Can we talk about the public flogging of Fani Willis…

[kevwun 16269]

If only Trump were held to the same no crimes or fuckups standard by his supporters. 

[Reality Check 137]

4 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I have admittedly paid only slight attention to this clown show, but I'll ask the same question that Lovett on the POD asked:

What is the conflict of interest here?  They are both on the same team.  If it were Willis sleeping with a member of the jury, or the judge, or the defense, then ok sure, conflict of interest.  What am I missing?

It seems to me, the dotard klan is conflating "conflict of interest" with "WITCH HUNT!"

There was -- at best -- a thin thread of evidence presented to the court that Willis channeling a $650k (would've been $1.25 million by the time the trial was over) to a romantic partner and then reaping the benefits of that contract was a conflict. A very thin thread to argue that there was an individual financial gain to this prosecution. 

And again, had Willis and Wade acknowledged their relationship preceded his hiring, it would have been something for the county Board of Ethics and, I suppose, the state supervision of county district attorneys, to look into. It certainly wouldn't have derailed the trial as it has. 

But the issues before the court now have little to anything to do with the timing of the affair.  

1) Fraud on the court: They did a tremendously foolish thing by filing a false affidavit, at which point the snowballing effect of three witnesses clearly perjuring themselves in their testimony -- not to mention Willis' behavior which was treated as either "a strong, Black woman speaking truth to power" or "a guilty as hell prosecutor trying to deflect the blame for her professional indiscretions" -- just can't be ignored. 

2) Additionally, Willis' church speech in which she told the congregation -- and therefore the media and the jury pool -- that the defendants are racists and that she is doing God's work by prosecuting them -- appears to be a textbook case of tainting the jury pool. (I forget the legal term for it and I did not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor do I work with that chick from "Suits" who's going to be queen when Charles kicks it.) 

Which leaves us with Wade should have recused when the motion was filed. Willis should have recused when the motion was filed. Now the best-case scenario for the prosecution is that their ducks are all in a row and a D.A. in another county -- perhaps Chatham (i.e. Savannah) -- takes the case. But it was already facing significant First Amendment challenges and U.S. history (Tiden v. Hayes, Bush v. Gore and the Georgia Three Governors controversy of 1946-47) suggests that on appeal there wouldn't have been much to support it. 

But the appeal wasn't the endgame. The endgame was a six- to eight-week trial, video of Trump at the defendants' table each day, an endless loop of Jan. 6 video, and the media being able to muse about a presidential candidate being locked up on election night. 

5 hours ago, Captainant said:

Counter point: the judge should have never allowed this boondoggle of a fishing expedition for all the reasons above. 

Not according to the law. Once Merchant presented a sworn motion detailing Willis' and Wade's alleged conflict of interest, he was obligated to solicit a request from Willis and Wade. 

All they had to do was tell the truth and that would have ended it. But when Merchant said she had witnesses who would impeach the credibility of the pair, then the can of worms was completely opened. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 5 by Reality Check

[Captainant 28386]

Well I'm glad the justice system has found another way to protect trump and drag things out even longer.

What a completely unforeseeable happenstance! How completely novel and brand-new this experience is for me

[kevwun 16269]

Oh look, another troll sock account.

[Horn Dog 10156]

The guy who hired me to my current position has subsequently become a pretty good friend and are now equal partners in our medical private practice business.  Our wives are also friends and we occasionally go out to dinner and even vacation together.  I pay for dinner and entertainment sometimes, and sometimes they do.  Our kids are also friends and sometimes his kids are always at my house eating our food, using our wifi and electricity with my kids.   I'm just wondering, are we violating  some code of ethics here?  Can our joint patients sue us for conflict of interest since he had hiring discretion over my employment in the past?   I was fully qualified for the position and was paid fair market rate.  I am just really confused about when my earned income becomes mine and I can spend it how I wish to spend it?   All this pearl clutching over someone spending their earned income as they see fit and under no apparent coercion is making me feel so unethical.

[Captainant 28386]

4 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

It's getting close to the bicycle meme where the guy puts a stick in his own wheel and then blames a third party as it sounds like you are trying to put the blame on everything/everyone else protecting Trump here (especially when it's just following the actual law as he explained to you) and when really Trump just got super lucky (as outlined above by the other poster) that this was a stupid, unforced error.

And those just seem to keep happening to favor trump, strange yeah?

