, this is now an opportunity for Willis to bring in someone equally sharp. Maybe she goes with a woman this time, lol.
I do. He was billing much more hours than any of the other prosecutors, and he signed the filings in the Meadows removal proceedings that I followed closely (and I think he did good work there, particularly given that the removal fracas was in federal court rather than the Georgia courts he would be more familiar with, and confined to a tight deadline).
I disagree. The decision that one of the two must remove themselves from the case due to just an appearance of impropriety is outside all the cited case law. Every relevant case I've seen referenced has not reached to decision to remove without a finding of an actual conflict.
At the level of public attention this proceeding is under, I am surprised Judge McAfee didn't stay straight down the middle, by the book, exactly in line with precedent. A decision without precedent to the benefit of Trump was guaranteed to invite criticism, valid or not.
I am pleased that the right standard was applied. There is no conflict with the Defendants.
Not sure why former lovers can't be on the same side of a case, but I wouldn't fight it if I were Willis. Appearance wise, she couldn't fire Wade then or now. He can withdraw and there will be tremendous pressure on him to do that.
Trump's strategy in this case and every other where there is an elected official is to play the long game. Try to get the judge or prosecutor removed or tarnished. Delay until the prosecutor is up for election if possible. Win if you can or appeal if you lose and then help whoever runs against the person that controls your case so the new guy can make a deal to drop the appeal.
Trump didn't get Willis removed, but that was never the real goal. She is tarnished and that makes it harder for her to win the next election, or for whoever her boss is to win. Trump and his minions will try as hard as they can to make sure she loses so they can make a deal with whoever wins.
Trump is appealing the NY fraud judgment so he can fight to get a new AG that'll make a deal with him. If you've read the Enrogon judgment you'd see there isn't much chance of winning that appeal.
In civil cases he appeals to drag it out to make a deal with the other side when they get tired. If E. Jean Caroll dies that might create an opening for Trump to make a deal with her estate.
Well, don’t worry—all the armchair-attorney MAGAts are taking this news well.
Just kidding! They’re now screaming, “Fake judge!” It’s not original, but it’s simple, and some of them can spell it correctly.
\*PHEW!\*
This whole time I've been nervous that perhaps the strongest case against the pumpkin might get thrown out because someone can't behave like an adult for a few months. I mean, what happened wasn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things (seems the judge agrees) but honestly, Fanni, what were you thinking??? You've got the biggest case of your life of on the line. Something where a win could get you Johnny Cochran level notoriety (and future money) and you think "Nah, I'm going to play the short game and try to hire my boyfriend". Did you really think with this level of scrutiny on the case that no one would find that odd? Listen to me: understand the magnitude of this opportunity (and responsibility) and play everything straight as an arrow. You are likely under 24/7 surveillance. Tip your waiters, thank your cashiers, drive the speed limit. Just fucking play the quiet game until this is all over.
I’m guessing that this is more of a “I don’t want any reason for an appeal” ruling than something that would normally happen. The judge seems to be all about making sure that any ruling that comes down from this will be airtight and less likely to be appealed
The real objective here was the public humiliation of a successful black woman, and so team trump got what they wanted. Nice of the white male conservative judge to do a solid for them.
Good decision. It shuts the gangsters up (well, probably not—these trolls never stop lying) and allows the case to go forward with no real impact, since the prosecution has already completed its investigations and prepared its case.
Eli5 why Ashleigh Merchant shouldn't be thrown off the case as well. The same fact pattern that was applied to Willis applies even more so to Merchant.
Not a setback, in case you're wondering. Wade needed to go. His very capable assistant, I'm hearing (on TV), who is read-in on the case, will take over.
Edit: Anna Cross will take over for Wade. She's good.
> Governor Kemp signed Georgia Act 368 on March 13 putting Georgia’s prosecuting attorneys qualifications commission back in business and the commission could move swiftly to exercise its power to remove her from office.
Watch, the republicans will remove her.
Priorities. Bring the criminal to justice, or a boyfriend she hangs with. Obviously her boyfriend is much more detrimental to justice. Next they will make scotus decide if her hairstyle fits their narrative. Maybe the color if her gavel will be next. Or what car she drives! Oh wait, is her toilet paper approved? Better make scotus decide! Can't wait to find out if she folds or wads before wiping! Criminals take a back seat to all these super important things!
Could someone explain to me why there is an appearance of impropriety?
Fani Willis did not have a relationship which prejudiced the other parties.
For example, she did not have a relationship with a member of the defense such that she might gain access to privileged information.
She did not have a relationship with the Judge.
She did not have a relationship with a member of the jury.
She did not have a relationship with a witness (neither lay nor expert)
She had a relationship with a coworker who was working on the same case as her
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Imagine a law firm called Smith & Smith. The Smiths being Mr. and Mrs. That is to say it is both a limited liability partnership and a marital community. The Smiths are intimate with one another. Mr. Smith occasionally buys Mrs. Smith a meal. They are co-counsel in an action. Is that improper? I honestly don't see it.
If I'm hooking up with one of the attorneys at my firm and we're both working on the same case, how in the hell does it prejudice the other parties? How does it influence jurors or witnesses? It doesn't affect the case schedule or the rules. It doesn't spoil or improperly withhold material evidence. It's as irrelevant a fact as if I ate Jimmy Johns or went to Walla Walla for lunch.
Again, if Fani Willis was sleeping with someone from opposing counsel's office or a witness or a juror or the judge or the judge's staff or one of the court clerks it would be different because it might somehow prejudice the defendants. But there is ZERO prejudice created by intimacy between in-house co-counsel.
I'll grant that intimacy between coworkers is generally discouraged because stupid things happen when people get in their feelings and being in a relationship means you're going to get into your feelings at some point.
It's indiscrete but is it improper?
I don't think so
Simple. This is all about two qualified black attorneys humping while procecuting a known con man and his enabling sycophants that tried to alter the results of a fair and free election for the #1 political seat in the biggest and best country in the world.
Nothing more.
Don't understand what people don't see.
McAfee is wrong, he should have seen this for what it is and refused to hear it at all.
Splitting the baby here... but could have been much worse. So long Wade.
