Staluigi posted:

Nash posted:

That’s the one cool trick. Keep doing crimes and then they cant have a trial.

Murgos posted:

It seems like Engoron can’t complete his ruling because new Trump crimes keep getting added to the trial if the reporting is accurate.

Eric Cantonese posted:

The Archive.ph links often fail on me. I'm not sure why.

Anyway, I found something from a much less prestigious source:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fani-willis-finally-admits-personal-relationship-with-trump-special-prosecutor-nathan-wade?ref=home?ref=home

What a mess.

EDIT: Thanks to you guys for trying, but I tried clicking on those Archive.ph links and I get an error screen saying "archive.ph unexpectedly closed the connection."

Is this browser dependent?

Arsenic Lupin posted:

It's DNS-dependent. Archive.ph hates you if you're using Cloudflare or Google DNS. Why?

Scags McDouglas posted:

In spirit I agree with you but this is especially digestible to the common person as really weird and sketchy, so this toehold is extremely generous rather than the ones they have to usually dig out with a toothpick.

There's the RWM machine and then there's a thing hitting the front page of established media sites that adds a sour note to the entire trial.

Skex posted:

Oh for fucks sake we all heard the loving phone call. This is some nothing burger bullshit from the people who aren't even trying to argue that Trump isn't guilty.

It's a red herring aimed at those who have already decided to support Trump no matter what.

quote:

Will this affect the Trump prosecution?

Theoretically it could.

Morgan does not think McAfee will dismiss the Trump case after the Feb. 15 hearing or disqualify Wade or Willis. (If Willis’ office is removed, or if the DA recuses herself, then a state agency would have to appoint another prosecutor.)

But, Morgan said, McAfee could grant an appeal of his ruling on the motion to dismiss, which could put Georgia’s Trump case on hold. “That’s really what’s at stake here. Embarrass the prosecution and delay this case,” he said.

Skex posted:

Oh for fucks sake we all heard the loving phone call. This is some nothing burger bullshit from the people who aren't even trying to argue that Trump isn't guilty.

It's a red herring aimed at those who have already decided to support Trump no matter what.

Fart Amplifier posted:

It's not a nothingburger. There are serious problems with Fani Willis's potential misconduct here that, if true, should get her disqualified. Liz Dye's new Law and Chaos podcast has Andrew Fleischman on to break it down if you're at all interested in why there is a huge problem.

Kchama posted:

I mean, it's not like Andrew Fleischman is a neutral party in all of this, as he has a specific grudge against Fani. Considering the other lawyers I've seen who go "This is literally a 0% issue for Fani in the court." I'd be more inclined to believe them than the guy who has posted 50 articles called "The Case Against Fani Willis?" in the past six months, long before anything ever came up.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

By precedent and standard procedure, it should not matter; as has been pointed out, there have been cases with married attorneys representing counterparties in cases and it was deemed a non-issue.

It's possible that Trump's Insanity Field makes it an issue, but for literally anyone else's case, it wouldn't be.

Kchama posted:

Fleischman’s going for the “she was intentionally extending the investigation as long as possible to pay her husband more” which is why I think he’s kind of not being particularly neutral here.

Kchama posted:

Fleischman’s going for the “she was intentionally extending the investigation as long as possible to pay her husband more” which is why I think he’s kind of not being particularly neutral here.

Fart Amplifier posted:

You're being dishonest.

He didn't make the argument that she was intentionally extending the investigation. He explained the reason that conflict of interest violations are important is because a conflict of interest makes it impossible to trust that a person will act in the best interest of their client (the public in this case).

The “she was intentionally extending the investigation as long as possible to pay Wade more” AAs given as a possible example

Fart Amplifier posted:

You're being dishonest.

He didn't make the argument that she was intentionally extending the investigation. He explained the reason that conflict of interest violations are important is because a conflict of interest makes it impossible to trust that a person will act in the best interest of their client (the public in this case).

The “she was intentionally extending the investigation as long as possible to pay Wade more” AAs given as a possible example

Kchama posted:

He was the one who created that example out of basically nothing, and if that’s the best you got, then you got nothing. And he was arguing that if you could come up with ANY possible conflict of interest then the trial must be redone.

mobby_6kl posted:

Oh hey my sixer just expired.

Fleischman’s been critical of making it a RICO case in the first place, even before any of these allegations came out. I think in terms of public trust, the DA is assumed

Well yeah i think the

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

The problem with this reasoning is that the prosecutor doesn't have to prove they are acting properly in order to gain public trust; public trust is presumed from the fact that they're the prosecutor.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Prosecutors, again, are supposed to be biased against the defendants. The presumptions are all extraordinarily strongly in their favor.

mobby_6kl posted:

Fleischman’s been critical of making it a RICO case in the first place

Staluigi posted:

oh no, they got mobby

Kchama posted:

Also it’s just weird that it’s a conflict of interest for the prosecutor and an investigator working for the prosecutor to be married. They’re on the same side! Where is the conflict?

mobby_6kl posted:

Oh hey my sixer just expired.

