Well, maybe I should have stopped after saying that conflicts of interest should be against the rules regardless of amount.
For all I know, if Mr. Wade is dropped from the Trump case, his firm will find another client, paying more per hour, the next day. And there might be law firm office rent, and paralegal salaries, included in his fee. But included expenses are a real possibility in many situations we’d all agree are a conflict of interest.
I know she had a hard time finding a special prosecutor, with others turning her down for what I consider the totally unethical reason of fear for personal safety. Good lawyers sometimes make others extremely angry! If you want a totally safe job, pick something else! So I have total sympathy with her picking Wade for the job. And I even have sympathy for taking some risks on the way to love.
I don’t think people should stop living their lives within legal, ethical boundaries for fear that political zealots will shriek in horror. Fuck those guys. The proceedings were always going to be assessed as corrupt by those idiots.
This is a big nothing-burger. It’s an annoying distraction, no more. But, but, but the MAGAs will now say this invalidates the whole trial! Oh noes!
The entire basis of your “conflict of interest” framing is that “The hiring prosecutor might hesitate to do [something] because it would lower her boyfriend’s income.” Remove the amount of money involved, and your argument vanishes.
after reading “find me the votes”, the threats and pressure on the da’s office, can pull everyone closer. i can understand how one could get into a relationship with someone in the trench with you.
To clarify my comment about how he’s getting paid less, lemme quote @rocking_chair
quoting Wade’s affadavit:
So your suggestion appears to be that Willis offered this guy a job at a below-market rate, fell in love with him, started getting financial benefits from him, and then would keep him at the below market job rather than free him up to take a job that paid more.
If anything, the conflict would go the other way: she might decide to drop charges against Trump so that her lover could earn more money elsewhere and thereby enrich herself. But that’s not remotely what’s happening, nor is it the sort of conflict of interest that the conspirators would dislike.
the hero who taped the call that will live in infamy, was raffensperger’s chief of staff, jordan fuchs. she did it to protect her boss. she was concerned about how trump would misrepresent meetings and phone calls.
the part of the book concerning that call was very interesting. no one in ga wanted that call.
willis was looking into things before that phone call, very intently. she was able to use the phone call because it was in her county. raffensperger lives in her county.
You are literally correct. One never knows for certain the income change directional change if such conflict of interest employment ends. The contractor may finds another gig that pays more. So I should have worded it more carefully.
There may be a couple millions Americans, on the internet, criticizing Willis and Wade, and I don’t want to add to that. What they did seems to be legally allowed in Georgia, morally correct with respect to their family responsibilities, and humanly understandable. But I also don’t want a different prosecutorial standard for unpopular defendants, including Donald Trump. There should not be a conflict of interest that disincentivizes prosecutors from dropping cases. I think that, going forward, Georgia rules should be changed to discourage the romantic situation here, and another good attorney should take over Wade’s work.
My bigger problem is that some of the other good attorneys are unwilling to take the personal physical risk involved.
Again, there is no such conflict here. If the law is reworked to avoid a conflict, it shouldn’t be reworked to avoid this situation, given the lack of conflict in this situation.
What’s more, the tenuous conflict you imagine has a much, much more common conflict: a prosecutor could decide not to drop charges in a case because they want literally any staff they’ve hired to maintain their jobs. Any workplace with cordial relationships and with people hired for specific projects would have that conflict: laying off people you like is a shitty feeling. It’s an inevitable conflict. Do we avoid it by declaring that there must be no friendships in workplaces?
The whole idea is just really ridiculous. It 100% doesn’t apply here, given Wade’s ability to make more money elsewhere, and its implications for other cases are absurd.
But it’s the sort of potential “conflict of interest” that exists every single time that anyone, anywhere, hires someone to perform a professional service for money.
There is always the risk that a professional will violate their code of ethics and put their billing interest above your interests. It’s a risk that exists every single time that anyone hires a doctor, lawyer, accountant or other professional, whether that person is a friend, lover or total stranger.
This is why I don’t think “there’s a conflict because if I pay money in exchange for a service the person I hired might put their own financial interest ahead of my interests” constitutes a valid example of a conflict of interest. If the professional overbills you or defrauds you, it’s wrong but it’s not a conflict of interest.
As I said before, Willis’s interest seemed to be “investigate the conspiracy and build a case that will result in the indictment or conviction of as many of the individuals involved as possible. Given the complexity of the case and the fact that they obtained indictments against 19 individuals, I think she did a masterful job. Wade seemed fullly aligned with those interests and the money she paid him was well spent. The results speak for themselves.
Frankly, even if the $654,000 only represents the amount billed for Wade’s services- and there was another agreement in place for expenses and support staff……it’s not that much spread out over two years and Wade probably had substantial other work. Alina Habba has allegedly been paid over 3 million to date to represent Trump in other matters, and she only came on the scene about 6 months ago.
It’s only problematic because it offers a chink in the armor, a toehold in the wall, a just-plausible-enough thing to point at and call corruption and lack of ethics so that the defense can raise a stink.
As far as I know Willis had broken no laws, violated no rules of her workplace, or engaged in any unethical conduct in engaging in this relationship. But it looks bad, and that’s enough. She handed them the bullet. It’s a dummy round, but it will still make a big noise.
It’s problematic because it gives Trump and his allies ammunition. It allows Georgia Republicans to argue they have casus belli to remove Willis under their absurd law allowing for the removal of a prosecutor. I get it, people who work together sometimes get close and personal relationships can result. But at some point both of them probably shouldn’t have thought, “This is a serious case and we’re under a microscope. Do I want to do anything that might prove to be a problem?” No, it shouldn’t be an issue. Realistically Willis should have known it would be.