Can we talk about the public flogging of Fani Willis…

[Gatorubet 30631]

14 minutes ago, Satchel said:

I get the some of you want me to condemn Willis’ poor choices and bad behavior. No objective person familiar with the facts of this case would argue that she helped herself or her cause by sleeping with her co-worker. Since there is a better than even chance she won’t be removed, it’s clear to me this  evidentiary hearing uncovered nothing relevant to the allegations deceptive pecuniary. 
The point and purpose was to force Willis to answer questions about where she slept with Wade, why she kept money in her house, how she spent it, what kind of Vodka she prefers and why Wade might not have been able to get it up in 2020. When the answers and evidence did not comport with the prosecutor’s narrative, they sought to have Willis’ [lawyer] father’s testimony stricken from the record. 
It  was a public flogging that makes Clarence Thomas’ high tech lynching  look like a picnic

I’m not expecting you to condemn anybody.  I don’t feel that it was particularly wrong morally, I just think it was incredibly stupid, given the scrutiny on her because of the incredibly important case that she has undertaken. 

[956 Worldwide 35516]

13 minutes ago, Satchel said:

I get the some of you want me to condemn Willis’ poor choices and bad behavior. No objective person familiar with the facts of this case would argue that she helped herself or her cause by sleeping with her co-worker. Since there is a better than even chance she won’t be removed, it’s clear to me this  evidentiary hearing uncovered nothing relevant to the allegations deceptive pecuniary. 
The point and purpose was to force Willis to answer questions about where she slept with Wade, why she kept money in her house, how she spent it, what kind of Vodka she prefers and why Wade might not have been able to get it up in 2020. When the answers and evidence did not comport with the prosecutor’s narrative, they sought to have Willis’ [lawyer] father’s testimony stricken from the record. 
It  was a public flogging that makes Clarence Thomas’ high tech lynching  look like a picnic

Upon further reflection, I think it’s likely Clarence Thomas has deep character flaws and should not be a SCOTUS justice. 

[Gatorubet 30631]

1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Upon further reflection, I think it’s likely Clarence Thomas has deep character flaws and should not be a SCOTUS justice. 

But he likes to keep it real….ly white. 

[Biff Tannen 46061]

The fact that this thread even reached two pages speaks to where we are in this shit show of a country.  Every part of this is being done in bad faith by the side that is full of rapists, child molesters, insurrectionists, traitors, liars, thieves, et al that have gotten to where they are by pointing fingers at the smallest of indiscretions and screaming  BOTH SIDES.

We allow it to continue working when we give credence to their bullshit.  I don't disagree that she probably shouldn't have done it, but the only reason it matters AT ALL is because of these mouth breathing, gas lighting, piece of shit psychopaths on the right.

[Satchel 6982]

Maybe Wills shares Mae West’s view of wrongdoing who once opined, Between the two evils, I always choose the one I haven’t tried before..”

The misery of the human condition is the knowledge both of the wrong and its inevitability.

So, nothing on the flogging itself?

Edited February 17 by Satchel

[Balcones 315]

16 hours ago, chainsaw said:

Has there been proof of anything more than someone fronting a bill and getting reimbursed later?

I also am not sure how that relates to Trump getting a fair RICO trial. Like seriously why the fuck does it even matter?

For Willis: under oath she claims the relationship started after she hired Wade. Other witnesses, say they started before.  This timing is very relevant to the underlying issue. Lying to the court would certainly be illegal.  I’m sure, if judge allowed for broader discovery, texts/emails would prove either way 100%. 
 

For Wade: same thing as above. Additionally, he provided answers to the court in his divorce case that he now contradicts to this court. As example, he either did or did not entertain opposite sex up to the present. In divorce court he states no in this court he says yes.

 

If someone wants to dig deeper, there are probably other issues (not accounting for trips/cash payments on business account properly), campaign account claims (taking cash out), etc…

With stakes this high, someone is going to pull on all of these strings if they both stay on this case.  
 

They are both really sloppy for this high profile of a case.

[Underdog 29102]

16 hours ago, Hmbre97 said:

This is why you don't dip your pen in the company ink

Oh, so now you tell me.

[elfenix 34658]

17 hours ago, Js1 said:

Everything sucks right now. Now you’re trying to take getting laid away from people???

His mom would never let that happen 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

14 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

The fact that this thread even reached two pages speaks to where we are in this shit show of a country.  Every part of this is being done in bad faith by the side that is full of rapists, child molesters, insurrectionists, traitors, liars, thieves, et al that have gotten to where they are by pointing fingers at the smallest of indiscretions and screaming  BOTH SIDES.

We allow it to continue working when we give credence to their bullshit.  I don't disagree that she probably shouldn't have done it, but the only reason it matters AT ALL is because of these mouth breathing, gas lighting, piece of shit psychopaths on the right.

Well, to be fair, defense attorneys are, as said above, going to pull this string pretty much regardless.

People seem to have lost sight of the fact that criminal defense lawyers often do long-shot, "bad-faith" things in pursuit of their clients' interests, because you never know where something like this may end up, even if you are pretty sure it's not a good case for outright disqualification.

This is normal, it's part of the job.  It's why unthinking people think criminal defense lawyers are shitbags.  It's always their disgusting clients that make it even more repulsive than usual.

Willis, through her poor judgment, created some smoke, diligent defense attorneys are going to see if there's some fire, or maybe even start one.  I always said this was probably just a side show and it's good that there doesn't seem to be much to it, but Willis really bent over for this, should have expected it to be discovered and should have expected to be raked over the coals for it.

[Biff Tannen 46061]

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13619]

"Would you be interested in joining my team of prosecutors?"

"No, I've had my fill of death threats. Thanks tho!"

[Balcones 315]

As for the non-legal stuff? There is so much she opened up when getting on the stand.

 

Example-
 

Willis claims, under oath, that Wade thinks women are only good for making him a sandwich (which may be true). The had several arguments about how she and tried to convince him they were equals.  She will now have to defend why she hired someone she knew had those views. 

[chainsaw 10244]

3 hours ago, Balcones said:

This timing is very relevant to the underlying issue.

Why does any of this matter?

[Kel Varnsen 8682]

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13619]

13 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Why does any of this matter?

Because the smoking gun evidence of Trump recorded in the act of commiting the crime for which he is charged is inadmis... POCKET SAND!!!

[Balcones 315]

1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

Why does any of this matter?

Lying to court under oath as the DA? That doesn’t matter? 

[chainsaw 10244]

2 minutes ago, Balcones said:

Lying to court under oath as the DA? That doesn’t matter? 

It's been a while but the last "perjury about sex" case I remember was Monica Lewinsky and the whole argument was centered on "materiality" which is a blowharded way of asking why the fuck it even matters.

So, why the fuck does it matter?

Edited February 17 by chainsaw

[Balcones 315]

I see.

She claims she only started fucking/traveling with him after she appointed him to the $700k contract using public money, therefore didn’t know beforehand that she would benefit from the $$.  

Other witnesses say she was fucking/traveling with him before she gave him the public money contract and therefore knew she would then benefit from the money. 
 

Lying to the court establish the first scenario, matters.

[jimmyjazz 46976]

1 minute ago, Balcones said:

I see.

She claims she only started fucking/traveling with him after she appointed him to the $700k contract using public money, therefore didn’t know beforehand that she would benefit from the $$.  

Other witnesses say she was fucking/traveling with him before she gave him the public money contract and therefore knew she would then benefit from the money. 
 

Lying to the court establish the first scenario, matters.

What the fuck does that  have to do with Trump's case?  

