Legal Experts Skeptical of Conflict of Interest Claim in Trump Georgia Case
But as a matter of public perception, the experts said
that Thursday’s hearing did not help Fani Willis and Nathan Wade, the
prosecutors leading the case.
Anna Betts
By Anna
Betts
Published
Feb. 15, 2024
Updated
Feb. 16, 2024, 12:34 a.m. ET
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/15/us/politics/fani-willis-nathan-wade-conflict-interest.html
Several
legal experts who observed Thursday’s hearing in the Georgia case against
Donald J. Trump and his allies were doubtful that the defense’s questioning and
witness testimonies demonstrated a clear conflict of interest on the issue of
whether the Fulton County district attorney, Fani T. Willis, and the special
prosecutor, Nathan J. Wade, benefited financially from their relationship and
the prosecution.
But the
experts added that the day’s proceedings nonetheless did not help the
prosecutors overall.
“This has
not been a good day for the D.A.’s office,” said Caren Morrison, a former
federal prosecutor and an associate professor at Georgia State University
College of Law.
The defense
spent hours before Judge Scott McAfee probing the relationship and financial
transactions between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade, with a former friend of Ms.
Willis’s testifying that the romantic relationship began before Mr. Wade was
hired for the Georgia election interference case in November 2021. That
contradicted the timeline presented by the prosecutors and the testimonies of
Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis, who have said it began in early 2022.
“Even if
the judge finds there has been no conflict of interest or even the appearance
of a conflict, as a matter of public perception, this hearing has been
damaging,” Ms. Morrison said. “The painstaking raking over of trips and bills
and expenses does nothing to burnish either of their reputations and just gives
a lot of fodder to critics of the case.”
Video
TRANSCRIPT
0:00/1:40
Georgia
Prosecutor Fani Willis Delivers Tense Testimony
The
Fulton County district attorney, who is overseeing the state’s prosecution of
Donald J. Trump, was combative and accused the defense of spreading lies.
“You
and Mr. Wade met in October 2019 at a conference?” “That is correct, and I
think in one of your motions you tried to implicate I slept with him at that
conference, which I find to be extremely offensive.” “Your office objected to
us getting Delta records for flights that you may have taken when Mr. Wade.”
“Well, no, no, no, look. I object to you getting records. You’ve been intrusive
into people’s personal lives. You’re confused. You think I’m on trial. These
people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020. I’m not on trial
no matter how hard you try to put me on trial. It’s interesting that we’re here
about this money. Mr. Wade is used to women that, as he told me one time, the
only thing a woman can do for him is make him a sandwich. We would have brutal
arguments about the fact that I am your equal. I don’t need anything from a
man. A man is not a plan. A man is a companion. And so there was tension always
in our relationship, which is why I would give him his money back. I don’t need
anybody to foot my bills. The only man who’s ever foot my bills completely is
my daddy.” “Mr. Wade visit you at the place you laid your head.” “When?” “Has
he ever visited you at the place you laid your head?” “So let’s be clear,
because you’ve lied and this – Let me tell you which one you lied in. Right
here. I think you lied right here. No, no, no, no. This is the truth. And it is
a lie. It is a lie.” “Ms. Willis.” “Mr. Sadow, thank you. We’re going to take
five minutes. Be back in five.”
Anthony
Michael Kreis, an assistant professor of law at Georgia State University, said
that the testimony and evidence presented on Thursday fell short of showing a
conflict of interest about financial benefits, which he said was the “key
issue” that, if proven, would require the Fulton County District Attorney’s
Office to be disqualified from the case against Mr. Trump and his allies.
But he said
the testimony of Robin Bryant-Yeartie that contradicted the prosecutors’
timeline could be a “major issue” for Ms. Willis if further evidence shows that
she and Mr. Wade “have been less than forthcoming to the court.”
Overall,
Mr. Kreis said, the hearing was “more drama than it was clarifying,” adding
that “this is really going to come down to credibility and who Judge McAfee is
inclined to believe.” He also said that Ms. Willis, who vigorously denied any
of the defendants’ claims about the relationship, was “the most forceful
witness so far.”
But Jessica
Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School at Loyola Marymount University,
said that simply being on the witness stand placed Ms. Willis in an awkward
position.
She is “in
a place that no person, let alone no prosecutor, wants to be in. Her judgment
and integrity are being challenged in the most public way possible,” Ms.
Levinson said.
“I’m not
impressed with Willis and Wade’s poor judgment, which allowed the defense to
take this case way off track,” Mr. Painter said. “I think they should spare us
more and just step aside.”
The fact
that the hearing was happening at all is a “huge boon for Trump,” Ms. Levinson
said.
“Fairly or
not, the more we hear about Willis’s personal relationship with Wade,” she
said, adding, “the more the public’s faith in the fairness of this prosecution
is shaken.”
Anna Betts reports on national events, including politics, education, and natural or man-made disasters, among other things. More about Anna Be
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário