49
Fani Willis disqualified from Trump election case by Georgia appellate court
(www.washingtonpost.com)
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2024
49 points (98.0% liked)
politics
19238 readers
2191 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm going to have to go against the grain here. This should have been expected, and should have been the result from the start.
Fani Willis' personal life is her own business. But when you are dealing with a case this important against this defendant, you dot every I and cross every T. You leave nothing to chance, and you don't give off even a whiff of impropriety. She did not, and both of them ended up tainting the case trying to cover up their affair. Go back and watch Nathan Wade's testimony. The man constantly has a look on his face and gave carefully crafted testimony coming from someone who knew they were caught with their arm elbow-deep in the cookie jar. She should have recused herself from the case and handed it over to a colleague as soon as word of the affair became public. Her own hubris wouldn't allow her to do that, and she tanked the case as a result. She should consider herself lucky that the only thing that happened was some public embarrassment and her being forcibly removed from this case, because her conduct would absolutely warrant disbarrment. She gets a lot of sympathy because the defendant is Trump, but if it were anybody else, people would rightly be calling for her head.
This case wasn't brought down by a corrupt judge looking to advance her own career by ruling in Trump's favor. It wasn't brought down by a Supreme Court looking to anoint a king. It was brought down by two people who couldn't keep their pants on and did not take the position they were in seriously at all.
And with all of that said, it doesn't matter anyway as there was no way the case was going to go forward against a sitting President. But there is at least a non-zero chance (slim, admittedly, but still non-zero) that this case would have proceeded before the election if they hadn't been delayed for months investigating Fani Willis' and Nathan Wade's conduct.
This isn't a failure of the justice system. This is proof that at least some parts of the justice system are still working as intended, even if the beneficiary is Trump. If you want to blame someone for tanking this case, blame the two people who decided that having an affair while prosecuting the most powerful person in the country in the most important case in the country's history and using money earmarked to fund said prosecution to cover up the affair was a good idea. If the defendant were literally anybody else, people would be rightly demanding her disbarrment.
What she should have done is not hire her boyfriend for a high-profile special prosecutor role, or not start dating her high-profile employee, depending on which timeline is accurate. She put one of the most important criminal prosecutions in the history of the country at risk for the sake of her personal life.
Oh absolutely agreed. Best thing she could have done is not bring him on at all. Second best thing she could have done was to recuse herself once it became public. But instead, she doubled down on the stupid and tanked the case, her career, and his career in the process, while tainting every other case in the court of public opinion by association.
This is an example of "Fuck around and find out", taken in both the most literal and extreme way possible.
Unless there's something in the laws of GA or Fulton County this doesn't add up. So at worst it's favoritism. Who does that harm? The defendant? Probably not and if anything it could make the prosecution less effective if Willis and Wade spent too much time rekindling their romance or fighting over passed mistakes. Does it harm the taxpayers and citizens of Fulton? Maybe. Investigate! If she skipped over viable alternatives or declined better attorneys because of her relationship then remove Wade and reprimand Willis. If this was a clear violation of her duties she would've been gone months ago. This is all about "inappropriate behavior" and if nobody can point to the affect this behavior has had on the case then their basically punishing her for the affair.
Some of the money used to fund the prosecution was used on travel expenses and hotel rooms for the purposes of helping to cover up the affair. There are numerous criminal acts in that alone and it amazes me that she hasn't faced sanctions or charges for them. This opens the door to the theory that the prosecution of Trump wasn't entirely based on the evidence in the investigation but was at least partially more of a way to fund their affair at his expense.
And yes, maybe some of it is her being punished for having an affair. But given all of the circumstances surrounding this particular affair, punishment was absolutely warranted. Their actions gave off far more than the appearance of impropriety, and absolutely tainted the entire case. She absolutely should have been sanctioned if not disbarred, and that doesn't change just because the defendant happens to be Trump.
That alone would be enough of a reason to have her removed. Appearance of impropriety and all that. She should have recused herself and had the case reassigned the minute word of the affair became public. Her staying in is what continued to taint the case.
If any of this is illegal under state or County law by all means give her the boot. That doesn't seem to be what anyone is saying though. "Conflict of interest" and "impropriety" are seemingly the worst she's guilty of.
It only takes a few simple questions. Did she fail to meet specific criteria when she hired Wade as special prosecutor? Was she required to disclose prior conflicts of interest or ones that formed during the course of the indictment? Did Wade make unauthorized purchases with the fees he was paid? Were the rights of the defendant violated? Is there any evidence their relationship has diminished their efficacy in prosecuting this case? If none of these answers are "yes" then it's 100% about optics. If any of these are a "yes" then this should've been settled months ago.