Here is Robin Abcarian on Atlanta DA Fani Willis:
After watching her testify for nearly two hours on Thursday, I think she made a convincing case that she did not [do anything wrong]. If anything, she spent more money on him than he did on her.
But by engaging in a romantic relationship with Wade (and believing she was under no obligation to disclose it), she handed her opponents — on a golden platter — an opening to challenge her integrity.... It’s mind-boggling. And so, so disappointing.
I'm not saying Abcarian is either right or wrong about this. But it's a perfect example of the hack gap I was talking about yesterday. Abcarian concludes that Willis did nothing wrong, but nonetheless spends the next thousand words wringing her hands over Willis's "bad judgment."
I know it can get tedious to ask, "What if it was a Republican?" But go ahead. Ask. There would be no hand-wringing. Quite the contrary: every single Republican with a pulse would be fighting back relentlessly over "Democrat smears." They'd be digging up dirt on the lawyer and her clients who questioned Willis. Donald Trump would be writing ALL CAPS Truth Social rants about the unfairness of a justice system that allows a travesty like this.
But not us! The fact is that Willis really didn't do anything wrong. Office romances may not always be a great idea, but they're common as dirt. The only problem is that Willis brought charges against a guy named Michael Roman for organizing slates of fake electors in the 2020 election, and it so happens that Roman has had a long career as an oppo investigator for the Koch network and then for Donald Trump. So he put his skills to work looking for dirt:
When fellow conservative operatives wrote on X that Roman was “the guy who busted Fani Willis” and that his 127-page court filing was “an object lesson in why you don’t indict the oppo guy,” he clicked like on the posts.
Over a career as a political operative and investigator, including for the conservative Koch brothers’ network, he has been described as intensely private and driven in his work. He has hired former CIA analysts to train his staff, arranged for drones to surveil campaign rallies and used military terminology, according to former colleagues. While working for Trump in 2020, he recruited poll-watchers for what the campaign called the “Army for Trump,” oversaw election-day operations and played a key role in organizing the “alternate elector plan” that is central to the charges in Fulton County, records show.
Even after employing his legendary skills, Roman found nothing except the office romance. But he decided to take a flyer on a long-shot accusation of financial impropriety against Willis anyway.¹ Why not?
It's bogus, and under normal circumstances none of us would care even slightly about Willis's onetime relationship with Wade. It would be a throwaway line in profiles and nothing more. There's just nothing there. But because an aggrieved oppo researcher's lawyer filed a tortured, bank-shot complaint and Fox News rallied around, suddenly we're all taking it seriously. Why?
¹It's worth keeping in mind just how ridiculous the accusation is. Basically, Willis and Wade both paid for various things during their relationship. But Roman's lawyer has pointed solely to the items paid for by Wade and touted this as evidence that Willis benefited from gifts given by Wade. It's completely absurd.
Its real simple. Willis was going after Trump and his band of insurrectionists. It was a 100% probability the MAGA ratfuckers would go after her, and it was a 100% probability that her relationship with Wade would be discovered and used against her. Given these odds and the obvious potential conflicts of interest charges that would be thrown about to discredit her and her investigations, Willis should not have hired Wade to prosecute this case. Or at least not before disclosing her relationship.
A lot of times, smart people make really stupid decisions.
As far as office romances, if they are among people within the same department or involves subordinates and their manager, in most companies, you need to disclose it to HR.
I think you are missing Kevin‘s point. Which is that none of the niceties you lay out here would be given a moment’s thought if the shoe were on the other foot. Also, if you have evidence these two individuals violated the HR rules of their employer, feel free to provide it. Relatedly, probably half the couples I know met on the job.
If in today's environment, if a similar situation occurred with someone like Kenneth Starr (Whitewater / Clinton investigation), I think it would be quite likely that the so called "progressive" folks would also be jumping up and down by it, though the left does not have the kind of megaphone as the right has with Faux News.
