Judge Scott McAfee confirmed yesterday that he will announce the fate of Fulton County’s designated “Stop Trump!” agent Fani Willis some time today. From the moment your friendly neighborhood ethicist heard the basic facts in this annoying story I was convinced that one way or the other she would have to leave the Trump case. One of my legal ethics colleagues emphatically disagrees, arguing that whatever conflicts of interest she created by hiring her illicit boyfriend to help prosecute Trump were matters of legal ethics discipline but irrelevant to the defendants. He also pooh-poohed the “appearance of impropriety” issue, echoing the American Bar Association’s logic when it took that category out of the ethics rules: actual impropriety matters, the mere appearance doesn’t.
Yet Willis is a government attorney, and employees of the state are required to avoid the appearance of impropriety because it erodes the public trust. If there was ever a prosecution that mandated a squeaky clean leader beyond suspicion or reproach, this is it. Instead, Willis has left an odoriferous trail of conflicts, arrogance, hypocrisy, dubious explanations and likely lies, all supported by her obnoxious reliance on race-baiting. I have been certain that she would eventually go down for all of this, and that my learned friend–who is apolitical— as well as the my myriad partisan-biased colleagues in the legal ethics association I belong to are wrong.
Well, we shall see . If you see Fredo (“I’m smart! I’m not dumb like everybody says!”) leading off a post today, you’ll know I was right.
Meanwhile, talk about whatever interests you in the Wonderful World of Ethics.
Ethics Alarms 
I hope the hammer is dropped on Willis, the boyfriend, and all who were complicit in the affair (pun intended) as a loud and clear reminder that there are positions where integrity and honesty actually matter. But I don’t expect it to happen.
The only way to restore trust in the legal, education, and other politically-entwined systems is to restore accountability. Something else I don’t expect to happen.
“But I don’t expect it to happen.”
This has actually occurred to me. There is so much gaslighting going on by the Democrats and their allies that I can see a scenario that goes like this: Willis isn’t dropped. The prosecution against Trump goes forward as is. Trump complains about the conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety. Trump’s followers and fair-minded people complain about it. Democrats and their allies spin it as a right-wing conspiracy theory and do news stories about how Trump and his followers don’t respect the law. Just as the unfairness of the 2020 election cannot be challenged, so the unfairness of an unfair prosecution won’t be allowed to be challenged.
I hope it doesn’t happen that way, but I can see it going that way.
Let’s see…
(1) Improper hiring of romantic partner at high pay to fund romance.
(2) Paying to send lover to White House to discuss strategy of ‘impartial’ prosecution of a political enemy.
(3) HIgh state Democratic Party official quits position to join Trump ‘impartial’ prosecution.
(4) Conflict of interest decided by former subordinate.
(5) Coordinating with Democratic January 6 Committee and receiving unpublished ‘evidence’ from them.
Did I miss anything?
One way to tell the difference between random error and error with a cause is that random error goes both ways. Error with a cause goes in 1 direction. With all these Trump prosecutions, I see DA’s and prosecutors tied to the Democratic Party. I see them coordinating with the Democratic Party. When judges are ‘randomly’ chosen, they are judges that make or have made public statements against Donald Trump. I don’t see random judges selected to promote Trump, who make public statements against his opponent, who have deep ties to the Republican Party. If you want to counter that by stating that he is only being prosecuted in places where no Republicans exist, then the question becomes “How can he get a fair trial?”. I mean, how can you try a black man for killing a white woman in a country where 100% of the residents belong to the KKK? If you think that is not a fair comparison, almost all Democrats believe that Trump is guilty of trying to overthrown the government by pressuring Congress to not certify the election due to the rampant irregularities. However, 60% of those same people think Congress should refuse to certify the election if Trump wins.
I read a review in the Journal about a new book dealing with, of all things, ethics: Catastrophe Ethics by Travis Reider. Catastrophy in this case according to the review refers to “collective problems that lie beyond the capacity of any of us to affect individually.”
Judge Says Fani Willis Can Stay on Trump Case, but Only if Romantic Partner Leaves
The Atlanta district attorney came under scrutiny because of a romantic relationship with the lead prosecutor she hired to oversee the case. The judge said the prosecution can’t proceed unless he withdraws or she steps aside.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/03/15/us/fani-willis-trump-georgia
So, that is like saying that the DA who was bribed to prosecute someone can continue to prosecute the case as long as they return the bribe money they hadn’t spent yet. Got it.
Or agree not to take anymore bribes. The mind simply boggles.
jvb
So one or the other must go. I’d be willing to bet he’s going to be gone before close of business today. HOONNK! Here comes the bus!
