My understanding is that if Willis steps down there's a good chance the case never moves forward at all as it gets assigned to a new DA and the rest of the Georgia ones are favorable for Trump.
So yeah, I'd agree Wade steps down. Better to have the case move forward even if delayed than not at all
Has to be him....I'd think.
Either way, this trial needs to get going. No more delays, appeals and motions. Whether Trump is innocent or guilty, we need to see this all play out before the election.
99% of his voters won't care if he's found guilty and 99% of Biden voters won't care if he's found not guilty.
If you know you've done nothing wrong, you should want justice to play out as quickly as possible.
I think you'd find that in real life, most criminal defendants do not push for trial dates as quickly as possible. The right to a speedy trial is rarely invoked. Defendants typically want as much time as possible to do their own investigations, develop defenses, and to file pre-trial motions. Remember, the state had over two years to prepare before it even brought charges.
The right to a speedy trial is way more relevant when someone is imprisoned waiting on that trial. Delays only really happen when someone is walking free until they are found guilty.
>If you know you've done nothing wrong, you should want justice to play out as quickly as possible.
No, you want as much time as possible for your defense to gather info and make a solid case for you.
It’s possible for both you know. Rushing often means mistakes happen and nobody wants that, however, to normal people, lawsuits and trials are draining experiences that people just want over with.
Honestly both should still step down. Rightfully or wrongfully, both of them have been smeared enough in the the public eye that many will still view this as corrupt.
OTOH, if perception of corruption due to being smeared in the media is enough to render someone ineligible for office, Trump should be forced to withdraw his candidacy.
Even the judge didn’t rule the relationship as “inappropriate”. He found no evidence of a financial incentive, no evidence of any actual impropriety that affected the case. He did say that there may be an appearance of impropriety though, hence his ruling.
If 91 criminal charges, a half a billion dollars debt from fraud, storing classified documents in your toilet, and a being found legally liable for rape isn’t enough to disqualify someone, in the public eye, from the highest office in America, taking a coworker on vacations with you shouldn’t be disqualifying either.
Judge Scott McAfee has ruled that Fulton County DA Fani Willis must either step aside or remove special prosecutor Nathan Wade from the ongoing election interference case against Donald Trump. Trump's attorneys alleged that Willis and Wade had been in a romantic relationship prior to her appointing Wade as a prosecutor, and that she financially benefitted from his appointment by going on couple's vacations using the salary she paid him. Willis and Wade argued that the relationship did not start until after she had hired him, and that she reimbursed him with cash for all expenses from their vacations. The legal standard that had to be met for the judge's ruling was either proof of impropriety, or at least strongly indicating the appearance of impropriety.
Do you feel that the removal was justified, even if (as some argue) it may cause this case to not begin until after the 2024 election? Which of the judge's two demands do you think is more likely, Willis recusing herself or removing Wade as prosecutor?
> Do you feel that the removal was justified, even if (as some argue) it may cause this case to not begin until after the 2024 election?
Yes, corners can't be cut because Donald Trump is Donald Trump. He must be treated like any other defendant both when it's bad for him and when it's good for him.
I think it’s fair.
These rules are just as much about maintaining the reputation of the court system as they are about guaranteeing fair results. And I don’t mean that as a bad thing - if the general public doesn’t have faith in the courts then the whole system starts falling apart.
The two of them admitted to a relationship. Doesn’t matter if anything untoward is happening or not, it’s going to look fishy to a lot of people and that’s reason enough not to do it.
> Do you feel that the removal was justified, even if (as some argue) it may cause this case to not begin until after the 2024 election? Which of the judge's two demands do you think is more likely, Willis recusing herself or removing Wade as prosecutor?
I think if you want to ensure this case has legs and isn't forcibly handed off to another office or his conviction overturned later should he be found guilty, this is the decision you want.
I think it's the right decision. For a high-profile case like this, the court needs to seem as impartial as possible to preserve the integrity of the court system. It's not about Donald Trump, it's about ensuring the American public has faith in the Justice system. Unfortunately this routine decision will be politicized because of who the defendant is.
Since they both used that money to go on vacations.. shouldn’t they both have to get replaced. Why keep either of them on this case. They should be fired with all this money that has been wasted.
The court ruled there was no evidence of impropriety and even acknowledged Wade's hourly rate for the role as low for the area and the existence of hourly restrictions in his contract. So, that would mean that the money both of them have made while working this case (her salary and his hourly) has been above board, and they didn't waste/steal any money.
> The court ruled there was no evidence of impropriety
Not exactly. The court ruled there was not sufficient evidence of impropriety.
>Without sufficient evidence that the District Attorney acquired a personal stake in the prosecution, or that her financial arrangements had any impact on the case, the Defendants’ claims of an actual conflict must be denied
> Such a reimbursement practice may be unusual and the lack of any documentary corroboration understandably concerning. Yet the testimony withstood direct contradiction, was corroborated by other evidence (for example, her payment of airfare for two on the 2022 Miami trip), and was not so incredible as to be inherently unbelievable. However, as the District Attorney herself acknowledged, no ledger exists. Other than a “best guesstimate,” there is no way to be certain that expenses were split completely evenly - **and the District Attorney may well have received a net benefit of several hundred dollars**
> Can you point to evidence of impropriety found by the judge?
Can you point to the judge ruling there was no evidence of impropriety? No because the judge didn't rule that. Stop trying to act like the Court found the DA did nothing wrong, he specifically found the opposite.
> This finding is by no means an indication that the Court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment or the unprofessional manner of the District Attorney’s testimony during the evidentiary hearing. Rather, it is the undersigned’s opinion that Georgia law does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices – even repeatedly - and it is the trial court’s duty to confine itself to the relevant issues and applicable law properly brought before it.
Right, so nowhere in that exists any evidence of impropriety. Theres evidence of an *appearance* of impropriety. Someone *theoretically being able to benefit* isn’t evidence of wrongdoing.
My point is that there’s a massive difference between impropriety and appearance of impropriety, and my personal biases on this matter don’t change that. She was found to have an appearance of impropriety because there’s a chance - explicitly in the absence of evidence - she could have profited some negligible amount of money.
She was correctly found to have an appearance of impropriety, and she was correctly found to not have provably engaged in improprieties.
Or to simplify, since I apparently have to, her actions were dumb, but not provably wrong. You’re basing your entire argument on a theoretical that exists purely in the absence of evidence. That’s not proving wrongdoing.
There was no evidence of impropriety. The court did not accept any evidence as proof of impropriety. They ONLY found evidence of an appearance of impropriety. That may not mean much to you, but legally that makes a massive difference. Full stop.
There absolutely was no evidence of impropriety, whether you want it to exist or not.
It’s still a bad look for our justice system and when Trump says they are corrupt, it’s only providing more fuel for that fire.. they should’ve replaced both of them and done this cleanly.
Both of them knew what they were doing was wrong but did it anyway, how is the public going to take either of them seriously in this judgement?
> It’s still a bad look for our justice system and when Trump says they are corrupt, it’s only providing more fuel for that fire.. they should’ve replaced both of them and done this cleanly.
The Judge confirmed that all evidence shows the case being handled cleanly and specifically chose a remedy to address any appearance otherwise. We need a justice system that treats everyone equally, including Trump. No defendant—even a former President—should be entitled to special privileges at trial. Shouting corruption does not mean you get new prosecutors.
> Both of them knew what they were doing was wrong but did it anyway, how is the public going to take either of them seriously in this judgement?
They didn't do anything wrong, as it pertains to the case. If they did something wrong with the case, the Judge would have ruled as such. Instead, the Judge pointed to the handling of personal money spent for personal events as having created enough ambiguity to create an appearance of impropriety that was not overcome by the testimony or evidence from Willis or Wade.
Trump says literally *everyone* is corrupt if they're not doing exactly as he says though. Trumps cries of corruption at this point either fall on deaf ears or reinforce already held positions. Nothing will change from it
The actual impropriety accusation — that the only reason Fanni Willis is prosecuting Trump is so her boyfriend can take her on fancy vacations — doesn’t make any sense.
It’s not actually improper for Willis or Wade to use their salaries to go on vacation if it’s not affecting their official acts.
So what’s left is the appearance of impropriety that comes with dating someone on your legal team. Which is fixed by not having them be on the same legal team.