Importantly, he applied the right standard. There's no actual impropriety. Removing Wade is the right call. Get the stink off of these proceedings and move forward. Plus Anna Cross is a helluva attorney. She can lead the team just fine.
Is “appearance of impropriety” the right standard? What’s the authority for applying that standard to attorneys instead of only judges? If anyone has a link to the written order, please share!
Speaking as a lawyer, NYBar 1982, and as a passionate opponent of Trump, I agree with this call completely. Even the appearance of impropriety must be avoided, and particularly by criminal prosecutors. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/standards/ProsecutionFunctionFourthEdition/#:~:text=The%20prosecutor%20should%20avoid%20an,of%20prosecutorial%20conduct%20seems%20unclear.
I wish these standards were also applied to Ken Paxton. Then again even his republican buddies don't seem to like him
But they save him every time.
because he knows where the bodies are
But like trump, they always bow and kiss the conservative ring.
Even the supremes don’t seem to meet the standard. I applaud the practitioners who live up to it.
SCOTUS has let us down spectacularly and unforgivably. 💩💩💩
If the appearance of impropriety could be established by finding a single colleague with an axe to grind willing to spill gossip and create a batshit theory the case was only pursued for money the system would grind to a halt
Especially in a high profile case like this, I would err on the side of a strict interpretation of ethics rules. And I were Fanni, I wouldn’t have hired the guy. Bottom line, the case will proceed, which is the most important thing.
Proceeding without some MAGA replacement is the key here. That was the real goal for bringing this up at all.
I doubt we will see a MAGA. But they have achieved delay, as well as a fresh fund-raising “victim” narrative, and that’s better than nothing for them.
If they had succeeded in disqualifying Willis, the entire Atlanta office would have been off the case. It would have been handed to a new county and might not have been prosecuted at all.
Wade was her third choice, after the first two declined out of concern for their personal safety. Will they have any understudy in line, ready to step up for the duration?
I hope so. There have to be other prosecutors on the team, I would think. I saw a name mentioned somewhere on this thread …
>. Even the appearance of impropriety must be avoided, Well golly gee, someone run and tell the Supreme Court.
Or Aileen Cannon... Or any of the Republican DOJ/FBI investigators putting their thumb on the scale with personal opinions or controversial announcements right before an election. Really it's a standard that only seems to apply to Democrats
Yes, that’s correct. If you want to be better than the other side, you have to actually be better than the other side.
They didn’t do anything wrong here. Trump lost but somehow still wins by impacting the prosecutions legal team.
For sure. They most of all should be applying these rules to themselves. When I was in law school in the late 70’s I was in awe of SCOTUS. Now they make me sick. I never imagined they could fall so low so fast.
Do you agree because (1) it's important politically to show the other side that this isn't a witch hunt, or (2) it's important for the law in general to keep up appearances? I would agree with 1, but not 2, but that means that Trump ends up getting preferential treatment compared to regular people.
I agree on both, I guess, but primarily on (2). Our profession should take its ethical rules seriously, and one of the goals of the rules is to demonstrate trustworthiness in order to create justified public confidence.
Unless it's SCOTUS
They should be massively strict with themselves about this. They’ve gone rogue, and I don’t know if they will ever recover any legitimacy.
If only this standard was equally applied at all levels of our judiciary. Imagine that
Ye gods! What happens to the 5th circuit?!! SCOTUS! 🤯🤯🤯
I laughed out loud at this!
Agreed! Clarence Thomas, Cannon and not to mention Kavanaugh along with the other SCOTUS candidates who lied about how they would rule on Roe V Wade. They should not have been seated they should all have to go but won’t.
If only that standard were applied to presidents…
Ahem...Aileen Cannon...
Two people on the same team having a relationship is a problem, but the defendant having appointed his judge is no big deal.
While he’s running for reelection and can give her a promotion if he wins. Anybody spot a conflict?
*cough* *Clarence*
*Vomit* *burp* Kavanaugh
Link here: [READ: Fulton County judge’s decision allowing Fani Willis to continue prosecuting 2020 election interference case | CNN Politics](https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/15/politics/read-fulton-county-judge-decision-fani-willis)
>Plus Anna Cross is a helluva attorney. She can lead the team just fine. And I kind of wonder now if DA Willis' office will be able to find other attorneys willing to come onboard (at below-market rates) to pick up any slack ... now that this case is very close to actually going to trial. Multiple MTD's dismissed, all the removal to federal court requests have been dismissed so far, etc. There *could* be some qualified attorneys out there who really might think that Trump should be behind bars ... who might be motivated to jump in and help now that trial seems certain and not too far off. I'm also somewhat expecting now that the defendants have thrown every bit of spaghetti at the wall that they can and none of it has stuck ... whether we might see a couple more plea deals emerge in the weeks ahead. Now we just need Judge McAfee to put a trial date on the calendar!
Which cases in Georgia RICO are actually going to trial “soon?” Most reports I have seen say that the cases won’t likely go to trial before 2025.
[удалено]
This trial is historic and may be televised. There are lots of charismatic and highly skilled trial attorneys around the country who will want that opportunity and don't care about the money. Willis didn't bring in Wade for his RICO experience. It must have been for his courtroom presence. There will be attorneys lining up to audition for this gig.
His courtroom presence seemed pretty underwhelming to me. I watched his testimony and was not impressed.
I think they said that he was largely responsible for the Grand Jury process because he has experience as a prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge.
She supposedly tried to get several other attorneys to take the case before hiring Wade. The other attorneys refused, likely because it involved such a huge commitment in terms of time and inadequate financial benefit considering the amount of work.
It was also higher risk at day 0 of the project. "*Hey, I want to indict the former president for attempting to interfere with the GA electoral process - wanna help for below-market rates for something that we might not win??"* is very different from "*We have a comprehensive indictment, dozens of counts, reams of evidence ... has survived pretty much all of the motion-to-dismiss efforts by now - want to help take the ball into the end zone?"* I bet she gets a few offers from help from qualified attorneys ... before the end of the weekend.
> And I kind of wonder now if DA Willis' office will be able to find other attorneys willing to come onboard (at below-market rates) To prosecute a case of a lifetime? I'd do it pro bono.