Fleischman’s been critical of making it a RICO case in the first place, even before any of these allegations came out. I think in terms of public trust, the DA is assumed to make decisions in the
best interest of the public. I don't know Georgia law, but in his opinion the case is very strong and a conviction could've been achieved much faster and easier without making an enormous RICO mess.

Also I don't recall him saying anything about requiring a mistrial.

Fart Amplifier posted:

The conflict of Willis's interest is between Wade and the public.

mobby_6kl posted:

Forum cops

Also I accidentally hit post while in the middle of typing poo poo and you caught me before I fxied it



E: I think nobody here, or even Fleischman, wants to see Trump wiggle out of this one. But I find it helpful to consider some of the worse possible outcomes rather than just pretend there's nothing there. Like I'm pretty sure if she was going after Bernie, suddenly all of this would be suddenly grossly inappropriate behavior.

Fart Amplifier posted:

They lose that trust if there is a conflict of interest.

The issue isn't being biased against the defendant. The issue is that her interest is conflicted between Wade/herself and her client, the public. I feel like this has been explained to death in this thread

Kchama posted:

I’ll note that in his article his example of a conflict of interest that got the trial restarted was of a judge and a prosecutor who were having a secret, illicit relationship. But that’s different from this situation.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

It doesn't create an actual conflict because there is no expectation from the public that prosecutors will be unbiased or neutral. It's an adversarial system. There's a presumption that all prosecutors will be zealously prosecuting alleged crimes. That's what they're supposed to do.

So, for example, dragging out a case with extra hard prosecution isn't a problem . . . because prosecutors are supposed to be zealously prosecuting. The only potential conflict(s) between Willis and and her duty to the public would be if either

1) she was prosecuting a frivolous case that was such junk it should be dismissed, for purely political reasons -- this is what Trump thinks she's doing, over-zealous prosecutiong, but she's not, because there's ample evidence of actual crimes, or

2) she was appointing incompetent people to run the case out of bias, or otherwise not prosecuting the case as hard as she should be, lack of zealous prosecution. This is what was initially alleged, but since she hired the dude before they started dating, she's in the clear on that.
...

Kchama posted:

I’ll note that in his article his example of a conflict of interest that got the trial restarted was of a judge and a prosecutor who were having a secret, illicit relationship. But that’s different from this situation.

Kchama posted:

“Just as here, the guilt or innocence of those accused was irrelevant. The conflict of interest required a new trial.”

Direct quote from an article he wrote, suggesting that the idea of a conflict of interest being possible meant that it required a new trial in this case here too.

quote:

When a Georgia judge was found having sex with a public defender outside the courthouse, the courts did not hesitate to find that this undisclosed sexual contact required new trials for the accused, even if it might have arguably been to their benefit.

Just as here, the guilt or innocence of those accused was irrelevant. The conflict of interest required a new trial.

Murgos posted:

If we’re lucky we only have about 2 more weeks of this nonsense and McAfee will rule and that will be that.

Based on the current information there is no reason to disqualify Wade much less Willis from the case so until something new comes up I’m not sweating this one.

Scags McDouglas posted:

If you look at my post from further up the page, is there a material danger that McAfee could grant an appeal of his ruling on the motion to dismiss? I'm not really concerned about changes to the long-term outcome but I could see yet another delay in Trump's favor.

mobby_6kl posted:

The DA is, obviously, supposed to want to lock him up, so there's no issue there of course.

But what about 3) "why is she doing this as an extremely expensive and time-consuming RICO case with like 20 defendants as opposed to a another, more effective way of locking him up".
.

Scags McDouglas posted:

If you look at my post from further up the page, is there a material danger that McAfee could grant an appeal of his ruling on the motion to dismiss? I'm not really concerned about changes to the long-term outcome but I could see yet another delay in Trump's favor.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

It doesn't create an actual conflict because there is no expectation from the public that prosecutors will be unbiased or neutral. It's an adversarial system. There's a presumption that all prosecutors will be zealously prosecuting alleged crimes. That's what they're supposed to do.

Fart Amplifier posted:

You just keep refusing to read. I don't know how much more simply it can be explained.

The conflict is not about her prosecution of Trump. The conflict is her using her public position to benefit her lover and herself.

This is not directly even related to the case. It's an allegation of Willis potentially defrauding the public. It just happens that these allegations are extremely relevant to the defendant's case. Paying your secret lover hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars is at the very least the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Deteriorata posted:

There's no evidence that she did anything of the sort.

Deteriorata posted:

She hired him for this case before there was a relationship. His pay was the same as two other lawyers she hired. There is no conflict, not even the appearance of one. You're just making poo poo up.

Fart Amplifier posted:

Even if proven that the relationship started after the time of hiring, it's still at the very least an appearance of conflict of interest.

quote:

Keeping it secret and accusing people who question it for being racist make it appear more to be a conflict of interest.

Fart Amplifier posted:

You just keep refusing to read. I don't know how much more simply it can be explained.

The conflict is not about her prosecution of Trump. The conflict is her using her public position to benefit her lover and herself.

