Co-defendant Michael Roman requests DA be stood down over claims of improper romantic relationship with special prosecutor

 

The Georgia judge overseeing the racketeering case charging Donald Trump and allies with attempting to overturn the 2020 election results in the state has scheduled a hearing for February to weigh whether the Fulton county district attorney should be disqualified from prosecuting the charges.

 

In a one-page order, the Fulton county superior judge Scott McAfee set an evidentiary hearing for 15 February to address allegations raised by Trump’s co-defendant Michael Roman that the district attorney Fani Willis had an improper romantic relationship with one of her prosecutors.

 

The judge also ordered the district attorney to file a response to the allegations by 2 February. Earlier this week, Willis’s office had privately told at least two lawyers involved in the case that they intended to submit their written response by that date, people familiar with the matter said.

 

The [Trump] case is unlikely to be dismissed outright even if the allegations are proven true. But that could result in the disqualification of Willis, which, under Georgia caselaw, would necessitate the disqualification of the entire Fulton county district attorney’s office, as well.

 

(more)

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/18/fani-willis-misconduct-hearing-nathan-wade-relationship-trump-georgia

 

 

 

From the article:

 

”The filing included no proof of the allegations.”

OK. So she was banging a married guy. Threw him a lucrative job contract which he was really not qualified to do. He made more than half a million bucks. Took her on trips etc.  Nothing to see here..... 

9 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

OK. So she was banging a married guy. Threw him a lucrative job contract which he was really not qualified to do. He made more than half a million bucks. Took her on trips etc.  Nothing to see here..... 

And now she's playing the race card:

Fani Willis breaks silence on misconduct accusations  | The Hill

On 1/19/2024 at 11:48 AM, Hanaguma said:

OK. So she was banging a married guy. Threw him a lucrative job contract which he was really not qualified to do. He made more than half a million bucks. Took her on trips etc.  Nothing to see here..... 

He was separated when they allegedly hooked up.

 

He's got a reasonable resume for the job, and she broke no laws hiring him. 

 

So far, it's distasteful, but not a showstopper.

18 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

He was separated when they allegedly hooked up.

 

He's got a reasonable resume for the job, and she broke no laws hiring him. 

 

So far, it's distasteful, but not a showstopper.

She was the beneficiary of the people's money that she arranged to pay him.

 

Big showstopper. 

 

Not only that, it goes to her ethics, and what other ethical tenets she'd be willing to cast aside. Clouds every case she's ever been involved in.

On 1/19/2024 at 6:21 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

From the article:

 

”The filing included no proof of the allegations.”

Wait, wait

6 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Wait, wait

Seems like the guy's ex is playing the role of a woman scorned, and is bringing the receipts.

Literally...

Nice thing about being a public official is being able to hire your friends, what's the bid deal. 

On 1/19/2024 at 9:48 PM, Hanaguma said:

OK. So she was banging a married guy. Threw him a lucrative job contract which he was really not qualified to do. He made more than half a million bucks. Took her on trips etc.  Nothing to see here..... 

Here’s a couple of known facts.

 

The ‘guy’ was qualified and has demonstrated his abilities by securing indictments against 18 individuals, 4 of whom have confessed their crimes and are now cooperating witnesses against the other 14.

 

If you or anyone else has any evidence that the alleged relationship between Willis and Wade has infringed the rights of the defendants or corrupted any evidence or testimony against the defendants, send it to the judge.

 

Post it here too, I could do with a laugh.

 

 

6 hours ago, impulse said:

She was the beneficiary of the people's money that she arranged to pay him.

 

Big showstopper. 

 

Not only that, it goes to her ethics, and what other ethical tenets she'd be willing to cast aside. Clouds every case she's ever been involved in.

"Not only that, it goes to her ethics, and what other ethical tenets she'd be willing to cast aside. Clouds every case she's ever been involved in."

Way over the top.

 

Stupid behaviour on her part, whether true or not, that puts this trial in jeopardy.

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

"Not only that, it goes to her ethics, and what other ethical tenets she'd be willing to cast aside. Clouds every case she's ever been involved in."

Way over the top.

 

Stupid behaviour on her part, whether true or not, that puts this trial in jeopardy.

How so?

 

The only consideration is her conduct of the investigation.

Fani Willis ally pushes for election interference case prosecutor to step aside
BY FILIP TIMOTIJA - 01/20/24 9:57 PM ET

 

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s (D) ally, who served as special counsel in the first impeachment of former President Trump, said that it would be a “wise thing” for prosecutor Nathan Wade to step aside in the Georgia election interference case considering the allegations that Willis hired him while they had a romantic affair. 

 

Norm Eisen, who was House of Representatives special counsel during Trump’s impeachment, said that the Georgia law does not require Wade to remove himself from the case, but that it would be a wise thing to consider.

 

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4420019-fani-willis-ally-pushes-election-interference-case-prosecutor-step-aside/

16 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Fani Willis ally pushes for election interference case prosecutor to step aside
BY FILIP TIMOTIJA - 01/20/24 9:57 PM ET

 

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s (D) ally, who served as special counsel in the first impeachment of former President Trump, said that it would be a “wise thing” for prosecutor Nathan Wade to step aside in the Georgia election interference case considering the allegations that Willis hired him while they had a romantic affair. 

 

Norm Eisen, who was House of Representatives special counsel during Trump’s impeachment, said that the Georgia law does not require Wade to remove himself from the case, but that it would be a wise thing to consider.