[Balcones 315]

30 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

The guy who hired me to my current position has subsequently become a pretty good friend and are now equal partners in our medical private practice business.  Our wives are also friends and we occasionally go out to dinner and even vacation together.  I pay for dinner and entertainment sometimes, and sometimes they do.  Our kids are also friends and sometimes his kids are always at my house eating our food, using our wifi and electricity with my kids.   I'm just wondering, are we violating  some code of ethics here?  Can our joint patients sue us for conflict of interest since he had hiring discretion over my employment in the past?   I was fully qualified for the position and was paid fair market rate.  I am just really confused about when my earned income becomes mine and I can spend it how I wish to spend it?   All this pearl clutching over someone spending their earned income as they see fit and under no apparent coercion is making me feel so unethical.

Are either of you public officials that are required to report their gifts?  Are you being directly paid by a taxpayer funded contract with sole discretion for billing?   If not, you are probably fine.

Fair market rate?  A quick google search shows Fulton County DA makes $110k a year.  The assistant DAs make $90-100k.  I realize Wade is more qualified than them, but he has been paid $700k to date on just this case.

 

 

 

[Captainant 28386]

6 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

Are you saying Trump or Trump's extended team or supporters somehow influenced Willis to falsify an affidavit and/or perjure? The guy said it best-- if she would have just been above board it's a nothing burger. You are blaming the blowback and fall-out of unethical behavior by the DA's office on Trump, the defendant...just because he is also unethical? Are you claiming Trump is contagious?

I'm fucking sick and tired of watching this Cheeto Benito skirt on fucking every charge he fucking faces and successfully throw sand in the gear of EVERY legal proceeding he's ever been involved in. This fucking fishing expedition should have never started in the first place - it was only allowed because the judge is scared of appeals from trump and so is giving FAR more leniency and space to play fuck fuck games than he would ANY other defendant. 

I'm also fucking sick and tired of the army of useful idiots amplifying the message of "DA IS CORRUPT!!!" when it has fuck all to do with the facts of CRIMINAL ACTS that are documented and alleged.

It's people that are desperate for something, ANY reason to turn off their critical thinking. It's just the dumbest shit when people decide to go ungabunga and fixate on a detail that doesn't make a difference to the core of the grievance.

 

Said another way, trump gets to fuck up over and over and over and over and it's in fact his strength that he's so fucky. When the prosecution makes a mistake - that again has nothing to do with the criminality - it's all of a sudden the end of the fucking world (if you're a redhat) and it means that we have to let trump grab justice by the pussy. It's just fundamentally unbalanced and we keep fucking doing it over and over like things will be different the next time. 

[Foosters 18224]

11 minutes ago, Balcones said:

Are either of you public officials that are required to report their gifts?  Are you being directly paid by a taxpayer funded contract with sole discretion for billing?   If not, you are probably fine.

Fair market rate?  A quick google search shows Fulton County DA makes $110k a year.  The assistant DAs make $90-100k.  I realize Wade is more qualified than them, but he has been paid $700k to date on just this case.

 

 

 

If I were to show that a DA's office was rife with cronyism, favoritism, and nepotism; or that there were shady financial dealings happening within, should those individuals be appropriately punished? Or should any defendant who was prosecuted by a said employee have their convictions thrown out and be released from custody?

Because I think we're inventing a new industry here. Forget challenging the conviction on its face. Just hire a private investigator, dig up dirt on the DA, and then allege that the impropriety should result in a reversal. 

As a defense attorney, I'm on board. 

[Captainant 28386]

2 minutes ago, Foosters said:

If I were to show that a DA's office was rife with cronyism, favoritism, and nepotism; or that there were shady financial dealings happening within, should those individuals be appropriately punished? Or should any defendant who was prosecuted by a said employee have their convictions thrown out and be released from custody?

Because I think we're inventing a new industry here. Forget challenging the conviction on its face. Just hire a private investigator, dig up dirt on the DA, and then allege that the impropriety should result in a reversal. 

As a defense attorney, I'm on board. 

I'm told by attorneys on this very board that we should expect what trump's attorneys do as just normal business for defense attorneys. So yeah, maybe try fucking around - it seems that finding out is off the menu. Maybe you have to be a fascist for it to work though?

