Fani Willis has fessed up to allegations made by Mike Roman, one of the 19 defendants in the Georgia election fraud case:
Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis (D) admitted she had a personal relationship with an outside prosecutor she appointed to manage the election interference case against former president Donald Trump and his allies but denied claims that the relationship had tainted the proceedings.
....Ashleigh Merchant, Roman’s attorney, has said she plans to issue subpoenas for witnesses and documents to back up her client’s claims of misconduct. Merchant said in a lawsuit this week that she has subpoenaed Willis and Wade to testify, and she is expected to seek testimony from Wade’s current and former law partners and others associated with the district attorney’s office.
I'm curious to see how this goes in court. Willis's affair with Nathan Wade may have been unwise or even improper, but it mostly seems (a) trivial and (b) completely unrelated to the election fraud case against Roman, Donald Trump, and others. It's pretty obviously just an attempt to smear Willis and force her to recount embarrassing personal details on the witness stand. Roman has all but bragged about this.
As always, IANAL. But this sure seems like a case that ought to be tossed out on summary judgment for being vindictive and frivolous.
Without bad faith…
Republicans would have no arguments at all..
so best case scenario for Trump et al is that she's removed from the case but I imagine there are other prosecutors to take her place.
Probably not. She's the elected prosecutor for Fulton County, which is surrounded by counties dominated by Republicans. Every other county's prosecutor has punted on the "made-for-Georgia" collusion that Willis has been willing to pursue.
Since Haley has pledged to pardon Trump, even if he gets banned by the Supreme Court, he will once again completely escape consequnces for his titanically sleazy actions.
I'm reminded of Henry II's famous lament.
Haley isn't going to be the republican nominee.
This particular case is a state proceeding and is not eligible for a presidential pardon. Not sayin' Trump won't slither out of it some way, but not that way.
Oh, but Trump is making the case! Therefore, he gets extra consideration and may even prevail! Or DA Willis could be murdered by Trump supporters. Either way, it's good news for Donnie the Mouth.
What is it about repulsives who must look into other folks bedrooms, and not those of other repulsives. They are claiming to be christian, etc. but they sure are the ones to pitch the first stone.
Serial adulterer Defendant Trump is just trying to find some area of commonality between himself and the prosecution.
If adultery was a crime, TFG would have long since been in jail.
The scandal is the billing, not the cooing.
I nominate this as comment of the year. I even registered just so I could do so.
What billing. There is no actual claim by the defense that Wade has been paid an inappropriate sum or even a non-standard pay rate. He's gotten a trivial amount compared to what Trump's campaign accounts have paid Trump's lawyers in this case.
1. Trump's payments to his lawyers are irrelevant.
2. Wade has presumably benefitted from taking the case, both reputationally and financially.
3. There is an obvious question of whether Willis gave Wade the case and the two are continuing to pursue it to finacially benefit Wade and to provide an excuse / opportunity for the two of them to spend time together.
It seems obvious that at this point both of them need to be out of this case. That will at minimum disrupt and delay it. Depending on how the replacement prosecutor is chosen and who it is it may end the case.
I just don’t understand how her relationship with an “outside prosecutor” has any harmful affect on the people being prosecuted.
I assume the reasoning goes something like:
1 Show the DA had/is having affair with prosecutor she hired
2 Leverage that to have prosecutor removed
3 Get case delayed as a result
The goal is to get the case dropped by having the republican official responsible for appointing the new prosecutor to refuse to appoint a new prosecutor.
It is not particularly genuinely difficult to understand as an argument - whether the argument stands up enough with the presiding judge is another matter, but it is not actually difficult.
The argument running that the special prosecutor and asserted up-charging are related to aim to benefit the romantically linked DA and hired Special prosecutor - that the scope and breadth of charging are executed expansively due to that liaison and financial benefit accruing to them via more extensive charging.
As per reading there is specific Georgia law that in fact directly touches and may have colourable basis.
The arch partisan tribal reactions that No Big Deal and Can't Understand are really precious pretence.
That at same time does not say that the attempt of the defence is anything more than just that, an attempt to leverage - but Willis was staggeringly stupid to have engaged in this and opened such legal doors (regardless of their foundation or their morality, quite immaterial to the legal risk).
The idea that Trump was up-charged in order to make the case more complex and therefore result in extra billable hours so her boyfriend would make more money so that they could go on expensive vacations seems like a Q conspiracy theory.