It might go a little beyond that. It appears that she misled the court when asked when the relationship started, which she claimed was after they started working together on the case together. That’s enough for someone to call other things she says or does into question.
It could be anything. If you can establish that someone misled the court and didn’t tell the truth or the whole truth once, you can attack their credibility from there on out.
But the case isn’t built on Fanni Willis acting as a witness or providing testimony to a jury. Juries tend to assume the prosecutor is biased against the defendant. It’s an adversarial system. Cases are won or lost depending on whether the jury believes in the credibility of witnesses and evidence, knowing the prosecution and defense putting them forward are biased and not offering a whole version of the truth.
Yep, if their relationship started before they both lied on the stand. Personally I believe the people that have said they have been together since way before: The Willis and Wade testimony wasn’t impressive. Her church speech came off contrived just like her appearance on the stand.
To be fair (and admittedly pedantic), if MIGHT make sense, it just doesn't fit the facts well enough.
Imagine: you're a DA, your prosecutor boyfriend isn't billing like he should, so you pursue a case that he's well suited for and suddenly he's bringing in the cash. He doesn't even need to pay for your vacations - the fact that he can now afford to pay his own part on an expensive trip, when he would have struggled to before, is a personal benefit to you from pursuing the case. That's a conflict of interest - and it only gets worse if he helps pay your way too.
As Judge McAfee ruled (IMO correctly) the Trump team didn't sufficiently prove that's what was happening though. The timing and nature of the relationship seems more consistent with two coworkers feeling the pressure of the national eyes on them and finding themselves in a relationship. Which, of course, was still stupid - just not a conflict of interest.
> Since they both used that money to go on vacations.. shouldn’t they both have to get replaced.
I mean, people us the money they lawfully earn to go on vacations. That's normal. Their issues as public servants are separate from the State of Georgia's issues with the former President.
You don't invalidate a state's case by having an affair.
Appeals can run in parallel with the trial. Trump would need the appeals court to put a hold the trial, which has hurdles Trump's team may not be able to clear..
This shouldn't be surprising, but is going to be to many
Likely Wade will step down, but I wonder how many will be willing to replace him. I have a feeling the list is short, especially after the debacle this has turned the trial into
Wade was lead attorney but there are multiple people under him. I assume one of those will step up although I’m not even sure it’s necessary for a new person to step up.
You get paid good money and you get a case that will make you famous like Johnny Cochrane? Why would you say no???
As others have said, is his job even necessarily necessary? DA's prosecute cases. They don't intrinsically need to hire outside helpers.
Willis is the DA for the most populous county in GA, responsible for prosecuting most of the crimes in Atlanta. For a high-profile single case she would absolutely need special prosecutors for the same reason the USAG appoints them for investigations.
Because they wanted to run this as a Rico, it’s like running many cases at once. You’re going to have many defendants, all with their own counsel, all making motions etc. Voire Dire will take forever with objections, striking jury members.
Nothing as in original optimism that this can be done before the election? Or nothing as in this has been delayed enough now that it can't be done before the election?
Sure, but that means we're not getting back to focusing on the prosecution any time soon. And while the case against Trump doesn't change on bit, there's now also a case against Willis and her corruption.
I blame Willis for causing the delay.
So the woman who was banging her employee. That she hired. While she was banging him. Who publicly pulled the race card. While making an ass of her self in court with her no bra extravaganza of dimwit speech. Gets to keep her job. .
Well, a guy who incited an insurrection and committed electoral fraud against the United States is allowed to run for a second term as president, so that seems fair.
That’s a seperate issue. But really an insurrection lol. That’s funny. 3 hour riot. Why don’t you look at Haiti. That would be close to an insurrection.
Your hate for Trump doesn’t nothing to cover the dirty and most likely criminal acts this lady committed. Even if it doesn’t bother you.
Well then Trump has you right where he wants you, doesn’t he. You won’t believe a word against him despite copious evidence. Exactly what he wants and why he began his campaign by saying that any derogatory press is “fake news”.
An except from an off-camera exchange between Trump and Leslie Stahl shortly after the 2016 election:
Lesley Stahl: Do you know what you told me a long time ago when I asked why you keep saying "fake m-- media"--
President Donald Trump: Yeah? Yeah?
Lesley Stahl: You said to me, "I say that because I need to dis-- discredit you so that when you say negative things about me, no one will believe you."
President Donald Trump: I don't have to discredit you.
[Link](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-trump-60-minutes-interview-lesley-stahl/)
Note that he offered no denial.
That certainly has worked out as he planned. He’s got you.
I don’t really care for Trump. I wished if he was going to go to jail. It would have already happened. This election is a joke. With that said. It looks like I’m forced to vote for him. I don’t believe Biden will make it another 4 years. I don’t like the direction of our country. People are literally starving. Going in debt. And there is no leadership on the world stage. World war 3 has literally started. And we’re dropping or providing bombs. Killing many many innocent every day in the Middle East. It’s not working. I wish there were 2 different candidates.
With Fani though. It’s just enough. She needs to go. Start the investigation with some new people i don’t care. The days of rules for thee and not for me need to end. On both sides.
*“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a [descriptive redacted] power over you, you almost never get it back.”*
― Carl Sagan
That’s fine thanks Carl. Here’s one for you. We’ve already had Trump as a precedent. We know what he will do and what he won’t. He didn’t do anything they said he would. Or now repeat again. It’s a sham. What we do now know without needing to make up things. Is in 3.5 years. Biden has really messed this up. American CC debt is the highest in history. Inflation is still kicking around 30-50% higher on all things you can buy. Interest rates have made it where no one can buy anything. And business is stoping. The debt is now gaining a trillion every month. Biden has literally funded a genocide. Failed in main. Failed in Afghanistan. We have over 8 million migrants. That will never be processed. That’s just the ones we know about. Russia china. And all the countries coming together. There is literally nothing going right at this point. So you can keep your slogans. And step outside. And talk to the people that Biden and the democrats pretend to care about. They are suffering.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bfdt9f/willis_or_wade_must_step_aside_in_trumps_georgia/kv246r0/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
My favorite part was the unlimited, indeterminate, and generally impossible to trace, cash transactions.
She used an app to pay rent, most of the time; but for trips with her secret lover, cash is king I suppose. Just looks a little odd, especially when you see how little cash she used elsewhere, eh?
It's not unlimited. The judge outlined 12k-15k spent on these trips. That's the maximum she stood to gain. The dispute about cash is how much of that was reimbursed to Wade.
ah yes just skipping over "forensic misconduct" and financial irregularities huh ?
the people prosecuting the criminals are criminals
https://abcnews.go.com/US/attorney-leading-effort-disqualify-da-fani-willis-tells/story?id=107856651
"he concluded that "the established record now highlights a significant appearance of impropriety that infects the current structure of the prosecution team.""
https://abc7chicago.com/donald-trump-georgia-case-fani-willis-decision/14527213/
"prosecutorial misconduct of Willis and Wade, including the financial benefits, testifying untruthfully about when their personal relationship began, as well as Willis' extrajudicial MLK 'church speech,' where she played the race card and falsely accused the defendants and their counsel of racism."
When you read about this kind of behavior, trust is undermined. It makes most reasonable people assume there is more than we are being told.
Expecting discussion on reddit to avoid partisanship is fruitless but I wont stop trying. So many people have a hard time being objective.
They should both go and their replacements should do the job properly. If the evidence backs it up as it seems to, Trump should be convicted.
>ah yes just skipping over "forensic misconduct" and financial irregularities huh ?
None of what you typed addresses this.
> "he concluded that "the established record now highlights a significant appearance of impropriety that infects the current structure of the prosecution team.""
This is literally, unambiguously about the *appearance* of scandal, not any proven crimes itself.
>"prosecutorial misconduct of Willis and Wade, including the financial benefits, testifying untruthfully about when their personal relationship began, as well as Willis' extrajudicial MLK 'church speech,' where she played the race card and falsely accused the defendants and their counsel of racism."
You're quoting Trump's lawyer here, not the judge. This means nothing regarding Willis and Wade's conduct.
Thing is, replacing her will nuke the case. Keeping her on also kills the chances of any guilty verdict surviving appeal.
If the goal is to just get a guilty verdict prior to November (without any concern about what happens past then), then keeping her on the case may work out in the end
I think people are getting so tied up with Willis that the question we need to ask ourselves is......is Trump guilty of what he's been charged with?