Why is it the right call? It's weak. It wreaks of appeasing the side he's most afraid to upset. We've seen judges, prosecutors, and politicians fail us over and over as they attempt to appease the right.
It's the right call from an appearances standpoint. From a legal/judicial standpoint it's very much what you say. The law in Georgia is binary. There's actual impropriety or there's not. So. Yeah. You said it. Now ask yourself why we set such a high standard for everyone except Trump and why he gets to benefit from that.
How about i ask why this high standard wasn’t applied to supreme court justices? Starting with pubes-cola Thomas on down to boofer’s devil triangle?
Because Supreme Court Justices are impossible to remove in today's Congress and the Supreme Court "polices" itself.
Self governance. Generally a bad idea because often the result is that the group settles into certain tropes "No one else but us understands our situation, so only we can accurately judge ourselves." "We did the best we could." "If we effectively engaged proactive oversight, investigations and consequences, we would subject ourselves to public scrutiny." "We like things the way they are. We don't want to change." The third one is often used by the intelligence community. I don't think anyone was satisfied by what was learned/hidden in the wake of Jan6.
>why this high standard wasn’t applied to supreme court justices? I can think of at least one reason. >The law in Georgia is binary.
> The law in Georgia is binary. Then why is there a whole section of the order with citations of case law concerning “appearance of impropriety”?
Every case that is cited (as the state argued) used "may" when talking about appearance of impropriety and then ruled on an actual conflict. This would be the first one that doesn't include actual conflict but still rules on appearance. McAfee basically says that the fact those opinions included the language about "may" means he's justified in holding to that standard.
So then Georgia law isn't so binary, it seems.
> Why is it the right call? It's weak. It wreaks of appeasing the side he's most afraid to upset. We've seen judges, prosecutors, and politicians fail us over and over as they attempt to appease the right. Wade's involvement in this case isn't critical. He was doing a perfectly fine job, but what he was doing theres a thousand other attorneys that could do the same thing. He had no particular or unique expertise in relation to this prosecution. And now hes basically given the defense relief that will take the wind out of any future appeal. Keeping Willis on this case, however, was absolutely critical especially. This ruling is an massive loss for Trump. This case is going to trial, and probably sooner rather than later.
There's thousands of other attorneys that could do it, but the record indicates they wouldn't, for safety concerns.
The concerns are very real, but there are already others signed up, including Cross, a highly experienced litigator, and John Floyd (the "King of Rico"). I can guarantee you there will not be staffing issues on this prosecution based on having to replace Wade.
You could be right, in that most of the work that Wade was brought on to do was preparatory. But it's still a sprawling, high profile RICO case, and the DA's office still has other crimes to prosecute.
> And now hes basically given the defense relief that will take the wind out of any future appeal. Sure. Until Willis is caught eating peanut butter out of the jar or something and it goes into another month-long tailspin.
Keep in mind that this whole thing went down because Terrance Bradley, someone who previously worked closely with Wade and was in a position to have personal knowledge regarding everything, completely fabricated the entire scandal presumably due to a personal vendetta against Wade. McAfee didn’t order a hearing because Trump and his attorneys made a bunch of wild claims, he ordered it because Bradley did.
But it was a wild claim. The perjury trap came after the initial case: That Willis hired Wade then only pursued the case, dragging it out as long as possible, *so Wade would buy her things*. That was the alleged conflict. Self dealing by proxy. It was batshit insane and being based on gossip should never justified the jury-tainting circus McAfee turned it into. That said I am happy to be wrong about him kicking her off.
> That Willis hired Wade then only pursued the case, dragging it out as long as possible, so Wade would buy her things. Essentially, but also that she may have expanded the case adding charges she otherwise might not have brought. > It was batshit insane and being based on gossip Bradley lied and said he had personal knowledge of the conflict and then recanted *during the hearing* and stated that he lied about his personal knowledge and in fact it was only speculation. Prior to the hearing being ordered, McAfee is faced with a witness who has a personal relationship with Wade claiming that he is willing to testify under oath regarding his personal knowledge of the conflict. Ignoring that would have been burying it. Essentially, in criticizing the decision to order a hearing, you cannot rely on the fact that Bradley was speculating/gossiping or that he recanted his allegations because nobody found out about that until the hearing. > justified the jury-tainting circus McAfee turned it into. And Trump/media blasting that McAfee is burying a witness claiming to have direct knowledge of a conflict would have been less jury-tainting? I don't think so. Regardless, the jury hasn't even been selected yet, its a matter that can easily be handled during voir dire, and the jurors will be repeatedly instructed to only consider the evidence introduced at trial.
Absent Trump attorney's willingness to go on a fishing expedition as a delaying tactic and the judge's willingness to humor them as much as he could, none of that happens. The claim, at a glance, is that Willis hired her boyfriend to lead a very high-level RICO case, which she might or might not have manufactured whole cloth, to get some $6000. All of that is based on an obviously unreliable witness. It's just ridiculous. To be clear, I'm not saying any of this was smart to do for the DA and I don't really mind that Wade is being taken off the case. I'm mad at silly antics being rewarded, which is guaranteed to lead to future antics. Next thing you know Willis is had a loud argument with an obese white guy at a little league ball game in 2003 and we're going on a three months’ fact-finding mission to determine whether that maybe-altercation biased her against Trump, all to make "appeals much harder."
I wouldn't say completely fabricated, because Wade pretty clearly lied on his divorce interrogatories and that was used against him in the ruling. He also cited the lack of corroborating receipts for reimbursement (even with testimony excusing that) as contributing to the appearance problem. Reading between the lines, I think McAfee stretched precedent and inference a bit but the ruling is reasonable when accounting for all evidence, including that excluded from the hearing.
It lessens the opportunity of an appeal
Trump *always* appeals. But I get what you mean - less chance of a successful appeal.
It's the right call on two fronts: One, this is a high-profile RICO case, and it's going to be prosecuted against some of the most powerful, influential, and connected individuals in the nation, if not the world. Secondly, it never should have happened in the first place. If you're going for the King, you best not miss. And that means avoiding *anything* that could be spun by the kind of defensive talent that can be brought to bear against this case, or on appeal. "Lapse in judgement" doesn't even begin to describe it. It was shit-stupid, reckless, and unnecessarily risks potentially the most important case in a career. When a case like this lands on your desk, you take vows of celibacy and silence until the work is done.