I said "most companies". I have know idea what the rules are in the DA's office in Atlanta. Where I used to work (at one time the largest US conglomerate), a long term manager/subordinate relationship not disclosed to HR would likely result in termination. When disclosed, HR would transfer 1 party out of the leadership chain and that was all that happened.
Re: Kenneth Starr. Well, a similar situation occurred just a few years back when Kenneth Starr's protege, the man who asked all the salacious questions and put the triple XXX rating on the Starr Report, was up for the Supreme Court. One Brett Kavanaugh.
This beer-lovin' dude's eager participation in the pursuit of Bill Clinton's dangly bits marked him firmly as a Republican operative, a highly partisan political hack, and would have been a good argument against confirming him. And yet, in the current vicious, charged, politicized atmosphere of today, "progressives" didn't use it.
-------- Below, a long rant against the process that you may wish to skip.
But instead, Dems trotted out a woman who kept going on about her amygdala. One vague and confused witness from half a century earlier, when there were literally hundreds of additional, recent accusers, based on the complaints of sexual harassment and worse lodged against Judge Kavanaugh.
kavanaugh would have been confirmed by the republican controlled senate regardless of anything in his background. susan collins would have been concerned but brett would have assured her that he would be a good boy from now on. jeff flake might rail about brett's ethics but then, as he always did, defer to the administration and vote to confirm.
Kenn Starr? Is that the same Ken Starr who left Baylor University in disgrace after being charged with ignoring claims of sexual harasment and rape against the athletic department?.
Yes. Also the same Ken Starr who as Chancellor at Baylor watched claims of rape and sexual assault increase by 700% in less than two years, then said that the football coach who oversaw the whole culture of harassment and rape was actually the true victim of "grave injustice."
If in today's environment, if a similar situation occurred with someone like Kenneth Starr (Whitewater / Clinton investigation), I think it would be quite likely that the so called "progressive" folks would also be jumping up and down by it,..
Again, you're missing (or rather, making!) Kevin's point. Sure, many Democrats/progressives would be trying to take their pound of flesh in the hypothetical you raise. But MAGA rightists would be circling the wagons to protect their own. The fact that liberals/Democrats/progressives seldom or never do this—especially when the allegations are flimsy or specious—is a problem for us (meaning the political tribe I belong to; I obviously don't speak for you).
I don’t think it’s a problem. Let the facts play out. If there’s no problem, then circle the wagons.
I have zero interest in playing by Republican sleazebag rules.
Case in point: No need to defend Hunter Biden. Just let the right-wing harridans make fools of themselves. Same with Mayorkas. They’ve got nothing. Expose the liars.
He isn't missing Kevin's point. He is MAKING Kevin's point.
I've been pointing this out for years and years - good to see Kevin put it in print.
He isn't missing Kevin's point. He is MAKING Kevin's point.
This!
What would be happening if Willis was a Republican is just hypothetical whaddaboutism, and doesn't deserve a moment's consideration. If Willis was in a secret relationship with Wade and proceeded to award him a lucrative contract, that's blatantly corrupt. Whether or not he was the best choice is irrelevant. She should have delegated the selection process to someone else.
If the relationship began after Wade joined the team, there would be nothing improper provided he didn't get any special treatment. But it was unbelievably imprudent because the consequences were eminently predictable. Wade should have quit, allowing the relationship to continue while Willis got another prosecutor.
But it was unbelievably imprudent because the consequences were eminently predictable.
Sure. Not unlike Bill Clinton's dalliance with the intern. But I think Kevin's point is that the right circles the wagons in situations like this. The left forms a circular firing squad.
Why should he quit?
There's no evidence he's doing a bad job.
The only people who want him to quit want Trump acquitted. It's an interesting Venn circle.
She had offered the job to others, who had declined it - presumably because accepting it would make them targets of trump & his equally out-of-control supporters. Not worth the money, to many good attorneys.
You got the timeline wrong. She didn't disclose the relationship before hiring Wade because there was none in 2019 when she was dating someone else. In 2020, Wade had cancer. In 2021, they started dating, which is legal and ethical.
