1. What did you think about Fani Willis' demeanor on the stand?
Fani Willis: "I probably had some choice words about some of the things that you said that were dishonest within this motion. I don't know that it was a conversation, as you know, Mr. Wade is a southern gentleman, me not so much." @Acyn pic.twitter.com/SDiwAD6GRs
— The Intellectualist (@highbrow_nobrow) February 15, 2024
2. What, if anything, should the Court order as a result of her affair with special prosecutor Nathan Wade?
Nathan Wade admits to having had sexual relations with Fani Willis while trying Trump in court. WATCH pic.twitter.com/UyttJzGA0F
— Simon Ateba (@simonateba) February 15, 2024
3. If Trump wasn't the defendant, would you answer to #2 be different?
19 comments:
I'll admit that I have not followed this drama closely, so I may be missing important details. But I don't see what the issue is or what it has to do with the case. Two lawyers in the same office, working on a stressful case together, on the same side, had an affair - I'm shocked, shocked mind you.
Now, if she was having an affair with someone on the defense side, or with a witness, that might be different.
Even if she was using office money to fund the affair, that would be a problem from an HR perspective, but that still has nothing to do with the case.
This seems like a red herring. But maybe someone can explain it differently.
Did not watch it, but she should be disqualified because by hiring her boyfriend and paying him 650k so far on a contract, she benefits personally financially by the prosecution continuing. Furthermore as he has no relevant experience (apparently a misdemeanor prosecutor for one year) it is perfectly obvious he would not have been hired but for the relationship. Does not mean the case goes away, and other prosecutors should be able to continue on it, but she should not be able to supervise them or participate due to the conflict. And no my answer would not be different if it was not Trump, I hate Trump and think if he becomes president again American democracy will not survive.
Prosecutors sleeping with other prosecutors? Shocking!
Good cross but I don't see grounds for removing the prosecutor.
Enjoying your blog but really wondering about the future of our profession. I’m starting to feel like if OJ had been a Republican these folks would have said he didn’t deserve a lawyer. How do defense lawyers that comment on the blog completely lose sight of the fact that the lead prosecutors are unethical and admitted liars? Do they actually think she has been perfectly ethical on all her other cases?? And by the way, her testimony—demeanor and language both in a courtroom, not her living room—this is a law school graduate?
The answer to your question #3 is now pretty evident based on the general comments. 10:54 is right at least. And remember, people around here thought the prosecutor in the below article deserved a harsher sentence. Willis at a minimum should be removed from this case and really should be prosecuted. She’s just like the prosecutor below.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/former-us-prosecutor-sentenced-probation-ethics-violation-florida-2023-07-26/
Dear 10:54 AM:
Do you think that prosecutors are some bastion of integrity? Nonsense. Some prosecutors are good, honest folk. Others are lying dirtbags who do anything to win. Often they are time-serving careerists who rack up trial wins by shooting fish in a barrel. Always they are human beings, subject to all the faults humans have.
I guess the problem is this: The folks like 1054 and 1208 are conflating administrative wrongdoing with a miscarriage of justice for the defendant.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that all of the allegations about Fani Willis are true - how does that prejudice the defendant? Did they withhold evidence? Did they violate any of the defendant's rights?
939am seems to have it on point. If she did the things that she is accused of, she should be replaced and the case should continue.
That’s what the Motion is. It’s not a Motion to Dismiss, it’s a Motion to Disqualify. But, “for the sake of argument” if she personally gains—as she has financially—because of a prosecution she brought, of course it affects the defendant’s rights. She has a motivation and an interest in the outcome OTHER THAN justice.
So we should let them get away with it?? Under your theory, the cops are always right too and we shouldn’t even have defense attorneys. God help any of your clients. Good thing you’re anonymous.
9:39, I would agree about a financial-gain motive if the two were married. But it is beyond speculative if they are not at least living together that they share money. Also, if the prosecution selected its investigator for other reasons than ability, wouldn't a competent lawyer keep quiet about it until the trial was over instead of filing a motion so a better one might get assigned?
This TAM TAM place near the courthouse looks good and just got picked up by the Michelin Guide. Hidden karaoke in the bathroom? Way better than Sally Russell's!
Beyond speculative?? Did you hear or read any of the evidence? Among other things, “Willis personally profited from the case, paying Wade more than $650,000 for his work and then benefiting when Wade used his earnings to pay for vacations the pair took together.”
DQ. Not a close call. She paid a guy under a contract where he makes more if he makes a case. Less if not. She benefitted from the contract (the cash payment thing is bullshit. If she was being that careful would have gotten receipts). She is lying, and then tried to accuse people of being racist for calling her out. F her and take her off the case. Let some fresh prosecutor come out Trump in jail where he belongs and give the asshole republicans one less thing to complain about.
We've all seen this play before. Smug, arrogant, incompetent, dishonest. Then play the race card.
I think Fani Williams was a bad witness. She was defensive and angry. (Her decision to testify and how she testified does not reflect well on her judgment and abilities). Also, I don't believe her cash reimbursement story. It is not uncommon to be in a relationship where both sides pay their way, but I've never known of one where one pays the expenses and the other reimburses in cash every time. It is more common to have a "you paid the last time, I will pay this time" arrangement where both sides are equal earners. What she says is not credible, and his claim that he never deposited the cash one time also strikes me as odd.
Trump's guilt is separate from what the prosecutors do. I'm sure when they were __ and spending time together it didn't seem wrong to them, though Monday Morning Quarterbacks can pick apart everything.
Her tone... it was personal and emotional for her...a spectacle taking attention away from the real CROOK.
Let the prosecution proceed. Lord knows the DEFENDANT has done much worse!
If she was white...like Marcia Clark would it have ever been raised?
5:09 seriously? Motivation and interest other than justice? That red hat is affecting your brain.
Post a Comment