ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Since a grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, handed up an indictment in August of former President Donald Trump and 18 other defendants for their efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia, all eyes had been on the defendants’ behavior and their legal fate. That was until an explosive filing by one of the defendants, Mike Roman, alleged that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis had engaged in a kickback scheme through a romantic relationship she had with an outside prosecutor Willis had hired to participate in the case, Nathan Wade. Roman asked the presiding judge, Scott McAfee, to disqualify Willis and her office from the election case. Willis and Wade have since acknowledged their relationship but claim that Willis did not financially benefit from it.Last week, Judge McAfee held a two-day evidentiary hearing to determine whether Willis and Wade’s relationship presented a conflict of interest, requiring the removal of Willis and her office from the case. Lawfare Research Fellow Matt Gluck discussed the hearing and what’s likely to happen next with Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare Legal Fellow and Courts Correspondent Anna Bower, and Georgia trial and appellate lawyer and Fulton County court watcher Andrew Fleischman.
1:01:24 This is a nonsensical argument: That if the judge is having to make a credibility determination as to whether the DA and prosecuting attorney are telling the truth, that hangs a pall over the case.
If that is the standard, that all a defense attorney has to do is make a motion that requires the DA and prosecuting attorney to file affidavits. Bam! The judge now has to make a determination as to the credibility of the statements in those affidavits, and thus the entire case must be thrown out because it "hangs a pall over the case".
I guess it's not surprising that a defense attorney would think that is a reasonable stance.
But it's not a reasonable argument. It's madness.
Wait… how the hell does “lawfare” have a fellowship program? Lol
@13:00 thru @14:48: either there is major confusion here or blatant dishonesty. Ms. Yerti’s only answers to trumps attorney was “yes” & “kissing, hugging, ya know, just affection.” The only part of her testimony that was close to what is claimed on this podcast during the times indicated above is when the defense cross examined, and the question asked was “you testified that Willis told you during and before 2022 and 2021. can you tell me the very first time ms. Willis told you about her romantic relationship with Mr. Wade?” To which ms. Yerti replied “ I mean I don’t have a day or exact month but it was early on and we talked a lot.”
This lay person can not get an answer to my 1st question which is how does Anything about this relationship, proper or improper, have Anything to do w/the propriety of the charge against these defendants. I don't understand how this even got to 1st base. If the accusation is that defendant was charged so that Fani would have a case to milk, we know that's absurd on its face. Everyone knows that the grand jury voted to charge 39 criminals. But Fani said "Whoa let's dial that back to something more manageable and likely to succeed" (& likely to conclude in a relevant timeframe) instead of leaping at that opportunity. If she wanted a case that would never end all she had to do was charge that weasel L Graham . 2nd, if the accusation is that Fani's whole "benefit/kickback" from the hiring is a free vacation or 2, well to this layman, that's clownish/absurd. A corrupt arrangement would be if Fani was taking 10% off the top & under the table of Wades salary. But even if that was true, What would it have to do w/the case against the defendant?? That would be business for the Bar and the Atty General after the trial of these criminals. 3. It's either true or false that Wade was not Fani's 1st choice for the job or even her 2nd choice
The defendants' lawyers' theory of the crime is that Willis hired her boyfriend Wade under a scheme where the pre- and post-indictment work would be drawn-out so that the hours billed by Wade could be padded to a larger amount. Wade would then funnel the money back to Willis by taking Willis on "vacations". Willis would therefore be personally profiting from the prosecution, which under Georgia case law is grounds for disqualification.
It's a very tortured argument. This judge allowed the argument to be entertained far enough to hold an evidentiary hearing. One possibility is that the judge is either favorable to Trump, or very inexperienced - either way, under this possibility, the judge is allowing the argument "to go farther than it should" and might lead to a unfavorable (for the public) ruling. Another possibility is that the judge is simply making sure to collect all of the evidence that the defendants have to enter, so that when the judge writes the ruling denying the motion, that the chances of a successful appeal of the ruling are more limited.
The entire thing is disgusting an abvious ruse by the dumpsterfire. When u consider the hours Fani works and her income wth??!! I actually as a non lawyer i would say its abusive. We need major law reform, bring the laws current.
Holly shite this gal is pullin for fani hard! Wow. I know this podcast doesn’t claim impartiality but people do come here for a breakdown of information that is full of legal nuance and difficult to keep up with, so there should be some duty to be honest and complete … Best is her telling the guest Andrew , who’s been an attorney in GA for 20 yrs, how Georgia handles attorney hiring and billing hahaha. Talk about credibility issues…