There has been a heated debate on the blog about charges that District Attorney Fani Willis was romantically involved with prosecutor Nathan Wade. Defendants’s lawyers suggest the case should be thrown out or the entire prosecution team be replaced. Clearly, the public needs to know more about what happened before reaching judgment. As Nikki Haley has said repeatedly about Trump, “wherever he goes, chaos follows.” That may be why he’s been so successful in the courts in more than 3,500 cases—evasion, delay, chaos.
Our reader “Democracy” added this insight:
Here’s more on the Fanni Willis “scandal” from today’s NY Times, and other media, along with some comments from me:
“the bombshell accusations have rocked the criminal case — one of four Trump faces this year as he also seeks a second term in the White House. Trump blasted Willis and Wade over the allegations again on Friday, calling the prosecutors ‘the lovebirds’ and accusing them of targeting him ‘to ENRICH themselves, and to live the Lifestyle of the Rich and Famous!’ In posts on his social media platform, Trump called for the prosecutors to ‘face appropriate consequences’ and for charges against him to be dismissed.”
•• It’s rather rich for Trump to be ridiculing ANYONE about trying to enrich himself, and it’s the height of hypocrisy for Trump to be demanding “appropriate consequences” for Fanni Willis when he is doing everything he can to try and evade accountability for himself.
“Roman’s motion argues that Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade violated the state bar’s rules of professional conduct, the county code regarding conflicts of interest and, possibly, federal law. It calls for the case against Mr. Roman to be dismissed, and for Mr. Wade, Ms. Willis and Ms. Willis’s entire office to be disqualified from the case.”
•• Whether or not Fanni Willis violated any code of professional conduct remains to be seen, and it seems that a pretty good case can be made that she did not. But, yeah, optics matter. Still, there is a STRONG legal case AGAINST Mr. Roman that is completely UNRELATED to WIllis taking a private trip or two with Mr. Wade.
“On Saturday morning, Norman Eisen, special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the first Trump impeachment, who has been vocal in supporting the Georgia prosecution, called on Mr. Wade to step down, saying that the recent allegation of an affair ‘had become a distraction.’ ”
•• That’s the WHOLE point of this sordid nonsense, is it not? To cause a distraction from the fact that Trump AND his accomplices tried to steal the electoral votes in Georgia away from Mr. Trump by throwing out the verified, certified election results. Also, if in fact Wade were to resign, wouldn’t THAT be a legitimate end to the issue?
“For years, Mr. Wade was a regular at county Republican breakfast meetings, and he served for a time as a delegate to the county convention, said Jason Shepherd, who chaired the Cobb County Republican Party at the time…In 2016, during one of his unsuccessful attempts to run for Cobb County superior court judge, he was supported by Ashleigh Merchant — the lawyer who filed the motion this month on Mr. Roman’s behalf that seeks to have him removed from the Trump case. The motion questions Mr. Wade’s qualifications. But in a Facebook post in the midst of his judge’s race, she praised him for his extensive résumé…’Nathan has practiced in every area of the law that appears before the Superior Court bench,’ she wrote.”
•• Ahem…
Let’s rehash here. As PBS News Hour reported two short days ago,
“Trump and Roman were indicted by a Fulton County grand jury in August along with 17 others. They’re accused of participating in a wide-ranging scheme to try to illegally overturn the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. Four of those charged have already pleaded guilty after reaching deals with prosecutors. Trump, Roman and the others who remain have pleaded not guilty…Roman was the director of Election Day operations for the Trump campaign and also had worked in the White House…Prosecutors say he helped coordinate an effort to contact state lawmakers on Trump’s behalf to encourage them to ‘unlawfully appoint presidential electors.’…He is also alleged to have been involved in efforts to have Republicans in swing states that Trump lost, including Georgia, meet on Dec. 14, 2020, to sign certificates falsely saying Trump had won their states and that they were the electors for their states. He was in touch with local Republican officials in several states to set up those meetings.”
And yet Roman (and Trump, and a whole cast of other weirdos), think that private “dating” or a few private trips somehow create an act of immense impropriety that should THROW OUT legally obtained indictments for subverting the 2020 presidential election returns in the state of Georgia, thereby disenfranchising every single voter who cast a ballot for Mr. Biden.
This is beyond stupid, is it not?
Michael Roman’s attorney, Ashleigh Merchant has asked not only that Fanni Willis and Nathan Wade BE REMOVED from this case but also that ALL CHARGES against Roman BE DROPPED.
Here are some other cases where Ashleigh Merchant demanded that charges be dropped. Take a peek.
2017: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ga-supreme-court/1862249.html
2021: “In addition to Matthews’s admission that he stabbed Young, his cell phone records and his knowledge of information about the crime scene that the police had deliberately withheld from the public supported a finding that he was present when the crime occurred. Evidence found in his home and in the adjacent dumpster, including the set of steak knives that matched the knife blade found on Young’s body, Young’s debit and credit cards, and the cap that one of the men using Young’s debit card was wearing just after the murder, also connected him to the crimes. The evidence was legally sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Matthews was guilty of malice murder and possession of a knife during the commission of a crime.”
“Count 6 of the indictment charged Matthews with knowingly taking without consent a Bank of America Visa debit card, which was “issued to Adrianne Young as cardholder and from whose possession the said card was taken.” A rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Matthews was guilty of financial transaction card theft from the evidence presented, including evidence that debit cards and a credit card belonging to Young were found in the dumpster adjacent to Matthews’s residence, that Young’s purse was missing from the crime scene, and that Matthews attempted to use Young’s debit card within an hour of her murder.”
https://casetext.com/case/matthews-v-state-2093
2022: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ga-supreme-court/2162540.html
2023: https://casetext.com/case/kim-v-state-60
Kind of makes one wonder.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Trump’s mentor was Roy Cohn who taught him how to use chaos as a weapon to win in court and business.
https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/trump-lawsuits/
Roy Cohn “insisted to his dying day that his disease was liver cancer. He died on August 2, 1986, in Bethesda, Maryland, of complications from AIDS, at the age of 59. At death, the IRS seized almost everything he had.”
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/19/roy-cohn-donald-trump-documentary-228144/
“One of Donald Trump’s most important mentors, one of the most reviled men in American political history, …. Roy Cohn, who has been described by people who knew him as “a snake,” “a scoundrel” and “a new strain of son of a bitch,” …
LikeLike
Lloyd,
I don’t know if the linked stories mention this, but Trump dropped Roy Cohn when he was dying. Maybe he knew it was AIDS. He is a germophobe and doesn’t like shaking hands.
LikeLike
An ethically devoid lawyer who represented mafia kingpins.
Definitely worthy of Donald’s adoration.
Donald Trump: sent by God to the black and white planet on the screen to save all of mankind.
Can’t MAKE this stuff up. If history books are allowed to remain somewhat objective, accurate, and relevant, this period will be pinned as the biggest con job in American political history.
LikeLike
I’m don’t know if I’d call it heated debate. Was more like me trying it describe what a conflict of interest means and what the stakes are for this case, and another commenter getting extremely angry at me.
The facts of this will develop regardless of what anyone here has to say about it. Let’s check in as they develop and let’s all hope the DA isn’t disqualified.
LikeLike
I agree, FLERP.
LikeLike
Thank you democracy. I have heard the most twisted reasoning for why two consenting prosecutors hooking up using their own money is a conflict of interest and is a giant scandal — the most laughable one being that the female prosecutor will be unduly influenced by her “man” to act in a way that benefits the defense and Trump!
Yeah, that’s the ticket! It certainly explains the faux outrage by the right wing media. How DARE that female prosecutor let her sexual desires help Trump!
We really have reached Orwellian times and some of us are helping to hasten the downfall of democracy.
LikeLike
Wait, I may not be understanding this post. But is democracy arguing that there is something suspicious about a criminal defense attorney filing motions to dismiss charges against her client? Apologies if I’m misunderstanding.
LikeLike
I might not be understanding your posts. Are you arguing that there is something suspicious when two prosecutors working on the same trial maybe hook up twice during the 3 years they worked on the trial? Apologies if I’m not understanding.
LikeLike
I think FLERP is saying wait for more facts before reaching judgment.
LikeLike
“Democracy,”
I just finished reading the very long article in The New York Times to which you referred. I did not find it as exculpatory towards the likely Willis-Dade relationship as you did.
Willis may or may not have exercised good judgement in hiring Wade. But the Times’ article is not especially flattering in describing his background.
A few excerpts:
“In a letter to Ms. Willis on Friday, the county commissioner who chairs the board’s audit committee, Bob Ellis, demanded documents from her in an effort to determine whether county funds paid to Mr. Wade “were converted to your personal gain in the form of subsidized travel or other gifts.”
On Saturday morning, Norman Eisen, special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the first Trump impeachment, who has been vocal in supporting the Georgia prosecution, called on Mr. Wade to step down, saying that the recent allegation of an affair “had become a distraction” though it was not legally required.
At the very least, the revelations have raised questions about Ms. Willis’s motivation for hiring Mr. Wade, a legal generalist who appears to act as a sort of player-manager for the prosecution’s multi-lawyer team.