[Balcones 315]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What the fuck does that  have to do with Trump's case?  

She is the prosecutor and he is the lead investigator. She selected him for this case and personally benefitted from the public money she paid him. 

[Horn Dog 10156]

4 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

"Would you be interested in joining my team of prosecutors?"

"No, I've had my fill of death threats. Thanks tho!"

Mr. Barnes said he doesn’t recall specific dates or names associated with his meetings!  Dementia alert??

[jimmyjazz 46976]

1 minute ago, Balcones said:

She is the prosecutor and he is the lead investigator. She selected him for this case and personally benefitted from the public money she paid him. 

Which has nothing to do with the facts of Trump's case.  I'm not aware of censure/recusal/dismissal rules in GA, but it would seem to me that it's not exactly a free pass for Trump.

[Brian Fantana 6856]

Whole lotta concern trolling going on ITT

[Balcones 315]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Which has nothing to do with the facts of Trump's case.  I'm not aware of censure/recusal/dismissal rules in GA, but it would seem to me that it's not exactly a free pass for Trump.

I don’t think anyone is saying if Wade/Willis perjured themselves, violated campaign laws, tax laws, received improper benefits, etc… then Trump is not guilty. Someone else can try the case or bring the case again. 
 

 

[jimmyjazz 46976]

1 minute ago, Balcones said:

I don’t think anyone is saying if Wade/Willis perjured themselves, violated campaign laws, tax laws, received improper benefits, etc… then Trump is not guilty. Someone else can try the case or bring the case again. 

What?

[Balcones 315]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

What?

Read up thread.

 

[chainsaw 10244]

The person who filed the motion is a RICO defendant. That means there has to be some reason for the defendant to believe that that particular defendant's rights were infringed as a result of Willis's or Ward's supposed wrongdoing.

Let's assume the defendant who filed the motion is Trump. Can you complete the following sentence?

Willis's failure to disclose the relationship with Ward violates Trump's rights because ______________________________________________.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13619]

35 minutes ago, Balcones said:

I don’t think anyone is saying if Wade/Willis perjured themselves, violated campaign laws, tax laws, received improper benefits, etc… then Trump is not guilty. Someone else can try the case or bring the case again. 
 

 

You're implying Fani Willis hiring her "boyfriend" is relevant to the Trump case, therefore she should be removed from this particular case. It's not anymore relevant than Trump hiring his kids to White House roles is to whether he tried to overturn the election results in Georgia. Neither one of them have any relevance to the case. 

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

2 hours ago, Balcones said:

I don’t think anyone is saying if Wade/Willis perjured themselves, violated campaign laws, tax laws, received improper benefits, etc… then Trump is not guilty. Someone else can try the case or bring the case again. 

What do you think Trump’s punishment should be for attempting a coup d’etat after losing the election?

[Balcones 315]

6 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

What do you think Trump’s punishment should be for attempting a coup d’etat after losing the election?

If he is guilty, I’m sure there is a range of penalty. What is the State asking for/recommending in their motion?

[Balcones 315]

1 hour ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

You're implying Fani Willis hiring her "boyfriend" is relevant to the Trump case, therefore she should be removed from this particular case. It's not anymore relevant than Trump hiring his kids to White House roles is to whether he tried to overturn the election results in Georgia. Neither one of them have any relevance to the case. 

She hired her boyfriend to investigate a case and she personally benefited from the taxpayer money she paid him with. You may not think that is a issue, but the defense does. And apparently the court does too, or they would just dismiss the motion. If you were the defendant, you certainly could just let it go and not make it an issue.

[chainsaw 10244]

The defense thinks a lot of things, very few if any of them are lucid.

[Balcones 315]

24 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

The defense thinks a lot of things, very few if any of them are lucid.

I’m sure if you were the defendant in the case, you would tell your lawyer not to go after this. That this is totally on the up and up and what she did is not a conflict and to leave her alone.

[jimmyjazz 46976]

40 minutes ago, Balcones said:

She hired her boyfriend to investigate a case

You don't know this is true, at all.  You are clearly biased.

[chainsaw 10244]

8 minutes ago, Balcones said:

I’m sure if you were the defendant in the case, you would tell your lawyer not to go after this. That this is totally on the up and up and what she did is not a conflict and to leave her alone.

The defendant is in this position for reasons totally unrelated to Fani Willis's sex life. Each of them fucked around and is finding out. What they think and the suggestions they might be making to their own lawyers is of no importance to me.

I find it interesting you've been unable to find any answer to the simple question posed to you in my post from a few hours ago:

2 hours ago, chainsaw said:

Can you complete the following sentence?

Willis's failure to disclose the relationship with Ward violates Trump's rights because ______________________________________________.

Is it because there is no good answer?

[Balcones 315]

7 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

The defendant is in this position for reasons totally unrelated to Fani Willis's sex life. Each of them fucked around and is finding out. What they think and the suggestions they might be making to their own lawyers is of no importance to me.

I find it interesting you've been unable to find any answer to the simple question posed to you in my post from a few hours ago:

Is it because there is no good answer?

Fani has already been disqualified from one of the cases. Burt Jones.  Proving that the bar isn’t that high to prove the conflict. 

Georgie legal precedent has found there is a conflict of interest when a personal interest or stake in a defendants conviction exists.  Hiring her boyfriend paying him money and then him using the money where she benefits isn’t a stretch of the imagination.
  

[Balcones 315]

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You don't know this is true, at all.  You are clearly biased.

What part isn’t true?
 

They both admit that they have a sexual relationship with each other under oath. They both admit to taking trips to Napa Valley, Aruba, Bahamas, etc…. Multiple witnesses testified under oath this relationship pre-dated Willis hiring Wade.  She has hired him to be the special prosecutor and paid him $700k. 
 

 

[jimmyjazz 46976]

3 minutes ago, Balcones said:

What part isn’t true?

They both admit that they have a sexual relationship with each other under oath. They both admit to taking trips to Napa Valley, Aruba, Bahamas, etc…. Multiple witnesses testified under oath this relationship pre-dated Willis hiring Wade.  She has hired him to be the special prosecutor and paid him $700k. 

You haven't been paying attention.  She denies that they had a relationship prior to him being hired.  Others certainly dispute this.  Does it really matter?  Maybe not.  You're just ignoring details, though.

[BamaATL 16593]

A legal and precedent breakdown of why disqualification isn't likely to happen.  

https://www.justsecurity.org/91368/why-fani-willis-is-not-disqualified-under-georgia-law/

Spoiler

No one is praising Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s apparent romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, an attorney in private practice who she brought on board as a Special Prosecutor in the criminal investigation and now prosecution of Donald Trump and 18 co-defendants. We have not yet heard that much of Willis’s side of the story. However, based on what is known so far, it represents poor judgment—especially in a case of this magnitude, even if a prosecutor’s private life is generally none of the public’s business. Willis has already said publicly that she is “flawed” and “imperfect” in her public remarks at Bethel AME Church following the allegations. But whether there were personal failings is not the operative legal test for whether Willis or Wade should be disqualified from the case, and accordingly that question is not the focus of this essay. Prosecutors are human, and they can and do make mistakes. The question here is whether Willis’s and Wade’s apparent mistakes have any bearing on the election conspiracy prosecution in a way the law would require their removal from the case.

The motion filed by defendant Michael Roman seeks primarily to do just that – to disqualify Willis and Wade from further participation in this case. Under Georgia law, however, even if all the factual allegations regarding Willis and Wade were true, there would be no basis for disqualifying them from prosecuting Roman or any of the other defendants in the election conspiracy case.

