Or is it?
I totally understand if it can be shown Willis lied about this that is a serious thing but, if the testimony of this witness is all they have how much weight does that actually carry? Particularly since this could pretty easily be seen as sour grapes from a disgruntled former employee who was dismissed for cause?
I’ll try again, and I hope I’m not being dense. If everything alleged is true, how does this harm any defendant? (Notice the absence of “effect” to add gravitas to my post 
.)
It’s interesting how they’re dancing around the whole “sexual relationship” thing. At least, the questioning lawyer (Sadow) is; Wade just shoots back, “You mean intercourse?”
You’re never dense. 
And the ‘affect’ v. ‘effect’ issue is a common error, @Peter_Morris’s cute xkcd notwithstanding. (Aspenglow, raised by 2 former journalists who drilled correct grammar into her poor little brain at a formative age. It’s a curse.)
In answer to your question, the defendant isn’t harmed. This is really all about dirtying up Willis. The problem is, she let herself get caught by possibly lying about when the relationship started. @Kolak_of_Twilo makes a good point about potential sour grapes from a disgruntled former employee and I think Trump’s team had better have corroboration for that assertion.
As things look right now, she could be removed from the case based on an appearance of impropriety.
If it happens, it will cause delay and it’s unlikely another prosecutor will be able to get their arms around the complexity of this RICO case as Willis already had.
It shouldn’t affect < cough > how the case is tried… but it will.
sexual congress, sir. are you speaking of sexual congress?
this is getting a bit much now. we have gone from a somewhat straight forward thing to seriously nitpicky things regarding divorce proceedings.
The current attorney grilling Wade doesn’t seem to be making any headway.
Is today’s presiding judge the last stop? If he says that Willis can stay on the case and that’s that … can Trump’s team appeal? I’m guessing the answer is “Yes, they can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court”.
The judge decides this, though, right? An appearance of impropriety that has no impact on the defendants’ rights, is that cause for recusal?
I’ll also add for the record that I do know the difference between “affect” and “effect,” and that was a momentary brain fart. I also realize that this admission of diminished capacity now renders me unfit for the presidency.
They seem to be diving into the weeds of attorney client privilege between Wade and his attorney.
Does ‘interrogatory’ mean ‘formal written question’ in this case ?
Yes, it does.
It’s the clear legal precedent of “If someone puts his wing-wang in her hoo-ha, then the defendant gets to go free”.
No impact on recusal, true.
ETA: Wait, recusal of the judge? Or of Fani Willis?
Hell, I’d still vote for ya. 
That’s all I needed to hear. I’m getting the paperwork ready right away.
ETA: Recusal of Willis
Let me take another run at this.
The judge decides if the impropriety rises to the level of removing Willis from the case. Defendant’s rights aren’t harmed by her having a relationship or even an appearance of impropriety. But if it’s determined that Willis committed perjury in her representations made to the Court about when the relationship started, that would be hard for Judge McAfee to ignore and I expect there would be a sanction – that could include removal from the case.
Hope this clarifies.
It does. Thanks for you usual insight!
One more question for those who have been following the hearing: Was there any evidence introduced of their relationship predating his hiring beyond the single witness mentioned? Given the nature of the witness’s departure from Willis’s team, she seems an impeachable witness. I wouldn’t think she was a confidante.
Sorry if this was covered and I missed it.
For people inside the MAGA information bubble, all of these court cases are a political witch hunt against the anointed one by the Biden Crime Family anyway. For them this makes no difference.
For swing voters who are not inside that information bubble, if the judge says this affair is a nothingburger, do you really think it will make any of them say “sounds suspicious, the MAGA crowd were right, I’d better vote for Trump”?
Provided there is no actual corruption, I’m not convinced this is a big deal for voters, just potentially another delay. And I guess increased concern about this being a fig leaf for the politically-motivated removal of Willis by state Republicans.
They seem to be angling for establishing that Wade spent a lot of time at Willis’ house in 2021, implying that their relationship was more than professional at that time., if I’m hearing it right.
Part of Roman’s (Trump codefendant) argument is that this prosecution is baseless and Willis is pushing this complicated case, not in the pursuit of justice, but to enrich Wade and also herself because she’s in a relationship with Wade and benefiting financially via vacations and such. This is the conflict of interest that they are arguing.
Willis responded that that theory makes no sense because much of the so called benefits happened before the relationship started. Roman’s team says the relationship started before all this and has witness to back it up.
That is why there is so much focus on when the relationship started and why there is the possibility that the judge could remove Willis for conflict of interest. That’s the argument and they are definitely arguing that the defendants are being harmed,
Whether or not the judge buys this argument is still up in the air.