Plan B Forum

So the judge has ruled that Ms Willis can continue as lead prosecutor but her 'former romantic partner' Nathan Wade has to withdraw. (There's a joke there but I will let someone else do it.)

Assuming that Ms Willis and Mr Wade did not, in fact, abuse public funds, this seems like an odd decision to me.

We may need a newer understanding of 'romantic' . If Nathan Wade was a former neighbor or business partner would there be this kerfuffle? It seems to me - and I know no more about this than the average reader of the news and CNN viewer - that Ms Willis and Mr Wade had a convenient fucking arrangement that suited the pair of them: nothing more and nothing less. If their pleasure centers had been activated by roller coaster rides and they had chosen to occasionally visit the Georgia Scorcher (thank you Mr Google) together would we be having this discussion? They chose to get their rocks off by getting their rocks off - it's a free country, so I'm told.

Weird.

Andy--I think it's more about appearances; just as a boss should not have a "romantic relationship" with a direct report, DA should not have a relationship with someone who (s)he supervises, approves payments for, approves expenses for... Even if there is nothing inappropriate, it still should not be done because it raises questions; I have seen supervisors fired for the same thing.

Sure, it's a free country, but we all have certain ethical obligations we need to abide by--especially when you are responsible for disbursing public funds. I'm not sure about engaging a former business partner as a consultant paid with public funds, but I think it make also apply, ditto for a friend; I do recall companies I worked for had rules against someone directly supervising people who had a relationship of any type (including good friends) because it could raise the question of whether they were partial to him/her.

It's worth reading the judge's opinion. I found this to be odd. (From page 17 of the decision.)

Forensic Misconduct

The Georgia Supreme Court also recognizes forensic misconduct, or improper comment, by the State as grounds for disqualification. One example of such forensic misconduct is "expression
by the prosecuting attorney of his personal belief in the defendant's guilt."

Surely the decision by the DA to bring a case against a defendant is due to the DA's personal belief that s/he is guilty. The DA thinks that Colonel Plum did in fact do it in the library and seeks to prove this to a jury who will make the decision. But the DA presumably reviews the evidence and, if it's just not there, decides either to abandon the case or to seek more evidence. Once the decision to prosecute is made, I expect the DA to have a personal belief in the defendant's guilt and I cannot see why saying so would be improper. "I think he's guilty as hell, members of the jury - but that's why you are here. My opinion does not count and yours does."

My own personal bias about the people of Georgia (and Mississippi and Alabama and Louisiana) included a zero expectation that they will be reasonable. Rational? Absolutely they can easily rationalize three things before breakfast.

snailgate.

BP--for an alternative perspective, I still maintain that no one (or very few persons) in government want these Trump cases to go to trial and verdict as they realize they can face the same thing for their peccadilloes (and few policians don't have those skeletons in their closets). After reading the opinion and some of the things Ms Willis has done, I seriously question whether this was done to derail the case--or at least kick the can down the road beyond the election. This was an important case for election interference, and it now seems like it may not be heard, although everyone (even Ms Willis) has some cover to say "Don't blame it on me."

It reminds me of the OJ case; I have no evidence of it, but if Mark Fuhrman were paid to testify as he did (with the defense knowing the tapes existed), it would go a long way to acquittal, and it wouldn't have surprised me that's exactly what happen. This is the same sort of thing. I still maintain that none of these cases will ultimately go forward, but I fervently hope I am wrong.

I think it's odd that Fani and Wade have been given a choice, as in one of you gotta go. From what I've seen of Fani, I don't think she will be stepping down. She seems too bullheaded (or should that be cowheaded?) to give up her position in this case, even though it will continue to give Trump something to whine about and rally his supporters.