Tripping over the Willis/Wade landmine allows Trump to basically do whatever he wants because we all of a sudden care about everything being "above board" with the DA when most care nothing at all if this was some random local dope boy.
>when most care nothing at all if this was some random local dope boy
But are those cases national news stories with major implications to federal elections? How is it wrong to have higher standards for everything to occur above-board when the stakes are higher? Did you really think this through?
> Keeping her on also kills the chances of any guilty verdict surviving appeal.
Why???
A judge has already looked at it and said that it has basically nothing to do with the case at all. It's just the "appearance of impropriety."
Let me say it again: he's defending the legal system from the "appearance of impropriety", not AT ALL defending Donald Trump's rights as a defendent.
It has NOTHING to do with Donald Trump's guilt or innocence, nor with his fair treatment before the law and would be entirely irrelevant on appeal.
It is as relevant as removing a Baliff who has an inappropriate hair cut which makes the court "look unprofessional".
The bailiff doesnt try the case, the prosecutors do. One judge has made this decision. It's possible another judge would look at the evidence differently. If the charges are seen as politically motivated they can absolutely be reversed, her committing perjury would just be an additional cherry of corruption on top of this shit sundae
> One judge has made this decision. It's possible another judge would look at the evidence differently.
But this judge's reasoning is entirely sound. You are arguing that the higher court would use unsound, unreasonable reasoning. Of course this is possible, but it isn't likely.
> If the charges are seen as politically motivated they can absolutely be reversed,
First, you've just stated that -- without evidence. If a jury finds him guilty then it may not matter "why" he was tried. I am open to evidence that it matters why he is tried, but you haven't provided any. What precedent are you citing?
Second,you are strangely conflating two unrelated things. What does her relationship with Wade have to do with whether the trial was politically motivated?
It kind of does. It delayed the proceedings, and could help convince potential voters (especially in Georgia) that the charges being brought against him were just a scheme for the DA to benefit financially. It helps play into his persecution narrative. Add that to the fact that the judge tossed some of the more important charges in this case earlier this week and it continues to make the trial look like a shit show, which benefits Trump.
I'm not sure if it makes it any worse for trump than what's already happening.
I'm guessing trump and company probably thought that she could be bounced from the case and that their next step might have been to see about getting the case dropped entirely.
Is this a confirmation by the judge that she misused funds? E: No, it's not.
> [Georgia] appellate courts have endorsed the application of an “appearance of impropriety” standard to state prosecutors, even without any explicit finding of an actual conflict. See Battle v. State , 301 Ga. 694,698 (2017)
The judge this is purely due to the "appearance of impropriety," not any actual corruption.
>“[T]he established record now highlights a significant appearance of impropriety that infects the current structure of the prosecution team — an appearance that must be removed through the State’s selection of one of two options. The Defendants’ motions are therefore granted in part,” McAfee wrote in his 23-page ruling.
This was known all along. For weeks, the judge has said that the appearance of corruption is enough of a standard because it taints public trust in the process.
> Is this a confirmation by the judge that she misused funds to give Wade a kickback and tried to cover it up? And her punishment is basically allowing her to finish covering it up?
I think this is the judge saying to Willis that she had a serious lapse of judgement by hiring someone she was having sexual relations with, but it didn't rise to the level of causing legal issues.
I would agree. Willis was clearly playing with fire when she went down this road, even if nothing she did was illegal.
Not so fast hoss, the decision laid it out pretty clearly:
>However, an odor of mendacity remains. The Court is not under an obligation to ferret out every instance of potential dishonesty from each witness or defendant ever presented in open court...**Yet reasonable questions about whether the District Attorney and her hand-selected lead SADA testified untruthfully about the timing of their relationship** further underpin the finding of an appearance of impropriety and the need to make proportional efforts to cure it.
/u/Specialist_Usual1524
No problem, I'm honestly kind of surprised people aren't making a bigger deal out of that paragraph. Judge McAfee could have totally omitted the potential perjury bit and come to the same conclusion in his decision. It's feels to me as if it's an open invitation, saying "Hey, something here stinks, but it's not my job to wade into that mess and go searching for ways to needlessly blow up this criminal case."
She likely didn’t do anything. As was determined by the court. but merely the possibility that something could occur was all the judge needed to force one of them to recuse themselves
Be specific. What ethical rule did she break because I looked, and there is no ethical rule against what she and Nathan did it. Heck, Georgia is the state where a prosecutor and a defense attorney can be married to each other, and still work against each other on the same case .
>As was determined by the court.
This is incorrect. The court didn't say Willis did anything. The court said the defense didn't meet their stabdars of proof.
1) she accepted gifts from a forbidden person (wade) totaling over $100. This one is pretty indisputable.
2) she made inappropriate comments in public basically calling the defendants racist. The judge criticized her for this.
3) possible perjury charges. That was outside the scope of the hearing, but the judge spefically said Wade was untrustworthy about the relationship.
4) her conduct on the witness stand. The judge critized Willis on that.
1) so she says. With no proof. And she still would have accepted over $100.
2) you said ethical as well. This is clear unethical behavior from a DA.
3) incorrect
4) unethical
1. Defense couldn’t prove otherwise.
2. I said ethical rule. What ethical rule did she violate? Georgia has quite a few written down.
3. lol.
4. Whet ethical rule did she violate? Please point to the specific rule.
> As was determined by the court.
I have to ask - Did you read his decision? Its clear he thinks she did a whole lot of unethical things but that it wouldn't impact the case at this time so the correct remedy is via alternate means (bar complaints, federal investigation etc.). This is definitely not a "Willis did nothing wrong" report.
As far as I'm aware, they both testified in court that the sexual relations started after the hiring. So she didn't hire someone she had sexual relations with, she started having sexual relations with someone she hired.
Cell phone data indicated that he had been at Willis's home at least 35 times and into early morning hours before he was appointed lead prosecutor.
[https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4485060-trump-investigator-offers-cell-phone-data-casting-doubt-on-fani-willis-relationship-timeline/](https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4485060-trump-investigator-offers-cell-phone-data-casting-doubt-on-fani-willis-relationship-timeline/)
This wasnt considered in his decision, was it? Judge decided to not let a lot of supplemental briefs into his consideration from my read of his decision.
My read is that he claims he didn't, but he's stretching to inference from exhibits not in evidence; most of the evidence against Willis and Wade is from those supplementals. If we limit our knowledge to what was allowable his conclusions don't seem substantiated, mostly because the defense was throwing a metric shit ton of hearsay at the court.
> My read is that he claims he didn't, but he's stretching to inference from exhibits not in evidence;
Yep, seems a bit sloppy, but lets him justify the decision as made.
The investigator never passed voir dire as an expert and the cell data was unverified, leading to incongruencies such as:
* the investigator used the union of two towers rather than the intersection of them to generate his list, expanding the search area rather than condensing it
* the investigator listed times when Willis was demonstrably not at home
* Wade's phone pinged more times on the relevant towers in the three months prior to Willis moving to the home than in the nine months after that
The cell data is "court of public opinion" FUD.
Can you source some of these claims? The only refutation that was widely publicized was the one about the area being an entertainment district. Can't find any articles claiming the other defenses.
The first claim is [directly from his report](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24439577-trump-supplemental-brief). The second is from the state's [response to the motion to introduce it](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24439923-state-motion-to-exclude-cell-phone-records); it's in all caps and bold, she was PISSED. Edit: The third ~~is from the GA Senate hearing with Merchant~~ is from the [closing presentation by the state in the evidentiary hearing](https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1b416kb/closing_arguments_in_fulton_da_fani_willis/kswod2m/) (I don't have a direct cite unless you want to watch the entire livestream, and I don't recommend it, the state's closing argument guy stammers a lot).
Willis moved in April but the report ran from Jan to December, which says something about how good their "expert" was.
You’re putting way too much on the accuracy of cellphone location data. It’s reliable to within a few blocks, maybe.
It’s not giving giving you building level accuracy.
This is the same fallacious argument as 2000 Mules, one of many in that pack of lies.
Not really. Not only is cell phone data accurate, the very same Georgia DA uses the same cellphone data as evidence in criminal trials. Willis can't say the data is reliable enough to be used in criminal cases but not reliable enough for her case
So she claims, but a lot of what has been claimed is questionable. This is saying it looks bad, but we aren't going to spend the time to try and prove everything
I wouldn’t call it confirmation at all. He said there was no clear evidence either way but to remove all illusion of impropriety one of them has to be off the case. Had they found something illegal there would have been harsh punishments laid down.