The key point is that regardless of whether the factual circumstances involving Willis and Wade give rise to separate ethical concerns with respect to his hiring, such questions do not affect the propriety of the prosecution against Roman and his co-defendants. Questions about gifts and related matters go to Willis’s and Wade’s obligations to the Fulton County District Attorney’s office, and have no connection to assuring the defendants a fair trial. These allegations are as irrelevant to the trial as allegations in other situations that prosecutors took office supplies for personal use, drove county vehicles for personal errands, or plagiarized portions of their student law review notes. All of those are legitimate issues—for prosecutors’ offices and those with oversight responsibilities to address—but such allegations do not bring criminal prosecutions to a stop or require that cases be transferred to a different office. Defense attorneys cannot use allegations of prosecutorial ethics violations, real or imaginary, that have nothing to do with a trial to delay or force prosecutors off of a case. 

As a matter of both common sense and Georgia law, a prosecutor is disqualified from a case due to a “conflict of interest” only when the prosecutor’s conflicting loyalties could prejudice the defendant leading, for example, to an improper conviction. None of the factual allegations made in the Roman motion have a basis in law for the idea that such prejudice could exist here – as it might where a law enforcement agent is involved with a witness, or a defense lawyer with a judge. We might question Willis’s judgment in hiring Wade and the pair’s other alleged conduct, but under Georgia law that relationship and their alleged behavior do not impact her or his ability to continue on the case.

Although the Georgia law on disqualifying a prosecutor would permit Wade to remain on the case as well, in our view he should voluntarily step down. His continued presence will create a distraction, and his departure, in addition to an on-the-record hearing in court, is the best path to dispense with any lingering concerns. Doing so will avoid any debate about even an appearance of impropriety going forward. Willis is an elected official and has an ongoing obligation to serve her constituents. Stepping down is the honorable thing for Wade to do and at the same time respect the interests of the electorate. 

In this essay we provide a detailed analysis of the relevant legal questions. First, we review the law of prosecutorial disqualification in Georgia. Second, we explain why the Roman motion’s factual allegations, even if true, do not give rise to a conflict of interest that warrants disqualification of the prosecutors in Roman’s case. 

The Allegations and the Legal Framework

Georgia law recognizes prosecutorial disqualification in exceptionally narrow circumstances, ones that are not alleged by the Roman motion. The Roman motion argues that three primary alleged factual circumstances amount to a conflict of interest warranting disqualification and, even more extremely, dismissal of the indictment against him[1]:

• The alleged romantic relationship between Willis and Wade;
• The financial compensation Wade received as a Special Prosecutor; and
• The alleged personal travel Willis and Wade took together, allegedly paid for by Wade.

As explained below, these circumstances neither individually nor collectively give rise to a conflict of interest in a prosecution. 

The Law of Prosecutorial Disqualification in Georgia

Under Georgia law, “[t]here are two generally recognized grounds for disqualification of a prosecuting attorney. The first such ground is based on a conflict of interest, and the second ground has been described as ‘forensic misconduct.'” Williams v. State, 258 Ga. 305, 314, 369 S.E.2d 232, 238 (1988). There is no allegation of “forensic misconduct” in this prosecution. A conflict of interest may arise when the prosecutor has “acquired a personal interest or stake in the defendant’s conviction.” Id. “[A] conflict of interest requires more than a theoretical or speculative conflict. An actual conflict of interest must be involved.” Ventura v. State, 346 Ga. App. 309, 311, 816 S.E.2d 151, 154 (2018) (quoting Whitworth v. State, 275 Ga. App. 790, 793 (1)(b), 622 S.E.2d 21 (2005)).

Georgia appellate courts have recognized several discrete categories of conflicts of interest for the purposes of prosecutorial disqualification. First and most commonly, a conflict of interest has “been held to arise where the prosecutor previously has represented the defendant with respect to the offense charged.” Williams, 258 Ga. at 314, 369 S.E.2d at 238. See also Lamb v. State, 267 Ga. 41, 42, 472 S.E.2d 683, 685 (1996) (“[A] conflict of interest would arise if a defense attorney were to ‘switch sides’ and prosecute his former client.”); Frazier v. State, 257 Ga. 690, 693(9), 362 S.E.2d 351 (1987). Second, a prosecutor may be disqualified if he is a fact witness in the case against the defendant. McLaughlin v. Payne, 295 Ga. 609, 614, 761 S.E.2d 289, 294 (2014). Third, a conflict of interest may arise due to the prosecutor’s relationship with a victim. See Battle v. State, 301 Ga. 694, 698, 804 S.E.2d 46, 51 (2017) (“[A] conflict of interest or the appearance of impropriety from a close personal relationship with the victim may be grounds for disqualification of a prosecutor.”); Head v. State, 253 Ga. App. 757, 757, 560 S.E.2d 536, 537 (2002). Fourth, a conflict of interest leading to disqualification exists when a special prosecutor is compensated by a contingency fee that is paid only if a conviction is secured, because that fee arrangement creates “at least the appearance of a conflict of interest between his public duty to seek justice and his private right to obtain compensation for his services.” Greater Georgia Amusements, LLC v. State, 317 Ga. App. 118, 122, 728 S.E.2d 744, 747 (2012) (physical precedent only). See also Amusement Sales, Inc. v. State, 316 Ga. App. 727, 736, 730 S.E.2d 430, 438 (2012) (adopting reasoning of Greater Georgia Amusements to hold that “disqualification was warranted in light of the SADAs having a personal financial stake in the outcome” due to contingency fee arrangement).

The issue of disqualification arose in an earlier phase of the Georgia election conspiracy case. Applying these legal principles from the existing case law, the court swiftly denied motions to disqualify Willis filed by numerous defendants. In the only order granting such a motion, Judge Robert C. I. McBurney held that Willis was disqualified from the prosecution of Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones due to narrow circumstances involving the political relationship between Willis and Jones. At the time of his motion, Jones was the “target” of a special purpose grand jury investigation into the facts of this case. Jones, then a state senator, was also the Republican nominee in the 2022 general election for Lieutenant Governor. Willis had publicly endorsed and held a high-profile fundraiser for Jones’s opponent in the election, Democratic candidate Charlie Bailey. Judge McBurney determined that Willis’s support for Bailey gave rise to a conflict of interest warranting disqualification because, as he explained, “any effort to treat [Jones] differently [from other subjects of the investigation]–even if justified–will prompt entirely reasonable concerns of politically motivated prosecution: is Senator Jones being singled out because of a desire to further assist the Bailey campaign?” Jones Disqualification Order at 4-5 (July 25, 2022). Judge McBurney elaborated that a criminal prosecution “cannot be burdened by legitimate doubts about the District Attorney’s motives.” Id. at 5. Accordingly, “because any public criminal investigation into Senator Jones plainly benefits candidate Bailey’s campaign, of which the District Attorney is an open, avid, and official supporter,” Judge McBurney held that Willis suffered from a conflict of interest that warranted disqualification. Id. at n.6. 