 

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4420019-fani-willis-ally-pushes-election-interference-case-prosecutor-step-aside/

There are two clear takeaways from this:

1 she shouldn't have appointed him

2 it doesn't take the case

21 minutes ago, placeholder said:

There are two clear takeaways from this:

1 she shouldn't have appointed him

2 it doesn't take the case

Agreed. Nothing so far seems that it would affect the overall case. This stuff as in the NY Times today, might.

 

7 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Agreed. Nothing so far seems that it would affect the overall case. This stuff as in the NY Times today, might.

 

I look forward to the plantif arguing with a straight face that others should not spend their wages as they so wish.

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I look forward to the plantif arguing with a straight face that others should not spend their wages as they do wish.

The defendant filed a motion. He is not the plaintiff. and I would say the county commissioner is more a risk to the case than any of the defendants.

7 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

The defendant filed a motion. He is not the plaintiff. and I would say the county commissioner is more a risk to the case than any of the defendants.

So do you want to address the matter of others spending their wages as they see fit?

 

Or do you prefer to stick to the semantics of legal jargon?

Updated Jan 9, 2024

 

The motion said the checks sent to Wade from Fulton County and his subsequent purchase of vacations for Willis could amount to honest services fraud, a federal crime in which a vendor gives kickbacks to an employer. It is also possible this could be prosecuted under the federal racketeering statute, the motion said

...

 

Willis and Wade, the motion contends, “have been engaged in an improper, clandestine personal relationship during the pendency of this case, which has resulted in the special prosecutor, and, in turn, the district attorney, profiting significantly from this prosecution at the expense of the taxpayers.”

 

https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-filing-alleges-improper-relationship-between-fulton-da-top-trump-prosecutor

9 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

He was separated when they allegedly hooked up.

 

He's got a reasonable resume for the job, and she broke no laws hiring him. 

 

So far, it's distasteful, but not a showstopper.

Separated means still married.  So, it is an adulterous relationship. Something a public official should avoid.

 

The scorned wife is now putting up evidence of her husband buying flight and vacation tickets for himself and Fanni, and is subpoening her (Fanni) for the divorce proceedings.

 

This isnt looking good at all. 

3 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Separated means still married.  So, it is an adulterous relationship. Something a public official should avoid.

 

The scorned wife is now putting up evidence of her husband buying flight and vacation tickets for himself and Fanni, and is subpoening her (Fanni) for the divorce proceedings.

 

This isnt looking good at all. 

I think the lead prosecutor will have to go.

6 hours ago, stevenl said:

"Not only that, it goes to her ethics, and what other ethical tenets she'd be willing to cast aside. Clouds every case she's ever been involved in."

Way over the top.

 

Stupid behaviour on her part, whether true or not, that puts this trial in jeopardy.

Why would her personal life put the trial in jeopardy?there is ample evidence to convict trump over the top evidence no brainer evidence guilty dog standing in the middle of the evidence video evidence recording evidence confession by lackey evidence trumps a naughty boy and deserves punishment lock him up!

13 hours ago, impulse said:

She was the beneficiary of the people's money that she arranged to pay him.

 

Big showstopper. 

 

Not only that, it goes to her ethics, and what other ethical tenets she'd be willing to cast aside. Clouds every case she's ever been involved in.

How about the ethics of Donald Trump?

17 minutes ago, billd766 said:

How about the ethics of Donald Trump?

Trump is not a government employee.

There was likely no criminal intent, but it seems there's technically a conflict of interest. Not very smart from two experienced lawyers. 

 

Having said that, I don't remember the MAGA fans, who are currently outraged about it, being scandalized when trumpbappointed his family members at the W.H.

53 minutes ago, Tug said:

Why would her personal life put the trial in jeopardy?there is ample evidence to convict trump over the top evidence no brainer evidence guilty dog standing in the middle of the evidence video evidence recording evidence confession by lackey evidence trumps a naughty boy and deserves punishment lock him up!

Not her personal life, but possibly unethical behaviour as DA.

1 hour ago, candide said:

There was likely no criminal intent, but it seems there's technically a conflict of interest. Not very smart from two experienced lawyers.

Hiring someone your banging is "technically" a conflict of intrest?  

1 hour ago, candide said:

 

Having said that, I don't remember the MAGA fans, who are currently outraged about it, being scandalized when trumpbappointed his family members at the W.H.

 

I don't remember that being a secret, you? 

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Hiring someone your banging is "technically" a conflict of intrest?  

 

It's not clear when the relationship started.

 

What is likely to happen:

 

The boyfriend has to go.

 

The trial will go on, but Trump will talk about this 24 hours a day.

 

The jury won't care and will vote to convict Trump.

 

Trump will use the relationship in his appeal, which will go nowhere.

 

 

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

It's not clear when the relationship started.

 

What is likely to happen:

 

The boyfriend has to go.

 

The trial will go on, but Trump will talk about this 24 hours a day.

 

The jury won't care and will vote to convict Trump.

 

Trump will use the relationship in his appeal, which will go nowhere.

 

 

A reasonable scenario as long as there are no criminal charges filed against Ms. Willis.

 

As posted earlier:

 

The motion said the checks sent to Wade from Fulton County and his subsequent purchase of vacations for Willis could amount to honest services fraud, a federal crime in which a vendor gives kickbacks to an employer. It is also possible this could be prosecuted under the federal racketeering statute, the motion said

3 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

It's not clear when the relationship started.

The filing alleges that Willis and Wade have been involved in a romantic relationship that began before Wade was appointed special prosecutor:

 

Sources close to both the special prosecutor and the district attorney have confirmed they had an ongoing, personal relationship during the pendency of the special prosecutor’s divorce proceedings.

 

According to these sources, the personal relationship between the district attorney and the special prosecutor began before this  prosecution was initiated and before the district attorney appointed the special prosecutor.