If the biggest charter chain in Texas is under investigation for financial finagling, is it the right time to let that charter chain expand? Well, it’s Texas, so of course!
The Network for Public Education thinks that’s a rotten idea. It’s wrong. It’s unethical. so we issued this press release.
Texas Ed Department Approves Scandal-ridden Charter Chain’s Expansion
For immediate release:
Within days of appointing conservators to manage the IDEA charter chain, the Texas Education Agency gives it the green light to expand.
Contact: Carol Burris
cburris@networkforpubliceducation.org
(646) 678-4477
There is a major financial and ethical charter scandal in Texas, and the Network for Public Education is outraged. The same day that the Texas Education Agency (TEA) announced the appointment of a management team for IDEA charter schools following years of inappropriate spending, the charter chain submitted a request for a massive expansion that would add ten new charter campuses in Texas.
On March 6, the TEA announced it appointed two conservators to oversee IDEA charter schools following its investigation into multiple allegations of financial mishandling. Two days later, the TEA approved that expansion without public comment or meaningful notice.
Scandals involving IDEA include the following:
- The approval of up to $15 million to lease a private luxury jet for IDEA executives’ travel.
- The purchase of a hotel in Cameron County valued at more than $1 million.
- The lease of a luxury suite at San Antonio Spurs games.
- Providing inaccurate information to the Washington Post regarding the performance of its schools.
- A nearly one million dollar “golden parachute” for the chain’s co-founder.
The charter chain obtained nearly $300,000,000 from the U.S. Department of Education to expand to 123 schools. Following an audit, the Department is now demanding that IDEA return $28 million to be paid using Texas taxpayer dollars.
NPE President Diane Ravitch has been following the charter chain’s scandals for years. “The IDEA charter chain has a long-established reputation for spending millions on luxury items for its leaders while paying executives private-sector salaries. The grifting at public expense must stop. When one Houston school received failing grades, TEA took over the entire district. In this case, TEA appointed a conservator from another charter chain and then approved IDEA’s expansion in a shady insider deal.”
According to Network for Public Education Executive Director Carol Burris, “The scandals involving this federal Charter School Program (CSP) recipient are breathtaking. As shocking as seems, it is possible this new expansion of the corrupt IDEA charter chain will be financed through CSP grant money. We all foot the bill.”
The Network for Public Education is a national advocacy group whose mission is to preserve, promote, improve, and strengthen public schools for current and future generations of students.
###
Mailing Address:
Network for Public Education
PO Box 227
New York City, NY 10156
Email:
info at networkforpubliceducation.org
Phone:
(646) 678-4477
Diane Ravitch's blog 
People in Texas need to realize Abbott is not working for them or their interests. He is working for Jeffrey Yass and his $6 million dollar campaign donation, which is a form of legalized bribe. Abbott is also working for the interests of the Texas Christian extremist and oil tycoon, Tim Dunn. Texans need to wake up to the fact that the GOP only wants to use them to advance their own self interests.
LikeLike
Ruling on the Fani Willis disqualification motion is in: (1) applicable standard is appearance of impropriety; (2) appearance of impropriety exists here; (3) dismissal of indictment is not warranted; (4) disqualification of Willis is not required; (5) either Wade or Willis (and her entire office) must withdraw.
Judge also denies motion to dismiss the indictment or DQ Willis based on Willis’s comments at a church that the DQ motion was brought for racist reasons. But he notes those comments were improper and warns the DA that at some point he might have to issue an order barring the DA from public comments about the case.
Bottom line: Wade is gone, the case will continue.
LikeLike
Defendants can appeal. Probably will. Unclear if the appellate court will take the appeal.
The state can appeal, too. Probably won’t. Shouldn’t.
LikeLike
FLERP,
I thought it was a fair ruling.
I admit, however, that I find it troubling that defendants would delve into private lives and bedrooms of prosecutors. Demonstrates that Trump team will stoop as low as possible to avoid going to trial.
