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.”
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.
What interest is conflicted, here? They’re on the same side, does one of them not want to win their own case?
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!”
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
Isn’t he also taking a lower rate than what he normally charges also ?
He’s getting paid more (hourly rate) than the RICO expert guy, but the same as another.
What interest is conflicted, here?
Trump’s interest of course.
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.
So how does her dating another attorney have anything to do with her cases? It doesn’t.
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.
It doesn’t, this is a political smokescreen.
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.
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?
Fucking a guy who reports to you and then giving him a high profile promotion always works out.
Talk about taking a shit in your pants!
👏🏻 Way to go Ms Willis. Way to go.
Not sure why youre downvoted so much.
Doesn’t everyone know you dont shit where you eat?
Cuz it has nothing to do with trumps criminal acts.
Who said it does?
That’s whats being implied by trumps attorneys in the article. Did you even read?
I suspect that was a tongue-in-cheek comment.
Possibly
Is it “Be Mysterious Day”?
I must have missed the memo. ;)
Because it’s a mischaracterization of the facts and adds nothing to the conversation.
You DON’T shit where you eat, but that isn’t what happened here.
I think that Trump should be thrown off the ballot due to his malfeasance and inciting of insurrection. However, I am thoroughly disappointed with Fani Willis. I have zero standing whatsoever in any court of law and my opinion is just that, my opinion. My opinion is that she should not be a part of this case anymore, and a new prosecutor should be appointed in her stead. As the judge stated, even the appearance of a conflict can sway a jury. I don’t want Trump to be tossed on his ass to only appeal later, I want that MFer to sit and spin on the real consequences of his actions.
I think Trump should be thrown off one of his towers.
it’s the inevitable fate for all of Putin’s stooges that fail to deliver.
Take a second and explain what you think the supposed conflict is. What are the two conflicting interests and how would they result in a miscarriage of justice that would harm the defendant?
What is the conflict?
She had an affair with someone on the same side of the case she’s on. In what way is this a problem?
with her subordinate. How does this not reek of impropriety? reverse the genders and I’m sure you’ll have no problem understanding why it’s wrong.
Nothing to do with trumps case. Should all her cases be thrown out? Lol
He was her boyfriend before he was hired … so not quite a subordinate.
then it’s just favoritism. Public officials can’t be out giving contracts to their lovers. If they had a relationship prior to hiring, then they should have come forward with that at that time.
My summary of your argument: “It’s this. If it wasn’t this, then it’s that. if it wasn’t that, then it’s yon. If it wasn’t yon…”
Contractor, not employee.
I forgot to mention his inability to tell the truth.
So which web page did you copy pasta that from?
This is an elected public official that hired a subordinate on and then leveraged that power dynamic to initiate a sexual relationship with said subordinate. If the relationship started prior to hiring, then it’s favoritism. Time and again we have seen this and rightly called for the elected public officials seat. Now it’s a woman in the hotseat, everyone has excuses? It’s either OK to do, or it’s not.
This was a real fuck-up, and if it in any way let’s that orange fuck off the hook, then it’s her fault, and nobody elses.
LOL you took a news story and invented your own narrative around it. Amazing.
nope. it’s word for word. why not read it for yourself?
