Monday, March 18, 2024

I’ll Go Out On A Speculative Limb Here

And surround myself caveats that I don’t know anything about Georgia law or criminal procedure. But, the central claim of the motion was that a conflict of interest existed, which required removal of the entire AG’s office from the case.

No such conflict was found. That’s a question of fact: whether the conduct alleged rose to the level of a conflict under Georgia law. The allegation was that Willis improperly benefited from the case, by hiring Wade to help prosecute it, and then going on trips with him. The court reacted to the appearance issue, without finding actual conflict of interest sufficient to force the AG off the case. And here’s my speculation:

The court gave Willis two choices: throw the case to the Prosecuting Attorney’s council for reassignment; or fire Wade. The option allowed McAfee to toss a bone to the appellate court (and the public), without effectively dismissing the charges. McAfee effectively gave the appellate court a reason to say “good enough,” and not send it back to tie up McAfee’s time any more, and to keep either of them from being the court that dismissed all charges based on rather negligible grounds.

Had McAfee said “FUCK THIS SHIT! GET OUTTA MY COURTROOM!,” it would likely just come back to him for more pointless fact finding. Had he essentially ruled “same answer,” greatly possibility of same result: coming right back at him. As it is, he split the baby, and all parties lose something. These were never grounds for dismissal (the telos of the motion), and yet it made the AG’s office look bad (not ready for prime time).

It’s also not a matter the court wants to take up in interlocutory proceedings, for the reasons listed above. Now the appellate court can say: “Well, Wade is gone. That’s all you’re gonna get right now.”

Close enough quite often is good enough.

And Trump keeps burning money on legal fees like he was a rich man.

No comments:

Post a Comment