Take A Load Off Fani

[DeluxAuto]

"what does your Alzheimer's have to do with me?"

"I ain't tryna here dat, see?"

 

[Lazaran]

Oops, there goes another “star witness" for the "republicans".

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ke...y-have-lied-in-texts-about-friends-affair.amp

From the article:

Bradley, when pressed under oath, said he couldn't recall several details and timelines about conversations he had with former client Nathan Wade about Wade's romantic relationship with Fani Willis.

Defense attorney Ashleigh Merchant at one point referenced text messages between her and Bradley in which she had asked Bradley if he thought the relationship started before Willis hired Wade in 2021. Bradley responded "absolutely" in the text exchange.

"Do you tell lies about your friends? About a case of national importance?" Rice asked.

"I could have had, I don't know," Bradley responded.

Bradely said he couldn't recall key details or specific information more than two dozen times in the roughly two-hour testimony in Fulton County Superior Court on Tuesday. He also said he had only ever discussed Wade's relationship with Willis once with Wade.







Womppity womp womp womp…

Side note:

I cited FAUX "news" for effect.

 

[dmallord]

Oops, there goes another “star witness" for the "republicans".

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ke...y-have-lied-in-texts-about-friends-affair.amp

From the article:

Bradley, when pressed under oath, said he couldn't recall several details and timelines about conversations he had with former client Nathan Wade about Wade's romantic relationship with Fani Willis.

Defense attorney Ashleigh Merchant at one point referenced text messages between her and Bradley in which she had asked Bradley if he thought the relationship started before Willis hired Wade in 2021. Bradley responded "absolutely" in the text exchange.

"Do you tell lies about your friends? About a case of national importance?" Rice asked.

"I could have had, I don't know," Bradley responded.

Bradely said he couldn't recall key details or specific information more than two dozen times in the roughly two-hour testimony in Fulton County Superior Court on Tuesday. He also said he had only ever discussed Wade's relationship with Willis once with Wade.







Womppity womp womp womp…

Side note:

I cited FAUX "news" for effect.

I certainly would not be hiring Mr. Bradley for legal services, that's for sure.

I watched the whole show this afternoon on a live Georgia broadcast. It was amusing to see how he sidestepped his responses. At one point, he worked up a sweat by distinguishing between the inditement she emailed for his review and its attachment. He said his statement referred to the incorrect money he was paid in the footnote of the attachment after she fixed it and resent the document - not that he agreed that her indictment was correct or 'absolutely' correct quoting Bradley that the affair started earlier that 2022 - if judged to be true it would indicate that he had knowledge of the affair in 2019-21 range and show Wade and Willis lied under oath.

The lawyers for Trump, Rudy, et al. were poor performers, frequently stepping over each other's questions. The judge admonished them to 'move along' numerous times during the questions, stating, 'asked and answered already - next question.'

At the end of the day, Bradley was exhausted, but none of the legal team made headway in their objectives to pin him down even though he seemed like a weasel in a trap. They failed to grill him on the most pertinent question: Did Willis benefit monetarily from hiring Wade through payback by money or gifts? Nothing at all today about that critical question.

I quote myself as the source of this info - knowing that a person recalls about 25% of what they heard though I might be wrong or possibly might not recollect all of this since it was a long time ago.

 

[Rightguide]

It would appear that the Georgia case against Trump and the other 18 defendants is imploding and will be shut down. Fani Willis is now under investigation by the Georgia State Senate. It is clear from the testimony of Terrence Bradley and Fani Willis that both have committed perjury in front of the presiding Judge. The Georgia Senate has subpoenaed all text messages between Defense Attorney Ashley Merchant & Terrence Bradley (attorney and friend of N Wade). All will be made public. If the case is not shut down and attempts are made to transfer the case to other jurisdictions there will be problems finding a prosecutor who will restart a "RICO" case that was always on shaky legal ground in the first place. The Georgia State Senate has authorized a Special Committee to investigate Fani Willis for criminal misconduct & corruption:

 

[ll74]

It would appear that the Georgia case against Trump and the other 18 defendants is imploding and will be shut down. Fani Willis is now under investigation by the Georgia State Senate. It is clear from the testimony of Terrence Bradley and Fani Willis that both have committed perjury in front of the presiding Judge. The Georgia Senate has subpoenaed all text messages between Defense Attorney Ashley Merchant & Terrence Bradley (attorney and friend of N Wade). All will be made public. If the case is not shut down and attempts are made to transfer the case to other jurisdictions there will be problems finding a prosecutor who will restart a "RICO" case that was always on shaky legal ground in the first place. The Georgia State Senate has authorized a Special Committee to investigate Fani Willis for criminal misconduct & corruption:

The case does not need to be "restarted". If she were recused from the case, another prosecutor would be assigned to continue.

