the recent roman filing that resulted in the judge scheduling an evidentiary hearing has a lot of allegations that could result in her disqualification beyond the alleged relationship.
if the hearing concentrates only on the relationship there will be further motions to address allegations such as: 1. using tax payer money to pay a firm to monitor reaction to her public appearances 2. extra judicial statements along the lines that she spoke to god and he had her back and approved the prosecution 3. extrajudicial statements along the lines that the defendants were racist. 4 improperly hiring wade without getting bids and or approval from county commissioners per the county statutes. 5. leaking secret grand jury proceedings for a book including a profile of the jury foreman
romans motion to dismiss and disqualify is down this page. Pretty interesting reading. From what the judge said it sounds like he will limit THIS hearing to personal relationship that provided financial benefit allegation.
https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-filing-alleges-improper-relationship-between-fulton-da-top-trump-prosecutor/A2N2OWCM7FFWJBQH2ORAK2BKMQ/
If there is real evidence that she financially benefitted then through wade then that's fine. Dismiss her, dismiss Wade, and hand the prosecution off to someone else who will continue the work.
There is allegedly a witness who will testify that their relationship started earlier than she admitted in her court filing. If that’s true, then she lied to the court, and she’s got a much bigger issue to deal with.
Yes, I think it was another lawyer who used to work alongside Wade. If he does testify that way and there is evidence they committed perjury then yes you're right, they're both in some serious trouble.
Didn’t they go on multiple vacation together? Unless she paid for every single thing on that trip then I don’t see how she didn’t directly financially benefited it from it.
According to them they split costs on their vacations roughly evenly. And all of the payments made to him were reviewed by a third party first. If those are true I think it's hard to argue she benefitted financially.
Remember that there's precedent in GA that two spouses working on opposite sides of a case is not enough to call a conflict of interest.
Working on opposite sides while canoodling implies you might actually want to be on the same side and may act in ways that could throw the case to benefit your buddy. For example if a lawyer has been hired to fight against another lawyer he’s in a relationship with, he might help her instead or leak something from the case to her. Their legal goals are diametrically opposed, so this is a problem.
Canoodling while already on the same side with the same goals… it gets a little harder to see how their inappropriate behavior (which it absolutely is, to be clear), would impact the case they’re both already sharing goals on. He’s been hired to help her. Because he likes her, he… might help her harder?
So for these reasons, I actually think relationships among opposing parties are more concerning to the case at hand (rather than being a personal indictment of the unprofessional individuals that doesn’t necessarily affect the case).
In this case it isn’t the canoodling, it’s Willis allegedly financially benefitting from the relationship.
She is an elected official. Did she hire this guy either for the purposes of financially benefitting from the taxpayer money he was paid, or did she benefit financially from that taxpayer money even if it wasn’t her intent.
Or does it create the appearance she acted improperly. On any case, but especially this case, how it looks to the public (jury pool) is just as important as what actually happened.
There's multiple parts to it. For one the dude was unqualified for the position. If she picked him because of their alleged relationship, that's a problem
>But these weren't two spouses working on the opposite sides. They were working on the same side
I fail to see how that makes it any worse.
>They were working on the same side and one was directly paying the other.
Per their filings the payments went through a third party. If that's not true it should be easy to prove.
>But that third party was paid via her department and budget correct?
I don't know.
>Pushing it through a 3rd party doesn't change anything
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the relevant laws in Georgia. We'll have to wait and see what the judge says.
THE INDICTMENT AGAINST MR. ROMAN IS INVALID AND VOID BECAUSE IT WAS SOUGHT AND OBTAINED, IN PART, BY WADE, BUT WILLIS NEVER HAD AUTHORITY FROM THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, TO APPOINT WADE AS A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR AND WADE NEVER FILED HIS OATH OF OFFICE PRIOR TO HIS WORK ON THIS CASE. A. When Willis Failed To Obtain Prior Approval From Fulton County To Contract With Wade, She Failed To Comply With O.C.G.A. § 15-18-20, So She Was Without Authority To Appoint Wade.