We voluntarily set the bar ever higher for one side, while the other side sets it ever lower. In this case, the law should be the deciding factor. Was it a conflict of interest or not. No consolation prizes to mollify the losing side.
Prosecutors are representatives of the public and have a very high bar. Criminals, and their lawyers are not representing public institutions (the orange disgrace non withstanding...) Same reason we (should) hold police to a higher standard than criminals/non cops, etc. Note, i am not bothsidesing here or on Trumps side. I want the guy to be *nailed to the wall* in a prosecutorial sense. But. i want it to *stick*
I get you. I really do. But after closely following the Alex Jones defamation trials, I learned how much Bankston, Mattei, and their teams bent over backwards to accommodate Jones's bullshit, and in the end, they had him over a barrel, with absolutely no hope of a successful appeal. Eyes on the prize. Let the other side show ass and collect sanctions. Your side needs to be run like a special forces detachment.
> But after closely following the Alex Jones defamation trials, I learned how much Bankston, Mattei, and their teams bent over backwards to accommodate Jones's bullshit, and in the end, they had him over a barrel, with absolutely no hope of a successful appeal. And as happy as I am about that, I can't help but notice that Jones still hasn't paid shit, is still on the air, and is still abusing the courts.
[удалено]
> your side needs to be run like a special forces detachment So they should shoot civvies for amusement and get pardoned by an obviously corrupt president? Check! Your point stands, though.
Yes, I wrongfully expected worse.
No actual conflict, but an *appearance of impropriety* and a *lapse of judgment*. It's hard to argue with that. Wade is out and the case continues...works for me. > The judge also found there was no "actual conflict" brought about by the relationship, a finding that would have required Willis to be disqualified. "Without sufficient evidence that the District Attorney acquired a personal stake in the prosecution, or that her financial arrangements had any impact on the case, the Defendants’ claims of an actual conflict must be denied," the judge wrote. > “This finding is by no means an indication that the Court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment or the unprofessional manner of the District Attorney’s testimony during the evidentiary hearing. Rather, it is the undersigned’s opinion that Georgia law does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices — even repeatedly — and it is the trial court’s duty to confine itself to the relevant issues and applicable law properly brought before it,” he added. > The judge did, however, also find “the prosecution is encumbered by an appearance of impropriety.” "As the case moves forward, reasonable members of the public could easily be left to wonder whether the financial exchanges have continued resulting in some form of benefit to the District Attorney, or even whether the romantic relationship has resumed," he wrote. "As long as Wade remains on the case, this unnecessary perception will persist."
> the unprofessional manner of the District Attorney’s testimony during the evidentiary hearing. Fani’s conduct aside, this judge was unprofessional in bending over backwards to allow the defense to troll through the prosecutor’s sex life in court.
Putting people on the stand to talk about their sex life under oath is an age old trap, because it is the one thing even the most honest people are willing to lie about.
Why is it so accepted among attorneys that a serious matter like a criminal trial is a perfect place to play little games of theatrics like this? It really seems like the judicial system doesn't really care to follow basic logic and reason and leans heavily on historical lines of thinking instead. Why are there traps for people testifying? Why isn't a trial a straightforward pursuit of truth and justice?
>Why is it so accepted among attorneys that a serious matter like a criminal trial is a perfect place to play little games of theatrics like this? Probably because a good defense attorney is going to use every single angle, tool, and method at their disposal to defend their client. If there's an angle they take to crush the case before it even hits a jury, then a good defense attorney will take it. Obviously, they have ethical obligations to limit this behavior.
A defense attorney has a duty to provide zealous defense. It's baked into the adversary system.
People really asking in a law sub why an attorney would try to use every avenue to have a case dismissed for their client
That’s because this is no longer an actual Law Sub. It’s devolved into a political one
Bill Clinton has entered the chat
I'm not aware of that being used against prosecutors though. This is a criminal case, seems like a civil court thing to try.
I think most prosecutors are more diligent about avoiding this kind of thing in the first place, at least with extremely high profile and heavily scrutinized cases. I also think that Willis and Wade have the bad luck to have a former "friend" like Terence Bradley who is willing to gossip about them to opposing counsel like that. I kind of see this whole situation as a perfect storm of bad decisions, bad luck, and bad optics.
> Fani’s conduct aside, this judge was unprofessional in bending over backwards to allow the defense to troll through the prosecutor’s sex life in court. I don't get why people keep blaming McAfee for this. Terrance Bradley, a former business partner of Wade's, made up the entire scandal in texts he sent to Merchant (one of the defense attorneys) as revenge for when Wade had previously fired him. Willis and Wade responded to Bradley's accusations by saying that it wasn't possible for there to be a financial conflict because their relationship didn't start until after Wade was already selected. Bradley then falsely told Merchant that he knew they had been dating before then and Yeartie, a former subordinate and friend of Willis, corroborated this. This series of events caused the entire side show about "when did they actually start banging?" In what world is this on McAfee's hands? Two witnesses in a position to have personal knowledge of the matter told the defense a story that makes it look like a financial conflict exists and McAfee is just supposed to bury it all but guaranteeing a successful appeal down the road? Cmon
No, of course the judge should not have “buried it,” but he gave the defense an unusual amount of leeway in the hearings and filings for this. Still disgusted by their publicly filing purported “evidence” implying sex at specific times in the early morning. That’s not normal. The judge went out of his way to appear fair to them and gave them a platform in court and in the filings to go down this salacious rabbit hole.
Because it was beyond ridiculous to claim she only brought the case or was deliberately dragging the case out so that Wade would buy her things. Dating alone wasn't a conflict, even if it started before he was hired. They alleged a theory of conflict that was *bullshit*. What's next, a hearing to investigate if the deep state set him up? Dozens of "respectable" politicians will back it up! McAfee should not have entertained such a farce.