The man’s credentials are, regardless, a bit of a sideshow. They are relevant only to suggest that there was a personal relationship between Willis and Wade. It certainly doesn’t help that Wade filed papers to divorce his wife the day after Fani Willis hired him. But even if he were indisputably the best person possible for the role, he was paid $654,000, and Willis made choices throughout her prosecution that seem, in hindsight, calculated to require him.
Take the special grand jury, for instance. In 2022, Fulton County announced that it would use a special grand jury whose purpose would not be to indict anyone, but instead to gather evidence. These kinds of grand juries are very common in federal practice, but quite rare in Georgia.
And at the time this special grand jury was convened, it was already indisputable that Donald Trump had lied to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in the wake of the 2000 election, and sent Rudy Giuliani to lie to the state’s General Assembly, and encouraged fake electors to certify that they were real electors. In other words, the makings of a hard-to-challenge criminal conviction were already there. But instead, Wade was broadly used during those special grand jury proceedings, and he earned hundreds of thousands of dollars helping to conduct them. We now see the price of those delays, as Fulton County struggles to try the former president before the November election. https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-we-cant-just-shrug-off-the-fani-willis-scandal?utm_source=pocket_reader
It's fairly weak sauce.
Wouldn't we expect the defense to move for dismissal of charges? So ultimately the judge will decide on the charges on which tfg will be tried, not the prosecutor.
Except the claim of up-charging is a bald face lie. Further there is zero evidence of any unusual or non-standard payments to Wade. And lastly, the prosecutor doesn't do the charging, the grand jury does the charging.
Oh goodness, this is a great example of how silly this issue is and how easily the self apppointed wise, smarter-than-you moderates are influenced.
Here we have someone in this category who declares that this is a simple, easy to understand argument...but then he spends 4 paragraphs without making a simple, easy and sensible argument.
I believe his argument is that because these two are sleeping together, (insert missing substance here), there is unfair charging going on. There is no actual argument, instead he is just assuming the conclusion and telling us thats the simple argument.
Instead he focuses all the argument on how stupid Willis is and how much he dislikes partisans. No matter what the topic is or the facts are, this is Lounsburys argument on everything. Liberals dumb, partisans dumb, Lounsbury smart, argument over. Rinse and repeat.
Still nothing here. Its a culture war issue for Lounsbury, not a legal matter.
I agree 100% with Lounsbury. It is not a "nothingburger". It is a pretty remarkable display of bad judgement with very plausible implications of bad ethics and violations of rules, I think I've heard even laws. It is a terrible look from a PR point of view.
It has zero bearing on the legal merits of the case itself but may well end up the perfect excuse for some sort of political derailing of it all.
It seems, Willis hired someone will limited experience at the task at hand, trial of complex criminal cases, who she had an intimate relationship with.
I am not claiming the Trump case should, in anyway, be stopped. Further, I leave it to others to examine the, seemingly shaky, claim that Willis enriched herself via this process.
My point, trust in Government requires state and fed employees to follow certain ethics. Fani Willis failed to follow what I consider good Government standards.
Because she went to a lot of other people first, who declined because they didn't want to have to hire bodyguards for the next ten years. Also, Wade is a former prosecutor. What makes you claim he has no experience?
https://wadeandcampbell.com/nathan-j-wade/#:~:text=A%20Former%20Prosecutor%20and%20natural,Pro%20Has%20State%20Court%20Judge.
Genuine not snarky question are you being genuine or sarcastic when you talk about his experience because if you actually read his bio he sounds like he’s really primarily a personal injury lawyer, basically an ambulance chaser.
“Whether you are in need of representation after a major car accident or are going through a change in your personal life that requires representation with a family law issue; whether you have a contract dispute, or whether you are involved in any type of civil litigation, Nathan J. Wade will be a zealous advocate for you.”
Well, then, you need to move to Switzerland, because you will NEVER be satisfied by the government in this nation of people descended from selfish, narcissitic chancers. Remember, that we're the progeny of people who were dissatisfied where they originally lived.
Yes, it has made us great inventors, but a nation of psychotics.
Considering certain Supreme Court Justices your comment regarding “ethics” is hysterically funny.
And what ethical standards did Willis violate?
Those encoded in Georgia State law, which regardless of tribal political reaction and My Team Must Be Defended, represent real legal jeapordy to the case.
That a US Federal Judge has ethical issues is ... a banal and childish "but Johnny does it too" reaction.
