The ruling by Judge Scott McAfee of Fulton Superior Court cut a middle path between removing Ms. Willis for a conflict of interest, which defense lawyers had sought, and her full vindication, with the judge sharply criticizing her behavior....
Judge McAfee said that no “disqualification of a constitutional officer necessary when a less drastic and sufficiently remedial option is available.”... Either “the District Attorney may choose to step aside, along with the whole of her office” or “Wade can withdraw” allowing the case to proceed without further distraction....
Mr. Trump and his co-defendants could appeal the judge’s ruling, as could Ms. Willis, further delaying the proceedings and leaving the matter unresolved indefinitely. ...
ADDED: Here's the text of the opinion.
It says that Willis's testimony about reimbursing Wade for the vacations was "unusual" and "understandably concerning" but "not so incredible as to be inherently unbelievable." So there wasn't enough evidence to find that she'd received "a material financial benefit" from hiring Wade. And "much more important," the Court didn't think that possible financial gain was her motivation. She "was not financially destitute." So there was no "actual conflict" of interest.
But the court found that Willis showed "tremendous lapse in judgment" and her testimony was "unprofessional" and suggested that might be dealt with by the State Ethics Commission or the State Bar.
The court went on to find an "appearance of impropriety" in Willis's supervision of Wade after he'd become her romanic partner and in her allowing "the regular and loose exchange of money between them without any exact or verifiable measure of reconciliation." People might wonder if "the romantic relationship has resumed." "As long as Wade remains on the case," the court wrote, people may still reasonably think that Willis is not following "her independent professional judgment."
The court could not find that the Willis/Wade relationship began before she hired him because Terrance Bradley's testimony was so weak. And Robin Yearti's testimony "lacked context and detail." But there was "an odor of mendacity" to Willis and Wade's testimony — and that is part of the "appearance of impropriety."
The court found Willis's "church speech" "legally improper" but not the point where it "denied the opportunity for a fundamentally fair trial" or required Willis's disqualification.
UPDATE: Nathan Wade has resigned.
পোস্টগুলি
১৪৮টি মন্তব্য:
Obviously the Georgia legal eagles look out for each other, no matter how grievous the offenses.
i guess is GOOD to have a Judge, that used to work for you? and contribute to your election?
it's ALL incest
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/15/us/elections/scott-mcafee-trump-judge.html
Judge on Trump Case Once Worked Under Fani Willis
Scott F. McAfee, a recently appointed Fulton County Superior Court judge who was once supervised by the district attorney overseeing the case.
welcome to Georgia! where EVERYONE is in bed, with EVERYONE else
And Trump wins by humiliating yet another attacker and by pushing the case back to the point of irrelevance.
Will the person who leaves have to pay back all the money they received?
I knew this would be the case.
Leftist corruption is allowed.
"middle way"
The middle way is killing the country. The judge - a political donor of Willis - has cut a swath to a decision that also conveniently preserves his career. Willis will also be re-elected. Watch. Malfeasance is a small price to pay for the weaponizing of offices necessary to attack opponents.
We're still not voting our way out of this.
What a fucking coward. This is clearly the judge trying to pitch this to someone higher.
"Could appeal?" I'm guessing it's a certainty.
Pussy leftist judge.
Fani is a greedy fraud. clean your corrupt house- leftists. or you are a joke.
oh that's right - you care not at all that you are a collective corrupt joke.
The left, like low level crook Fani - only care about the benjamins. cash.
Why would he not appeal here, I wonder.
Weak. Obvious perjury by both Willis and Wade was committed.
Proving once again that Obama's fundamental transformation of America into a Banana Republic is working. Enjoy the division and hate brought to you by the Progressive takeover.
It's okay to lie under oath now!!!
This is a decision that Solomon himself would be proud of. It preserves the status quo in so many ways.
- Trial continues, democrats and leftists appeased
- Trial will be appealed and likely delayed, everyone appeased...can kicking should be America's actual pastime
- Fani survives...for now, Fani and black vote appeased
- Fani now has microscope on her, Georgia State republicans appeased
- Legal troubles continue possibly beyond Trump victory, democrats and leftists appeased
- Judge vacates several legal pillars of case two days ago and Wade must leave, Trump appeased
- The lawfare at the heart of this case has been revealed for what it is, republicans and conservatives appeased?
- Judge keeps job, judge appeased
It's got all the percentages. The only thing that really lost here was a strict and ethical interpretation of the law...but who cares about that blind old hag. A really masterful political decision. Quite impressive. Bravo.
So a bold conflict of interest results in the not DA needing to be dismissed but the clearly anti-Trump DA is "good to go" to stay on the case. Holy SH*T! Bet the boy toy gets to keep the billings-to-date too.
Now someone to Clarence Thomas who some on the left want off of the SC due to his wife's associations.
Mr. Trump and his co-defendants could appeal the judge’s ruling... which should NOT need to be their actions the judge should have thrown the entire thing out with prejudice. These lefty a@@hats NEVER pay a price for this partisan crap whereas the merest suggestion of someone on the right being less than a choir boy is enough to be a career ender.
The f*cking hypocrisy burns.
This is the moment where everyone should finally get that the corrupt left have won.
