After allegations that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is romantically involved with the special prosecutor hired by her office, the sharks are circling both legally and politically.
Great interview. I had a bad feeling about this case from the start but I was hoping it was just ignorance on my part. I guess it’s good Trump fucked up in multiple states.
I would think a DA would know they have to be extra careful when prosecuting such a high profile person. The time to be loud about it is after you win. But I’m not a lawyer and haven’t had to run for office.
The short story is that she admits being in a relationship with Wade, but (and Wade attests to this in an affividavit) it began after she hired him and they shared expenses out of their personal funds. Earlier, Wade's estranged wife had provided receipts showing that Wade had paid for travel for the both of them; in this filing, Willis provided recept is where she did the same.
Their filing claims probably the least damaging version of this story. Willis did not "hire her boyfriend" (they weren't involved at the time of the hiring) and she didn't benefit financially in the crude way suggested, since expenses were shared between them.
This isn't a nothing burger.
Perhaps Mike Roman (who, recent reporting notes, was Donald Trump's oppo guy, so smearing people is what he does for a living) will produce evidence contradicting Willis and Wade.
Even if the Wade/Willis account is true, there is still an argument for financial impropriety, but I think it is very much attenuated from the sensationalistic claims made by Roman.
And, regardless of all of that, it is still an example of 1) very poor judgment by DA Willis that threatens the case, and 2) a public relations gold mine for Donald Trump.
Still, if true, the Willis filing puts the lie to some of Fleischman's more rampant speculation.
I think it was very likely from the getgo that GA wouldn't start a trial before the elections.
Remember that there is still a (weak) NY case (that could get pimped) ready to go ... and depending on the DC appeal, the DC case could still start in say ... May.
Imagine Trump being found guilty 4 weeks AFTER the RNC convention made him the nominee.
I think that this will be tough because of GA headwinds, but seriously, I expect her to fight with the same tenacity in this that she has all other things.
We'll know when we know, but it seems absolutely silly that with all of the evidence AND the GA RICO law being so specific, that if this gets dropped - oof. I don't know. Hyperbole cannot keep up with our recent news. Great pod.
Thank you for cranking them out. How much research do I have to do to figure out how to patreon or send you money?
"I expect her to fight with the same tenacity in this that she has all other things."
Called it.
Maybe I am on copium, but her response (176 pages of receipts, holy hell).
Georgia DOES have an appearance of impropriety law - for Judges only, I think?
Is that one voluntary too? (Looking at Eileen Cannon)
And
while we all wish complete moral clarity of our liberals, while the other side is completely incorrigible and shameless (including the attempts to make this an issue)... we may soon have to acknowledge that we both get to win, and not sacrifice our entire lives to purity in the hopes of proving that we are correct.
We're right.
We don't also need to be perfect. And maybe we ALSO need to not be so self critical?
But you are a journalist (endangered) so your skepticism IS appreciated.
I'll take tenacious over perfect,
and watch what "Georgia" has to say about it.
Thanks for your everything. Keep fighting!@ Keep being Liz.
On a serious note, this is the kind of trivial bullshit that is eroding people's faith in the rule of law except as something that only those who can afford to hire top flight lawyers get
The defendants broke the law long before the process to discover the wrongdoing began.
If I'm charged with a felony offense and undertake a deep dive to find if any two people at the County Courthouse are involved a personal relationship, I should be able to argue that the criminal statute I'm charged under is invalid.
It should be a legal hierarchy that proceeds A-B-C. C cannot override A unless there was a deliberate plan to create the circumstances that led to A.
I found this to be a disappointing episode (and episode 1 was great, maybe the best conversation about E Jean Carroll's case I have heard since its inception).
Andrew Fleischman seemed like a guy with an axe to grind, and the episode generally seemed to play fast and losse with known facts, assumptions, speculation, and opinion.
To be clear, since Willis gave her non-admission admission at the church, my expectations for any good coming from this case are almost as low as Fleichman's, so I'm not complaining because I only want happy optimistic conversations. I just don't feel much more enlightended for having lstened to a one-hour dunk-fest.
There were a couple of basic facts that have been reported that are more favorable to Willis that were not mentioend at all. It has been reported that Ward was the third person to whom Willis offered this particular role but she was turned down by the first two - that doesn't really fit the "she hired her lover so she could benefit financially" argument. Also, as has been widely observed, she has a history of bringing RICO prosecutions, which to me is an obvious and non-sinister explanation for why she used RICO here.
