Can we talk about the public flogging of Fani Willis…

[Balcones 347]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

Again, why does it matter to you? I also question the assumption that lack of experience as a felony prosecutor means he isn't qualified. I don't buy that at all.  

He handles traffic tickets, dog bites, and real estate contracts his entire career. Preparing and qualifying him to be the special prosecutor in a felony RICO case against a former President and current Presidential candidate?   Really? 

[Dahobbs 17,449]

1 minute ago, Balcones said:

He handles traffic tickets, dog bites, and real estate contracts his entire career. Preparing and qualifying him to be the special prosecutor in a felony RICO case against a former President and current Presidential candidate?   Really? 

Again, why do you care? If you're not interested in him being found guilty, I'd assume you'd be all for an experienced prosecutor working the case. The only reason I can imagine arguing this point is if your interest was disingenuous, and you really just want delay. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,550]

9 hours ago, Balcones said:

Lots of others that can bring the case to the court.

According to George Conway citing Georgia law around the 14 minute mark, this isn't true. If Willis is removed the case likely goes away. 

 

[Dahobbs 17,449]

3 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

According to George Conway citing Georgia law around the 14 minute mark, this isn't true. If Willis is removed the case likely goes away. 

 

This his true interest. It isn't about Trump getting a fair trial. It is about Trump not facing justice at all. 

[Balcones 347]

4 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

According to George Conway citing Georgia law around the 14 minute mark, this isn't true. If Willis is removed the case likely goes away. 

 

He was VERY clear that another county or another DA could bring this case to trial. He said it verbatim.

[Dahobbs 17,449]

Just now, Balcones said:

He was VERY clear that another county or another DA could bring this case to trial. He said it verbatim.

You're full of shit and you know it. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,550]

That was a weird reaction. 

[Balcones 347]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

You're full of shit and you know it. 

Full of shit? Go to the 14 min mark of that video. Any county, any DA can bring this case.

[Dahobbs 17,449]

Just now, Balcones said:

Full of shit? Go to the 14 min mark of that video. Any county, any DA can bring this case.

Yeah, and, for shits and giggles, can you think of any political reason why maybe other counties may be less inclined? Can you think of any special interest Fulton county may have? Of course you know exactly what this game is and exactly what the implication is. Don't play dumb. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,550]

It's 2020 Trump Election Map By County Time!

[jimmyjazz 45,564]

@Balcones is very concerned.

[BamaATL 16,592]

I'd just like to point out that Jenna Ellis was a traffic court flunkie who wound up advising a sitting President of the United States on constitutional matters.  So there's that.  

[Dahobbs 17,449]

1 minute ago, BamaATL said:

I'd just like to point out that Jenna Ellis was a traffic court flunkie who wound up advising a sitting President of the United States on constitutional matters.  So there's that.  

Balcones believes she was eminently qualified. 

[Balcones 347]

11 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yeah, and, for shits and giggles, can you think of any political reason why maybe other counties may be less inclined? Can you think of any special interest Fulton county may have? Of course you know exactly what this game is and exactly what the implication is. Don't play dumb. 

Dekalb or Clayton Counties will 100% bring this case if Fulton is disqualified. Spare me the venue shopping or geography lesson.

[BamaATL 16,592]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Balcones believes she was eminently qualified. 

Well, as you see, I can just ask questions and say things like both sides.  Generally speaking though, when I pull my pud I've got something to show for it at the end.  

[Dahobbs 17,449]

3 minutes ago, Balcones said:

Dekalb or Clayton Counties will 100% bring this case if Fulton is disqualified. Spare me the venue shopping or geography lesson.

Stop being disingenuous. You know this isn't about Trump getting a fair trial. Just say it. 

[aggie08 21,435]

I don't know, or care, about Balcones posting history or motives, but you guys are being a little ridiculous and dismissive treating he DA and Special Prosecutor potentially perjuring themselves on the eve of the a massive trial as a ho-hum nothing story.

What's the play? Try to find 12 jurors who are truly clueless about their existence, and hope the judge instructs the defense to not bring it up? (Hint: they will anyway.) It just takes one juror to get stuck on, "If they lied about that, what else are they lying about?"

There's not concrete evidence on this one, even with the phone call. It's going to come down whose interpretation of Trump's words do you believe. I may be the only non lawyer Surly member, but even I realize establishing jury trust is important. The defense only has to convince (or, at least introduce enough doubt to persuade) one person; the prosecution needs all 12.

[Dahobbs 17,449]

10 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

I don't know, or care, about Balcones posting history or motives, but you guys are being a little ridiculous and dismissive treating he DA and Special Prosecutor potentially perjuring themselves on the eve of the a massive trial as a ho-hum nothing story.

What's the play? Try to find 12 jurors who are truly clueless about their existence, and hope the judge instructs the defense to not bring it up? (Hint: they will anyway.) It just takes one juror to get stuck on, "If they lied about that, what else are they lying about?"

There's not concrete evidence on this one, even with the phone call. It's going to come down whose interpretation of Trump's words do you believe. I may be the only non lawyer Surly member, but even I realize establishing jury trust is important. The defense only has to convince (or, at least introduce enough doubt to persuade) one person; the prosecution needs all 12.

