This is all about “inappropriate behavior” and if nobody can point to the affect this behavior has had on the case then their basically punishing her for the affair.
Some of the money used to fund the prosecution was used on travel expenses and hotel rooms for the purposes of helping to cover up the affair. There are numerous criminal acts in that alone and it amazes me that she hasn’t faced sanctions or charges for them. This opens the door to the theory that the prosecution of Trump wasn’t entirely based on the evidence in the investigation but was at least partially more of a way to fund their affair at his expense.
And yes, maybe some of it is her being punished for having an affair. But given all of the circumstances surrounding this particular affair, punishment was absolutely warranted. Their actions gave off far more than the appearance of impropriety, and absolutely tainted the entire case. She absolutely should have been sanctioned if not disbarred, and that doesn’t change just because the defendant happens to be Trump.
Does it harm the taxpayers and citizens of Fulton? Maybe.
That alone would be enough of a reason to have her removed. Appearance of impropriety and all that. She should have recused herself and had the case reassigned the minute word of the affair became public. Her staying in is what continued to taint the case.
Some of the money used to fund the prosecution was used on travel expenses and hotel rooms for the purposes of helping to cover up the affair.
If any of this is illegal under state or County law by all means give her the boot. That doesn’t seem to be what anyone is saying though. “Conflict of interest” and “impropriety” are seemingly the worst she’s guilty of.
It only takes a few simple questions. Did she fail to meet specific criteria when she hired Wade as special prosecutor? Was she required to disclose prior conflicts of interest or ones that formed during the course of the indictment? Did Wade make unauthorized purchases with the fees he was paid? Were the rights of the defendant violated? Is there any evidence their relationship has diminished their efficacy in prosecuting this case? If none of these answers are “yes” then it’s 100% about optics. If any of these are a “yes” then this should’ve been settled months ago.
Some of the money used to fund the prosecution was used on travel expenses and hotel rooms for the purposes of helping to cover up the affair. There are numerous criminal acts in that alone and it amazes me that she hasn’t faced sanctions or charges for them. This opens the door to the theory that the prosecution of Trump wasn’t entirely based on the evidence in the investigation but was at least partially more of a way to fund their affair at his expense.
And yes, maybe some of it is her being punished for having an affair. But given all of the circumstances surrounding this particular affair, punishment was absolutely warranted. Their actions gave off far more than the appearance of impropriety, and absolutely tainted the entire case. She absolutely should have been sanctioned if not disbarred, and that doesn’t change just because the defendant happens to be Trump.
That alone would be enough of a reason to have her removed. Appearance of impropriety and all that. She should have recused herself and had the case reassigned the minute word of the affair became public. Her staying in is what continued to taint the case.
If any of this is illegal under state or County law by all means give her the boot. That doesn’t seem to be what anyone is saying though. “Conflict of interest” and “impropriety” are seemingly the worst she’s guilty of.
It only takes a few simple questions. Did she fail to meet specific criteria when she hired Wade as special prosecutor? Was she required to disclose prior conflicts of interest or ones that formed during the course of the indictment? Did Wade make unauthorized purchases with the fees he was paid? Were the rights of the defendant violated? Is there any evidence their relationship has diminished their efficacy in prosecuting this case? If none of these answers are “yes” then it’s 100% about optics. If any of these are a “yes” then this should’ve been settled months ago.