1. I had a long conversation with a close friend who is a retired lifetime federal prosecutor. She really detests Donald Trump, to the extent that she said she was initially “excited” about the Georgia case against him because, as a state prosecution, it would not be vulnerable to a presidential pardon. Now she says she is thoroughly disgusted with Willis, whom she termed an “idiot” for…

• Hiring a lawyer to work on the case who would be using the fruits of his job to pay for benefits to her, what she called the equivalent of a kickback;
• Having an intimate relationship with such a lawyer, which not only calls into question the reasons he was hired, but also her independent judgment regarding the case generally, since if he and she are benefiting from the case continuing, she sould not apply the required “independent judgment” to determine how to pursue the case or even whether to pursue it;
• Doing this despite knowing that it would be a high profile case under constant scrutiny, requiring “Caesar’s wife” level, squeaky-clean management on her part;
• Immediately “playing the “race card” as soon as her conflicts were raised in the court filing, when she knew or should have known that the ethics complaints have substance;
• Creating a textbook “appearance of impropriety,” which as a government lawyer Willis had to know was taboo.

At very least, she agreed, Nathan Wade should have withdrawn from the case (or been removed by Willis) as soon as this controversy arose. That he has not, she said, proves that Willis is conflicted and her judgment is not trustworthy. My freind says the Georgia case is likely done-for, and that its demise will increase public skepticism about the legitimacy of the other cases being pursued against Trump. She also opines that even if Willis somehow is able to stay at the helm of the case, she is clearly such an incompetent that she will botch it in some other way.

I concur with all of the above.

2. Jonathan Turley finally weighed in on the mess in his blog post, “Georgia Prosecutors Should Go, But That Won’t Necessarily End the Case Against Trump.” Not necessarily, perhaps, but it will probably slow the case down to the point that it will not be completed until after the election.

3. Amusingly, someone dug up a video of Willis promising during her campaign for DA in 2020 that she would never allow any workplace romances because they are “inappropriate” and “distracting.”

4. Still spinning, the New York Times published “How Allegations of an Office Romance Came to Complicate the Case Against Trump.” Apparently there are no editors working at the Times: this isn’t an “office romance,” which implies something that “just happens” when little Cupid shoots his dart in the workplace, which can happen to anyone, and its just the way life goes sometimes and nobody’s really at fault, just like in “The Little Shop Around the Corner.” The romance didn’t begin in the workplace: Willis brought it into the workplace, which is infinitely worse, and by doing so corrupted the litigation. She deliberately created a supervisor-subordinate intimate relationship in the workplace she controlled. The news media seem determined not to make these key distinctions clear to the public.

5. The increasingly ridiculous Business Insider, as with the Claudine Gay scandal, spinning like mad for the “good guys” (that is, Democrats and progressives), has this dishonest headline: “Allegations of a romantic relationship between DA Fani Willis and prosecutor are bad optics, but likely won’t impact Trump’s case, experts say.”

Well.

• As usual the question presents itself “What experts?” I counted two, and one guy who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I happen to be an expert on this topic, and they didn’t consult me.
• “Optics” in government are critical in maintaining trust and legitimacy. The “optics” in this case is called “the appearance of impropriety,” which is explicitly forbidden for government lawyers and elected officials in Georgia and everywhere else. Oddly, BI doesn’t think this is worth clarifying.
• Expert #2, Anthony Michael Kreis, a Georgia State University law professor, says that “it’s certainly a huge political problem, it is certainly scandalous and salacious, if true” but  “Where is the line between an ethical lapse or a political misjudgment and something that kind of taints this office?” There is no line: in this set of facts, it is both unethical conduct by Wallis and political incompetence. And it isn’t a “lapse.” Willis knew this was a breach of legal ethics that endangered the case; she had to know.
• Expert #1, Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor like my friend quoted above (who also wasn’t consulted by BI) said,  “If the allegations are true, Willis is incredibly foolish to be having a romantic relationship with a married man and then hiring him with public funds. It’s unethical and unprofessional.” But, said Rahmani, “none of this warrants dismissal of the criminal charges against Trump or others. One really has nothing to do with the other. Willis’ conduct doesn’t rise to the level of outrageous government conduct, selective prosecution for a constitutionally impermissible reason, or any other defense in the case.” Nobody said it did: this is a straw man, being used by BI to try to represent Willis’s multi-layered ethics breach as no big deal. It is a big deal.
• The idiot is “expert #3,”who appears to be the one BI decided to base its headline on.  Robert James, a former district attorney in DeKalb County, Georgia, claims that if Wade and Willis are romantically involved, “it’s an optics problem,” but he doesn’t see anything “inherently improper” about a relationship. As I said, he’s an idiot. They sure elect terrific DAs in Georgia. James also opines that even if Wade spends money on Willis, that’s likely not an issue unless there’s evidence of some sort of conspiracy to profit. Ugh. That’s only a critical issue if there is a criminal prosecution of Willis. It still is enough to breach her duty of independence.  “I have no belief, unless something different than what I’ve heard comes out, that Fani Willis is going to be disqualified from this case,” James said. Right.

Either Willis will be disqualified, or the case is doomed, which it might be anyway.

6. It has been established that in Willis’s “I am like Martin Luther King” sermon last week, she lied when she stated that her main squeeze Wade was paid no more than the other two prosecutors she hired for the Trump case. In fact he was paid more. Yes, she used the church to spread misinformation about her conduct. Nice. Also really stupid.

6. Apart from the legal ethics and prosecutorial misconduct track, Fulton County Commissioner Bob Ellis, chairman of the county’s audit committee, has sent a letter to Willis asking whether “misused” county funds, and “accepted valuable gifts and personal benefits from a contractor/recipient of County funds.” “These allegations involve your decision to appoint Nathan Wade to serve as a special prosecutor in the matter in which former President Trump is a co-defendant. Mr. Wade is alleged to (1) lack relevant prosecutorial experience in a case of this type and complexity, (2) have paid for your portion of multiple instances of joint leisure travel, and (3) be in a romantic relationship with you that was not disclosed to the court or to the parties in the case,” Ellis wrote.

7. Most important of all, I went through this whole post without typing “Wallis” instead of “Willis” once.