Wade got paid, Fani got laid... on your dime

The ruling is in. Willis has to either step aside or fire Wade. I will see if a written order going into detail has been released to the press.

A step in the right direction. It will be interesting to see what motions the defense attorneys make now.

Judge McAfee wrote that defendants “failed to meet their burden” in proving Willis’s relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade was a “conflict of interest" enough to merit her removal from the case.

McGee did find an appearance of “impropriety”.

Discussion of the higher role of a prosecutor:

“Actual Conflict of Interest Our highest courts consistently remind us that prosecutors are held to a unique and exacting professional standard in light of their public responsibility – and their power. Every newly minted prosecutor should be instilled with the notion that she seeks justice over convictions and that she may strike hard blows but never foul ones. See Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935) (overruled on other grounds). Most importantly, prosecutors are expected to assume a role beyond a mere advocate for one side and must make decisions in the public’s interest – not their own personal or political interest”

Yep, here’s the skewering:

“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. This finding is by no means an indication that the Court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment or the unprofessional manner of the District Attorney’s testimony during the evidentiary hearing . Rather, it is the undersigned’s opinion that Georgia law does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices – even repeatedly - and it is the trial court’s duty to confine itself to the relevant issues and applicable law properly brought before it. Other forums or sources of authority such as the General Assembly, the Georgia State Ethics Commission, the State Bar of Georgia, the Fulton County Board of Commissioners, or the voters of Fulton County may offer feedback on any unanswered questions that linger. But those are not the issues determinative to the Defendants’ motions alleging an actual conflict.”

In other words, she likely perjured herself and she may yet get walloped for that.

Now remember I told you the appearance of impropriety is what mattered?

“Finding insufficient evidence of an actual conflict of interest does not end the inquiry. Our appellate courts have endorsed the application of an “appearance of impropriety” standard to state prosecutors, even without any explicit finding of an actual conflict. See Battle v. State, 301 Ga. 694, 698 (2017) (“Certainly, 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.”) (emphasis added); Greater Ga. Amusements, LLC v. State, 317 Ga. App. 118, 122 (2012) (physical precedent only) (“a district attorney may not be compensated by means of a fee arrangement which guarantees at least the appearance of a conflict of interest”) (later deemed persuasive by Amusement Sales, Inc. v. State of Ga., 316 Ga. App. 727, 736 (2012)); Head v. State, 253 Ga. App. 757, 758 (2002) (“a prosecutor’s close personal relationship with the victim in a case may create at least the appearance of a prosecution unfairly based on private interests rather than one properly based on vindication of public interests. . . . n that case, the individual prosecutor who has the conflict may be disqualified”); Davenport v. State, 157 Ga. App. 704, 705 (1981) (granting new trial after concluding that “nder such circumstances there is at least the appearance of impropriety”); but see Whitworth v. State, 275 Ga. App. 790, 794 (2005) (physical precedent only)”



There’s all sorts of juicy quotes in this opinion. I’ll have to go into more detail later. The gist is “she looks shady, so she either needs to leave of make Wade leave.”

The judge made the right call in accordance with Georgia law that requires an actual conflict of interest.

She will fire Wade, and come back out swinging hard to extract a pound of flesh.

All the other side issues are nothing compared to the actual ruling on the actual case, and don't matter as this case would be a circus no matter what due to the clowns, and his supporters, involved.

Look for more guilty pleas very soon.

Every time I think you are galactically stupid, you raise the bar.

I forgot you skipped class the day they taught law in law school.

[br




When do you stop being a petulant child?

When does your employer realize he's getting fucked?

work from home = bitching on websites all day. A model employee.

The opinion is divided into two parts. The first says that Trump didn’t prove an actual conflict, but Trump did prove an appearance of impropriety, that the appearance of impropriety is the standard (he quotes a lot of Georgia case law that shows prosecutors being removed for the mere appearance of impropriety). He then explains why it all looks shady.

But then he explains where an actual conflict requires the complete removal of a prosecutorial office, Georgia case law is vague whether the appearance of impropriety required an entire office be removed or just individual prosecutors. He takes a conservative view, meaning he’s going to take the view that disturbs the case the least, and therefore he believes the appearance of impropriety can be handled by removing Wade himself.

That’s where the opinion gets janky. He lays out why Willis herself looks dishonest. Well, her dishonesty doesn’t leave just because Wade leaves. How does her appearance of shadiness get resolved just because Wade may disappear? A lying prosecutor is a lying prosecutor.

The judge is probably taking in public policy considerations (ie political) by not making Willis come off completely. Totally removing her would probably allow his decision to be spun as political even if he doesn’t intend for it to be at all. Its a hell of a thing to disgrace a DA under the national spotlight. And he’s already done that to a great degree, as we attorneys would perceive it. But he’s done it the bare minimum he had to. That’s consistent with a conservative judicial philosophy.

Where's all that unyielding respect for the officers of the court in relation to the appearance of impropriety when it comes to Justices of the Supreme Court?

That hers and Wade’s relationship didn’t begin until after she hired him.

You don't take me seriously. 

If Fani doesn’t take herself off of the case I can see her being disbarred over her actions and behavior.

Best to just walk away for her.

Trumps barracuda attorneys are going to tear her apart over her actions if she continues.

What separates the "barracuda attorneys" from the "false albacore" attorneys"?

Two things stand out: The client, and the clients willingness to pay.

The client is Donald Trump, television performer, serial grifter, and former president.

The client is well known for two things: unpaid legal bills, and bankrupting his casino.

Manhattan is awash first class attorneys, and law firms, who specialize in business related cases.

Many specialize in business cases that have a criminal component, that is, "white collar crime".

However, in substantial swaths of the legal community, MAGA stands for "Making Lawyers Get Lawyers".

Not a single first rate firm will take the risk of 1. not being paid, 2. suborning perjury, 3. bad publicity.

( It doesn't help matters that there's no almost no defense, and the client will never, ever, take a deal. )

The best attorneys that Trump could find either have resigned, or have represented him, then resigned.

"The donor class" has overpaid a group of 3rd stringers ( or worse ) with near zero courtroom experience.

A second year law student could convict Trump in Georgia.

How many times would they have to play that phone call soliciting phony votes?

Was it not Trumps voice?  ... Guilty as charged.

The RICO cases are much harder, but in isolation, Trump's toast.


"Barracuda" attorneys don't file frivolous motion after frivolous motion, with zero "bite".

They don't get slapped down by unanimous decisions from the DC Circuit either.

They don't forget to request a jury trial, providing KY for their clients' $500 million dollar enema.


Looking forward to 2025 ...

Will president Biden be inspired by his senatorial predecessors?

Could the guiding spirit of Gerald Ford be waiting in the wings?

Will our abiding democracy support healing and forgiveness?

Can we come together with a unity of purpose?

I certainly hope so.


Hang the son of a bitch.

Unfortunately Trump will be President in 2025. It is unfortunate because he is the only person running that can get our country back on track.

Fortunately he is much better than what we have right now.

Trump 45 & 47 -2025

Drill baby drill.