Fleischman has a very high opinion of Ashley Merchant, but as you noted and he dismissed, some of the claims in her filings seem borderline frivolous. Why, when you have the goods (as Merchant seems to) do you lard up your filing with a bunch of nonsense?
Anyway, because other sources I trust have reported more optimistically about the case, and because it was hard to disentangle Fleischman's commentary from his agenda, I didn't find this episode very enlightening. And I say this as someone who came in feeling very pessimistic about the GA prosecution.
It does. And all of that could have avoided if they had decided to act differently, or for Christ sakes, if she had found some other solution than staying his supervisor when they figured they want to be more than coworkers.
I very much hope that her response will end the whole thing, and he/she do not get disqualified.
But even if the trial continues with them, she put a huge stain on her reputation and more importantly, judgement and credibility.
She’s pretty dumb to hire a guy she sleeping with in the case of the century. And let’s be honest it took her almost 9 months to get a jury for the YSL case, god knows when this case is starting regardless
Question: why must I read the article on my phone? Why can't you print it so I can read it on my computer. I don't do podcasts - don't have the time. I can read much more quickly and get better comprehension. Think about it, please.
You know, just speaking as a guy who's looked at the issue, it feels like a serious conflict of interest to me. Because the choices that were being made didn't make sense to me, and when I found out about the conflict of interest, they did.
But I could easily be mistaken and that's just the nature of legal predictions.
If you have a point to make, please make it with facts and examples. Just to say “Norm Eisen and Joyce Alene have definitively shredded every argument Fleischman is making here” is just not a productive comment. Otherwise one is inclined to believe Fleishman.
There is Reddit for those who like that beautiful disaster of a place.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LawAndChaos/s/2zLFIVdi0o
Take my money, Liz! Looking forward to when you get a patreon. Love getting my law news from you!
Great interview. I had a bad feeling about this case from the start but I was hoping it was just ignorance on my part. I guess it’s good Trump fucked up in multiple states.
I would think a DA would know they have to be extra careful when prosecuting such a high profile person. The time to be loud about it is after you win. But I’m not a lawyer and haven’t had to run for office.
OK, Fani Willis had filed her response.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24401430-da-willis-roman-response
The short story is that she admits being in a relationship with Wade, but (and Wade attests to this in an affividavit) it began after she hired him and they shared expenses out of their personal funds. Earlier, Wade's estranged wife had provided receipts showing that Wade had paid for travel for the both of them; in this filing, Willis provided recept is where she did the same.
Their filing claims probably the least damaging version of this story. Willis did not "hire her boyfriend" (they weren't involved at the time of the hiring) and she didn't benefit financially in the crude way suggested, since expenses were shared between them.
This isn't a nothing burger.
Perhaps Mike Roman (who, recent reporting notes, was Donald Trump's oppo guy, so smearing people is what he does for a living) will produce evidence contradicting Willis and Wade.
Even if the Wade/Willis account is true, there is still an argument for financial impropriety, but I think it is very much attenuated from the sensationalistic claims made by Roman.
And, regardless of all of that, it is still an example of 1) very poor judgment by DA Willis that threatens the case, and 2) a public relations gold mine for Donald Trump.
Still, if true, the Willis filing puts the lie to some of Fleischman's more rampant speculation.
I appreciate Fleischman's bluntness, but ouch. Bad, bad news for anyone hoping to see Trump held accountable sometime this year.
I think it was very likely from the getgo that GA wouldn't start a trial before the elections.
Remember that there is still a (weak) NY case (that could get pimped) ready to go ... and depending on the DC appeal, the DC case could still start in say ... May.
Imagine Trump being found guilty 4 weeks AFTER the RNC convention made him the nominee.
I think that this will be tough because of GA headwinds, but seriously, I expect her to fight with the same tenacity in this that she has all other things.
We'll know when we know, but it seems absolutely silly that with all of the evidence AND the GA RICO law being so specific, that if this gets dropped - oof. I don't know. Hyperbole cannot keep up with our recent news. Great pod.
Thank you for cranking them out. How much research do I have to do to figure out how to patreon or send you money?
"I expect her to fight with the same tenacity in this that she has all other things."
Called it.
Maybe I am on copium, but her response (176 pages of receipts, holy hell).
Georgia DOES have an appearance of impropriety law - for Judges only, I think?