The unifying principle in the Georgia disqualification cases, including in Judge McBurney’s prior opinion in this case, is that a conflict of interest warranting prosecutorial disqualification is present when, and only when, the factual circumstances indicate the prosecutor may seek a conviction or otherwise treat a defendant through improper means or with an improper purpose. The Supreme Court has explained that “[t]he responsibility of a public prosecutor differs from that of the usual advocate; his duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict.” Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 803 (1987) (quoting Ethical Consideration (EC) 7-13 of Canon 7 of the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Code of Professional Responsibility (1982)). As the American Bar Association elaborates, a “prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice, that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence, and that special precautions are taken to prevent and to rectify the conviction of innocent persons.” Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct r. 3.8 cmt. 1 (Am. Bar. Ass’n 2015). See also Young, 481 U.S. at 804 (stating that prosecutors are “appointed solely to pursue the public interest in vindication of the court’s authority”); Town of Newton v. Rumery, 480 U.S. 386, 395 n.5 (1987); Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 249 (1980).

The first two categories of Georgia cases recognize the risk of an unfair advantage for the prosecution in seeking a conviction. A prosecutor who formerly represented the defendant for the offense charged may leverage his knowledge of privileged and confidential information about the defendant that he learned through his prior representation. A prosecutor who is a fact witness in the case may color his testimony to favor the prosecution. The second two categories of Georgia cases recognize the risk that the prosecutor may seek conviction even when doing so is not in the public interest. A prosecutor who has a prior personal relationship with the victim may seek vengeance rather than justice. And a prosecutor who receives a fee only upon conviction may seek personal profit rather than the public good. In all cases, the central issue is whether the alleged conflict compromises the prosecutor’s efforts to seek a fair and just prosecution and conviction.

1. The Alleged Romantic Relationship Between Willis and Wade

Georgia courts have resoundingly rejected romantic relationships between attorneys as a basis for prosecutorial disqualification. “[T]here is no per se rule of disqualification based on marital status.” Jones v. Jones, 258 Ga. 353, 354–55 (1988); see also Blumenfeld v. Borenstein, 247 Ga. 406, 408, 276 S.E.2d 607, 609 (1981) (“Absent a showing that special circumstances exist which prevent the adequate representation of the client, disqualification based solely on marital status is not justified.”). The Georgia Supreme Court has explained that even married attorneys on opposing sides of litigation do not suffer from a conflict of interest. See Jones, 258 Ga. at 354–355 (“We have found no authority, and none has been cited to us, for the proposition that married lawyers who are involved in active litigation on opposing sides of a case must be disqualified.”). Georgia courts have explained that, “[w]hile we cannot disagree with the proposition that the marital relationship may be the most intimate relationship of a person’s life, it does not follow that professional people allow this intimacy to interfere with professional obligations.” Ventura, 346 Ga. App. at 311, 816 S.E.2d at 154. The opportunity for conflict and potential impropriety between spouses on opposing sides of litigation are greater than those on the same side of a case, working toward the same outcome. Accordingly, there is no plausible argument that non-married attorneys in a romantic relationship who serve together as prosecutors in a case create a conflict of interest for the defendant.

2. The Financial Compensation Wade Received as Special Prosecutor

Wade’s hourly compensation as a Special Prosecutor does not give rise to a conflict of interest because that fee arrangement does not create a financial incentive for Wade to seek conviction rather than justice. Georgia law expressly contemplates that district attorneys may appoint lawyers in private practice as special prosecutors who may be compensated for their work. Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. R. 42.1 (“Special assistant district attorneys appointed by the district attorney including attorneys from personnel of public agencies may prosecute criminal cases.”). See Isaacs v. State, 259 Ga. 717, 722, 386 S.E.2d 316, 322 (1989) (“The appointment of assistant attorney general William Hill as a special assistant district attorney in this case was authorized under Rule 42.1 of the Uniform Superior Court Rules.”); State v. Cook, 172 Ga. App. 433, 437, 323 S.E.2d 634, 639 (1984) (“[T]he appointment by a district attorney of a Special Assistant District Attorney … is premised upon the inherent authority of the district attorney to obtain assistance in the performance of his prosecutorial duties.”) (emphasis in original). 

Special Prosecutors may be paid according “to whatever private arrangements regarding compensation are mutually agreeable to the district attorney and the appointee.” Cook, 172 Ga. App. at 437, 323 S.E.2d at 639 (citing Vernon v. State, 146 Ga. 709, 711, 92 S.E. 76 (1917)). The prevailing practice in Georgia is for Special Prosecutors to be compensated at an hourly rate. All three Special Prosecutors in Roman’s prosecution were paid by the hour, and it appears undisputed that at least one of the other two was paid the same $250 rate as Wade. See Fulton County DA Fani Willis explosive accusations: New documents in special prosecutor controversy, Fox5 Atlanta (“Documents show that Anna Cross was also paid $250 an hour.”). Compensating special prosecutors by the hour is not limited to the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office. For example, the Office of the Attorney General of Georgia engaged hundreds of Special Assistant Attorneys General (SAAGs) in Fiscal Year 2023. See Office of the Attorney General, Outside Counsel Fee Information. Those records reflect that in 2022, 18 SAAGs were paid precisely the same $250 an hour as Wade, and some SAAGs made well over $1,000 an hour.

The financial compensation paid to Wade is consistent with well-established practice in Georgia and does not give rise to a conflict of interest warranting prosecutorial disqualification. Neither Wade nor the hundreds of other Special Prosecutors in Georgia who are paid by the hour have an improper financial incentive to seek a conviction to the disadvantage of a defendant. Publicly available documents indicate that Wade’s compensation was not contingent on the outcome of the prosecution against Roman or anyone else. 

By contrast, the only two cases in Georgia that found that a Special Prosecutor’s financial compensation created a conflict of interest involved contingency fees which were expressly tied to the outcome of the case. In both Amusement Sales, Inc. v. State, 316 Ga. App. 727, 730 S.E.2d 430 (2012), and Greater Georgia Amusements, LLC v. State, 317 Ga. App. 118, 728 S.E.2d 744, 747 (2012), the district attorney appointed several Special Assistant District Attorneys to prosecute actions seeking in rem forfeiture of assets that were “used or intended for use in the course of, derived from, or realized through the foregoing pattern of racketeering activity.” Amusement Sales, 316 Ga. App. at 728, 730 S.E.2d at 433 (quoting OCGA § 16–14–7(a)). In contrast to Wade’s compensation, “[t]he SADAs were in private practice and entered into a contingency fee arrangement with the State to prosecute and recover a percentage of any forfeited proceeds.” Id. The Georgia Court of Appeal rejected that financial arrangement, explaining that “disqualification was warranted in light of the SADAs having a personal financial stake in the outcome.” Id. at 738. That contrasts sharply with an hourly fee like Wade’s, which does not depend on the outcome of the prosecution. Accordingly, because Wade’s hourly compensation does not create an improper motive to seek conviction, it does not give rise to a conflict of interest. 

Nor is there a plausible argument for disqualification based on Wade’s purported financial incentive to initially bring or continue the prosecution of Roman and his co-defendants regardless of its ultimate outcome. Every special prosecutor paid by the hour would have a similar financial incentive, and as noted above both Georgia case law and well-established practice approve of such appointments and financial arrangements. Moreover, the factual record refutes the suggestion that the prosecution is financially motivated. Independent analyses released prior to the issuance of the indictment determined that the charges that Willis ultimately brought were well-founded in law and fact. See, e.g., Fulton County, Georgia’s Trump Investigation: An analysis of the reported facts and applicable law: Second Edition, Brookings Institution (Nov. 14, 2022). The evidence against Roman in particular appears more than sufficient to justify prosecution. See, e.g., Exclusive: Recordings, emails show how Trump team flew fake elector ballots to DC in final push to overturn 2020 election, CNN (Dec. 28, 2023). Moreover, the prosecution’s legal and factual merits have been supported by the multiple defendants who have pleaded guilty to felonies. 