Trump defense in four locations is giving a master class in delaying trial.
Justice delayed is Justice denied.
LikeLike
It’s hard because Trump is Trump, but Trump also is a criminal defendant. And it was a legitimate motion for a criminal defendant. If I were a criminal defendant, and I learned that my attorneys had a good faith basis to move to dismiss the indictment or disqualify the DA but chose not to tell me about it or pursue it because they thought it would be unseemly to delve into the private lives and bedrooms of the prosecution, I would sue them for malpractice and I think I’d have a pretty good case.
LikeLike
There is nothing wrong with a Republican defense attorney prying into prosecutors’ sex lives if they have no moral qualms or feel no distaste and they believe it will help their case. If they want, they can submit legal filings alleging the prosecutors run a child molesting ring, based on a rumor someone told them that someone else heard about.
But the reason that defense attorneys do NOT regularly make these rumor-based, evidence-free false allegations is because impartial judges regularly throw them out. AND they may sanction the defense attorneys for wasting their time.
Federalist Society Republican judge Scott McAfee acted the OPPOSITE of an impartial judge. His actions were far beyond the norm. The defense attorneys trying this would have been shut down by an impartial judge. This is a judge problem.
The norm – what impartial judges have always done – is to respond to a defense filing prying into prosecutors’ love life by requesting that the defense provide credible evidence of how the prosecutors’ sex lives are a conflict of interest to the defense.
What impartial judges have NEVER done is to hold a public hearing where multiple defense attorneys get to grill prosecutors about their sex life! Especially when the judge pre-absolved those defense attorneys of having to provide any credible evidence or argument about how this was a conflict of interest, but essentially told them that if they could make it APPEAR to be a conflict of interest in a public hearing, then he would remove the prosecutor.
Unprecedented. I am not an attorney. But it doesn’t take a legal scholar to know that if judges regularly responded to evidence-free legal filings about sex lives or personal lives of prosecutors the “impartial” way Judge McAfee did, our system would be a mess. Imagine if all defense attorneys were told that “impartial” judges will now allow them public hearings to grill prosecutors on their sex lives, as long as they can provide a legal filing similar in quality to what was made by the Georgia defense attorneys (which even the defense admitted included false allegation). Imagine if a judge who did NOT allow defense attorneys to grill prosecutors publicly about their sex life was removed for bias.
But that’s the Orwellian place we seem to be in. With people who believe McAfee’s ruling was good! It was “good” the way Robert Hur’s report was “good”. Hur didn’t indict Biden. Hooray, he’s so honorable! McAfee didn’t remove Fani. Hooray, he’s so honorable!
Talk about the lowest bar to meet. We should be talking about what Hur and McAfee DID do that was unprecedented, improper, and a clear attempt to help the Republican narrative.
Or we should stop criticizing Merrick Garland when he just viewed Hur the way some here view McAfee. Hur did the honorable thing and didn’t indict Biden, so what’s the big deal? Merrick Garland was right!
LikeLike
Too many incorrect statements and assumptions there to correct.
LikeLike
flerp!,
Sure, we’ll just trust you on that. Your “evidence” to support that I am wrong is just as credible as the evidence that the Federalist Society Judge used to smear Fani Willis. Maybe this judge will let you can grill me under oath to gather evidence that support your claim!
But if you liked Hur’s “unbiased” report clearing Biden, you’ll love Scott McAfee’s ruling about Fani Willis! They could come up with no evidence either did anything illegal, or even improper, but boy did they make a point of explaining how much we should doubt their integrity as much as those UNBIASED, NON-PARTISAN Federalist Society folks did!
LikeLike
I don’t care if you trust me or not. You have zero experience or knowledge about this subject matter. But please continue to go on for paragraphs about what defense counsel “normally” does and how judges “regularly” and “have always” handled disqualification motions of this nature.
