I'm no lawyer, haven't played one on TV, and never even tried to convince a prospective date that I went to law school. So someone will have to educate me on this one: why are we seeing Fani Willis and Nathan Wade on TV talking about their sex life in a trial about TFG (henceforth known under this acronym as The Frequent Gasbag), yet TFG…
I'm no lawyer, haven't played one on TV, and never even tried to convince a prospective date that I went to law school. So someone will have to educate me on this one: why are we seeing Fani Willis and Nathan Wade on TV talking about their sex life in a trial about TFG (henceforth known under this acronym as The Frequent Gasbag), yet TFG never seems to appear on camera and microphone in any of the too-many-to-count legal proceedings against him?
The obvious concern is that, as CNN and others spend all day showing and talking about how the prosecutors behaved outside of the courtroom, The Frequent Gasbag is never seen in living color and pristine audio testifying, or even sitting uncomfortably and petulantly, inside of it. To the extent that perception is an issue, the net effect thus becomes that the legally appointed hunters become the hunted, while said hunter gets to go about his preferred business of undermining democracy as if nothing is wrong and he is, yet again, a victim with a grievance. The whole thing seems more than a little ass-backward. Perhaps it wouldn't matter so much as if it weren't the case that our democracy in America might hang in the balance. But when optics matter, in what promises to be a very close election with very significant consequences for us all, it seems self-evident that TFG should be seen as often as possible and warranted answering for his own behavior and decisions. As Willis said, she is not the one on trial, rather TFG. Why are we being given the impression that it is the other way around?
I hate to play the part of the optimist here, but I firmly believe all will be forgotten when daily coverage of the trial begins and prosecution witnesses are paraded on the TV screens of millions of viewers (some of them might even be a few ‘on the fence’ November voters) across the world, and they recount in detail the myriad efforts of Drumpf and his minions to steal the 2020 presidential election. Here’s hoping that trial begins in August/September 2024 and that the prosecution rests on or about November 1st. There’s my Ray of Sunshine hope for the world.
Corporate media which has ALWAYS be friendly to Trump (capitalists flock together) does whatever adds to their profit margins: CBS CEO said, “Trump is good for CBS.”
It seems to be more of an HR problem rather than a legal one. Yet this morning while feeding the dog his breakfast, I turned on the tv and the local CBS affiliate talking heads were yapping on about Fani Willis and her "affair". I don't give a flying eff about her sex life, I want her her to bring him and his band of election interference goons to trial. I like the new moniker for TFG, The Frequent Gasbag.
It's all so head shaking. Fani is taken to task for a consensual relationship by the supporters of a man who is soon to go on trial for fraudulently paying off a porn star to keep silent about a sexual encounter he had while his wife was taking care of their three month old baby. This isn't a case of asymmetry, this is just plain insanity.
there's a good article in the Atlantic by Mckay Coppins that points out that Trump has always been the way he is, so calling him out for 'getting worse' is futile
Yeah his word salads have been garbage for his entire political career. But a lot of what gets aired are the choice quotes- the stuff that opponents find insane or inflammatory, but tickle the pleasure centers of the base. And by just focusing on the specific outrage quotes, it can give him the appearance of coherence and strategy behind it, when in reality he's just rambling his way to applause lines.
The thing is most people who rationalize getting down and dirty were inclined to that approach in the first place. If you observe most comment forums for any length of time, you see that an awful lot of people do not need any sort of just motive to embrace down and dirty. The other thing is that the return of fire is used by the target to justify even more outgoing fire. A good example is the recent MTG clip where she goes on about not liking "that kind of language " and then responding with that same kind of language. Rejecting the rules may gratify some emotions, but it does not actually accomplish the goal.
The argument is totally beside the point here. The reason this hearing is happening is that a smart, hard-working lawyer, Fanni Willis, who is also Black and a woman has gone after Trump and his minions. The allegation that Willis was in a romantic relationship with Wade, whom she hired to work on the legal case, came from a bit of sleuthing done by a Trump ally, Michael Roman who specializes in sleazy oppo research. This entire hearing was engineered by Trump to discredit Willis with the aim of getting Willis taken off the case and, if possible, stopping Trump and his co-defendants including Michael Roman, from having to stand trial.
If Willis gets pulled off this case, there's no guarantee the DOJ will appoint another prosecutor and the whole RICO case would be frozen in time like a bug in amber. And if Trump doesn't manage to get Willis fired, he still succeeds in dragging her through the mud, trying to humiliate her as a woman for having a sexual relation with a co-worker. It gives Trump, through his lawyers, the chance to paint a picture of a Black woman having a steamy affair with a Black man who was, during Roman's investigation, going through a very messy divorce. Trump is trying to play to an old, racist stereotype of Black people being overly sexual. He was trying to humiliate Willis for being in an "illicit" affair and humiliate Wade for having a woman boss who is the cause of her lover's marriage breakup.
But Willis, instead of being humiliated, called Trump out and wanted to testify so she could defiantly call out Trump's whole game. I think she succeeded. I also think she has flipped Trump's strategy around and *she* got to play Trump, beating him at his own game.