We live in a corrupt banana republic - run by corrupt greedy leftist authoritarian a-holes.
Get ready for four more years of crook Joe and his mob-like operators. There is a reason they won't pull him. The corrupt machine have confidence.
This is akin to jailing the whore but not the pimp.
A recurring theme. Just like Hur, when it comes to an outcome affecting Biden or his prospects, the "finder of fact" follows an untenable "middle path" that just so happens to let Biden off the hook or advance his interest even though they find actionable "misconduct." The exception was that Delaware judge who said she was having none of it in the Hunter plea deal.
Mr. Trump and his co-defendants could appeal the judge’s ruling, as could Ms. Willis, further delaying the proceedings and leaving the matter unresolved indefinitely.
Makes me wonder what outside pressure(s) the judge was under, because he essentially punted in a ridiculous manner that rivals Hur.
Curtis Houck
@CurtisHouck
So, if I have this right, Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee decided to pull a James Comey, Robert Mueller, and Robert Hur:
Write a ruling saying Fani Willis and Nathan Wade are guilty as hell, have no ethics, and aren't good role models....BUT Fani can stay
9:09 AM · Mar 15, 2024
Sad. Seems like the judge is trying to keep his job. I was hoping for better from a judicial officer.
Anyone who watched it knew she was full of shit.
Imagine if Trump made a statement in court, under oath, that all these trips were not gifts because he paid his share each time, but always in cash, and never went to the ATM, just had the cash in his house. No one on the left would believe that. And they shouldn’t.
Or imagine if a regular petty criminal being prosecuted by Fani Willis, made this statement… Fani Willis herself would be utterly incredulous.
Whoa! Where'd all that cash come from? Somebody needs to be taken off the case untill they can straighten this out with the IRS.
The judge is hardly imopartial in this case. I think the defense can credibly call for a mistrial.
So there wasn't enough evidence to find that she'd received "a material financial benefit" from hiring Wade. And "much more important," the Court didn't think that possible financial gain was her motivation. She "was not financially destitute."
So the "sleeping with the help" while they were not both single is not an issue at all, with lawyers that are supposed to uphold the highest legal and moral standards? Oh, forgot, team (D)...
makes sense. nobody commits corruption unless one is financially destitute. our elites have a despicable lack of common sense and logic.
"She 'was not financially destitute'."
A rich hooker is still a hooker.
Lawyers can help me out here
What did Wade do that was NOT connected to Willis, to get him removed from the case?
To the lay person, the questions never exist unless these two are linked to all things of the events presented as testimony.
He split the baby.
Bad judge. Wimp.
Once there's a conflict of interest there is always a conflict of interest. The DA has an ethical duty to step down now regardless of the judge's ruling. This is because when the case goes to trial the judge must allow the defense to argue that the financially corrupt relationship between the DA and her underling was a motivation for bringing the case.
But don't hold your breath.
This is a completely horrible ruling that was certainly dictated by politics and cowardice.
This also blows up the Bar discipline and forget about perjury. Those moves now would be considered - wait for it - racism.
That judge is no Atticus Finch.
Split the baby.
So he went with "appearance of impropriety" but rejected any notion of actual impropriety? That's a hard pill to swallow given reports that Wade was overpaid and underqualified. The judge must also have rejected the testimony of people who say they lied about when the affair started.
This holding is about as pro-Willis as was possible.
So this can be appealed. Heh.
Fani's race and gender makes her immune.
Forget about the Rule of Law. We get more fucked as a country every day.
So “financial gain” can only be a factor if the accused is destitute?
I never knew that.
So if you are rich you can never be bribed?
And "much more important," the Court didn't think that possible financial gain was her motivation. She "was not financially destitute."
A new legal theory! Biden can use it in defense of receiving compensation as the agent of a foreign power.
In other words, the fix is in, and they know that they will never be able to find another prosecutor to push this tissue of lies in time.
It's perfect, why not have a prosecutor who keeps stacks of campaign cash in her mattress for personal use. It could not get more perfect, actually.
Pathetic. When the judge dropped a few charges the other day, I expected he was trying to soften the blow of this decision.
"not so incredible a to be inherently unbelievable.
i will HAVE To keep all this in mind!
If you receive illegal goods and services.. You paid your share, with undeclared "money from my mattress"
and from the Biden Crime Family, we already learned:
If you receive illegal payments.. They are undeclared "load repayments"
The Only Person in ALL of this, that is not getting and receiving illegal bribes; is President Trump;
Which is WHY they are sending HIM to prison. He is a lose cannon (since they have no dirt* on him)
He MUST BE Removed!!
no dirt* HECK! they couldn't even show that Trump had ever gone to Pedophile Island; unlike:
Bill Clinton
Bill Gates
Hilary Clinton
Nancy Pelosi
Bernie Sanders
John Kerry
George Snuffleupagus
"not so inherently incredible as to be unbelievable". Is it possible to find a gentler, kinder way of saying that she told a plausible lie....It's not so inherently incredible as to be unbelievable that a District Attorney can perjure herself before a national audience and not continue on with the successful prosecution of her case and even her career.....Can she and Willis be prosecuted under RICO statutes? It would be not just poetic but perfect justice if she were. I bet those wads of cash she keeps secreted about her house are kickbacks from the esteemed law firm of Mr. Willis....Still, she'll probably win re-election by a larger margin, and go on to be Attorney General in the cabinet of President Harris.
McAfee was the president or vice president of the Federalist Society chapter at UGA law school.
If the judge had really wanted to split the baby, he would have dismissed Willis from the case and kept the Gigolo on the case.
Jersey Fled said...So “financial gain” can only be a factor if the accused is destitute?
It's a well-known fact that wealthy people don't have financial motivations.
Many others here expected that, given the judge donated to her campaign and is ingrained in the corrupt ATL system. I really expected the judge to do better since it was so obvious she lied under oath. Who can believe her now? I hope the notoriety of her malfeasance has poisoned the jury pool, figuratively speaking.
Notice of appeal will be filed. The USS Fani has sprung a leak....
This is a decision that Solomon himself would be proud of
I really enjoy your takes, Space, but here you are way off. Solomon was very focused on justice and truth, two things this judge doesn't give a damn about. The hallmark of Solomon's reign and what God granted him was wisdom, the one thing he asked God for when presented the opportunity.
No wisdom evident in this decision. Tons of politics. It sucks.
Over the last few weeks this ado has been going on, I've still to see or hear someone explain how it has any relevance to the case and charges lodged against Trump. Her being totally unethical has nothing to do with the merits of whether Trump is guilty of a crime or not, or whether or not he can get a fair trial.
This seems kinda insane. WTF? The judge confirms that the trial is tainted, but believes he can remove the taint by removing half the stink.
There is nothing going on in America right now that gives me confidence this upcoming election is anything but a fraud. Everything I'm reading today and over the past few weeks tells me the fix continues to be in and that, under no circumstances will Donald Trump be allowed to take office again.
Looks like Judge McAfee was afraid he would lose the next election if he came down hard on his Fani!! I guess keeping your job is more important than proving to America that there ISN'T two tiers of Justice in this country.
https://www.megynkelly.com/2024/03/08/judge-overseeing-fani-willis-disqualification-case-now-facing-democratic-primary-challenger-in-georgia/
Mark - her being unethical is not a problem for you leftists.
We know.
He really threaded the needle. A very safe decision.
Im going to guess that Fani Willis worst days are ahead of her. In so many ways.
Her being totally unethical has nothing to do with the merits of whether Trump is guilty of a crime or not, or whether or not he can get a fair trial.
Sure, it does. She benefits financially and socially from the case continuing, even if it should have been dropped long ago. An indictment and trial is incredibly destructive- financially, socially, mentally, even physically- even if the accused is ultimately exonerated. It destroys lives, and so a prosecution shouldn't occur if it's not in the interests of justice or the people of Fulton County for it to do so. Her behavior raises questions about whether she can objectively make that judgment. In addition, unethical behavior is never isolated. Her behavior casts doubt as to whether she can be trusted not to, say, hide exculpatory evidence from the defense.
It is a bizarre ruling. It is the sort of ruling that indicates one of two things:
1. The judge desperately wanted this decision to go this way, and reasoned backwards to come up with some justification.
2. The judge thinks himself an intellectual and perhaps is, so he came up with the "smart" solution that no one else would devise, because most people would think this a stupid idea.
These are the sort of decisions that reduce the faith in the judiciary. I keep being told how important it is to have faith in government institutions, and then they do this and I am told to ignore obvious corruption and/or incompetence.
Haven't read decision, but the perjury seems pretty obvious given the cell and text records. Wait until someone actually gets hold of the substance of the texts.
I think this was a dumb decision by the Judge because you have a bunch of motivatred, well-heeled rich people who are going to dig out as much information as they can to show perjury by both.
And you are going to have multiple more filings showing the perjury and don't think this will stop the disbarment efforts. Even Bill Clinton got suspended by bar for lying under oath about sexual relations.
"Attorney William Jefferson Clinton,an attorney residing in the State of New York, Bar ID #73019 has been suspended from the practice of law within the jurisdiction of this State for violation of Model Rule BA(d) of the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The Agreed Order of Discipline filed of record with the Pulaski County Circuit Court reflects that Mr. Clinton admitted to giving knowingly evasive and misleading discovery responses concerning his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, in violation of Judge Susan Weber Wright's discovery orders in the case of Jones v. Clinton, No. LR-C-94-290 (E.D. Ark.) The Agreed Order of Discipline also reflects that William Jefferson Clinton's Arkansas Attorney's License has been suspended for a period of five (5) years effective January 19,2001."
Judge McAfee is trying to split the baby King Solomon style. But this is a weak ass non-decision decision.
Either both Willis and Wade behaved corruptly and lied to the court and require removal, or neither of them did.
If Wade lied and needs to be removed, Willis lied too. Takes two to tango. I get the feeling Judge McAfee was told how to rule.
Mark said...
Over the last few weeks this ado has been going on, I've still to see or hear someone explain how it has any relevance to the case and charges lodged against Trump.
So, if you were being prosecuted by an obviously corrupt prosecutor hired by an obviously corrupt D.A., that would not bother you. Interesting. I'm sure corrupt people are only corrupt in one way, and are totally trustworthy otherwise, especially when it comes to the law.
