What's being left out of this discussion is Wade's testimony, which was a train wreck. He was not credible, especially when it came to his references to cash transactions and the way he handles his personal and business finances. He offered no explanation of what happened to the thousands of dollars Willis supposedly gave him in reimbursements for their trips, flights, etc. Instead he just said he "spent it"; didn't apply it toward the trip charges on his credit card or anything else remotely specific.
He is not required to offer an explanation, especially because the defendants' inept attorneys did not push for one. Willis testified she gave him cash to reimburse him for her portion of the trips. The defendants' attorneys did not question that much and produced no evidence to the contrary. The question before the court is about conflict of interest sufficient to disqualify Willis from the case. She testified she gave cash back to Wade. He concurred. There is no requirement that something in particular be done with the cash once it is received. The testimony was plausible.
Is this an optimal way to do business and keep books? Of course not. Is it enough to get Willis disqualified? Probably not.
He also claimed it was common to have clients who would pay him with piles of cash.
Maybe he does. How is that relevant or irrelevant to the question at hand? Again, not the best way to manage one's business but not enough to get anyone disqualified off the case where the question is about conflict of interest. On that question, the defendants came up with little or nothing.
It's no wonder Willis decided to storm into the courtroom and create chaos to turn attention away from his damaging testimony.
Not being mind readers, and having no explanation from Willis, we do not know why she chose to testify. That's what was going on when I dialed into the hearing (and soon dialed off). While this is not a legal point of importance, it seemed to me that Willis was far more emotionally engaged than I would expect a professional prosecutor to be. It seems to me this case has gotten deeply under her skin. That's understandable. Her life has been disrupted in major ways because of the threats she has received, and her every move is being scrutinized. She seems to me to be still competent in battle but not cool under fire. The opposing attorneys, if they are sharp, will have noticed this and filed it away for future reference and use. If they can push her buttons and thereby prompt a blunder, advantage Trump.
She has already blundered a few times. She may blunder again. Still, she's on the case for now and that court date approaches.
The judge made it clear from the start that there was a low bar for Willis to be disqualified; the defense team didn't have to concisely prove conflict of interest or impropriety;
the appearance of impropriety would be enough for disqualification, just as it was when Willis was disqualified from her attempted case against Lt. Gov candidate Burt Jones.
Not "just like." that situation is significantly different and that disqualification made sense. We'll see soon whether the judge disqualifies. What you see and what he "made clear" may be different.
The appearance of impropriety is certainly apparent here: (1) sworn testimony from a former friend and co-worker that they were romantically involved in 2019
That witness and testimony has been discredited.
(2) credit card statements showing that Wade paid for trips, flights, cruises, etc that showed material gain for her.
No one denied that, and yes, those antics absolutely create an appearance of impropriety. But the impropriety is professional misconduct that creates an appearance of impropriety, not conflict of interest, which is what the defendants are complaining about and using as the basis for disqualification.
Her claim that she reimbursed him in cash was unsubstantiated by both of them.
As I said above, no proof is needed. Both Willis and Wade testified under oath the cash was paid. No evidence or testimony to the contrary exists. If I owe someone $10,000 and pay it in cash, and I do not ask for and do not receive a receipt, and the creditor testifies under oath that I paid the money, and no one says otherwise, the money was paid as far as the judge is concerned.
Their romantic relationship in itself is problematic. S
Big time!
imply put - the defense has proof of their claims, Willis can't prove hers in spite of the coordinated stories from her, her daddy and her lover. Cui bono? Their motivation to lie is obvious - they could be disqualified, disbarred, audited by the IRS, and/or prosecuted.
We'll see. I'd be surprised if any of that happens because the question at hand is about a conflict of interest. The IRS audit may be triggered by Wade's testimony but that's about his money management, not a conflict of interest that pertains to the RICO case.
Finally, one thing that emerged in this hearing is Wade is dispensable. He was not Willis's first choice to work this case. He is tainted now such that every time he appears in court as a prosecuting attorney, the jury and others will be thinking about his now-over affair with Willis. It seems to me wise for Willis to give him the boot. That will take some but not all of the scandal heat off her, and clear the way for an unencumbered attorney to argue the case in court.