A review of Mr. Wade’s more than two decades as a lawyer by The New York Times also raises the issue of his qualifications, and whether they were sufficient to justify his appointment to a job that has made him more than $650,000 in taxpayer dollars and catapulted him to the top of one of the highest-profile criminal cases in the country.
As a fixture on the legal and political scene in suburban Cobb County, Mr. Wade spent years handling low-level criminal cases, first as a prosecutor and then a judge. But he yearned to take on weightier work. And while he landed some, defending clients in a number of serious felony cases, his dream of being elected a superior court judge, where he could preside over bigger cases, was repeatedly denied to him by voters….
Mr. Wade’s publicly available record as a lawyer shows scant evidence that he prosecuted major criminal cases, with no evidence that he has handled a major political corruption case or one involving the state’s complicated racketeering statute, known as RICO, under which all of the defendants in the Trump case have been charged.
“The realm of attorneys who handle Georgia RICO cases is a small one, and he is not someone who was in that realm before the Trump case,” said Chris Timmons, an Atlanta trial lawyer who handled white-collar cases for more than 15 years as a prosecutor.
Several former Georgia prosecutors say that Mr. Wade’s fee, of $250 per hour, did not seem excessive. But some of them also questioned whether he had the qualifications to lead such a high-stakes case.
“I can’t judge on whether it’s a legitimate hire, but I think it’s a legitimate question to ask why this particular lawyer was hired,” said Danny Porter, the former longtime district attorney in Gwinnett County and a Republican.
Speaking recently at a historically Black church in Atlanta, Ms. Willis said that the questions raised about her hiring of Mr. Wade were racist. She praised Mr. Wade’s “impeccable credentials” and said they were being questioned because both she and Mr. Wade were Black.
Mr. Wade could not be reached for comment for this story. But his defenders point to the measurable successes the prosecution team has notched so far under his stewardship. Prosecutors have obtained four guilty pleas from the original cast of 19 co-defendants, and beaten back, so far, an effort to have the case moved to the federal court system, which would offer some advantages to the defendants.
By the late 1990s, Mr. Wade was in Cobb County, where he spent some time as an assistant solicitor, a prosecuting job that handles traffic cases and minor crimes. He moved to private practice to focus on civil matters but told the magazine that he continued to do some prosecution work for local municipalities.
Mr. Wade’s civil cases have ranged from divorces to paternity matters, child support, car accidents, small claims and personal injury issues. The criminal cases he handled as a defense lawyer included clients charged with aggravated assault and battery, armed robbery, rape, cocaine trafficking and financial fraud.
Ron Coleman, a retired Atlanta lawyer, said he faced Mr. Wade in a 2016 case in which Mr. Wade’s client claimed that she found glass in her food at a chain restaurant. A settlement was reached in mediation, and one of the things that Mr. Coleman recalled was that Mr. Wade was not as aggressive as some other lawyers he has worked against in such cases.
“I’ve dealt with a lot of guys who would destroy you if they saw an opening, but he didn’t strike me as having that kind of focus or intensity,” he said.
In a 2021 slip and fall case in which one of Mr. Wade’s clients was suing another restaurant company, Robert Jenkins, a lawyer for the defendant, said he found Mr. Wade to be both assertive and skilled.
“He was forceful, but cool and composed,” he said. “And when he asks question number one, he knows what question number three is going to be. He seemed two steps ahead.”….
One the most awkward moments Mr. Wade has spent in the spotlight came when a number of co-defendants in the Trump case complained to the presiding judge that they had received auto-generated mailers from a local law firm that was trying to drum up business.
“Our lawyers have an abundance of experience handling cases in the state and local courts of Metro Atlanta,” the letters stated.
The law firm was Mr. Wade’s.
LikeLike
ha ha ha! flerp! was saying wait for more facts before judging that Fani Willis did anything wrong! got it!
LikeLike
From the NYT article, the ONLY relevant sentence that gets buried under words and words of “questions raised”:
“But his defenders point to the measurable successes the prosecution team has notched so far under his stewardship. Prosecutors have obtained four guilty pleas from the original cast of 19 co-defendants, and beaten back, so far, an effort to have the case moved to the federal court system, which would offer some advantages to the defendants.”
Fani Willis’ team has had great success. Under no circumstances would a white man’s past experience be questioned AFTER he had already proven himself as capable of doing the job by the years of work he has already been doing on the job!
Wade’s qualifications for the job HE HAS ALREADY BEEN DOING are not because his work in the job has been questionable. He is done a remarkably good job given the difficult circumstances. This has never been about Wade being unqualified because his performance shows he is qualified. This isn’t about any better qualified candidates stepping forward and saying “I tried to get a job, but Fani hired her lover instead”. If anything, many lawyers wanted nothing to do with this case of going against the very powerful and rich Republicans in Georgia.
This got attention because the right wing knows how to play the mainsteam media’s need to put “fair and balanced” over journalism. And because of folks like those here who amplify their most outrageous right wing narratives and present them as having a legitimacy that they don’t.
First Gay. Now Fani. “even many democrats agree” that these women’s actions were supposedly unprecedented and hugely significant breaches of academic and legal integrity.
The only narrative should be “right wing weaponizes sex and tries to victimize Fani Willis in retaliation for her not obeying everything Trump tells her.”
But don’t worry. As soon as it is learned some Republican going after Democrats had an affair with a co-worker, those articles about sexual affairs being weaponized with the Republican as victim will be all over the news media.
LikeLike
I heard that Fani Willis stole a pack of juicy fruit when she was in the third grade. Luckily, the statute of limitations has run.
LikeLiked by 1 person
exactly
LikeLike
Whether Ms. Willis and and Mr. Wade were having an affair PALES IN COMPARISON TO AN ATTEMPT TO STEAL AN ELECTION. At best, their affair, if it was that, is a slap them on the wrist matter. People fall in love. They have affairs. It happens. Because we are human. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. But attempting to overthrow a democratic election and install a usurper? That’s sedition. It’s an extraordinarily serious crime.
LikeLike
Bob, YES! Trying to steal an election is one million times worse than two adults having an affair!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
On the basis of yet another bout of hysteria from the Trump and his cult will he be running a campaign to have the Spencer Tracy Katherine Hepburn film ‘Adam’s Rib’ banned as detrimental to the morals of the public?
LikeLike
Clarification: One paragraph as written reads like this:
“•• That’s the WHOLE point of this sordid nonsense, is it not? To cause a distraction from the fact that Trump AND his accomplices tried to steal the electoral votes in Georgia away from Mr. Trump by throwing out the verified, certified election results. Also, if in fact Wade were to resign, wouldn’t THAT be a legitimate end to the issue?”
Obviously, it SHOULD READ like this:
•• That’s the WHOLE point of this sordid nonsense, is it not? To cause a distraction from the fact that Trump AND his accomplices tried to steal the electoral votes in Georgia away from Mr. Biden by throwing out the verified, certified election results. Also, if in fact Wade were to resign, wouldn’t THAT be a legitimate end to the issue?
LikeLike
Wade falling on his sword may well be how this ends.
LikeLike
Absolutely right, Democracy!
LikeLike
There is nothing new here. When the republicans could not skewer Bill Clinton on Whitewater, they found a way to go after his personal life. If you can’t win on the issues, you have to use personality. yawn. Call me when you have facts that tie Willis’ personal behavior to the prosecution of the case against Trump for election fraud.
LikeLike
I hope the “politically correct police” on the left see this as an attempt to smear Willis and stay out of it unless there is clear evidence of a crime. Democrats have been too willing to sacrifice one of their own instead of letting justice take its course. Sometimes it is better to simply ride the wave of the news cycle and carry on.
LikeLike
Al Franken…
LikeLike
This isn’t a situation where Democrats might “sacrifice one of their own,” though. This is just a question of how a judge decides a motion.
LikeLike
Several comments:
First, my earlier point is that the attorney for Michael Roman has a history of making histrionic legal arguments for her clients, the same as she is doing for Michael Roman.
It isn’t coincidental that the same day Jocelyn Wade’s attorney filed for Fanni Willis to testify in Wade’s divorce case, Michael Roman’s attorney filed for ALL of his charges to be dropped because of “ethical violations” that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the charges against him – and Trump – for trying to steel the 2020 election in Georgia. Nor is it coincidental that Jocelyn Wade’s divorce attorney has hired a public relations group that says “Our team is made up of talented individuals with extensive knowledge in the areas of public affairs, political messaging, brand management, digital content production, storytelling and much more.”
Storytelling and messaging, and more, oh my!
Nor is it coincidental that Trump is now claiming that ALL charges against him need to be dropped too.
Second, yes, Diane, I know all of what you posted from the NY Times article. What that article FAILED to point out is that Bob Ellis, the county commissioner is a Republican. Here’s how a recent Associated Press article ended its discussion of the Willis-Wade issue:
“It’s not surprising that Trump has seized on the Willis and Wade allegations.
Trump took a similar tack during the FBI’s investigation into Russian election interference amid revelations that the lead agent in that probe had had an extramarital relationship with a lawyer for the bureau. The two had traded anti-Trump texts, including messages calling him an ‘idiot’ and ‘loathsome human’ and describing the prospect of a Trump victory in 2016 as ‘terrifying.’
Trump used the texts to try to undermine the investigation and to paint the FBI as politically biased against him. The agent, Peter Strzok, was later fired, though a subsequent Justice Department inspector general report did not find evidence that investigative steps during the Russia probe had been taken for partisan or political reasons.
Robert James, who was previously district attorney in DeKalb County, Georgia, said if Wade and Willis are romantically involved, it’s an optics problem, but he doesn’t see anything inherently improper about a relationship. Even if Wade spends money on Willis, that’s likely not an issue unless there’s evidence of some sort of conspiracy to profit, he said.
‘I have no belief, unless something different than what I’ve heard comes out, that Fani Willis is going to be disqualified from this case,’ James said.”
Like I said, this is political theater, its a distraction, it’s part of a larger, more-orchestrated effort to deny any accountability for Trump and his accomplices in Georgia, and beyond, to other courtrooms and charges against him.
Third, this piece at Just Security by three legal ethics experts, including Norm Eisen, who has called for Nathan Wade’s removal from the case, even though the law does not require it, explains the Will-Wade issue clearly:
“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…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.”
Now, here is where the theater and distraction and chaos are come in”
“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.”
Bam. Boom. And the overall summation:
“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.”
Yes optics matter. Which is why the authors still call for Wade’s removal and then cite all the legalese and code citations relevant to the legal questions.
https://www.justsecurity.org/91368/why-fani-willis-is-not-disqualified-under-georgia-law/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=why-fani-willis-is-not-disqualified-under-georgia-law
LikeLike
Democracy,
That’s a helpful summary. The more we learn about events and the law, the more it appears that whatever happened between Willis and Wade has no bearing on the case being tried.
Neither should recuse, in my humble view.
Trump has always sowed chaos and distraction to win.
Throwing sand in the eyes of onlookers.
Distraction. Diversion.
LikeLike
I pasted the same article below, didn’t realize you already had. Fairly convincing, although its interesting to me that his analysis focuses solely on one side of the conflicts issue, i.e. the impact of the conflict on the defendant’s right to a fair trial, and not on the People’s right to have the case prosecuted without divided loyalties. If he says that’s how Georgia disqualification law (the law of attorney disqualification is not the same as the rules of ethics) works, I’ll assume he’s right, though. Would be very good news if this is how the judge’s analysis goes.
LikeLike
flerp!,
Please cite some precedent for your claim that it is a known violation of legal ethics for two attorneys working on the same case – whether defense or prosecution – to have any romantic entanglement during the 3 or 4 years they work on the case because of “divided loyalties” without a smidgeon of evidence that there were any “divided loyalties” that hurt their client?
It’s even permissible for married lawyers to work on opposite cases! Now that is definitely “divided loyalties” but if there is no evidence of it, they don’t get kicked off because of things that they “might” have done but didn’t.
Where is your precedent for “it doesn’t matter whether what they did hurt their client as long as I can come up with a scenario where their hooking up MIGHT have hurt their client? I have never heard such a thing, because ANY friendly action by two prosecutors or two defense attorneys “might” hurt a client. What if their kids play on the same team? Does that mean they both get kicked off the case? I can think of a scenario where one lawyer wants the other lawyer’s kid to be nicer to their kid and MIGHT be afraid not to do whatever that lawyer says, because then his kid might not be able to e friends with the other kid.
Please cite the precedent for your concern?
Frankly, what seems unprecedented and improper is a defense attorney digging into a prosecutor’s sex life.
If flerp! believes that is what ALL defense attorneys do because it is always necessary to dig into prosecutors’ sex life to defend their client, then I am surprised. Weird that he’s more concerned with two prosecutors hooking up than with defense attorneys improperly digging into prosecutors’ personal sex life. If that’s what defense attorneys all are supposed to be doing to properly defend their client, then I am surprised.
LikeLike
If it isn’t obvious to you by now, I’ve gone back to a policy of largely ignoring your nonstop, obsessive replies and references to me. Feel free to carry on, and I know you will, but I’m not going to engage with you and sink into the quicksand of whatever problems you have with me personally. I know Diane will appreciate it, for one
If anyone else wants to ask me anything, I’m happy to respond to the best of my ability.
LikeLike
FLERP,
I do appreciate your forebearance.
Keep it up.
