172
Imagine having to resign from your job just for doing you job
They were doing rather more than their job, though.
Is it right? Probably not.
Did they do anything wrong? Almost certainly not.
All of that said, by the time a relationship escalates to the point of your boss knowing intimate details…. The least objectionable thing that will happen is one of you has to go.
It is difficult to imagine a place so out of touch that they would not have a policy explicitly forbidding such a relationship between a boss and anyone they hired.
He was working to clear out her backlog from the prior asshole; while they were dating. I’m not sure what happens when judges and courts are involved; but at the end of the day he was her subordinate; and there is never a way for a boss to date a subordinate without at least the potential for coercion.
Everyone knows that once you date someone, end the relationship, and go your separate ways, it's impossible to ever have a professional relationship ever again in the future.
There was a romantic relationship between him and the attorney.
Years ago not currently
Oh my god, this whole time it's been conveniently framed as if they're still hooking up. It's even more absurd than I thought.
I believe he had to resign for doing his boss.
Appearance of impropriety is very much a thing and they're not a Supreme Court Judge actively taking bribes.
Probably the best possible outcome. They can always get a new special prosecutor.
It's apparently kind of hard to find someone that is willing to put up with the threats against their lives for somewhat measly pay. But, yes, hopefully they can 🤞
Well, he wasn't pulling down measly pay, that was part of the problem. :)
I don't think you understand what people in his position usually make
Well, the reporting was he was making something like 10x what the other prosecutors on the case were making...
"Wade earned an average of $25,149 a month for his first 26 months on the case despite never having prosecuted a felony, a Newsweek review of his invoices has found.
...
Invoices and work contracts disclosed to Trump's co-accused, Michael Roman, show that Wade was earning over $31,000 a month from July to November 2023 inclusive and has been on a rate of $250 an hour for the last two years."
and (same link)
"Invoices disclosed by Willis' office show that from November 1, 2021, to December 31st, 2023, Wade earned $653,881 in total for the case."
Compared with:
"Newly-obtained public records from Fulton County suggest Wade was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars more than the other special prosecutors on the case.
Those records indicate the DA’s office paid special prosecutor John Floyd's law firm Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore close to $73,000 between 2022 and 2023.
Special Prosecutor Anna Cross's law firms — Cross Kincaid and The Cross Firm LLC — were paid a total of roughly $90,000 during the same years, records show.
Over the same time period, Fulton County records show the DA’s office paid The Law Offices of Nathan J. Wade approximately $653,880."
Sounds low to comparable cases to me
I wonder how many hours were billed for...
I mean, you look at the three prosecutors on the case:
One guy got over $600,000 compared to $73k and 80k. Yeah, not a good look.
You keep talking about this single case, and I keep talking about lead prosecutors in comparable cases.
Well, when you have three prosecutors assigned to the same case, and the one sleeping with the boss is making 10x what the other two are? That's going to raise eyebrows.
What happens on OTHER cases isn't really relevant, the disparity on THIS case is what people are looking at.
Bruh, when I say something along the lines of "what people usually make in this position for cases of this magnitude", it literally begs to be compared to "OTHER" cases.
Comparing the lead prosecutors salary to supporting prosecutors salaries means very little in that context.
It's like me saying "CEOs in this industry tend to make a lot more than this CEO was making" and then you saying " This CEO was making a lot more than his CFO, and his secretary, which is outrageous!"
While I might agree, it's not exactly pertinent to the point I was making about lead prosecutors on cases of a similar magnitude...
This case was kind of bonkers. They’re both lawyers, so they knew the ethical risks of an employer banging their employee.
They are leading a case that is super important to the nation, and they put it all at risk. Even if this was innocent, why on earth would do this if you knew the risks better than most?
for the record the romantic aspect of the relationship ended before Trump was indicted.
It's still wrong, and it's still recent enough to justify termination- or it would be for any corporation I've ever worked for. It's unfortunate, but there's reasons to be hard asses about it.
I didn’t know that. Thanks for adding that clarification!
Ehh sorta "She acknowledged the existence of a romantic relationship, but she said that it began in 2022, after Mr. Wade began working for the district attorney’s office, and that the physical element of the relationship ended before the indictment was handed up in August."
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Wade's resignation as special prosecutor came hours after Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee laid out two options that would allow for the continued prosecution of the racketeering case against Trump and his co-defendants stemming from an alleged scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia.
"This lack of a confirmed financial split creates the possibility and appearance that the district attorney benefited — albeit non-materially — from a contract whose award lay solely within her purview and policing," McAfee wrote.
McAfee also rebuked Wade for what he said was a "patently unpersuasive explanation for the inaccurate interrogatories" the special prosecutor submitted in divorce proceedings, which the judge said indicated a willingness to "wrongly conceal" his relationship with Willis.
"Reasonable questions about whether the District Attorney and her hand-selected lead SADA testified untruthfully about the timing of their relationship further underpin the finding of an appearance of impropriety and the need to make proportional efforts to cure it," McAfee wrote.
He also denied Trump's request to disqualify the district attorney from the prosecution because of "forensic misconduct," based on a speech Willis gave at Atlanta's oldest Black church after her relationship with Wade was brought into public view.
While McAfee said the effect of Willis' speech was to "cast racial aspersions at" Roman's decision to request she be removed, he could not find that her remarks crossed a line to deny Trump and his co-defendants a fair trial or require her disqualification.
The original article contains 1,864 words, the summary contains 244 words. Saved 87%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2024
172 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19062 readers
3756 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS