Fani Willis Allegations, and What To Make Of Them
Our friend Andrew Fleischman has taken to The Daily Beast with a lawsplainer on the pending motion to disqualify and accusations against Fulton County DA Fani Willis.
The standard to disqualify Fulton County here is not whether Fani Willis actually made her decisions to benefit Nathan Wade. It’s plausible that she would have made the exact same choices without the personal relationship. But if her choices to extend or prolong the investigation benefit a romantic partner, who is paying for her meals and vacations, that is an actual conflict.
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.
So what happens next? Judge McAfee has stated his intention to hold a hearing in February to look over the truth of these allegations. If they are true, the case will not be dismissed, but it is likely that he will disqualify Fani Willis, which, under Georgia law, will require disqualifying her entire office. The case will then go to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, which will decide who the case can go on to next.
In the best-case scenario, the case will find its way to someone like Sherry Boston in DeKalb County. She’s a long-time district attorney who is not prone to seeking the limelight. She’s in a blue part of the state. And her office has the budget, the bandwidth, and the experience to tackle this case, possibly by simplifying some of its rococo elements. The Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council also has competent attorneys who can bring the case on their own. But even if everything goes as smoothly as humanly possible, it is difficult to imagine trying the former president before the November election. And it’s also possible the case may go to someone who will choose to dismiss it.
Read the whole thing for yourself, and discuss.
This whole situation is amazingly infuriating. Not much else to say about it.Report
democrats are notoriously terrible at Oppo research. And you’d think Fani Willis would have thought some of this through.
That said I fully expect the actual situation will not be as characterized here. Perhaps a lie. Perhaps even worse.Report
What’s “even worse”? Is this the long-theorized reverse-Jussie?Report
Perhaps there is a lie being told about their relationship designed to throw off prosecution.
Perhaps she is lying about their relationship thinking it would never be found out.
One of those things keeps the trial going as we expect it.
One of those things forces it to move to a different Jurisdiction AND gives the GOP more grist for their “political witch hunt narrative.”
Your call as to which is “worse.”Report
Perhaps there is a lie being told about their relationship designed to throw off prosecution.
Like what? They were not, in fact, boning?
Perhaps she is lying about their relationship thinking it would never be found out.
How is that different than the allegations?Report
It appears that, based on court filings unsealed today, Willis and her special counsel were or are indeed romantically involved.
Which makes both of them idiots. They need to recuse and ask for transfer of venue now.
And Democrats REALLY REALLY NEED TO UNDERSTAND that in the internet age you can’t do stuff like this. Period.Report
Well, this footage surfaced.
In fairness, she probably didn’t know how difficult it would be to not sleep with staffers when she said that.Report
Since you like to nitpick, he’s not a staffer. He’s a hired contractor.
But as I noted upthread. This is an own goal that the DA could easily have avoided, and which damages the Democratic brand in a purple state. That she still hasn’t recused and asked for change of venue to Dekalb County to salvage this is infuriating and mystifying.Report
Maybe that can be the out that she uses!
“He was a *CONTRACTOR*!”Report
Apparently the legal commentariat has now worries:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/24/opinions/fani-willis-trump-georgia-election-case-green/index.htmlReport
It’s not a conflict of interest! It’s only the *APPEARANCE* of a conflict of interest!Report
Which I have already noted is bad enough that Willis should recuse. But legally apparently she is probably fine.Report
You could easily pivot to accusing critics of racism and/or being incels.
“People who aren’t misfit losers have sex. Some of these people who aren’t misfit losers are Black. Why does that bother you?”
You could ride that until Trump says something indefensible easily. Then just change the subject.Report
I’m a critic of her decision on this. Which apparently has you off your game.Report
If it’s that important to you to take down a strong Black Female who is willing to stand up for what’s right, I guess that’s your prerogative.
Let me know when you’re willing to take on Trump again after you’re done.
If you are, of course.Report
Allowing this side show to go on any longer distracts from Georgia’s strong case against Trump. Moving the case to another District Attorney in Georgia accomplishes this, even though its more a political optics problem then a legal one.Report
Well, we’ll see who is in charge of “allowing” it over the next day or so, I guess. It’s Friday. A 4:45 news dump might be welcome.Report
Jay, me lad, what the heck is with this woke cosplay nonsense? Is it that our local liberal commenters are too sensible so you feel a need to try and present the view from rose twitter or something? I’m honestly baffled as to your point here.Report
It was the whole “it’s not like they were *ACTUALLY* doing anything wrong! It only looked like it!” opinion piece that kicked off this subthread.
Surprisingly easy to pull off.
All you have to do is personalize the argument against the other person instead of discussing the matter at hand.Report
I went over the original opinion piece to double check but it was entirely bereft of the identarian stuff you’re miming at here.It basically mirrors the, to my mind correct, position that Philip took which is that Willis’ entanglement with Wade is colossally stupid, likely violated any nepotism laws and is politically insane but, as a legal matter, has no bearing on the nuts and bolts of the strictly legal element of the court actions she’s in the public eye over. So you’re still introducing these themes from nowhere.
If I believed, for even a second, that you actually believed in this identarian pap I wouldn’t be asking but we both know you despise it even more than I do.Report
My belief is that it exists at all due to identarian stuff.