In a related point, Roman’s motion to disqualify also complains that Wade has “never  tried a felony RICO case.” That argument ignores the fact that Willis has separately retained as special counsel one of Georgia’s and indeed the nation’s preeminent experts on RICO, John Floyd. He brings the requisite experience to the team, as does the District Attorney herself. An effective team leader need not have experience in all dimensions of the case. Indeed, this case is so unusual that no one lawyer has all of the requisite experience required and assembling a team is necessary. Willis has said she brought in Wade, who is by all accounts a well-respected lawyer, to manage the team as someone who would be strong in the face of criticisms and who could “wipe off their wounds and we can get back to work.” Finally,Wade’s effectiveness has been amply shown by the successes the team has secured under his leadership over the pendency of the investigation and prosecution. Whatever one may think of the other arguments made by Roman, this one need not detain us long. 

3. Personal Travel by Willis and Wade 

The allegations regarding personal travel together that Wade allegedly paid for also do not give rise to a conflict of interest warranting disqualification. Although no case in Georgia addresses allegations of a similar factual circumstance, the principles that the Georgia courts have adopted strongly indicate the absence of a conflict of interest warranting disqualification in the prosecution of Roman and his co-defendants. 

As explained above, Wade’s hourly compensation as a Special Prosecutor does not give rise to a conflict of interest that warrants disqualification because it does not create a financial incentive to seek a conviction rather than prosecute the case fairly. The Roman motion alleges that Wade paid for personal travel for Willis and himself, possibly using funds that he derived from his hourly compensation as a Special Prosecutor. Even if that allegation is true–and even if the sole source of Wade’s funds was his hourly compensation as a Special Prosecutor–that financial arrangement between Willis and Wade similarly does not create a financial incentive for Willis to seek a conviction rather to prosecute the case fairly. In particular, Wade will be compensated the exact same amount of money over the course of the prosecution regardless whether any defendant is convicted or not. As a result, Wade will have the exact same amount of money as a result of his service as a Special Prosecutor to pay for personal travel with Willis regardless whether any defendant is convicted or not. Accordingly, even if Wade pays for personal travel with Willis, she has not “acquired a personal interest or stake in the defendant’s conviction” and therefore disqualification is not warranted. Williams, 258 Ga. at 314, 369 S.E.2d 232, 238 (1988). If it were otherwise, Georgia law would look into the expenses of marital couples who work together on prosecutorial teams, but as discussed above that is a non-starter when it comes to a legal basis for claiming a true conflict of interests.

Conclusion

For the reasons above, a conflict of interest requiring disqualification from the cases does not exist as to either Willis or Wade under Georgia law. We expect Judge Scott McAfee will deny the Roman motion in its entirety after the evidentiary hearing. As a practical matter, Wade’s voluntary resignation would help resolve the controversy, enabling the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office to continue to serve the people of Fulton County in a manner that comports with the public interest. 

Conversely, an unfounded disqualification of Willis would unjustifiably threaten to delay the case unnecessarily. That is because when the District Attorney herself is disqualified, the matter is transferred to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of the State of Georgia for reassignment. See McLaughlin v. Payne, 295 Ga. 609, 613, 761 S.E.2d 289, 294 (2014); OGCA § 15-18-5 (2022). That was what happened with the disqualification in July 2022 with respect to Burt Jones (discussed above). Today, 18 months later, we have yet to see a prosecutor assigned to the Jones case, much less a decision on whether to indict Jones. Whereas if Willis were otherwise sanctioned by ethics or county government authorities as a result of any separate inquiries (e.g. into her hiring decision involving Wade), it would not have this effect. The case would remain in the Fulton County District Attorney’s office. 

A likely delay in the prosecution of Trump and his co-conspirators occasioned by moving the case is inconsistent with the public interest. There is a paramount need to resolve the question as soon as possible of whether Trump previously criminally abused the office he is seeking to recover. Accordingly, the stakes could not be higher for accurately applying the law of disqualification. 

– – – – – – – – – – – –

[1] The Roman motion cites no authority supporting its request for dismissal, and there is no basis in Georgia law for that relief even if a court finds a prosecutor is disqualified due to a conflict of interest. See McLaughlin v. Payne, 295 Ga. 609, 613, 761 S.E.2d 289, 294 (2014) (“n the event that the elected district attorney is wholly disqualified, the statutes contemplate” transfer of the case to another prosecutor) (citing OGCA § 15-18-5(a)).

 

Signups for A.M. & P.M. Emails Search for:

 Search authors only

January 6 Clearinghouse

All-source, public repository of congressional hearing transcripts, government agency documents, digital forensics, social media analysis, public opinion surveys, empirical research, more.

Read More about January 6 Clearinghouse

Featured Articles

Navalny’s Death and the Kremlin

by Ambassador Daniel Fried

Feb 16th, 2024

Trump Trials Clearinghouse

by Norman L. Eisen, Ryan Goodman, Siven Watt and Francois Barrilleaux

Feb 15th, 2024

Master Calendar of Trump Court Dates: Criminal and Civil Cases

by Norman L. Eisen, Ryan Goodman, Siven Watt and Francois Barrilleaux

Feb 14th, 2024

How Israel Took the Terrorists’ Bait

by Matthew Levinger

Feb 13th, 2024

The Real “Robert Hur Report” (Versus What You Read in the News)

by Andrew Weissmann and Ryan Goodman

Feb 10th, 2024

Protected Persons and the ‘Geographic Nexus’ Requirement in the DoD Law of War Manual

by Eliav Lieblich

Feb 6th, 2024

Taking Stock of ICJ Decisions in the ‘Ukraine v. Russia’ Cases—And implications for South Africa’s case against Israel

by Oona A. Hathaway

Feb 5th, 2024

Between Rhetoric and Effects: The ICJ Provisional Measures Order in South Africa v. Israel

by Amichai Cohen and Yuval Shany

Feb 1st, 2024

The Facts About Electronic Surveillance Reform

by Senator Ron Wyden

Jan 31st, 2024

Planning Ahead: How the US May Recover Its Diplomatic Standing at the UN After the Gaza War

by Richard Gowan

Jan 30th, 2024

Top Experts’ Views of Int’l Court of Justice Ruling on Israel Gaza Operations (South Africa v Israel, Genocide Convention Case)

by Just Security

Jan 26th, 2024

Unpacking the Int’l Court of Justice Judgment in South Africa v Israel (Genocide Case)

by Ryan Goodman and Siven Watt

Jan 26th, 2024

Congress Must Strengthen Oversight on Intelligence Sharing and Civilian Harm

by Steven Katz and John Ramming Chappell

Jan 25th, 2024

A Lawyer for Political Prisoners on Why He Fled Russia

by Vadim Prokhorov

Jan 24th, 2024

The Democratic Price of Countering Authoritarianism

by Thomas Carothers

Jan 22nd, 2024

Signals of Support for Gender Justice in the Draft Treaty on Crimes Against Humanity

by Paloma van Groll

Jan 19th, 2024

Success or Failure in Ukraine?

by Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr. and David Bernell

Jan 12th, 2024

Успіх чи невдача в Україні?

by Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr. and David Bernell

Jan 12th, 2024

Russia’s Eliminationist Rhetoric Against Ukraine: A Collection

by Clara Apt

Jan 11th, 2024

Assessing the DoD Law of War Manual’s Approach to Treaties and Customary International Law

by Sean Murphy

Jan 10th, 2024

Constitutional Law Scholars on the Impeachment Proceedings Against Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas

by Joshua Matz and Laurence H. Tribe

Jan 10th, 2024

How Long Will Trump’s DC Immunity Appeal Take? Analyzing the Alternative Timelines

by Norman L. Eisen, Matthew A. Seligman and Joshua Kolb

Jan 9th, 2024

How the KKK Produced the Department of Justice

by Bruce Hoffman and Jacob Ware

Jan 8th, 2024

Introduction to Expert Statements on Role of Extremism in Social and News Media, submitted to January 6th House Select Committee

by Meghan Conroy and Justin Hendrix

Jan 6th, 2024

Old Constitutional Provisions and Presidential Selection: The folly of exhuming Section 3 of the 14th Amendment

by Samuel Issacharoff

Jan 5th, 2024

It’s Not Just Technology: What it Means to be a Global Leader in AI

by Kayla Blomquist and Keegan McBride

Jan 4th, 2024

Selective Use of Facts and the Gaza Genocide Debate

by Amichai Cohen and Yuval Shany

Jan 2nd, 2024

Nine Stories That Deserved More Attention in 2023 – and That May Shape 2024

by Megan Corrarino

Dec 29th, 2023

U.S. Policymakers’ Lessons from Yemen for Gaza

by Wa’el Alzayat and Jeremy Konyndyk

Dec 22nd, 2023

Unhuman Killings: AI and Civilian Harm in Gaza

by Brianna Rosen

Dec 15th, 2023

Poland’s New Government Will Face Hurdles to Restore Rule of Law and Judicial Independence

by Jasmine D. Cameron, Judge Dariusz Mazur and Anna Wójcik

Dec 12th, 2023

Learning from Justice O’Connor

by Jane Stromseth

Dec 2nd, 2023

Tracking COP28: Notable Moments and Key Themes

by Clara Apt

Nov 30th, 2023

Giving Tuesday: Please Support Just Security With a Tax-Deductible Donation

by Tess Bridgeman and Ryan Goodman

Nov 28th, 2023

The Year of Section 702 Reform, Part V: The HPSCI Majority FISA Working Group Report

by Elizabeth Goitein and Noah Chauvin

Nov 27th, 2023

Threat from Within? Unreformed Counterterrorism Infrastructure Raises Concerns About Misuse

by Faiza Patel

Nov 21st, 2023

It’s Time to Close the Door on Biden’s Saudi Defense Deal

by Shahed Ghoreishi

Nov 16th, 2023

Is AI the Right Sword for Democracy?

by Arthur Holland Michel

Nov 13th, 2023

DOJ Will Use Trump’s Continued Embrace of Jan. 6 Rioters to Prove Its Case

by Tom Joscelyn, Norman L. Eisen and Fred Wertheimer

Nov 10th, 2023

Why the United Nations Keeps Failing Victims of Atrocity Crimes

by Karen Smith

Nov 9th, 2023

Law and Policy Guide to US Arms Transfers to Israel

by John Ramming Chappell, Annie Shiel, Seth Binder, Elias Yousif, Bill Monahan and Amanda Klasing

Nov 8th, 2023

The Year of Section 702 Reform, Part IV: The Government Surveillance Reform Act

by Elizabeth Goitein and Noah Chauvin

Nov 7th, 2023

The US Must Adapt Foreign Policy and Aid to an Aging World

by Daniel Balson and Jane Buchanan

Nov 7th, 2023

Stolen Childhoods: The Emerging Generational Crisis in Sudan’s War

by Dr. Hiba Alamin, Dr. Hafeez Abdelhafeez and Dr. Abdallah Tom

Nov 3rd, 2023

Rethinking Counterterrorism

by Fionnuala Ní Aoláin

Nov 2nd, 2023

Biden’s Executive Order on AI Gives Sweeping Mandate to DHS

by Justin Hendrix

Nov 1st, 2023

The Discomforts of Politics: What Future for Atrocity Prevention?

by Alexander Bellamy

Oct 31st, 2023

Law and Survival in Israel and Palestine

by Janina Dill

Oct 26th, 2023

What is the U.N. General Assembly Able to Do on the Israel-Hamas War?

by Rebecca Barber

Oct 24th, 2023

DHS Must Evaluate and Overhaul its Flawed Automated Systems

by Rachel Levinson-Waldman and José Guillermo Gutiérrez

Oct 19th, 2023

Introducing the Symposium on AI Governance: Power, Justice, and the Limits of the Law

by Brianna Rosen

Oct 18th, 2023

The Tragedy of AI Governance

by Simon Chesterman

Oct 18th, 2023

Expert Guidance: Law of Armed Conflict in the Israel-Hamas War

by Ryan Goodman, Michael W. Meier and Tess Bridgeman

Oct 17th, 2023

Rare ICRC Public Statement Calls for “Pause” in Gaza Fighting

by Tess Bridgeman

Oct 13th, 2023

Social Media Platform Integrity Matters in Times of War

by Nora Benavidez

Oct 13th, 2023

The Siege of Gaza and the Starvation War Crime

by Tom Dannenbaum

Oct 11th, 2023

Expert Q&A with David Aaron on FISA Section 702 Reauthorization and Reform

by David Aaron

Oct 11th, 2023

Policy Alert: Key Questions in Hamas’ Attack on Israel and What Comes Next

by Brianna Rosen and Viola Gienger

Oct 9th, 2023

Compromises on Territory, Legal Order, and World Peace: The Fate of International Law Lies on Ukraine’s Borders

by Maksym Vishchyk and Jeremy Pizzi

Oct 6th, 2023

On Eve of Elections, Polish Democracy is Subverted by Autocratic Media Advantage

by Nathan Kohlenberg and Joshua Rudolph

Oct 5th, 2023

The PCLOB Stubs Its Toe on Use of U.S. Person Queries with FISA Section 702

by George Croner

Oct 4th, 2023

Key Takeaways from September 28 House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing on AUMF Reform

by Brian Finucane

Oct 4th, 2023

AI and the Future of Drone Warfare: Risks and Recommendations

by Brianna Rosen

Oct 3rd, 2023

Climate Mitigation: Moving Beyond National Action to International Action

by Robert S. Taylor

Sep 27th, 2023

Tracking UNGA 78: Notable Moments and Key Themes

by Gwendolyn Whidden, Katherine Fang and Clara Apt

Sep 27th, 2023

Why “Associated Forces” Should be Kept Out of Any New AUMF

by Tess Bridgeman

Sep 26th, 2023

Questions for Congress to Ask the Biden Administration at the AUMF Hearing

by Brian Finucane

Sep 25th, 2023

Book Release: Race & National Security, Professor Matiangai Sirleaf ed.

