this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
67 points (91.4% liked)

News

23638 readers
3069 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As soon as allegations of an inappropriate romantic relationship between Willis and attorney Nathan Wade surfaced last month, speculation about the future of the case began to swirl. Even if the prosecution isn’t derailed, the upheaval has certainly created an unwanted distraction for Willis and her team and could undermine public confidence in the validity of the case.

The defense attorney who first exposed the relationship says it creates a conflict of interest and is asking the judge to toss out the indictment and to prohibit Willis, Wade and their offices from further involvement in the case. In a response filed earlier this month, Willis acknowledged a “personal relationship” but said it has no bearing on the serious criminal charges she’s pursuing and asked the judge to dismiss the motions seeking her disqualification without a hearing.

The law says “disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one,” Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee said during a hearing Monday. Because he believes “it’s possible that the facts alleged by the defendant could result in a disqualification, I think an evidentiary hearing must occur to establish the record on those core allegations.”

top 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Cogency 66 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Pedophilia is literally excusable for Republicans if it has that magical R next to the name (Roy Moore anyone?) But as soon as it's two consenting black people having a consensual affair, with no obvious reason to believe involves any conflict of interest, somehow that requires an investigation?

This is more racist misogynistic (double standards that powerful women can't enjoy sex) "rules for thee but not for me" BS.

[–] dephyre 63 points 10 months ago (2 children)

What interest is conflicted, here? They're on the same side, does one of them not want to win their own case?

[–] ashok36 35 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The argument is that Willis brought the case so that she could hire her boyfriend and funnel a shit load of state money to his law firm for his services.

Everything else is a distraction. This point is the only thing the judge will care about and it's a pretty ridiculous argument.

"Yeah, I'll indict a former president on RICO so I can send my boyfriend half a million dollars. Great plan!"

[–] rayyy 24 points 10 months ago (2 children)

she could hire her boyfriend and funnel a shit load of state money to his law firm for his services

Except he isn't being paid any more than the other attorneys on the case

[–] Cerbero 8 points 10 months ago

Isn’t he also taking a lower rate than what he normally charges also ?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

He's getting paid more (hourly rate) than the RICO expert guy, but the same as another.

[–] FlyingSquid 20 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What interest is conflicted, here?

Trump's interest of course.

[–] ashok36 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I give Willis the benefit of the doubt but it's absolutely the appearance of impropriety. As an elected office holder myself, I have to recuse myself from any votes or even discussions when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars on anything that might benefit me personally even tangentially. I can't even argue we should build a fence if that fence would affect my property in any way no matter how badly it's needed or warranted. I can't even argue against it.

[–] Dkarma 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

So how does her dating another attorney have anything to do with her cases? It doesn't.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

Dating another attorney isn't the issue.

Hiring the other attorney she happened to be dating for a high profile case against a former POTUS is.

As an aside it would have been just as suspect if it'd been a low-profile case, but the relationship likely wouldn't have been discovered.

[–] stoly 4 points 10 months ago

It doesn't, this is a political smokescreen.

[–] stoly 1 points 10 months ago

This is why ethics also include the outward appearance of things. It's not enough to do/not do something, you have to also avoid people thinking that you did/didn't do something.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago

How come an attorney isn't allowed to hire her boyfriend for a reduced rate on her own team but a defendant can LITERALLY appoint the Judge in his case?