The ruling represents a middle ground following bombshell revelations that DA Fani Willis and prosecutor Nathan Wade were engaged in a romantic relationship.

Key Points

  • Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee ruled the Georgia election interference case against former President Donald Trump and his co-defendants can continue, but only if Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis or prosecutor Nathan Wade removes themselves.
  • The ruling represents a middle ground following the revelation that Willis and Wade were engaged in a romantic relationship for more than a year.
  • Willis and Wade admitted to the relationship only after it was first alleged in January court filings for defendant Michael Roman.
  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    136·
    3 months ago

    This is probably the most important trial in the nation at the moment, maybe one of the most important since the civil war. Willis being a woman is irrelevant and something mainstream D and leftist media keep trying to trot out instead of addressing the issue head on.

    Issue number one, is that she hired a personal injury lawyer for a constitutional law case. That alone should be enough to remove Wade from the trial. This isn’t his field of expertise and this shouldn’t be fucking amateur hour.

    Then she starts dating him? and is taking trips on what appears to be the States dime? Bruh I don’t give a shit. This trial is way too important for this kind of fuckery. Like she’s taking the Cop CIty trial more seriously than she is this one. What the actual fuck??!?!

    No fucking excuses. Her actions on this trial have been indefensible.

    • Hominine@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      3 months ago

      It is gob smacking to see this own goal, and I also find myself wondering why she made such poor decisions.
      For those not interested in blind conjecture (such as the post above yours), I recommend these resources as jumping off points:

      Serious Trouble
      Talking Feds

    • heavy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      34·
      3 months ago

      Thanks for your perspective.

      It sounds like though, her actions on this trial could be called “being human” as well.

      Is there evidence that says Wade is a bad and otherwise unfit lawyer for this case? I could be wrong, but it sounds like he paid for the trip they took. In either case what would that matter? How does that affect their judgement to act in this case?

      Anyone can answer, but right now I’m not convinced this isn’t a dog and pony show diversion. If I get a chance, I’ll try and learn more about Willis and this case.

      • testfactor@lemmy.world
        81·
        3 months ago

        It isn’t that it affects the trial per se, but it looks like corruption, right?

        I use my government position to hire my private practice lover for a high profile case, and then they treat me to several expensive vacations?

        It’s not that it points to something fishy with the case directly, but when the DA is involved in obvious corruption, I can see bringing it up if your only defense is “this trial is part of a corrupt bid to keep me off the ballot.”

        It’s not, but holy cow does it add fuel to that fire if you are in fact engaged in obvious corruption elsewhere.

        • heavy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          51·
          3 months ago

          I don’t think it looks like corruption, though. Being in a government position doesn’t make you immune from hiring from a pool of people you know, nor do I think that’s an overt problem if it’s on your own dime. These two are lovers, but they took several vacations because of her position? I don’t think that follows.

          All of this is really beside my original point. I think a woman’s personal life has been made the main feature of a high profile case, and now everyone’s scrutinizing Willis, over dubious behavior at best, instead of at the defendant who’s accused of committing high crimes.

          Anyone continuing to incite blame on Willis is falling for this obvious nonsense.

          • testfactor@lemmy.world
            71·
            3 months ago

            But she didn’t hire him on her own dime. She used her position as DA to have the DA’s office hire him to try the case.

            You are absolutely not allowed to hire from a pool of people you know on the government’s dime. If the Department of Energy puts out a contract to build a power plant, the guy in charge of who gets hired has to disclose any conflict of interest, and is 1000% not allowed to award that work to a friend without oversight.

            And if they did, and that friend then started giving them expensive gifts, that’s a huge huge no no.

            And while you’re right that she does claim that they split the cost of the vacations, she claims that she reimbursed him for her half in cash, and has no receipts to that affect. Which could very well be true, but you must admit looks terrible.