Except people on the same side of the case dating is not encoded in Georgia law. Hell, two married lawyers on opposite sides of the case is not recognized as a conflict of interest under Georgia law.
You can read the response I posted in a comment below where Willis makes that point.
"Fani Willis failed to follow what I consider good Government standards."
I love how a trial about Donald Trump trying to overturn an election has now devolved to finger-wagging moralizing and victorian prudery over the prosecutor.
I don't give a shit if Fani Willis yells at toddlers and kicks puppies. Her job is to prosecute criminals like Trump, not lead a life as morally pure as the driven snow.
Morality has little to do with the problem she has, George law governing the case handling and binding legal standards relative to conflict of interest rather do.
She can of course sleep with the fellow without then hiring him and seeing him paid at levels materially above the rest. These are not issues of sexual morality but potentially corruption of prosecutorial action.
By bungling she has put the entire thing at risk, and a risk that was easily avoided and unnecessary.
"seeing him paid at levels materially above the rest."
Do you have evidence that his pay is out of line with that of others in this line of work?
He is not being paid materially above the rest. He's getting the same billing rate as any of the others. The others didn't want to close down their practices to try this cae.
No claim has ever been made that he is being paid materially above the rest. Where did you hear that the relationship began before the case? Why do 'conservatives like you insist on exclusively lying about everything.
This is 100% incorrect.
The facts show that he is being paid the EXACT SAME RATE as other attorneys on the case. THE EXACT SAME RATE.
Moralizing Lounsbury will never let facts get in the way of a good whine about liberals and partisans.
Well, I have heard that there was a case of billing 24 hours in one day. Could be an error, not really plausible otherwise. I also heard his compensation has been around $650K per year compared to a factor of 5 or more lower typical salaries.
I rely on Ken White and the Serious Trouble podcast for legal commentary and this is not laughed off there as a matter of poor judgement and plausible rules/laws/ethics violations. No one is saying it should let Trump off the hook or has any bearing on the underlying case.
I think it is a bit reflexively tribal to scoff so hard at it.
How would hiring a prosecutor with limited experience be prejudicial against Trump? You are just falling for the usual Trump rope a dope: "Forgitabout me stealing an election, the real crime is the black woman who might be fooling around".
Why not leave it up to the ethics boards and the voters to deal with whether Willis should remain in office?
This article from the New York Mag better expresses my point
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/fani-willis-has-problems-upon-problems/ar-BB1hFdFk
Willis says the hire preceded the personal relationship. Not the best appearance, but I don't see how this has any negative consequence for the defense.
Sequence is relevant. According to the filed affidavits, Willis did not hire someone she had an intimate relationship with. She developed an intimate relationship with someone she had hired.
Is there any evidence her relationship with Wade wasn't a result of them working together on this case? And there doesn't appear to be any problem with the quality of his work on this case.
Not speaking to its impact in a legal sense on the case itself, but:
1) he doesn't seem to have been the best pick for the case, as his prosecutorial resume is rather thin
2) he billed the public coffers 8x as much as each of the other two attorneys, including allegedly all 24 hours of a single day in November 21. His billed hours do not pass the sniff test. It sure looks like what is happening is defrauding the state of Georgia.
All of this adds up to an egregious mishandling of public duties, and possibly self-dealing and enrichment. It makes it look like Willis is using the case to line the pockets of her lover, who then takes her on lavish vacations that he pays for.
And all of THAT erodes the ability of the state to hold Mango Mussolini to the rule of law.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2024/02/fani-willis-has-problems-upon-problems.html
If he is incompetent to try the case how is that a problem for the accused?
I know someone who got a divorce recently. His attorney cost $500 an hour. A completely ordinary divorce case. Was Nathan Wade charging more than that?
The problem would be the conflicts and a colourable basis to claim outside/corrupt motivation for extensive charging influenced by personal benefit. However potentially dubious as claims, Ms Willis opened a pandora's box that was easily avoided.
the linked opinion / analysis from a former prosecutor makes it clear enough there is a problem:
Question two: Why has Wade been paid so much money? Like the other two outside attorneys working the Trump case, Wade earns a set hourly rate of $250. Over the past two years, the other contract lawyers have billed the DA for about $73,000 and $90,000, respectively. Now let’s do a little exercise. What dollar amount paid to Wade would cause you to gasp? Got your number? Okay.