Given that the guy is in charge of the Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics which, let me copy and paste this, Above all, the Stein Center fosters an understanding of “ethical legal practice” that goes beyond adherence to the rules outlined in professional codes of conduct, I’m of the impression that we are deep within identarianism.
Finding excuses to shoot our institutions in the foot lest we give ostensible opponent a “win” (that is, changing the name on the brass plate outside of the door behind which the exact same decisions continue to be made).
We’re in another friggin’ Claudine Gay situation and we’re just hoping that it gets dropped by close of business instead of continuing to be a topic next week and the week after while others limply point out that only the public should be upset.Report
Seems like a reach to me. Powerful people do idiotic hypocritical things without identarian ideology being in the mix. If someone here or the original article was defending them on identarian grounds I’d understand your point but neither is the case.
Nor is there any plausible indication that either actor are in their position due to identarianism as is alleged in “Le Affaire de Claudine”. By all accounts both Willis and Wade are highly capable litigators but they very obviously have that blind spot that many powerful well to do people have towards their own extracurricular activities. See, for instance, Jerry Falwell Jr at Liberty University. Same kind of self entitled crooked idiocy, no identarianism.Report
I just googled “Jerry Falwell Jr” and it says “former President at Liberty University”.Report
Ehh you probably don’t read a lot of iside right wing baseball news. Basic rub is he and his wife did a lot of dubious philandering around with a pool boy, got the guy some sweet gigs, indulged in a lot of mismanagement of Liberty University. My point being that, as with our current case, it’s a case of people in a position of power high handedly assuming they can get away with anything they feel like. To bring it to a pet complaint of yours it’d be like Newsome* at the French Laundry. Identarianism doesn’t factor in- it’s more about the “rules are for little people” attitude that is a constant peril for people in power.
*Though both Falwell and Newsome are actually -worse- cases that Willis /Wade in that Falwell was preaching conservative morals while egregiously violating them in his personal life and Newsome was preaching Covid restrictions while violating those same rules in his off hours whereas Willis/Wade’s prosecutorial work is not directly contrary to them philandering with each other (but it remains colossally stupid and wrong both as a legal anti-nepotism matter and a political matter).Report
I probably should have put “former” in bold.Report
God(ess?) willing, Willis will be “former’ for her role too. But it’s been a few days since the allegations came out. Things just don’t move that fast.Report
I don’t much care about this story, but two reasonable points I saw raised strictly relating to the matter were:
1. Wade *was* an unusual pick owing to his lack of previous experience…
2. Going the RICO route (which some on the Left have characterized as ‘overly complex’) increased the work and $$ for Wade by an order of magnitude.
The practical outcomes of which:
1. The case is taking much longer than it otherwise would have taken — which has political ramifications (probably detrimental to the *anti-Trump* cause).
2. If the case is flipped to another DA, the RICO portion may be dropped — which would both simplify and complicate things as (IANAL) the backbone would still be there but the skeleton would have to be rebuilt/refiled.
I don’t know if this is strictly accurate from a Legal/procedural point of view… but if it is, it makes it worse from just a ‘lapse in judgement’.Report
The RICO route is apparently an approach she has taken for successfully prosecuting members of street gangs in the past. That of course does not preclude nepotism from being a motive, but as I understand it the approach is also her MO as a prosecutor.
Of course if she was pursuing anything other than the best avenue of conviction it would be a serious indictment, though it is also so wound up in professional judgment calls it may be hard to say one way or the other.Report
I think Inmd is generally correct and beat me to my points in his response. I also want to take this opportunity to note (as I so often disagree with him and relish the chance to agree) that Philip is extremely right in that the Dems cannot tolerate this kind of behavior and should stomp on it furiously right up to and including prosecuting her if the worst case allegations end up being substantiated.Report
Sure, wouldn’t disagree… just adding that I saw reasonable commentary that goes beyond DA boinks Lawyer for $$.Report
Point? He don’t need no stinkin’ point!Report
Hey, CJ. You’re a lawyer.
Do you have a professional opinion on the Fani Willis allegations and what ought to be done in response?Report
He has a point- I just think it’s wrong/non sequitur.Report
Jesus.
This is just stupid. I’d expect that THIS EXACT SCENARIO is part of any orientation for employment with the county, state, or local jurisdiction, and that even the appearance of impropriety is problematic. Hell, it’s been a component of EVERY onboarding in every job I’ve had since 1992. Even if I make allowances for the incompetence of gov’t workers and onboarding orientations, SHE KNEW this was wrong. If she didn’t, she should be fired for not having the wisdom to see it. If she did, she should be fired just for the appearance of impropriety.Report
And meanwhile she needs to recuse and allow this to transfer to another jurisdiction since the underlying case remains to be litigated.Report
It seems to me that’s what has to happen. It’s unfortunate in relation to the larger case but people in these positions need to be held to high standards and you just can’t do this kind of thing.Report
NO – and Democrats have to stop doing stuff like this as a matter of course. In the internet age you can’t hide anything under the proverbial bushel basket, doubly so when Trump is your opposition. Continuing to shoot our political feet off like this makes it far easier for the GOP to intone that Democrats can’t govern fairly and so shouldn’t be trusted.Report
I was agreeing with you.Report
yes you were – apparently my head, my fingers and my keyboard were not all in sync to start that reply.Report