This is not directly even related to the case. It's an allegation of Willis potentially defrauding the public. It just happens that these allegations are extremely relevant to the defendant's case. Paying your secret lover hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars is at the very least the appearance of a conflict of interest.

quote:

Under Georgia law, “[t]here are two generally recognized grounds for disqualification of a prosecuting attorney. The first such ground is based on a conflict of interest, and the second ground has been described as ‘forensic misconduct.'” Williams v. State, 258 Ga. 305, 314, 369 S.E.2d 232, 238 (1988). There is no allegation of “forensic misconduct” in this prosecution. A conflict of interest may arise when the prosecutor has “acquired a personal interest or stake in the defendant’s conviction.” Id. “[A] conflict of interest requires more than a theoretical or speculative conflict. An actual conflict of interest must be involved.” Ventura v. State, 346 Ga. App. 309, 311, 816 S.E.2d 151, 154 (2018) (quoting Whitworth v. State, 275 Ga. App. 790, 793 (1)(b), 622 S.E.2d 21 (2005)).

Georgia appellate courts have recognized several discrete categories of conflicts of interest for the purposes of prosecutorial disqualification. First and most commonly, a conflict of interest has “been held to arise where the prosecutor previously has represented the defendant with respect to the offense charged.” Williams, 258 Ga. at 314, 369 S.E.2d at 238. See also Lamb v. State, 267 Ga. 41, 42, 472 S.E.2d 683, 685 (1996) (“[A] conflict of interest would arise if a defense attorney were to ‘switch sides’ and prosecute his former client.”); Frazier v. State, 257 Ga. 690, 693(9), 362 S.E.2d 351 (1987). Second, a prosecutor may be disqualified if he is a fact witness in the case against the defendant. McLaughlin v. Payne, 295 Ga. 609, 614, 761 S.E.2d 289, 294 (2014). Third, a conflict of interest may arise due to the prosecutor’s relationship with a victim. See Battle v. State, 301 Ga. 694, 698, 804 S.E.2d 46, 51 (2017) (“[A] conflict of interest or the appearance of impropriety from a close personal relationship with the victim may be grounds for disqualification of a prosecutor.”); Head v. State, 253 Ga. App. 757, 757, 560 S.E.2d 536, 537 (2002). Fourth, a conflict of interest leading to disqualification exists when a special prosecutor is compensated by a contingency fee that is paid only if a conviction is secured, because that fee arrangement creates “at least the appearance of a conflict of interest between his public duty to seek justice and his private right to obtain compensation for his services.” Greater Georgia Amusements, LLC v. State, 317 Ga. App. 118, 122, 728 S.E.2d 744, 747 (2012) (physical precedent only). See also Amusement Sales, Inc. v. State, 316 Ga. App. 727, 736, 730 S.E.2d 430, 438 (2012) (adopting reasoning of Greater Georgia Amusements to hold that “disqualification was warranted in light of the SADAs having a personal financial stake in the outcome” due to contingency fee arrangement).
[...]
Wade’s hourly compensation as a Special Prosecutor does not give rise to a conflict of interest because that fee arrangement does not create a financial incentive for Wade to seek conviction rather than justice. Georgia law expressly contemplates that district attorneys may appoint lawyers in private practice as special prosecutors who may be compensated for their work. Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. R. 42.1 (“Special assistant district attorneys appointed by the district attorney including attorneys from personnel of public agencies may prosecute criminal cases.”). See Isaacs v. State, 259 Ga. 717, 722, 386 S.E.2d 316, 322 (1989)

Fart Amplifier posted:

You just keep refusing to read. I don't know how much more simply it can be explained.

The conflict is not about her prosecution of Trump. The conflict is her using her public position to benefit her lover and herself.

This is not directly even related to the case. It's an allegation of Willis potentially defrauding the public. It just happens that these allegations are extremely relevant to the defendant's case. Paying your secret lover hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars is at the very least the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Paracaidas posted:

Here's a couple relevant quotes from Eisen, Vance, and Painter's analysis of the topic (posted more than a week ago ITT). Emphasis mine:

Under this framework (which I believe to be correct, despite feeling about Vance roughly how Fleischman feels about Willis, which is also roughly how I feel about Willis), your definition of conflict of interest does not apply for disqualification. It may jeopardize her under Georgia law (by my read it's a probable felony in California for instance) but that may not be (definitely is not, per the authors linked above) the same standard or question for disqualification.

It's irresponsible (to the extent any of us have a responsibility to other goons ITT) to post with absolute certainty when it's unwarranted. This has come up before with an absolute certainty that Trump couldn't possibly be disqualified from the ballot without a criminal conviction.

quote:

If it were otherwise, Georgia law would look into the expenses of marital couples who work together on prosecutorial teams, but as discussed above that is a non-starter when it comes to a legal basis for claiming a true conflict of interests.

Fart Amplifier posted:

You just keep refusing to read. I don't know how much more simply it can be explained.

The conflict is not about her prosecution of Trump. The conflict is her using her public position to benefit her lover and herself.

This is not directly even related to the case. It's an allegation of Willis potentially defrauding the public. It just happens that these allegations are extremely relevant to the defendant's case. Paying your secret lover hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars is at the very least the appearance of a conflict of interest.