Posted on 02/12/2024 4:52:06 PM PST by bitt
Judge Scott McAfee on Monday said Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis may be disqualified from Trump’s RICO case over her improper relationship with top Trump prosecutor Nathan Wade.
The judge also said Thursday’s evidentiary hearing on alleged misconduct ‘must occur.’
“I think it’s clear that disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one,” Judge McAfee said in Monday’s hearing. “The state has admitted a relationship existed. And so what remains to be proven is the existence and extent of any financial benefit, again if there even was one. And so because I think its possible that the facts alleged by the defendant could result in disqualification, I think an evidentiary hearing must occur to establish the record on those core allegations.”
“I think the issues at point here are whether a relationship existed, whether that relationship was romantic or non-romantic in nature, when it formed, and whether it continues. And that’s only relevant because it’s in combination with the question of the existence and extent of any personal benefit conveyed as a result of their relationship,” the judge said.
WATCH:
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
p
It is a different matter for the county and state to question the use and misuse of funds, improper hiring, contracts, etc., but that is a different matter.
This has been breaking news all day. It would be news, except for the “may” part.
Shouldn’t be breaking unless something’s been decided definitively.
Time to initiate disbarment proceedings…
It’s prosecutorial misconduct to lie about conflicts of interest and the case is being made that Fani Willis is prosecuting Trump for her own personal and financial benefit.
She appointed her squeeze to the case because she could use him to launder money back to herself.
The point of the case is then the grift. It’s a reason to dismiss the case.
Judge Scott McAfee decides if Fani is corrupt and has to disqualify her from the case which essentially destroys the case against Trump.
The liberal paean to Fani, “Find Me The Votes” book is collateral damage and might be cited as evidence of corruption since there are stories that Fani fed secret grand jury deliberations to Isikoff and Klaidman which is a YUUUUUUUGE no-no and that alone could SINK her and her phony case.
Seems there WERE plans to turn the book into a script but now any such movie deal would be OFF. However, there is a possibility it could become a comedy/blaxploitation classic.
It’s not the office romance. I’m surprised at how easily people are led astray. It that she hired her lover, ignoring those available within her office. Paid a hourly rate and approved hours far beyond normal, and then went on numerous vacations, had the county pay for the love nest etc etc.
Trump was an excuse to keep those money faucets wide open.
But what does the office romance have to do with the prosecution or persecution in this case, that is my question as it would disqualify an incredible amount of attorneys around the country.
Yes, but isn’t that an issue for the county and the state regarding the use of public funds? Fire her for that yes, recover the money, unlikely. But again, it doesn’t affect the case itself.
Did you read the last sentence of my comment. It’s an excuse to keep the money faucet open. Romance has very little to do with it, it’s the money.
“The charges against Trump are wrong but I am troubled by the affair being disqualifying as they were both on the prosecution.”
Troubled? Really?
Is it possible for any of the rest of us to ever attain the heights of concern that you show?
This isn’t a real prosecution , it’s political persecution and we need to use every break we get Replacing Fani will delay the trial thus helping Trump.
“Judge” Scott McAfee *spit* is Kemp’s b!+ch and will administer swamp law as needed.
Blazing Sadles was a long time ago, and Hollywood has no sense of humor about anything that benefits conservatives, Trump or the US constitution. They only make war movies and heterosexual romantic movies because they make money, and the latter they usually screw up with homosexuality or trans anyway. They probably think that the audience for war movies are such useless dolts that you might as well give them some scenes of death and Old Glory and take their money.
That utterly undoes any presumption that the prosecutor looked at the facts and the law, without bias, and determined that it was in the public interest to pursue these charges. Doing what you are told to get license to indulge in corruption is the height of unreasonableness and a gross abuse of the discretion of one's office.
Once you decide to do that, there is no way that any of your decisions can be found to have been carefully reasoned.
In law, there are a few key steps in the exercise of discretion. You must have the authority, you must exercise it, and you must exercise it reasonably. Doing what you are told in return for getting away with corruption is not, actually, exercising your discretion, certainly not reasonably.
Furthermore it creates the presumption that your decisions about whether facts suppor the prosecution rather than ending the prosection, are ignored because your real goal is to continue the prosecution in order to continue you corrupt practices.
So her corrupt practices, her office dalliance and her prosecution of Trump have everything to do with each other.
What makes it a major problem is that you can't have a public employee giving a financial incentive to another person to engage in the prosecution of citizens whose innocence is presumed unless they are convicted. The romantic nature of the relationship isn't the biggest issue here. Imagine if a prosecutor paid bounties to her staff based on the number of people they prosecuted. On its face that is unethical at best and illegal at worst, as it incentivizes the prosecution of innocent people.
The biggest angle to this story that hasn't gotten much attention is that at least one of these prosecutors met with White House lawyers as part of their work on the case. White House lawyers have no business in a state criminal case, which means they are subject to subpoena as witnesses for any of the defendants. Disqualifying these two mutants is the first step to getting THEM listed as witnesses, too.
While it might embarrass the prosecution, I still don't see how that is connected to the prosecution/persecution. She may and likely drop out but the case will continue without her.
Bigger picture her career is toast, so is his. I sure hope they saved some of that money for the future.
Yes, that contact by the prosecutor and the White House is relevant and should be exposed. But again, I’m not buying the connection with the affair within the prosecutor’s office. Aain, otherwise, imagine all of the cases around the country at risk?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.