I am neither a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. 

I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, so my legal opinion is worth as much as any of you who have ever watched courtroom dramas on TV. 

But I have an advantage over lawyers when discussing this particular issue because I don't think like a lawyer. I think like a plain ol' American citizen. And the legal system exists for us, not for lawyers. 

Lawyers and legal analysts are all focused on the wrong issue when discussing the Georgia case against former President Trump. Everybody seems focused on the minute details of the law when the most important issue is entirely separate. 

Commentary: A prosecutor should prioritize justice, rather than stand in the way of the facts. https://t.co/hLXFrgU0Ph

— U.S. News & World Report (@usnews) February 21, 2024

I am not speaking of the merits of the legal case itself. There are myriad reasons to believe the case has little to do with the law and everything to do with politics, but I will set aside that particular thorny issue. And frankly, I would trust Ed's analysis of something like that over my own. He is a less emotional and more analytical thinker regarding these sorts of questions. 

It's Fani Willis and Nathan Wade. Whether or not Wade and Willis violated a particular law or regulation when they shared the proceeds from prosecuting Trump, both should be tossed off the case. 

The whole point of having a legal system is to create public confidence that justice is, as much as possible, dispensed fairly. 

Way back in the 5th Century B.C. Aeschylus wrote a trilogy of tragedies that focused on the distinction between revenge and justice and, more particularly, why justice must be blind. Civilized societies have justice; uncivilized societies have feuds. 

Ever since that time, it has been understood that one of the bedrock foundations of a working civilization is a justice system in which the state does not exact revenge but dispenses justice fairly. 

Fani Willis and Nathan Wade are engaged in a feud against Trump, and most people know that. Whether the case is reasonable or not, defensible or not, the fact is that the credibility of the prosecution is blown. If Willis and Wade skate on a technicality, the justice system will lose what little credibility it still has with anybody to the Right of Rachel Maddow. 

A prosecutor is called "the state" in legal proceedings, not "Avenging angel.". Legal cases are "the State vs. X." When the objectivity of the prosecution is fundamentally compromised, they shouldn't represent the state--doing so quite literally undermines faith in our system of government, which is the opposite of what such an important government official should be doing. 

This is why we often talk about the "appearance of impropriety" as important. When a sufficient number of people have a reasonable suspicion that a state official--say a judge or prosecutor--has a personal agenda, it is profoundly destructive to social trust. 

Civilized states depend upon huge amounts of social trust. If people believe that the system of justice is stacked, then the legitimacy of the state itself is called into question. If people are prosecuted (or let go) because of who they are and not what they did, civilization is in jeopardy. 

The legal cases involving Trump are already compromised--a large proportion of the country believes he is being persecuted--but even if Trump weren't a political target, the behavior of Willis and Wade stinks to high heaven. Even assuming, as I do not, that they are completely innocent of impropriety, they sure created the appearance of it, and knowingly so. 

This is why they kept their affair secret and why Wade settled his divorce immediately after the revelations. They are working hard to hide things because they sure look awful. They look smug and appear to believe they are above the law, and at minimum, that they don't have even to appear objective and ethical. 

Judges recuse themselves in cases where, quite possibly, they could have been objective and fair. They do so because some cases are close enough to touch their interests that people could fairly conclude that they are biased. It is the appearance of impropriety that they are avoiding. 

These issues are amplified a thousandfold when the leading candidate for president, who opposes the administration that Fani Willis hopes will get reelected, is being prosecuted. Provoking even more suspicion is the exact opposite of what a prosecutor should be doing. 

Who doesn't believe that is a factor in this case? Nathan Wade met with the White House counsel to discuss his prosecution of Trump. Every American who is even considering voting for Trump, not just his fanbois, believes that Willis and Wade are doing this to "get" Trump. They are, in this case, literally, joined at the hip, living high off the proceeds. 

I am not arguing the case should be dropped--at least not because of this. Instead, I am stating the obvious: enough people believe that Willis and Wade are fatally compromised that, in a real sense, they are. 

Allowing them to continue their prosecution of Trump would fatally undermine faith in our system of justice. And many of us are already more than a bit skeptical that it is working properly.