Trump Seeks Removal of Fani Willis from Georgia Case Amid Allegations

[jerrymahoney]

OPINION: Fani Willis’ descent from the accuser to the accused

 

By Patricia Murphy (journalist and editor who covers politics for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
7 hours ago

 

Willis may not technically be on trial, but her credibility is, as is her judgment, after she launched the most high-profile prosecution in Georgia history, against a former president no less, and then became romantically involved with the still-married man she hired to lead the case.

 

In her decision Thursday to take the stand in her own defense, even before McAfee ruled that she had to, Willis took herself from being the accuser to the unfamiliar role of being the accused. SKIP

 

By then, (September 2021) Willis had opened what she called a narrow investigation into former President Donald Trump for possible election interference. But she had not yet hired Wade to be a special prosecutor on the case, nor, by her telling Thursday, had they started their romantic relationship.

 

Why Willis and Wade would start that relationship, even as they pursued the famously ruthless former president and dug deeper into the case that was watched by millions may be one of life’s great mysteries.

 

The details that emerged on Thursday only made Willis’ private conduct more confounding. There was a trip to Belize with Wade. Wine pairings in Napa Valley. A cruise to the Caribbean. Lunches and dinners out. Who has that kind of time, let alone if you’re prosecuting a former president in the trial of the century? SKIP

 

As angry as Willis was this week, plenty of Georgia voters will likely be upset after watching the courtroom spectacle, too. But Willis was mad at the wrong people, since she has only herself to blame for opening the door that Trump’s lawyers are kicking in on her, her reputation, and her case against the president now. As a talented prosecutor herself, she should know that on that count at least, she’s guilty.

 

https://www.ajc.com/politics/opinion-fani-willis-sad-descent-from-the-accuser-to-the-accused/6ISD7GBFGFGHNMOJIDOGNOBY3M/

[jerrymahoney]

Anna Betts
Feb. 16, 2024, 4:37 p.m. ET21 minutes ago
21 minutes ago

Anna Betts
Judge Scott McAfee told the court that he would coordinate with all of the lawyers on the case to find a date for them to summarize their arguments, and and that he would follow up via email. As of now, the judge said that he was looking at either late next week or the following week, meaning that there will be no quick resolution to the attempt to disqualify the lead prosecutors.

 

“The state has admitted that a relationship existed,” Judge McAfee said earlier this week. “And so what remains to be proven is the existence and extent of any financial benefit — again, if there even was one.”

 

He said that even “the appearance of” a conflict could lead to disqualification.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/16/us/fani-willis-trump-hearing#conflict-of-interest-trump-georgia

Edited February 16 by jerrymahoney

[impulse]

5 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

“The state has admitted that a relationship existed,” Judge McAfee said earlier this week. “And so what remains to be proven is the existence and extent of any financial benefit — again, if there even was one.”

 

He said that even “the appearance of” a conflict could lead to disqualification.

 

In any other case, she'd have already been disqualified (or stepped down herself) and a new prosecutor assigned, just to avoid the taint.  Apparently, the way it works in Georgia is that her whole office would then be disqualified and the new prosecutor would have to start again.  Justice would be delayed, but certainly not denied.

 

But that doesn't fit the timetable for the 2024 election.  Proving on one more level that this is a political hit job.

 

[Yellowtail]

It was just white men attempting another high-tech lynching a strong, proud black woman!  

[candide]

11 hours ago, impulse said:

 

In any other case, she'd have already been disqualified (or stepped down herself) and a new prosecutor assigned, just to avoid the taint.  Apparently, the way it works in Georgia is that her whole office would then be disqualified and the new prosecutor would have to start again.  Justice would be delayed, but certainly not denied.

 

But that doesn't fit the timetable for the 2024 election.  Proving on one more level that this is a political hit job.

 

 

McAfee is a member of the Federalist Society, and has been appointed by Kemp, a Republican. 😀

[Danderman123]

39 minutes ago, candide said:

 

McAfee is a member of the Federalist Society, and has been appointed by Kemp, a Republican. 😀

And Fani Willis handed him a gift wrapped reason to remove her and the DA's office from the case.

[Tug]

On 2/14/2024 at 4:11 PM, jerrymahoney said:

Trump isn't the Prosecutor. And Trump doesn't have to testify at trial.

We know trump isent the prosecutor he’s the one accused of trying to steal the election another words he’s the traitor 

[candide]

4 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

And Fani Willis handed him a gift wrapped reason to remove her and the DA's office from the case.

And a nice gift! I wonder how two experienced lawyers did not see it coming.

[jerrymahoney]

5 hours ago, Tug said:

We know trump isent the prosecutor he’s the one accused of trying to steal the election another words he’s the traitor 

Do you make up these lines all by yourself or do you have a gag writer?