,
The answer: over $653,000. Perhaps he has worked more hours than his colleagues, but seven to nine times more? Willis herself, as the top prosecutor in the county, makes about $198,000 annually, but Wade brings down over $300,000 a year? Wade once billed the DA’s office for 24 hours in a single day in November 2021. If he actually did work around the clock without pause for sleep, food, or the bathroom, my hat’s off to him. If not, then somebody’s bilking the taxpayers.
,
Which leads to our final question: How much of Wade’s income has been spent on Willis? We don’t know the exact nature of their relationship; Trump and others allege it’s romantic, and neither Willis nor Wade has denied it. They allegedly traveled together, on Wade’s dime, to Napa Valley, Florida, and the Caribbean, and on both Norwegian and Royal cruise lines. Whatever the specifics of the relationship, the problem here is that Wade has used public funds paid to him by the DA’s office to pick up the tab for personal expenses for himself and Willis.
For $73,000, at $250.00 an hour you would work for 7.3 40 hour weeks over a two year period. $90,000 would be about 9 weeks of work, again over a two year period. Doesn’t seem like they were working full time on the case.
If you figure 30 hour work weeks and 4 weeks off over a one year period that would amount to $360,000. (250 x 30 x 48)
Your breath is taken away far sooner than mine, I guess.
This. For all the Lounsbury pretends to be some sort of sophisticated British/international finance person, he sure seems to have trouble with basic math (or "maths" perhaps?).
$653k at $250 an hour (presuming, of course, that there are no expenses--such as for travel, etc.--included in that number, and it is *just* hourly billings) is 2,612 hours. So many! Although of course it's over two years, so it's probably roughly a bit more than half his personal total billables. Maybe that's more work than it out to take to prosecute an election interference case, but I doubt it. And I am sure that Lounsbury has no idea.
Pretty humdrum, frankly.
2612 hours in two years! OMG, that's less than 40 hours a week!
Well, that's just because the Lout is famously not numerate. In fact, he's not even a Brit.
What you are citing is the quote from the linked article, as my intro perhaps inadequately indicted "the linked opinion / analysis from a former prosecutor makes it clear enough there is a problem:" [that is the link quoted in the post above http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2024/02/fani-willis-has-problems-upon-problems.html%5D
After that is quote, provided as illustration of the analysis of the former prosecutor. It is not my own writing.
"the problem here is that Wade has used public funds paid to him by the DA’s office to pick up the tab for personal expenses for himself and Willis."
It's astonishing that you think that there's something wrong with Wade spending money he's earned from whatever source on "personal expenses for himself," but I think that sort of gives away the whole game.
Further, while maybe there's something untoward about Willis accepting gifts from other people, there's not really any reason to think that Wade--who, after all, is a partner at his own law firm that has significant work that _isn't_ this case--is doing some sort of elaborate kickback scheme by taking his girlfriend on vacations on, as you say, his own "dime."
Especially since Wade, in his affidavit claimed that they split travel expenses and *provided receipts*.
Insofar as they hid facts and relationship, the mere fact of an Affadavit is not particularly comforting.
innapropriate capitalization is the sin qua non of unlettered mouth breathers everywhere.
So, you're not numerate, you don't work in finance, and you're not a Brit. Where are you really from and what do you really do for a living? Contrary to Trump's lawyer, you can't fake being smart. At least, not with people who acturally work with figures for a living.
That is not my writing it is the quote from http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2024/02/fani-willis-has-problems-upon-problems.html quoted to illustrate as I said the former prosecutor's view of the problems.
HOWEVER, as it happens there is a legal problem under the rules applicable to that office and Georgia law, which while of course the Lefties who have been counting on this case to bring them their magic wand solution to the Orange Cretin are going to hand waive away.
Wade coordinated the special grand jury before the case.
It is factually incorrect to say that Wade used public funds to pay for their travel.
I would hope that the 24 hours of billing in one day would be either a mistake or an all-nighter for a specific identifiable purpose.
It's only mentioned that he billed one 24 hour day, so it was almost certainly an all-nighter for a specific purpose.
Elie Honig is working completely from Roman's motion to dismiss here. Nothing else.
What do you do when multiple people work billable hours in the same day, and for a follow-up, how is that "fraud?"