 

[Rightguide]

The case does not need to be "restarted". If she were recused from the case, another prosecutor would be assigned to continue.

That isn't the opinion of most legal experts. It may very well turn out that her entire office has been tainted by her illegal behavior and another jurisdiction might have to be considered. "Another prosecutor" would have to be willing to take this shaky, very flawed, politically motivated case, and if and when they did so would be months in preparation. Too late to affect the outcome of the 2024 Presidential election. I think the case is imploding. Not to worry though, you'll still be here to snicker and drag my ass if I'm proven wrong.

 

[HisArpy]

It would appear that the Georgia case against Trump and the other 18 defendants is imploding and will be shut down. Fani Willis is now under investigation by the Georgia State Senate. It is clear from the testimony of Terrence Bradley and Fani Willis that both have committed perjury in front of the presiding Judge. The Georgia Senate has subpoenaed all text messages between Defense Attorney Ashley Merchant & Terrence Bradley (attorney and friend of N Wade). All will be made public. If the case is not shut down and attempts are made to transfer the case to other jurisdictions there will be problems finding a prosecutor who will restart a "RICO" case that was always on shaky legal ground in the first place. The Georgia State Senate has authorized a Special Committee to investigate Fani Willis for criminal misconduct & corruption:

Actually, I believe the committee doesn't have the power to do anything except recommend changes in the law and (possibly) budget/appropriations.

 

[HisArpy]

That isn't the opinion of most legal experts. It may very well turn out that her entire office has been tainted by her illegal behavior and another jurisdiction might have to be considered. "Another prosecutor" would have to be willing to take this shaky, very flawed, politically motivated case, and if and when they did so would be months in preparation. Too late to affect the outcome of the 2024 Presidential election. I think the case is imploding. Not to worry though, you'll still be here to snicker and drag my ass if I'm proven wrong.

If she's got a conflict, there's no possible way her office can continue because everyone in the office would be subject to her oversight during and after the case.


This case would have to be transferred to the State AG's office.

 

[ll74]

That isn't the opinion of most legal experts. It may very well turn out that her entire office has been tainted by her illegal behavior and another jurisdiction might have to be considered. "Another prosecutor" would have to be willing to take this shaky, very flawed, politically motivated case, and if and when they did so would be months in preparation. Too late to affect the outcome of the 2024 Presidential election. I think the case is imploding. Not to worry though, you'll still be here to snicker and drag my ass if I'm proven wrong.

Please elaborate on what you mean by "most legal experts".

The case was brought by two grand juries, one specifically brought to determine whether an investigation and indictment should be pursued.

I'm not discussing timing of the court case as that is a separate topic.

 

[Rightguide]

Actually, I believe the committee doesn't have the power to do anything except recommend changes in the law and (possibly) budget/appropriations.

I guess we'll find out today what Judge McAfee has determined in the matter. He will be the initial deciding entity on what happens to her and to the case.

 

[HisArpy]

I guess we'll find out today what Judge McAfee has determined in the matter. He will be the initial deciding entity on what happens to her and to the case.

He may not decide today. He may never decide the issue if he takes it under advisement and allows the case to continue.

I do believe that if he were to take it under advisement and not decide the issue that he'd destroy his own career by it. He could believe that it's worth it to get Trump though. I sort of doubt he will, but he could.

OTOH, I don't see how he gets past the perception of impropriety issue. The perjury only makes it worse. That gives him limited options.

He could say it's not enough.
He could say it's enough to oust Fani but not Wade.
He could say it's enough to oust both of them but not the DA's office.
He could oust everyone currently involved and transfer the case to the AG's office (who doesn't have to accept it and can punt to another DA's office).
Or he could dismiss the case entirely, with prejudice, based on improper government conduct.

Lots of options.

 

[Rightguide]

He may not decide today. He may never decide the issue if he takes it under advisement and allows the case to continue.

I do believe that if he were to take it under advisement and not decide the issue that he'd destroy his own career by it. He could believe that it's worth it to get Trump though. I sort of doubt he will, but he could.

OTOH, I don't see how he gets past the perception of impropriety issue. The perjury only makes it worse. That gives him limited options.

He could say it's not enough.
He could say it's enough to oust Fani but not Wade.
He could say it's enough to oust both of them but not the DA's office.
He could oust everyone currently involved and transfer the case to the AG's office (who doesn't have to accept it and can punt to another DA's office).
Or he could dismiss the case entirely, with prejudice, based on improper government conduct.