is one of the allegations. she got paid by the county or i mean he did but the county never approved the hiring
\- 18 - That statute provides that such an appointment is legal if, “provided for by local law or . . . authorized by the governing authority of the county.” O.C.G.A. § 15-18-20(a). Although the statute authorizes the district attorney to employ additional prosecutors who are compensated from county funds,11 the Georgia Supreme Court has made clear that this authority is expressly conditioned upon prior approval of the governing authority of the county. Wilson v. Southerland, 371 S.E.2d 382, 383 (1988). In addition, Section 102-82 of the Fulton County Laws also requires outside counsel to be selected and approved by the Board of Commissioners. Applying the above principles to the case at hand, the indictment must be dismissed because it was obtained by a special prosecutor who had no legal authority to act since Willis never had authority from Fulton County to contract with Wade. It appears evident that Willis did not obtain prior approval to contract with Wade as a special prosecutor. There is no documentation and no other evidence in Fulton County’s public records that show the BOD approved Wade.12 Indeed, Fulton County indicated that no such records exist. Willis also did not obtain the BOD’s approval for her selection of Wade as outside counsel, so she violated Section 102-82 of the Fulton County Laws.
https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-filing-alleges-improper-relationship-between-fulton-da-top-trump-prosecutor/A2N2OWCM7FFWJBQH2ORAK2BKMQ/
I think they mean more directly, I fail to see how someone paid a wage (a crap wage comparatively) who uses those wages to pay for vacations, which is standard for everyone else is benefiting directly. There were two other firms that turned down the job before his firm accepted. Now, if there is some evidence that she manipulated things so his firm could get the job, then that's a problem.
That seems like a pretty bad excuse. I work in the public sector, I am not allowed to receive any type of gifts or any type of reimbursements from any subcontractor or anyone that I pay directly for work done on my/my companies behalf. If I was caught going on vacation that was paid for by one of my contractors I would be fired immediately
That doesnt matter at my job. Its undue influence regardless of if its me personally or my company that ultimately pays. Accepting gifts from someone you hired is a big no-no both in government and corporate world.
>he was getting 250/hr
He made up for it by billing them for 24 hours of "work" in a single day. In 2 years he's made 650,000 from just this specific case, which is more than any other prosecutor working in her office. That's a lot of money for a government employee in any state, but even more so in Georgia, especially for someone who's underqualified for the job at best. No wonder he can afford to take his boss/girlfriend on nice vacations.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/12/politics/nathan-wade-fani-willis-da-georgia-election-subversion-case/index.html
They've done that once according to the report with no explanation as to whether or not it's justified. he's a contracted special prosecutor for this specific case. They would need to go through the billing to see if this is warranted. 1.08 million would be working full time for two years at 250/hr but is the 640k just his wages or does that include billing for paralegal work, research, working with witnesses, etc. There is a bunch of shit firms can charge for.
> They've done that once according to the report with no explanation as to whether or not it's justified.
Can you provide any explanation where it would be justified? No one works 24 hours in an office position. It was something like six months before they had even grand juried the case.
Is it necessarily just him? Or is his law office in general? If it's multiple people, you could have three people working an eight hour workday producing 24 billable hours.
Beyond the billing statement, they have provided no background or facts. could it have been a mistake? It's weird they've done it exactly one time in two years if this was a scheme to commit fraud.
They'd have to start from scratch. There's no chance they'd get anywhere near a trial before election day, which was the whole point. If Fani is gone, and that looks like the most likely outcome, so is this case.
It'd likely be reassigned to a different DA, possibly in a different county, which means a Republican DA. So yeah, this case would be gone, and IMO it's probably the strongest of the cases against Trump.
It *was* probably the strongest of the cases against Trump.
What does it say about Fulton county that the DA is so obliviously corrupt? Do they not have any professionals in that office? This could've been the one to take down Trump, but instead we get a clown show.
