No it is not secondary. In order for Willis to be disqualified, an actual conflict of interest needs to be proved. Trump's team is trying to remove her, alleging a conflict of interest. There is no evidence of any such conflict of interest.
Willis and Wade both testified under oath that their relationship began in Spring of 2022, and that she had not profited in any way from Wade's appointment or position. The only thing Trump's team have to contest this is the testimony of a single noncredible ex-employee. There is no evidence whatever to corroborate this, evidence which is required in order to achieve the outcome Trump's team is pushing for.
Your disagreement with the District Attorney's hiring standards, or those of her choice in relationship partners, have zero bearing on whether or not there is a case to disqualify her. There isn't. Evidence is needed to prove an actual conflict of interest exists, and no such evidence exists, period.
No it is not secondary. In order for Willis to be disqualified, an actual conflict of interest needs to be proved. Trump’s team is trying to remove her, alleging a conflict of interest. There is no evidence of any such conflict of interest.
Law is secondary to public perception. I'm sorry its the way it is, but I'm not going to deny the way things are.
If the public 'perceives' there to be a conflict of interest, thats what matters. The fact that its even gone this far is more than enough reason for Fani to have recused herself.
She's put the entirety of justice being served to the people of GA on the line so she could be buddy buddy with an attorney who was utterly unqualified for the position she handed him.
Its indefensible and the entirety of the rest of this process will be marred by the decisions Fani made.
No, law is not secondary to public perception in a motion in a court of law to disqualify the prosecuting attorney for a conflict of interest. That is purely a matter of law, and what the public thinks about it is utterly irrelevant. The outcome of the motion to disqualify her will be adjudicated on the evidentiary standards in the law, not on the feelings and perceptions of the public.
If you don't think this is trial is going to be impacted by what people think of it.. you have missed the past 40 years of high profile trials.
How it is conducted matters. You should write justice off in this case. Fani screwed the pooch.
Your hunch and feelings about Fani Willis are just as irrelevant. The law provides the answer for the standards which need to be met to disqualify her, and they weren't met. End of story.
You are living in a fantasy world if you think that that a public perception of a corrupt attorney general won't have a significant bearing on the ultimate outcome of this case.
Courts of law exist dont in a separate plane of reality. The politics around this case will inform its outcome. Appearances matter.
Your responses are bordering on the absurd, literally all that Trump's team has been able to provide to support their nonsense is a single disreputable ex-employee with a grudge. This from a team known to throw any kind of nonsense they can as a delaying tactic, all of which inevitably prove to be baseless.
This will have zero bearing on the case, your vague allusions to "public perception" are so ephemeral as to be non-existent. This is nothing more than another Hail Mary attempt by a desperate team with no substantive ground to stand on, and it will soon be ruled to be exactly that in court. Anyone dumb enough to still buy into Trump's teams claims afterwards is already beyond reasoning with and is already a diehard supporter of his.
Your responses are bordering on the absurd, literally all that Trump’s team has been able to provide to support their nonsense is a single disreputable ex-employee with a grudge. This from a team known to throw any kind of nonsense they can as a delaying tactic, all of which inevitably prove to be baseless.
You are aware there is a large body of scholarly work on the impact of public perception on high profile trials right?
This isn't just talking shit. 40 years of high profile trials shows that the OJ's are treated differently than the no-J's (to quote Johnnie Cochran). This has been studied since the 70s.
Public perceptions around a trial matter and impact the outcomes of the trial. Being an attorney in a modern high profile case is as much (probably more) about proving your case in the media as it is doing so at the bench.
Like, you don't meaningfully believe this isn't impacting the outcome of the trial do you?
The conflict of interest matters in as much as we are now having this conversation? Like if the conflict of interest didn't matter, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It doesn't matter what the court says at this point, cat escape bag. Here we are.
What I'm aware of is that the specious, unsubstantiated charge of conflict of interest by Trump's team lacks any evidence supporting it whatever, and that the court is likely to rule as such accordingly. "Public perception" is not dictated by whatever nonsense one party throws out, regardless of substance. There is no conflict of interest, and no evidence at all has been presented that there is one. Any members of the nebulous "public" you're so worried about who nevertheless believe there is a conflict of interest are believing it based solely on the Trump team's assertions alone, and those people were already on board with whatever nonsense Trump claims.
