If Fani Willis is removed a new DA will be appointed.

[Cattledog]

What this means is that whoever that is will decide if the case should proceed and as I understand it Willis's whole staff would be disqualified from the case.

All the local media here in Atlanta are treating it as a scandal as big as Trump asking for more votes.

She and Wade are getting no love from the media here in Atlanta...will that influence the Judge's decision???

It would be up to the State Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia to find someone else to take up the case.

[madaboutharry]

1. The judge will make his decision based on the law.

The attorneys for the co-defendants have failed to make their case. They have not proven that Fani Willis financially benefited from the relationship. In fact, the exact opposite is in evidence as she has testified she paid her own way.
I think people are disappointed, even angry, that she didn’t foresee how this affair could create a massive distraction.
She was great yesterday during her testimony. The people of Atlanta should be proud to have such a dedicated DA. They should be more angry at the attorneys for the co-defendants who resorted to not so concealed racist tropes as a means of denigrating Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis.

[Model35mech]

2. Does the outcome depend upon other than "preponderance of the evidence" and believability?

Seems to me most of the time actual 'proof' is a hard standard to reach.

While I accept that the co-defendent's lawyers that have the burdern to show "proof", what sorts of things would be acceptable "proof"?

[madaboutharry]

3. They need to prove that she financially benefited from the relationship.

They have no proof. All they have is that there was a relationship, which Wade and Willis admit occurred and that they have remained friends.

[FBaggins]

5. No... they don't

The judge just has to think that it’s more likely than not.

Willis actually made the point without realizing it. She’s not on trial… Trump’s proxies are. Which means they have “beyond a reasonable doubt” and “by a unanimous jury” protections… while she does not.

And it isn’t just whether she financially benefited. Lying about the relationship under oath would be more than enough.

[madaboutharry]

6. Ok, thank you.

So far there isn’t any evidence at all she benefited. None at all.

[FBaggins]

8. Of course there is

Again - there isn’t proof. She has all the reasonable doubt in the world.

That’s the difference. If she were on trial for illegally accepting gifts from him, “I reimbursed everything with cash” is enough unless/until the prosecution could overcome that (perhaps with evidence that she does not, in fact, pay cash for everything. But such a prosecution would have access to bank records and transactions.

But here? The judge just had to believe that her claim isn’t credible. That’s certainly possible given her (awful) courtroom demeanor (Wade did substantially better).

[LiberalFighter]

13. Personally I thought her courtroom demeanor did not harm her testimony.

Her testimony supported Nathan Wade's testimony. And her dad's testimony did the same for her testimony. The reasons for the large cash amounts and paying bills that way are legitimate. Her dad provided situations where his two credit cards were denied along with traveler's checks. Because he was black.

From what I saw and heard during the hearing, The judge should dismiss the challenge.

In all likelihood, if the judge heard Wade, DA Willis, and her dad it would likely trigger a some memories of his encounters in the past that would confirm their testimonies.

[Sympthsical]

16. The judge will probably take the father's testimony with a dash of salt

The problem there was her father wasn't under subpoena the day Willis testified. So, he gave all that testimony, then the defense asked if he'd watched or heard any news about Fani's testimony. Well, the father replied he listened to hours of news stories about it. I believe he said he listened to five hours worth of news programming about it.

Basically, her father would have known what she testified to before he was on the stand.

The judge made a note of it.

[LiberalFighter]

19. And he mentioned it was from conservative sites.

It shouldn't matter if he wasn't under subpoena.

As for her dad knowing what she testified. Can't say the same for DA Willis knowing what Nathan Wade testified. And her testimony also confirmed what Wade testified but in fuller detail. Same for Floyd providing more detail about his daughter.

And what he got from the conservative sites he watched would not necessarily be the full information. More than likely they left out details.

What Nathan Wade, DA Willis, her dad, and DA Willis' first choice for the special prosecutor all lined up. And they dispute the former employee's testimony.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

18. What's the standard here?

Even if Wade payed for two out of three vacations they went on together that is not a “financial benefit” that would cause motivation for prosecution or conviction.

The conflict is not created by the “benefit” - the defense has to show by a preponderance of the evidence the benefit is an incentive to prosecute and/or convict the defendants.

That’s a pretty high hurdle - is the judge going to believe that, absent these two vacations (one of them with the Wade’s momma), the prosecution would maybe not have filed these cases? That’s absurd on its face.

The alleged overpayment of Wade has fizzled. The alleged “co habitation” has fizzled.

