NBC Legal Analyst Applauds Trump and Co-Defendants’ Attorneys’ Closing Arguments Against Fani Willis in Disqualification Hearing – “The State is Going to Have to Bring it on”
NBC legal analysts and reporters reacted to Trump and his co-defendants’ attorneys’ closing arguments in the hearing to disqualify Fani disqualify Soros-funded Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis for having an improper relationship with her appointee as the special prosecutor in the Georgia RICO indictment and financially benefitting from said relationship.Gulp! Gulp! Gulp!
NBC legal analyst and former Manhattan Assistant DA Catherine Christian told NBC’s Danny Cevallos, “The state is going to have to bring it on,” while noting the powerful argument of Jeff Clark’s attorney, Harry McDougald, “as he said the six ways that the DA is office and particularly DA Willis had conflicts of interest.”
Fani Willis also entered the courtroom alongside Nathan Wade, who had been in the courtroom since the hearing began...
The clean up batter (attorney) brought the receipts to cram down the faces of both Willis and Wade (in attendance).
“This Office is a Global Laughingstock” – WATCH: Attorney Harry MacDougald Bats MAGA Cleanup and Wipes the Floor with Fani Willis – in Georgia Closing Arguments
Closing arguments were held today in the Fulton County case to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis. Fani is under fire after she was caught lying to the court about her affair with her lover and Trump prosecutor Nathan Wade, and committing perjury under oath during her testimony. The evidence is clear in the case. Fani and her lover Nathan Wade were seeing each other romantically months and likely years before she then hired him to prosecute the former president of the United States on RICO charges...In a related note: I've considered that backwards dress thing and have come to believe it is most likely an anti-sexual assault design meant to ward of pervs and cause them to flee. Assuming Fani is not wearing a near chest high, kevlar reinforced, set of spanx. With a quick unzip of the zipper in front, that tummy flap of hers would come flopping out and scare away even the most strident pervy attacker.
...Harry MacDougald: The general rule on conflicts of interest for lawyers is in rule of professional Conduct 1.7. And we all know it’s all drummed into us, that we cannot have a conflict of interest, and if we do, we have to withdraw or we will be disqualified. The basic idea is that a conflict of interest impairs the lawyer’s independent professional judgment. That’s the test of a conflict and whether it can be waived and whether it’s disqualifying. And that conflict is not just financial.
It can be any conflict that impairs your independent professional judgment. And you see that in McLaughlin v. Payne, the court asked what was a personal interest for purposes of disqualification. It’s anything that impairs professional judgment that’s reflected in the ABA standards that were quoted by Mr. Merchant, which lists the prosecutor’s personal, political, financial, professional, business, property or other interests or relationships, and that’s really embedded in the prosecutor’s oath to act impartially.
And the earlier disqualification order by Judge McBurney was based on political interests, not financial. What my colleagues had described as forensic misconduct is also cognizable as a conflict of interest. Based on that footnote in Williams case, the root of all of the problems that we see in this court right now is a conflict of interest arising from their individual personal interests in perpetuating and concealing their relationship. That’s the original sin from which all of the other problems flow. There are six different actual conflicts of interest in this case, any one of which warrants disqualification, but collectively, practically compelling.
First, the financial conflict that’s already been covered.
Second, the personal ambition, political ambition.
Third, there is a dovetailed or complementary pattern of deceit and concealment of the relationship and the money.
Fourth, the speech at the church.
Fifth, the motion for protective order that the DA filed in Mr. Wade’s divorce case.
Sixth, the way the state has conducted the defense of this motion to disqualify, especially the hearing on the financial piece, the court asked for a limiting principle and asked about materiality. The limiting principle is whatever impairs the independent professional judgment of the lawyer that is applied routinely. We have a county code section that flatly prohibits gifts from contractors, period. We have by analogy the federal bribery statute, which has a threshold of $5,000.18 USC.
Six, six, six. The court asked about burdens and inferences. The court can draw a negative inference from the state’s failure to produce evidence to support the invisible magic cash balancing theory based on state v. Thomas, 311 Georgia 407 particularly footnote 19 as to the timing question that the court asked about, there were two contracts for Mr. Wade executed after they acknowledged the relationship began, each one of them afflicted or conflicted under county and common law.
The second conflict is her political ambition, for which he was previously chastised by judgment. Bernie. And that’s also present in this book. The inside flap of this book says that they were given, quote, exclusive access to thousands of secret documents, emails, text messages and audio recordings. The court has twice denied defense motions to unseal special purpose grand jury materials.
She helped herself to get the glory of this book. I introduced certified copies of a number of county code sections. I’m not going to walk through those, but I’ll tell you why they matter. The stack of law from the state constitution down to the county ordinances imposes a regime on the DA under which she has three obligations. She has to go to the county commission to get approval to pay him like she did.
She cannot accept gifts from a prohibited source. She has to disclose the gifts that she received. She evaded all of those requirements. Section 269 of the county code prohibits gifts from prohibited sources, which he was. There is no boyfriend exception.
The disclosure forms. The evidence is sufficient for you to find that her disclosure form for 2022 is false and that it is a false writing. That’s an actual conflict of interest between her duty, legal duty of disclosure, her legal duty of candor as a prosecutor, and her private and personal interests in concealing the relationship, concealing the gifts, and keeping the gravy train rolling for as long as possible. His part in the pattern of concealment is the story you see in many divorce cases. The husband is hiding things from his wife, how much money he’s making the other woman and what he’s spending on the other woman...