by Tess Bridgeman, Ryan Goodman and Megan Corrarino

Sep 22nd, 2023

Analyzing Previously Undisclosed Use of Force Reports: Challenges of Congressional Oversight of the War on Terror

by Brian Finucane and Heather Brandon-Smith

Sep 18th, 2023

Tucker Carlson, Viktor Orbán and the Anti-Democracy Playbook

by Norman L. Eisen and Tom Joscelyn

Sep 15th, 2023

Senator Tuberville’s Folly, and the Senate’s

by Eugene R. Fidell

Sep 15th, 2023

Openings for Biden in the Inaugural US-Central Asia Summit at UNGA

by Jordan Street and Ilya Jones

Sep 14th, 2023

Finally Ending America’s Forever War, Part II: Prescription

by Harold Hongju Koh

Sep 12th, 2023

Introduction to Symposium: Ending Perpetual War

by Brianna Rosen

Sep 11th, 2023

Finally Ending America’s Forever War, Part I: Diagnosis

by Harold Hongju Koh

Sep 11th, 2023

Maui After Fire Illustrates Need to Plan for Longer-Term Disaster Displacement

by Jane McAdam

Sep 5th, 2023

Amid Robert Rundo’s Extradition, the White Supremacist Active Clubs Network Remains a Threat

by Morgan Moon and Jon Lewis

Sep 1st, 2023

9/11 Family Members Can Get Answers through Plea Agreements, Not a Trial

by Terry Rockefeller

Aug 31st, 2023

The Government’s Section 702 Playbook Doesn’t Work Anymore

by Patrick C. Toomey, Sarah Taitz and Kia Hamadanchy

Aug 30th, 2023

The Overlooked but Potent Artist in the Fight Against Autocracy

by Suzanne Nossel

Aug 28th, 2023

Chart: Names of the “Unindicted Co-Conspirators” in Fulton County, Georgia Indictment

by Ryan Goodman, Norman L. Eisen, Siven Watt, Allison Rice, Francois Barrilleaux, Beth Markman and Michael Nevett

Aug 25th, 2023

A Roadmap for Implementing Rules on Racial Profiling

by Faiza Patel and Harsha Panduranga

Aug 25th, 2023

How Jack Smith May Charge Trump PAC with Fraudulent Fundraising Within the Bounds of First Amendment

by Ciara Torres-Spelliscy

Aug 24th, 2023

Changes to UK Surveillance Regime May Violate International Law

by Ioannis Kouvakas

Aug 22nd, 2023

Trials of Ukrainian Prisoners of War in Russia: Decay of the Combatant’s Immunity

by Maksym Vishchyk

Aug 21st, 2023

Ten Years on From the Ghouta Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria: What Lessons Have Been Learned?

by Sareta Ashraph

Aug 21st, 2023

Суди над українськими військовополоненими в Росії: руйнація імунітету комбатанта

by Maksym Vishchyk

Aug 18th, 2023

What to Expect When You’re Expecting a Trump Trial in Fulton County

by Norman L. Eisen, Joshua Kolb, Joshua Stanton, Andrew Warren and Siven Watt

Aug 16th, 2023

Renewed Tensions in the Persian Gulf: Further War Powers Lessons from the Tanker War

by Brian Finucane

Aug 16th, 2023

The Fulton County DA’s Options: Multi-Defendant Trial(s) and the Paths Ahead

by Erica J. Hashimoto

Aug 15th, 2023

How Russia is Using Online Video Games to Promote the War in Ukraine

by Mariana Olaizola Rosenblat

Aug 15th, 2023

The House Tackles Zombie War Authorizations: Possibilities and Perils

by Brian Finucane

Aug 14th, 2023

Collective Reparations for Victims of ISIS

by Stephany Caro Mejia

Aug 9th, 2023

International Criminal Accountability for Yahya Jammeh’s Administration: The Gambia-ECOWAS Court

by Owiso Owiso and Sharon Nakandha

Aug 9th, 2023

Anatomy of a Fraud: Kenneth Chesebro’s Misrepresentation of My Scholarship in His Efforts to Overturn the 2020 Presidential Election

by Laurence H. Tribe

Aug 8th, 2023

Friends Don’t Let Friends Succumb to Climate Change: Competing With China by Helping Our Partners and Allies Adapt

by Erin Sikorsky and Admiral Sam Locklear (Ret.)

Aug 8th, 2023

The Last Chance for a Two-State Solution for Israelis and Palestinians May Be to Think Much Bigger

by Jonathan Panikoff

Aug 7th, 2023

Comparing the Trump Indictment and the January 6th Select Committee’s Final Report

by Tom Joscelyn

Aug 3rd, 2023

Department of Defense Issues Update to DoD Law of War Manual on Presumption of Civilian Status and Feasible Precautions to Verify Military Objectives

by Caroline D. Krass

Jul 31st, 2023

National Security Implications of Trump’s Superseding Indictment: A Damage Assessment 2.0

by Tess Bridgeman and Ryan Goodman

Jul 31st, 2023

 

Key Topics

Scroll within to view all topics.

Afghanistan Climate Change Congressional Oversight Coronavirus Counterterrorism Cybersecurity Democracy Diplomacy Disinformation Human Rights Immigration Intelligence activities International Criminal Law Israel-Hamas War January 6th Attack on US Capitol Law of Armed Conflict Local Voices Racial Justice Social Media Platforms United Nations Use of Force

 

Resources

TRACKERS

Tracking UNGA 78: Notable Moments and Key Themes

by Gwendolyn Whidden, Katherine Fang and Clara Apt

Sep 27th, 2023

Russia’s Eliminationist Rhetoric Against Ukraine: A Collection

by Clara Apt

Jan 11th, 2024

Litigation Tracker: Pending Criminal and Civil Cases Against Donald Trump

by Karl Mihm, Jacob Apkon and Sruthi Venkatachalam

Jan 30th, 2023

Tracking COP27: Notable Moments and Key Themes

by Clara Apt and Katherine Fang

Nov 18th, 2022

The January 6th Hearings: Criminal Evidence Tracker – Trump Subpoena Edition

by Noah Bookbinder, Norman L. Eisen, Debra Perlin, E. Danya Perry, Jason Powell, Donald Simon, Joshua Stanton and Fred Wertheimer

Oct 27th, 2022

SERIES

The Future of Atrocity Prevention: A Joint Symposium

by Gwendolyn Whidden

Oct 31st, 2023

Introducing the Symposium on AI Governance: Power, Justice, and the Limits of the Law

by Brianna Rosen

Oct 18th, 2023

Introduction to Symposium: Ending Perpetual War

by Brianna Rosen

Sep 11th, 2023

Joint Symposium on U.S. Cooperation with the International Criminal Court’s Ukraine Investigation

by Just Security

Jul 17th, 2023

U.N. General Assembly and International Criminal Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression Against Ukraine

by Just Security

May 9th, 2023

Introducing the Symposium on U.S. Support for the ICC’s Trust Fund for Victims

by Paul R. Williams, Milena Sterio, Yvonne Dutton, Alexandra Koch, Lilian Waldock, Floriane Lavaud, Ashika Singh and Isabelle Glimcher

Feb 13th, 2023

Antisemitism and Threats to American Democracy

by Eileen B. Hershenov and Ryan B. Greer

Jan 26th, 2023

Toward a Values-Based Foreign Policy: Developing an Ethical Checklist

by Ambassador Peter Mulrean (ret.) and William J. Hawk

Jan 4th, 2023

Tracking COP27: Notable Moments and Key Themes

by Clara Apt and Katherine Fang

Nov 18th, 2022

On Indigenous Peoples’ Day, Reflections on Tribal Sovereignty in Haaland v. Brackeen

by Amanda L. White Eagle

Oct 10th, 2022

Ending Perpetual War

by Brianna Rosen

Oct 25th, 2022

The Case for Creating an International Tribunal to Prosecute the Crime of Aggression Against Ukraine (Part I)

by Oona A. Hathaway

Sep 20th, 2022

Introduction to Symposium: Still at War – Where and Why the United States is Fighting the “War on Terror”

by Tess Bridgeman and Brianna Rosen

Mar 24th, 2022

After a Year of Privation With the Taliban’s Return, the People of Afghanistan Deserve Better from the US and the World

by Nasir A. Andisha and Marzia Marastoni

Aug 15th, 2022

Introduction to Just Security’s Series on Executive Order 9066, 80 Years After Signing

by Megan Corrarino

Feb 18th, 2022

Congress Can and Should Address the Threat from Unauthorized Paramilitary Activity

by Mary B. McCord

Jan 24th, 2022

The Good Governance Papers: A January 2022 “Report Card” Update

by Emily Berman, Tess Bridgeman, Megan Corrarino, Ryan Goodman and Dakota S. Rudesill

