Fogbow

SuzieC wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2024 4:40 pm When is Judge McAfee up for re-election? Anyone know? Fulton County is 45% black so that's a lot of voters he will piss off if he rules in favor of the openly racist defense lawyers.

I think I heard yesterday that they are both up for re-election...this fall?

SuzieC wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2024 4:40 pm When is Judge McAfee up for re-election? Anyone know? Fulton County is 45% black so that's a lot of voters he will piss off if he rules in favor of the openly racist defense lawyers.

This year, he was appointed by Kemp to replace the last judge who left the end of last year....

I thought he is relatively new, but I could be wrong.

Cross posted from FL docs case thread. This is a blow by blow of each hearing. Very easy to read and understand. They did it like: FL morning, GA case, then FL afternoon.

Anna Bower did FL

Benjamin Wittes did GA

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/do ... ton-county

Ben Wittes thinks it's a close call in GA, and at the very least, Willis will be referred to the bar for...

...

...false testimony.

He did not mention what that false testimony might be. Or what the evidence of it might be.

He also liked the racist, sexist, belittling, "She didn't even tell her Daddy!" (about her relationship with Wade, implying that she was hiding it because, y'know, the big money scheme) closing argument.

He may be right about McAfee's ruling, but it will still be a travesty.

Much as I have loved Anna Bower, I need to take a break from Lawfare.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:44 pm Ben Wittes thinks it's a close call in GA, and at the very least, Willis will be referred to the bar for...

...

...false testimony.

He did not mention what that false testimony might be. Or what the evidence of it might be.

He also liked the racist, sexist, belittling, "She didn't even tell her Daddy!" (about her relationship with Wade, implying that she was hiding it because, y'know, the big money scheme) closing argument.

He may be right about McAfee's ruling, but it will still be a travesty.

Much as I have loved Anna Bower, I need to take a break from Lawfare.

IMO the really bad thing about them being removed from the case is that it's possible that could remove the entire office from the case and whoever is then determined to pass the case to can just dismiss it, and this asshole gets away with his obvious crimes in GA.

My understanding, and given the political currents we are now enduring, if Willis goes, the case is done. Clear, textbook, election interference. And the only place that Eastman, Meadows, Clark, Roman, and the rest are in any danger of paying for their attempted coup.

In which case I'll have yet another reason to say, Fuck you Merrick Garland.

Why wouldn't the case automatically pass to an an assistant DA (or a chief deputy-type or whatever #2 is called in Fulton Co/GA)? This case and the MAL seems to me like the most documented cases and so easiest to try. I want to strangle Fani. She knows how big this case is and she should have been scrupulous about associating with anyone having anything to do with the case.

If it's a close call, I hope the gravity of the RICO case outweighs these other issues.

Rolodex wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 2:32 pm Why wouldn't the case automatically pass to an an assistant DA (or a chief deputy-type or whatever #2 is called in Fulton Co/GA)?

I would not be surprised that, if the DA is removed, the case is assigned to a different office. Because if the case remains in the same office, the decider-maker will have a motive to curry to the (ousted) DA's wishes.

And a different office may decide to just dismiss.

bob wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 2:39 pm

Rolodex wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 2:32 pm Why wouldn't the case automatically pass to an an assistant DA (or a chief deputy-type or whatever #2 is called in Fulton Co/GA)?

I would not be surprised that, if the DA is removed, the case is assigned to a different office. Because if the case remains in the same office, the decider-maker will have a motive to curry to the (ousted) DA's wishes.

And a different office may decide to just dismiss.

A dismissal will only embolden Trump and future republicans to commit further crimes without any fear of being held accountable.

Dr. Ken wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 2:46 pm

bob wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 2:39 pm

Rolodex wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 2:32 pm Why wouldn't the case automatically pass to an an assistant DA (or a chief deputy-type or whatever #2 is called in Fulton Co/GA)?

I would not be surprised that, if the DA is removed, the case is assigned to a different office. Because if the case remains in the same office, the decider-maker will have a motive to curry to the (ousted) DA's wishes.

And a different office may decide to just dismiss.

A dismissal will only embolden Trump and future republicans to commit further crimes without any fear of being held accountable.

That's what terrifies me.

This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen in my life, so what if the prosecutor was stooping the investigator? They're on the same side! They're already figuratively in bed together, why not literally? Arg. Who cares?

Also.

Hope the sex was worth it.

bob wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 2:39 pm

Rolodex wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 2:32 pm Why wouldn't the case automatically pass to an an assistant DA (or a chief deputy-type or whatever #2 is called in Fulton Co/GA)?

I would not be surprised that, if the DA is removed, the case is assigned to a different office. Because if the case remains in the same office, the decider-maker will have a motive to curry to the (ousted) DA's wishes.

And a different office may decide to just dismiss.

Yep. Concur.

No way I could see it staying in her office if they're removed.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 2:49 pm This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen in my life, so what if the prosecutor was stooping the investigator? They're on the same side! They're already figuratively in bed together, why not literally? Arg. Who cares?

Also.

Hope the sex was worth it.

The problem is not the affair itself. In fact, GA law deals with that and it's not a reason for removal under their law. The issues are: a) they lied in their statements (affidavits?) as to when it began; b) if there were state funds misused

Rolodex wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 2:32 pm Why wouldn't the case automatically pass to an an assistant DA (or a chief deputy-type or whatever #2 is called in Fulton Co/GA)? This case and the MAL seems to me like the most documented cases and so easiest to try. I want to strangle Fani. She knows how big this case is and she should have been scrupulous about associating with anyone having anything to do with the case.

If it's a close call, I hope the gravity of the RICO case outweighs these other issues.

Georgia law, as the talking heads have described it. If she's out, Fulton County is out, and they have to find another DA elsewhere in the state.

