If you listen carefully to the judge… in the hearing there will be a bar that has to be reached. The gist of it is ‘what law did they break?’ …. Hey, if they didn’t break the law then ‘no problem.’ Fani and Wade admitted to the court they had a relationship. The judge is in a position to listen to the defense as to how this corrupt behavior equates to breaking the law. It’s unethical to hire a person who you are having a sexual relationship with. I think the defense better have the exact statute and focus on that alone. I don’t know how much latitude the judge has in getting these two corrupt hacks to speak under oath. But, you cannot tell any reasonable person that Fani and Wade sleeping and eating together do not enjoy the benefits of the Wade’s income that was awarded by Fani. Fani would have to produce credit card receipts that she paid for her own meals and habitation while with Wade on these outings. The judge has the appearance of being reasonable… I think if this case blows up in Fani’s face it is poetic justice. Of all the cases in the USA this is the one with VIDEO feed! The nation can pop popcorn and watch the corruption on the big screen Thursday. Fani will not be in a church mocking God with her claims of racism and her ill treatment - she’ll be in front of an earthly judge for the world to see.
Very good thoughtful analysis. Thanks.
However, besides “breaking a law”, there are also ethical violations involved here, also. I will make some assumptions, here:
1. Fani and her cohorts did not bring this case to “put Trump in prison”. Oh, I know they would love that, but the purpose of this case, which was coordinated by the WH, is mainly to harass Trump and his associates.
2. So she goes to her boyfriend and says, “look, we have the “golden goose of trial cases! We will have money pouring in for this case and I can hire you at an exorbitant rate, and we both cash in.” What a deal!
If this is the initiating scenario, and I believe it is, then the judge has to rule this illicit arrangement as a spectacular case of conflict of interest, and ironically, a RICO violation.