Fraud is billing a faked number of hours, as strongly implied by billing "allegedly all 24 hours of a single day in November 21." which is rather dubious if true, and rather indeed suggestive of fraudulent billing
"rather dubious if true, and rather indeed suggestive of fraudulent billing"
Billing "all 24 hours of a single day" is unusual, but not "suggestive of fraudulent" anything. Although I'm just some rando on the internet, I can attest (for whatever it is worth) that it does indeed happen that sometimes lawyers in litigation bill an entire day. I've done it. It wasn't a fun day, and it was in the midst of a couple hellish weeks of travel and depositions, but it was all 24.
And, ffs, if somebody was going to do fraudulent billing, they wouldn't do so by billing 24 (or 25, or 30) hours on a single day, but would instead add an hour or two to multiple/many different days. (I mean, what's your argument? That he couldn't possibly have worked all 24 hours on that one day, and thus must be overpaid by potentially as much as *hundreds* of dollars out of the overall billings of over $600,000? That's the ~0.1% "fraud" you are freaking out about?)
The "ZOMG, is teh twnty-fours HOURS in ones DAY must be FRAUDS!" argument flows from people who (a) don't know what they are talking abotu and (b) have trouble with math.
Of course in the full midst of trial and trial preps it can happen
It is however unusual and from my own professional experience (where we do indeed pay lawyers for complex litigations) an immedate red flag it is not aligned with a specific reason - and a trigger to challenge.
In the context of this situation of a clearly not-arms-length contractual and billing situation, it is redolant of problematic if not fraudulent billing potential.
It is of course not proof of such. But suggestive of problematic.
You have professional experience like anything said about an element of the null set is true.
I asked you a specific question which you ignored, but it appears you're unable to understand simple math, which casts doubt on your skills as a forensic accountant. If you work alone, you bill for the hours you worked. If you and two other people worked 8 hours, you multiply 8 x 3 and end up with 24 hours. This isn't "strongly implied fraud," you dingbat.
I think cmayo is correct. This was always a high risk case, and Willis’ terrible judgment has now doomed it. Some online attorney (maybe Ken White, not sure) expressed dubious expectations about this case months ago, on the grounds that prosecutors are coddled by the system, entitled and can’t really handle defendants who can fight back. I think that assessment has now be proven to be well founded.
Yes as for example this (not exactly the same subject but critical): https://popehat.substack.com/p/overt-acts-and-predicate-acts-explained?r=2vpae&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
I think saying doom here is letting liars win.
I think there are A LOT of defence lawyers out there who would resent the implication that they can't fight back.
"including allegedly all 24 hours of a single day in November 21. His billed hours do not pass the sniff test."
Alleged sniff test, I presume you mean?
But anyway: billing 24 hours in a single day is not unheard of for attorneys. I've done it. Sometimes litigation is extremely intense and you do work for a day (or more!) straight. It isn't pleasant, but it happens.
And you know what? The "alleged" billing practices of some attorney and who some other attorney might have had sex with have absolutely fuckall to do with the guilt of Defendant Donnie Jay.
24 hours billed straight in a day while it can indeed happen is certainly a red flag for a strong chance of fraudulent billing - any pretence that this is not a factor that
(that they are not yet in trial and in discovery also rather says that this is something that will draw scrutiny from any normal review, if such lawyer were hired by my corporation and we saw such billing we'd challenge, it is a known red flag )
The fact or not of the Orange Cretin's guilt is entirely besides the point.
It's not clear if the payments to Wade are payments to him personally or does he have to pay expenses, such as paralegals out of that amount?
24 hours is not a red flag. Its not uncommon.
Your moral crusade is faltering.
Well, it is a red flag, certainly in my world where yes, we actually contract white shoe law firms for complex litigations, a billing of 24 hours on on persons time in a 24 hour period outside of the immediate trial context is a red flag of questionable billing and generally red-flag for abusive billing.
There is no "moral crusade" nor even moral content this is a statement of market reality.
Of course the Political Partisan tribalist reaction is going to be all about My Team Right, Other Team Bad Bad Bad, but that's is boringly irrelevant to the legal end results likely (as the Trumpist side found in the Carrol case).
You live in a basement, fucko. You don't have a 'world'.
What about his billed hours are inappropriate?
If he has staff, they'd also be generating billable hours.
And yet he appears to be doing an excellent job.
All I want for Christmas is a news media that at least waits for some evidence of wrong-doing before signing up for the next right-wing smear campaign.
And we should never forget that Mike Roman is a Republican Ratfucker.