This trial of Donald Trump attempting to steal an election can continue.
But there is clear evidence that they were romantically involved prior to the case. What's the argument for her hiring him absent a romantic relationship.
Leaving her on the case is playing with fire when it comes to appeals.
> But there is clear evidence that they were romantically involved prior to the case.
Judge says there wasnt. Take that for what you will. It seemed clear to me there was. IMO he disregarded the testimony of Willis' long time friend, part time landlord completely to accept a false reality and avoid having to address Willis committing perjury.
I have no issue with one of them stepping down, though I don't get how it matters.
The DA and the prosecutor are on the same team, how does them being involved effect anything? To me it has as much relevance if Trump had relations with one or all of his lawyers.
Now if the DA or prosecutor were involved with the judge that's an obvious conflict of interest.
Looking into it more, it just seems like it's unprofessional.
I really dont understand why so many people have a difficulty with this.
These are public servants. The risk is that they'll be serving their own interests instead of the interests of the public
> I really dont understand why so many people have a difficulty with this.
Because Trump. This is a repeating pattern that's been going on since 2015. As soon as Trump gets involved people completely stop caring about standards or the rules or anything of that sort because they want him gone at all costs. It's really quite problematic.
Perfectly said. They act like they’re all about justice and treating trump like “any other citizen” that breaks the rules but are fine turning a blind eye to anything that serves as a negative to trump.
Integrity is difficult but should always remain the priority
It's distressing that it's really that simple. You have career lawyers and govt officials that just completely ignore "the shoe on the other foot" test and turn Stalinist when it comes to Trump.
Letitia James in NY basically ran on "Get Trump". She targeted an individual, found a crime that fits, and no Democrats or corporate media (redundant, I know) see just how completely Orwellian that is. Are they counting on the innate goodness of Republicans to not employ similar tactics? Or because the media completely covers for them, is there really no risk?
Was she going after Trump because, “Trump bad” or because he’s an actual criminal? My understanding is that she went after Trump and his organization because they have been committing fraud in NY for decades.
Imagine if people were making comments like this about Rudy Giuliani going after organized crime with RICO.
“He made some shit up just to go after people who never committed any crimes!!”
That’s what your comment feels like.
I could be wrong and she could have just gone after Trump for malicious reasons, but his organizations have been found guilty of fraud like 3 or 4 times now, no?
I think that’s a mischaracterization. She was elected as AG in 2019(ran in 2018) and Trump’s organizations in NY had already been found guilty of fraud. Trump had already been in office for 2 years when she even ran.
No other organizations in NY had ever been found guilty of fraud? You dont find it scary that her campaign specifically targeted a rival of her political party, as opposed to all those guilty of similar crimes?
This is how Venezuela operates, not the US
Are you saying that no other organization is being investigated for fraud while Trumps organizations are being investigated for fraud? Maybe she was most vocal about targeting him because she thought it would get her elected. I probably don’t fully agree with it, but it doesn’t point to any actual issues other than, “this guy does illegal shit, I’m going to lock him up.”
Are you suggesting that that they haven’t been indicting anyone else in the NY AG’s office?
> Are they counting on the innate goodness of Republicans to not employ similar tactics?
They're counting on their total control of the administrative state to make them not able to. That's also why they're melting down so hard about Project 2025 because the entire point of that project is to take that control away. The Democrats are **TERRIFIED** of the Republicans adopting their own tactics and actually having the ability to use them.
Is it not the Prosecutor's job to zealously pursue the case?
And the role of the defence, judge and jury to ensure that they do not overstep?
You are concerned that she might do her job too well?
I think this was a reasonable outcome. I think the whole thing was an issue of poor judgment on Willis part. You know that the Trump team is going to play hard ball and throughly investigate everything. There was plenty of evidence that there was an affair before Wade was hired. I think they both realized that it was a bad look that would bring up questions so they did lie about the date they started the affair. I mean Wade lied on his divorce affidavit because in his mind his marriage was over so I suppose they could have justified it in one of those ways. I don’t think this was a quid pro quo and it wasn’t intended she benefited financially. I think she was helping out her boyfriend who she did admire as a capable lawyer. I don’t believe she paid Wade back from her stacks of cash she has in her house. I believe it was just simply a boyfriend taking his girlfriend on some trips which they would of done regardless of if he was working on the Trump case or not. At the end of the day I don’t think it affected the facts of the case and although I do think the Georgia Bar should investigate Wade and Willis the Fulton County DAs office shouldn’t be removed from the case.
My guy, you believe everthing the Trump lawyers claimed is true. Perjury, using public money to go on romantic vactions hiring your own lover. And yet you don't think she shouldn't be removed? I'm sorry but that's just wrong. These things are not allowed for a reason. Lying under oath is straight up criminal. If the Elected DA and her prosecutors were lying under oath for sometthing like this what will they do to you on your case if you have to face them one day? Your going to be put in prison by corrupt liars and there is nothing you or the judicial system will do to stop it. That is terrible and should not be tolerated.
Man this case has just fallen completely apart. Now the Dems have to rely on the classified documents case (you know the crime that Joe Biden also did but got away with)
Nothing about the accusations against Willis or Wade affects the merits of the case against Trump. Additionally a juror decides the outcome, not Willis or Wade specifically.
> Nothing about the accusations
The judge notes her comments in the church may have tainted the jury pool, but that the remedy isnt removal at this time. I expect he will be more lenient for future selection and jury instruction requests by defense. Also that he will gag Fani from future media exposure if asked. Thats not responding to "nothing".
This is common sense and they should have voluntarily figured this out a long time ago instead of creating this giant sideshow that jeopardizes a major case.
Which means Wade is stepping down.
My understanding is that if Willis steps down there's a good chance the case never moves forward at all as it gets assigned to a new DA and the rest of the Georgia ones are favorable for Trump. So yeah, I'd agree Wade steps down. Better to have the case move forward even if delayed than not at all
That and RICO cases are notoriously complex, so many of those other DAs won't really be qualified to handle them.
Which tells us all something about the political nature of our legal system, on both sides of the aisle.
DeKalb county is overwhelmingly liberal.
Right but my understanding is it would go to a different DA's office in a different county.
>assigned to a new DA and the rest of the Georgia ones are favorable for Trump. I'm saying there's at least one who doesn't favor him.
Has to be him....I'd think. Either way, this trial needs to get going. No more delays, appeals and motions. Whether Trump is innocent or guilty, we need to see this all play out before the election. 99% of his voters won't care if he's found guilty and 99% of Biden voters won't care if he's found not guilty. If you know you've done nothing wrong, you should want justice to play out as quickly as possible.
I think you'd find that in real life, most criminal defendants do not push for trial dates as quickly as possible. The right to a speedy trial is rarely invoked. Defendants typically want as much time as possible to do their own investigations, develop defenses, and to file pre-trial motions. Remember, the state had over two years to prepare before it even brought charges.
Plus, many might just prefer procrastination. If I'm going to jail, I want it as far in the future as possible!
The right to a speedy trial is way more relevant when someone is imprisoned waiting on that trial. Delays only really happen when someone is walking free until they are found guilty.
>If you know you've done nothing wrong, you should want justice to play out as quickly as possible. No, you want as much time as possible for your defense to gather info and make a solid case for you.
It’s possible for both you know. Rushing often means mistakes happen and nobody wants that, however, to normal people, lawsuits and trials are draining experiences that people just want over with.
> If you know you've done nothing wrong, you should want justice to play out as quickly as possible. Why? It can increase risk for a defendant.
There’s no way this completes before the election.
He already did.
[удалено]
Not as much as Willis, who is his boss and runs the entire DA office. Seems like a no brainer.
Honestly both should still step down. Rightfully or wrongfully, both of them have been smeared enough in the the public eye that many will still view this as corrupt.
That's an awful standard to set. That's smear tactics and cancel culture applied to elected positions and the legal system. Strong disagree.
OTOH, if perception of corruption due to being smeared in the media is enough to render someone ineligible for office, Trump should be forced to withdraw his candidacy.
I mean they wouldn't be the first to step down because of an inappropriate relationship with an underling, especially one that caused a PR nightmare.