Is that one voluntary too? (Looking at Eileen Cannon)
And
while we all wish complete moral clarity of our liberals, while the other side is completely incorrigible and shameless (including the attempts to make this an issue)... we may soon have to acknowledge that we both get to win, and not sacrifice our entire lives to purity in the hopes of proving that we are correct.
We're right.
We don't also need to be perfect. And maybe we ALSO need to not be so self critical?
But you are a journalist (endangered) so your skepticism IS appreciated.
I'll take tenacious over perfect,
and watch what "Georgia" has to say about it.
Thanks for your everything. Keep fighting!@ Keep being Liz.
OMG. 😆
"I wish a bitch would try."
I'm officially dead.
On a serious note, this is the kind of trivial bullshit that is eroding people's faith in the rule of law except as something that only those who can afford to hire top flight lawyers get
The defendants broke the law long before the process to discover the wrongdoing began.
If I'm charged with a felony offense and undertake a deep dive to find if any two people at the County Courthouse are involved a personal relationship, I should be able to argue that the criminal statute I'm charged under is invalid.
It should be a legal hierarchy that proceeds A-B-C. C cannot override A unless there was a deliberate plan to create the circumstances that led to A.
Thank you Liz!
I found this to be a disappointing episode (and episode 1 was great, maybe the best conversation about E Jean Carroll's case I have heard since its inception).
Andrew Fleischman seemed like a guy with an axe to grind, and the episode generally seemed to play fast and losse with known facts, assumptions, speculation, and opinion.
To be clear, since Willis gave her non-admission admission at the church, my expectations for any good coming from this case are almost as low as Fleichman's, so I'm not complaining because I only want happy optimistic conversations. I just don't feel much more enlightended for having lstened to a one-hour dunk-fest.
There were a couple of basic facts that have been reported that are more favorable to Willis that were not mentioend at all. It has been reported that Ward was the third person to whom Willis offered this particular role but she was turned down by the first two - that doesn't really fit the "she hired her lover so she could benefit financially" argument. Also, as has been widely observed, she has a history of bringing RICO prosecutions, which to me is an obvious and non-sinister explanation for why she used RICO here.
Fleischman has a very high opinion of Ashley Merchant, but as you noted and he dismissed, some of the claims in her filings seem borderline frivolous. Why, when you have the goods (as Merchant seems to) do you lard up your filing with a bunch of nonsense?
Anyway, because other sources I trust have reported more optimistically about the case, and because it was hard to disentangle Fleischman's commentary from his agenda, I didn't find this episode very enlightening. And I say this as someone who came in feeling very pessimistic about the GA prosecution.
"It has been reported that Ward was the third person"
Yeah, and maybe then she decided to exploit that opportunity, and assume it would be cover enough for hiring Ward.
And for an outsider, who really doesn't know anything about GA specifically, this was quite enlightening.
That strays into conspiracy-land.
It does. And all of that could have avoided if they had decided to act differently, or for Christ sakes, if she had found some other solution than staying his supervisor when they figured they want to be more than coworkers.
I very much hope that her response will end the whole thing, and he/she do not get disqualified.
But even if the trial continues with them, she put a huge stain on her reputation and more importantly, judgement and credibility.
Never mind, looks like The Guardian erroneously reported Macafee had lost.
She’s pretty dumb to hire a guy she sleeping with in the case of the century. And let’s be honest it took her almost 9 months to get a jury for the YSL case, god knows when this case is starting regardless
Is this episode showing up on anyone else’s podcast feed? I’m just getting the preview and ep 1.
Same here on PocketCasts, nothing but the preview and first ep.
Question: why must I read the article on my phone? Why can't you print it so I can read it on my computer. I don't do podcasts - don't have the time. I can read much more quickly and get better comprehension. Think about it, please.
C’mon. Norm Eisen and Joyce Alene have definitively shredded every argument Fleischman is making here.
You know, just speaking as a guy who's looked at the issue, it feels like a serious conflict of interest to me. Because the choices that were being made didn't make sense to me, and when I found out about the conflict of interest, they did.
But I could easily be mistaken and that's just the nature of legal predictions.
If you have a point to make, please make it with facts and examples. Just to say “Norm Eisen and Joyce Alene have definitively shredded every argument Fleischman is making here” is just not a productive comment. Otherwise one is inclined to believe Fleishman.
ROC – Retired Old Citizen