First, let us premise the correct way Ms Willis could have responded, initially and so far.
1. She could have immediately recused herself and promised a firewall between herself and the case.
2. This would have, I believe (though with no perfect certainty), allow her to place a sympathetic attorney from her office to lead and prosecute the case.
3. This new, though from within her office, prosecutor would have the independent power to keep Mr Hale or not, and to examine the billing records, and pronounce them good or bad, as the facts may show.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All of the above would have protected the case from where we are now. It seems evident to me, at least, that Ms Willis has placed herself as being more important than the case against these defendants....something really vital the entire United states.
Ms Willis's failure to recognize this seems totally inexplicable to me. The case is not about her and Mr Hale, and this lapse, or inability in exercise clear judgement speaks ill of Ms Willis.
A few additional points, I do not accept the argument that there were no attorney's in her office willing to accept this lead role...I admit I could be wrong in this, but I do not believe so, at least at this moment.
Secondly, there were obviously other outside attorney's willing to prosecute this case, attorney's other than Mr Hale, (eg the two attorney's working for $150 hr...not that the billing rate for anyone is excessive, This is just to demonstrate there were in actual fact other attorney's other than her Lover willing to work the matter).
These are my practical argument....(I have alleged however the possibility of both criminal and fraudulent behavior on the part of Ms Willis and Mr Hale. I am not willing at this time try to flesh out this argument...none of us have seen the actual billing and expense records....when we do, I will apologize or not, as the case may be).
But, poor and selfish judgement on the part of Ms Willis remain central and true, I believe. Best Wishes, Traveller
What case? Roman is a defendant, and neither she nor the prosecutor have any specific interest in the case. There isn't any conflict here.
+1
That is not true at all - the facts (as legal observers with actual understanding of the law) are sufficient to draw a line to a billing benefit which in turn due to the relationship and spending on each other on travel - uncovered via divorce proceedings are in fact potential material conflicts under the applicable laws. They via a documented set of behaviours (the paramour spending on her for travel) created the link and colourable legal conflict, a fact set that was trivially easily avoidable.
All the special pleading in the world from aggrieved Lefties who really really want to have Trump's head do not change the legal parameters.
And further as Traveller indicated, the solution when this initially arose, to recuse herself and him and appoint another was the perfect potential to defuse, but out of apparent ego she did not take that route.
Given the fact set there is the high risk she will be found to be tained and the prosectuion changed, destroying in the end her own case. Pure bad judgment and avoidable risk.
Do you claim to be 'legal observer' (whatever that is) with 'an actual understanding of the law'? Then say so and what it is you do for a living, explicitly.
And speaking for myself only, I've lost track of the things you've claimed to be over the years. I do know one thing though: Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with math.
1( Why should she have accused herself when there is nor eason to believe she did anything unethical. And you seem to be ignoring the fact that the case will be corruptly dismissed if she recuses herself. That is the sole point behind the smear campaign.
2) That's 100% false. This would result in a republican hack being put in the position of appointing a new prosecutor. Which the hack would corruptly refuse to do.
"Ms Willis's failure to recognize this seems totally inexplicable to me. " Because nothing you premise our beliefs on has any validity.
Two thoughts (courtesy of a buddy who is a former California & Congressional staff member)...
1) In California she'd likely be heading to jail. You can't hire someone -- who is then financially dependent on you -- and have them buy you stuff. It's an unlawful use of public funds (albeit a somewhat circuitous one).
2) She may also have a problem under Federal law, which also prohibits using public funds to enrich yourself, although the details are different (and probably less stringent) than under California law.
But I agree that none of this has anything to do with the merits of the case. Nor would I expect a court to throw out the case -- that'd essentially be overruling a grand jury indictment, without a trial, and would be very unusual (if not unconstitutional).
Forcing the case to be assigned to a different prosecutor is more likely. Which would delay the trial, and potentially eliminate it, since a new prosecutor would most definitely want to review everything carefully before putting his or her neck on the line, and would be subject to massive political pressure throughout that process, from GOPpers wanting to toss the case at any cost.
Did he buy her a new car or what? I can't believe it's illegal for someone in CA to date their boss and buy them gift. It must happen all the time.
They say they split expenses. He didn't buy her stuff.
It would be a gop hack appointing the new prosecutor so there is a 100% guarantee the case will be dropped if Willis is removed.
You have made up new facts that are not being asserted in this case.