Lots of options.

McAfee is between a rock and a hard place. He supported Fani's campaign financially. It's going to be hard for him to overlook the perjury and the outrageous behavior of Wade, Bradley, and Willis, in his courtroom. It is obvious to all that they were lying through their teeth.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I guess we'll find out today what Judge McAfee has determined in the matter. He will be the initial deciding entity on what happens to her and to the case.

He seems to be telegraphing that if he finds that she spoke untruthfully, it is a matter to be referred back to the Bar. It would be up to the Bar then to decide, and the case would then move forward.

I don't get your stance on this, if Trump is innocent, then shouldn't he get his day in court to prove it? You're just pushing for it to be dropped, which means the "claims" from both sides will just fester; and rumour and innuendo will forever prevail.

Trump is recorded saying ""All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have... Fellas, I need 11,000 votes, give me a break." Don't you think the American people should hear Trump under oath explain what he was asking?

 

[dmallord]

That isn't the opinion of most legal experts. It may very well turn out that her entire office has been tainted by her illegal behavior and another jurisdiction might have to be considered. "Another prosecutor" would have to be willing to take this shaky, very flawed, politically motivated case, and if and when they did so would be months in preparation. Too late to affect the outcome of the 2024 Presidential election. I think the case is imploding. Not to worry though, you'll still be here to snicker and drag my ass if I'm proven wrong.

I've heard a number of informed legal beagles support your opinion that the entire office might be dismissed. That would put the public's desire for justice in jeopardy.

That would be a travesty - not knowing if one would be voting for a criminal who potentially escaped conviction because two people's actions allegedly tainted the justice system.

The judge said, today, he would make a determination within two weeks as both sides presented their final summations.

And, to be sure, many folks would be eager to snicker and drag your butt through the dirt if the judge rules for the DA. You have that kind of reputation preceding you.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

And, to be sure, many folks would be eager to snicker and drag your butt through the dirt if the judge rules for the DA. You have that kind of reputation preceding you.

That happens to him so often, I think he doesn't bother to use toilet paper any more...

 

[dmallord]

McAfee is between a rock and a hard place. He supported Fani's campaign financially. It's going to be hard for him to overlook the perjury and the outrageous behavior of Wade, Bradley, and Willis, in his courtroom. It is obvious to all that they were lying through their teeth.

"Judge McAfee donated a small sum to Fani Willis's campaign in 2020—*before* he was appointed to the bench. And Georgia courts have held that nominal campaign contributions are an insufficient basis for judicial recusal. There's no conflict of interest."

*edit - small sum = $150.00

Article: NewsWeek

At that time he served under Donald Trump's DOJ not Joe Biden's.

That's 'allegedly' obvious to all that they were lying through their teeth.

The judge will render a decision within two weeks on this, as of today's closing arguments.

 

[Lazaran]

I've heard a number of informed legal beagles support your opinion that the entire office might be dismissed. That would put the public's desire for justice in jeopardy.

That would be a travesty - not knowing if one would be voting for a criminal who potentially escaped conviction because two people's actions allegedly tainted the justice system.

The judge said, today, he would make a determination within two weeks as both sides presented their final summations.

And, to be sure, many folks would be eager to snicker and drag your butt through the dirt if the judge rules for the DA. You have that kind of reputation preceding you.

The defense team has not PROVEN anything about Willis’s and Wade’s relationship or financial impropriety.

A fuckton of insinuation and speculation on the defense team’s part, but ZERO PROOF of "something?" nefarious.

The main focus seems to be on casting doubt that Willis paid Wade in cash for her share of the costs for trips, etc:

Well just today, I learned the prosecutors offered new evidence in the form of testimony from a server at a wine tasting venue, who says Willis paid $500 in cash to settle the couple’s bill.

Oops.

 

[dmallord]

The defense team has not PROVEN anything about Willis’s and Wade’s relationship or financial impropriety.

A fuckton of insinuation and speculation on the defense team’s part, but ZERO PROOF of "something?" nefarious.

The main focus seems to be on casting doubt that Willis paid Wade in cash for her share of the costs for trips, etc:

Well just today, I learned the prosecutors offered new evidence in the form of testimony from a server at a wine tasting venue, who says Willis paid $500 in cash to settle the couple’s bill.

Oops.

I saw the CNN piece a couple of weeks ago interviewing the winery owner recalling watching the Georgia trial on television and drawing the connection to the lovely couple visiting his winery. Cash, he said.

CNN broke that piece supporting Willis' claim.