Jan 20th, 2022

Symposium Recap: Security, Privacy and Innovation – Reshaping Law for the AI Era

by Laura Brawley, Antara Joardar and Madhu Narasimhan

Oct 29th, 2021

Towards a New Treaty on Crimes Against Humanity: Next Steps

by Leila Nadya Sadat

Sep 13th, 2021

Introduction to Symposium: How Perpetual War Has Changed Us — Reflections on the Anniversary of 9/11

by Tess Bridgeman, Rachel Goldbrenner and Ryan Goodman

Sep 7th, 2021

New Just Security Series: Beyond the Myanmar Coup

by Just Security

Jul 19th, 2021

New Just Security Series: Reflections on Afghanistan on the Eve of Withdrawal

by Kate Brannen

Jun 30th, 2021

Introducing a Symposium on the UN Global Counterterrorism Strategy

by Fionnuala Ní Aoláin and Kate Brannen

Jun 14th, 2021

The Méndez Principles: Leadership to Transform Interrogation via Science, Law, and Ethics

by Steven J. Barela and Mark Fallon

Jun 1st, 2021

 

About the Author(s)

Norman L. Eisen

Ambassador Norman Eisen (ret.) (@NormEisen) served in the White House as special counsel and special assistant to the president for ethics and government reform and as ambassador to the Czech Republic under President Barack Obama, as well as special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee from 2019–20, including for the first impeachment and trial of President Donald Trump.

Joyce Vance

Joyce White Vance (@JoyceWhiteVance) is Distinguished Professor of the Practice of Law at the University of Alabama School of Law and former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama from 2009 to 2017. Member of the Editorial Board of Just Security.

Richard Painter

Richard W. Painter (@RWPUSA). is the S. Walter Richey Professor of Corporate Law at the University of Minnesota Law School and was the chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush.

 

[Dahobbs 18190]

12 minutes ago, Balcones said:

What part isn’t true?
 

They both admit that they have a sexual relationship with each other under oath. They both admit to taking trips to Napa Valley, Aruba, Bahamas, etc…. Multiple witnesses testified under oath this relationship pre-dated Willis hiring Wade.  She has hired him to be the special prosecutor and paid him $700k. 
 

 

So? None of that is disqualifying. 

[chainsaw 10244]

44 minutes ago, Balcones said:

Georgie legal precedent has found there is a conflict of interest when a personal interest or stake in a defendants conviction exists.  Hiring her boyfriend paying him money and then him using the money where she benefits isn’t a stretch of the imagination.

I'm lost.

Are you saying there's some kind of financial kickback that affects the prosecution? You'll have to do a better job of connecting the dots, if so. I'm not understanding how that affects Trump's right to a fair trial at all.

48 minutes ago, Balcones said:

Fani has already been disqualified from one of the cases. Burt Jones.

For what reason? If it has nothing to do with Ward, then it has nothing to do with this motion.

[NWBuck 8619]

On 2/16/2024 at 2:40 PM, Satchel said:

I get the some of you want me to condemn Willis’ poor choices and bad behavior. No objective person familiar with the facts of this case would argue that she helped herself or her cause by sleeping with her co-worker. 

 

[956 Worldwide 35516]

Disqualification isn’t the point.  Here’s the point— the DA and the special prosecutor a massive, politically charged racketeering case have both sworn that they’ve fucked each other.  They’ve sworn that 700k+ in taxpayer funds have gone to the SP.  There are witness who have offered conflicting information about when the sex and dating started. None of that disqualifying, true. 
 

But now, what’s the first question defense is throwing out there? “Is this whole prosecution really about bringing Mr. Trump to justice? Or is this whole thing a farce, a ploy to send hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to the DA’s boy toy and boost her political future by targeting an unpopular politician?”

Is it true? It doesn’t make a shit. It’s not the defense team’s JOB to prove it. It’s their job to throw shit around and raise doubts about their client’s guilt. That is the assignment. 
 

This is some of the only competent lawyering by the Trump team I’ve seen. I don’t care who the indicted person is, if a defense attorney finds out the SP might have been fucking the DA when he got hired, that’s gonna be something we talk about.  You have to know how this is gonna look. 
 

I don’t get the outrage here.  Get upset about the shitty decisions these people in a position of trust made. There’s a reason nepotism is not allowed in government and large corporations.

You think you’re gonna take on DJT and they aren’t going to drag your name through the mud? Why give them something real. Deserve got nothing to do with it. 

[jimmyjazz 46976]

6 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I don’t get the outrage here.

What outrage?  Pretty much anyone with a brain acknowledges that the relationship was unwise at best, and as far as I can tell, most agree that if the DA's behavior legally constitutes grounds for dismissal, so be it.  The idea that her behavior pollutes the case against Trump is silly.

[chainsaw 10244]

8 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

raise doubts about their client’s guilt.

hasn't happened though.

8 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

SP might have been fucking the DA when he got hired

What if SP happened to be the most qualified person for the job? Should the most qualified guy not be hired only because he had sex with her? I'm not seeing how this matters, honestly.

It's also pretty common knowledge that private sector jobs pay much more than these government jobs, so the pearl clutching about him being paid isn't exactly moving the needle for me, either.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13619]

1 hour ago, Balcones said:

I’m sure if you were the defendant in the case, you would tell your lawyer not to go after this. That this is totally on the up and up and what she did is not a conflict and to leave her alone.

If I were the defendant in my financial situation, not trying to endlessly delay and not running for president, yeah I would. 

The only issue I see would be if I was a more qualified attorney applying for the job and death threats Fani's boyfriend got.

If I'm a defendant and thought Fani hired sub-optimal help due to their relationship, I would think that would be to my benefit. I'm hoping they're spending ALL they're free time not working on the case going to Fucktown.

I still have yet to imagine, or hear you articulate, how Fani hiring her boyfriend would deny Trump a fair trial. 

[Cousin Strawberry 1273]

1 hour ago, Balcones said:

Fani has already been disqualified from one of the cases. Burt Jones.  Proving that the bar isn’t that high to prove the conflict. 

Georgie legal precedent has found there is a conflict of interest when a personal interest or stake in a defendants conviction exists.  Hiring her boyfriend paying him money and then him using the money where she benefits isn’t a stretch of the imagination.
  

What is her personal interest in the conviction?

 

Doesn't the boyfriend get the money regardless?  It makes no difference if Trump is convicted, which according to you is what's relevant to this inquiry. 

Edited February 17 by Cousin Strawberry
SP

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13619]

20 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

There’s a reason nepotism is not allowed in government and large corporations.

Oh, it's allowed, consequence-free, and it's allowed in spades by the very defendant on trial.

Edited February 17 by Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

[Slacks 7025]

11 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

it's allowed in spades 

Icwydt

[Balcones 315]

25 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

.

What if SP happened to be the most qualified person for the job? Should the most qualified guy not be hired only because he had sex with her? I'm not seeing how this matters, honestly.

 

You don’t need to worry about that. Wade is grossly under qualified. He has never prosecuted a felony case, is primarily a personal injury lawyer, and has no experience with RICO. 

https://www.ajc.com/politics/misconduct-allegations-lead-to-scrutiny-of-fulton-trump-prosecutor/5DB2F5T6ANHEHFQ5RFWJ2SG4N4/