Saw this summary of the Wade/Willis testimony from yesterday on another forum; I think it's pretty solid.
I'll try, but it's complicated because there are different issues with different standards at play, and they get jumbled a lot. I'm not sure I get them right all the time myself.
Undisputed facts:
- Wade paid for Willis' vacations while they were in a relationship and he was under contract to the DA office.
- Neither Wade nor Willis ever told anyone else in the office they were in a relationship or consulted with the ethics officer.
- Willis did not disclose the vacations as gifts on her annual disclosure form.
Disputed facts
- Were Willis and Wade already in a relationship when he got the contract? Defense attorneys and their witness say yes. W/W say no.
- Did Willis pay Wade back? W/W say she did, with cash that can't be traced. (No withdrawal or deposit records.)
Now the law:
Public Servant Ethics
Willis is subject to ethics requirements through her position. Those requirements say she can't accept gifts from a prohibited source, which would include Wade as a contractor, regardless of whether they were involved or not. The romantic relationship actually acts as defense here, because there are usually exclusions to this prohibition based on outside personal relationships. BUT, you should disclose those relationships and get preliminary clearance from your ethics officer before doing something as significant as accepting travel expenses. Willis clearly didn't do that. So her only defense is that she paid Wade back. In cash. Which neither of them documented in case anyone ever asked questions.
But...
Prosecutorial Ethics
A violation of these public servant ethics rules doesn't necessarily mean the alleged behavior violated prosecutorial ethics/requirements to the extent that Willis should be disqualified from the case, although it certainly doesn't help. But generally, Willis is prohibited from profiting financially from any prosecution she brings (above and beyond her salary) and has to exercise her discretion impartially. What the defense attorneys are trying to show is that her decision to bring such a complicated case was motivated, in part, by the indirect financial benefit she received from Wade. The exact standard the judge will apply in this decision, though, appears to remain unclear.
So what I think the judge will be deciding is:
1. Factual Question: Did Willis actually pay Wade back?
2. Factual Question: Were Willis and Wade in a relationship when he was hired?
3. Legal Question: And, depending on the factual finding, does this indicate bias to the extent that Willis cannot be seen as an impartial prosecutor and must be removed from the case?
The Charges Against Trump
None of the above actually reflects on the merits of the charges -- it only goes to whether Willis' decision to proceed was tainted by indirect personal benefit. In a perfect world, the case would be handed off to another officer that would act impartially. In our imperfect world, the fear is that it would be given to an office biased in Trump's favor, or that such a transfer would result in delaying the case beyond the election.
Phew. See, it's a mess.
ETA: The only thing I can say for sure is that law schools and CLE classes are going to be using this situation as an example of what not to do for decades.
This poster (who has a legal background) said elsewhere that they think Willis is toast. However, I've seen other folks with legal backgrounds say they don't see any valid reason to disqualify her.
I'm more inclined to believe the latter. It's clear that she fucked up, but I think the case for disqualification is thin, and the lawyers questioning W&W yesterday seemed about as competent as I've come to expect from Trump lawyers.
W&W's defense isn't great, but I'm not sure it has to be. "I paid him back in cash and don't have receipts" isn't an argument you really want to be making in front of a judge, but it's not wildly implausible, either. I don't think the defendants have made a good case for removing her, so I'm not sure she has to make a good case against it.