I spend way too much time musing what is going on in McAfee's head, knowing as he obviously knows that if he throws aside all sanity and removes her, he is destroying one of the most important cases the country has ever seen. Not to mention opening the door for future attacks on DA's for, say, "the appearance of impropriety."

Well, that's life in the autocracy.

Or for prosecuting while Black.

realist wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 2:51 pm

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 2:49 pm This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen in my life, so what if the prosecutor was stooping the investigator? They're on the same side! They're already figuratively in bed together, why not literally? Arg. Who cares?

Also.

Hope the sex was worth it.

The problem is not the affair itself. In fact, GA law deals with that and it's not a reason for removal under their law. The issues are: a) they lied in their statements (affidavits?) as to when it began; b) if there were state funds misused

Yeah appreciate that. Thx.

Also, how do those two things affect the case against tfg? Got nothing to do with him. Also, is this a career ender? Can anyone get her removed from any case from here on out because she may have lied about when a consensual adult affair started, precisely? Or can she only be removed from cases that were ongoing when the incident may have happened? Can people she's previously prosecuted now use this in their appeals?

What a colossal muck-up.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 2:58 pm Also, how do those two things affect the case against tfg?

They don't, directly. But the result may be to shift the prosecution to another office, which may just dismiss the case.

Also, is this a career ender?

The DA is an elected office, so that's ultimately up to the voters (read: donors).

There may be bar referrals because of all this, however, and licenses could be at stake.

Can anyone get her removed from any case from here on out because she may have lied about when a consensual adult affair started, precisely?

Perjury is perjury, if it is a material lie. But this particular lie probably is relevant only to this case.

Or can she only be removed from cases that were ongoing when the incident may have happened? Can people she's previously prosecuted now use this in their appeals?

Being that this is 'Merica, anybody can file anything. But I doubt will be useful in any other case. Courts likely would rule, "Even assuming the DA lied in an affidavit filed in another case, defendant fails to show any connection to how it affected the prosecution of the case now before us. DENNIED."

Thx bob!

I don't believe Willis filed an affidavit, did she? The DA's office (her signature) filed a response to Roman's filings. The filing includes the statement that according to Wade's affidavit, there was no personal relationship at the time of Wade's hiring. Take that for what you will.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 4:19 pm I don't believe Willis filed an affidavit, did she? The DA's office (her signature) filed a response to Roman's filings. The filing includes the statement that according to Wade's affidavit, there was no personal relationship at the time of Wade's hiring. Take that for what you will.

Even if that's the case (and you know better than I) it's still a statement made under oath because she's an officer of the court. I'm pretty sure.

realist wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 4:29 pm

p0rtia wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 4:19 pm I don't believe Willis filed an affidavit, did she? The DA's office (her signature) filed a response to Roman's filings. The filing includes the statement that according to Wade's affidavit, there was no personal relationship at the time of Wade's hiring. Take that for what you will.

Even if that's the case (and you know better than I) it's still a statement made under oath because she's an officer of the court. I'm pretty sure.

I'm sure you're right (though I have no idea). My point is that 1) it's not an affidavit, 2) she never said anything about the affair, and 3) she only quoted Wade. Legalese, maybe, but who would call that perjury?

Now, on the stand, she said that they did not start dating till March 2022. So McAfee would have to be convinced that this was a lie, right? With the only testimony saying it wasn't true being the ex-friend who said she had seen them kissing and hugging since 2019 (they met in Sept 2019). Willis never discussed Wade with her. Is McAfee supposed to conclude from this friend's testimony that they were having an affair? (NB As if that mattered to the conflict of interest claim). And that therefore Willis is lying?

All the convincing evidence was supposed to come from Bradley, who ended up saying on the stand that he had no knowledge when they started dating, and had been speculating when talking with Roman's lawyer.

The amount of smoke raised by the defense lawyers was impressive, but the only actual fire is above (spoiler, there is no fire). Is that enough for perjury? Is that enough to refer to the bar?

All of this racist, sexist shit has ended up with a couple of cases saying that "the appearance of wrongdoing" is enough. I'm pretty sure I could raise an appearance of wrongdoing against anyone these days, with enough money and enough flying monkeys. I might even try to impeach a president. /sarcasm

All of this racist, sexist shit has ended up with a couple of cases saying that "the appearance of wrongdoing" is enough.

Unfortunately, sometimes it is.

I thought there wasn't evidence or proof of perjury.

Willis has filed a brief in support. It pretty much says, in complete sentences, all the things Abbate tried to say at last Friday's hearing.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... p-brief-dq

Here's the overview of the disqualification we've been discussing:

The cases relied on by the Defendants can be divided into five categories (1) cases that do not concern disqualification at all but that the Defendants use as a source of flowery and righteous—though inapplicable—language; (2) cases where criminal defense attorneys were disqualified on the basis of divided loyalty, in violation of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct; (3) cases where a prosecutor had an actual personal interest or stake in the outcome of a prosecution; (4) a single case where a defendant was denied a fundamentally fair trial where the district attorney had previously represented the victim in the case; and (5) cases where no actual conflict of interest was shown and disqualification was not proper.

The two cases regarding "appearance of wrongdoing" that McAfee and Abbate didn't see eye to eye on, and which the Lawfare team found problematic, are the last two cases mentioned in Section II, B (page 8 "In the remaining cases..."). My recreation of the hearing: McAfee, "Aren't these two cases based on an appearance of conflict of interest?" Abbate: "No, because there was actual conflict of interest." McAfee, "But the standard was appearance." Abbate: "No, it wasn't."

I reiterate, IMO the evidence* of wrongdoing that the defense dudes detailed is right up there with the evidence* of document theft by Joe Biden: if they can't get him for the theft, they can damage him by saying he's too old.