Final remarks in the Fulton County case reveal perjury and dishonesty on the part of District Attorney Fani Willis. There is evidence that Fani and Trump prosecutor Nathan Wade were romantically involved before Wade was appointed.
In court, the District Attorney and Trump’s attorneys made their closing arguments. In two weeks, Judge Scott McAfee will make his ruling public.
Don’t miss this! Carry faith with you everywhere with the Exclusive National Prayer Coin!
The courtroom was dominated by attorney Harold MacDougald today as he represented Jeffrey Clark in a well-known case against 19 defendants who were charged with RICO by Fani Willis and Nathan. Don’t pass on this legal battle!
MacDougald made a strong case for his position in the clinic today.
Here is the transcript.
Harry MacDougald: Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7 contains the general guidelines regarding conflicts of interest for attorneys. Furthermore, it is ingrained in all of us that we are not allowed to have a conflict of interest and that, should we, we must withdraw in order to avoid being disqualified. The main contention is that a conflict of interest undermines an attorney’s ability to make an impartial legal decision. That is the standard for determining whether a conflict can be disqualified from or waived. Additionally, the conflict goes beyond money.
Any conflict that taints your impartial professional judgment qualifies. It is evident that the court in McLaughlin v. Payne inquired about the definition of a personal interest in order to determine disqualification. The ABA standards, which Mr. Merchant cited, list the prosecutor’s personal, political, financial, professional, business, property, and other interests or relationships. These standards are a reflection of anything that compromises professional judgment and are fundamental to the prosecutor’s oath to act impartially.
Furthermore, Judge McBurney’s previous disqualification ruling was motivated by political rather than financial interests. A conflict of interest can also be established for what my colleagues had labeled as forensic misconduct. According to that footnote in the Williams case, a conflict of interest resulting from each of their individual personal interests in maintaining and hiding their relationship is the source of all the issues that are currently being discussed in this court. That is the original sin, the source of all other issues. This case involves six distinct actual conflicts of interest, each of which is sufficient grounds for disqualification on its own, but taken as a whole, they are practically compelling.
First, as we have already discussed, the financial conflict.
The second is political and personal ambition.
Third, there is a pattern of dishonesty and money and relationship concealment that is complementary or dovetailed.
The church speech comes in fourth.
The DA’s protective order motion in Mr. Wade’s divorce case comes in at number five.
Sixth, the court requested a limiting principle and inquired about materiality in the state’s defense of this motion to disqualify, particularly in the hearing on the financial aspect. Whatever compromises the lawyer’s independent, regularly applied professional judgment serves as the limiting principle. We have a section of the county code that expressly forbids accepting gifts from contractors. By analogy, we have the $5,000 threshold of the federal bribery statute, 18 USC.
Six, six, six. Concerning burdens and inferences, the court inquired. Based on state v. Thomas, 311 Georgia 407, specifically footnote 19, the court can draw a negative conclusion from the state’s failure to provide evidence in support of the invisible magic cash balancing theory. With regard to the timing question posed by the court, Mr. Wade executed two contracts after acknowledging the beginning of their relationship, both of which were afflicted or in conflict with county and common law.
Her political aspirations, for which he had previously received criticism, are the source of the second conflict. Bernie. And this book contains that as well. They were granted exclusive access to thousands of confidential documents, emails, texts, and audio recordings, according to the book’s inside flap. Defense requests to have special purpose grand jury materials unsealed have been turned down twice by the court.
Fanny is toast!