I’m still not sure how that’s relevant, unless Wade were the defendant in this case. All of those talk about the ability to do your duty (try a court case). How would having a relationship with someone on your team interfere with that?
My thought on that is above.
Nope. At least, not by the prosecution rules I’m familiar with.
The role of a prosecutor is a public agent, whose function is to assess the evidence carefully and determine if there is a reasonable likelihood of conviction
If they decide to take a case to trial they are not supposed to be determined to get a conviction at all costs, but to present the evidence for a conviction as fairly as possible, and to disclose any contradictory evidence to the accused.
The usual phrase used in our system is : « The Crown neither wins nor loses. »
The prosecutor is not supposed to be out to get the accused at all costs.
It doesn’t have to make sense, it just has to burn the clock.
Still doesn’t in any way answer my question. That isn’t relevant to her ability to try the case, unless Wade was horribly underqualified, wasn’t doing any work, and just got paid to be there then shared the money. In which case, okay, Wade is taking the spot of someone who could actually contribute to the case.
None of that seems to be true though, the judge opined that Wade seemed quite qualified.
Now, if they can show that Willis was lying, I could see that being a problem. Of course, that’s a lot to prove and they don’t seem to have gotten anywhere with that.
I know what you’re saying.
If you’re asking me what makes sense, I’ll shake my head.
If you’re asking what I think their collective strategy is, I’d say they (the gaggle of lawyers for the cabal of Defendants) want to accuse Willis of frank corruption and hope that convinced the Judge that she and her team should be disqualified from the case.
Corruption may very well be criminal in this situation, so … if they can clear that bar, Willis may be backed into a corner and have to make a deal.
If, if, if, if…
So the plan is
Willis is disqualified
???
Dismissed with prejudice
I think Cervaise addressed this part 
So far, the global Trump strategy has been to survive another day. They don’t have much more than that.
Gotcha, but I thought that’s what they’ve been doing this whole time.
A couple of days ago, I think they believed they had a reasonable chance at making an argument for disqualification. In that scenario, they see Willis as the engine behind the prosecution, the motivator, the fuel, whatever metaphor you prefer. If they remove her, then the fire dies, and the lower-grade apparatchiks decide to chicken out, so the whole thing fades away. That was their angle.
Now that they’ve shit the bed with their attempted argument, I think they’re seeing it more realistically as a hail mary. They’re pushing in all their chips with every possible citation about conflict of interest, no matter how tangential, and if they get traction, great. But if not, they fall back to the usual strategy of just going around in circles until the clock runs out.
I presume it is.
What I think we’ve seen unfold throughout the relatively brief course of this Hearing on the Motion to disqualify is the slow, methodical pursuit of that goal by the defendants’ attorneys.
If Willis and Wade were a couple much earlier than they’ve told us, then I think their story – and perhaps their role in the case – is in jeopardy.
When the State (Atty Cross) went after Wade’s former partner’s credibility, I assumed that – were they to breach A/C privilege – he might be in a position to support the notion that Wade/Willis were an item far longer than they said.
I think Cross was weakening Terrence Bradley’s credibility preemptively, in case the privilege was pierced.
Which is dot one in the theory I propound.
Dot two is to create the perception that appointing him, generating big fees for him, and sharing in that bounty was all a plot from the beginning.
Do I believe any of that? Not right now.
Stay tuned.
This reminds me of the whole “Biden is taking bribes” nonsense; there’s no nefarious conduct that ever actually happened!
Corruption? What corruption?
This isn’t some sort of overreach of prosecutorial power. trump did try to overthrow the election: it was recorded! So this surely is a good faith prosecution.
This is like a person on trial for murder claiming that he’s standing trial only because the DA wants to pad his travel expenses
Yeah, I feel the same way. It is a long shot given how badly it has gone but if it works, they win. If it doesn’t work, at least it might delay things a bit.
I haven’t seen anything suggesting that this motion is pausing or delaying the pre-trial and trial schedules. Of course, if the motion is granted, there will be delay, or worse. But if it’s denied, they should still be on track.
Well, adultery is still illegal in Georgia, but it is not a crime, rather, a misdemeanor. Technically, if Wade’s divorce is not final, any dalliances he might be having with Willis would be legal floutations, which would depict Willis as a prosecutor who shows disregard for the law.
But, this activity has to be proven/admitted-to. If they went on a trip to Paris or Jamaica or wherever and engaged in carnal acts, it seems like that would not be prosecutable under Georgia law, since it did not happen in Georgia.
Then in that case it’s just desperation.
My thoughts exactly. It’s insane. (to plagiarize DavidNRockies) If this were anyone else, and their lawyer made these accusations, the judge would either ignore or reprimand them. Not hold a hearing to discuss it.
Willis was disqualified from the case of one of fake electors, then state senator Burt Jones, because she hosted a fundraiser for the Dem running against him. Currently Jones is the Lieutenant Governor of Georgia and more importantly he’s not out on bail. So I think their plan is something like get Willis disqualified and hope we get the Burt Jones treatment.
One of the defendant’s lawyers brought this up yesterday.
By going through with wade’s lawyer that wade was married during a series of dates. When the judge asked him where he was going with this line of questioning, the lawyer brought up that adulatory was illegal in Georgia. The judge seemed a bit taken aback, and paraphrasing here, that it wasn’t charged that often. The defendant’s lawyer shot back that it was a misdemeanor.
It was quite the moment. I can only imagine what ms Willis would have said to that.
The judge didn’t say that it wasn’t charged often. The judge said that the law had been found unconstitutional, and therefore adultery was not criminal, whether or not the law is still in the books. The attorney came off like a jackass.