So no, this manuver by Trump's team will have no bearing whatsoever on the case.
can you at least admit that it's a real bad look?
and part of being a real bad look, is that trump supporters will use this to dismiss the trials outcome?
And further introducing doubt into the impartiality of the judicial process at this point is NOT a good thing?
Who cares what Trump supporters use to dismiss the outcome? They were going to dismiss it anyway, they can't be reasoned with.
At worst, this is an ethics complaint against Willis. It has no bearing on the case whatsoever, and certainly doesn't reach the f grounds for disqualification. An attorney doesn't have to be pure as the driven snow to do her job, and there's nothing about this relationship that in any way impacts her ability to prosecute this case.
do you want the attorney responsible for prosecuting trump to be racking up ethics complaints while they do it?
I could care less, as long as they get the job done. It has no bearing on the case whatsoever.
So no, this manuver by Trump’s team will have no bearing whatsoever on the case.
It already has. We're having this conversation.
We're having this conversation because you're under the mistaken impression that the Trump team's baseless claims will have any impact on the outcome. They won't.
We're having a conversation because of a perception of a conflict of interest in a high profile trial. I didn't post the story and neither of us are the first to discuss it.
We wouldn't be having the conversation if it wasn't in the news, yet here we are. The AG in question hired an unqualified attorney to the highest profile case in the land. She started dating the attorney she hired. They took trips together. They claim that they she paid cash and there are no receipts. In the grand scheme of things, the trips and relationship could be considered a nothing burger. But her hiring this massively under-qualified individual to head up this trial?
Fani should recuse herself at this point. If you care at all about justice, which you seem to claim to, Fani recusing herself is all that can be done to maybe salvage this case.
Fani made this bed through incredibly and shockingly poor decision making. Did she think she would escape scrutiny in this trial?
The only perception of a conflict of interest is in your chicken little, doom-and-gloom imagination. There was an allegation made of a conflict of interest by Trump's team, one for which no evidence was offered and which was supported solely by the unsubstantiated testimony of a noncredible ex-employee.
It's only in the news because it's part of the legal trial, as a go-nowhere manuver by Trump's team. Once it's been dismissed as the speculative nonsense it is, it will be out of the news except in quotes from Trump's aimless rants. And anyone influenced by that is already a diehard Trump supporter anyway, no one is having their perception in any way altered by this.
No it is not secondary. In order for Willis to be disqualified, an actual conflict of interest needs to be proved. Trump's team is trying to remove her, alleging a conflict of interest. There is no evidence of any such conflict of interest.
Willis and Wade both testified under oath that their relationship began in Spring of 2022, and that she had not profited in any way from Wade's appointment or position. The only thing Trump's team have to contest this is the testimony of a single noncredible ex-employee. There is no evidence whatever to corroborate this, evidence which is required in order to achieve the outcome Trump's team is pushing for.
Your disagreement with the District Attorney's hiring standards, or those of her choice in relationship partners, have zero bearing on whether or not there is a case to disqualify her. There isn't. Evidence is needed to prove an actual conflict of interest exists, and no such evidence exists, period.
Law is secondary to public perception. I'm sorry its the way it is, but I'm not going to deny the way things are.
If the public 'perceives' there to be a conflict of interest, thats what matters. The fact that its even gone this far is more than enough reason for Fani to have recused herself.
She's put the entirety of justice being served to the people of GA on the line so she could be buddy buddy with an attorney who was utterly unqualified for the position she handed him.
Its indefensible and the entirety of the rest of this process will be marred by the decisions Fani made.
No, law is not secondary to public perception in a motion in a court of law to disqualify the prosecuting attorney for a conflict of interest. That is purely a matter of law, and what the public thinks about it is utterly irrelevant. The outcome of the motion to disqualify her will be adjudicated on the evidentiary standards in the law, not on the feelings and perceptions of the public.
If you don't think this is trial is going to be impacted by what people think of it.. you have missed the past 40 years of high profile trials.
How it is conducted matters. You should write justice off in this case. Fani screwed the pooch.
Your hunch and feelings about Fani Willis are just as irrelevant. The law provides the answer for the standards which need to be met to disqualify her, and they weren't met. End of story.
You are living in a fantasy world if you think that that a public perception of a corrupt attorney general won't have a significant bearing on the ultimate outcome of this case.