I'd like to know how much Trump paid Roman for his "research" and what was in it for the woman who was identified as Willis's "former friend" who testified that Willis and Wade were in a romantic relationship before Willis hired Wade. So much sleaze going on and none of it landing on Fanni Willis. Brilliant.
Just want to point out that this isn't a federal (DOJ) case, but a state (GA) case. If she is removed from the case, the governor, a Republican, will appoint a new prosecutor's office. That will slow down the case considerably. However, all the legal experts I listen to agree there is no chance that case would be dismissed based on her behavior because it doesn't fit GA law on conflict of interest.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems the argument is that Willis may have chosen a more wide ranging prosecution in order to give Nathan Wade more work/income even though this is then worse for the defendant.
One of the many things that does not make sense with this argument is that presumably Nathan Wade would have worked on another case in the prosecutor's office if not this one with the same income, or any recognition that the defendant might deserve prosecution if they are guilty.
A common complaint about prosecutors is that they "over charge." This can mean that they charge crimes they can't necessarily prove in trial or they charge more defendants with more crimes. It's done to gain leverage in plea deals. The hope is that the defendant will plead to the lesser crimes in exchange for dropping the others and avoiding trial. It can serve to make the prosecutor look good...a good conviction rate or a good plea deal rate. Those two are usually the motives. To give a romantic partner more hours to charge...eh?
Ben Wittes mentioned to Charlie Sykes in a podcast that this whole thing echoes the old "FBI agents in love" plotting the Russia, Russia, Russia thing against Trump. It strikes me as a sideshow to cast doubt on the whole case and to get people to talk about salacious things rather than legal things when the case is discussed.
I really do question her judgement, though. If she somehow didn’t realize when she brought the charges that every single aspect of her life would be scrutinized, she hasn’t been paying attention. This is such an unforced error.
Steve, as another trial lawyer who practiced defense criminal law for 35+ years, you and I both know that TFG will have to sit in a court-room in Manhattan starting 25 March (absent a sudden case of bone spurs so painful that he can not sit for hours, let alone walk into the court room), with cameras outside the doors just waiting for him to appear, WHEN THE JUDGE SAYS HE MAY. Boy, won't that be educationing.
The answer to why this is happening: It is the way trials work. The defendant has been excused from this session, probably a good move by his lawyers. He would not sit still for three minutes with Fani going at it.
I'm no lawyer, haven't played one on TV, and never even tried to convince a prospective date that I went to law school. So someone will have to educate me on this one: why are we seeing Fani Willis and Nathan Wade on TV talking about their sex life in a trial about TFG (henceforth known under this acronym as The Frequent Gasbag), yet TFG never seems to appear on camera and microphone in any of the too-many-to-count legal proceedings against him?
The obvious concern is that, as CNN and others spend all day showing and talking about how the prosecutors behaved outside of the courtroom, The Frequent Gasbag is never seen in living color and pristine audio testifying, or even sitting uncomfortably and petulantly, inside of it. To the extent that perception is an issue, the net effect thus becomes that the legally appointed hunters become the hunted, while said hunter gets to go about his preferred business of undermining democracy as if nothing is wrong and he is, yet again, a victim with a grievance. The whole thing seems more than a little ass-backward. Perhaps it wouldn't matter so much as if it weren't the case that our democracy in America might hang in the balance. But when optics matter, in what promises to be a very close election with very significant consequences for us all, it seems self-evident that TFG should be seen as often as possible and warranted answering for his own behavior and decisions. As Willis said, she is not the one on trial, rather TFG. Why are we being given the impression that it is the other way around?
I hate to play the part of the optimist here, but I firmly believe all will be forgotten when daily coverage of the trial begins and prosecution witnesses are paraded on the TV screens of millions of viewers (some of them might even be a few ‘on the fence’ November voters) across the world, and they recount in detail the myriad efforts of Drumpf and his minions to steal the 2020 presidential election. Here’s hoping that trial begins in August/September 2024 and that the prosecution rests on or about November 1st. There’s my Ray of Sunshine hope for the world.
Corporate media which has ALWAYS be friendly to Trump (capitalists flock together) does whatever adds to their profit margins: CBS CEO said, “Trump is good for CBS.”
It seems to be more of an HR problem rather than a legal one. Yet this morning while feeding the dog his breakfast, I turned on the tv and the local CBS affiliate talking heads were yapping on about Fani Willis and her "affair". I don't give a flying eff about her sex life, I want her her to bring him and his band of election interference goons to trial. I like the new moniker for TFG, The Frequent Gasbag.
It's all so head shaking. Fani is taken to task for a consensual relationship by the supporters of a man who is soon to go on trial for fraudulently paying off a porn star to keep silent about a sexual encounter he had while his wife was taking care of their three month old baby. This isn't a case of asymmetry, this is just plain insanity.
The same man was found guilty of *nonconsensual* sexual abuse.
Yes,yes and yes! The hypocrisy is stunning. These lawyer in service to TFG will stoop to the lowest levels to continually insult and demean women.
We do have video of his deposition from the case that found him to be a rapist.
But basically he's mastered weaponizing certain logical fallacies that have always been resonant with the base like the appeal to motive.