[jerrymahoney]

Different perspective:

 

The opponents of Ms. Willis reveling in the situation are not only political ones, but also the sort of enemies prosecutors rack up on the job, like Latasha Kendrick, the mother of Yak Gotti, one of the rappers charged in a racketeering case brought by Ms. Willis against the YSL, the rap record label prosecutors have characterized as a gang.

 

“She’s about to get a taste of her own medicine,” Ms. Kendrick said as she watched the hearing from the Atlanta courthouse. “She don’t look like the big bad wolf now.”

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/us/fani-willis-case-trump.html

[Yellowtail]

5 hours ago, candide said:

And a nice gift! I wonder how two experienced lawyers did not see it coming.

They saw it coming, that's why (at least Fani) attacked the questions rather than answer them. I thought Wade sounded a bit thick. 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

Different perspective:

 

The opponents of Ms. Willis reveling in the situation are not only political ones, but also the sort of enemies prosecutors rack up on the job, like Latasha Kendrick, the mother of Yak Gotti, one of the rappers charged in a racketeering case brought by Ms. Willis against the YSL, the rap record label prosecutors have characterized as a gang.

 

“She’s about to get a taste of her own medicine,” Ms. Kendrick said as she watched the hearing from the Atlanta courthouse. “She don’t look like the big bad wolf now.”

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/us/fani-willis-case-trump.html

And another different perspective, not behind a paywall:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/16/fani-willis-hearing-testimony-2020-georgia-election-case

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And another different perspective, not behind a paywall:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/16/fani-willis-hearing-testimony-2020-georgia-election-case

 

It all opens up the possibility of the judge disqualifying her for "appearance of impropiety".

[Chomper Higgot]

46 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

 

It all opens up the possibility of the judge disqualifying her for "appearance of impropiety".

It also provides no new evidence and no evidence that Willis committed perjury.

 

Witnesses against her failing to provide the testimony her nay sayers hoped for leaves only the allegation of an ‘appearance of impropriety’.

 

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It also provides no new evidence and no evidence that Willis committed perjury.

 

Witnesses against her failing to provide the testimony her nay sayers hoped for leaves only the allegation of an ‘appearance of impropriety’.

 

But clearly Wade lied in sworn statements, and Willis had a financial interest in the case. 

 

That should be enough to get them kicked off the case, but given the judge has to run for reelection, likely they will not. 

[Danderman123]

DA Fani Willis testified she paid cash during trips with top prosecutor. One winery host remembers her paying in paper bills

 

Willis used the money to pay for two bottles of wine – each valued at roughly $150 – and the $50 tasting, according to Stan Brody, who said he hosted Willis and a guest he later learned was Nathan Wade, at Acumen Wines in early 2023.

[jerrymahoney]

7 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

DA Fani Willis testified she paid cash during trips with top prosecutor. One winery host remembers her paying in paper bills

 

Willis used the money to pay for two bottles of wine – each valued at roughly $150 – and the $50 tasting, according to Stan Brody, who said he hosted Willis and a guest he later learned was Nathan Wade, at Acumen Wines in early 2023.

from the above CNN link:

 

“In a relationship, ma’am, you don’t – particularly men, we don’t go asking back for anything. So you’re not keeping a ledger of things that you pay for versus the thing that she’s paid for,” Wade said.

 

from ajc.com this morning:

 

Others say they still view the cash response as fishy and too convenient, given that there are no records of her paying Wade or him depositing the money. Gillen seized on that during his questioning of Wade. “You don’t have a single solitary deposit slip to corroborate or support any of your allegations that you were paid by Ms. Willis in cash, do you?” he asked. “No, sir,” Wade replied.

 

https://www.ajc.com/politics/analysis-the-testimony-that-could-shape-judges-decision-in-fani-willis-removal-fight/GBCBE7GYBRB5TI2IUGDSMWHCQY/

 

 

[Danderman123]

On 2/18/2024 at 1:00 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

It also provides no new evidence and no evidence that Willis committed perjury.

 

Witnesses against her failing to provide the testimony her nay sayers hoped for leaves only the allegation of an ‘appearance of impropriety’.

 

I agree that the witnesses were a major fail.

 

Still, the low threshold for disqualification is the problem.

[Chomper Higgot]

14 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

from the above CNN link:

 

“In a relationship, ma’am, you don’t – particularly men, we don’t go asking back for anything. So you’re not keeping a ledger of things that you pay for versus the thing that she’s paid for,” Wade said.

