It’s time for commentators to stop with “Fani Willis should have know better” and start saying “Judge McAfee should know better.” Let’s be clear — the person responsible for creating this televised smear bizzaro world show trial is Judge Scott McAfee and not Fani Willis. The following exchange between Trump Acolyte Lawyer Ashleigh Marchant and star turned disaster witness Terrence Bradley, from TPM’s summary of the proceeding yesterday, should be game and match over for the case against this Federalist society, Brian Kemp appointed judge.
Merchant is asking Bradley if Wade told him that he and Willis had sex…..in an office.
Steamy. But Merchant immediately ran into another buzzsaw: how did she hear that from Bradley in the first place?
She initially suggested it was via a text; after an objection from the DA’s office, she said it was probably over speakerphone. That may seem like small potatoes, but for this kind of questioning attorneys need to know the basis for their queries.
This exchange was allowed to happen in a hearing that was, according to Judge McAfee, supposed to address the following (excerpt from a local news story about the beginning of the evidentiary hearing)
“What remains to be proven is the existence and extent of any financial benefit, if there even was one,” McAfee said
Allowing Merchant to make unsupported allegations about having sex in the office is not related to the above. Instead, it is clearly, like the rest of this show hearing, designed to undermine Fani Willis with the press and public at large. This unsupported accusation about sex in the office has been included in every story I’ve read about the trial. And, it — and the other irrelevant details about Fani Willis and Nathan Bradley’s relationship — will live on in the media even though they are not relevant to proving financial benefit.
The financial benefit issue was clear before this hearing. Fani Willis tried to hire at least two other attorneys (who she was not involved with) before trying to hire Wade. They rejected her offer because the pay was below market rate, the rate she paid ultimate paid Wade. This fact disproves that she brought the case to financially benefit from it (to get free trips to Aruba, Belize and and Napa) as she would have not gotten any of these from the other lawyers she tried to hire. Additionally, she stated in the filing that she paid Wade back (and this could not be disproven) further makes any change of conflict of interest moot.
The Judge did not need to hold this hearing to find out there was no financial benefit. The details about Willis trying to hire other lawyers was detailed in earlier court filings (and documented in Michael Isikoff’s book). Instead, he held a hearing, that according to a “legal” expert cited in this ABC news story will, even if McAfee dismisses the motion, will help Trump’s and his acolyte’s lawyers:
If the judge dismisses the motion, Acevedo said there is a chance that the issue over Willis' and Wade's relationship could blow over because of the ever-changing media cycle, but he predicted Trump and the co-defendants' attorneys will keep bringing it up in news conferences, interviews and other media appearances.
McAfee could have and should have just ruled against the “defense’s” conflict of interest motion based on his own criteria of only looking at financial benefit. The question was never if Willis and Wade had an affair, or about when it started, the only relevant question was if Willis only filed this case so she could get free vacations from Nathan Wade and it was clear long ago that this was not the case.
McAfee, who was appointed to the bench by republican Georgia governor Brian Kemp has the following background according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
McAfee graduated with his law degree from the University of Georgia. As a student at UGA, he led the college chapter of The Federalist Society, which describes itself as “a group of conservatives and libertarians dedicated to reforming the current legal order.” On the national level, The Federalist Society has played a key role in getting conservative jurists appointed to the bench, including the U.S. Supreme Court.
McAfee has also participated in the Conservative Policy Leadership Institute, a training program that emphasizes conservative principles.
The same legal expert cited in the ABC News piece also had this to say
John Acevedo, a visiting associate professor at Emory School of Law, told ABC News that motions of attorney conflict of interest are common in criminal cases, but Willis' situation is one of the rare times where an accusation has been made against two prosecutors.
Most conflict motions are made because of relationships or past issues between a prosecutor and defense attorney, Acevedo said.
"This does not fit the normal pattern that attorneys are looking for, so it's not surprising that [Willis'] office didn't think it could be a problem," he said.
It seems that McAfee, who happens to be white and sounds “judicial,” has been given a pass for atypical rulings and actions by much of the press and the commentariat. And Willis, who happens to be black and likes to pay with cash (much to the dismay of Trump’s attorneys and supporters), has been found guilty by the press for having a relationship with a long time colleague and friend who did not have conflicting interests in regard to this case (according to standard judicial procedure in Georgia).
In conclusion, it would be nice if commentators would stop slut shaming Fani Willis and start judge blaming this right wing hack in robes, Judge Scott McAfee. He deserves your vitriol, not Fani Willis.