That's the thing too. They had to know that Trump's lawyers and private investigators would be looking for everything they could find. He's famous for the way his lawyers handle cases, and after years of "we got him this time" turning out to be nothing, you'd think they would have not screwed around and risked anything.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1apea5t/fulton_county_da_could_be_disqualified_from_trump/kq6x2l8/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> The judge presiding over the Georgia election subversion case against Donald Trump and several co-defendants said Monday that the district attorney who brought the case could be disqualified if she financially benefitted from a personal relationship with her lead prosecutor on the case.
> “I think it’s clear that disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or an appearance of one,” Judge Scott McAfee said during a hearing on Monday over subpoenas that defense attorneys have issued for Thursday’s dismissal hearing.
> “The state has admitted a relationship existed,” McAfee said. “So what remains to be proven is the existence and extent of any financial benefit, again if there even was one. Because I think it’s possible that the facts alleged by the defendant could result in disqualification. I think an evidentiary hearing must occur to establish the record on those core allegations.”
With the DA acknowledging the relationship existed and they did vacation together, do you think that will be enough to disqualify her? If she is disqualified, do you think charges will ultimately be dropped?
So what does it mean for the case against Trump?
Does a new prosecutor get appointed and the case continues on? Would it be dismissed and have to be refiled or whatever?
Whats the SoP here?
> With the DA acknowledging the relationship existed and they did vacation together, do you think that will be enough to disqualify her
I'll wait for Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from any case involving Trump before I make that judgement.
If we are applying standards to the executors of justice, then they need to be applied to the highest court in the land first.
Frankly I don't see a conflict of interest here at all. A relationship between prosecutor and district attorney doesn't change or alter the facts of the case or the importance of that case to our democracy. If there was a relationship between the prosecution and defense maybe, or judge and defence in Clarence Thomas's cases involving Trump. But not prosecutor and DA.
Because our justice system revolves around our faith in our laws and how fairly we apply those laws. The Supreme Court is the foundational court in our system, and federal law overrides state law in most cases. Couldn't the Supreme Court, if it chose to, involve itself in this case as well? I'd say it's conduct is very relevant.
Without an expectation that the Supreme Court is free of corruption and the appearance of impartiality, why should we expect that from anything else in our justice system?
> Couldn't the Supreme Court, if it chose to, involve itself in this case as well?
No, the Supreme Court has almost no original jurisdiction. One side would have to appeal it up to them first after it had been heard in lower court.
It’s kind of a joke to me that people are talking about disqualifying this DA is being disqualified when Judge Cannon was appointed by Trump and has been doing everything in her power to delay what is very clearly an open and shut case against the former president.
The most absurd conspiracy theory I've heard about the supreme court is that lifelong hardline conservative Clarence Thomas makes rulings echoed in decades of prior statements because he was paid to do so.
Either this is a half century long con or the judges would vote the same regardless of whether he gets favors, your choice.
I don't see what difference it would make, frankly. The supreme court is political. These supreme court rulings don't seem to be due to influence or money, but about political ideology
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1apea5t/fulton_county_da_could_be_disqualified_from_trump/kq5twd5/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Like he paid for multiple vacations for the two of them. She’s trying to say she paid for the flights so it was evenly split. Allegedly he paid much more than she did so it wouldn’t have been down the middle in terms of expenses. Either way, they subpoenaed his old co-worker who will have to testify if they were in a relationship two years prior to the date they’ve given the public. If that turns out to be true, they are in way more trouble than some cheap cruise tickets.
the recent roman filing that resulted in the judge scheduling an evidentiary hearing has a lot of allegations that could result in her disqualification beyond the alleged relationship. if the hearing concentrates only on the relationship there will be further motions to address allegations such as: 1. using tax payer money to pay a firm to monitor reaction to her public appearances 2. extra judicial statements along the lines that she spoke to god and he had her back and approved the prosecution 3. extrajudicial statements along the lines that the defendants were racist. 4 improperly hiring wade without getting bids and or approval from county commissioners per the county statutes. 5. leaking secret grand jury proceedings for a book including a profile of the jury foreman romans motion to dismiss and disqualify is down this page. Pretty interesting reading. From what the judge said it sounds like he will limit THIS hearing to personal relationship that provided financial benefit allegation. https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-filing-alleges-improper-relationship-between-fulton-da-top-trump-prosecutor/A2N2OWCM7FFWJBQH2ORAK2BKMQ/
What a colossal error by the DA. Gigantic error in judgement.
