What In God's Name Is Happening In Georgia
Added 2024-02-16 09:16:35 +0000 UTCEpisode 1005. So uh, yeah. About that. The news was so crazy that we recorded two different episodes and I had to stitch them together like a Frankenstein's Podster. Because WOW Georgia.
In addition to that, Matt has for us a tour of the Trump legal circuit! It makes stops in DC, Florida, Georgia, and New York, with a brief layover in 1998 to reminisce about where we were the first time we heard an elected official talking about their sex life under oath. We share some initial impressions of the first day of Fulton County DA Fani Willis's disqualification hearing, debate whether Nathan Wade actually billed the county for 24 hours of work in one day, and consider what might happen next (and what probably should have earlier) in this unfortunate and entirely evitable sideshow to the single most important state criminal case prosecuted in our lifetimes.
Also discussed: What's next for the stupidest impeachment in the history of impeachments? What's up with the House rule which makes tying a vote *much* worse than losing one? Is Robert Hur a doctor or does he just like playing one in special counsel reports? And we finally learn the one thing that truly makes Matt angry: FONTS.
1. Nixon v. U.S. (1993)
2. Trump's stay request to SCOTUS re: immunity claims
3. GA Defendant David Shafer's filing re: motion to disqualify
4. GA Code § 15-18-15 (2018)
5. Judge Merchan's denial of Trump's motion to dismiss
Comments
Matt, I just heard you Mattia Maurée's podcast. I don't know how else to find you to tell you thanks, from the bottom of my AuDHD composer heart. What a thoughtful interaction you had with them.
Matt Barber
2024-03-16 22:48:29 +0000 UTCIt's so irritating that Democrats must ALWAYS avoid even the appearance of impropriety, and even when they do everything perfectly, Republicans still point and yell "IMPROPER!". Meanwhile, Republicans can do whatever corrupt bullshit they want and they grab their crotches and say "Yeah, it's improper, what are you going to do about it?" and get away with it.
Jason Valasek
2024-03-12 18:03:42 +0000 UTCA little extra credit to Matt. His preferred Garamond font is also a very eco-conscious option: https://inhabitat.com/measuring-type-offers-insight-into-eco-friendly-fonts/
Anita Bath, Ollie Tabooger, Maya Buttreeks, Ima Wiener, Haywood U. Kuddelmie, Ahmed Adoudi, Maya Normusbut, Drew P Wiener
2024-03-01 02:32:58 +0000 UTC@Laura, was insightful to read your comment & perspective. I want to put my hand up and say I'd take a break if I were Willis - my mental health wouldn't stand up for this constant disingenuous BS she's had to put up with from the RICO's defence team. A 4 or so day break to recharge and come back swinging with a clear mind. But I agree, I wouldn't recuse myself after this - some quote from some movie about "no one wants to win this more than she does"
I am a philosophical hole
2024-02-22 13:36:22 +0000 UTCYes!! Graphic designer here. We were sharing that around last week and when i was listening to this episode, ears in, laughing out loud, ended up giving a play by play to my dept neighbors. Thanks for a good time Matt!
Reese
2024-02-20 15:41:11 +0000 UTCHi Laura, I just wanted to be sure to acknowledge what you're saying here as well as my own privilege in this conversation. I really wanted to be sensitive going into all of this to the fact that we are commenting on a Black woman who has overcome things that we'll never know or understand to be who and where she is, but I can see from your response that I may have fallen short here and that I need to do some reflection on this. I appreciate what you've said here and I'm not here to disagree at all with your take of the situation or of how we covered it. I accept it all as fair comment, even if I also continue to believe that it is possible to reach a different conclusion in good faith here. (And I can certainly see now that you say this how patronizing it must have sounded for me to say that she must need a break, but I will admit that I was very much imagining myself in that situation when I said that as I don't think I can honestly say that I have her fortitude.) I will say that i can't agree that it's ever ethically appropriate for an elected DA of any gender to have a relationship with someone under their supervision and whose livelihood and career is in their hands, any more than any other boss or supervisor should ever be doing that with their direct reports. (Coworkers are different of course.) But especially after hearing her testimony (given the day after we recorded this) I truly can't *judge* Willis for doing it here--even while recognizing it as inappropriate--and I am sorry if I said anything that may have made it sound as if I did. But i do entirely reserve the right to be disappointed in a DA of any gender or background who would do that no matter the circumstances. Ethically appropriate or not, hearing directly from Fani Willis about how lonely she was during that time and the strain she was under with the constant threats and national attention from this case has tempered me on this a bit and I don't think I feel quite as adamantly as I did when we recorded this on Thursday that she should step aside. She certainly deserved human companionship during trying times just as much as anyone else, and it makes all too much sense that she would find it with a friend who was sharing the responsibilities of this uniquely stressful pressure cooker of a case with her. I could absolutely see myself doing the same thing under these unimaginably difficult circumstances, as I think most people would if they were being honest. I do want to be clear that I don't think Willis should step aside because she has done wrong or for any other reason stated in the motion. As I have said from the beginning here, the grounds for disqualification just aren't there. There was an off-ramp here which wouldn't have required her to admit any wrongdoing, but simply to say that the focus of the case needs to remain solidly on the defendants and their plot to subvert a Presidential election in Georgia and that she had become too much of a distraction. But even if--as I have consistently said here and we certainly agree on--there are no actual grounds for disqualification I have no doubt I would have at least seriously explored (and likely actually filed) something similar if I were on the defense team given the appearance of potentially improper financial motivation and even the remote potential to have her removed and replaced with someone more favorable to the defense. As it is this issue has already delayed setting a trial date in this extremely important case and on the off chance that she is disqualified I agree that she would have a strong appeal--but that would risk having it reassigned and/or tying the case up for who knows how much longer in itself. I've learned a lot about Fani Willis in the past couple of weeks and she seems like a truly impressive person. I thought the white commentariat's response to her testimony at last week's hearing was especially gross and have tried to be sure not to join it (here or in the upcoming episode we have on this) as she more than deserves to be taken on her own terms rather than the prevailing extremely white norms of court proceedings and what is considered to be appropriate conduct for attorneys. (I'd like to go deep sometime soon on the concept of "credibility" in court and how white/Western coded it all is, but that's for another time.) So while the shitheads are no doubt trying to weaponize a divorce to bring down a powerful Black woman who doesn't deserve the disproportionate heat she is receiving for all of this, I also meant what I said about holding these defendants accountable being more important than any one person or their career--and FWIW Casey fully agrees and there are a wide range of commentators from every gender, race, and background across the takeosphere who generally seem to as well. All of that said: I am absolutely certain that I would feel the same way if the Georgia DA prosecuting Trump were a white man who had started a relationship with a female special prosecutor under these circumstances--and almost certainly more so given the extra imbalance of privilege between the parties under those facts. If anything, I think my real bias here is that with one obvious domestic exception I have no love for prosecutors and believe that people with that much power over others should be held to the highest possible standards in every regard. This really might just be my defense mentality, but I'm just never going to defend or assist a prosecutor accused of misconduct in any way under any circumstances, and I would probably be far more sympathetic (and closer to your side of things) if she were a state governor or something else a little more neutral. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts, and apologies if you're still reading for this novella-length response. I really am going to think about what you've said here and try to do better in the future.
Matt Cameron
2024-02-20 05:06:01 +0000 UTCI might be a 13-year-old boy when it comes to my sense of humor. I laughed out loud when Matt said, "It's one of my favorite things to do to go deep on Supreme Court Justices"
Benjamin Kimberlin
2024-02-20 00:47:06 +0000 UTCThe coverage of the Fanni Willis case in this episode was exceedingly frustrating. Y'all's white male privilege is showing real bad. Whenever there is an allegation of malfeasance being done by one side, the judge is required to do an evidentiary hearing. The fact that we get to watch this evidentiary hearing is not time for every commentor, from The New York Times to y'all, to all get in line and say Fanni has done wrong and should step down. The phrase that I think was most disheartening is when I believe Matt said she, Fani, wants or more insultingly, needs a break after all of this. The circus is all these people telling a woman that they think she should end her career because the criminals are trying to weaponoze a divorce. Lets be honest about yhe language. Saying she is in the wrong, accepts the premise that there is evidence of wrong doing. Matt goes on to say that Fanni should want a break after all the trauma that she's gone through trying to bring this case to fruition. The insulting part is that's her job. I doubt ant lawyer would like to be told they don't get to do their job because the bad guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. You are saying women should shut up, sit down, and go away because she had the audacity to do what ever other DA in the country does and the bullys dont like it? Such comments are really insulting to every woman who listens to this to all women lawyers out there...because if the standard is to be perfect, that is an impossible standard and shame on anyone who tries to impose it. Further, family law attorney from ga here...every case is messy and when you only have litigators talking you miss out on the understanding that equity law has on civil law. The judge has no evidence to rule against Fanni and my beans are on a dismissal order by the end of next week. The legal standard is they must prove wrong doing. There is no evidence of wrong doing. If the judge tries to change the prosecutor, he will ha e to make a findings of fact that will survive the court of appeals and state Supreme Court. Does anyone think this court is going to set the president that no prosecutor can date someone in their office? That would be unreasonable.
Laura Friedman
2024-02-19 17:56:25 +0000 UTCWith modern anti aliasing and font hinting, a lot of stuff that didn't used to be good on screen works much better. Still, there are lots of bad Garamonds out there
Matt Barber
2024-02-18 23:03:22 +0000 UTCI know what you mean about that w but i still love it. Totally agreed on caslon though, it's a timeless classic. Renard too! Typeface designers have got to get paid somewhere.
Matt Cameron
2024-02-18 14:05:29 +0000 UTCI just tried Garamond, but I can't. Maybe it takes time for me, just cannot let go of Verdana easily.
PeterinKorea
2024-02-18 07:50:55 +0000 UTCI loved the answer to that question!
Audrey Arnett
2024-02-17 01:34:40 +0000 UTCIt's visual asmr honestly
Matt Cameron
2024-02-17 01:07:31 +0000 UTCI never doubted that there be at least one bona fide parliamentarian listening! Just what i was looking for and very well explained, ty!
Matt Cameron
2024-02-17 01:06:04 +0000 UTCAll I'm going to say is that I watched today's hearing in Georgia. Jesus, wtf. The guy(another attorney in Nathan Wade's law firm. The firm broke up after an alleged sexual assault of a client by the guy) who apparently started all of this by talking with the Defense attorneys was, essentially accused of sexual assault by the state. They tried to present two witnesses to this (both a victim and a witness) and weren't allowed to because of evidentiary rules. Come through on this for us Matt......
Michael Rops
2024-02-17 00:20:51 +0000 UTCLove this! Thanks for sharing
Matt Cameron
2024-02-16 23:40:19 +0000 UTC★★★♥♥♥ OMG Matt is a FONT NERD!!! ♥♥♥★★★ ME TOO! ME TOO! And coincidentally I learn that on the same day I came across this clever reel, and I was sad that I didn't have anyone to share it with who'd really get it. Fonts Hanging Out: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C2cZBIAr24m/?igsh=ZGN5ZHhrdHI2Mzgw
Big Easy Blasphemy
2024-02-16 22:15:56 +0000 UTCIn today's ruling from judge Engoron, does this mean the business certificates will be renewed unless the independent monitor recommends cancelling them, or that they will be cancelled unless the monitor recommends renewing them? Do you know what standard the monitor would be using to determine whether the they should be cancelled? "vacating the directive to cancel defendants business certificates , without prejudice to renewal upon the recommendation of the Independent Monitor or based on substantial evidence"
Why do podcasters say moron that later
2024-02-16 21:15:23 +0000 UTCthank you! oops. I was looking at the shafer filing. nice.
lauren
2024-02-16 20:25:15 +0000 UTCI demand more font talk on future episodes!
James Hamblin
2024-02-16 19:57:55 +0000 UTChttps://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24352579/motion-to-disqualify.pdf . Page 86
KaryllTheWarlock
2024-02-16 19:54:10 +0000 UTC...and the Taint Team officially enters the conversation!! Who'd have thunk?
Simon Templar
2024-02-16 19:24:48 +0000 UTCI'm with Matt. love me Garamond (and Baskerville) - olde timey fonts. I also go with Georgia for online. makes me feel good.
lauren
2024-02-16 19:12:05 +0000 UTCI AM A PARLIAMENTARIAN! The rule that a tie vote defeats the question is constitutionally mandated in that a tie is not a majority vote. The famous parliamentarian Thomas Jefferson said, "Until a majority has spoken, nothing has changed." The rule that reconsideration can be sought only by someone who voted on the prevailing side is not constitutional but exists in most parliamentary authorities as a way to avoid having questions brought up again by the losing side when there is no hope of changing the outcome. The gimmicky part is that someone who supports the measure switches to opposing it to preserve this right; many authorities abolish the prevailing side requirement for that very reason.
Dr. Clerk
2024-02-16 19:01:04 +0000 UTCdid I miss wade's invoice from the motion to disqualify? if not, is it possible to add a link to it? 🖤 edit: it's gonna be a whole ep. so hopefully it will be in there.
lauren
2024-02-16 18:58:54 +0000 UTCNyt has sunk completely
Harrier the Amazing Bean
2024-02-16 18:57:16 +0000 UTCOne question I have about the situation in Georgia: what exactly is added by ..eh, 'the sex stuff' or romantic relationship part, whatever you wanna call it? Willis and Wade obviously had some kind of relationship before he was hired, -Willis called him 'a good friend' - they went on trips together, he seemingly paid for some of them(before being reimbursed, maybe), probably using money he earned from the DA. He's earning more money the longer the case goes on. That seems established. So again, what does the sex/ romantic part of the relationship add to the allegations of conflict of interest.. except the perceived salaciousness? Why would it be ok to hire a good friend that takes you on trips but not a romantic partner? I might be missing something here, but for me this is a clear and obvious reason to believe these defense motions are argued in bad faith AND just there to stir up the controversy we now have. I believe the media is doing a piss-poor job explaining that, they just swallowed the thing whole and are doing Trumps bidding here.