These are actual substantive criminal cases. Several people have already plead guilty.

The idea that Willis, who earns somewhere around $200k, needs Wade to take her on $5000 dollars in vacations is ridiculous. The fact that they were a couple at the time actually furthers her defense of this nonsense. This is how couples who aren’t married act. It obviously was a couple going on vacation and not some kick-back scheme.

There’s no financial incentive for the prosecution to prosecute this case. The rest is all salacious garbage.

[LiberalFighter]

20. And how does payment for a vacation actually benefit someone?

It is only a short term benefit that does not increase like putting the money in an investment or bank to increase it.

And don't forget that Wade was working hours that he was never paid. How did he really benefit?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

25. They need to show a financial incentive to prosecute and they haven't.

Part of their fakakte logic was she overpaid him. That nonsense was shot down.

[SYFROYH]

17. Depends on how you look at it. They have Wade's credit cards showing purchases

And no receipts from Wade that Willis paid him in cash.

That's the bleakest way of looking at it.

I think the best we can hope for is the judge says there are minor infractions that don't lead to disqualification.

[LiberalFighter]

23. No receipts would be necessary for personal vacations. Or any vacation.

As of the end of Friday's hearing there is no basis to disqualify DA Willis.

The prosecutor side maybe might want to recall the first witness and cross-examine her testimony claiming that DA Willis was in a romantic relationship in 2019. Which clearly was not the case. Especially when another person that was there saw Wade left the conference to go home.

[SYFROYH]

28. That's not how I understand her responsibility to avoid gifts from people doing business with the County/State.

Wade contracts with the state and is supervised by Willis.

If Willis had signed notes, even on the back of napkins, that said, "$5,000 received to pay for her part of the trip to Belize" she would be in much better shape to defend herself.

[LiberalFighter]

29. A gift would require her benefitting financially or otherwise.

There was a balance in which neither party benefitted.

[SYFROYH]

30. That's Willis' and Wade's testimony that there was balance, but there isn't a papertrail to support it.

The testimony is reasonable and she came across as credible, but receipts would have helped.

[dpibel]

31. "Proof"

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You seem to believe that what happens in civil cases is something other than proof.

You are mistaken.

You are confusing proof itself with burden of proof.

You are going on about proof beyond reasonable doubt. You are correct that is the standard of proof in a criminal case.

In a standard-issue civil case, the standard of proof (or burden of proof) is "more likely than not" or "a preponderance."

The fact that you don't have to prove a civil claim beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean you do not have to prove it.

Other than that, you certainly do seem concerned about all this!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. maga loons think it is open and shut

MSNBC analyst blasts Fani Willis’s credibility: ‘Case is dead in the water’
2024-02-16, . · 17 of 17
DAC21 to pepsionice
“Neither seemed that bright/clever. I would agree...judge removes
both, terminates the case, and calls the state bar over their
actions. How either ever passed the bar exam is a question mark”
If what I read is accurate and that the Judge is up for re-election
this year I would not be surprised in the leasy if fat a$$ Fani and
Wade walk. His Lily white ass in Atlanta is already one strike against
him. Sadly IMO a majority of Atlanta citizens don’t care if fat a$$
Fani is wholly corrupt.

I bet Willis and Wade will be gone by the end of the coming weekend.
2 posted on 2024-02-16, by Reno89519

MSNBC analyst blasts Fani Willis’s credibility: ‘Case is dead in the water’
2024-02-16, · 23 of 23
oldskoolwargamer2 to Reno89519
Judge was basically giving Fani an endless supply of rope to hang
herself with. Intent was to ensure that there will be no grounds for
appeal of his decision.

[LiberalFighter]

21. Who was that MSNBC analyst?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

32. Caroline Polisi

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/game-over-msnbc-legal-analyst-declares-fani-willis-case-against-trump-dead-after-shocking-courtroom-revelation/ar-BB1ikua8

https://www.armstrongteasdale.com/caroline-polisi/

[LiberalFighter]

34. I saw that twerp last week.

I doubt she even listened to the testimony.

[dmr]

7. It's not going to happen.

The crazy side has proven nothing, except that they are desperate.

This trial should not be occurring. It's a waste of time, money, and energy.

[GreenWave]

11. And their side has 2 lawyers doing it and 1 married couple!

Oh the shame of people having consensual relations. The anti-wokes are on the ledge.

[bdamomma]

38. Exactly

the trial should not be occurring. She's not on trial. those 18 people are. They are targeting her because of her position. This has a stench of that Orange Pus job. Time is ticking for him too. He is not above the law.