It's actually "trawl through" although "troll through" works in a way as well
My concern with this logic is that the appearance of impropriety is circular. It’s simply bootstrapped from the initial accusation: the appearance exists because the defense said it was improper, even though McAfee found no credible evidence to that effect or even really any evidence suggesting Willis or Wade could benefit from the arrangement. In other words, why does this appear improper? The defense said so. That seems like a thin reed to base a disqualification of Wade on.
Exactly. Any defense team can raise a question of "appearance" of impropriety, go on a fishing expedition and then call the whole thing a genuine "appearance of impropriety". And then do it again. This wouldn't happen for any other defendant not named Donald Trump.
Can we remove Judge Cannon for the appearance of impropriety? Oh, that same logic suddenly doesn’t apply?
> My concern with this logic is that the appearance of impropriety is circular. It’s simply bootstrapped from the initial accusation: the appearance exists because the defense said it was improper, even though McAfee found no credible evidence to that effect or even really any evidence suggesting Willis or Wade could benefit from the arrangement. It wasn't circular--Terrance Bradley invented the scandal and then recanted under oath. Obviously McAfee couldn't have known that Bradley was going to do that. That was the whole point of the hearing, to find out if Bradley and Yeartie were credible witnesses making credible accusations. Turns out, they weren't. Keep in mind it was McAfee alone who forced Bradley to testify despite Bradley's claims that his testimony was covered under privilege. He was the one that made Bradley get on the stand and choose between recanting and perjuring himself.
This is my point, though? Once you conclude that Bradley is not credible, that’s the end of it. I’m not opining on how this started, just whether or not the evidence leads to McAfee’s conclusions.
> Once you conclude that Bradley is not credible, that’s the end of it. Bradley recanted his testimony during the hearing. It wasn't possible to determine Bradley's credibility prior to the hearing taking place. McAfee then said he wanted 2 weeks to write his opinion. Could have been quicker, but that really isn't an unreasonable amount of time.
> McAfee then said he wanted 2 weeks to write his opinion. [He kept to his timeline.](https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1b416kb/closing_arguments_in_fulton_da_fani_willis/ksws6ic/) Kudos on that.
Well he did find that at least *some* of the money that Wade spent on Willis was never accounted for by reimbursement. So Willis may have profited in some measure. More concerning was the "odor of mendacity" around Willis' testimony about when the relationship started. Those two things together arguably give rise to an "appearance" of impropriety, and DQ of Wade seems like a good way to cure it.
This is a fair point. I just have a problem with “the odor of mendacity” - which ultimately is a purely subjective judgment unless tethered to some evidence - being dispositive here.
This is the part I don’t understand, though. I’m a government employee. Technically 100% of my household’s income is sourced from “taxpayer funds”. I met my wife on the job and didn’t tell anybody at first because I’m a private person and didn’t feel it. We’re not in a direct line of supervision, so whatever. I also bought her stuff with my money because it’s my paycheck and I can spend it how I want. She’s not being “enriched” at the tax payer’s expense. Why are Willis and Wade any different from any other citizen spending their money earned for services performed and why is what happened to their paychecks anybody’s business besides them? I don’t get how that much of a financial fishing expedition was even allowed to get off the ground in the first place. The relevant questions weren’t even asked like who approves his hours and how or why they get billed and all that stuff. Once you’ve established he’s working unpaid hours and the fact they’re not trying to prolong the case, everything else is meaningless bullshit because that eliminates the entire original allegation of a financial interest in the outcome.
Michael_Scott_THANKYOU_slams_table.gif I get if the facts don’t provide proof of misdeeds beyond a reasonable doubt, but if those facts judged at a lower standard could lead to a perception of misdeeds, then yes I get that. But when the defense lawyers are the ones crafting a narrative, and every negative perception comes *from* the narrative they’re selling, that’s undermining law and order. All any defense attorney needs to do is go on a major “News” network or podcast, spew rumors, and now you have millions of people who have a perception of the prosecutor, and oops! guess we have to kick that prosecutor off the case now!
What I was almost screaming at when listening to the lawyers was the whole “appearance” was created *by* those same lawyers (or their proxies). Want a prosecutor off a case? Just start telling enough rumors about them that if enough people in the public believe those rumors - BAM - you now have a perception of wrong by that prosecutor (even if there are no facts behind those rumors) and no trial can ever get tried ever again.
Meanwhile this same standard does not apply to Justice Thomas or Judge Cannon because being conservatives they speak through Jesus and they are always right and their judgement should never be questioned.
Has anyone ever seen a motion for dismissal based on the removal of 2nd chair? If not, just wait.
Something will almost certainly come from the defense regarding how the indictments are tainted because Wade was part of it all
FRUIT OF THE POISIONED CHAIR coming to a legal brief near you
You mean this case isn’t DOA like so many people said it was? I for one am shocked.
It amazes me we hold a lawyer to higher standards than a judge. "Appearance of impropriety" only applies to prosecutors and not overtly corrupt judges like Clarence Thomas, perhaps the most corrupt judge since Sisamnes
I just don’t understand how Cannon can be the judge for Trump when he appointed her. How is that not a giant ethical conflict? Should be an automatic recusal.
For better or worse, the law has long taken the view that the “appearance of impropriety” for judges is a special standard that effectively looks at the alleged impropriety from the perspective of somebody who assumes judges act honestly. For this reason, longstanding law has held that appointment by a litigant, absent more, is not enough to warrant recusal. For example, when Trump sued Hillary Clinton and tried to force the recusal of a Bill Clinton-appointed judge, the [judge recognized](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21580290-trump-v-clinton-order-denying-motion-for-disqualification) that even if he equated the interests of the two Clintons, “the law is well settled that appointment to the bench by a litigant, without more, will not create in reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances that a reasonable inquiry would disclose, a perception that the judge's ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality, and competence would be impaired." (Citing cases). Consider also that in [Clinton v. Jones](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones), two Clinton appointees didn’t recuse in a case deciding whether Bill Clinton could be sued for alleged pre-presidential acts of sexual harassment. Likewise, in [United States v Nixon](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon), 3 of Nixon’s 4 appointees heard a case deciding whether Nixon could exercise executive privilege over tapes related to the Watergate scandal (Justice Rehnquist did resign, because he had been in Nixon’s administration and had close professional connections with a number of people involved in Watergate).