Over the last few weeks this ado has been going on, I've still to see or hear someone explain how it has any relevance to the case and charges lodged against Trump. Her being totally unethical has nothing to do with the merits of whether Trump is guilty of a crime or not, or whether or not he can get a fair trial.
Assuming Mark is sincere, I'll bite. Fani is another DA who ran on a "get Trump" platform, which is wrong and unethical on its face. Her being totally unethical does have a bearing, because she's shown a willingness to lie and cheat to get her way. In the same vein she has created crimes, that is applied the RICO statute, in novel ways a la Jack Smith and Leticia James. And now her underlying evidence has been tossed because the judge couldn't find an articulated crime within her barrage of accusations. It is not illegal to prepare alternate electors -- it is routine in contested elections. It is not illegal to ask for recounts or accuse people of cheating.
If it was, Democrats who have done those things would have already been charged. The uniqueness of the case and her unethical behavior are tightly wound up in her zealous approach to creating a case out of nothing, while she herself bends and breaks the rules and laws at will. Normal people are repelled by such behavior. Courts should be non-partisan and we all see this is far from that.
Ultimately, while the decision is stupid and reflects the continued decline of our justice and court systems (which is just awful and may, ultimately, doom our civilization), this decision will in the end benefit Trump as corrupt Fani stays in the spotlight and literally millions are spent investigating her perjery, misuse of federal funds, coordination with Biden/Harris, misuse of personal election donations and involvement in potential election shenanigans.
I would have much rather seen a decent rule by a judge doing his duty (even though watching Fani barbecued over a pit will be kind of fun).
Mark said
“ Her being totally unethical has nothing to do with the merits of whether Trump is guilty of a crime or not, or whether or not he can get a fair trial.”
How does ANYONE get a fair trial when the prosecutor is “totally unethical”?
That’s enough to dismiss. But as to the other question: “what it has to do with the merits”, technically nothing, nothing as to the facts and the law. They are what they are. But as you well know (or should know) prosecutors choose to prosecute or not, and bend the facts and argue the case one way or another. So yeah, her being totally unethical makes the whole thing an unfair political sham.
You may want him prosecuted, and you may hate him. Whatever.
Pray you never get prosecuted by such a prosecutor. Your view of the system will be very different.
He couldn't remove Willis because to do so would have forced him to either dismiss the charges filed by Willis or to move the trial out of Fulton County. This decision will be appealed and the case will eventually either be dismissed by a higher Georgia court or be moved out of Fulton County because if it isn't, then the appeals of any conviction are guaranteed to be upheld by some higher court.
To Mark at 9:24 AM- the appearance of corruption alone means that any actions of her office towards Trump cannot be trusted on their face. And, I think you would agree that Trump couldn't get a fair trial in Atlanta even without such corruption.
He's punting to the Georgia appellate courts and leaving fani and Nathan to the bar association and the new prosecutor oversight board to take care of this. In the meantime no trial anytime soon and maybe ever but the media pumps the case during the campaign. Dems win.
One thing is for sure - the punt means this is not over.
from the interwebz:
" The problem with splitting the baby is that the baby dies. That seems to be what happened here in McAfee’s attempt to be Solomonic. If he wanted Fani Willis to remain in charge of the case, he needed to exonerate her from all of these issues. Instead, he admitted what everyone could see on live television, and then refused to act on it.
That sets up an appeal, of course, based on the factual record that McAfee established in this order. And one has to wonder whether that is McAfee’s intent — to punt this to the state appellate court rather than risk the ire of Fulton County voters by disqualifying Willis. Declare her guilty, fail to act, and let the next set of judges with more political insulation deal with the issue themselves. Or maybe even more quickly, letting the Georgia State Bar and the Attorney General deal with the “odor of mendacity” and pre-empt the whole issue by suspending Willis’ law license."
-Ed Morrissey
Democrats demonstrating, once again, that they are garbage people? Must be another day ending in "Y".
Can Trump appeal now, or does he have to wait until the end of the case in the trial court?
Insty quotes Curtis Houk with this relevant take:
"That sets up an appeal, of course, based on the factual record that McAfee established in this order. And one has to wonder whether that is McAfee’s intent — to punt this to the state appellate court rather than risk the ire of Fulton County voters by disqualifying Willis. Declare her guilty, fail to act, and let the next set of judges with more political insulation deal with the issue themselves. Or maybe even more quickly, letting the Georgia State Bar and the Attorney General deal with the 'odor of mendacity' and pre-empt the whole issue by suspending Willis’ law license."
Yeah, I'd be good with either of those options coming to pass.
Monica Crowley
@MonicaCrowley
Judge McAfee rules that Nathan Wade must step aside in the Georgia case in order for Fani Willis to stay on.
McAfee is a Democrat who worked for Willis, donated to her campaign, voted for her, & is up for re-election so he was never going to disqualify her.
Apparently it's OK for her to lie to the Court but nobody else. Man, these judges and prosecutors are twisting the law beyond all recognition to get Trump.
Meanwhile, she will bounce Wade so fast your head will spin.
The corruption runs so deep. Everywhere.
9:47 AM · Mar 15, 2024
"And, I think you would agree that Trump couldn't get a fair trial in Atlanta even without such corruption."