[Reality Check 137]

44 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

The guy who hired me to my current position has subsequently become a pretty good friend and are now equal partners in our medical private practice business.  Our wives are also friends and we occasionally go out to dinner and even vacation together.  I pay for dinner and entertainment sometimes, and sometimes they do.  Our kids are also friends and sometimes his kids are always at my house eating our food, using our wifi and electricity with my kids.   I'm just wondering, are we violating  some code of ethics here?  Can our joint patients sue us for conflict of interest since he had hiring discretion over my employment in the past?   I was fully qualified for the position and was paid fair market rate.  I am just really confused about when my earned income becomes mine and I can spend it how I wish to spend it?   All this pearl clutching over someone spending their earned income as they see fit and under no apparent coercion is making me feel so unethical.

Of course not… it’s not taxpayer money.

But Fulton County requires all of its employees to annually report any gift from contractors of more than $100. Willis did receive those — it’s irrelevant that she claims to have provided other gifts of equal value in cash to the contractor. So according to Fulton County, Willis violated its ethics code. As a result, she will be called before the Fulton County Biard of Ethics on Thursday.

Would that disqualify her from the case? Not a chance in a million.

Once again — had she acknowledged the relationship in full in her response to Merchant’s allegations, including Wade doing so in his affidavit, this would all be over and there’d be a jury selection date.

But her response, Wade’s affidavit, Wade’s interrogatories in his divorce case, and their three days of testimony were essentially one big fraud upon the court. That’s a huge ethical breach.

And her church speech amounts to jury tampering.

That’s why McAfee (or the appellate court) is likely at this stage to disqualify her.

[Satchel 6982]

7 hours ago, Captainant said:

Counter point: the judge should have never allowed this boondoggle of a fishing expedition for all the reasons above. 

True. This kind of thing is normally hashed out in the judge’s chambers. Again, this is the most Atlanta shit ever.

[Foosters 18224]

4 minutes ago, Reality Check said:

And her church speech amounts to jury tampering.

LMAO

[Reality Check 137]

14 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I'm fucking sick and tired of watching this Cheeto Benito skirt on fucking every charge he fucking faces and successfully throw sand in the gear of EVERY legal proceeding he's ever been involved in. This fucking fishing expedition should have never started in the first place - it was only allowed because the judge is scared of appeals from trump and so is giving FAR more leniency and space to play fuck fuck games than he would ANY other defendant. 

I'm also fucking sick and tired of the army of useful idiots amplifying the message of "DA IS CORRUPT!!!" when it has fuck all to do with the facts of CRIMINAL ACTS that are documented and alleged.

It's people that are desperate for something, ANY reason to turn off their critical thinking. It's just the dumbest shit when people decide to go ungabunga and fixate on a detail that doesn't make a difference to the core of the grievance.

 

Said another way, trump gets to fuck up over and over and over and over and it's in fact his strength that he's so fucky. When the prosecution makes a mistake - that again has nothing to do with the criminality - it's all of a sudden the end of the fucking world (if you're a redhat) and it means that we have to let trump grab justice by the pussy. It's just fundamentally unbalanced and we keep fucking doing it over and over like things will be different the next time. 

Disqualifying Wade, Willis and even the Fulton County D.A.’s office doesn’t end the case.

if the people of Georgia are deemed by any other district attorney’s office in the state of Georgia to be victims of crimes committed by Trump and his team in the wake of the 2020 election, then they will have the opportunity to pick up the case exactly where it’s being left off.

With such a slam dunk case to send the former president and his team to state prison — or at least bog down his campaign for weeks this fall — there should be no shortage of county officials fighting to do for their careers what Willis was doing for hers.

 

Edited March 5 by Reality Check

[Captainant 28386]

Just now, Reality Check said:

Disqualifying Wade, Willis and even the Fulton County D.A.’s office doesn’t end the case.

justice delayed is justice denied.

[CowboyFred 1162]

18 minutes ago, Foosters said:

If I were to show that a DA's office was rife with cronyism, favoritism, and nepotism; or that there were shady financial dealings happening within, should those individuals be appropriately punished? Or should any defendant who was prosecuted by a said employee have their convictions thrown out and be released from custody?

Because I think we're inventing a new industry here. Forget challenging the conviction on its face. Just hire a private investigator, dig up dirt on the DA, and then allege that the impropriety should result in a reversal. 

As a defense attorney, I'm on board. 

I thought you were talking about the attorney general of Texas at the beginning of your post (outside of the DA part)

[jdhorn92 1588]

2 hours ago, Reality Check said:

 I did not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor do I work with that chick from "Suits" who's going to be queen when Charles kicks it...

 

You were doing so well and I agree with all of it, until this part....her husband is a long way down the line and the part about bailing on the Royal Family Inc.  Harvey, Mike and Louis have as good of odds  at King as she does Queen.

[Reality Check 137]

1 hour ago, jdhorn92 said:

You were doing so well and I agree with all of it, until this part....her husband is a long way down the line and the part about bailing on the Royal Family Inc.  Harvey, Mike and Louis have as good of odds  at King as she does Queen.

But you believe I think I would be a lawyer if I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express?

[Horn Dog 10156]

19 hours ago, Balcones said:

 

Fair market rate?  A quick google search shows Fulton County DA makes $110k a year.  The assistant DAs make $90-100k.  I realize Wade is more qualified than them, but he has been paid $700k to date on just this case.

 

 

 

Comparing a government employee's salary to the fair market price for contracting a private practice law firm to handle a high profile case is absolutely  ridiculous.   This is before even discussing the fact that most private practice firms are gonna steer very clear from trying a former president, especially one who's follows issue death threats like Halloween candy.  Unless you can show that there were other comparable firms willing to take on this case for less, then yes 700k is reasonable to probably low market rate for the job.

 

 

19 hours ago, Reality Check said:

Of course not… it’s not taxpayer money.

But Fulton County requires all of its employees to annually report any gift from contractors of more than $100. Willis did receive those — it’s irrelevant that she claims to have provided other gifts of equal value in cash to the contractor. So according to Fulton County, Willis violated its ethics code. As a result, she will be called before the Fulton County Biard of Ethics on Thursday.

Would that disqualify her from the case? Not a chance in a million.

Once again — had she acknowledged the relationship in full in her response to Merchant’s allegations, including Wade doing so in his affidavit, this would all be over and there’d be a jury selection date.

 

 

Like almost all physicians in America, a decent chuck of my income is from tax payers in the form of Medicare/Medicaid payments so yea it's taxpayer money that I am using to unethically entertain my personal friends.  But I get your point, I am not a government entity and so the rules regulating my behavior is different.  My point is that it is ridiculous to consider fairly earned income spent without coercion on friends, spouses, and romantic partners are "bribes" or "inappropriate gifts".  Lets also not pretend that people in various industries, including government employees, don't form personal relationships and routinely spend more that $100 on each other and it is not usually some big ethics violation. Shit, we have multiple supreme court justices accepting millions from people they are causally acquainted with with business before them (true conflicts of interest), and most of the country is fine with that. 

Was she stupid to do this in such a high profile situation?   Yes.  Should she have done what you suggest and fess up to everything earlier?  If true then yes.  You want to bring her before some ethical board to discuss this rule break, fine.  But this whole pearl clutching routine by some posters (not necessarily you) that they are suddenly sooooo very concerned about "ethical lapses" and "following all the rules" all while they swallow every drop of Trump's gravy is beyond pathetic. 

Edited March 6 by Horn Dog

[Reality Check 137]

Quote

Comparing a government employee's salary to the fair market price for contracting a private practice law firm to handle a high profile case is absolutely  ridiculous.   This is before even discussing the fact that most private practice firms are gonna steer very clear from trying a former president, especially one who's follows issue death threats like Halloween candy.  Unless you can show that there were other comparable firms willing to take on this case for less, then yes 700k is reasonable to probably low market rate for the job.

According to testimony in the state Senate committee hearing this morning, there are two other full-time employees in the D.A.'s office assigned exclusively to this case who make $175,000 a year. And the two other (more experienced) special prosecutors -- Floyd and Cross -- on the case have billed for less than $100,000. His use of block billing is also questionable in terms of ethics. 

Quote

Was she stupid to do this in such a high profile situation?   Yes.

Period. 

She had a pre-existing personal romance/relationship with Nathan Wade when she gave him a contract that would have been worth well over $1 million. It doesn't pass ANY ethical (and possibly legal) standard. That's why they lied and said their relationship started in 2022, though in hindsight they would have been infinitely better off by just admitting what had happened. It almost certainly would have prevented the trial from being delayed.  

It's OK to think Trump is bad and corrupt AND concede that Fani Willis and Nathan Wade are bad and corrupt. 

It's OK to be frustrated that the corruption of the latter are going to adversely impact their goal to prosecute the former. But again, if the case is as well-drafted and airtight as those seeking Trump's prosecution believe it to be, then the removal of Willis and Wade to be replaced by other prosecutors from another office shouldn't matter.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2880]

23 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

It's obviously not, this whole thing is dumb as fuck. 