They both say that they started dating in 2022. Broke up in June 2023.
I hadn't heard that they were no longer a couple. So really, this is about nothing.
Regardless, the comment I responded to said they should have disclosed the relationship before she hired him, which is impossible as there was no relationship to report.
You are 100%, correct, Kevin. An office romance between the prosecution and the DEFENSE would obviously present a conflict of interest. But this is the biggest fucking nothingburger in history. Which, yes, naturally implies a huge crisis for Democrats.
The MAGAs are basically claiming that Willis and Wade are continuing with the prosecution so that Willis can continue to pay him the big bucks. Since both Willis and Wade HATE Trump, it's an absurd assertion, but one that can't really be disproven.
but one that can't really be disproven.
Funny. I've always thought the burden of proof was on those making the accusations.
love this.
You're enormous blind spot is that you are not taking into account the thing that I just made up! Why aren you basing your opinion on facts instead of things I just invented?!?!? OUTRAGEOUS!
Lol, BLIND SPOT!
20 or 25 years from now Republicans will have convinced the people who vote for them that Trump was a Democrat.
How about TWO years from now. All they have to do is say it a few times on FQX.
Note how fast George W went down the old memory hole.
And if you didn't already know, the size, funding, and varied facets of the apparatus arrayed against democracy are on full display, itself daily becoming more visible and brazen. Yet strangely isn't as intensely investigated as its targets. I wonder why...
Democrats would rather "lose with dignity" than live in the real world. See Ezra Klein et al (basically) concern trolling about Biden's age.
Ezra Klein is not a Democrat. He isn't even a liberal.
He is a Beltway Wannabe "But Some" liberal.
It's also a character issue. If Biden was discovered to have paid off a porn star for sex and then paid her off to keep silent, the nation would be genuinely shocked.
But Trump? It's "What do you expect?"
I’m not exactly sure of the timeline but Trump was having a longtime affair with Karen McDougal, a Playboy model, which apparently began while he and Melania were married and Melania was pregnant. Trump and McDougal attended a golf tournament in Las Vegas but she left a day early to attend a business meeting in Los Angeles. It was after she left that Trump hooked up with Stormy Daniels, a porn celebrity. Danials says he offered to pay her but she did not accept. The hush money trial is next up, I believe.
Not only do Republicans accept this behavior, they compare him to the biblical King David and claim he is sent by God and is doing God’s bidding. Go figure.
According to the Bible, King David sent his lover's husband to his death in battle. Sounds like the sort of thing Trump would do.
Charlie Brown: Why can’t I ever kick that football?
Michael Dukakis: How am I losing to this guy [Bush]?
Kevin Drum: Why does anyone take the charges against Fani Willis seriously?
For some reason Kevin Drum has an enormous blind spot about this case. Suppose it comes out that Willis lied in her testimony about when the relationship started. Will Drum keep defending her?
You’re asking whether if the facts change, Kevin might rethink his position? Seems pretty obvious and asking it only reveals your own bias.
What if it turns out she’s telling the complete truth? Will your opinion change?
"You’re asking whether if the facts change, Kevin might rethink his position? Seems pretty obvious and asking it only reveals your own bias."
This isn't the facts changing exactly. I see no reason to be confident that Willis's testimony was 100% accurate. Which would make many people reluctant to offer unreserved support lest they look like naive idiots. But for some reason Drum feels otherwise.
So you're saying we should base our judgement on a theory that has no evidence to support it? And is contradicted by the witnesses?
Why would we do that?
"Why would we do that?"
Your judgment about the case should consider the possibility that Willis is lying. Drum appears to be assigning that scenario zero probability. I see no reason to do that.
Suppose your dad is really Gary Busey and those ridiculous teeth of yours came from him?
So you think the charge that Willis is only prosecuting Trump to be able to channel money a boyfriend is substantive?
The whole relationship is irrelevant because it has no bearing on the fairness of the trial. That's Kevin's point.
If she lied about what -- when they started dating?
Wade was making more money before he was hired to join the prosecutor's team. Does it make sense that he wanted to be hired so that he could make less money, then kick back money to Willis?
Stew on that for a bit.
"If she lied about what -- when they started dating?"
Yes. Or really about anyth"ing.
"Wade was making more money before he was hired to join the prosecutor's team. ..."
This seems doubtful. Source?
What? Why is it doubtful?
It was in the court case. Private lawyers make more money than prosecutors.
"What? Why is it doubtful?"
Why accept the appointment if it is going to cost you money?
That seems improbable to prove. The two witnesses for the defendant are both disgruntled employees who had limited knowledge of the actual relationship status between two people, and it seems likely they're applying personal bias. Most people don't come out of the woodwork just because they know someone is hiding something -- it takes a certain state of mind to be willing to do that.
Did you not listen/watch the testimony?
"Did you not listen/watch the testimony?"
No, the media reports were that Willis's testimony was Trump like.
It was Wade's testimony, you fucking dolt. How can you run around here spouting your opinion if you didn't bother to learn the basic facts first?
"It was Wade's testimony, you fucking dolt. How can you run around here spouting your opinion if you didn't bother to learn the basic facts first?"
Not independent either way. Drum's argument appears to be there is nothing to the case as long as you believe everything Wade and Willis said. But if you aren't a Democratic partisan there is no reason to do that.
"It's bogus, and under normal circumstances none of us would care even slightly about Willis's onetime relationship with Wade." - respectfully disagree
1. A criminal trial of the former President, and leading Republican candidate are not normal circumstances. One must apply the appropriate standard to the situation.
2.Willis could have disclosed her relationship with Wade or, once the relationship became topical, stepped away. Willis created this bad PR and possibly ethical problem. Even if she has been truthful, at this point the discussion is damaging to the case.
3. Willis' personal life has become a story and decreased the change of success in this prosecution. This includes Willis speaking at the AME church, that was on television, making claims of racism. She possibly influencing the potential jury. Willis SHOULD be a near invisible part of this process: instead she has created doubt about the motives of her office....
4. Willis possibly lied about the timing of her relationship and the cash payments to Wade. In her role, Willis must demonstrate very high ethical standards and lying is extremely problematic.
5. Wade had basically zero criminal prosecution history. This light resume compounds the question: if there was not personal reason, why hire this guy?
Any professional understands circumstances influence behavior and ethical standards. For example, do you dress and act differently at your firm's holiday party then during the work week? Same goes for a job interview, working on a weekend, etc.
Willis knew this was involved in a very high profile case: she failed to act prudently.
1. So the appropriate standard is that white defendants cannot be prosecuted by a female Black prosecutor?
2. So Willis is guilty of being smeared for reasons unrelated to the case and therefore should step aside?
3. So Willis is guilty of having a personal life while Black?
4. The word "possibly" is doing all the work in that sentence. So any prosecutor should be removed any time a defendant alleges something? Or only female Black prosecutors?
5. The job was offered to at least one other attorney, who turned it down because it didn't pay enough.
Bafflegab isn't an argument.
He is so very concerned though! His brow is FURROWED!
Joel -
My points have zero to do with Willis, or Wade, being black. I would hold a white, Hispanic etc to the same standard.
I don't know if Willis and Wade lied about the timing of the relationship and the cash payments. IF I was innocent I would say something like 'bring forward more witnesses. The one person who claims our relationship dates back many years is mistaken or lied. No one else will verify that false claim.' Similarly, Wade could detail some of his large cash purchases, using the payments from Willis, to support his claims.
Yes, a couple attorney's turned down the case. However, that does not mean the best option was to turn to an attorney with ZERO criminal prosecutions.
Willis knew this was one of the highest profile criminal cases of the last 100 years, with broad national attention. She failed to act above reproach and created a side show that has hurt the case against Trump.
The literally just held an entire hearing to address exactly what you said they should address. Which you clearly paid no attention to or didn't believe.
But your CONCERN is noted!
chumpchaser - Thank you and we basically agree. The fact that there are having a hearing about Willis and Wade possible conflict of interest, versus focused in on Trump's election interference, is really the point.
