This case really makes no sense. She had a consensual affair with someone who would be on the same side of the case that she's on. There is no conflict of interest.
this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
94 points (93.5% liked)
politics
19978 readers
3768 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The allegation is that he was hired for the sole purpose of prosecuting Trump, and they both used what they were paid to work on the case in order to fund their ongoing affair. Trumps team is alleging that the entire prosecution of him and the other co-defendants is that this case was brought solely for the purposes of covering up their affair, funding it, and advancing their own name value at the expense of Trump.
For the record, it's obvious bullshit. But the appearance of impropriety is a real thing, and there's plenty of that. Wade spent the entire time on the witness stand trying to split hairs and argue semantics, all while having a smug look on his face as if he thinks he's getting away with something. Both of them should have recused themselves from the case the minute the affair became public, with the usual talking point of "I intend to fight back against this attempt to drag my personal life into this case, however given the importance of this case I feel it is best for me to step aside and hand the case to another prosecutor to protect the integrity of the case and avoid any appearance of impropriety."
She didn't, and it very well could not only derail the case, but give Trump an enormous campaign victory as it will go a long way in convincing undecided voters that these prosecutions are politically motivated, giving him yet another bump in popularity during a time Biden is stumbling.
You know how RBG should have stepped down and retired during Obama's term but didn't out of her own hubris? Remember how the rest of us ended up paying for that? Same thing applies here. Fani Willis' own hubris is preventing her from stepping aside and letting another prosecutor at least salvage the case, and that hubris could cost everybody far more if Trump's team manages to get the whole thing thrown out.
and they both used what they were paid to work on the case in order to fund their ongoing affair.
What, were they taking state money over to the adult novelty store or something?
Like you said, obvious bullshit.
The theory is this:
Wade was hired for the sole purpose of prosecuting Trump. Both he and Willis were (I could be wrong on the number here, but you get the idea) over $600,000 during their time in the investigation. This $600k was used to fund (among other things) a trip to Belize and other vacations, along with billing the GA DA's office for expenses that occured during these trips that should have been personal. Had they not "gone after Trump", they would not have earned the $600k they have been using to fund their affair.
He's basically saying that the entire prosecution is just an elaborate scheme to fund and cover up a personal affair. Normally, this would and should be written off as irrelevant nonsense, but their testimony yesterday does show that they had an ongoing affair and played all sorts of shell games with money to cover it up. Trump very easily could walk away from the entire case on a technicality because Willis couldn't keep her personal and professional life separate, couldn't avoid the appearance of impropriety, and refuses to step aside because of her own hubris.
Wouldn't it just go to the next prosecutor? It's not like all of the evidence of crimes has suddenly disappeared (and of course, the people who have pled guilty already)
The problem is that whoever takes over the case might be sympathetic to Trump. This is Georgia after all.
Why would this end the case and not result simply in replacing the prosecutors.
She’s the DA. The DA picks the prosecutors that go to trials for the state, and now she is at risk of being disqualified - and as a result the entirety of the DAs office from the case.
At minimum if that happens it is yet another delay to the case as they scramble for replacements, who will need time to review the case and may not have the same level of understanding as Willis and Wade who’ve spent many months working it so far.
Even the word "affair" seems stretching it. Wade and his wife were separated, living separately, Willis was single. It's not like they were sneaking around. They had a consensual relationship.
Honestly, the only real problem I have with the whole issue, unless it's true that they were using taxpayer money (which I'm doubtful about), is that Willis made a statement about not having sex with employees if elected because her predecessor was accused of sexual harassment and other sexual issues. I'm sorry, I'm trying to find a link to it but I can't find one. One of the late night shows last night showed the footage of her saying it.
But being a hypocrite about something you said before you got elected should have no effect on the Trump case.
Oh, v the whole "taxpayer money" thing is nonsense. They aren't saying they improperly used government funds. They're saying that their paychecks come from the government, so it's taxpayer money. It was their salary.
I didn't think there was anything to it. Like I said, my only problem here is that she's a hypocrite. But she wouldn't be the first lawyer who's a hypocrite.
The only question I’d have is whether the salary that was agreed upon for the prosecutor was established before the relationship, if she even had any say in it at all. Otherwise it might be fair to argue she unfairly bumped his pay, meaning some taxpayer money unfairly went to his pocket.
Not that I really care all that much. Even if the relationship started before she says it did, and even if some of his $650,000 payment was unjustly given (not that I believe all of that)…aren’t we having a trial about obstruction of the democratic process here?
It’s more that this whole thing is ridiculous, given the stakes of the trial, than it being actually upsetting.
I'd be super surprised if she was able to set his salary. Government workers usually have pretty narrow bands.
It was on the daily show. I think it's the second story in the clip.
Thanks!
Even so, we've seen examples where even a married couple has been able to keep their personal relationship out of their professional. No one would call the work effort of either kellyanne Conway or her husband George at all sub-par, despite the fact they were living with a domestic partner diametrically opposed politically.
It's possible for people to be professional, and I'm disappointed this is a seemingly new thing for one party in this case. I think even Mr Trump characterized Ms Conway as an excellent and hard working pro, many times, before contradicting himself when it was more suitable later.
I’m still waiting for evidence that I don’t live in the stupidest f’ing country ever. This isn’t helping.
Why is anyone giving this god damn story airtime still? Free trump press, good work
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The attorneys had already admitted to their relationship but firmly rejected the “meritless” and “salacious” allegations as “bad-faith” attempts to see her kicked off a case that Mr Trump has baselessly labelled a conspiracy against him, according to court filings.
During her testimony, Ms Willis vigorously denied those claims and called an allegation that she slept with Mr Wade after meeting him “extremely offensive”.
“I’m not ruling on any of this tomorrow,” Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee said as the day-long hearing came to a close on Thursday evening.
Ms Willis had initially tried blocking efforts by the former president’s attorneys and other defence lawyers to compel her testimony, but she withdrew her objection on Thursday and told the court that she “ran” down the hall after learning that Mr Wade finished testifying.
Her testimony builds on what has become a high-stakes line of inquiry – what Ms Willis and others have cast as an effort to undermine her prosecution and delay and distract from Mr Trump’s proceedings – that could threaten her removal from the case altogether.
If Juge McAfee determines that she can be disqualified, her team would be removed and new prosecutors would be appointed, a process that could take months and further delay a sprawling trial that has been tentatively scheduled to begin in August.
The original article contains 903 words, the summary contains 221 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
The potential problem for Willis is that she was previously disqualified from investigating the Georgia lieutenant governor, Burt Jones, over a lower legal standard of “appearance of impropriety”, after she publicly endorsed Jones’s political rival in Jones’s re-election race.
There is a prior case where she was disqualified due to the “appearance of impropriety”. And we’re having the same discussion, only in a more important case. Perception matters in a jury trial, and Willis did not take the care to avoid the appearance or suggestion of impropriety- again.
We’re all pissed about judges giving lenient treatment to Trump so far, but that’s how you build and KEEP a defensible case. “Reasonable doubt” has gotten a lot of guilty people off free, no matter how shaky the evidence creating that doubt is:
Roman’s filing, in essence, accused Willis of engaging in a quasi-kickback scheme… [and] alleged the relationship had started before he was hired. The filing itself, however, provided no concrete evidence that showed alleged self-dealing. At the time, Merchant said her information was based on confidential sources and information in Wade’s divorce case. Yet when the divorce records were unsealed, there was similarly no concrete evidence.
The only angle here is to sew doubt and chaos and hope to introduce more delay, as is always the case.