Make the DA pay the costs and fees to Trump's lawyers for bringing all this shit up, write a short opinion reading Willis the riot act about being stupid and then move on.

[Horn Dog 10156]

2 hours ago, Reality Check said:

According to testimony in the state Senate committee hearing this morning, there are two other full-time employees in the D.A.'s office assigned exclusively to this case who make $175,000 a year. And the two other (more experienced) special prosecutors -- Floyd and Cross -- on the case have billed for less than $100,000. His use of block billing is also questionable in terms of ethics. 

Period. 

She had a pre-existing personal romance/relationship with Nathan Wade when she gave him a contract that would have been worth well over $1 million. It doesn't pass ANY ethical (and possibly legal) standard. That's why they lied and said their relationship started in 2022, though in hindsight they would have been infinitely better off by just admitting what had happened. It almost certainly would have prevented the trial from being delayed.  

It's OK to think Trump is bad and corrupt AND concede that Fani Willis and Nathan Wade are bad and corrupt. 

It's OK to be frustrated that the corruption of the latter are going to adversely impact their goal to prosecute the former. But again, if the case is as well-drafted and airtight as those seeking Trump's prosecution believe it to be, then the removal of Willis and Wade to be replaced by other prosecutors from another office shouldn't matter.

It is also OK to not pretend that their actions in way leads to a unfair trial for Trump and the other defendants.

Furthermore it is also OK to NOT exaggerate what actually happened as far the pay goes :

1.  Wade was hired in Nov 2021.  The nearly 700k is over a 2 year period, not 1 year.

2.  Wade was paid $250/hr.  This is the exact SAME rate as special prosecutor Cross that you mention above.  Wade billed more cause he worked more hours on this case. (2:50 on linked video).  

3.  Wade was, according to that same investigator, states that Wade was the "case manager" and the staff says he is always there (hence bills more).  Special prosecutors Floyd and Cross "were not there" according to office staff and obviously are much less involved.  (6:30-6:50 in linked video).  The investigator concludes that "now I understand that since he is always there that is why he is billing more" (not exact quote but the jest)

4.  "Mr. Wade has earned more than $650,000 for his work for the D.A.’s office, prompting Mr. Roman, in his filing, to repeatedly refer to “lucrative” contracts. But Ms. Willis defended Mr. Wade’s pay. His $250 per hour rate, she said, was not “out of the norm for prosecuting agencies in Georgia.”  And though Mr. Wade has earned more than other special prosecutors on the case, she noted, the others had “much more circumscribed roles. "Special Prosecutor Wade made much more money than the other special prosecutors only because Wade did much more work,” Ms. Willis wrote.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/02/us/fani-willis-trump-georgia-nathan-wade.html

5.  So in conclusion-  You work more, you make more even if your pay rate is the same.  You earn more you have more to spend.  If you spend your earned money on your girlfriend, that is not necessarily a "bribe".  Even if you "bribe" your girlfriend, that doesn't mean your opponents client is getting a unfair trial and that you should be disqualified. 

 

[Satchel 6982]

Wade was Fani’s third choice for the job she finally hired him for. Hers was not some long planned sinister plot to employ her boyfriend. Stop pretending not to know that.

Still the most Atlanta shit ever.

[Horn Dog 10156]

25 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Wade was Fani’s third choice for the job she finally hired him for. Hers was not some long planned sinister plot to employ her boyfriend. Stop pretending not to know that.

Still the most Atlanta shit ever.

Correct.  I forgot to add that as well.

 

Nov. 1, 2021: Willis hires Wade as a special prosecutor in the investigation. While she reportedly offered the job to several other Georgia attorneys, including former Gov. Roy Barnes and former federal prosecutor Gabe Banks, they declined due to the time the case would require and the politically incendiary nature of the case.

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/timeline-fulton-county-da-fani-willis-nathan-wade-controversy

[Keef 852]

I want to know where I can find these $250/hr. litigators

[chainsaw 10243]

8 minutes ago, Keef said:

I want to know where I can find these $250/hr. litigators

Go to any beach and you're bound to find a landcrab.

[Balcones 315]

18 minutes ago, Keef said:

I want to know where I can find these $250/hr. litigators

If you want to hire an attorney who has never tried a felony case, $250/ hr is probably a fair price. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13619]

24 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

including former Gov. Roy Barnes and former federal prosecutor Gabe Banks, they declined due to the time the case would require and the politically incendiary nature of the case.