[JohnSJ]

9. If Fani Willis was removed, the Georgia case is toast. That being said, I don't think this judge

will remove her because the MAGA attorney's have not proven their case that funds were misappropriated, and Willis and Wade benefited financially from this.

I think some of the talking hair on fire jackasses on the MSM, are just demonstrating how messed up the media is in the country, and why 40% of the populace seems to support a racist, bigot, sexist, insurrectionist who tried to overthrow the government, etc.

The nepotism of trump's appointments of his daughter and son-in-law etc. during his four years in the WH, and conflicts of interest by the trump enriching himself by pushing secret service agents, government guests, and foreign visitors to stay at his hotels, hardly a mention was covered by the MSM, yet alone a criticism.

[LiberalFighter]

26. I heard nothing from the hearing that suggested DA Willis should be disqualified.

I do think the first witness needs to be recalled and be cross-examined on her previous testimony. And charged with perjury if she doesn't change her testimony. Based on Wade and DA Willis testimony. There was no romantic relationship in 2019 as claimed by Robin Yeartie.

[BootinUp]

10. Are they not jumping the gun?

[Sympthsical]

14. I trust the judge's decision

He's been pretty fair-minded as far as I can tell. He hasn't been hesitant to slap down stupid. There were a few moments he just blatantly laughed at them (i.e. when one attorney was standing there going, "But adultery laws are still on the books!" The judge's "are you fucking kidding me?" face was priceless).

[Demsrule86]

15. That is all BS...if she is disqualified, there will be no prosecution.

[Celerity]

37. agree

[bluestarone]

22. I see no reason for the judge to decide to remove her. BUT my question is

If the judge allows the trial to continue, (which is my hope) would this be an appeal argument AFTER he's found guilty?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

27. I think not having the hearing could be grounds for appeal.

So the hearing was necessary to keep the case from getting tossed later as there was some credible evidence of relationship.

During the appeal, the judge is the finder of fact. I don’t think who he feels is more credible is an item that can be appealed. Appeals courts don’t usually interfere on the facts. My understanding is they take the “facts” as presented. The jury or the judge say the facts.

I suppose it depends on how he words his ruling.

One “for instance” comes to mind: if he finds Willis’s story of repaying in cash credible, that’s the end of it. There can’t be any financial benefit as it pertains to the vacations. If he finds the cash story not credible but still rules in the State’s favor because those vacations don’t tip the scales, that might be something that could be appealed on how the “law” should be applied.

But I’m not an attorney so take my opinion for what it’s worth.

[Hekate]

24. The case will effectively be over, all her years of work ruined, is what will happen

[dpibel]

33. Grand jury charge, guilty pleas

Yet the case rises and falls on Fani Willis.

Interesting.

I realize we live in a post-factual world. But it escapes me what Roman, et al., have proven as to the conduct of the case.

Yet many people, including many here, are willing to flatly declare the end of the world.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

35. So........................ everybody's gonna be off the hook, then?

"Donald Trump and 18 other people were charged in Georgia with an alleged conspiracy to overturn his 2020 election loss "

"Lawyer Sidney Powell pleaded guilty to reduced charges Thursday over efforts to overturn Donald Trump's loss in the 2020 election"

"Scott Hall is the first person to plead guilty in the 19 defendant case in Fulton County, Georgia."

"Lawyer Kenneth Chesebro pleads guilty"

"Former Trump attorney Jenna Willis was the latest lawyer to plead guilty in the case revolving around efforts to thwart Georgia's 2020"

Etc., etc.

What rubbish. This was a MAGAt hit job, and everybody knows it.

[dpibel]

36. That does appear to be the conclusion

Of a vocal cohort hereabouts.

You raise a good point. If, as is argued by the poster to whom I was responding, all is lost of Willis is off the case, does that mean the guilty pleas are vacated?

I just don't think it works like that.

[bdamomma]

39. I am

waiting to hear the Judge's decision, and not speculate.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

41. You must have other hobbies.

[bdamomma]

42. "other hobbies"

I don't quite understand.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

43. Speculating is my only hobby.

That, and aggravating my boyfriend.


90% of du posts are speculation

Like the Chief in Miller’s Crossing

?si=sR5Aah_Y7aaOVYHZ

[Kennah]

40. My understanding from reading is

If she is removed, then the whole prosecution collapses.

If she recuses herself, then it can go forward with someone else. This is the right choice.