Hold the Fone, Fani

Key Point. Once you establish a credibility issue, it’s hard to believe anything afterwards.
Well, here’s another court case that has captured US interest; it’s sensational and there’s intrigue. The vote issue in Georgia stemmed from Trump’s phone call to a voting official to complain or coerce, depending on your point of view, that he was some 11,000 to 12,000 votes behind in the state. In that call he was mainly asking for a recount and in his inimitable way said something like “…only needing to find that many votes.” Now, that was charitably saying that he thought the miscounting would easily show that many erroneously recorded votes. In fact, if an erroneous vote that should have been for Trump actually was miscounted for Biden, you’d have to find only half that number of votes because you’d take away a Biden vote and add a Trump vote, so each swap would reduce the difference by two votes. Uncharitably, you could say he was asking or trying to strongarm the official to somehow materialize the votes to make Trump win.
Just an aside here, does anyone really think on a recorded call anyone, even Trump, would ask an election official to falsify thousands of votes?
Anyhow, a criminal lawsuit was formed, largely by the DA Fani Willis to prove Trump was taking the falsify the vote count route. Then, 18 or so others also collaborated with Trump to make that happen. Thousands of items, mostly emails, were acquired by the DA to investigate this situation and the answer came back that this was an organized conspiracy to falsify the vote count to accomplish flipping Georgia’s 16 electoral votes.
Not only that, the case was constructed that this was a RICO felony on the part of all those people and they committed the crime of conspiracy in the state. Now that’s interesting because of course even if Trump eventually were the President again, he could not affect the outcome or change it because he would only have influence over federal cases.
Now, RICO is Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (Act), meaning this was like an organized crime, similar to crime families my Italian mom told me never to talk about. RICO has hard and fast rules, is considered among the worst felonies, and have the most severe penalties. Usually, involved parties get to know the inside of their prisons very well over decades. Also the inmates – sometimes VERY well. RICO cases are some of the hardest and most complex felonies to prosecute because they have a high bar of proof and you have to minimum explain how the organization the prosecution claims perpetrated the crime interacted, who had what decision roles in the group, who did what illegal actions, and how they benefitted. It’s like those crime conference rooms where you see scores of sticky notes on white boards and a spider web of lines of different colors with arrows showing who, what, where, when, and how did what to whom.
So, of course, Fani Willis proposed this as her case and proceeded to create one of these charts Using some outside consultants. One does that because of the complexity of the interactions and the complexity of the laws surrounding the RICO statues. Even the judge involved and other experts around the country remarked that it’s very very hard to construct a credible case like this, can take years, and then all the trials and testimony can take nearly as long. So why then make it harder to prove this case and involve so many people in it?
Well, one answer is you can start to offer deals to the lower level participants to get them to inform on the higher ups, and then “roll the case up” until you get the top brass, the kingpins, the planners more easily because you have people in the know to guide you to evidence and provide insider testimony. The informants will get a sentencing deal and drastically reduce the dollar drain that’s been sucking at their net worth even more than Bidinflation.
Still, very complicated. So whom did Fani put in charge of all this? Someone who had no experience with RICO, who had never pursued a case like this let alone seen one, who has never even prosecuted a felony, and mostly did stuff like parking violations.
This was also someone who she allegedly had been sleeping with for a few years. And he became the leader in this prosecution. He worked long and hard and made a six figure consulting fee in the case; I’m talking like $600,000.00 here. And the other two consultants who ostensibly had expertise in this type of case worked so support him and made far less than that.
Coincidentally, Fani and this guy, Nathan Wade, went on a lot of expensive trips (allegedly expensive) to the Caribbean, to Napa Valley, on Cruises, and so forth. He took time off from his marriage to do that, but that apparently was no problem to him because the day after he got the contract for the job, he filed for divorce. Now, one might think, hey, Fani was paying him a lot of money, and he went on a lot of trips, and she went too, so didn’t she sort of get a benefit from this government money she controlled and paid to him? Well, she says she paid him back. But when it was postulated there’d be some record of this, both Nathan and Fani stated she paid him in cash, so they’d just have to take their word for that because no records were ever kept.
Why do I bring this all up? I mean, it is an interesting story, isn’t it? It is unless you’re one of the 18 or so parties indicted in the case, in which case you may thing this whole case was a very high house of cards, built to create a large pile of money handed from a government employee to a contractor, and then both of them, who obviously liked each other a lot, got to benefit from those funds, maybe on through life as well. And this was all before the discovery was completed and the whole case needed to be constructed and then there’s a lot more money from the trial prep and the trial itself.
One could almost think the case was constructed as a RICO case to be the most time consuming and costly possible.
I mean, that could be one possibility.
Prejudice. Speaking of possibilities we have the prejudice of the case. No, not that kind. It’s not the kind Fani has been claiming since she went to church and played the race and gender victim cards on MLK Day. This would be if some of the possible judicial actions taking place given where we are. There may be crimes committed by Fani and Wade. They may have converted money from the government for their own use. There could be buried accounting and payment issues. Dealing in cash payments between a DA and her staff could be an issue, if for no other reason than there’s lack of accountability. There may be governance issues when a supervisor of outside resources has an extramarital relationship with supervised staff. There could be governmental ethical violations. There could be bar violations. Certainly there could be the appearance of unethical conduct. So the judge could have to take actions including letting the case proceed as is, removing either or both from the case (or recommending), bringing in other persons to be involved or supervise, or starting the case over with other personnel or another agency. But don’t you see what that means to the case and defendants? It prejudices the case against them if the judge says in any way, shape or form the case proceeds. It gives the appearance that something that happened, potentially the “drumming up of charges” is just okey dokey and we can go on from this point. This is more than a tainted case; it’s a blown case because we cannot turn the calendar back and start equal with the presumption of innocence. The chicken is half cooked and if you try to finish it, it won’t be the same and you can’t uncook it and start over. It’s unfair to all the defendants if for no other reason it’s time and money wasted; the defendants time and money.
And if it were true, all of the above, which is mostly hypothetical since I personally don’t have any firsthand knowledge of it, then the case exhibits bad faith on the part of prosecutors. Bad cases on the part of prosecutors are usually thrown out if they’re detected because people just aren’t supposed to do that when they represent US law, or any law. So maybe the powers that be should just do the right thing here and spend their time on the crimes that have known victims, are not based on subjective interpretation of what someone said when they used ambiguous terms, help the public with real crimes that are provable like rape and murder and theft, and call it a day.