"I lived with bodyguards for 4 years and didn't like it, and I wasn't going to live with bodyguards for the rest of my life"

But any one else can take the case if Fani is removed.

[Balcones 315]

Did you listen to the first 2 minutes of his testimony? He clearly states he came to the DAs office to meet with Fani Willis and Nathan Wade. Why would Barnes need to meet with Wade if he was being offered the job?

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13619]

9 minutes ago, Balcones said:

Why would Barnes need to meet with Wade if he was being offered the job?

Are you suggesting Barnes is lying? This conspiracy is getting bigger and bigger.

[Satchel 6982]

Why wasn’t this handled like other similar situations?

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2692]

... and why hasn't this shit been ruled on and handled by now??

[Huckleberry 34407]

1 hour ago, Balcones said:

Did you listen to the first 2 minutes of his testimony? He clearly states he came to the DAs office to meet with Fani Willis and Nathan Wade. Why would Barnes need to meet with Wade if he was being offered the job?

I don't know shit about fuck but Wade being there only strengthens the argument that he didn't have the job yet, it doesn't weaken it. Unless you actually think they were planning to hire Roy Barnes as an assistant to Wade. 

Wait, you think that? 

[Reality Check 137]

3 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

2.  Wade was paid $250/hr.  This is the exact SAME rate as special prosecutor Cross that you mention above.  Wade billed more cause he worked more hours on this case. (2:50 on linked video).  

5.  So in conclusion-  You work more, you make more even if your pay rate is the same.  You earn more you have more to spend.  If you spend your earned money on your girlfriend, that is not necessarily a "bribe".  Even if you "bribe" your girlfriend, that doesn't mean your opponents client is getting a unfair trial and that you should be disqualified. 

 

2. Merchant testified before the state Senate committee today, with evidentiary billing records, that Cross and Floyd were paid $150/hr. Additionally, Wade has billed for $700k while Cross has billed for a total of $100k and Floyd even less than that. 

5. Nobody has said anything about bribery. Wade and Willis were a romantic couple in November 2021 when she contracted with him. That type of conflict of interest is ethically barred by any public entity. But that's not even what the debate is about at this point. It's moved on to fraud upon the court and forensic misconduct through church speeches and book deals. 

Nineteen of the charges being brought against the defendants are for filing false documents with the court. Wade filed false documents in his divorce case. He filed false documents with the Georgia bar as he routed his income from Fulton County into a FOILA. He swore to a false affidavit that Willis then filed with the court. And that doesn't even get into the witness tampering and suborning perjury the latest affidavit citing the conversation overheard by the Cobb County prosecutor. To look at it from afar, one might even call this "racketeering."

Willis and Wade should have immediately recused themselves from the prosecution when the conflict of interest was alleged. They knew the truth. They knew they had screwed up. All of this would be a moot point if they had said, "We see how there could be some concern about this potential conflict but the defendants' due process rights have not been violated and to ensure there's no future appearance of a conflict of interest we are turning the case over to an assistant district attorney."

 

There are plenty of people uber-pissed at this duo because what they did was totally reckless and completely unnecessary. This was the one trial that federal claims of immunity couldn't derail. There should have been a six- to eight-week televised trial with The Donald at the defendants' table right between July 4th and Election Day. The media would have loved every second of it, culminating in a conviction by a partisan jury and speculation over whether Trump would be able to manage the free world from the Georgia State Penitentiary system. 

At this point, everyone's anger should be channeled solely toward the them.

 

 

 

 

[Reality Check 137]

46 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

... and why hasn't this shit been ruled on and handled by now??

McAfee has another trial this week. I believe it's for murder, I do declare.

[Balcones 315]

38 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I don't know shit about fuck but Wade being there only strengthens the argument that he didn't have the job yet, it doesn't weaken it. Unless you actually think they were planning to hire Roy Barnes as an assistant to Wade. 

Wait, you think that? 

Why would a non-DA employee (Wade) be included in the meeting to offer a special prosecutor contract? What business would Wade have to be included if he wasn’t already hired? 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

I don't know shit about fuck but Wade being there only strengthens the argument that he didn't have the job yet, it doesn't weaken it. Unless you actually think they were planning to hire Roy Barnes as an assistant to Wade. 

Wait, you think that? 

It is a little odd.  Would seem to indicate that Wade a) had been hired, b) was going to be hired or c) ????? collect underpants.

You don't usually include "competitors" when interviewing a lawyer for a job unless that person is not a "competitor."  

Whole thing is just unclean, man.

I don't think it spells a disqualifying conflict, but it is unclean.

[jimmyjazz 46972]

49 minutes ago, Balcones said:

Why would a non-DA employee (Wade) be included in the meeting to offer a special prosecutor contract? What business would Wade have to be included if he wasn’t already hired? 

But why would the interview have taken place if Wade had already been hired?  The most likely explanations are (a) the job was still open or (b) it was an interview for a different position.  Neither is necessarily nefarious.  (Most likely, neither is nefarious regardless.)

[Balcones 315]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

But why would the interview have taken place if Wade had already been hired?  The most likely explanations are (a) the job was still open or (b) it was an interview for a different position.  Neither is necessarily nefarious.  (Most likely, neither is nefarious regardless.)

Yes. The point being made upthread was that Wade was her 2nd/3rd choice as a special prosecutor.  I’m just pointing out that this is an odd take considering that Wade (non-DA employee) was part of the meeting to offer/hire Barnes. 

[gmr548 16681]

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

I don't know shit about fuck but Wade being there only strengthens the argument that he didn't have the job yet, it doesn't weaken it. Unless you actually think they were planning to hire Roy Barnes as an assistant to Wade. 

Wait, you think that? 

Adding to this, the other way around is quite possible. Management candidates do "meet the team" interviews all the time.

Edited March 7 by gmr548

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13619]

Looks like the main point here isn't a former governor explicitly stating he declined a job due to right-wing terrorism, but that Fani hired her boyfriend, as priorities should be.

[Huckleberry 34407]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It is a little odd.  Would seem to indicate that Wade a) had been hired, b) was going to be hired or c) ????? collect underpants.

You don't usually include "competitors" when interviewing a lawyer for a job unless that person is not a "competitor."  

Whole thing is just unclean, man.

I don't think it spells a disqualifying conflict, but it is unclean.

Or Wade was asked to help vet candidates and only became a candidate when others declined. That happens all the time. 

[Horn Dog 10156]

3 hours ago, Reality Check said:

2. Merchant testified before the state Senate committee today, with evidentiary billing records, that Cross and Floyd were paid $150/hr. Additionally, Wade has billed for $700k while Cross has billed for a total of $100k and Floyd even less than that. 

 

 

Again you are wrong.  I am not sure why you are intentionally and repeatedly lying about this point but you are.  I even linked the video for you and gave you the time stamp of her comments.  Look again.

At 2:50 she states unequivocally that Cross was paid $250/hr “the same as Wade”.  She then explains that her bills were lower and at 6:30 explains why.  “Wade was a case manager and was always prsent at the  office working according to office staff.  The other 2 prosecutors were barely seen”.  Stop trying to make the 700k (over 2 years!) and 100k pay difference some kind of nefarious point when the explanation is crystal clear.  HE WORKED MORE HOURS THAN THE OTHER 2”

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13619]

11 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Or Wade was asked to help vet candidates and only became a candidate when others declined. That happens all the time. 

Unprecedented 

 

[Satchel 6982]

1 hour ago, Balcones said:

Yes. The point being made upthread was that Wade was her 2nd/3rd choice as a special prosecutor.  I’m just pointing out that this is an odd take considering that Wade (non-DA employee) was part of the meeting to offer/hire Barnes. 

Is that the only you find odd about Fani’s flogging?

[Reality Check 137]

52 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Again you are wrong.  I am not sure why you are intentionally and repeatedly lying about this point but you are.  I even linked the video for you and gave you the time stamp of her comments.  Look again.

At 2:50 she states unequivocally that Cross was paid $250/hr “the same as Wade”.  She then explains that her bills were lower and at 6:30 explains why.  “Wade was a case manager and was always prsent at the  office working according to office staff.  The other 2 prosecutors were barely seen”.  Stop trying to make the 700k (over 2 years!) and 100k pay difference some kind of nefarious point when the explanation is crystal clear.  HE WORKED MORE HOURS THAN THE OTHER 2”

Quote

10:01 a.m.: They are now discussing the other special counsel members assigned to the election case. Merchant is giving information on John Floyd and Anna Cross. Merchant says the hiring of Floyd and Cross makes sense to her. Merchant is asked if she reviewed how much they were paid. Merchant says yes and there was a stark contrast. Floyd was paid $150 an hour and he provided itemized invoices. Cross was paid $250 an hour and also provided itemized invoices.