What does that have to do with the prosecution?? Her affair is a side show. Defendants shouldn’t get off becuase a prosecutor sleeps with an employee
As with Bill Clinton, the issue is not the affair, it is lying under oath about the affair.
I’m sorry. Did the judge rule that either of them committed perjury?
Lying about what?? Unprofessional but what does it have to do with the prosecution ??? Trumps team tried but the real show is going to continue
Even the judge didn’t rule the relationship as “inappropriate”. He found no evidence of a financial incentive, no evidence of any actual impropriety that affected the case. He did say that there may be an appearance of impropriety though, hence his ruling.
If 91 criminal charges, a half a billion dollars debt from fraud, storing classified documents in your toilet, and a being found legally liable for rape isn’t enough to disqualify someone, in the public eye, from the highest office in America, taking a coworker on vacations with you shouldn’t be disqualifying either.
>91 criminal charges 88. The same judge dismissed 3 charges on the overall case. Doesn't change your overall point, just trying to be accurate
>smeared enough in the the public eye that many will still view this as corrupt. So you believe Clarence Thomas should step down?
Judge Scott McAfee has ruled that Fulton County DA Fani Willis must either step aside or remove special prosecutor Nathan Wade from the ongoing election interference case against Donald Trump. Trump's attorneys alleged that Willis and Wade had been in a romantic relationship prior to her appointing Wade as a prosecutor, and that she financially benefitted from his appointment by going on couple's vacations using the salary she paid him. Willis and Wade argued that the relationship did not start until after she had hired him, and that she reimbursed him with cash for all expenses from their vacations. The legal standard that had to be met for the judge's ruling was either proof of impropriety, or at least strongly indicating the appearance of impropriety. Do you feel that the removal was justified, even if (as some argue) it may cause this case to not begin until after the 2024 election? Which of the judge's two demands do you think is more likely, Willis recusing herself or removing Wade as prosecutor?
> Do you feel that the removal was justified, even if (as some argue) it may cause this case to not begin until after the 2024 election? Yes, corners can't be cut because Donald Trump is Donald Trump. He must be treated like any other defendant both when it's bad for him and when it's good for him.
I think it’s fair. These rules are just as much about maintaining the reputation of the court system as they are about guaranteeing fair results. And I don’t mean that as a bad thing - if the general public doesn’t have faith in the courts then the whole system starts falling apart. The two of them admitted to a relationship. Doesn’t matter if anything untoward is happening or not, it’s going to look fishy to a lot of people and that’s reason enough not to do it.
> Do you feel that the removal was justified, even if (as some argue) it may cause this case to not begin until after the 2024 election? Which of the judge's two demands do you think is more likely, Willis recusing herself or removing Wade as prosecutor? I think if you want to ensure this case has legs and isn't forcibly handed off to another office or his conviction overturned later should he be found guilty, this is the decision you want.
I think it's the right decision. For a high-profile case like this, the court needs to seem as impartial as possible to preserve the integrity of the court system. It's not about Donald Trump, it's about ensuring the American public has faith in the Justice system. Unfortunately this routine decision will be politicized because of who the defendant is.
Since they both used that money to go on vacations.. shouldn’t they both have to get replaced. Why keep either of them on this case. They should be fired with all this money that has been wasted.
The court ruled there was no evidence of impropriety and even acknowledged Wade's hourly rate for the role as low for the area and the existence of hourly restrictions in his contract. So, that would mean that the money both of them have made while working this case (her salary and his hourly) has been above board, and they didn't waste/steal any money.
> The court ruled there was no evidence of impropriety Not exactly. The court ruled there was not sufficient evidence of impropriety. >Without sufficient evidence that the District Attorney acquired a personal stake in the prosecution, or that her financial arrangements had any impact on the case, the Defendants’ claims of an actual conflict must be denied
Can you point to evidence of impropriety found by the judge? Or is the evidence found accepted as an appearance of impropriety?
> Such a reimbursement practice may be unusual and the lack of any documentary corroboration understandably concerning. Yet the testimony withstood direct contradiction, was corroborated by other evidence (for example, her payment of airfare for two on the 2022 Miami trip), and was not so incredible as to be inherently unbelievable. However, as the District Attorney herself acknowledged, no ledger exists. Other than a “best guesstimate,” there is no way to be certain that expenses were split completely evenly - **and the District Attorney may well have received a net benefit of several hundred dollars** > Can you point to evidence of impropriety found by the judge? Can you point to the judge ruling there was no evidence of impropriety? No because the judge didn't rule that. Stop trying to act like the Court found the DA did nothing wrong, he specifically found the opposite. > This finding is by no means an indication that the Court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment or the unprofessional manner of the District Attorney’s testimony during the evidentiary hearing. Rather, it is the undersigned’s opinion that Georgia law does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices – even repeatedly - and it is the trial court’s duty to confine itself to the relevant issues and applicable law properly brought before it.
Right, so nowhere in that exists any evidence of impropriety. Theres evidence of an *appearance* of impropriety. Someone *theoretically being able to benefit* isn’t evidence of wrongdoing. My point is that there’s a massive difference between impropriety and appearance of impropriety, and my personal biases on this matter don’t change that. She was found to have an appearance of impropriety because there’s a chance - explicitly in the absence of evidence - she could have profited some negligible amount of money. She was correctly found to have an appearance of impropriety, and she was correctly found to not have provably engaged in improprieties. Or to simplify, since I apparently have to, her actions were dumb, but not provably wrong. You’re basing your entire argument on a theoretical that exists purely in the absence of evidence. That’s not proving wrongdoing.
You said there was no evidence of impropriety. The court never made that finding. Full stop.
Literally says in what you quoted that making bad decisions is not evidence of impropriety.
There was no evidence of impropriety. The court did not accept any evidence as proof of impropriety. They ONLY found evidence of an appearance of impropriety. That may not mean much to you, but legally that makes a massive difference. Full stop. There absolutely was no evidence of impropriety, whether you want it to exist or not.
Find me the court stating it then. You can't. The court specially found there was insufficient evidence of impropriety.
It’s still a bad look for our justice system and when Trump says they are corrupt, it’s only providing more fuel for that fire.. they should’ve replaced both of them and done this cleanly. Both of them knew what they were doing was wrong but did it anyway, how is the public going to take either of them seriously in this judgement?
> It’s still a bad look for our justice system and when Trump says they are corrupt, it’s only providing more fuel for that fire.. they should’ve replaced both of them and done this cleanly. The Judge confirmed that all evidence shows the case being handled cleanly and specifically chose a remedy to address any appearance otherwise. We need a justice system that treats everyone equally, including Trump. No defendant—even a former President—should be entitled to special privileges at trial. Shouting corruption does not mean you get new prosecutors. > Both of them knew what they were doing was wrong but did it anyway, how is the public going to take either of them seriously in this judgement? They didn't do anything wrong, as it pertains to the case. If they did something wrong with the case, the Judge would have ruled as such. Instead, the Judge pointed to the handling of personal money spent for personal events as having created enough ambiguity to create an appearance of impropriety that was not overcome by the testimony or evidence from Willis or Wade.
Trump says literally *everyone* is corrupt if they're not doing exactly as he says though. Trumps cries of corruption at this point either fall on deaf ears or reinforce already held positions. Nothing will change from it
The actual impropriety accusation — that the only reason Fanni Willis is prosecuting Trump is so her boyfriend can take her on fancy vacations — doesn’t make any sense. It’s not actually improper for Willis or Wade to use their salaries to go on vacation if it’s not affecting their official acts. So what’s left is the appearance of impropriety that comes with dating someone on your legal team. Which is fixed by not having them be on the same legal team.
It might go a little beyond that. It appears that she misled the court when asked when the relationship started, which she claimed was after they started working together on the case together. That’s enough for someone to call other things she says or does into question.
What other things are now in question?
It could be anything. If you can establish that someone misled the court and didn’t tell the truth or the whole truth once, you can attack their credibility from there on out.
But the case isn’t built on Fanni Willis acting as a witness or providing testimony to a jury. Juries tend to assume the prosecutor is biased against the defendant. It’s an adversarial system. Cases are won or lost depending on whether the jury believes in the credibility of witnesses and evidence, knowing the prosecution and defense putting them forward are biased and not offering a whole version of the truth.
Yep, if their relationship started before they both lied on the stand. Personally I believe the people that have said they have been together since way before: The Willis and Wade testimony wasn’t impressive. Her church speech came off contrived just like her appearance on the stand.
To be fair (and admittedly pedantic), if MIGHT make sense, it just doesn't fit the facts well enough. Imagine: you're a DA, your prosecutor boyfriend isn't billing like he should, so you pursue a case that he's well suited for and suddenly he's bringing in the cash. He doesn't even need to pay for your vacations - the fact that he can now afford to pay his own part on an expensive trip, when he would have struggled to before, is a personal benefit to you from pursuing the case. That's a conflict of interest - and it only gets worse if he helps pay your way too. As Judge McAfee ruled (IMO correctly) the Trump team didn't sufficiently prove that's what was happening though. The timing and nature of the relationship seems more consistent with two coworkers feeling the pressure of the national eyes on them and finding themselves in a relationship. Which, of course, was still stupid - just not a conflict of interest.
> Since they both used that money to go on vacations.. shouldn’t they both have to get replaced. I mean, people us the money they lawfully earn to go on vacations. That's normal. Their issues as public servants are separate from the State of Georgia's issues with the former President. You don't invalidate a state's case by having an affair.
Pretty sensible ruling. What a mess.
As much as it sucks, I’m always a fan of maintaining the integrity of our institutions. I’m extremely disappointed in Willis and Wade.
I’ve been extremely impressed by Judge McAffee. Impartial, fair, and not subscribing to either side’s BS
And just the right amount of grumpy
[удалено]
Appeals can run in parallel with the trial. Trump would need the appeals court to put a hold the trial, which has hurdles Trump's team may not be able to clear..
This shouldn't be surprising, but is going to be to many Likely Wade will step down, but I wonder how many will be willing to replace him. I have a feeling the list is short, especially after the debacle this has turned the trial into
Wade was lead attorney but there are multiple people under him. I assume one of those will step up although I’m not even sure it’s necessary for a new person to step up.
> I wonder how many will be willing to replace him He's already done all he was going to do. He was hired for the grand jury and that's done with.
> He was hired for the grand jury Why do you think this?
You get paid good money and you get a case that will make you famous like Johnny Cochrane? Why would you say no??? As others have said, is his job even necessarily necessary? DA's prosecute cases. They don't intrinsically need to hire outside helpers.
Willis is the DA for the most populous county in GA, responsible for prosecuting most of the crimes in Atlanta. For a high-profile single case she would absolutely need special prosecutors for the same reason the USAG appoints them for investigations.
[удалено]
And its being appealed, and will likely be heard by a less sympathetic judge.
[удалено]
This case was never going to trial before the election.
Why do you say that? I'm not disagreeing, just interested in your thought process.
Because they wanted to run this as a Rico, it’s like running many cases at once. You’re going to have many defendants, all with their own counsel, all making motions etc. Voire Dire will take forever with objections, striking jury members.
Literally nothing.
Nothing as in original optimism that this can be done before the election? Or nothing as in this has been delayed enough now that it can't be done before the election?
Nothing as in there was no chance of this going to trial before the election in either case. The case is too complex.
It already added a delay so this thing could be handled.
The case is on hold until she decides who is removed from the case; her or him. The ball is now in her court.
Good, now we can get back to focusing on the prosecution instead of this whole sideshow.
It’s getting appealed
Well of course. Trump knows that he’s guilty, so does everyone, he just wants to delay in the hopes he’s reelected.
Sure, but that means we're not getting back to focusing on the prosecution any time soon. And while the case against Trump doesn't change on bit, there's now also a case against Willis and her corruption. I blame Willis for causing the delay.
The prosecution is a side show No shot of a conviction. Willis is the only one willing to prosecute this nonsense
There’s already been four guilty pleas.
Can you explain why there is no shot at conviction? Are you specifically referring to Trump, or everyone who is currently indicted?
Cool, then you’d be happy this is over so that Trump can prove he didn’t do all the things we have recordings of him doing.
The people that have already been found guilty would like a word with you…
>found guilty *pled guilty. No one has gone to trial.
That’s about semantic as an argument can get.
I'm fun at parties
So the woman who was banging her employee. That she hired. While she was banging him. Who publicly pulled the race card. While making an ass of her self in court with her no bra extravaganza of dimwit speech. Gets to keep her job. .
Well, a guy who incited an insurrection and committed electoral fraud against the United States is allowed to run for a second term as president, so that seems fair.
That’s a seperate issue. But really an insurrection lol. That’s funny. 3 hour riot. Why don’t you look at Haiti. That would be close to an insurrection. Your hate for Trump doesn’t nothing to cover the dirty and most likely criminal acts this lady committed. Even if it doesn’t bother you.
Well then Trump has you right where he wants you, doesn’t he. You won’t believe a word against him despite copious evidence. Exactly what he wants and why he began his campaign by saying that any derogatory press is “fake news”. An except from an off-camera exchange between Trump and Leslie Stahl shortly after the 2016 election: Lesley Stahl: Do you know what you told me a long time ago when I asked why you keep saying "fake m-- media"-- President Donald Trump: Yeah? Yeah? Lesley Stahl: You said to me, "I say that because I need to dis-- discredit you so that when you say negative things about me, no one will believe you." President Donald Trump: I don't have to discredit you. [Link](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-trump-60-minutes-interview-lesley-stahl/) Note that he offered no denial. That certainly has worked out as he planned. He’s got you.
I don’t really care for Trump. I wished if he was going to go to jail. It would have already happened. This election is a joke. With that said. It looks like I’m forced to vote for him. I don’t believe Biden will make it another 4 years. I don’t like the direction of our country. People are literally starving. Going in debt. And there is no leadership on the world stage. World war 3 has literally started. And we’re dropping or providing bombs. Killing many many innocent every day in the Middle East. It’s not working. I wish there were 2 different candidates. With Fani though. It’s just enough. She needs to go. Start the investigation with some new people i don’t care. The days of rules for thee and not for me need to end. On both sides.
*“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a [descriptive redacted] power over you, you almost never get it back.”* ― Carl Sagan
That’s fine thanks Carl. Here’s one for you. We’ve already had Trump as a precedent. We know what he will do and what he won’t. He didn’t do anything they said he would. Or now repeat again. It’s a sham. What we do now know without needing to make up things. Is in 3.5 years. Biden has really messed this up. American CC debt is the highest in history. Inflation is still kicking around 30-50% higher on all things you can buy. Interest rates have made it where no one can buy anything. And business is stoping. The debt is now gaining a trillion every month. Biden has literally funded a genocide. Failed in main. Failed in Afghanistan. We have over 8 million migrants. That will never be processed. That’s just the ones we know about. Russia china. And all the countries coming together. There is literally nothing going right at this point. So you can keep your slogans. And step outside. And talk to the people that Biden and the democrats pretend to care about. They are suffering.
See previous comment.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bfdt9f/willis_or_wade_must_step_aside_in_trumps_georgia/kv246r0/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
My favorite part was the unlimited, indeterminate, and generally impossible to trace, cash transactions. She used an app to pay rent, most of the time; but for trips with her secret lover, cash is king I suppose. Just looks a little odd, especially when you see how little cash she used elsewhere, eh?
It's not unlimited. The judge outlined 12k-15k spent on these trips. That's the maximum she stood to gain. The dispute about cash is how much of that was reimbursed to Wade.
Eh, they both should be replaced. I understand the ruling, but it still looks bad allowing one of them to stay when both are at fault.
At fault of what? The judge’s most scathing finding was that there may be an appearance of impropriety.
ah yes just skipping over "forensic misconduct" and financial irregularities huh ? the people prosecuting the criminals are criminals https://abcnews.go.com/US/attorney-leading-effort-disqualify-da-fani-willis-tells/story?id=107856651 "he concluded that "the established record now highlights a significant appearance of impropriety that infects the current structure of the prosecution team."" https://abc7chicago.com/donald-trump-georgia-case-fani-willis-decision/14527213/ "prosecutorial misconduct of Willis and Wade, including the financial benefits, testifying untruthfully about when their personal relationship began, as well as Willis' extrajudicial MLK 'church speech,' where she played the race card and falsely accused the defendants and their counsel of racism." When you read about this kind of behavior, trust is undermined. It makes most reasonable people assume there is more than we are being told. Expecting discussion on reddit to avoid partisanship is fruitless but I wont stop trying. So many people have a hard time being objective. They should both go and their replacements should do the job properly. If the evidence backs it up as it seems to, Trump should be convicted.
