1y ago

Fani Willis testifies in misconduct hearing that could derail Trump case

www.independent.co.uk

Fulton County district attorney is leading a sprawling case against the former president and his allies

The Georgia prosecutor leading a sprawling election interference case against Donald Trump has testified in court about allegations of misconduct levelled against her by the former president and his co-defendants – questions that could potentially disqualify them from the case.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis began her testimony in an Atlanta courtroom on Thursday after defence attorneys questioned lead prosecutor Nathan Wade about the timeline of their relationship and the expenses they shared.

The attorneys had already admitted to their relationship but firmly rejected the “meritless” and “salacious” allegations as “bad-faith” attempts to see her kicked off a case that Mr Trump has baselessly labelled a conspiracy against him, according to court filings.

Thursday’s hearing is scrutinising allegations that the former couple financially benefited from Ms Willis hiring Mr Wade to prosecute the former president’s case, which charges Mr Trump and more than a dozen co-defendants as part of a “criminal enterprise” to overturn the state’s election results in 2020.

“I’ve been very anxious to have this conversation with you today,” Ms Willis told defence attorney Ashleigh Merchant. “It’s ridiculous that you lied on Monday and yet here we are. ... I’m actually surprised that the hearing continued. But since it did, here I am.”

34 comments

This case really makes no sense. She had a consensual affair with someone who would be on the same side of the case that she's on. There is no conflict of interest.
- The allegation is that he was hired for the sole purpose of prosecuting Trump, and they both used what they were paid to work on the case in order to fund their ongoing affair. Trumps team is alleging that the entire prosecution of him and the other co-defendants is that this case was brought solely for the purposes of covering up their affair, funding it, and advancing their own name value at the expense of Trump.
  For the record, it's obvious bullshit. But the appearance of impropriety is a real thing, and there's plenty of that. Wade spent the entire time on the witness stand trying to split hairs and argue semantics, all while having a smug look on his face as if he thinks he's getting away with something. Both of them should have recused themselves from the case the minute the affair became public, with the usual talking point of "I intend to fight back against this attempt to drag my personal life into this case, however given the importance of this case I feel it is best for me to step aside and hand the case to another prosecutor to protect the integrity of the case and avoid any appearance of impropriety."
  She didn't, and it very well could not only derail the case, but give Trump an enormous campaign victory as it will go a long way in convincing undecided voters that these prosecutions are politically motivated, giving him yet another bump in popularity during a time Biden is stumbling.
  You know how RBG should have stepped down and retired during Obama's term but didn't out of her own hubris? Remember how the rest of us ended up paying for that? Same thing applies here. Fani Willis' own hubris is preventing her from stepping aside and letting another prosecutor at least salvage the case, and that hubris could cost everybody far more if Trump's team manages to get the whole thing thrown out.  
  
  and they both used what they were paid to work on the case in order to fund their ongoing affair.
  What, were they taking state money over to the adult novelty store or something?
  Like you said, obvious bullshit.
- Even the word "affair" seems stretching it. Wade and his wife were separated, living separately, Willis was single. It's not like they were sneaking around. They had a consensual relationship.
  
  Honestly, the only real problem I have with the whole issue, unless it's true that they were using taxpayer money (which I'm doubtful about), is that Willis made a statement about not having sex with employees if elected because her predecessor was accused of sexual harassment and other sexual issues. I'm sorry, I'm trying to find a link to it but I can't find one. One of the late night shows last night showed the footage of her saying it.
  But being a hypocrite about something you said before you got elected should have no effect on the Trump case.
- Even so, we've seen examples where even a married couple has been able to keep their personal relationship out of their professional. No one would call the work effort of either kellyanne Conway or her husband George at all sub-par, despite the fact they were living with a domestic partner diametrically opposed politically.
  It's possible for people to be professional, and I'm disappointed this is a seemingly new thing for one party in this case. I think even Mr Trump characterized Ms Conway as an excellent and hard working pro, many times, before contradicting himself when it was more suitable later.
- I could see a conflict of interest and I'm disappointed she didn't recuse herself voluntarily or pick someone else to be involved in the case.
  Appearance is everything in this high profile case and it needs to be by the books or else half the country will scream "unfair, rigged, collusion"
  
  Where is the conflict?
I’m still waiting for evidence that I don’t live in the stupidest f’ing country ever. This isn’t helping.
Why is anyone giving this god damn story airtime still? Free trump press, good work
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The attorneys had already admitted to their relationship but firmly rejected the “meritless” and “salacious” allegations as “bad-faith” attempts to see her kicked off a case that Mr Trump has baselessly labelled a conspiracy against him, according to court filings.
During her testimony, Ms Willis vigorously denied those claims and called an allegation that she slept with Mr Wade after meeting him “extremely offensive”.
“I’m not ruling on any of this tomorrow,” Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee said as the day-long hearing came to a close on Thursday evening.
Ms Willis had initially tried blocking efforts by the former president’s attorneys and other defence lawyers to compel her testimony, but she withdrew her objection on Thursday and told the court that she “ran” down the hall after learning that Mr Wade finished testifying.
Her testimony builds on what has become a high-stakes line of inquiry – what Ms Willis and others have cast as an effort to undermine her prosecution and delay and distract from Mr Trump’s proceedings – that could threaten her removal from the case altogether.
If Juge McAfee determines that she can be disqualified, her team would be removed and new prosecutors would be appointed, a process that could take months and further delay a sprawling trial that has been tentatively scheduled to begin in August.
The original article contains 903 words, the summary contains 221 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
The only angle here is to sew doubt and chaos and hope to introduce more delay, as is always the case.
The potential problem for Willis is that she was previously disqualified from investigating the Georgia lieutenant governor, Burt Jones, over a lower legal standard of “appearance of impropriety”, after she publicly endorsed Jones’s political rival in Jones’s re-election race.
There is a prior case where she was disqualified due to the “appearance of impropriety”. And we’re having the same discussion, only in a more important case. Perception matters in a jury trial, and Willis did not take the care to avoid the appearance or suggestion of impropriety- again.
We’re all pissed about judges giving lenient treatment to Trump so far, but that’s how you build and KEEP a defensible case. “Reasonable doubt” has gotten a lot of guilty people off free, no matter how shaky the evidence creating that doubt is:
Roman’s filing, in essence, accused Willis of engaging in a quasi-kickback scheme… [and] alleged the relationship had started before he was hired. The filing itself, however, provided no concrete evidence that showed alleged self-dealing. At the time, Merchant said her information was based on confidential sources and information in Wade’s divorce case. Yet when the divorce records were unsealed, there was similarly no concrete evidence.

34 comments