Courts of law exist dont in a separate plane of reality. The politics around this case will inform its outcome. Appearances matter.
Your responses are bordering on the absurd, literally all that Trump's team has been able to provide to support their nonsense is a single disreputable ex-employee with a grudge. This from a team known to throw any kind of nonsense they can as a delaying tactic, all of which inevitably prove to be baseless.
This will have zero bearing on the case, your vague allusions to "public perception" are so ephemeral as to be non-existent. This is nothing more than another Hail Mary attempt by a desperate team with no substantive ground to stand on, and it will soon be ruled to be exactly that in court. Anyone dumb enough to still buy into Trump's teams claims afterwards is already beyond reasoning with and is already a diehard supporter of his.
You are aware there is a large body of scholarly work on the impact of public perception on high profile trials right?
This isn't just talking shit. 40 years of high profile trials shows that the OJ's are treated differently than the no-J's (to quote Johnnie Cochran). This has been studied since the 70s.
Here is a 2021 article for you.
The takeaway from these 50+ years of research?
Public perceptions around a trial matter and impact the outcomes of the trial. Being an attorney in a modern high profile case is as much (probably more) about proving your case in the media as it is doing so at the bench.
Like, you don't meaningfully believe this isn't impacting the outcome of the trial do you?
The conflict of interest matters in as much as we are now having this conversation? Like if the conflict of interest didn't matter, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It doesn't matter what the court says at this point, cat escape bag. Here we are.
What I'm aware of is that the specious, unsubstantiated charge of conflict of interest by Trump's team lacks any evidence supporting it whatever, and that the court is likely to rule as such accordingly. "Public perception" is not dictated by whatever nonsense one party throws out, regardless of substance. There is no conflict of interest, and no evidence at all has been presented that there is one. Any members of the nebulous "public" you're so worried about who nevertheless believe there is a conflict of interest are believing it based solely on the Trump team's assertions alone, and those people were already on board with whatever nonsense Trump claims.
So no, this manuver by Trump's team will have no bearing whatsoever on the case.
can you at least admit that it's a real bad look?
and part of being a real bad look, is that trump supporters will use this to dismiss the trials outcome?
And further introducing doubt into the impartiality of the judicial process at this point is NOT a good thing?
Who cares what Trump supporters use to dismiss the outcome? They were going to dismiss it anyway, they can't be reasoned with.
At worst, this is an ethics complaint against Willis. It has no bearing on the case whatsoever, and certainly doesn't reach the f grounds for disqualification. An attorney doesn't have to be pure as the driven snow to do her job, and there's nothing about this relationship that in any way impacts her ability to prosecute this case.
do you want the attorney responsible for prosecuting trump to be racking up ethics complaints while they do it?
I could care less, as long as they get the job done. It has no bearing on the case whatsoever.
It already has. We're having this conversation.
We're having this conversation because you're under the mistaken impression that the Trump team's baseless claims will have any impact on the outcome. They won't.
We're having a conversation because of a perception of a conflict of interest in a high profile trial. I didn't post the story and neither of us are the first to discuss it.
We wouldn't be having the conversation if it wasn't in the news, yet here we are. The AG in question hired an unqualified attorney to the highest profile case in the land. She started dating the attorney she hired. They took trips together. They claim that they she paid cash and there are no receipts. In the grand scheme of things, the trips and relationship could be considered a nothing burger. But her hiring this massively under-qualified individual to head up this trial?
Fani should recuse herself at this point. If you care at all about justice, which you seem to claim to, Fani recusing herself is all that can be done to maybe salvage this case.
Fani made this bed through incredibly and shockingly poor decision making. Did she think she would escape scrutiny in this trial?
The only perception of a conflict of interest is in your chicken little, doom-and-gloom imagination. There was an allegation made of a conflict of interest by Trump's team, one for which no evidence was offered and which was supported solely by the unsubstantiated testimony of a noncredible ex-employee.
It's only in the news because it's part of the legal trial, as a go-nowhere manuver by Trump's team. Once it's been dismissed as the speculative nonsense it is, it will be out of the news except in quotes from Trump's aimless rants. And anyone influenced by that is already a diehard Trump supporter anyway, no one is having their perception in any way altered by this.
Go back to Reddit, Russian agent #7832.
Lol!