I never heard her say Cross was paid $250, but apparently that was the case. Floyd, however, was earning $150/hour. 

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/fani-willis-investigation-attorney-ashleigh-merchant-subpoenaed-by-senate-committee

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13619]

36 minutes ago, Reality Check said:

I never heard her say Cross was paid $250, but apparently that was the case. 

Getting down into the granular 3 figs.

"I was wrong, yet my irrelevant accusations are too. SQUIRREL!!!"

[Laxtonto 13013]

At this point, how does Wade stay on as special prosecutor with the potential issues of him misusing his IOLTA to hide earned income from his wife in his divorce proceedings, and how that is tied to potential tax evasion? That is a pretty damning accusation from a variety of fronts. If any of that is true he is going to be tied up in all sorts of ethics probes and a liability during the proceedings.

To me, that is something that is much more tangible and black and white that may lead to a major delay in all of this instead of the continued grind back and forth about potential conflicts of interest, which now is a coin-flip based on trying to obfuscate something that most likely may have led to a simple admonishment by the court or some set of cursory additional guidelines to guarantee the autonomy of the special prosecutor due to their relationship.  

The other side is always going to go over everything looking for something to use to their advantage. This is standard procedure for major crime and civil cases now and it shouldn't be a shock to anyone. That is the job. You would be disappointed if your lawyers did not do everything in their power to make sure you did not get found guilty. 

The expectation is always going to be that the state should appear to be squeaky clean and the defense will look to do everything in its power to make sure that first, the case never makes it to trial, then second, to have the trial once started dismissed for any possible reason (either through legal brilliance or frivolous technicalities) and then third win the case on its merits in the courtroom, and then fourth appeal and drag out any guilty verdict as long as possible. Now there is enough smoke to have people question if the state is squeaky clean or if is there something else going on.  It might not be "fair" to put the system or the State on trial beforehand, but that is the world we live in. People want to blame Trump or the judge for entertaining this, but it looks like the first domino in all of this is Wade trying to screw over his now ex-wife in his divorce proceedings. If that is true, he is probably out as a special prosecutor and prepare for all sorts of delays and additional hearings over all of this to eat into the timeline.

Welcome to the big leagues.

Edited March 7 by Laxtonto

[Satchel 6982]

18 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

At this point, how does Wade stay on as special prosecutor with the potential issues of him misusing his IOLTA to hide earned income from his wife in his divorce proceedings, and how that is tied to potential tax evasion? That is a pretty damning accusation from a variety of fronts. If any of that is true he is going to be tied up in all sorts of ethics probes and a liability during the proceedings.

To me, that is something that is much more tangible and black and white that may lead to a major delay in all of this instead of the continued grind back and forth about potential conflicts of interest, which now is a coin-flip based on trying to obfuscate something that most likely may have led to a simple admonishment by the court or some set of cursory additional guidelines to guarantee the autonomy of the special prosecutor due to their relationship.  

The other side is always going to go over everything looking for something to use to their advantage. This is standard procedure for major crime and civil cases now and it shouldn't be a shock to anyone. That is the job. You would be disappointed if your lawyers did not do everything in their power to make sure you did not get found guilty. 

The expectation is always going to be that the state should appear to be squeaky clean and the defense will look to do everything in its power to make sure that first, the case never makes it to trial, then second, to have the trial once started dismissed for any possible reason (either through legal brilliance or frivolous technicalities) and then third win the case on its merits in the courtroom, and then fourth appeal and drag out any guilty verdict as long as possible. Now there is enough smoke to have people question if the state is squeaky clean or if is there something else going on.  It might not be "fair" to put the system or the State on trial beforehand, but that is the world we live in. People want to blame Trump or the judge for entertaining this, but it looks like the first domino in all of this is Wade trying to screw over his now ex-wife in his divorce proceedings. If that is true, he is probably out as a special prosecutor and prepare for all sorts of delays and additional hearings over all of this to eat into the timeline.

Welcome to the big leagues.

Still the most Atlanta shit ever.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13619]

13 minutes ago, Satchel said:

People want to blame Trump or the judge for entertaining this, but it looks like the first domino in all of this is Wade trying to screw over his now ex-wife in his divorce proceedings.

The "first domino in all of this" was Donald Trump trying to overturn a free and fair election. This trial doesn't exist without that action on his part.