Interesting post.
I’m thinking there is still more to this we don’t know.
Regarding other attorneys having turned down the special prosecutor job due to personal safety fears, is there any argument that this violates legal ethics? It seems there is an obligation to, within reason, defend highly unpopular clients. But is there any obligation to accept a commission to prosecute?
Nah, I don’t see it.
It might be a political scandal regarding how tax payer money is being spent, but it’s not going to impact the fairness of the trial.
donald has a constitutional right to a speedy trial, and he could make that demand at any time. He’s the one choosing to delay.
That doesn’t impact trial. And no defendant has a right to a plea.
Well, there is no reasonable plea bargain imaginable. He did nothing improper, he was just doing his job, the presidency granted him immunity. If he were to cop some sort of plea, all that gets defenestrated, jeopardizing his position in all the other cases.
The only thing I can think of is “Just drop the case and I will tell my followers to stop trying to kill you.” That would look ever so good on paper. I would like to see that.
Roman’s lawyer, Ashleigh Merchant, said she reviewed the case file in Wade’s ongoing divorce proceedings at the Superior Court Clerk’s Office and made copies of certain documents. But the case file was later improperly sealed because no court hearing was held as required by law, the motion said.
Because the case remains under seal, Merchant said she is not sharing the information she obtained from the divorce file until the seal is lifted. She also said she is asking a judge to unseal the case file.
Remember this from post 2092? Cobb County judge Henry Thompson unsealed filings in the Wades’ divorce case today.
Nothing is available online at this point but materials are available at the clerk’s office. Expect news today on the strength of the evidence Merchant didn’t share, but claimed existed, in the original disqualification filing.
Legal analyst Joyce Alene says that signs so far point to a political stunt rather than any substance for Willis’ disqualification.
I think she’s referring to the subpoena for Willis to sit for a deposition there (an issue that was also part of the hearing today).
Something in Georgia law says something to the the effect of, “You can only force a public official to testify if you have exhausted all other means of getting the desired info.” Since they want to ask Willis about her relationship with Wade, and they have not interviewed Wade yet, who presumably knows the details of that relationship, the Judge kicked that particular can down the road.
She may even get off the hook when that is reheard because this is a no-fault divorce and, while she may have had a relationship with Wade, she won’t know anything that is needed to settle the divorce (details of shared assets and such).
No bombshells so far.
Here’s the concluding Tweet of a thread from Anna Bower of Lawfare:
I’ll be very surprised if there is anything truly untoward or subject to sanction when this circumstance is fully investigated. That said, I haven’t reviewed a single thing about the allegations.
Nevertheless…
There’s nothing improper about people who work closely together entering into a relationship. It happens everywhere, all the time. People in the legal field are particularly sensitive to their ethical obligations in such a situation, and Fani Willis didn’t get where she is by being a dummy. I find it hard to believe she would jeopardize her entire rather storied career by losing her head and doing questionable things over a romance.
On the other side of the equation, we have the Trump folks.
Does making the allegation:
Potentially delay the trial? Check.
Undermine citizens’ faith in their legal system/institution? Check.
Dirty up Fani Willis? Check.
Obviously anything is possible, but out of the gate, I’m not too worried.
We’ll have to see how Brian Kemp handles the situation if the state legislature tries to use its power to have Willis removed. That’s the one thing I’m concerned about, though I doubt it survives appellate/SCOTUS review. Assuming stare decisis is still a thing sometimes.
I’ve been internally seething since the allegations came out. If true, she did an INCREDIBLY dumb thing that jeopardizes the entire case. While not a crime, it looks bad and gives the crazies something to point to and cry “corruption”. If false, they’re unfairly dragging Willis’s name through the mud, the Fox News crowd will never hear the truth and will assume a cover up and corruption, and the trial will probably be delayed while they clear it all up. Roman’s attorney is definitely earning her fees.
TrumpCo is going to do that no matter what. Look how hard they’re working to conflate the misdeeds of Hunter Biden with something-something-impeachable for Joe Biden – and coming up with zippo. Doesn’t matter; it works on their voters, and that’s all they care about.
Fani Willis need not do anything wrong to be treated by Trump people as though she did. I hope we can all keep this in mind when we hear scandalous allegations against her (or anyone working to hold Trump to account) made without actual evidence.
Fani Willis should not have to adhere to the morality of the Virgin Mary in order to hold her position.
Trump traffics in lies and spin. I believe nothing that comes out of his mouth – or the mouths of his surrogates – of which Roman is one.
If they present actual evidence, then of course it’s a different situation. But so far? Sounds like a smear campaign.
And threats… and con jobs… and …
Did I see somewhere that Fani Willis was accused of bias? Because, if I did see that, OMFG, the prosecutor is not unbiased? Unfair!
Trump joins motion to remove Willis from the Georgia case. (gift link to NYTimes article)
In addition to saying she should be removed because of the alleged affair:
Mr. Trump’s lawyers also raised a new argument for ousting Ms. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney: that she violated state bar rules when she claimed in a recent speech that racism was behind the effort to remove her.
Delay, delay and obfuscate.
For those interested, I’ve linked to a calendar of upcoming events in Trump’s civil and criminal trials:
Thank you — but 44 pages — yike! Could you (or someone) tell us about a highlight or two — something important that will occur almost surely in the next few months? Or maybe note in which month (before the election) he’ll likely be busiest with legal obligations?
Thank you!
I had a look at the PDF. It is just poorly formatted for the calendars as a single month will take up two pages.
there is a book out called “find me the votes” a deep dive on how the phone call was taped and the scheme that ended up with 19 people indicted.
an interesting tidbit i learned during an interview on msnbc last night, was how the phone call was taped. i always wondered about that. it seemed odd that raffensperger would tape it. turns out it was a staffer looking out for her boss.
another interesting tidbit was that the staffer taped it in florida, which is a 2 consent state. there was back and forth over on the issue of legality of the tape, and possible charges to the staffer.
i plan on reading the full book on friday.
Wow, a hero. What was her name?
Ahh, those were the days (from Wikipedia):
" The release of the smoking gun tape destroyed Nixon politically. The ten congressmen who had voted against all three articles of impeachment in the House Judiciary Committee announced they would support the impeachment article accusing Nixon of obstructing justice when the articles came up before the full House.[87] Additionally, John Jacob Rhodes, the House leader of Nixon’s party, announced that he would vote to impeach, stating that “coverup of criminal activity and misuse of federal agencies can neither be condoned nor tolerated”.[88]
“On the night of August 7, 1974, Senators Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott and Congressman Rhodes met with Nixon in the Oval Office. Scott and Rhodes were the Republican leaders in the Senate and House, respectively; Goldwater was brought along as an elder statesman. The three lawmakers told Nixon that his support in Congress had all but disappeared. Rhodes told Nixon that he would face certain impeachment when the articles came up for vote in the full House; indeed, by one estimate, no more than 75 representatives were willing to vote against impeaching Nixon for obstructing justice.[88] Goldwater and Scott told the president that there were enough votes in the Senate to convict him, and that no more than 15 Senators were willing to vote for acquittal–not even half of the 34 votes he needed to stay in office.”