"A fair trial" is not the purpose of any of these legalistic sideshow shams- Atlanta, New York or wherever. The purpose is to punish Trump for beating Hillary in 2016 and to keep him from turning over any more rocks in DC, exposing the slime there to the light of day.
the Court didn't think that possible financial gain was her motivation. She "was not financially destitute."
Maybe on appeal Trump can argue the NY fraud case with that logic. He was rich, so no financial gain was his motivation for setting the values of his properties.
She and her office can stay (and the case can go forward) but Lover Boy has to be dismissed.
A sort of half a loaf decision.
She "was not financially destitute."
Neither was Bernie Madoff. And yet....
This was NOT a King Soloman decision unless the actual mother of the baby said, "Sure, split it right down the middle."
@Mike (MJB Wolf)
It is metaphorical and analogous, as so many of my comments are. I used the Solomon reference in much the same way many of the other commenters have, that's all.
The epic sweep of Mark’s stupidity has been established.
A reminder for all. Solomon threatened to split the baby to find out who the real mother was. He had probably no intention of actually doing it.
The idea of splitting the baby was so abhorrent to the real mother that she would rather give it up than see it killed. Solomon's wisdom was that he understood this, not that each side deserved half of a dead baby.
In this case, however, the judge is no Solomon and each side gets half of a dead baby. We can only hope that the issue is elevated to someone made of sterner stuff than Judge McAfee.
I'm not going behind the paywall, but based on what I saw this is nonsense. There was impropriety, the appearance of impropriety, or not.
If nothing else, the ample evidence that Willis and Wade perjured themselves during the hearings should have carried some consequences beyond this silliness.
This is a cowardly act. The impropriety was complete.
I surmise the judge is concerned about her conflicts being applied to every case she’s working on currently, not just this one. If the DA lies under oath, how can she effectively prosecute others? She wouldn’t be able to call out anyone else for being untruthful.
I think he tried to thread the needle so he wasn’t the one ranking her career. He’d like others to do so though, I bet.
“If the snizz was hit, you MUST ACQUIT!”
Static Ping responding to Mark: "So, if you were being prosecuted by an obviously corrupt prosecutor hired by an obviously corrupt D.A., that would not bother you."
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." W. Churchill.
At best, when it comes to Democrat corruption, lefties like Mark are appeasers. At worst, they are complicit.
Fani is another DA who ran on a "get Trump" platform, which is wrong and unethical on its face. Her being totally unethical does have a bearing, because she's shown a willingness to lie and cheat to get her way. In the same vein she has created crimes, that is applied the RICO statute, in novel ways a la Jack Smith and Leticia James. And now her underlying evidence has been tossed because the judge couldn't find an articulated crime within her barrage of accusations. It is not illegal to prepare alternate electors -- it is routine in contested elections. It is not illegal to ask for recounts or accuse people of cheating.
If the indictment does not charge actual crimes ("it is not illegal to..."), the remedy is a motion to dismiss on those grounds.
If the prosecutor had bad motives, that is cured by the fact that a grand jury has issued indictments. And if the charges are BS, then that is to be determined at trial. That's how the law works.
In any event, whomever Willis was blowing has nothing to do with whether Trump is innocent or guilty. That is to be decided at trial before a jury.
So EVERYONE in the Fulton County “justice” system is ethically challenged. Good to know.
Is it good practice to punish the employee while the boss responsible for the poor decisions remains?
I don't understand why they didn't ask Wade to show he had deposited large sums of cash for each time Willis said she paid him back. He either deposited the cash to make up for what he spent, or Willis didn't pay him, or he she did pay, but he kept it all in cash to hide from his soon-to-be-ex-wife.
It's official...democrats have killed law in America.
You can now shit on a judge in his own courtroom and be given a pass as long as you're a black democrat.
Will need to work on my tan...
Delay to keep it in play.
Why didn't the putative romantic partner recuse himself from the case when details were first uncovered?
Does he get to keep the $650k Willis paid him to indict Trump? Of course he does. He earned it.
Everybody wins except the defendants. Willis keeps the case. Wade keeps the money. The judge keeps his job.
Welcome to Blue Atlanta!
Everyone seems to agree that Willis is just "out to get" Trump, and always has been. Her motivation has always been political. Corruptly political maybe, but political nonetheless. Which means her relationship with this other guy isn't all that relevant.
The judge ruled: "the Court finds, based largely on the District Attorney's testimony, that the evidence demonstrated that the financial gain flowing from her relationship with Wade was not a motivating factor on the part of the District Attorney to indict and prosecute this case. While a general motive for more income can never be disregarded entirely, the District Attorney was not financially destitute throughout this time or in any great need, as she testified that her salary exceeds $200,000 per year without any indication of excessive expenses or debts. Similarly, the Court further finds that the Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the District Attorney's conduct has impacted or influenced the case to the Defendants detriment....Without sufficient evidence that the District Attorney acquired a personal stake in the prosecution, or that her financial arrangements had any impact on the case, the Defendants claims of an actual conflict must be denied."
And with respect to an appearance of impropriety: "There has not been a showing that the Defendants due process rights have been violated or that the issues involved prejudiced the Defendants in any way."