I agree with Diane that this was a fair ruling, even if there are some points that could be debated between reasonable and intelligent people. But it’s interesting to watch the MAGA crowd and the whatever the term is for your crowd each go absolutely apoplectic over the ruling.
LikeLike
What matters most is that Fani was not removed and the trial can move ahead. Fani is crucial. Wade is not. If the judge wanted to torpedo the investigation, he would have removed them both. He didn’t. A fair ruling. They most certainly exercised very poor judgment. The eyes of the world were on the trial. Their behavior was just plain dumb.
LikeLike
That’s basically how I see it.
LikeLike
Fact:
There was never any credible evidence that two prosecutors hooking up was a conflict of interest to the defense.
There was ZERO credible evidence that the two prosecutors hooking up was a conflict of interest that harmed the defense in the legal filing. And yet the Republican judge held an improper public kangaroo hearing.
There was ZERO credible evidence that the two prosecutors hooking up was a conflict of interest that harmed the defense during the days of testimony during that kangaroo hearing, despite the Republican Federalist Society Judge giving Republican defense attorneys the unprecedented change to grill prosecutors with innuendo.
There IS credible evidence that Wade was a highly competent attorney. And that credible evidence is his performance over the last two years in which multiple Republican defendants ALREADY pleaded guilty and were poised to testify against the more powerful Republican defendants.
And it is a fact that the Republican judge is removing Wade based on “appearance”. (Willis choice is to have Wade step down or EVERYONE step down, so the Judge’s decision was that Wade was gone no matter what.)
Now if someone here who regularly insults and belittles me actually wants to dispute that with evidence, they are free to do so.
But I doubt anyone would have the chutzpah top claim there was EVER credible evidence that the prosecutors’ relationship was a conflict of interest that harmed the defense. Every respected legal scholar has said there wasn’t.
And once we acknowledge that a Republican judge never required Republican defense attorneys to present ANY credible evidence of a conflict of interest, it’s easy to see how this Republican judge pulled a “Robert Hur” on Fani Willis.
If you approve of Robert Hur because he “cleared” Biden, you will approve of this Republican Judge. They share the same values. Never let an opportunity to smear a Democrat go by if smearing them pleases powerful Republicans.
LikeLike
I’m reminded of a George Bernard Shaw quote about wrestling.
LikeLike
I am reminded that slinging insults is so much easier than offering a reasonable argument to support why you believe someone is wrong.
It’s the modus operandi of the Republican party isn’t it? Do they ever defend their positions when someone challenges their support of Trump citing facts, or do they just insult and attack?
I hope there is a time in the future when that kind of “debate” is immediately recognized for what it is, instead of legitimized so that our entire discourse has become debased.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Seems like the Republican judge pulled a “Robert Hur”. Scott McAfee is a federalist society Republican judge who has no evidence to remove Fani Willis for “conflict of interest”, but he knows influential Republicans want to make a Democrat who can disempower them to look like a criminal. And McAfee knows that simply saying that there is no evidence (and there was never grounds) for a conflict of interest removal will NOT help those influential Republicans, despite that being the proper, honest, and ethical ruling to make. Instead, Republican Judge McAfee chooses to publicly undermine Fani Willis to help influential Republicans, just like Republican prosecutor Hur publicly undermined Biden while ostensibly writing an “impartial” report that he denied under oath was intended to undermine Biden. His removal of Wade is part of that.
What Republican Scott McAfee did is to legitimize all the upcoming Republican investigations in Georgia. McAfee legitimized the dishonest right wing narrative that such investigations are warranted by Fani’s improper actions. Like his fellow Federalist Society Republican Hur, McAfee didn’t act the way unbiased, impartial, ethical attorneys/judges act. They both acted like partisan hacks.
Mark Joseph Stern wrote about this phenomenon in Slate.com, March 12, 2024, noting how this is a feature of Federalist Society lawyers and Judges, including Judge Aileen Cannon. Federalist Society Republican Judge Scott McAfee’s actions fit write in:
“This isn’t a conspiracy, and these partisans aren’t sleeper agents. They are part of the conservative legal movement, which has constructed a machine that elevates people like Hur and Cannon to the top, ideally gathering as little baggage as possible along the way. Hur, like Cannon, is affiliated with the Federalist Society, the network of ambitious conservative lawyers who elevate one another into positions of power and influence. Does anyone seriously think that Hur or Cannon believes they’ve reached the highest point of their career? By running interference for Trump, Cannon is obviously auditioning for a promotion—perhaps to the Supreme Court—under her benefactor’s second term. Hur, too, has every incentive to harm Biden in this moment. During a second Trump presidency, Hur is now well positioned to get the nod for a higher position within the Department of Justice, perhaps even attorney general. At worst, he is in line for a judgeship. Brett Kavanaugh helped Kenneth Starr investigate Bill Clinton (in a maximally salacious, partisan manner) and wound up on the Supreme Court.”
To paraphrase Stern, but substituting McAfee for Hur:
“Yes, McAfee’s dishonest jabs at Fani Willis – the very fact that he held a public hearing to improperly reward Republican defense attorneys who submitted a legal filing full of false allegations that lacked ANY credible evidence of a conflict of interest – painted a picture of his findings that, in many key respects, simply does not align with reality. But THAT IS WHAT REPUBLICAN APPOINTEES DO.”
“When you’re investigating a president, it pays to be political. For McAfee every incentive ran toward undermining Willis. Somehow, the public unable to perceive the obvious truth that 100 percent of McAfee’s interests lay in shivving Willis, not in sharing an honest account of his investigation with the public. There has been little accountability for so many other Trump enablers, like Don McGahn, who shattered norms while refraining from outright criminal conduct; why wouldn’t McAfee assume that he could swing for the fences here and get away with it?
“A handful of left-leaning McAfee defenders have argued that the Judge did, in fact, discharge his duties with commendable independence. They point to McAfee not removing Fani Willis. Well, yes: What did Fani do? Tried to hire some prominent attorneys, who were unwilling to go up against powerful Republicans for that hourly fee. Then hire an attorney she was friends with who had years of experience in OTHER types of law – a man whose qualifications for the position were PROVEN over the last 2 years, when his meticulous work with the grand jury resulted in multiple GUILTY pleas by Republicans who were about to testify against powerful Republicans! No reasonable judge would have removed Fani Willis because there was no evidence to remove her. McAfee should get no credit for grudgingly bowing to reality while continuing his partisanship attacking Fani Willis and intentionally withholding any criticism of the Republican defense attorneys he allowed to make a mockery of the law. “
It’s incredible to me that some folks are critical of Merrick Garland for not recognizing that Robert Hur is a political hack, and then they are as blind as Merrick Garland in giving the benefit of the doubt to Republican Judge Scott McAfee! A judge whose clearly partisan actions since January have been in plain view! A judge who received a laughable legal filing from the Republican defense attorneys that included false allegations, no credible evidence and vague, unsupported claims that Fani Willis had a “conflict of interest”. And instead of requesting credible evidence, this partisan Republican judge immediately rewarded the Republicans by calling for a public hearing where they could grill Fani Willis with innuendo on their “vague” allegations. Who later cited “vagueness” to throw out charges against Trump!
Scott McAfee did what Republicans do. “This isn’t a conspiracy, and these partisans aren’t sleeper agents. They are part of the conservative legal movement.”
And maybe Merrick Garland didn’t realize it, but I saw many people here willing to give McAfee the very same benefit of the doubt that Garland gave Hur. Republican partisan hack Judge McAfee did “clear” Fani Willis the way Robert Hur “cleared” Biden. In both cases, the lack of evidence forced their hand, and so in “clearing” the Democrat, they went out of their way to permanently undermine them. All in service to the right wing Republican cause that always guides them. They are never held to account, so these Republican prosecutors and judges just keep getting worse, and so does the danger to our democracy.