Agree he's a master at logical fallacies and can spot who will buy them as well as a con man spots his mark.
there's a good article in the Atlantic by Mckay Coppins that points out that Trump has always been the way he is, so calling him out for 'getting worse' is futile
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/02/trump-buzzfeed-mar-a-lago-speech-coherence/677480/
Yeah his word salads have been garbage for his entire political career. But a lot of what gets aired are the choice quotes- the stuff that opponents find insane or inflammatory, but tickle the pleasure centers of the base. And by just focusing on the specific outrage quotes, it can give him the appearance of coherence and strategy behind it, when in reality he's just rambling his way to applause lines.
Asymmetry. We will look back at a lot of our insistence in playing by the rules as the cause of the destruction of the game.
The thing is most people who rationalize getting down and dirty were inclined to that approach in the first place. If you observe most comment forums for any length of time, you see that an awful lot of people do not need any sort of just motive to embrace down and dirty. The other thing is that the return of fire is used by the target to justify even more outgoing fire. A good example is the recent MTG clip where she goes on about not liking "that kind of language " and then responding with that same kind of language. Rejecting the rules may gratify some emotions, but it does not actually accomplish the goal.
Maybe not the cause, but definitely a contributor.
The argument is totally beside the point here. The reason this hearing is happening is that a smart, hard-working lawyer, Fanni Willis, who is also Black and a woman has gone after Trump and his minions. The allegation that Willis was in a romantic relationship with Wade, whom she hired to work on the legal case, came from a bit of sleuthing done by a Trump ally, Michael Roman who specializes in sleazy oppo research. This entire hearing was engineered by Trump to discredit Willis with the aim of getting Willis taken off the case and, if possible, stopping Trump and his co-defendants including Michael Roman, from having to stand trial.
If Willis gets pulled off this case, there's no guarantee the DOJ will appoint another prosecutor and the whole RICO case would be frozen in time like a bug in amber. And if Trump doesn't manage to get Willis fired, he still succeeds in dragging her through the mud, trying to humiliate her as a woman for having a sexual relation with a co-worker. It gives Trump, through his lawyers, the chance to paint a picture of a Black woman having a steamy affair with a Black man who was, during Roman's investigation, going through a very messy divorce. Trump is trying to play to an old, racist stereotype of Black people being overly sexual. He was trying to humiliate Willis for being in an "illicit" affair and humiliate Wade for having a woman boss who is the cause of her lover's marriage breakup.
But Willis, instead of being humiliated, called Trump out and wanted to testify so she could defiantly call out Trump's whole game. I think she succeeded. I also think she has flipped Trump's strategy around and *she* got to play Trump, beating him at his own game.
I'd like to know how much Trump paid Roman for his "research" and what was in it for the woman who was identified as Willis's "former friend" who testified that Willis and Wade were in a romantic relationship before Willis hired Wade. So much sleaze going on and none of it landing on Fanni Willis. Brilliant.
Just want to point out that this isn't a federal (DOJ) case, but a state (GA) case. If she is removed from the case, the governor, a Republican, will appoint a new prosecutor's office. That will slow down the case considerably. However, all the legal experts I listen to agree there is no chance that case would be dismissed based on her behavior because it doesn't fit GA law on conflict of interest.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems the argument is that Willis may have chosen a more wide ranging prosecution in order to give Nathan Wade more work/income even though this is then worse for the defendant.
One of the many things that does not make sense with this argument is that presumably Nathan Wade would have worked on another case in the prosecutor's office if not this one with the same income, or any recognition that the defendant might deserve prosecution if they are guilty.
A common complaint about prosecutors is that they "over charge." This can mean that they charge crimes they can't necessarily prove in trial or they charge more defendants with more crimes. It's done to gain leverage in plea deals. The hope is that the defendant will plead to the lesser crimes in exchange for dropping the others and avoiding trial. It can serve to make the prosecutor look good...a good conviction rate or a good plea deal rate. Those two are usually the motives. To give a romantic partner more hours to charge...eh?
Ben Wittes mentioned to Charlie Sykes in a podcast that this whole thing echoes the old "FBI agents in love" plotting the Russia, Russia, Russia thing against Trump. It strikes me as a sideshow to cast doubt on the whole case and to get people to talk about salacious things rather than legal things when the case is discussed.
I really do question her judgement, though. If she somehow didn’t realize when she brought the charges that every single aspect of her life would be scrutinized, she hasn’t been paying attention. This is such an unforced error.
Agree.
Steve, as another trial lawyer who practiced defense criminal law for 35+ years, you and I both know that TFG will have to sit in a court-room in Manhattan starting 25 March (absent a sudden case of bone spurs so painful that he can not sit for hours, let alone walk into the court room), with cameras outside the doors just waiting for him to appear, WHEN THE JUDGE SAYS HE MAY. Boy, won't that be educationing.
The answer to why this is happening: It is the way trials work. The defendant has been excused from this session, probably a good move by his lawyers. He would not sit still for three minutes with Fani going at it.
Just imagine if we brought to trial every Office Romance in the country. Aaraugh
It makes me think of Neil Patrick Harris' Dr. Horrible "ah haaaaaa!"