The Trump/Atlanta judge is an ethics coward (maybe). Of course Willis will stay, though she will no longer enjoy what was essentially a kickback scheme. Perhaps the judge is playing a long game giving Trump ample ammunition for an appeal to overturn a possible conviction, or hoping the state will do his job with a more permanent fix than just taking Willis off this one case.
Almost exactly one year ago, GA passed a bill allowing a state commission to remove a local prosecutor. It was widely assumed to be in response to this case.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mother-mixed-drink-sons-classmate-hospitalized-bexar-county-texas/
Were tthe mother’s actions ethical? How aboit the school and the cops. I’ll llst my analysis later.
I’d go with ethical, but there are some significant assumptions I’m making that aren’t technically in evidence, but seem like reasonable inferences. The son’s compliance is more of a gray area though.
Assumptions: Her son knew what it was. He only gave it to the bully after the usual actions that led to stolen drinks in the past. The bully’s symptoms were either faked (seems most likely), psychosomatic, or caused by something else entirely.
Based on facts presented in article: Nothing about lemon juice, salt, and vinegar should have caused issues, especially since he spat it out without drinking. It’s safe and non-toxic, just horrible tasting. I found some other articles when I listed the ingredients that suggest the mix for various diets.
If the reporting is accurate, the effects on the child were likely psychosomatic. The big issue is that there is no good way to deal with bullying in the face of a government that aids and abets it. The government tries to force you to send your children to a government school. The government school introduced bullies. The school does not effectively prevent bullying. If your child tried to defend themselves, you child will be placed in more trouble than the bully.
There are basically 2 types of bullies: kids that don’t care and connected kids. The kids that don’t care can’t be punished by the school. The school can suspend them, which is permission to skip school. Any punishment will just result in your child being bullied more. The school will not keep the bully away from your child. If the bully is connected, it is worse. If you child complains, it is likely that your child will be punished for the bullying. The school will never punish the child of a neurosurgeon for bullying a child from a trailer park. This is now made worse by ‘restorative justice’.
If the bully is of a higher ‘oppression class’ than your child, the school may be forbidden from disciplining the bully. What do you do?
Not everyone can homeschool and not everyone can afford a private school. You could be punished for not sending you child to be abused every day. So, what do you do? Do you just send your child to school to be attacked and hope the bullies don’t kill him/her? That is the official policy.
What if the bully is a teacher?
The only effective way to deal with bullies in the past has been to fight them. Schools didn’t like that, because bullies were getting hurt, so they actively punish anyone who tries to defend themselves. It is worse now, because the kids are murderous. Bullies used to just want to humiliate you, now, they may try to kill you.
The public schools need to die.
The only effective way to deal with bullies in the past has been to fight them. Schools didn’t like that, because bullies were getting hurt, so they actively punish anyone who tries to defend themselves. It is worse now, because the kids are murderous. Bullies used to just want to humiliate you, now, they may try to kill you.
And who forces the students to accept the punishment?
What if the students refuse to be punished?
I really wish we had a solution to the corruption in the police, a corruption that I feel has greatly increased due to ‘police reform’. I think people greatly underestimate how difficult it is to be an ethical police officer. There are a lot of things that work against that.
(1) Most officers are young when they start and their ‘life experience’ becomes dealing with criminals all day. If you deal with people who are dangerous, who lie, who steal, who can’t be trusted, you are likely to view this as normal and treat everyone this way. If people started as police officers when they were 30, after have a normal socialization in society, this would be less likely. Only hiring officers as a ‘career change’ profession is probably not practical, however.
(2) As the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Experiments, and the Asch Conformity Experiments showed, people will obey authority and treat people badly if they are told the people are ‘bad’ in some way. Few will resist mistreating people they know are innocent if any authority Very few people can resist such social pressures and these pressures are on police officers to the extreme. In a closed ‘us v. them’ culture where the ‘them’ are genuine criminals, abuse of authority becomes almost irresistible to many people. Over half this country was willing to jail anyone who refused an experimental vaccine, how many would be willing to similarly abuse a career criminal? How do you help officers fight such social pressures to mistreat people and abuse authority?
I watched a YouTube video of a ‘police reform’ activist who volunteered to do a ride along with some police officers. He was shocked by how HE acted by the end of the ride alongs. By the end, he said that he thought everyone was a criminal, everyone was ‘up to something’, and everyone was lying.
How do we fight all these factors that work to subvert an honest police force?
So I have a footnote to a discussion from a week or two ago. Jack was relating that Harris Teeter had started charging a fee for customers to get cash back.
I haven’t yet gone to the local Harris Teeter, but this morning I did check Food Lion in our shopping center. I went through the self checkout station, and I was able to get cash back from my purchase without incurring a charge.
So at least the Food Lion here hasn’t joined that trend, which is good.