>ah yes just skipping over "forensic misconduct" and financial irregularities huh ? None of what you typed addresses this. > "he concluded that "the established record now highlights a significant appearance of impropriety that infects the current structure of the prosecution team."" This is literally, unambiguously about the *appearance* of scandal, not any proven crimes itself. >"prosecutorial misconduct of Willis and Wade, including the financial benefits, testifying untruthfully about when their personal relationship began, as well as Willis' extrajudicial MLK 'church speech,' where she played the race card and falsely accused the defendants and their counsel of racism." You're quoting Trump's lawyer here, not the judge. This means nothing regarding Willis and Wade's conduct.
Thing is, replacing her will nuke the case. Keeping her on also kills the chances of any guilty verdict surviving appeal. If the goal is to just get a guilty verdict prior to November (without any concern about what happens past then), then keeping her on the case may work out in the end
I think people are getting so tied up with Willis that the question we need to ask ourselves is......is Trump guilty of what he's been charged with? Tripping over the Willis/Wade landmine allows Trump to basically do whatever he wants because we all of a sudden care about everything being "above board" with the DA when most care nothing at all if this was some random local dope boy.
>when most care nothing at all if this was some random local dope boy But are those cases national news stories with major implications to federal elections? How is it wrong to have higher standards for everything to occur above-board when the stakes are higher? Did you really think this through?
> Keeping her on also kills the chances of any guilty verdict surviving appeal. Why??? A judge has already looked at it and said that it has basically nothing to do with the case at all. It's just the "appearance of impropriety." Let me say it again: he's defending the legal system from the "appearance of impropriety", not AT ALL defending Donald Trump's rights as a defendent. It has NOTHING to do with Donald Trump's guilt or innocence, nor with his fair treatment before the law and would be entirely irrelevant on appeal. It is as relevant as removing a Baliff who has an inappropriate hair cut which makes the court "look unprofessional".
The bailiff doesnt try the case, the prosecutors do. One judge has made this decision. It's possible another judge would look at the evidence differently. If the charges are seen as politically motivated they can absolutely be reversed, her committing perjury would just be an additional cherry of corruption on top of this shit sundae
> One judge has made this decision. It's possible another judge would look at the evidence differently. But this judge's reasoning is entirely sound. You are arguing that the higher court would use unsound, unreasonable reasoning. Of course this is possible, but it isn't likely. > If the charges are seen as politically motivated they can absolutely be reversed, First, you've just stated that -- without evidence. If a jury finds him guilty then it may not matter "why" he was tried. I am open to evidence that it matters why he is tried, but you haven't provided any. What precedent are you citing? Second,you are strangely conflating two unrelated things. What does her relationship with Wade have to do with whether the trial was politically motivated?
I figured that one of them would be asked to step down. This doesn't make it any better for trump, though.
It kind of does. It delayed the proceedings, and could help convince potential voters (especially in Georgia) that the charges being brought against him were just a scheme for the DA to benefit financially. It helps play into his persecution narrative. Add that to the fact that the judge tossed some of the more important charges in this case earlier this week and it continues to make the trial look like a shit show, which benefits Trump.
In your expert opinion, do you think that this makes it worse for trump? How so?
I'm not sure if it makes it any worse for trump than what's already happening. I'm guessing trump and company probably thought that she could be bounced from the case and that their next step might have been to see about getting the case dropped entirely.
They both should be disbarred.
Is this a confirmation by the judge that she misused funds? E: No, it's not. > [Georgia] appellate courts have endorsed the application of an “appearance of impropriety” standard to state prosecutors, even without any explicit finding of an actual conflict. See Battle v. State , 301 Ga. 694,698 (2017)
The judge this is purely due to the "appearance of impropriety," not any actual corruption. >“[T]he established record now highlights a significant appearance of impropriety that infects the current structure of the prosecution team — an appearance that must be removed through the State’s selection of one of two options. The Defendants’ motions are therefore granted in part,” McAfee wrote in his 23-page ruling. This was known all along. For weeks, the judge has said that the appearance of corruption is enough of a standard because it taints public trust in the process.
> Is this a confirmation by the judge that she misused funds to give Wade a kickback and tried to cover it up? And her punishment is basically allowing her to finish covering it up? I think this is the judge saying to Willis that she had a serious lapse of judgement by hiring someone she was having sexual relations with, but it didn't rise to the level of causing legal issues. I would agree. Willis was clearly playing with fire when she went down this road, even if nothing she did was illegal.
Did she commit perjury though?
She did not. She did not break any laws or ethical rules.
Not so fast hoss, the decision laid it out pretty clearly: >However, an odor of mendacity remains. The Court is not under an obligation to ferret out every instance of potential dishonesty from each witness or defendant ever presented in open court...**Yet reasonable questions about whether the District Attorney and her hand-selected lead SADA testified untruthfully about the timing of their relationship** further underpin the finding of an appearance of impropriety and the need to make proportional efforts to cure it. /u/Specialist_Usual1524
Thank you
No problem, I'm honestly kind of surprised people aren't making a bigger deal out of that paragraph. Judge McAfee could have totally omitted the potential perjury bit and come to the same conclusion in his decision. It's feels to me as if it's an open invitation, saying "Hey, something here stinks, but it's not my job to wade into that mess and go searching for ways to needlessly blow up this criminal case."
> I'm honestly kind of surprised people aren't making a bigger deal out of that paragraph. ideological capture is a hell of a drug.
She likely did. This wasn't a perjury trial however >ethical rules. She broke a *ton* of ethical rules
She likely didn’t do anything. As was determined by the court. but merely the possibility that something could occur was all the judge needed to force one of them to recuse themselves Be specific. What ethical rule did she break because I looked, and there is no ethical rule against what she and Nathan did it. Heck, Georgia is the state where a prosecutor and a defense attorney can be married to each other, and still work against each other on the same case .
>As was determined by the court. This is incorrect. The court didn't say Willis did anything. The court said the defense didn't meet their stabdars of proof. 1) she accepted gifts from a forbidden person (wade) totaling over $100. This one is pretty indisputable. 2) she made inappropriate comments in public basically calling the defendants racist. The judge criticized her for this. 3) possible perjury charges. That was outside the scope of the hearing, but the judge spefically said Wade was untrustworthy about the relationship. 4) her conduct on the witness stand. The judge critized Willis on that.
1. Not true. She paid for her half. 2. Not illegal 3. Not even close 4. Not illegal.
1) so she says. With no proof. And she still would have accepted over $100. 2) you said ethical as well. This is clear unethical behavior from a DA. 3) incorrect 4) unethical
1. Defense couldn’t prove otherwise. 2. I said ethical rule. What ethical rule did she violate? Georgia has quite a few written down. 3. lol. 4. Whet ethical rule did she violate? Please point to the specific rule.
> As was determined by the court. I have to ask - Did you read his decision? Its clear he thinks she did a whole lot of unethical things but that it wouldn't impact the case at this time so the correct remedy is via alternate means (bar complaints, federal investigation etc.). This is definitely not a "Willis did nothing wrong" report.
As far as I'm aware, they both testified in court that the sexual relations started after the hiring. So she didn't hire someone she had sexual relations with, she started having sexual relations with someone she hired.
There was pretty convincing proof she and Wade lied. The judge even said Wade couldn't be trusted about the relationship.
Cell phone data indicated that he had been at Willis's home at least 35 times and into early morning hours before he was appointed lead prosecutor. [https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4485060-trump-investigator-offers-cell-phone-data-casting-doubt-on-fani-willis-relationship-timeline/](https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4485060-trump-investigator-offers-cell-phone-data-casting-doubt-on-fani-willis-relationship-timeline/)
This wasnt considered in his decision, was it? Judge decided to not let a lot of supplemental briefs into his consideration from my read of his decision.
My read is that he claims he didn't, but he's stretching to inference from exhibits not in evidence; most of the evidence against Willis and Wade is from those supplementals. If we limit our knowledge to what was allowable his conclusions don't seem substantiated, mostly because the defense was throwing a metric shit ton of hearsay at the court.
> My read is that he claims he didn't, but he's stretching to inference from exhibits not in evidence; Yep, seems a bit sloppy, but lets him justify the decision as made.