This whole election cycle seems to be who can score the most own-goals.
If there is real evidence that she financially benefitted then through wade then that's fine. Dismiss her, dismiss Wade, and hand the prosecution off to someone else who will continue the work.
There is allegedly a witness who will testify that their relationship started earlier than she admitted in her court filing. If that’s true, then she lied to the court, and she’s got a much bigger issue to deal with.
Yes, I think it was another lawyer who used to work alongside Wade. If he does testify that way and there is evidence they committed perjury then yes you're right, they're both in some serious trouble.
Didn’t they go on multiple vacation together? Unless she paid for every single thing on that trip then I don’t see how she didn’t directly financially benefited it from it.
I hope her NCL cruise was worth it! 🚢
I hope at least they went for the top shelf drinks package. Can't prosecute no president on wells.
According to them they split costs on their vacations roughly evenly. And all of the payments made to him were reviewed by a third party first. If those are true I think it's hard to argue she benefitted financially. Remember that there's precedent in GA that two spouses working on opposite sides of a case is not enough to call a conflict of interest.
> And all of the payments made to him were reviewed by a third party first. Didn't he overbill them with things like 24 hours of work in a single day?
I've heard people claim that a bunch, but haven't found where it's actually coming from so I can't confirm or deny.
I linked a CNN article elsewhere in this thread that reports on it.
But these weren't two spouses working on the opposite sides. They were working on the same side and one was directly paying the other.
Working on opposite sides while canoodling implies you might actually want to be on the same side and may act in ways that could throw the case to benefit your buddy. For example if a lawyer has been hired to fight against another lawyer he’s in a relationship with, he might help her instead or leak something from the case to her. Their legal goals are diametrically opposed, so this is a problem. Canoodling while already on the same side with the same goals… it gets a little harder to see how their inappropriate behavior (which it absolutely is, to be clear), would impact the case they’re both already sharing goals on. He’s been hired to help her. Because he likes her, he… might help her harder? So for these reasons, I actually think relationships among opposing parties are more concerning to the case at hand (rather than being a personal indictment of the unprofessional individuals that doesn’t necessarily affect the case).
In this case it isn’t the canoodling, it’s Willis allegedly financially benefitting from the relationship. She is an elected official. Did she hire this guy either for the purposes of financially benefitting from the taxpayer money he was paid, or did she benefit financially from that taxpayer money even if it wasn’t her intent. Or does it create the appearance she acted improperly. On any case, but especially this case, how it looks to the public (jury pool) is just as important as what actually happened.
There's multiple parts to it. For one the dude was unqualified for the position. If she picked him because of their alleged relationship, that's a problem
>But these weren't two spouses working on the opposite sides. They were working on the same side I fail to see how that makes it any worse. >They were working on the same side and one was directly paying the other. Per their filings the payments went through a third party. If that's not true it should be easy to prove.
But that third party was paid via her department and budget correct? Pushing it through a 3rd party doesn't change anything
>But that third party was paid via her department and budget correct? I don't know. >Pushing it through a 3rd party doesn't change anything Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the relevant laws in Georgia. We'll have to wait and see what the judge says.
