Georgia starts investigation into Trump's election interference

The judge was my source. I kinda am going with what he said.

 

conflict of interest <> impropriety

 

He didn't say conflict of interest, he said conflict and later clarified conflict in the evidence.


The hearing is to determine was there a relationship, was it romantic, when it started and ended.

The defense has produced a long time friend and roommate that said the Fani was banging Wade since 2019. This conflicts with Fanis testimony and sinks her.

 

It still boils down to a conflict of interest. ‘He said, she said’ is not direct or strong evidence. We’ll see how the judge rules.

 

Not that concerned with who is the acting prosecutor. She wasnt good the other day. I'm just ready for the prosecution to get it to trial.

Willis is a separate issue and a distraction.

 

This dumb ****ing b****.

 

So Clarence Thomas can take bribes but Fani can’t go on a date where they split the check?

DD

 

you said that already

 

I listened to the latest lawfare podcast on Trump's trials, and they covered this, of course. As I said before, the strong opposing view on how Willis did caught my interest. The view from this podcast, among the lawyers, is, and I simplifiy: Wade did a bad job, wasn't credible. Willis did a good job and was credible. There you go - weird, but not weird that we can have such strong and differing opinions. As for the case itself, they didn't think there was enough evidence to disqualify her. They do think it's a political issue and that she should replace Wade.

@justtxyank @KingCheetah @rocketsjudoka

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/articl...rials-and-tribulations-a-wild-and-woolly-week

 

I think it's 50/50 considering she is the freaking DA and the judge will have to work with her for years.

Wade lied, his divorce affidavits directly contradict his testimony here. Her father was prepped despite a sequestration order and his testimony was basically stricken. There is direct proof Wade bought her tickets (receipts with her name on them) no receipts of her supposed reimbursement. No withdrawal from her, no cash app, no deposit on his side.

The evidence is overwhelming but this is the state investigating itself and being the DA in the justice system has it's perks.

 

Can you give us a quick tldr on a few of their major points why they came to that conclusion? Perhaps it will play well to her base for the upcoming election that's really the only positive I can come up with and that isn't relevant. I still can't believe the judge let her rant so much -- I imagine that's only because she's the DA. It definitely has been pretty evenly split in the media with CNN/ MSNBC praising the performance and Fox blasting it, but that was expected. Perhaps some of our attorneys/ prosecutors on the board can give us some additional insight.

 

That is an excellent basis for the state bar of Georgia pursuing an ethics investigation. Or the state of Georgia investigating her for self enrichment or kickbacks.

Explain - in what way is that relevant to the prosecution of the case against Trump. What, is the theory that there are no facts to support the charges against Trump, but she went forward to pursue a kickback scheme and to enrich her boyfriend?

Please explain, what do you do with Republicans argument that she campaigned on the promise to prosecute Trump, long long before any of this stupidity ever occurred? What do you do with the fact that she actually preferred to hire the former governor to prosecute, but he declined? It was an elaborate head fake to cover her tracks?

 

Stop defending this trash because they are part your team. The fact is this type of behavior is constantly reiterated to people in government and power. Do not get involved in anything that resembles a bribe. This illustrates they thought they were above the rules. This has nothing to do with your antidotal experiences.

 

Roy Barnes was far more qualified than Wade and Fani combined so she probably wanted someone to do the work. Roy Barnes interesting said he had successfully had DA's disqualified before. Blatantly lying to the court as a DA is probably a bad look moving forward in the case.

 

I asked AI (ChatGPT 3.5 API), and here are the summaries:

• The lawyers in the podcast believe that Nathan Wade did a bad job and wasn't credible due to inconsistencies in his testimony, especially regarding his divorce interrogatories that were found to be untrue.
• On the other hand, Fannie Willis was considered credible and did a good job, as she provided explanations for her actions, such as reimbursing Wade in cash, and her father's influence on her financial habits.
• Wade's lack of candor in his divorce proceedings and his explicit responses during the hearing also contributed to the perception that he was not wholly candid, further undermining his credibility.

As related to the case, law, and potential ruling:

• Financial Relationship as Key: The key issue in the Fulton County case seems to revolve around the financial relationship between Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade. The defense is arguing that this financial connection could potentially create a conflict of interest, especially if it incentivizes Willis to pursue certain outcomes in the case.
  
  
• Legal Standards for Conflict of Interest: The discussion around the legal standards for conflict of interest in this case highlights the importance of determining whether there is an actual conflict or just an appearance of impropriety. Judge McAfee will need to assess the evidence presented to determine if there is a genuine conflict that could impact the fairness of the proceedings.
  
  
• Importance of Credibility: The credibility of the witnesses, particularly Nathan Wade, becomes a crucial factor in determining the existence of a conflict of interest. Wade's testimony in his divorce proceedings, where he provided inaccurate information, raises questions about his overall credibility and honesty, which could impact the case's outcome.
  
  
• Public Perception and Prosecutorial Integrity: The discussion also touches on the broader implications of the case, including public perception and the integrity of the prosecution. Even if there is no clear legal violation, the optics of a prosecutor involved in a questionable financial relationship could raise concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the legal process.
  
  
• Appeal Possibilities: The potential for an appeal if Judge McAfee decides not to disqualify Fannie Willis underscores the complex legal procedures involved in addressing conflicts of interest. The process of seeking a certificate of review for pre-trial appeals adds another layer of legal complexity to the case.
  
  
• Ethical Considerations: The case raises ethical considerations regarding the conduct of prosecutors and the need for transparency and integrity in legal proceedings. The focus on financial relationships and potential conflicts of interest highlights the importance of upholding ethical standards in the legal profession.
• 
  
• The standard in Georgia for a ruling is whether there is a personal or financial conflict of interest as it relates to the conviction. The case law in Georgia focuses on whether a prosecutor had a benefit or interest in the conviction, rather than the nature of the relationship itself. The key factor is whether there is a financial relationship that could potentially influence the prosecution's decisions. This financial relationship could create an incentive for the prosecutor to pursue certain outcomes in the case. The ruling would be based on whether this financial relationship poses a conflict of interest in the prosecution.

 

Pretty hilarious that the two issues in the world that animate so-called independent free thinkers like Space Ghost the most are:

-Making a case for the West to abandon Ukraine on behalf of Putin
-The sex life of a prosecutor in Georgia who just so happens to be bringing charge against Trump for attempting to overturn an election

 

the bad look is a given. It’s also a given that Fani and Wade are screw ups and probably have state bar ethics investigations coming. The operative question is whether there is a legal basis for disqualifying them in this case. The two are not the same.

I just don’t see a legal basis for booting them off the case.

 

Based on what the judge said at the opening of the hearing it certainly seems there is a legal basis. The fact this is even a hearing it seems that way.

Remember Trumps lawyers didn't jump in on this until it started to look like it would work.

I don't see anyone except you saying there will be a bar complaint. I have seen people talk about the IRS for the cash issue, Wade not reporting cash payments but reporting the expenses. I have also seen any gift over $100 needs to be reported but that's a DA policy, not bar I believe.