Finally, it should be noted that from what I know of the actual charges, they are complete crap. But that is to be decided by either a motion to dismiss for failing to state an offense or by trial, and not by some motion that is much ado about nothing relevant.
Would be interesting to search her house right now to see how much cash she has on hand.
For those who don't want to go behind a paywall, the opinion is here:
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/41940dd55b533f11/20adae2b-full.pdf
I'm surprised to find myself sympathetic to the judge. He had no way out that didn't mean major blowback. He could have played dumb and quietly pretended to believe the obvious lies. He at least had the courage to pick up the aroma of mendacity. (BTW, where do I go to buy some L'eau de Mendacity for my lawyer friends?)
The sanction of dismissal was not readily available under Georgia law. Why should he set his hair on fire to help Trump? He is kicking the matter upstairs to a panel of judges less likely to be targeted by the left. Hard to see how this one gets tried before November.
"Her being totally unethical has nothing to do with the merits of whether Trump is guilty of a crime or not, or whether or not he can get a fair trial."
The fact that the prosecuting attorney is totally unethical has no bearing on whether Trump can get a fair trial???
You want to take some time to rethink that?
I see Mark's absurdity was fully covered. Didn't mean to pile on.
I thought lying to the court was a serious offence.
Apparently lying to the FBI is more serious. If you look at how many people go to jail for lying to the FBI.
“You do not need to accept everything as true, you only have to accept it as necessary.” ― Franz Kafka
Wouldn't dismissing Willis make her office's contacts with the White House and DoJ irrelevant from the courts' perspective?
In the vaccuum of her dismissal the maistream media would ignore House inquiries but Willis has made herself must-watch TV.I
She might be Trump's best tool to exposing the Democratic apparatus behind Lawfare.
Blogger OldManRick said...
A reminder for all. Solomon threatened to split the baby to find out who the real mother was.
=================
I want to know what is the baby here ?
Trump case or TRUE LOVE BETWEEN FANI AND WADE
maybe Fani will decide to stay with Wade and get off Trump case
Win for filing the charges + Win for fairy tale!
"...under no circumstances will Donald Trump be allowed to take office again."
I think this is correct and no action is too far fetched, including assassination. Donald Trump will not be president again period
Blogger Mike (MJB Wolf) said..."Normal people are repelled by such behavior. Courts should be non-partisan and we all see this is far from that."
The purpose of the years-long vilification of Trump as beyond the pale is meant to justify such actions. It's incredibly effective when you have the media as your ally. These people really should be ashamed.
So there's a turd in the punchbowl. Just remove the turd, and it's now good to drink.
Like Judge Sullivan previously; we've gone from a questionable indictment to prosecutorial misconduct and now judicial misconduct.
she will bounce Wade so fast your head will spin.
Considering both claimed the romantic relationship was over; that is a pretty obvious response.
Also, what is the harm to Wade? Reputation? Wade has already been paid. Now he has the money, dumped the wife, dumbed the girlfriend, has leverage on girlfriend to make sure he is repaid for his gifts, and doesn't have to argue the silly case that will get tossed on appeal.
Meanwhile, Judge McAfee now has to continue the trial, which I suspect will become increasingly embarrassing for him. I suspect more Sullivan antics to follow, because I think we are passed the part of assuming judicial neutrality.
I used the Solomon reference in much the same way many of the other commenters have, that's all.
I understand that many use the "split the baby" analogy in a metaphorical (emotional not literal) way. I still chafe at it. Except for JAORE, who correctly pointed out that only if the mother agreed to split (kill) the baby, would this be Solomonic. Maybe it's pedantic, but I can't abide Solomon the Wise being invoked in comparison to McAfee the Leftist Tool.
I'm still looking forward to your next comment though. You're interesting whether I agree or not.
Okay, OldManRick also has a decent take on the whole analogy.
Why can't the state bar remove her?
"The idea of splitting the baby was so abhorrent to the real mother that she would rather give it up than see it killed. Solomon's wisdom was that he understood this, not that each side deserved half of a dead baby."
The problem I've always had with the Solomon story is that neither woman would have accepted the dead baby outcome.
Techno Fog
@Techno_Fog
Judge McAfee rules that only one potential liar can prosecute the case – but not both potential liars.
Instead of curing the "appearance of impropriety", it allows it to continue.
If Nathan Wade goes, why can Fani Willis stay? McAfee doesn't give an answer.
https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1768648559467889065?
"I surmise the judge is concerned about her conflicts being applied to every case she’s working on currently, not just this one."
It was a shit sandwich and he decided he didn't want to take a bite.
Mark said...
Over the last few weeks this ado has been going on, I've still to see or hear someone explain how it has any relevance to the case and charges lodged against Trump. Her being totally unethical has nothing to do with the merits of whether Trump is guilty of a crime or not, or whether or not he can get a fair trial.
3/15/24, 9:24 AM
——————————-
Willis’ motive must be to seek justice. I it is for anything other than that she should be removed. There is ample evidence that achieving justice is the furthest thing possible n her mind.
One thing that has been buried is the visit that Wade made to the White House that was charged to Fulton County. The only reasonable conclusion is that the prosecution is being coordinated with the White House.
The text of the ruling not hidden behind NYT paywall.