If Willis acts differently, we are talking about a very consequential prosecution of Trump now, versus wondering if Willis really paid Wade thousands of un traceable dollars etc...
No, we do not "basically agree."
We disagree. You're wrong. You're feigning concern and I question your sincerity and consider you a troll.
Does that clear things up?
Conflict of interest? So you really think the argument that she is only prosecuting Trump to be able to route cash to a boyfriend gifts is substantive?
What is the conflict?
Plus one, Joel.
Also, what evidence do they have this affair is unfair to the defendant?
None!
"Also, what evidence do they have this affair is unfair to the defendant?"
That's not the test. If they could show (purely hypothetically) that Wade or Willis had engaged in some serious misconduct like cheating on their bar exam that would be disqualifying even without evidence of prejudice to the defendant.
This is absolutely correct. We can whine all we want about blacks and women not being treated fairly, but this is the reality. I’m a (white) professional woman, and I’ve always known any questionable personal behavior on my part would be scrutinized more than the same behavior by a man. Being a black just ups the ante even more. The other factor here is that the RW has a very effective propaganda machine. It’s insane for anyone who is already under their scrutiny to behave this recklessly. I’ve been having Clinton-Lewinsky flashbacks all week. We just can’t afford these own goals.
But dating him wasnt reckless behavior.
There is nothing here other than feigned outrage. There is literally no evidence of criminality or legal impropriety. No evidence, or even a logical argument, that a dating relationship impacts the Trump case in any way.
Theres no 'own goal' here.
Its like being mad at Obama for the feigned outrage over birth certificates. Blaming Hillary for the Qanon nutcases.
There is no wrongdoing and the fact that some people are outraged about something they made up is not a reason to blame the victim.
Clinton-Lewinsky is a great example in that it was all feigned outrage about nothing and while it caused no damage to the Democrats or Clinton, you are still in a panic about it. Even though we all know there is nothing that could have been done to avoid the feigned outrage. See the following 25+ years for evidence of that.
Your argument boils down to, "There's a hideous double standard, and rather than opposing it, we should cast out anyone who doesn't follow it."
I am a while professional male. I can assure you that if I selected a contractor, had a supervisory relationship with her, and then started sleeping with her, I’d be fired immediately. That behavior would be an even bigger risk to my firm than sleeping with my direct reports!
She doesn't have a supervisory position over him, tho. He's independent.
Who did have the supervisory role then?
"Being a black"?!? Yeah, I'm going to believe you don't have a double standard for white vs black people that isn't at all racist.
Items 1 through 5 are all just proof of what Kevin was saying.
You say that you disagree, but then 5 differerent times you make the case that Kevin has it exactly right. You give us no evidence of wrongdoing and very directly state that Willis is in the wrong only because this was made to be a big deal by Trump and the media.
case closed
It is funny. I don’t know why either. The news media sucks. They love this gossip stuff more than life itself.
There is no mental illness that all conservatives don't have.
Just to clarify I’m saying I think middleoftheroad is absolutely correct.
Her main mistake, obviously, was not having Wade buy her a nice RV she could use to visit some local Wal Mart parking lots.
(Sorry for the whataboutism…)
I gave up reading Abcarian about the 27th column she wrote about that no-talent son Hunter Biden who exploited his family name while cashing six-figure checks for his artwork. Maybe he wasn't involved with bribes for his father, but making money like that was so tawdry. Whatever they're calling the village scold these days is what she is.
Good thing no Trump ever cashed in their family name and made it all on their own.
Perhaps this is ripe topic for Alexandra Pelosi to explore in her next documentary. She could ask Luke Russert and Peter Doucey to offer thoughts on Invanka Trump's view of Hunter Biden. Jared Kushner could narrate.
Nowhere have I seen a clear explanation of how any of this biases the court against the interests of the defendant(s). It's just mud-slinging.