KaryllTheWarlock
2024-02-16 18:41:50 +0000 UTCI still am all in for Din Pro. san serif all the way baby!
Michael Rops
2024-02-16 18:31:35 +0000 UTCThat's the reason the final vote (1st time around) was 214-216. Blake Moore (R from Utah)changed his vote to 'No' at the last second. Due to the razor thin majority,the same thing semi-regularly happens in the Senate. Schumer will change his vote to be on the 'No' side. Perhaps most notably (in recent times) during the effort to get rid of the filibuster for voting rights legislation. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/voting-rights-bill-blocked-by-republican-filibuster
KaryllTheWarlock
2024-02-16 17:10:00 +0000 UTCThe NYT has failed us. I unsubscribed from The Daily podcast when their reporter unquestioningly reported that Trump addressed auto union workers at an auto union plant. Local news sources had already reported that they were NOT union members and the plant was NOT a union factory. I canceled my NYT subscription week. Their spineless both-sides reporting is unconscionable.
Kristen Leist
2024-02-16 16:41:55 +0000 UTCI’m going to tell on myself a little bit here and admit I haven’t listened to the entire episode yet, so I’m sorry if this will be answered in the show. If Trump’s attorneys are arguing that Fani Willis’s relationship with Wade is potentially enriching as they can drag the case out to make more money, doesn’t the attempt to delay the trial (and drag out the case) by Trump’s team fly in the face of that criticism? They should push for a speedier trial.
Fraa Paul
2024-02-16 15:40:45 +0000 UTCLet's make Matt really really mad and change his computer font to comic sans
NSaneAtheist
2024-02-16 14:59:40 +0000 UTCShout out to Garamond, except its capital W, which makes me itch. Adobe Caslon is a great alternative. But why are fonts so damn expensive? I was looking at TEFF Renard, an early 90s font used in some of the Cambridge Handbook texts – it's beautiful, but still close to $2000
Matt Barber
2024-02-16 13:46:33 +0000 UTCThank you! It has been many, many years since i picked up Robert's Rules. This is a helpful explanation.
Matt Cameron
2024-02-16 13:39:43 +0000 UTCNo it's true--there's a reason you don't see it a lot on websites. But I swear I think better in it and it is my default for filings, emails, letters, etc. Even when I am forced to use Courier New for a brief I dont switch it over until I'm getting to the very final edits.
Matt Cameron
2024-02-16 13:37:47 +0000 UTCYes--a lot of this is pure distraction. We got into what a disqualifying conflict might actually be in last week's episode and Casey made the point that this situation was so unusual that she wouldn't be surprised if the judge carved out a very special kind of conflict just for this. We'll see!
Matt Cameron
2024-02-16 13:35:22 +0000 UTCThomas: Please remember that Garamond should generally not be used for non-print applications: "Garamond has excellent readability on books but is not well-adapted to screens. Garamond has a relatively small x-height ( height of the lowercase x). As a result, some white space of the letter becomes muddled and blurred out on screens."
Jon Herrin
2024-02-16 12:57:03 +0000 UTCI think the issue with the tie vs. lose is with the "motion to reconsider." According to Robert's Rules of Order (which is what, more or less, the House uses), a motion to bring back a previously-defeated motion can only be made by someone who voted against it. The idea being that, of *course* someone who voted *for* the motion would want to bring it up again, but if someone who voted against it changed their mind, then that's justification to bring it back up. What happens in practice is that, when the majority realizes that a motion will be defeated, one or more of them switches their vote to "no" in order to be able to make a motion to reconsider.
James Hamblin
2024-02-16 12:42:48 +0000 UTCThomas is in luck, there is an association of parliamentarians, the NAP https://www.parliamentarians.org Let’s make T3BE interesting, if Thomas is below 50% at the end of the year, he has to go to NAP University 😂
GOP Hold out (Trump is the RINO!)
2024-02-16 12:13:27 +0000 UTCI keep hearing that in order to disqualify the prosecutor, they must prove an actual conflict. Not just that he was untruthful on a divorce filing etc. Can you take that up on the bonus? What exactly do they have to prove to the judge to get the prosecution removed?
Michael Rops
2024-02-16 12:08:13 +0000 UTC
