10 Comments
User's avatar
тна Return to thread
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Feb 16, 2024
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
NLTownie's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
SandyG's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Hugh's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
max skinner's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
TeddyтАЩs Mom's avatar

I really do question her judgement, though. If she somehow didnтАЩt realize when she brought the charges that every single aspect of her life would be scrutinized, she hasnтАЩt been paying attention. This is such an unforced error.

Expand full comment
SandyG's avatar

Agree.

Expand full comment
David Court's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Spencer $ Sally Jones's avatar

Just imagine if we brought to trial every Office Romance in the country. Aaraugh

Expand full comment
BriDub's avatar

It makes me think of Neil Patrick Harris' Dr. Horrible "ah haaaaaa!"

Expand full comment
ErrorError