"In addition - and much more important - the Court finds, based largely on the District Attorney’s testimony, that the evidence demonstrated that the financial gain flowing from her relationship with Wade was not a motivating factor on the part of the District Attorney to indict and prosecute this case."
The DA said so, therefore it is so. That's a big thumb on the scale of justice, Judge.
"This lack of a confirmed financial split creates the possibility and appearance that the District Attorney benefited - albeit non-materially - from a contract whose award lay solely within her purview and policing."
So the argument is Willis is so rich that the trips could not be of material consequence to her? Does Left Bank Chuck's IP address reside in Atlanta?
"The Court is not under an obligation to ferret out every instance of potential dishonesty from each witness or defendant ever presented in open court. Such an expectation would mean an end to the efficient disposition of criminal and civil proceedings."
This is a criminal court, Judge. If the prosecution is potentially dishonest, I think it is absolutely the obligation of the court to ferret out every instance of official abuse. That's why convicted defendants can appeal, yet prosecutors cannot appeal acquittals. People are noting that if McAfee disqualified Willis, it might open reconsideration of all her cases. I think these two sentences from Judge McAfee should reopen every case that has gone through his court. He's not interested in ferreting out official abuse because it isn't efficient?
If you call yourself a liberal and defend this ruling from the Judge; I don't ever want to hear one word from you ever again about Blackstone's ratio. You could not possibly believe in it and defend this Judge's ruling. And you are definitely not a liberal.
Finally, I read several statements that suggest the Defense either failed to bring evidence. exhaustively provide evidence, or had every chance to bring evidence. I'll note the Defense made clear they would appeal on the very basis they were denied the opportunity to cross-examine Bradley. Case in point: "While prior inconsistent statements can be considered as substantive evidence under Georgia law, Bradley’s impeachment by text message did not establish the basis for which he claimed such sweeping knowledge of Wade’s personal affairs." Really Judge? Wade's divorce lawyer wouldn't have sweeping knowledge of Wade's personal affairs? Maybe you should have allowed defense to ask those questions without you, the Judge, giving the divorce lawyer the right to hide behind "attorney-client-privilege" as if Bradley had protected sweeping knowledge of Wade's personal affairs.
wendybar writes, "It's okay to lie under oath now!!!"
For shame, wendybar! You deserve a rhetorical thrashing by the furious fingers of Inga or even (the horror...the horror) LLR Chuck. When you claim it's now okay to lie under oath, you must know that's untrue. It is well established by none other than Merrick Garland, distinguished jurist, Attorney General of the United States, and ex-officio Presidential Chin Wiper, that perjury is only permissible when the pertinent deceit, deception, disinformation, distortion, evasion, fabrication, falsehood, fiction, forgery, inaccuracy, misrepresentation, myth, slander, tale, aspersion, backbiting, calumny, defamation, fable, fib, fraud, guile, hyperbole, libel, mendacity, misstatement, obloquy, prevarication, subterfuge, and/or whopper serves a more important goal than truth, which no one give a shit about except Christian nationalists, -- specifically the immediate electoral prospects of the Democratic Party.
So there.
No reasonable prosecutor.
1. Scott McAfee was selected as the Georgia State Inspector General by Gov. Brian Kemp in 2021.
2. McAfee was *appointed* to his current position as a Judge by Gov. Kemp to fill a vacancy in Dec. 2022.
3. Judge McAfee was *assigned* the Trump case in August 2023 through a *random* process. Details unavailable.
4. The Trump prosecution by Willis was already underway when McAfee was appointed.
5. Gov. Brian Kemp is anti-Trump if not never-Trump.
6. The Fulton County Court System under Willis is obviously politically biased.
Those look like dots to me.
"the regular and loose exchange of money between them without any exact or verifiable measure of reconciliation."
She felt no need to measure.
The race-baiting liar of a DA has been fully exposed.
Correct number 6 to read "The Fulton County District Attorney's office is obviously politically biased."
Fani has a LOT more financial interests than half of a lover's get-a-way. When she was riding high for prosecuting Trump she could anticipate political office, book deals, etc. Fame and fortune guaranteed.
Sorry Fani. Fulton County is now likely the upper limit of your power.
What? No purjury? Mz. Willis purjured herself. Is that unethical too?
I imagine being unethical, Mark. Relieves you of the constraints of morality. Must be very liberating for you. Not so much the people that have to deal with you.
SCOTUS members have set a stratospherically high bar for conflicts of interests in the US judicial system. This is a really minor matter by comparison.
I am going to go against the grain here and say I agree with the the judge that there was not a "conflict of interest". During the whole thing I wondered what the "conflict of interest" was supposed to be. All along Willis's interest has been to use lawfare against Trump. She made that perfectly clear in her election campaign. I could not see how her mess with Wade was a "conflict of interest"; sleazy, unethical and stupid, yes. Now, the judge says she has proven herself, ethically and morally challenged. Absolutely! From what I gather without reading the whole opinion the judge has made it clear that Willis' actions were inappropriate, her testimony was false and she should pay a price. I can't believe that many prosecuting attorneys have been told that they must lose their second or recuse themselves. Not being a lawyer I don't know what this decision means to other attorneys, judges, or the Bar, but if I were Wilis I would be looking for a hole to crawl into.
