As befits a careful lawyer who has served in senior positions in both Republican and Democrat administrations, Chuck Rosenberg is more even-handed than the typical MSNBC legal analyst.
But there’s nothing even-handed about Morning Joe regular Katty Kay, of the notoriously liberal BBC.
And so, the pair had a polite but clear clash on today’s Morning Joe in discussing the motion brought by one of Trump’s co-defendants to have Fani Willis disqualified from the election interference case she has brought against them in Georgia.
Rosenberg began by describing the issue of the potential conflict of interest if Willis benefitted financially from her hiring of her boyfriend, Nathan Wade. He then ventured into the issue of the timing of the beginning of the Willis/Wade relationship, and how it’s a political problem.
Interjected an impatient Kay: “Frankly, does any of that really matter for the substance of the Georgia case?” Translation: enough of this stuff about Willis’ misconduct. Let’s get back to the business of convicting and imprisoning Trump!
Riposted Rosenberg, politely but firmly, “Maybe.” He explained that if the relationship started before Willis hired Wade, then the affidavit he submitted could be “false.” Moreover, Willis then submitted Wade’s affidavit to the court in support of her contention, so she could be on the hook for its falsity, too.
But Rosenberg wasn’t through with Willis/Wade — or with Kay. He went on to say, “I was a prosecutor for a long time. If a supervisor is having a relationship with a subordinate, regardless of when it starts, that’s reason for the subordinate or the supervisor to step away from the case. So, in some ways, to me, it doesn’t really matter when it started, but if it started before she hired him, you might have false affidavits in this case.”
In the current circumstances, it’s hard to imagine that Wade would be removed but Willis is allowed to remain. More likely, they’d both be out.
And as his coup de grace, Rosenberg opined that even if a financial conflict of interest can’t be established, there would still be the “appearance” of a conflict—”and that’s messy.”
That should have taught Kay not to rumble with Rosenberg—but she got in a pouty final word:
“That said, that means we’re talking about this rather than the substance of the Georgia case.”
Sorry, Katty!
Here’s the transcript.
MSNBC
Morning Joe
2/19/24
6:15 am ETJONATHAN LEMIRE: Chuck, let’s quickly touch on another legal matter. We saw it play out in Fulton County at the end of last week. The district attorney there, Fani Willis, giving a pretty impassioned defense on Thursday, and then the state decided not to call her, she did not appear on the stand again on Friday.
What’s your read as to how, how that went at the end of Friday, and where things could go next in that case?
CHUCK ROSENBERG: Yeah, through a couple of different prisms, Jonathan. Legally, the defendants have to show that there was some improper financial arrangement that, that makes that a conflict of interest. If the defendants can show a conflict of interest, a financial one, by Ms. Willis hiring Mr. Wade when they had a romantic relationship, and that she somehow benefitted from the money that was being paid to him, that could be a conflict. They could be disqualified from the case.
That’s the legal part. And I don’t think the defendants have succeeded yet. I mean, it’s messy. It’s ugly. If you’ve watched any of it, you probably have that sort of icky feeling when you see it. But I don’t know that they’ve made out the disqualification grounds yet.
Politically, it’s a mess. Because there’s a bunch of things that happened at the hearing that shows sort of — it got into personal relationships between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade. There was some contention about when that relationship started. There was a witness who might have been very important on that fact. But he didn’t testify fully because Mr. Wade was invoking a privilege to preclude him from doing that.
KATTY KAY: But frankly, does any of that really matter for the substance of the Georgia case, though?
ROSENBERG: Maybe. So if the romantic relationship between Ms. Wade and Ms. Willis happened before he was hired by her in Fulton County, then the affidavit that he submitted might be false.
And not only did, would that affidavit be false, Katty, Ms. Willis propounded that affidavit, provided that affidavit, to the court in support of her contention that the relationship started subsequently.
By the way, at any point, and I was a prosecutor for a long time. If a supervisor is having a relationship with a subordinate, regardless of when it starts, that’s reason for the subordinate or the supervisor to step away from the case. So, in some ways, to me, it doesn’t really matter when it started, but if it started before she hired him, you might have false affidavits in this case.
And that, if I may, Katty, that raises a separate point. Even if the defendants fail to show an actual conflict of interest—and they may very well fail—an appearance of a conflict of an interest is also a problem. And as prosecutors, you have to be sensitive to the appearance. So even if the legal motion fails, and the judge doesn’t disqualify Ms. Willis or Mr. Wade from the case, you still have an appearance. And that’s messy.
KAY: That said, that means we’re talking about this rather than the substance of the Georgia case, as well, at the moment.
Discussion about this post