LikeLike
It is a shame that the Federalist Society Republican judge is forcing Wade’s removal, since it is Wade’s outstanding performance over the last two years that was instrumental in getting multiple guilty pleas from Republican defendants who were testifying against more powerful Republicans about their crimes. Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman followed this prosecution (and Wade’s performance) for years and talked about Wade’s success in meticulously taking the Grand Jury through reams of evidence and explaining it. But when a NYT journalist hears from Republicans that a Black attorney like Wade is unqualified and incompetent, their opinion is certainly a more valid narrative than Wade’s actual performance and the success he had (which is never mentioned in the NYT). It definitely makes sense that that the Republican judge would believe that the he did something good for the Republicans by getting rid of Wade, one of the people most dangerous to them. Maybe Wade will be replaced by an “outstanding” white lawyer that NYT reporters view as the epitome of integrity and superior lawyering skills like John Durham.
LikeLike
NYCPSP,
I think Judge McAfee’s ruling was inevitable.
The relationship between Willis and Wade presents “an appearance of impropriety.”
Wade cannot continue.
One of them, maybe both, should have exercised better judgment.
When you are prosecuting Trump, you have to be extremely careful about your own behavior.
They were not.
LikeLike
What I find depressing it that you have begun with the premise that there is something wrong with two prosecutors hooking up, when there isn’t.
If Fani Willis had hooked up with some random guy, I expect people would be embracing the right wing premise that there is something wrong with her hooking up with some random guy (since she might accidentally reveal information about the trial during pillow talk). We’d be chiding her for not realizing she should have hooked up with some other prosecutor so that Republicans couldn’t use that against her.
Maybe Fani Willis should have realizes she needed to spend the 3 years prosecuting Trump as chaste as a nun. She should have known that having ANY relationship was a problem.
Those who can get you to believe absurdities can get you to condone atrocities.
Two prosecutors hooking up is NEVER a conflict of interest. A prosecutor hooking up with someone outside the prosecution is FAR MORE LIKELY to create an “appearance” of a conflict of interest than a prosecutor hooking up with a fellow prosecutor!
Those who can get you to believe absurdities can get you to condone atrocities.
The acceptance of this is no different from those accepting Robert Hur because he chose not to prosecute Biden for crimes that Biden didn’t commit. We condemn Biden for appearing so elderly and cognitively impaired. It was his own fault and he should have known not to appear that way.
LikeLike
Nathan Wade and Fani Willis aren’t two random co-workers in the Fulton County DA Office. Wade is a special prosecutor hired specifically by DA Willis, supervised only by her, under a contract renewable only by her. It’s not a “hey, we’re all adults here” situation for them to be schtupping, even if it doesn’t actually create diverging interests that could prejudice a defendant. It just looks terrible and unprofessional. It creates, in short, an appearance of impropriety.
Willis herself, during her campaign, said that it would be completely inappropriate for supervisors on her staff to have sex with people working under them, and that of course she personally would never date anyone who worked under her. So not even Willis believes it’s no big deal for supervisors and subordinates to sleep with each other, even in the ordinary day-to-day running of her office, let alone in a case of such high profile and importance.
You’d understand why if you ever worked in a setting where the Big Boss was known or rumored to be sleeping with a co-worker on the down-low. People wonder whether special treatment is being given, whether others are being treated unfairly, etc. It breeds unhealthy speculation and a sense that things are not right. This, of course, is why Willis and Wade tried so hard to hide the relationship when it was happening.
I agree with you that the relationship did not create an actual conflict of interest that prejudiced the defendants. But let’s dispel the notion that it was perfectly cool for Willis and Wade to be sleeping together. It’s not perfectly cool for supervisors to sleep with attorneys or staff who work under them in the context of a well-functioning district attorney’s office. And it’s definitely not perfectly cool in the context of the highest profile, most consequential criminal prosecution in the history of America, as officers of the court, with all the heightened duties that come with that. It’s incredibly stupid, incredibly irresponsible, and shows incredibly poor judgment.
Fani Willis doesn’t need to be “chaste as a nun.” She just needs to NOT SCHTUPP THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR THAT SHE HIRED. She can sleep with anyone else but that guy. That’s not that hard.
I say this, of course, with all due respect for your expertise in attorney ethics and conflicts.
LikeLike
I’ve already answered most of these questions anyway in multiple posts, here and elsewhere. But here are some ramblings.
I look at these proceedings from the perspective of an attorney. Some people get that perspective, others have a really hard time understanding it. It is what it is.
I haven’t followed the whole proceeding closely from the start, but as I have explained, this was a totally legitimate motion to disqualify. And in fact, not bringing the motion would be malpractice.
The motion was not based purely on speculation. We now know that Roman’s counsel had a good-faith reason to believe, from multiple sources, that Willis and Wade were schtupping when Wade was hired by Willis. They had an argument that the hiring was a misuse of public funds based on statute. They had documentary evidence that Wade was paying for vacations and hotels, which was enough of a hook to argue that Willis had a financial stake in the outcome of the case. They had other non-frivolous arguments that her comments in the church were prejudicial to the defendants. With all that, they were more than justified in filing the motion. That doesn’t mean the motion should succeed. It doesn’t even mean that the motion is particularly strong (although it was stronger than many initially thought). But the attorneys absolutely should not be criticized for bringing it, much less sanctioned, as some (unserious in my view) observers have suggested. In other words, the motion was not “frivolous,” as the law would say. And if an attorney has the ability to bring a non-frivolous motion that is more likely to advance his client’s interests than to backfire against them, the attorney has a duty to advise the client of the benefits and risks, and to proceed as the client directs.
This is as close to a religion among practicing attorneys, especially the criminal bar, as you can get. It’s not for the squeamish or those averse to late nights of work.
You’ve mentioned many times the notion that the motion (hey I’m rhyming) was somehow inappropriate because it contained “false allegations.” I’ve explained before that this is an incorrect way to view things. A party doesn’t have to know things for a fact to allege those things in good faith. They have to have reason to think those things are true. They can’t know for a fact that those things are false. But to say don’t have to know that they’re true. They may fail to prove the truth of their allegations, for a number of reasons—because a court finds they aren’t entitled to the relief they seek even if the allegations were true, or because they aren’t able to get access to the evidence they need in discovery, or just because a judge or a jury decides against them. But that doesn’t mean the allegations were “false” in the sense that the attorneys were knowingly trying to deceive the court. Was the murder indictment against OJ Simpson “false” such that the district attorney should have been punished or attacked for filing it?
As for the judge–I was impressed with how he handled the hearing. He gave all parties a lot of leeway but he kept it calm and under control. His decision to hold a hearing, I could have gone either way with. It’s up to him, his discretion. But when you’re talking about a motion that makes allegations that need to be backed up with proof, I find no fault with a judge who schedules a hearing to allow the moving party to try to prove them.
Don’t mistake any of this for how I feel about Trump. And don’t mistake it for how I feel about attorneys like Sydney Powell or Giuliani. From what I’ve seen in this Fulton County case, the defense attorneys are doing a good job for their client.
That’s why I have criticized Fani Willis and Nathan Wade but have not criticized Ashleigh Merchant or Steve Sadow or the judge.
LikeLike
FLERP,
Please don’t comment on the Georgia trial anymore unless you are responding to a post about it.
LikeLike
I liked Left Coast Teacher’s suggestion that I try to keep comments on the topic that was posted.
I will try that.
I have previously asked commenters to address the topic, not one another.
LikeLike
Years ago, Diane, you wrote that there were three simple rules for commenting on this blog: no use of the f word, no crazy conspiracy theories, and no insulting the host. I strongly advocate for a new rule to avoid the degradation of civility that has recently plagued the blog, a simple rule. The very definition of an internet troll is someone who changes the subject of discussion with inflammatory comments. This is your blog. You decide the topics of discussion.
The new rule I humbly recommend: Stay on topic.
LikeLike
Fair enough.
LikeLike
LCT, that’s a very good suggestion. It will be hard to police. First, because sometimes a commenter wants to introduce breaking news. Second, because of familiar squabbling. I get busy policing #2.
LikeLike
As I am wont to do when Diane posts something from the Network for Public Education, I’d like to encourage participants in these fora to donate to the Network for Public Education. I finally just set up a monthly donation. I am proud (knowing well, and stipulating, that pride goeth before the fall and all that) to support an organization oriented to a little thing I like to call reality.
LikeLike
Thank you, Mark!
Every dollar you donate is put to good use.
We have no physical location (a PO Box will do), a full-time staff of one (carol Burris, who is indefatigable), and two part-time assistants. We are more productive than the big lobbyists for privatization, which have bloated staffs and a bad “cause.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
perfect logic: If the system is mired in corruption, give more to the system.
If the “liberal “ media ever get a piece of this, we might be tricked into believing that Republicans are in existence for the good of the grifters.
LikeLike
When a government like the one in Texas supports corruption, that shows the world that state government is also corrupt.
To learn who someone really is, ignore what they say and only pay attention to what they do.
LikeLike
From a comment above: “But it’s interesting to watch the MAGA crowd and the whatever the term is for your crowd each go absolutely apoplectic over the ruling.”
I recommend Washington Post columnist Alexandra Petri’s hilarious column on this kind of thinking:
“If everyone’s mad at Hur, he must be doing something right! Right?” March 13, 2024
“Motorist Robert Hur knew he was driving correctly, because everyone was shouting at him. Everyone, on both sides of the street, had lined up to yell. “This is a one-way street!,” some of them were saying. “You should mow down more pedestrians!,” others were yelling. What mattered was that they were all yelling. That was the sign that you were doing something right in Washington, and everyone knew it. He turned on his high beams and smiled.”
“Skydiving instructor Robert Hur beamed with pride. Not a single person who had skydived with him was pleased about how it had gone. That was the sign you were doing your job well.
Barber Robert Hur’s clients mostly told him that he had not given them the haircuts they requested, but some were boiling mad that there was not a pie shop attached to the barbershop and that all his customers appeared to be leaving the shop alive. One reason for being upset was as good as any other, as long as you were sure to give a reason!”
“Special Counsel Robert Hur knew he had nailed his report. All the members of the House of Representatives were mad. Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) was mad that in a report concluding there was insufficient evidence to charge President Biden with improper handling of classified documents, Hur had gone out of his way to remark that a jury would consider Biden a “well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.” Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wis.) was mad because Hur was “part of the Praetorian guard that guards the swamp out here in Washington, D.C., protecting the elites.” But the important thing was that they all seemed to be shouting.
That was good. That meant the report was fair. If everyone is yelling at you, it’s a sign you are doing something right.”
LikeLike
Democrats should forget about trying to appear non-partisan. They should not hire Republicans for important jobs as they cannot be trusted to be fair and balanced.
LikeLike
The special counsel as an institution may be something that needs to die. It seems to satisfy no one and things end up just as politicized as they would be if the DOJ handled all these investigations internally without special counsel. Although I guess it’s easy to say that when it’s your party that’s in control.
LikeLike
Like you, NYCPSP, I’m not a lawyer.
But I believe that a romantic relationship between two members of the prosecuting team presents an appearance of impropriety.
Two prosecutors flying to Italy on the same plane does not present an appearance of impropriety. Unless they are gay.
But not being a lawyer, I can’t say if there is a difference.
What bothers me about the defense counsel’s reaction in Georgia is that Trump’s team insists that the sexual relationship between Willis and Wade started before the trial. I find this disgusting as no one knows when they got into bed together except the two of them. And the inquiry is an outrageous invasion of their privacy.
LikeLike
Diane,
I wish that the biggest problem with the Republican take-over of our judicial system was two Republican prosecutors hooking up. If they are on the same case, they can hook up all they want as far as I am concerned.
We shall have to disagree, because I think a Republican prosecutor hooking up with another Republican prosecutor ON THEIR TEAM is not a problem. I am sure it happens all the time and goes unmentioned.
I don’t care if Republican prosecutor John Durham hooked up with another prosecutor. But I do care that Durham took a free trip to Italy with Attorney General Barr when Durham was SPECIFICALLY not supposed to be influenced by high ranking Republicans. Clearly I am crazy since maybe you and flerp! would be fine if the only thing Fani Willis had done was to take a free trip to Italy with Merrick Garland! As long as Fani didn’t have sex with Garland, the free trip together would be great!
I am positive that if Fani Willis had been hooking up with someone who was NOT on her team, the Republicans would make a case that it was improper and we’d be here criticizing her for being too careless and not understanding that the public suspects she shared information about the case with this non-prosecutor during pillow talk. Or maybe she talked in her sleep.
If you would have told me a year ago that a Democratic prosecutor would be crucified for having a consensual relationship with a prosecutor on the SAME TEAM, I would have said no way.
If you had told me that even Democrats legitimized a public crucifying of a Democratic prosecutor by multiple Republican defense attorneys given free reign to ask her all sorts of nasty, false innuendo-filled questions, because she had a temporary consensual relationship with another prosecutor on her team that was over many months ago, I would have said “what, are we in Putin’s Russia?”
I don’t understand how anyone thinks Scott McAfee is any different than Robert Hur. If you don’t see how coming to the “right” decision by totally smearing a Democrat who did not actually do anything unethical or criminal is NOT “fair and impartial”, then I don’t get why anyone is mad at Merrick Garland. Robert Hur isn’t prosecuting Biden. McAfee didn’t remove Fani. Nothing to see here, folks. All is normal.
LikeLike
An example of class: read Fani Willis’ letter accepting Nathan Wade’s resignation where she reminds us of the truth that got lost during this Republican-created scandal fest.
(FYI, remember this letter is to the man whom she stopped seeing romantically nearly a year ago.)
“I received your resignation letter dated March 15, 2024, and I accept it, effective immediately. I compliment you for the professionalism and dignity you have shown over the last 865 days, as you have endured threats against you and your family, as well as unjustified attacks in the media and in court on your reputation as a lawyer.
I will always remember – and will remind everyone – that you were brave enough to step forward and take on the investigation and prosecution of the allegations that the defendants in this case engaged in a conspiracy to overturn Georgia’s 2020 Presidential Election. Others who were considered were understandably concerned for the safety of themselves and their families that would arise from their acceptance of your role. You were the one who had the courage to accept the role, even though you did not seek it.
You are an outstanding advocate. In the 865 days you served on this case you completed a thorough investigation that required the use of a Special Purpose Grand Jury to compel the testimony of witnesses inside and outside of Georia, including litigating in eight states, the District of Columbia, and the United States Supreme Court to obtain critical testimony.
You led a team that secured a true bill of indictment against nineteen individuals who are accused of violating Georgia law to undermine the 2020 election for the former President of the United States. You have successfully litigated in the United States District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to ensure that Fulton County citizens will be the jurors who decide justice in this case.
Please accept my sincere gratitude on behalf of the citizens of Fulton County Georgia for your patriotism, courage, and dedication to justice…”
LikeLike
Good letter.
When you confront the Trump team, you have to expect threats, intimidation and mudslinging.
LikeLike
I have deleted most of the exchanges between two commenters about the relationship between Fani Willis and Nate Wade.
They are off-topic and repetitive.
LikeLike
NYCPSP,
Please do not comment on the Georgia trial unless you are responding to a post about it.
LikeLike