The judge quoted Tennessee Williams’ Cat On A Hot Tin Roof when he wrote ‘odor of mendacity’
@MN farm guy: “You behaved badly but the consequences are minimal” is pretty much the standard response to prosecutorial misconduct.
Mark: "If the prosecutor had bad motives, that is cured by the fact that a grand jury has issued indictments."
This is both ridiculous and untrue. So if the prosecutor presents falsified evidence or misstates the law to a grand jury due to "bad motives", the impropriety is cured by indictment? Really?
@Minnesota farm guy: The conflict of interest or "appearance" of a conflict has to do with enriching herself and/or her significant other by indicting Trump & Co. That is why the conflicting testimony about the beginning and end of the relationship is important.
McAfee fails to note that Fani promises to go after Trump then pays her boyfriend $650k to indict him. Obviously, if he had reviewed the evidence and declined prosecution the financial and political rewards would have been less. Similarly, if a regular, salaried, more experienced ADA had been assigned the case, financial motivation would not have been an issue. It's about lawyers and money.
My wife and I, prosecutors from a different (ethical) era, see this clearly and are surprised that McAfee does not.
From what I gather without reading the whole opinion the judge has made it clear that Willis' actions were inappropriate, her testimony was false and she should pay a price.
You should have read the opinion, because he did not say her testimony was false. Indeed, he said Wade's was false [in the divorce proceedings], Bradley's wasn't coherent and couldn't be trusted, cellphone records were not conclusive, and the best friend Fani stayed with was inconclusive. Yet Willis testimony about when the relationship began, that she paid back all gifts, and she paid with cash were all reasonable for doubt. The only issue was that since Wade lied in his divorce, McAfee wasn't sure he bought that Willis wouldn't go back to banging him after this bruhaha ended, so she needed to make a choice.
How can there be a conflict? They’re both on the same side. Their immoral behavior does not create a conflict, unless one happens to be representing Trump. Otherwise, their behavior is not unheard of in prosecutorial offices. Goes on all the time.
“The judge quoted Tennessee Williams’ Cat On A Hot Tin Roof when he wrote ‘odor of mendacity’ “
I think the judge has always depended on the kindness of strangers…
Wade resigned.
Guimo: "How can there be a conflict?"
The potential conflict is between the prosecutor's duty to do justice and her behavior.
This is a dynamic situation where Willis has a lingering conflict.
“It was sweet - DAMN sweet - while it lasted. But it was unsavory.”
—- Demetrius “Sweetback” Wade
She should have resigned from the case and had the divorce lawyer take over.
So when the judge dismisses a few of the charges earlier in the week, it was to provide cover for his goal of not recusing Fani. I was right.
An indictment and trial is incredibly destructive- financially, socially, mentally, even physically- even if the accused is ultimately exonerated.
Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle would like a word.
According to Wiki, in 2013, the Judge graduated from the University of Georgia School of Law, cum laude. While in law school, he was the vice president of the school's Federalist Society chapter, treasurer of Law Republicans, and inducted into The Order of Barristers. Doesn't sound left wing to me.
Mark said...
Over the last few weeks this ado has been going on, I've still to see or hear someone explain how it has any relevance to the case and charges lodged against Trump. Her being totally unethical has nothing to do with the merits of whether Trump is guilty of a crime or not, or whether or not he can get a fair trial.
What about the tacit understanding that if she is removed from the case, it is highly unlikely that another DA's office would opt to bring it?
SCOTUS members have set a stratospherically high bar for conflicts of interests in the US judicial system. This is a really minor matter by comparison.
I was wondering how long it would take for you to reach peak stupidity.
What said...
“No reasonable prosecutor.”
What? No purjury? Mz. Willis purjured herself. Is that unethical too?
I imagine being unethical, Mark. Relieves you of the constraints of morality. Must be very liberating for you. Not so much the people that have to deal with you.
I'm surprised to find myself sympathetic to the judge. He had no way out that didn't mean major blowback."
Yes, having the balls to make the right decision in the face of "blowback" is such a high bar. The idea that we should expect judges to do so is simply ludicrous.
Thanks to those who helped explain the conflict of interest. I still think that is weak in this case because of the timing that has been explained above. My personal feeling is that the Georgia Bar should be thinking about punishing her for unethical behavior regarding the whole Wade mess.
The DA has an ethical duty
HA HA Ha! These are democrats! Ethical duty my ass! They have never heard of ethical.
The legal "profession" looks crappier every day. There are some exceptionaly stupid, corrupt and entitled "lawyers" infesting America.
boatbuilder.
Ethics is hard. Especially if you're a corrupt bureaucrat. It's why the transoms in the judges chambers open so wide.
So the ethics don't miss their mark.
Georgia legal system. What a cesspool?
bob.
It reminds me of Chicago.
"The only thing that really lost here was a strict and ethical interpretation of the law."
I thought otherwise. The appearance of impropriety and an actual impropriety are different things. Actual impropriety gets punished, the appearance of it without proven damages is simply stopped.
Doesn't hurt that it gets the motion resolved with minimal impact.
Well, bobby. Someody paid 650,000 in cash for the appearance of impropriety. That"s some expensive ethics right there.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন