😱

'Salacious': Legal expert shows how Fani Willis hearing lost its way https://t.co/fnnAdQRS4T

— Raw Story (@RawStory) February 16, 2024

"We didn't hear anything about who approved of the vouchers that Wade submitted and his time sheets and all of the things that you would ask if you're really trying to discuss the financial relationship," former prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo said while appearing on CNN's "Out Front" with Erin Burnett. "And this just devolved into a salacious, private, deeply personal attacks on Fani Willis that just really seemed irrelevant to such an extent it was I thought that was a real sideshow and not a lot came out that would actually disqualify where they could have asked a lot of those questions to establish that relationship."

This is my shocked face. 😐 

I've made a small point today of pointing out the gossipy "salacious" reads of this hearing, v. the lawyers watching and saying "What do they think they're doing?"  And by "they," is universally meant the defendant/movant who brought this nonsense.  Turns out "salacious" was what the movant/defendant was going for.  It will also very likely turn out that wasn't near damned enough.

Anybody else remember the subpoena of Fani Willis in the Wade divorce case? The one she answered, informally, with a threat of a charge of obstruction of justice, because there was no reason in heaven or on earth for her to be a witness in that case?  And how quickly it went away and (IIRC, frankly) the divorce which had been pending for years was suddenly finalized? 

Because that was just a prelude to this hearing.  What's funny is how many "experts" (I include gossip-chasing, panty-sniffing journalists and "legal pundits" on cable TeeVee/Twitter) thought Willis was in deep trouble over this hearing simply because allegations had been made and surely the movant wouldn't do so without good reason and a strong factual basis!

When those of us with any experience in court cases, especially but not limited to divorce practice, knew that's exactly how the game is played 99% of the time, especially where the prosecutor is an elected official and a southern black woman (because black women, in the South, hem hem).  I took a client to a hearing once, just before security in the courthouse became so tight they closed two of the six (or more) entrances to the building, and walked everyone through a metal detector.  We stood before the judge (a divorce case; I represented the husband) and the first thing opposing counsel did was all but swear out an affidavit that my client was packing heat and had made threats and might go nuts and kill us all right then and there!  The judge immediately sealed the courtroom and ordered officers to strip search my client.  By the time that was over nothing I had to say was going to convince the judge to do anything for my client, except maybe not throw him in jail for good measure.

You don't do that in federal court.  If the AUSA is sleeping with the judge's court reporter, they just sub in another AUSA and off you go.

Anyway, turns out there was no "strong factual basis" for this hearing, and the movant/defendant was just trying to see what he could get away with.  Not the best legal strategy imaginable, and it might wind counsel up in a contempt charge for wasting the court's time (but don't hold your breath.  Such matters have to be extremely egregious for it to hold up on appeal.  Judges may be righteous in their wrath and mickle in their wroth, but such emotions seldom percolate up to the appellate level.  Unless the facts on the ground are damning, the anger at the lawyer's shenanigans aren't enough to prevail, and trial judges HATE to be reversed.)

I don't think the Georgia hearing is over (it's so hard to get reliable information about these things without following the RIGHT Twitter feed, and which one is that one today?  I got better things to do...).  But I also don't think it was worth the pontifications of the Cassandras who were sure this was the night the lights really would go out in Georgia; again.  Because, well...Georgia!  'n' stuff!

Lot o' stupid parochialism in a lot of the commentary, which is just one step up from racism.  Not a big enough step, though.  I'm mindful that Alvin Bragg is a black man; and that the smart money said the New York/Stormy Daniels case was barely worth noticing.  Wonder what the "smart money" is going to be saying around the end of June?

These allegations were supposed to prove Fanni Willis was so compromised by her relationship with a lawyer she hired to help on this case, that the case itself had to go to another prosecutor somewhere else in Georgia.  As recently as yesterday cable Cassandras were bemoaning the fate of the case because surely it would be taken from Willis' entire office and disappear in the dark hinterlands of Georgia, never to be heard from again.  Because that, we were assured, is how Georgia really works.  At that point no one had heard a shred of evidence, but who needed to?  Black woman.  Georgia.  Allegations.  What more did one need?

The funniest part is all the people sure this would make Willis look bad and taint the jury pool at least, and damage the credibility of the DA bringing this case against the former POTUS.  Who is doing a fine job of diminishing himself in the eyes of the public already.  But after her testimony today (and this could be a case study in the wisdom of televising courtroom proceedings.  She was certainly playing to an audience beyond that room.), she has proven herself a tough and savvy courtroom presence who will tell you exactly how the cow ate the cabbage. Not that she didn't have help from Roman's hapless legal presentation:

"I think what was lost today was the legal standard that the defendants have to meet in order to get the case just get her disqualified from the case, which is: Is there an actual or perceived conflict of interest? And one that would have to do with money and a relationship."

"But we didn't hear any of that. For example, we didn't hear anything about who approved of the vouchers that wade submitted and his time sheets and all of the things that you would ask if you're really trying to discuss the financial relationship."

That's Alina Habba level fucking up.  That's what the judge was looking for.  One reason he let the hearing go on was because the burden was on the movant, and they never came close to meeting it.  He gave them the roped; Roman hanged himself. And I don't think that was because his lawyer lost the thread.  I think throwing shit against the wall to see what would stick, was always "the thread." The judge gave them every chance in the world to prove that.

The expectation that Willis would blow up in court and something, anything!, would be revealed, was undoubtedly what Roman (or at least his lawyer) was going for; and it didn't work.  This hearing was all about betting everything you have, and then trading in four cards in hopes of drawing an inside straight.  Roman stuck his head above the parapet and got it shot clean off.  Look for him to start negotiating furiously for a plea deal.

Look for Willis to not be anxious to offer one.

And if she doesn't, this will be my shocked face. 😈

Remember too, also, as well:  by the time Georgia goes to trial, Trump will probably be a convicted felon.  And the jury in Georgia, and in D.C., and in Florida, can all take that into consideration.

😈