There is no evidence of corruption, you have done what Trump wanted you to do by making up the facts that he wanted you to make up.
It does look shady if we assume there were shady things going on. That there is no evidence of shadiness should have entered your thought process....but it did not.
I'm confused as to what standing they have for these subpoenas. Having a relationship is not grounds to subpoena someone or their records.
"As always, IANAL. But this sure seems like a case that ought to be tossed out on summary judgment for being vindictive and frivolous."
What case? The case against Trump?
Kevin Drum is in an amazing degree of denial about this. Regardless of the ultimate resolution what has come out to date is entirely sufficient to delay the case against Trump and the others indefinitely.
This has been improperly referred to as a "case" in the press. What it really is, is a "motion to dismiss". The motion should be denied.
Conservatives want to live in a world where no one has any rights at all except the right to kill their neighbors.
But NOT their neighbor's unborn baby.
Only if the killer is white and the victim is black.
Here's a copy of Willis' response to Roman's MTD.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24401430/da-willis-roman-response.pdf
I especially enjoyed the photos of Roman's lawyer in a Wade campaign t-shirt, when she is arguing that Wade is completely unqualified for his job.
The commenters who appear most bothered by this situation have actually done a good job showing that there is really no problem here. Post after post, paragraph after paragraph and we only see misstated facts, rambling assertions about the law that have no regard for the actual legal standards and a general assertion that relationships are icky and somehow cause you to not be able to apply the correct criminal charges to a defendant. While there is literally no assertion that the charges are wrong.
Oh goodness, what a cluster.
The point of bringing this case was to muck things up, cause a delay and allow the silly grandstanders to cluck and strut about how dumb the liberals are because reasons. In this regard, it has succeeded. Trump and crew must be laughing at the morons who have taken up their fight because they are eager for any opportunity to show off their mighty brains and pounce on liberals.
Sure Trump might be guilty and might be a threat to democracy, but I am always interested in an opportunity to show the internet that I am very smart and that I look down on liberals!
America!
Quite the talent for setting up massive straw men to knock down. Vast fields mowed to feed that.
Well inevitable the Tribal reaction, I suppose the howls when the next set of discomforting reality intrudes into the wishcasting and general magical thinking will require some ear plugs.
Lol, you make my point for me.
Dear Rattus Norvegicus:
Thank you more than you can know for providing Ms Willis's Response to the Motion to Disqualify/Dismiss. It is extremely well written and well supported. Still, I have some...issues or concerns or something.
1. Footnote 1 seems to be requesting that this be heard and decided entirely within the Judge's Chambers. I can understand the reasoning behind this...but I open to the argument that public, with a firm judicial hand, would be better.
2. I am unhappy with the 1st Exhibit B with the N word, etc. Again I understand the rationale for this inclusion...but I think the Motion better without it.
3. It was very beneficial to all involved that the payments to Mr Wade were by PV with some (minimal?) County oversight, as opposed to a PO with none.
4. There are billing invoices attached, but it is noted that they are severely truncated...which again seems appropriate for space reasons, but, what is underlying?
5. Both Ms Willis and Mr Wade will resist the Subpoenas served on them. The only one I looked at carefully was that for Mr Wade's business records...which, to my mind at least, seems fatally overbroad.
6. Will the resistance to the Subpoena's be an appealable issue? Causing delay...I honestly don't know how this would work in this instance or under Georgia law.
We will know the answers to most of this within two weeks, the Feb 15, Hearing. Thanks for all the varying opinions voiced here. Best Wishes, Traveller
In the black community, it’s perfectly normal to mess around. We ought not impose white Christian values on them.
For example… “By now, these facts shouldn't be hard to grasp. Almost 70 percent of black children are born to single mothers.”
Which means there’s a lot of adultery and fornication going on! Good for them!
What a stupid and racist thing to say. Trump, Gingrich, and Limbaugh all cheated on their wives. Jerry Fallwell junior cucked out his wife to the pool boy. The Florida GOP is run by a guy who raped a woman he brought home for a threesome. Ted Nugent raped kids and wrote songs about it. But yeah, you go ahead and cite dubious stats and tout the virtues of white Christians.
Oh shit, I forgot about Lauren Beetlejuice and her magic handjobs.
For a more realistic take by a lefty on what this means see here.
"In any event, Willis and Wade have now completely wrecked any prospect that this prosecution will get anywhere close to trial prior to November’s election, since it’s likely to take months to sort this out ..."