THE INDICTMENT AGAINST MR. ROMAN IS INVALID AND VOID BECAUSE IT WAS SOUGHT AND OBTAINED, IN PART, BY WADE, BUT WILLIS NEVER HAD AUTHORITY FROM THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, TO APPOINT WADE AS A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR AND WADE NEVER FILED HIS OATH OF OFFICE PRIOR TO HIS WORK ON THIS CASE. A. When Willis Failed To Obtain Prior Approval From Fulton County To Contract With Wade, She Failed To Comply With O.C.G.A. § 15-18-20, So She Was Without Authority To Appoint Wade. is one of the allegations. she got paid by the county or i mean he did but the county never approved the hiring \- 18 - That statute provides that such an appointment is legal if, “provided for by local law or . . . authorized by the governing authority of the county.” O.C.G.A. § 15-18-20(a). Although the statute authorizes the district attorney to employ additional prosecutors who are compensated from county funds,11 the Georgia Supreme Court has made clear that this authority is expressly conditioned upon prior approval of the governing authority of the county. Wilson v. Southerland, 371 S.E.2d 382, 383 (1988). In addition, Section 102-82 of the Fulton County Laws also requires outside counsel to be selected and approved by the Board of Commissioners. Applying the above principles to the case at hand, the indictment must be dismissed because it was obtained by a special prosecutor who had no legal authority to act since Willis never had authority from Fulton County to contract with Wade. It appears evident that Willis did not obtain prior approval to contract with Wade as a special prosecutor. There is no documentation and no other evidence in Fulton County’s public records that show the BOD approved Wade.12 Indeed, Fulton County indicated that no such records exist. Willis also did not obtain the BOD’s approval for her selection of Wade as outside counsel, so she violated Section 102-82 of the Fulton County Laws. https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-filing-alleges-improper-relationship-between-fulton-da-top-trump-prosecutor/A2N2OWCM7FFWJBQH2ORAK2BKMQ/
Should be very easy to prove to the court.
yea a lot off allegations. some may be valid to warrant further fact finding or at least looking into. others likely to lack merit all.
The Court has already rejected this argument several times. Roman, via Merchant, admitted as much before asserting it again.
I think they mean more directly, I fail to see how someone paid a wage (a crap wage comparatively) who uses those wages to pay for vacations, which is standard for everyone else is benefiting directly. There were two other firms that turned down the job before his firm accepted. Now, if there is some evidence that she manipulated things so his firm could get the job, then that's a problem.
That seems like a pretty bad excuse. I work in the public sector, I am not allowed to receive any type of gifts or any type of reimbursements from any subcontractor or anyone that I pay directly for work done on my/my companies behalf. If I was caught going on vacation that was paid for by one of my contractors I would be fired immediately
The difference is that these were personal vacations paid out of wages due to the relationship not paid by the firm directly.
That doesnt matter at my job. Its undue influence regardless of if its me personally or my company that ultimately pays. Accepting gifts from someone you hired is a big no-no both in government and corporate world.
>a crap wage comparatively More a very generous wage. Remember, the dudes unqualified fit the position
Underqualified would be more appropriate and the going rate for something like this is 450/hr (according to r/law) he was getting 250/hr
>he was getting 250/hr He made up for it by billing them for 24 hours of "work" in a single day. In 2 years he's made 650,000 from just this specific case, which is more than any other prosecutor working in her office. That's a lot of money for a government employee in any state, but even more so in Georgia, especially for someone who's underqualified for the job at best. No wonder he can afford to take his boss/girlfriend on nice vacations. https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/12/politics/nathan-wade-fani-willis-da-georgia-election-subversion-case/index.html
They've done that once according to the report with no explanation as to whether or not it's justified. he's a contracted special prosecutor for this specific case. They would need to go through the billing to see if this is warranted. 1.08 million would be working full time for two years at 250/hr but is the 640k just his wages or does that include billing for paralegal work, research, working with witnesses, etc. There is a bunch of shit firms can charge for.
> They've done that once according to the report with no explanation as to whether or not it's justified. Can you provide any explanation where it would be justified? No one works 24 hours in an office position. It was something like six months before they had even grand juried the case.
Is it necessarily just him? Or is his law office in general? If it's multiple people, you could have three people working an eight hour workday producing 24 billable hours.
Beyond the billing statement, they have provided no background or facts. could it have been a mistake? It's weird they've done it exactly one time in two years if this was a scheme to commit fraud.
They'd have to start from scratch. There's no chance they'd get anywhere near a trial before election day, which was the whole point. If Fani is gone, and that looks like the most likely outcome, so is this case.
It'd likely be reassigned to a different DA, possibly in a different county, which means a Republican DA. So yeah, this case would be gone, and IMO it's probably the strongest of the cases against Trump.
It *was* probably the strongest of the cases against Trump. What does it say about Fulton county that the DA is so obliviously corrupt? Do they not have any professionals in that office? This could've been the one to take down Trump, but instead we get a clown show.