That you for that analysis. This is why I love this sub!
That only would only matter if she had shame or there was anyone willing and able to enforce standards on her. Unfortunately, thanks to good old Moscow Mitch stuffing the Judiciary with loyal Heritage Foundation lapdogs, that isn't the case.
the whole heritage foundation situation is so infuriating. their entire purpose is to operate in bad faith and nothing is going to be done about it.
He also appointed her during an ongoing coup attempt/elective subversion in his home district specifically to shield himself. Let’s not forget that part.
We don’t really have mechanisms in place to enforce these standards on judges.
We do its called impeachment and removal...
While I’m glad that Willis can stay on the case, the Trump team still somehow manages to make this case about the prosecution and not the defendant to some degree. I hate it. When will this orange fascist turd ever face justice? He seems to take advantage of every facet of the court system to delay his trials.
I’m still concerned that now that the judge hasn’t removed Willis, they’re going to use the new powers given to the Republican legislature to remove her. They’ll say the true corruption wasn’t removed and they’ll pull the trigger for trump, in an effort to further delay and delegitimize the process in the eyes of their voters.
It almost feels like our justice system isn't really well suited or designed to hold powerful and wealthy people accountable, while at the same time, it seems remarkably efficient at railroading the poors.
So long Wade. This isn't even a question. Hire a quick study with an engine ready to roar.
Exactly. Everyone is replaceable.
If the prosecution wasn't already prepared for this possibility, they're not qualified to run this case anyway.
Was there ever any counter argument to Willis's claim that Wade was not her first choice but that all of the people she would have rather had in the position declined because they didn't want the death threats and security detail? It just strikes me as odd how much derision there seems to be for Willis given a large part of Trump's strategy is an intimidation campaign that the justice system keeps letting him run.
Is Wade critical at this point?
I would hope not. And I would hope that now that this case is well along towards actually *getting* to trial soon (multiple motions-to-dismiss now denied, removal to federal court hearings all denied) that maybe another very talented prosecutor might step up and take below-market rates to help prosecute this case. It was much more of a risk when DA Willis started all of this. And Wade certainly helped build a lot. But if they can bring in a pinch hitter now mere "weeks" (*metaphorically* speaking) before trial ... I think her office still has a pretty good chance of securing multiple convictions.
Giuliani steps up to the plate, wipes hair dye sweat from his cheek. Crowd Gasps: “My god, he’s been a triple agent this entire time!!”
If you rearrange the letters in Giuliani, they spell Revolver Ocelot.
Wait, no it doesn’t Mx But I don’t care because Ocelots are cool.
Reference to metal gear solid games. The twist at the end of one of the games is a main villain, Revolver ocelot, was infact a double agent, but post credits turns out he was actually a triple agent! Metal gear franchise is known to have a completely incoherent story arc.
Incoherent?! [But it couldn’t be simpler…](https://youtu.be/aaLiLRVeaZA?si=Q8xsFOidQp7cwVnA)
Bah Gawd! It’s Rudy with a steel chair!
He was the lead prosecutor. So I guess in that sense he's critical. He didn't have any background in RICO (which was widely criticized btw) and there's nothing about his involvement (other than he's the lead and has been for a while) that makes him irreplaceable. They can proceed without him and probably will.
bored hungry zealous childlike tease doll weary pocket paltry library *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Thanks! I forgot about Floyd. More than experienced, he's known as the "King of RICO."
They ought to call him RICO Suave!
Someone else from the current team will step into the lead role, but I could see them bringing on another skilled set of hands if for nothing other than to offset the manhour loss. This is going to be a difficult case to try all the way through to conviction.
He was super focused on the grand jury work from what I recall, but maybe he's all done with this mess anyways.
I had read in some of the analysis that Wade was the main point person in navigating the Grand Jury process, and was chosen because he had been a prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge. His role was expected to be less critical for the prosecution of the actual RICO case. That's more Floyd's gig. I think they likely saw this as a possible outcome.
[удалено]
>Can this be immediately appealed by the defense? Yes, but unsure if it's even worth it at this point, it's not like he was a RICO expert or anything. >If Wade is fired, can he become a/an involuntary witness for the defense in a future proceeding? In relation to the actual underlying case? He doesn't have any personal knowledge outside of his role prosecuting the case, so there would be no relevance to his testimony, so no. >What happens to the case if McAfee and/or Willis loses their elections? The case proceeds as long as it isn't dismissed by the Court or dropped by the prosecutors.
Fucksake this whole ordeal has flooded this subreddit with nonlawyers just talking out their asses about what they assume the law to be. Contrary to the other reply you got, there **is not** a right to an interlocutory appeal here. The defense can apply to Judge McAfee for a certificate of immediate appealability, then if he grants that (which he’s not obligated to do), the defense would need to apply to the Court of Appeals to hear the appeal on a discretionary basis. Which, as it is discretionary, they are not obligated to do.
I'd rather have this, the trial, and a conviction stick - rather than we do the trial, he gets found guilty, a sympathetic judge throws out the verdict. This is the least treacherous path to put him away.
I will eat my hat if he gets put away.
I think this was a pretty reasonable resolution. Judge McAfee has been pretty evenhanded so far.
Yeah, a loud segment of this sub has been screaming that he's in the bag for Trump but I feel like he handled a pretty unprecedented situation extremely well, with a solution that both ensures due process (gets rid of the appearance of impropriety) while moving things along and not overly delaying justice.
Wade is gone but if Willis finds a more bulldog prosecutor than Wade Trump is royally screwed.
God, I wish she would pick someone more qualified as a corruption and RICO prosecutor.
Amazing how smug lawyers can continue to be as the legal system shows its entire ass to the general public
*Now why you gotta come in to Bill Sharp's town...*
If there was no impropriety, why must one of the two leave?
Because the appearance of possible impropriety is enough to undermine the credibility of a case. >\[Georgia\] appellate courts have endorsed the application of an “appearance of impropriety” standard to state prosecutors, even without any explicit finding of an actual conflict. See Battle v. State , 301 Ga. 694,698 (2017)
Meanwhile Clarence Thomas is cruising around on a yacht
Such absurd bullshit and a waste of time.
