Then I guess this horrible transgression should result in her being fired, since it has fuck-all to do with the case.
Sorry, I thought this thread was about the case they’re making to get her fired.
It can be both.
I know he was working for her, but didn’t she assign him the case of the century after they were already involved? If so, that seems like it could look like preferential treatment.
In any case, it was an idiotic move on her part, even if there’s no coherent reason why Trump would object. When dealing with the case of the century, maybe try to keep things really, really clean.
Georgia’s most highly qualified attorneys, for this type of case, turned Willis down, and one of them admits it was out of fear for the inevitable death threats. That’s the problem that led her to pick a friend. The code of legal ethics needs to be strengthened so attorneys cannot turn down cases because the client (in this case, a local DA charging a national politician) is unpopular. Like physicians, the only reason attorneys should be able to turn down a client is being too busy, or unqualified in the needed specialty.
In a rational world, the judge would toss it as being frivolous, and recommend they take it up with the next highest court during their appeals if they think it has merit.
I think you meant to say “risks being targeted by domestic terrorists.”
But, so what? Let’s say it was preferential treatment. Lets say she gave him that case because they’re dating…then what? Is Trump any more likely to lose because of it? If this were a Judge/Prosecutor or AG/lawyer from an outside firm relationship, I could maybe understand, but as it stands, I can’t see how it harms anyone outside of their workplace.
The most coherent argument I could find when I saw this thread yesterday and asked myself the same question is that they’re saying that he got the job because of preferential treatment and that he’s not experienced enough to handle a case like this. First of all, every accusation. Secondly, how do you think they’ll remedy that problem? They may well be correct about his experience, I really don’t know, but ISTM Willis could choose to fix the problem but finding a better, more experienced lawyer for this case. I know Trump is just trying to delay things, but it seems like an inexperienced prosecutor might be helpful for his side.
I’ve represented a lot of unpopular people in my career. But I did it voluntarily, (as a criminal defense attorney). Are you saying I should have an obligation to defend Trump if I didn’t want to? Oh Hell no.
[If Trump couldn’t find any lawyer for his criminal case, the court should appoint one. If they appointed me, I’d do my job.]
Yes, but you’re thinking logically. This is not about logic. It’s about manipulating emotions, and delay, delay, delay. Trump’s only play is to run out the clock on all of the cases against him, until he becomes Supreme Emperor, and can start the Great American Purge.
I’m trying to imagine these sort of shenanigans in any other trial.
Weren’t there all sorts of rumors that Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden were bumping uglies when prosecuting OJ? It was the stuff of Inside Edition and other tawdry “news” shows, but it never made it inside the courtroom.
And that trial was a circus.
But this…this is so far beyond anything even remotely in the realm of normalcy, I just can’t even begin to articulate it.
I know of lots of prosecutors who are personally involved with other attorneys. It’s incredibly mundane.
And even if being involved together somehow rises to a professional problem, it’s absolutely never something a criminal defendant can invoke. Ok, so him and her shouldn’t mix business and pleasure; that has jack shit to do with whether some mook broke the law. Take it up with the ethics board.
This judge has gotten praise for how he’s handled these proceedings, but the mere fact that he is even tolerating these proceedings is outrageous. This has no precedent, as best as I can tell.
BTW – anyone know why these proceedings are at an apparent standstill right now? No news of any kind since Friday, 2/16.
And I have no doubt that’s the reason for this, but of all the shit they can throw at the wall, ‘you should get a better prosecutor’ seems like an odd one. It’s another hail mary that’s going to have increasingly dire consequences if he doesn’t get across the finish line in time, or at all. And, even if he does get elected, these cases aren’t going to disappear (hopefully).
It’s like shooting the guard as you run out of the bank you robbed. It might help you get away, but if you get caught, you’re going to be in even more trouble.
I agree completely. I have seen at least a dozen similar relationships. It’s not a conflict of interest in any way. [I heard on the radio this morning that Georgia law doesn’t even consider it a conflict if opposing lawyers are in a relationship]
The question of how Trump’s people had access to Wade’s cellphone data arose as a matter of curiosity in the other thread. Not sure if that’s related, but it could be.
It appears that they obtained the records with a valid subpoena.
Anna Bower (Lawfare) breaks it down in this Twitter thread…
My understanding is that they’re trying to get her removed from the case, not fired, in the hopes the case lands in an office more sympathetic to Trump and his cronies.
My point was if they’re trying to prove some “unethical” act that wastes the taxpayers’ $$$—the horror!—where that act does nothing to jeopardize the case in question, then what’s the proper outcome? What’s the point?
IOW, it’s all nonsense, and people are buying it, even some of the good guys.
I’m unclear on the defense’s legal foundation to assert a potential conflict of interest as a result of the relationship between the prosecutors. There are some plausible sounding grounds though I must say that I don’t buy these arguments. The first argument is that Fani Willis pushed a dubious unfounded prosecution so that she could justify hiring her boyfriend as a special prosecutor to handle the case, so he could make enough money to take her on vacation. This is basically silly because prosecutors always have plenty more cases they could bring if they had the resources. They don’t need to push dubious cases.
Another objection, which seems closer to what the Trump team is pushing, is that Fani Willis hired her incompetent boyfriend to be the prosecutor solely because of their personal relationship. She allows him to continue to prosecute the case because when he earns money prosecuting the case, he takes her on vacation. So, she has a conflict in allowing him to continue the case. Perhaps this conflict also means that she is failing to independently oversee the prosecution of the case, which might mean that where a reasonable prosecutor would have dropped the charges, she allows her boyfriend to continue the prosecution because she doesn’t want to fire him or criticize him. Likewise, even if Mr. Wade believed this prosecution was unfounded, he might not want to tell Ms. Willis that because of their personal relationship, thus the zombie prosecution continues against Mr. Trump’s interest. An incompetent prosecutor might also raise specious arguments and make excessive demands on the defense that waste defense’s funds where a more experienced prosecutor might run a more efficient case. Not that I think any of these arguments are sincere or particularly strong.
Any crack gives them the opportunity to start digging for dirt. That’s how a Whitewater investigation into Bill Clinton eventually landed on the blue dress. And how an investigation into Benghazi eventually landed on Hillary’s email server. Willis getting grilled on the affair can lead to other facts that can have more discovery and more questions. Eventually they are onto something totally different than the affair. She’ll get removed because of something totally unrelated to the affair, like she didn’t withhold taxes when she hired the neighbor kid to rake her leaves.
One of the dumbest items is the question of who paid for what vacation wise. I’m sure they each had enough money to take a cruise before this case ever existed. How these non-case related things the defense is bringing up are allowed to become time wasting things is mystifying.