As soon as allegations of an inappropriate romantic relationship between Willis and attorney Nathan Wade surfaced last month, speculation about the future of the case began to swirl. Even if the prosecution isn’t derailed, the upheaval has certainly created an unwanted distraction for Willis and her team and could undermine public confidence in the validity of the case.
The defense attorney who first exposed the relationship says it creates a conflict of interest and is asking the judge to toss out the indictment and to prohibit Willis, Wade and their offices from further involvement in the case. In a response filed earlier this month, Willis acknowledged a “personal relationship” but said it has no bearing on the serious criminal charges she’s pursuing and asked the judge to dismiss the motions seeking her disqualification without a hearing.
The law says “disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one,” Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee said during a hearing Monday. Because he believes “it’s possible that the facts alleged by the defendant could result in a disqualification, I think an evidentiary hearing must occur to establish the record on those core allegations.”
What interest is conflicted, here? They’re on the same side, does one of them not want to win their own case?
The argument is that Willis brought the case so that she could hire her boyfriend and funnel a shit load of state money to his law firm for his services.
Everything else is a distraction. This point is the only thing the judge will care about and it’s a pretty ridiculous argument.
“Yeah, I’ll indict a former president on RICO so I can send my boyfriend half a million dollars. Great plan!”
Except he isn’t being paid any more than the other attorneys on the case
Isn’t he also taking a lower rate than what he normally charges also ?
He’s getting paid more (hourly rate) than the RICO expert guy, but the same as another.
Trump’s interest of course.
I give Willis the benefit of the doubt but it’s absolutely the appearance of impropriety. As an elected office holder myself, I have to recuse myself from any votes or even discussions when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars on anything that might benefit me personally even tangentially. I can’t even argue we should build a fence if that fence would affect my property in any way no matter how badly it’s needed or warranted. I can’t even argue against it.
So how does her dating another attorney have anything to do with her cases? It doesn’t.
Dating another attorney isn’t the issue.
Hiring the other attorney she happened to be dating for a high profile case against a former POTUS is.
As an aside it would have been just as suspect if it’d been a low-profile case, but the relationship likely wouldn’t have been discovered.
It doesn’t, this is a political smokescreen.
This is why ethics also include the outward appearance of things. It’s not enough to do/not do something, you have to also avoid people thinking that you did/didn’t do something.