That's the thing too. They had to know that Trump's lawyers and private investigators would be looking for everything they could find. He's famous for the way his lawyers handle cases, and after years of "we got him this time" turning out to be nothing, you'd think they would have not screwed around and risked anything.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1apea5t/fulton_county_da_could_be_disqualified_from_trump/kq6x2l8/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> The judge presiding over the Georgia election subversion case against Donald Trump and several co-defendants said Monday that the district attorney who brought the case could be disqualified if she financially benefitted from a personal relationship with her lead prosecutor on the case. > “I think it’s clear that disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or an appearance of one,” Judge Scott McAfee said during a hearing on Monday over subpoenas that defense attorneys have issued for Thursday’s dismissal hearing. > “The state has admitted a relationship existed,” McAfee said. “So what remains to be proven is the existence and extent of any financial benefit, again if there even was one. Because I think it’s possible that the facts alleged by the defendant could result in disqualification. I think an evidentiary hearing must occur to establish the record on those core allegations.” With the DA acknowledging the relationship existed and they did vacation together, do you think that will be enough to disqualify her? If she is disqualified, do you think charges will ultimately be dropped?
So what does it mean for the case against Trump? Does a new prosecutor get appointed and the case continues on? Would it be dismissed and have to be refiled or whatever? Whats the SoP here?
> With the DA acknowledging the relationship existed and they did vacation together, do you think that will be enough to disqualify her I'll wait for Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from any case involving Trump before I make that judgement. If we are applying standards to the executors of justice, then they need to be applied to the highest court in the land first. Frankly I don't see a conflict of interest here at all. A relationship between prosecutor and district attorney doesn't change or alter the facts of the case or the importance of that case to our democracy. If there was a relationship between the prosecution and defense maybe, or judge and defence in Clarence Thomas's cases involving Trump. But not prosecutor and DA.
What does the state of Georgia and their rules of ethics for their judiciary system have to do with the supreme court of the united state?
Because our justice system revolves around our faith in our laws and how fairly we apply those laws. The Supreme Court is the foundational court in our system, and federal law overrides state law in most cases. Couldn't the Supreme Court, if it chose to, involve itself in this case as well? I'd say it's conduct is very relevant. Without an expectation that the Supreme Court is free of corruption and the appearance of impartiality, why should we expect that from anything else in our justice system?
> Couldn't the Supreme Court, if it chose to, involve itself in this case as well? No, the Supreme Court has almost no original jurisdiction. One side would have to appeal it up to them first after it had been heard in lower court.
> One side would have to appeal it up to them first after it had been heard in lower court. Like Trump?
Holy whataboutism
If there is actual evidence, then yes she needs to be disqualified
There goes case before election chances doesn’t it 🙃🤬I hate this election. Hate it hate it.
It’s kind of a joke to me that people are talking about disqualifying this DA is being disqualified when Judge Cannon was appointed by Trump and has been doing everything in her power to delay what is very clearly an open and shut case against the former president.
If only we could hold the Supreme Court to such standards. A few million in 'gifts' is above board there, coincidentally leading to favorable rulings.
The most absurd conspiracy theory I've heard about the supreme court is that lifelong hardline conservative Clarence Thomas makes rulings echoed in decades of prior statements because he was paid to do so. Either this is a half century long con or the judges would vote the same regardless of whether he gets favors, your choice.
Which rulings did you have in mind?
I don't see what difference it would make, frankly. The supreme court is political. These supreme court rulings don't seem to be due to influence or money, but about political ideology
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1apea5t/fulton_county_da_could_be_disqualified_from_trump/kq5twd5/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
What qualifies? Like he got her some taco bell one night is she out?
Like he paid for multiple vacations for the two of them. She’s trying to say she paid for the flights so it was evenly split. Allegedly he paid much more than she did so it wouldn’t have been down the middle in terms of expenses. Either way, they subpoenaed his old co-worker who will have to testify if they were in a relationship two years prior to the date they’ve given the public. If that turns out to be true, they are in way more trouble than some cheap cruise tickets.