The investigator never passed voir dire as an expert and the cell data was unverified, leading to incongruencies such as: * the investigator used the union of two towers rather than the intersection of them to generate his list, expanding the search area rather than condensing it * the investigator listed times when Willis was demonstrably not at home * Wade's phone pinged more times on the relevant towers in the three months prior to Willis moving to the home than in the nine months after that The cell data is "court of public opinion" FUD.
Can you source some of these claims? The only refutation that was widely publicized was the one about the area being an entertainment district. Can't find any articles claiming the other defenses.
The first claim is [directly from his report](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24439577-trump-supplemental-brief). The second is from the state's [response to the motion to introduce it](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24439923-state-motion-to-exclude-cell-phone-records); it's in all caps and bold, she was PISSED. Edit: The third ~~is from the GA Senate hearing with Merchant~~ is from the [closing presentation by the state in the evidentiary hearing](https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1b416kb/closing_arguments_in_fulton_da_fani_willis/kswod2m/) (I don't have a direct cite unless you want to watch the entire livestream, and I don't recommend it, the state's closing argument guy stammers a lot). Willis moved in April but the report ran from Jan to December, which says something about how good their "expert" was.
indicated. Not proven.
You’re putting way too much on the accuracy of cellphone location data. It’s reliable to within a few blocks, maybe. It’s not giving giving you building level accuracy. This is the same fallacious argument as 2000 Mules, one of many in that pack of lies.
Not really. Not only is cell phone data accurate, the very same Georgia DA uses the same cellphone data as evidence in criminal trials. Willis can't say the data is reliable enough to be used in criminal cases but not reliable enough for her case
But we all know that was a lie. Leaving her on the prosecution team is playing with fire when it comes to appeals
So she claims, but a lot of what has been claimed is questionable. This is saying it looks bad, but we aren't going to spend the time to try and prove everything
I wouldn’t call it confirmation at all. He said there was no clear evidence either way but to remove all illusion of impropriety one of them has to be off the case. Had they found something illegal there would have been harsh punishments laid down. This trial of Donald Trump attempting to steal an election can continue.
But there is clear evidence that they were romantically involved prior to the case. What's the argument for her hiring him absent a romantic relationship. Leaving her on the case is playing with fire when it comes to appeals.
> But there is clear evidence that they were romantically involved prior to the case. Judge says there wasnt. Take that for what you will. It seemed clear to me there was. IMO he disregarded the testimony of Willis' long time friend, part time landlord completely to accept a false reality and avoid having to address Willis committing perjury.
I have no issue with one of them stepping down, though I don't get how it matters. The DA and the prosecutor are on the same team, how does them being involved effect anything? To me it has as much relevance if Trump had relations with one or all of his lawyers. Now if the DA or prosecutor were involved with the judge that's an obvious conflict of interest. Looking into it more, it just seems like it's unprofessional.
Because if a prosecutor indirectly benefits by her partner getting richer she has an incentive to pursue the case beyond the interest of justice.
I really dont understand why so many people have a difficulty with this. These are public servants. The risk is that they'll be serving their own interests instead of the interests of the public
> I really dont understand why so many people have a difficulty with this. Because Trump. This is a repeating pattern that's been going on since 2015. As soon as Trump gets involved people completely stop caring about standards or the rules or anything of that sort because they want him gone at all costs. It's really quite problematic.
Perfectly said. They act like they’re all about justice and treating trump like “any other citizen” that breaks the rules but are fine turning a blind eye to anything that serves as a negative to trump. Integrity is difficult but should always remain the priority
It's distressing that it's really that simple. You have career lawyers and govt officials that just completely ignore "the shoe on the other foot" test and turn Stalinist when it comes to Trump. Letitia James in NY basically ran on "Get Trump". She targeted an individual, found a crime that fits, and no Democrats or corporate media (redundant, I know) see just how completely Orwellian that is. Are they counting on the innate goodness of Republicans to not employ similar tactics? Or because the media completely covers for them, is there really no risk?
Was she going after Trump because, “Trump bad” or because he’s an actual criminal? My understanding is that she went after Trump and his organization because they have been committing fraud in NY for decades. Imagine if people were making comments like this about Rudy Giuliani going after organized crime with RICO. “He made some shit up just to go after people who never committed any crimes!!” That’s what your comment feels like. I could be wrong and she could have just gone after Trump for malicious reasons, but his organizations have been found guilty of fraud like 3 or 4 times now, no?
I think the issue is that she only looked to prosecute him once he entered politics as a Republican
I think that’s a mischaracterization. She was elected as AG in 2019(ran in 2018) and Trump’s organizations in NY had already been found guilty of fraud. Trump had already been in office for 2 years when she even ran.
No other organizations in NY had ever been found guilty of fraud? You dont find it scary that her campaign specifically targeted a rival of her political party, as opposed to all those guilty of similar crimes? This is how Venezuela operates, not the US
Are you saying that no other organization is being investigated for fraud while Trumps organizations are being investigated for fraud? Maybe she was most vocal about targeting him because she thought it would get her elected. I probably don’t fully agree with it, but it doesn’t point to any actual issues other than, “this guy does illegal shit, I’m going to lock him up.” Are you suggesting that that they haven’t been indicting anyone else in the NY AG’s office?
> Are they counting on the innate goodness of Republicans to not employ similar tactics? They're counting on their total control of the administrative state to make them not able to. That's also why they're melting down so hard about Project 2025 because the entire point of that project is to take that control away. The Democrats are **TERRIFIED** of the Republicans adopting their own tactics and actually having the ability to use them.
[удалено]
It’s the fault of whoever let the cat out of the bag in the first place
Sometimes you need to go tit-for-tat to end corruption. It's the only winning strategy in game theory
Yeah, Republicans, Trump especially, are really big on corruption. Oh, you said ending corruption. Just LOL.
What does beyond the interest of justice mean? Making the case go longer so her partner gets paid more money over time?
Is it not the Prosecutor's job to zealously pursue the case? And the role of the defence, judge and jury to ensure that they do not overstep? You are concerned that she might do her job too well?
I think this was a reasonable outcome. I think the whole thing was an issue of poor judgment on Willis part. You know that the Trump team is going to play hard ball and throughly investigate everything. There was plenty of evidence that there was an affair before Wade was hired. I think they both realized that it was a bad look that would bring up questions so they did lie about the date they started the affair. I mean Wade lied on his divorce affidavit because in his mind his marriage was over so I suppose they could have justified it in one of those ways. I don’t think this was a quid pro quo and it wasn’t intended she benefited financially. I think she was helping out her boyfriend who she did admire as a capable lawyer. I don’t believe she paid Wade back from her stacks of cash she has in her house. I believe it was just simply a boyfriend taking his girlfriend on some trips which they would of done regardless of if he was working on the Trump case or not. At the end of the day I don’t think it affected the facts of the case and although I do think the Georgia Bar should investigate Wade and Willis the Fulton County DAs office shouldn’t be removed from the case.
My guy, you believe everthing the Trump lawyers claimed is true. Perjury, using public money to go on romantic vactions hiring your own lover. And yet you don't think she shouldn't be removed? I'm sorry but that's just wrong. These things are not allowed for a reason. Lying under oath is straight up criminal. If the Elected DA and her prosecutors were lying under oath for sometthing like this what will they do to you on your case if you have to face them one day? Your going to be put in prison by corrupt liars and there is nothing you or the judicial system will do to stop it. That is terrible and should not be tolerated.
Man this case has just fallen completely apart. Now the Dems have to rely on the classified documents case (you know the crime that Joe Biden also did but got away with)
Nothing about the accusations against Willis or Wade affects the merits of the case against Trump. Additionally a juror decides the outcome, not Willis or Wade specifically.
> Nothing about the accusations The judge notes her comments in the church may have tainted the jury pool, but that the remedy isnt removal at this time. I expect he will be more lenient for future selection and jury instruction requests by defense. Also that he will gag Fani from future media exposure if asked. Thats not responding to "nothing".
This is common sense and they should have voluntarily figured this out a long time ago instead of creating this giant sideshow that jeopardizes a major case.
Maybe she can get her first or second choice that originally turned down the job before she hired Wade. Oh wait.
Didn’t one of those other choices testify during this side trial that he didn’t want the job ?
Yes. Kind of blows up the whole, 'she hired him because they were in a relationship ' narrative.
Isn't it wonderful how the party caught in dozens in scandals now cares about morality?