 

from ajc.com this morning:

 

Others say they still view the cash response as fishy and too convenient, given that there are no records of her paying Wade or him depositing the money. Gillen seized on that during his questioning of Wade. “You don’t have a single solitary deposit slip to corroborate or support any of your allegations that you were paid by Ms. Willis in cash, do you?” he asked. “No, sir,” Wade replied.

 

https://www.ajc.com/politics/analysis-the-testimony-that-could-shape-judges-decision-in-fani-willis-removal-fight/GBCBE7GYBRB5TI2IUGDSMWHCQY/

 

 

The innocent need to prove they are innocent already?

 

[Danderman123]

14 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

from the above CNN link:

 

“In a relationship, ma’am, you don’t – particularly men, we don’t go asking back for anything. So you’re not keeping a ledger of things that you pay for versus the thing that she’s paid for,” Wade said.

 

from ajc.com this morning:

 

Others say they still view the cash response as fishy and too convenient, given that there are no records of her paying Wade or him depositing the money. Gillen seized on that during his questioning of Wade. “You don’t have a single solitary deposit slip to corroborate or support any of your allegations that you were paid by Ms. Willis in cash, do you?” he asked. “No, sir,” Wade replied.

 

https://www.ajc.com/politics/analysis-the-testimony-that-could-shape-judges-decision-in-fani-willis-removal-fight/GBCBE7GYBRB5TI2IUGDSMWHCQY/

 

 

The defense's reasoning is that Fani Willis concocted the indictments against 18 people so she could get $5,000 in free trips.

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

The defense's reasoning is that Fani Willis concocted the indictments against 18 people so she could get $5,000 in free trips.

 

Do you have anything that supports your claim? I think you are making it up.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Do you have anything that supports your claim? I think you are making it up.

 

 

It’s the accusers that need to come up with evidence, witnesses willing to take the stand and corroborate the accusations even.

[Danderman123]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Do you have anything that supports your claim? I think you are making it up.

 

 

$5,000 is approximately the cash that Nathan Wade laid out for the trips.

 

Trump's people claim this is sufficient to warrant disqualification of Ms. Willis, due to conflict of interest, ie she hired Wade so she could get free trips.

 

Otherwise, there is no possible conflict of interest.

 

This has been explained repeatedly here. You don't seem to be keeping up on current events.

 

Ms. Willis' response is that she paid expenses for Mr. Wade with cash.

 

 

[Yellowtail]

5 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

$5,000 is approximately the cash that Nathan Wade laid out for the trips.

 

Trump's people claim this is sufficient to warrant disqualification of Ms. Willis, due to conflict of interest, ie she hired Wade so she could get free trips.

 

Otherwise, there is no possible conflict of interest.

 

This has been explained repeatedly here. You don't seem to be keeping up on current events.

 

Ms. Willis' response is that she paid expenses for Mr. Wade with cash.

 

 

So, you made it up, I thought so. 

 

You have nothing that supports your claim that "Trump's people claim this is sufficient to warrant disqualification of Ms. Willis, due to conflict of interest, ie she hired Wade so she could get free trips."

 

As always, you make stuff up, and then state it as fact. 

[Yellowtail]

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s the accusers that need to come up with evidence, witnesses willing to take the stand and corroborate the accusations even.

 

She had a romantic relationship with someone that she hired to work on the case, so she has a financial interest in how the case is prosecuted. 

[Danderman123]

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

She had a romantic relationship with someone that she hired to work on the case, so she has a financial interest in how the case is prosecuted. 

 

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, you made it up, I thought so. 

 

You have nothing that supports your claim that "Trump's people claim this is sufficient to warrant disqualification of Ms. Willis, due to conflict of interest, ie she hired Wade so she could get free trips."

 

As always, you make stuff up, and then state it as fact. 

 

You two can figure this out between you.

[Danderman123]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

She had a romantic relationship with someone that she hired to work on the case, so she has a financial interest in how the case is prosecuted. 

What if she didn't have a romantic interest, but Mr. Wade paid for dinner, and she repaid him in cash?

[Danderman123]

The testimony is over, and it was weak sauce.

 

The judge may ding Ms. Willis on the "appearance of impropriety", but nothing was proven, except that Trump has bad lawyers.

 

The best outcome would be to direct this case to the state Bar, and move on with the Trump litigation. It would be bad public policy for defendants to evade prosecution by digging up dirt on individuals working for the prosecution. Or dirt on the judge.

Edited February 28 by Danderman123

[Danderman123]

This Article Buries the Lede, But ..

 

Deep in the story, a law professor reveals the Georgia Constitution's requirement for disqualification:

 

"It means that Willis could only be disqualified if an actual conflict of interest violates the due process rights of criminal defendants."

 

Not the "appearance of impropriety" that the judge has mentioned.