Pretty much just a hail mary. AIUI, the argument is that the things Wade paid for during their relationship amounted to a kickback to her, which would require disqualification under GA law. Roman's theory is that if Wade can draw out the prosecution, then she would benefit for the "kickbacks" because he paid for dates. The problem here is that their relationship ended in June 2023, before the indictments were issued.
IOW, Roman got nuthin'.
Of course, Roman’s conflict-of-interest suit just draws out the proceedings, from which Wade benefits….
The reason it's all so convoluted is that it doesn't have to be remotely plausible to do its work. It just has to be something our content- and gotcha-hungry normal media can use, and something the wingnut Mighty Wurlitzer machinery can blast out.
What's the work? Two things-- smearing the opponent with anything, anything at all, that can make them look bad (never forget that Roman does oppo research for a living); tampering with the potential jury by planting negative impressions of the prosecutors.
That second point became obvious when I saw the lead defense lawyer, Merchant, questioning Wade (she's a real piece of work, btw).
Both of these aims are proven by experience to be effective.
MAGA violence.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/opinion/magas-violent-threats-are-warping-life-in-america.html
"Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis had trouble finding lawyers willing to help prosecute her case against Trump. Even a former Georgia governor turned her down, saying, “Hypothetically speaking, do you want to have a bodyguard follow you around for the rest of your life?” He wasn’t exaggerating. Willis received an assassination threat so specific that one evening she had to leave her office incognito while a body double wearing a bulletproof vest courageously pretended to be her and offered a target for any possible incoming fire."
Character assassination first. I'd understand if she quit.
Repulsives simply cannot stop nosing into other folks bedrooms and lives. I rather think these folks have no sex lifes and live vicariously by snooping and making up dirty doo to smear around. What a galling bunch.
As the situation stands now FW has done nothing wrong and had no duty to disclose anything- this is purely a panty sniffing expedition, the burden is in those to prove otherwise and they got zilch probably because there is nothing there. For heaven sake the star witness was unable to corroborate a single fact and was found to have ulterior motives. Gossip and innuendo a case does not make. Every defendant should be treated equally despite one being a former president and a presidential candidate, anything else is rationalizing of a two-tiered judicial system. Unless new facts emerge I predict 100% vindication and nobody will be DQ. One can make all the noise they want (and that includes a few posters here) but that does not alter the facts in the ground. To repeat, nothing illegal or unethical has been close to been proven, not even an appearance of impropriety despite all the sound and fury. She absolutely had a no duty to disclose her private life as it has no bearing on the case.
Because Democrats are Amalek and Republicans may be scoundrels, but they're their scoundrels. It's not Gaza yet on the ground but in the mind, yes.
Wait, has Willis been charged with a crime? Aren't you referring to claims of mumble mumble something smoke fire something?
The answer is easy. The political media care because Republicans tell them what to care about. The fact that there is nothing there means they can go on and on and on about it because with no law broken, there is no chance for innocence.
I believe the word is optics.
Optics, of course, that Democrats aren't allowed to know anyone. Ever.
That thing you're worried about (Willis' case possibly breaking down)? It's not a big deal to Kevin Drum.
But because an aggrieved oppo researcher's lawyer filed a tortured, bank-shot complaint and Fox News rallied around, suddenly we're all taking it seriously. Why?
Well, Kevin, glad you asked, because the answer is very simple and comes in two parts.
One of the parts begins with 'W'. Can you guess what that is? (Hint: it's not "Willis.")
The other part begins with 'B'. I'll bet you know what that is, don't you? I knew you would!
For further edification, I would suggest you tune into some of the Fox regulars' shows and maybe listen for ... themes that might appear regularly. And then think about whether those same themes might have occurred in, oh I dunno, various election campaigns, going back to, say, the 19th century, and VERY much including modern Republican campaigns, notably that of the presumptive Presidential nominee.
Like rick_jones says above: optics. They're trying to color our perception of the situation.
I see what you did there ….