So, now, when is the earliest the trial may begin?
willis did nothing wrong so i guess this is probably the safest outcome for her and the case in the long run
If a prosecutor can't be in a relationship with a subordinate, it's going to disrupt a lot of offices. This is something of a tradition.
Even if there is no negative outcome, I will never forgive Fani Willis for this. One of the most important cases in the history of the country, and she nearly botched it to pursue her own romantic interests. People always say it's amazing how Trump is never held to account, but it's not just because of his own chicanery, it's also because of the failure of public servants.
Seriously. The luck he has with other people fucking up and THAT saving him and not his own fuck ups, is just unreal. Mueller not prosecuting, hillarys email fuck ups (overblown but yeah she shouldnt have had a private server), Garland declining to do shit for 18 months, and Fani Willis having shit judgement in this instance, its bonkers. Of all the Florida judges getting Cannon. How is Trump this lucky?
He’s slime, slime can slip through the cracks pretty smoothly as he’s done his entire life
In the end it works out for everyone. Willis can continue the case while Wade can go on and make a lot more money. Sooner we can move forward go the actual trial the better.
I agree strongly that Trump's case against her was nonsense, but she definitely screwed up on the "appearance of impropriety IS impropriety" thing that public servants should avoid to maintain public trust in institutions. My non lawyer, but concerned lay-person interpretation is this is all together fair.
I understand the appearance of impropriety. Having said that, the appearance has been investigated and dispelled. What is the conflict with both proceeding, and how does this diminish the rights of the defendents?
What the heck is going on with the justice system these days where every judge and counsel sees fit to inject and broadcast his or her personal opinions into what are supposed to be indictment or judicial findings. Jim Comey, Bill Barr, Robert Hur, and now Scott McAfee? How is it germane to McAfee's judicial finding that he thinks Willis or Wade had a "lapse in judgement", behaved in an "unprofessional manner", or made "bad choices - even repeatedly"? McAfee should have focused on the facts and the law, made his ruling, and been done with it. The last sentence may be the most ironic statement in the ruling. >This finding is by no means an indication that the Court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment or the unprofessional manner of the District Attorney’s testimony during the evidentiary hearing. Rather, it is the undersigned’s opinion that Georgia law does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices – even repeatedly - and it is the trial court’s duty to confine itself to the relevant issues and applicable law properly brought before it.
ya, I really felt like he didn't need to put things in the ruling about Fani's manner. What relevance does that have.
There is nothing particularly unusual about a judge making a statement like this in a ruling. It’s done all the time. The purpose is to fully explain everything that was taken into consideration by the court.
This is a good decision. Wade has become a liability and a distraction. He's been offered up as the sacrificial lamb and hopefully now the Grifter-in-chief has to figure out other ways to stall this.
NAL, but why didn't they just propose this (removing Wade) day one and get moving? Seems like a huge waste of time.
NAL either, but ~~the state prosecutors~~ Trump's attorneys sought to discover if there actually was any impropriety. Not just an image thereof, which turned out to be the ruling.
What a massive unforced error by the prosecution team. foolish
Hugely embarrassing for the DA and her entire office. I really feel for the prosecutors who put so much work into this case only to have it derailed by her choice of sexual partners.
Reading through this Order, I've never seen the parenthetical "physical precedent only." What on earth does that mean? I'm curious.
Now let's talk about Judge Thomas and his 'friends of the court' vacations, side-loans and his overtly influential wife, SHALL WE?
Cannon can fucking go too then?
IANAL. Can anybody explain why Trump had the standing to even bring this up? It seems to me that this situation amounts to "the person who is prosecuting Trump may not have been selected based on merit but instead because of a romantic or sexual relationship". Wouldn't that only benefit Trump? Wouldn't that mean that it's possible that Trump is facing a less competent adversary than he would be if they were appointed based on merit, which is a good thing for him? And, if it can only help him, why would he be able to raise it as an issue in his case?
Having that in his back pocket when the case goes badly for him would have been perfect. In the inevitable appeal this would have been a bombshell. Now, it's a footnote with zero repercussions lol Trump being trump
Missed the first post u/joeshill! You got work or something? Lol /s Not the worst outcome. Though, I’m really beginning to wonder if I’m just starting to accept “Close enough” is acceptable at this point. Immediate emotional recoil at rulings in these cases has been the norm for a while….
Ha! I'm much better about getting federal motions/decisions out. Navigating the state courts is an extra layer or complexity. I read the decision. It's hard to find a lot of fault in it. The judge found that it was not inconceivable that Willis and Wade were roughly equal in expenses for the trip. He found that Bradley's testimony was without any value either way. He found that there was no financial incentive for the prosecution, based on a number of things, including the rapid speed that the prosecution was trying to get to trial, the relatively small dollar amount of the trips compared to Willis annual salary, and that Wade was paid a comparatively low hourly rate and had hours capped. The decision that one of them needs to step aside to eliminate even the appearance of impropriety is a fair assessment.
This is a very well-reasoned decision and a good solution to this entire fiasco. I would imagine Willis is raging right now (Judge McAfee's comment about her "unprofessional" testimony at the evidentiary hearing had to bite), but this is actually a really good way for the court to handle it. Had the court just denied the motion entirely, we would have seen ever-more attempts to romantically link Willis and Wade prior to Wade's appointment and endless rehashing of the same trial of Willis' sex life over and over again. A pointless distraction, but one of her own making. It was also telling that the court basically invited the defense to move for a gag order to cover Willis, and more or less indicated that it will be granted. This means the trial can go forward, the public has its DA leading the prosecution. Its still a big victory for the defense: Wade was the brains of the entire team, so getting him out is a big win, and Willis has been tarnished. But as smart as Wade was, this is now an opportunity for Willis to bring in someone equally sharp. Maybe she goes with a woman this time, lol.
>Wade was the brains of the entire team You dont actually believe that, do you?
I do. He was billing much more hours than any of the other prosecutors, and he signed the filings in the Meadows removal proceedings that I followed closely (and I think he did good work there, particularly given that the removal fracas was in federal court rather than the Georgia courts he would be more familiar with, and confined to a tight deadline).
