Fani Willis Disqualification Hearing LIVE Day 4 Closing Arguments

3:27PM, not 3:19pm, based on the on-screen clock on the Fox News feed.

-PJ

“I believe McAfee will DQ her and Wade because if he doesn’t he will be toast (Trump defenders will win on appeal!) and he’s (McAfee) a young man.”

What you’ve said makes perfect sense.. and in a sane, logical world it would be a no-brainer decision for the judge.... or for ‘any’ judge. Alas... we’re not in Kansas any more. But I do so hope it turns out that you’re correct!

Agree. I don't think the judge has a choice. They're done in my opinion.

One other thing, it might seem small, but at the very end of the hearing, first out of their seat and heading for the door was dirty Fani. That didn’t seem to be the reaction of someone who might have been pleased with their counsel and the hearing. I took it as Fani thinking, >>let me the F out of here.

One other thing, it might seem small, but at the very end of the hearing, first out of their seat and heading for the door was dirty Fani. That didn’t seem to be the reaction of someone who might have been pleased with their counsel and the hearing. I took it as Fani thinking, >>let me the F out of here
_\\

She only was there for the States portion

She wasn’t there for the defense part and she left before the defense rebuttal

I’d guess she didn’t want to hear it. Looked like she had the attitude of, “I’m not going to sit here and listen to these racist lies”

If I were in her position and was innocent, I sure want to sit through the defense arguments and rebuttal.

One of the defense attorneys was summing up all the conflicts of interest in the case. The last one was amazing. If the court (judge) believes that Nathan Wade or Terrence Bradley committed perjury, then their cases need to be investigated and brought before a jury. Who would be responsible to do this? Why, none other than the Fulton County District Attorney!

According to the Washington Post, Ms. cross is out of state on another case.

LOL Exactly!

I hate myself. I was so focused on the hearing and the things Fani and Wade did that I said and wrote unkind things about Adam Abbate. He alone was stuck giving the closing arguments.

I recently learned that the film The 5th Quarter was about Adam’s family. It’s a beautiful, inspirational film with religious theme. I just watched it on Amazon Prime. Shame on me. Please pass along. TY.

for reference, following is a transcript of the macdougald summary (from youtube):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udb0Uo5R308

1:20:48
Good afternoon, your honor, Harry macdougal for Mr Clark, I’m going to talk further about conflicts
1:20:56
and I’m going to assume the most difficult standard for us to meet which is actual conflict.
1:21:03
But before I begin that, I want to add just a little bit to what has already been said about the standards that apply to prosecutors.
1:21:11
Our appellate courts have said often the administration of the law and especially that of the criminal law
1:21:18
should like Caesar’s wife, be above suspicion and should be free from all temptation, bias
1:21:26
or prejudice so far as it is possible for our courts to accomplish it. The first occurrence of that that I can find
1:21:34
is Nichols V State more than 100 years ago. 1915, the most recent
1:21:39
Regis Davi State in the Supreme Court in 2010. Although they don’t refer to Caesar’s wife,
1:21:45
that requirement is also embedded in the prosecutor’s statutory oath 15-18 dash two,
1:21:54
which requires impartially and without fear or favor, discharge my duties
1:22:00
as district attorney and take only my lawful compensation So help me God.
1:22:07
The general rule on conflicts of interest for lawyers is in rule of professional conduct 1.7.
1:22:14
And we all know it’s all drummed into us that we cannot have a conflict of interest.
1:22:20
And if we do, we have to withdraw or we will be disqualified. The basic idea
1:22:27
is that a conflict of interest impairs the lawyer’s independent professional judgment.
1:22:34
That’s the test of a conflict and whether it can be waived and whether it’s disqualifying
1:22:41
and that conflict is not just financial, it can be any conflict that impairs your independent professional judgment.
1:22:51
And you see that in mclaughlin V Payne, the court asked, what was a personal interest for purposes of disqualification?
1:22:59
It’s anything that impairs professional judgment that’s reflected in the A B A
1:23:05
standards that were quoted by Mr Merchant, which list
1:23:11
uh the prosecutor’s personal political, financial, professional, business, property or other interests or relationships.
1:23:19
And that’s really embedded in the prosecutor’s oath to act impartially. And the earlier disqualification order by Judge
1:23:26
mcburney was based on political interests, not financial.
1:23:33
What my colleagues have described as forensic misconduct is also cognizable as
1:23:39
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
1:23:48
is a conflict of interest arising from their individual, personal interests
1:23:54
in perpetuating and concealing their relationship. That’s the original sin from which all of the other problems flow
1:24:03
there are six different actual conflicts of interest in this case, any one of which warrants disqualification but collectively
1:24:12
practically compelled first, the financial conflict that’s already been covered.
1:24:17
Second, the personal ambition, political ambition. The third, there is a dovetailed or complementary pattern
1:24:27
of deceit and concealment of the relationship and the money.
1:24:32
Fourth, the speech at the church fifth, the motion for protective order that the D A filed
1:24:40
in Mr Wayne’s divorce case. Sixth, the way the state has conducted the defense of this motion to disqualify,
1:24:49
especially the hearing on the financial piece.
1:24:54
The court asked for a limiting principle and asked about materiality.
1:24:59
The limiting principle is whatever impairs the independent professional judgment of the lawyer that is applied routinely.
1:25:09
We have a county code section that flatly prohibits gifts from contractors.
1:25:16
Period. We have by analogy, the federal bribery statute which has a threshold of $5000.
1:25:23
18 US C 666, the court asked about burdens and inferences.
1:25:31
The court can draw a negative inference from the state’s failure to produce evidence to support the invisible magic cash balancing theory
1:25:40
based on state V Thomas 311, Georgia 407
1:25:45
particularly footnote 19. As to the time in question that the court asked about
1:25:55
there were two contracts for Mr Wade executed after they acknowledged the relationship began.
1:26:02
Each one of them afflicted or, or conflicted under county and common law.
1:26:09
The second conflict is her political ambition for which she was previously chas satisfied judgment Burnie.
1:26:17
And that’s also present in this book. The inside Slap of this book says
1:26:23
that they were given quote exclusive access to thousands of secret documents,
1:26:28
emails, text messages and audio recordings. The court has twice denied defense motions
1:26:36
to unseal special purpose, grand jury materials. She helped herself to get the glory of this book.
1:26:46
I introduced certified copies of a number of county code sections. I’m not gonna walk through those, but I’ll tell you why they matter.
1:26:53
The stack of law from the state constitution down to the county ordinances imposes a regime
1:27:00
on the D A under which she has three obligations. She has to go to the county commission to get approval to pay him like she did.
1:27:09
She cannot accept gifts from a prohibited source. She has to disclose the gifts that she received.
1:27:16
She evaded all of those requirements. Section 2-69 of the county code prohibits
1:27:24
gifts from prohibited sources which he was. There is no boyfriend exception.
1:27:31
The disclosure forms, the evidence is sufficient for you to find that her disclosure form for 2022
1:27:38
is false and that it is a false writing.
1:27:44
That’s an actual conflict of interest between her duty, legal duty of disclosure, her legal duty of candor as a prosecutor
1:27:53
and her private and personal interests in concealing the relationship, concealing the gifts
1:28:00
and keeping the gravy train rolling for as long as possible. His part in the pattern of concealment
1:28:07
is a story. You see, in many divorce cases, the husband is hiding things from his wife,
1:28:14
how much money he’s making the other woman and what he’s spending on the other woman.
1:28:20
And he got on that stand live in his interrogatories and he got on the stand and he lied about lying in the interrogatories
1:28:29
and the lawyers for the D A, the D A’s office. They just sat there and let him do it.
1:28:35
They did nothing to correct obviously perjured testimony in and of itself that warrants disqualification of every one of them.
1:28:45
The reason they lied and covered it up was to avoid the trouble they’re in right now
1:28:52
that served their personal interests to the detriment of their public duties as prosecutors,
1:28:59
the speech at the church, I want to focus on why she did that. Mr Dillon talked about that.
1:29:06
She did it to deflect attention from her own misconduct
1:29:12
and that of Mr Wade, she violated her public duty as a prosecutor
1:29:17
to serve her personal interests and the personal interests of her boyfriend.
1:29:22
That is a disqualifying conflict between her personal interest and her public duty
1:29:27
that is actual operational and materialized and it rests on undisputed facts.
1:29:36
The next thing that she did that was a disqualifying conflict of interest was the emergency motion for protective order
1:29:43
that she filed in the divorce. I filed a certified copy of that as exhibit 37
1:29:49
she saw a protective order under the apex do on the grounds that she’s the D A
1:29:56
and the whole filing is expressly predicated on her status as D A.
1:30:01
In fact, she never lets you forget it. She says it 27 times in 12 pages.
1:30:06
In that filing. Speaking as D A, she said the circumstances quote suggests that defendant Joycelyn Wade
1:30:14
is using the legal process to harass and embarrass district attorney Willis.
1:30:19
And in doing so, is obstructing and interfering with an ongoing criminal investigation.
1:30:26
In the prayer for relief. On page 11, she asked for six months
1:30:32
to quote, complete a review of the filings in the instant case, investigate and depose relevant witnesses
1:30:39
with regard to the interference and obstruction. This motion contends
1:30:46
there’s no sugar coating it. That’s a clear violation of rule of professional conduct
1:30:51
three point 4h, which prohibits lawyers from making threats of criminal prosecution
1:30:57
to gain advantage in a civil case. She abused her power,
1:31:04
she abused her position to threaten her boyfriend’s wife whose criminal prosecution
1:31:11
to gain advantage for herself and her boyfriend in her boyfriend’s divorce, she violated her public duties
1:31:19
not to make that kind of a threat in order to serve a private personal interest in those of Mr Wade,
1:31:26
another actual operational conflict. The last category,
1:31:32
it’s the conduct of the defense of this hearing. There are a lot of objections made
1:31:39
based on attorney-client privilege during Mr Bradley’s testimony.
1:31:45
Most of those objections were made by the state, but the privilege being asserted
1:31:52
does not belong to the state. It belongs to Mr Wade
1:31:58
that shows that the das office is serving the personal interests of the D A
1:32:06
and Mr Wade in carrying out further concealment and cover up of their relationship
1:32:13
and not the cause of justice they are sworn to serve. That is a conflict of interest.
1:32:19
It’s a continuation of the wrongful pattern of concealment and cover up that they’ve engaged in since the beginning.
1:32:28
But now they’ve enlisted the entire office in the in interprise in the written response to the motion to disqualify. They said this
1:32:37
and I quote should be absolutely clear. There is no evidence that D A Willis derived any financial benefit from Mr Wade.
1:32:46
That’s on page 15, flat out faults 10 lawyers in this case, put their name on there
1:32:54
starting with the D A. So throw another log on the bonfire of conflicts of interest.
1:33:07
The problem here is the D A cannot distinguish between her personal interests and ambitions on the one hand
1:33:14
and her public duties as a prosecutor on the other and apparently neither can neither can anyone else in their office
1:33:22
of the six conflicts. I’ve identified only one is subject to a conflict in the evidence.
1:33:28
This is a case study in what happens when you operate under a conflict of interest.
1:33:36
It’s put an irreparable stain on the case, think of the message that would be sent if they were not disqualified.
1:33:43
If this is tolerated, we’ll get more of it. This office is a global laughingstock because of their conduct.
1:33:56
Ok? They should be disqualified and the case should be dismissed.