I have to disagree on this one. She clearly did something wrong. While it has no bearing on Trump’s case, the hearing seemed to circle around the question of whether Willis:
A: Hired her boyfriend
B: Had a relationship with a contractor that she hired and over whom she had a supervisory role
Both of those are big no-no’s in corporate America, for good reason. While politics runs by different rules, it was epically poor judgment on her part to do this.
If this is a violation of the applicable personnel policies, the people of Fulton County have a legitimate complaint. If DA Willis had actually hired an incompetent prosecutor, the defense would exchange high-fives and keep quiet. As Quaker notes, no one has explained how this in any way disadvantages the defense.
It's weird how we assign this combination of personal and working relationship as bad while often valorizing husband/wife, or parent/child, or sibling/sibling personal and working relationships.
Big laughs for the 'we know its wrong because its a corporate no-no' rationale. Its also only a rule for the little people in a corporation which makes it even funnier.
Like old rules about not sleeping with your secretary, it's just a way for them to get you when you screw up or cross the wrong person.
They never really cared about it.
Trump's narrative is that he is being singled out and unfairly targeted.
So why create a double standard where Clarence Thomas taking vacations with people is a conflict of interest, but this is not, doesn't that play into Trump's narrative?
Are you saying it's a conflict of interest for a prosecutor to take a vacation with a lover or friend not involved in cases before them?
The typical standard for conflict of interest is "appearance" of conflict of interest which is a lower threshold than the kind of evidence we might use for serious sentences.
In other words it is expanded to include any conduct that could "raise suspicion among the public that you’re personally benefitting from your official position."
https://ethics.ny.gov/conflicts-interest
The reason for this expanded definition should be obvious, it prevents people like Trump from using this rumor to nuke the trust in the legal system.
There isn't even the appearance of conflict of interest in this case.
"I am sending you out as sheep among wolves. Therefore, be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves." - Matthew 10:16
Real Christian are not as shrewd as a snakes. Nor are they as innocent as doves. Instead, they are as shrewd as snakes AND as innocent as doves, with the operative word in all caps.
I enter this as evidence that every single Christian supporter of former President Donald is a CHRINO (Christian in name only), but I ran out of labels. I used my "Exhibit Z" label a long time ago.
Remember a few weeks ago when the furrowed brow commentariat was so deeply concerned about how much Wade was paid?
This was the central issue, the big problem.
Then it turned out that Wade was paid exactly the same rate as other lawyers, the issue was forgotten and had no impact on how these people thought about the situation.
We move onto the next talking point and furrow our brows even deeper.
Hard to take this argument in bad faith very seriously.
If I could magically wave my reality wand this would be how the left would respond:
1. Suss out the Willis situation quickly and thoroughly. Know the facts.
2. Publicly and pointedly release some boilerplate statements in support of Willis (impeccable character, professionalism, etc).
3. Wait and see how things play out. While doing this, get a brutal attack plan ready of fact based character destruction of the bad guys.
4. If things get dicey, attack attack attack. Make the big picture of who and what the bad guys are crystal clear. Stick to the facts as you see them, and don't try to defend or explain a f***ing thing. Be committed, forceful, and relentless. Do not engage in debate, and no f***ing navel gazing. Set the narrative immediately and then reinforce it with more information presented so a twelve year old can understand it. Rinse and repeat as necessary.
5. Show self awareness only after you've decimated the bad guys, and do so only to show with absolute clarity how they're bad people. Because they are, and it's time to stop pretending they're not. The system is broken, and they broke it in order to seize and control power and privilege. It's long past time to stop pretending otherwise, and just faithfully describing what they're doing is worse than impotent.
6. Know the limits of the above. Be ready to pivot. Make it crystal clear that everything you're doing is because you care deeply about people. Show, don't tell.
The judge holding hearings about this 'conflict of interest' needs the same treatment Willis is receiving.
Anyone who gets smeared from the right deserves a pass from everyone else until real malfeasance is proven.
A total and complete pass. No hand wringing, no speculating, no comparisons with real right-wing scandals.
Just "no, that's probably made up" or for something like this, "no, there's nothing wrong with that."