 

[HisArpy]

I've heard a number of informed legal beagles support your opinion that the entire office might be dismissed. That would put the public's desire for justice in jeopardy.

That would be a travesty - not knowing if one would be voting for a criminal who potentially escaped conviction because two people's actions allegedly tainted the justice system.

The judge said, today, he would make a determination within two weeks as both sides presented their final summations.

And, to be sure, many folks would be eager to snicker and drag your butt through the dirt if the judge rules for the DA. You have that kind of reputation preceding you.

Lol.

If the case is dismissed, Trump wouldn't be "a criminal."

This show how much your views are tainted and are unreliable as a result.

 

[HisArpy]

I've heard a number of informed legal beagles support your opinion that the entire office might be dismissed. That would put the public's desire for justice in jeopardy.

That would be a travesty - not knowing if one would be voting for a criminal who potentially escaped conviction because two people's actions allegedly tainted the justice system.

The judge said, today, he would make a determination within two weeks as both sides presented their final summations.

And, to be sure, many folks would be eager to snicker and drag your butt through the dirt if the judge rules for the DA. You have that kind of reputation preceding you.

There are also a number of legal scholars who hold the opposite view. Since this is novel in this case/courtroom no one knows the actual answer and can only give their opinion based on the facts, law, and precedent.

Currently the law and precedent when applied to the facts which have emerged is against what your "informed legal beagles" are saying. Which means that your newsfeeds are biased and you like drinking the kool aid they're serving you.

 

[Rightguide]

I've heard a number of informed legal beagles support your opinion that the entire office might be dismissed. That would put the public's desire for justice in jeopardy.

That would be a travesty - not knowing if one would be voting for a criminal who potentially escaped conviction because two people's actions allegedly tainted the justice system.

The judge said, today, he would make a determination within two weeks as both sides presented their final summations.

And, to be sure, many folks would be eager to snicker and drag your butt through the dirt if the judge rules for the DA. You have that kind of reputation preceding you.

You can watch Harry MacDougald put on a clinic about how the Judge should sweep the floor with Fani and her Office here at about the 11:00 minute mark:

​

 

[dmallord]

You can watch Harry MacDougald put on a clinic about how the Judge should sweep the floor with Fani and her Office here at about the 11:00 minute mark:

​

I watched this live. It was countered and addressed by the DA. So his "I'm pretty sure Wade was in the area." is not conclusive. Did Wade or Willis bring bank or credit card evidence to prove she repaid the amounts? MacDougald said, "Your honor I know it is our responsibly to prove this - but they could have provided their support that it rebutts our claim."

Right. He says Willis failed to prove conclusively she didn't paid the money back - although it was not her legal responsibilty to prove otherwise. How convoluted is that? In essense he said, we didn't prove she did but she didn't prove she didn't. That's bullshit.

It wasn't a clinic on sweeping the floor; he didn't even have a dustpan to pick up his evidence and carry it away from the podium. It was at best a mediocre closing that the judge will consider in his decision on several points he noted in his closing. The guy following him did a better job on describing misconduct and tried it point out Willis failed in that fiduciary conflict.

 

[Rightguide]

I watched this live. It was countered and addressed by the DA. So his "I'm pretty sure Wade was in the area." is not conclusive. Did Wade or Willis bring bank or credit card evidence to prove she repaid the amounts? MacDougald said, "Your honor I know it is our responsibly to prove this - but they could have provided their support that it rebutts our claim."

Right. He says Willis failed to prove conclusively she didn't paid the money back - although it was not her legal responsibilty to prove otherwise. How convoluted is that? In essense he said, we didn't prove she did but she didn't prove she didn't. That's bullshit.

It wasn't a clinic on sweeping the floor; he didn't even have a dustpan to pick up his evidence and carry it away from the podium. It was at best a mediocre closing that the judge will consider in his decision on several points he noted in his closing. The guy following him did a better job on describing misconduct and tried it point out Willis failed in that fiduciary conflict.

He cleaned their clock in my view, especially in the prosecution's legal duty to prevent perjurious testimony. Fani's perfidies are clear to anyone of fair mind. She, her office, and the case should be dismissed.

 

[Lazaran]

You can watch Harry MacDougald put on a clinic about how the Judge should sweep the floor with Fani and her Office here at about the 11:00 minute mark:

​

You can watch Adam Abatte absolutely destroy the traitors’ defense lawyer’s insinuations and speculations throughout this video:

Hope that ^ helps.



"Right"guide

 

[Fuzzy1975]

If the case is dismissed, Trump wouldn't be "a criminal."

In the eyes of the law only. Public opinion doesn't have to agree with the outcome of court decisions.