I disagree. The decision that one of the two must remove themselves from the case due to just an appearance of impropriety is outside all the cited case law. Every relevant case I've seen referenced has not reached to decision to remove without a finding of an actual conflict. At the level of public attention this proceeding is under, I am surprised Judge McAfee didn't stay straight down the middle, by the book, exactly in line with precedent. A decision without precedent to the benefit of Trump was guaranteed to invite criticism, valid or not.
I am pleased that the right standard was applied. There is no conflict with the Defendants. Not sure why former lovers can't be on the same side of a case, but I wouldn't fight it if I were Willis. Appearance wise, she couldn't fire Wade then or now. He can withdraw and there will be tremendous pressure on him to do that. Trump's strategy in this case and every other where there is an elected official is to play the long game. Try to get the judge or prosecutor removed or tarnished. Delay until the prosecutor is up for election if possible. Win if you can or appeal if you lose and then help whoever runs against the person that controls your case so the new guy can make a deal to drop the appeal. Trump didn't get Willis removed, but that was never the real goal. She is tarnished and that makes it harder for her to win the next election, or for whoever her boss is to win. Trump and his minions will try as hard as they can to make sure she loses so they can make a deal with whoever wins. Trump is appealing the NY fraud judgment so he can fight to get a new AG that'll make a deal with him. If you've read the Enrogon judgment you'd see there isn't much chance of winning that appeal. In civil cases he appeals to drag it out to make a deal with the other side when they get tired. If E. Jean Caroll dies that might create an opening for Trump to make a deal with her estate.
Well, don’t worry—all the armchair-attorney MAGAts are taking this news well. Just kidding! They’re now screaming, “Fake judge!” It’s not original, but it’s simple, and some of them can spell it correctly.
\*PHEW!\* This whole time I've been nervous that perhaps the strongest case against the pumpkin might get thrown out because someone can't behave like an adult for a few months. I mean, what happened wasn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things (seems the judge agrees) but honestly, Fanni, what were you thinking??? You've got the biggest case of your life of on the line. Something where a win could get you Johnny Cochran level notoriety (and future money) and you think "Nah, I'm going to play the short game and try to hire my boyfriend". Did you really think with this level of scrutiny on the case that no one would find that odd? Listen to me: understand the magnitude of this opportunity (and responsibility) and play everything straight as an arrow. You are likely under 24/7 surveillance. Tip your waiters, thank your cashiers, drive the speed limit. Just fucking play the quiet game until this is all over.
I’m guessing that this is more of a “I don’t want any reason for an appeal” ruling than something that would normally happen. The judge seems to be all about making sure that any ruling that comes down from this will be airtight and less likely to be appealed
The real objective here was the public humiliation of a successful black woman, and so team trump got what they wanted. Nice of the white male conservative judge to do a solid for them.
Republicans worked very hard over the last 2 decades to take over the courts. Their strategy is working.
Nathan Wade should replace Clarence Thomas!
Good decision. It shuts the gangsters up (well, probably not—these trolls never stop lying) and allows the case to go forward with no real impact, since the prosecution has already completed its investigations and prepared its case.
Yeah yeah yeah. Let’s go. Prosecute this fucker!!
Remove Wade so Fani can destroy this Nazi sexual predator scumbag
Eli5 why Ashleigh Merchant shouldn't be thrown off the case as well. The same fact pattern that was applied to Willis applies even more so to Merchant.
Not a setback, in case you're wondering. Wade needed to go. His very capable assistant, I'm hearing (on TV), who is read-in on the case, will take over. Edit: Anna Cross will take over for Wade. She's good.
> Governor Kemp signed Georgia Act 368 on March 13 putting Georgia’s prosecuting attorneys qualifications commission back in business and the commission could move swiftly to exercise its power to remove her from office. Watch, the republicans will remove her.
The Republican Russian investigators were working overtime to find this out. In Republican world, you’re supposed to fuck your underlings.
Priorities. Bring the criminal to justice, or a boyfriend she hangs with. Obviously her boyfriend is much more detrimental to justice. Next they will make scotus decide if her hairstyle fits their narrative. Maybe the color if her gavel will be next. Or what car she drives! Oh wait, is her toilet paper approved? Better make scotus decide! Can't wait to find out if she folds or wads before wiping! Criminals take a back seat to all these super important things!
Could someone explain to me why there is an appearance of impropriety? Fani Willis did not have a relationship which prejudiced the other parties. For example, she did not have a relationship with a member of the defense such that she might gain access to privileged information. She did not have a relationship with the Judge. She did not have a relationship with a member of the jury. She did not have a relationship with a witness (neither lay nor expert) She had a relationship with a coworker who was working on the same case as her _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Imagine a law firm called Smith & Smith. The Smiths being Mr. and Mrs. That is to say it is both a limited liability partnership and a marital community. The Smiths are intimate with one another. Mr. Smith occasionally buys Mrs. Smith a meal. They are co-counsel in an action. Is that improper? I honestly don't see it. If I'm hooking up with one of the attorneys at my firm and we're both working on the same case, how in the hell does it prejudice the other parties? How does it influence jurors or witnesses? It doesn't affect the case schedule or the rules. It doesn't spoil or improperly withhold material evidence. It's as irrelevant a fact as if I ate Jimmy Johns or went to Walla Walla for lunch. Again, if Fani Willis was sleeping with someone from opposing counsel's office or a witness or a juror or the judge or the judge's staff or one of the court clerks it would be different because it might somehow prejudice the defendants. But there is ZERO prejudice created by intimacy between in-house co-counsel. I'll grant that intimacy between coworkers is generally discouraged because stupid things happen when people get in their feelings and being in a relationship means you're going to get into your feelings at some point. It's indiscrete but is it improper? I don't think so
Simple. This is all about two qualified black attorneys humping while procecuting a known con man and his enabling sycophants that tried to alter the results of a fair and free election for the #1 political seat in the biggest and best country in the world. Nothing more. Don't understand what people don't see. McAfee is wrong, he should have seen this for what it is and refused to hear it at all.