LikeLike
Diane,
I thought I made it clear that when flerp! posts unwarranted attacks that amplify right wing propaganda as if it had the weight of evidence behind it, I try to point it out. flerp! made similar comments about the seriousness of Claudine Gay’s plagiarism, mirroring the right wing attacks where he kept implying her plagiarism was a huge scandal, of a magnitude that would never go severely punished. (he dialed it back as soon as Neri Oxman’s plagiarism was found)
From the beginning flerp! has characterized Fani’s hook-up with the prosecutor in the same way, as if the very fact that the two did hook up is in itself a very serious breach of ethics. He has invoked multiple times that 2 prosecutors hooking up could very likely violate “the People’s right to have the case prosecuted without divided loyalties” and presented this as a major concern that Norm Eisen just ignored for some mysterious reason.
Since flerp! doesn’t seemed inclined to elaborate on this major concern of his, I am interested in democracy’s take about the very serious issue of two prosecutors hooking up infringing on “the people’s right to have the case prosecuted without divided loyalties”. Does anyone else know how previous rulings have approached how 2 prosecutors hooking up have violated what flerp! refers to as the “people’s right to have the case prosecuted without divided loyalties”?
flerp! seems to believe it is problem that was too important not to discuss here even if Norm Eisen didn’t seem to think it necessary. So I wondered what democracy’s take is about this concern not mentioned by Eisen.
flerp! seems concerned that if Fani remained on the case, she would be HELPING Trump by listening to her incompetent prosecutor hook-up instead of her own good judgement. It seems like someone grasping at straws to justify removing Fani from the case and trying to undermine her credibility, but I’m not an expert lawyer like flerp!. If there is precedent for deeming all prosecutor hook-ups in violation of “the people’s right to have the case prosecuted without divided loyalties”, maybe democracy can educate me.
LikeLike
Would you please STOP IT?
LikeLike
I just learned from a post here that it is “Common practice and perfectly fine” for divorce attorneys who represent estranged spouses of prosecutors and defense attorneys who have clients charged with a crime to get together and coordinate because “their interests were aligned against a common adversary.” The “common adversary” of course, is the prosecutor because the estranged wife of a prosecutor who is angry at the prosecutor during divorce proceedings shares a common interest in hurting the prosecutor with all defendants whose cases the prosecutor is involved with. What a payday for the estranged wife attorney! All those defense attorneys ready to “coordinate” and maybe even give them free lavish meals. And the legal profession ethics apparently teach lawyers that it is borderline malpractice for divorce attorney representing a prosecutor’s wife and a defense attorney representing someone accused of a crime NOT to coordinate, since they share the common adversary – the prosecutor.
Here I thought this was sleazy, and I learn instead it is common practice and perfectly fine for defendants lawyers to coordinate with divorce lawyers since they share a common interest to harm the prosecutor’s reputation and hurt the prosecutor as much as possible.
LikeLike
The sickness you all have to get trump when Biden has ruined the country and world is breathtaking. Tax payer trips to San Fran, Napa valley, Florida, cruises, Austria, Panama, Belize. WILLIS APPOINTED HIM SPECIAL PROSECUTOR with little to no experience. Overpaid 1 million dollars for an unqualified sex toy. Of course if this was Trump it would be a major problem.
Uhhh ohhhhh professor and election expert J Halferman hacks into dominion voting machine in front of a judge using only a pen to change vote totals, this will be a brutal year for the likes of you lost people.
Climate change hoax lol, you guys are always wrong it’s so damn hysterical
https://www.cp24.com/news/quebec-man-who-blamed-wildfires-on-government-pleads-guilty-to-setting-14-fires-1.6727111
Wrong of desantis, Halley who had cheated on her husband twice and is a liar and globalist bitch has 0 chance, all Trump he’s coming back baby!,,
LikeLike
Clarence, did you stop taking your meds?
LikeLike
Sometimes it happens. The patients escape. They are found wandering the streets in their institutional gowns babbling or sometimes even shouting incoherently, and if they miss their meds, this can get really bad.
LikeLike
Clarence and Wonka are the same person. Trolls.
LikeLike
Clarence,
Nikki Haley cheated on her husband? Twice?
How many times did Trump cheat on his three wives?
How many times did he “grab ‘em by the p…y?”
How many times did he pay for sex when he couldn’t get it free? Think Stormy Daniels.
Oh, Trump is a model for America’s youth, say the mentally challenged.
Double standards?
LikeLike
Bob, Lloyd, Diane, flerp or anyone I bet 500 crazy jean carrol who is a complete lunatic will have to pay trump back million like stormy. The case is biggest fraud even Anderson cooper shut her down after she said rape is sexy. She was told to lie from crazy George Conway, another instance of the nut jobs here believing trump did something when he’s innocent, meanwhile Biden took millions and his family millions from china russia and shhhhh. Clinton giving uranium and secrets, Obama the worst of them all allowing Middle East to be a nightmare drone killing thousands of innocent people.
LikeLike
shazam, bro, wonka has gone flat-out wonka…
LikeLike
This Wonka is the usual shape-shifting Trump troll. He is also Clarence. He uses a different name and has even learned how to change his IP address. Garbage in, garbage out. Now he’s Wonka. He was Liz. I have forgotten all the other names he has used.
LikeLike
Here is a decent article arguing that Willis should not be disqualified under Georgia law. Note that it also argues that Wade should voluntarily step down. That’s quickly become a theme in the reactions I’ve seen, and I tend to agree.
https://www.justsecurity.org/91368/why-fani-willis-is-not-disqualified-under-georgia-law/
LikeLike
The bio of the lead author of that article:
“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.”
LikeLike
The article at the link you provided was quite informative. One thing that shocked me was that the actual filing by the defense attorney cited NO precedent whatsoever for removing a prosecutor having an affair with another prosecutor and NO conflict of interest. Maybe you didn’t realize that when you wrote all the posts informing us of all the very serious potential conflicts of interest that could arise from two prosecutors hooking up.
Apparently there is no precedent for any of that being a conflict of interest.
Thanks for the link.
LikeLike
Seems that it is Trump’s attorney that needs to be disqualified.
Is it now ethical for a defense attorney to go digging into the prosecutors’ private lives and ask for them to be removed because of hooking up with other prosecutors?
If it is indeed necessary to be a good defense lawyer that you dig into prosecutors’ sex lives, then I guess any defense attorney who doesn’t do this should be publicly sanctioned for not acting in the best interests of their client?
Or is it more likely that the defense attorney who provides lavish meals or other benefits to a prosecutor’s estranged relative in order to gather dirt on a prosecutors’ private life would be sanctioned?
What benefits did Trump’s defense give to Ward’s estranged wife? A lavish meal?
LikeLike
^meant to start a new thread.
LikeLike
Beyond disgusting. Nothing ethically wrong with dating a member of your prosecuting team, if that’s even happening at all. Problems if it’s a member of the defense.
And there’s a possibility that they’re coordinating this smear with the prosecutor’s soon to be divorced wife:
LikeLike
As I noted in my comment above,
It isn’t coincidental that the same day Jocelyn Wade’s attorney filed for Fanni Willis to testify in Wade’s divorce case, Michael Roman’s attorney filed for ALL of his charges to be dropped because of “ethical violations” that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the charges against him – and Trump – for trying to steel the 2020 election in Georgia. Nor is it coincidental that Jocelyn Wade’s divorce attorney has hired a public relations group that says “Our team is made up of talented individuals with extensive knowledge in the areas of public affairs, political messaging, brand management, digital content production, storytelling and much more.”
Nor is it coincidental that Trump is now claiming that ALL charges against him need to be dropped too.
LikeLike
I’m sure they’re coordinating.
LikeLike
Yes…but in a loving and considerate manner, Flerp
LikeLike
Love and war.
To be clear, I’ve coordinated with counsel on a separate matter where we believed our interests were aligned against a common adversary. Common practice and perfectly fine as long as you’re not destroying your client’s privilege or violating protective orders in the respective cases.
LikeLike
Interesting and good/important to know.
In the link I set up, though, Kopok mentions there might be in element of obstructing and interfering in an ongoing criminal investigation (around the 13:00 mark). Thoughts…?
LikeLike
Not really — this is not my area so I’d have to go research the question and then also read the arguments and facts in the briefing before the divorce court judge. (This is an issue for the divorce court judge to decide, not the Trump trial court judge.)
In the abstract and on the surface it doesn’t sound like a frivolous argument. I assume this is an argument Willis is making to quash the deposition subpoena in the divorce proceeding—that the real motive in subpoenaing her for a deposition is to interfere with the trial. Whether third parties have to comply with subpoenas (depos or documents) usually comes down to balancing how necessary the subpoenaed documents/testimony is (which involves the questions of how relevant it is to that proceeding and whether it could be obtained in some other way) on the one hand and how burdensome it is to the third party (here, Willis).
If information about the extent and duration of Willis’s relationship with Wade is relevant to the divorce proceeding, that weighs in favor of ordering her to testify. If it’s not relevant, that ends the matter and she won’t be forced to sit for a deposition. If it the information is relevant but could be obtained by deposing Wade (who’s already a party to that proceeding), that weighs against it. And if having Willis deposed would disrupt the criminal trial, that’s a burden consideration that could weigh heavily against deposing her.
LikeLike
Yes and sorry I missed your comment, democracy.
And to quote Lloyd’s leading comment:
“Trump’s mentor was Roy Cohn who taught him how to use chaos as a weapon to win in court and business”
https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/trump-lawsuits/
LikeLike
Thanks. Nice to be able to tap into professional knowledge expertise.
LikeLike
Today the judge tabled Willis’s motion to quash for now, ruling that whether Willis must be deposed can wait until Ward is first deposed and it’s clear whether or not Willis’s testimony is necessary.
The judge also granted Roman’s motion to unseal the divorce proceeding’s records. Roman will try to use in the criminal trial whatever information from the divorce proceeding, although I suspect there isn’t much to use.
LikeLike
Flerp wrote this, which confuses me:
“his analysis focuses solely on one side of the conflicts issue, i.e. the impact of the conflict on the defendant’s right to a fair trial, and not on the People’s right to have the case prosecuted without divided loyalties.”
First, the analysis of the Fanni Willis-Nathan Wade issue I posted was written by THREE ethics experts, Norm Eisen, Joyce Vance, and Richard Painter. Eisen was a “special assistant for ethics and government reform” for Obama. Vance is a law professor at the University of Alabama and a former federal prosecutor, and Painter was “chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush.”
Their analysis notes that “Georgia law recognizes prosecutorial disqualification in exceptionally narrow circumstances, ones that are not alleged by the [Michael] Roman motion.” Then, they point out that
“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.”
What ARE those “three alleged factual circumstances?”
That there was or is an “alleged romantic relationship between Willis and Wade” that is prejudicial to Michael Roman’s trial.
That in some way, “the financial compensation Wade received as a Special Prosecutor” somehow compromises a fair trial for Michael Roman.
That the “personal travel Willis and Wade took together, allegedly paid for by Wade” in some vague way makes it unlikely that Roman can receive a fair trial and therefore, all charges against him must be dropped.
As I noted previously, the Michael Roman filing comes from an attorney who has a record of making widespread, histrionic, throw-it-at-the wall-and-see-if-it-sticks kinds of legal claims for her clients.
Eisen, Vance and Painter then take apart – piece by piece, the arguments made by Roman’s attorney.
They conclude their piece with this:
“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 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.”
What IS that public interest??
That Michael Roman, working on behalf of Trump, tried to steal the 2020 presidential election in Georgia and thereby deprive millions of Georgia voters (2,473,633 of them) of their legally cast ballots.
As reported in Washington The Post yesterday,
“Eisen told reporters Saturday that while there is no legal basis to disqualify either prosecutor, Wade should voluntarily step away from the case. The controversy is not going away, Eisen said, and threatens to delay the case against the former president, which must be avoided. He pointedly did not recommend that Willis step aside — a reflection of the stakes of the case against Trump….’There is an overwhelming amount of evidence justifying the decision to prosecute Mr. Trump and his co-conspirators, including Mr. [Mike] Roman,’ Eisen said. ‘The evidence is strong. The case is powerful. It’s very likely to lead to conviction, and we mustn’t lose time on the calendar given the paramount public interest in bringing that strong case to a speedy conclusion.’ ”
So, there appears to be NO legal need to disqualify either Willis OR Wade. As the authors note, the political optics involved are another matter.
But I remain confused. How does a romantic relationship between Willis and Wade lead to “divided loyalties?”
Frankly, I am still taken by this compendium from an Associated Press article two weeks back:
“Trump’s persistent false claims that the election of 2020 was stolen has been rejected in at least 60 court cases, every state election certification and by the former president’s one-time attorney general…Trump faces more than 90 criminal charges in federal and state courts, including the federal indictment brought by special counsel Jack Smith that accused Trump of conspiring to defraud the U.S. over the election…Trump is trying to revise the narrative of what happened that day — calling the rioters ‘patriots’ and promising to pardon them…”
“…Trump’s decision to reject the results of the 2020 election was the only time Americans have not witnessed the peaceful transfer of presidential power, a hallmark of U.S. democracy…More than 1,200 people have been charged in the riot, with nearly 900 convicted, including leaders of the extremist groups the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who are serving lengthy terms for seditious conspiracy.”
In essence, that’s what the salacious allegations in the Michael Roman trial in Georgia are all about…Trump.
LikeLike
I tried to describe this aspect of the conflict in the other thread.
LikeLike
But like I caveated in that thread, I’m not an “ethics guy,” and it sounds like Eisen is one, so I’m definitely not saying I’m right and Eisen is wrong.
LikeLike