1) there is no evidence of perjury. There is an affidavit claiming to have some very rudimentary cell location data. You're falling for the bit Trump wants you to fall for. 

2) the defense isn't going to be able to bring up any of this at trial. The risk that some potential juror will know about this stuff and that would taint their ability to reach a verdict based upon the evidence is much less than the risk that any pro-trumper is a jury member and would refuse to convict. Pretty much any of the former would also be latter. 

3) This whole saga is precisely why the judge shouldn't have countenanced this argument in the first place. Bad people are taking advantage of honest people like yourself. That is all that is happening. These aren't serious arguments. No one actually believes Trump is at risk of having an unfair trial because of their relationship. It is all a stupid game. 

Edited February 25 by Dahobbs

[jimmyjazz 45,564]

Well put.

[aggie08 21,435]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

1) there is no evidence of perjury. There is an affidavit claiming to have some very rudimentary cell location data. You're falling for the bit Trump wants you to fall for. 

2) the defense isn't going to be able to bring up any of this at trial. The risk that some potential juror will know about this stuff and that would taint their ability to reach a verdict based upon the evidence is much less than the risk that any pro-trumper is a jury member and would refuse to convict. 

3) This whole saga is precisely why the judge shouldn't have countenanced this argument in the first place. Bad people are taking advantage of honest people like yourself. That is all that is happening. 

Dude. Of course they're grasping at straws for any hint of impropriety. That's the defense's job when they know they don't have the evidence. I agree that a relationship that isn't grounds for dismissal should have never come before a judge. But it did. Then proceeding to lie about it under oath (yes, not confirmed yet, but not looking especially great with Wade's performance and the potential cell data) is a pretty big piece strand of straw whether you want it to be or not. "Who cares, the other side lies way more" isn't a great argument.

I don't care who you fuck, but don't compound it by lying when you're caught. Maybe (hopefully) it won't make a damn bit of difference to how the actual trial proceeds, but it's a bad look and shows piss poor judgment, so not a great start.

[Dahobbs 17,449]

14 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Dude. Of course they're grasping at straws for any hint of impropriety. That's the defense's job when they know they don't have the evidence. I agree that a relationship that isn't grounds for dismissal should have never come before a judge. But it did. Then proceeding to lie about it under oath (yes, not confirmed yet, but not looking especially great with Wade's performance and the potential cell data) is a pretty big piece strand of straw whether you want it to be or not. "Who cares, the other side lies way more" isn't a great argument.

I don't care who you fuck, but don't compound it by lying when you're caught. Maybe (hopefully) it won't make a damn bit of difference to how the actual trial proceeds, but it's a bad look and shows piss poor judgment, so not a great start.

Again, lying under oath would be bad. I don't see how the cell phone analysis is at all reliable evidence of that. They explained those some questions in their testimony. Everything so far is consistent with the testimony. And, none of this cell phone data analysis has been subject to analysis or cross examination. Submitting it after the testimony rather than using it with the witnesses is just another way to delay things and should be a pretty clear indication to you that it isn't going to hold up. The defense attorneys clearly had it at time and chose not to use it for a reason. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,550]

12 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

"Who cares, the other side lies way more" isn't a great argument

It's not a great argument because it's not even an argument. It's an irrelevant accusation. 

A counter irrelevant accusation would be "Trump is guilty of trying to overturn the 2020 election because he raped E Jean Carroll" in an alternate reality where "Trump raped E Jean Carroll" was only an accusation and not a fact. 

[aggie08 21,435]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Again, lying under oath would be bad. I don't see how the cell phone analysis is at all reliable evidence of that. They explained those some questions in their testimony. Everything so far is consistent with the testimony. And, none of this cell phone data analysis has been subject to analysis or cross examination. Submitting it after the testimony rather than using it with the witnesses is just another way to delay things and should be a pretty clear indication to you that it isn't going to hold up. The defense attorneys clearly had it at time and chose not to use it for a reason. 

We're both just speculating at this point, and I obviously hope that their testimony is deemed truthful, and we can move on. But we probably both watched Wade's testimony. "There's a dude who's definitely telling the truth" didn't exactly spring into my head. I sincerely hope that I'm wrong.

[hobbes2702 12,849]

Balcones is an absolute fucking moron. I hope that’s toxic enough for him to stop posting his stupid opinions 

[hobbes2702 12,849]

1 hour ago, aggie08 said:

I don't know, or care, about Balcones posting history or motives, but you guys are being a little ridiculous and dismissive treating he DA and Special Prosecutor potentially perjuring themselves on the eve of the a massive trial as a ho-hum nothing story.

What's the play? Try to find 12 jurors who are truly clueless about their existence, and hope the judge instructs the defense to not bring it up? (Hint: they will anyway.) It just takes one juror to get stuck on, "If they lied about that, what else are they lying about?"

There's not concrete evidence on this one, even with the phone call. It's going to come down whose interpretation of Trump's words do you believe. I may be the only non lawyer Surly member, but even I realize establishing jury trust is important. The defense only has to convince (or, at least introduce enough doubt to persuade) one person; the prosecution needs all 12.

This is dumb even for aggy.

[aggie08 21,435]

2 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

This is dumb even for aggy.

Ok, buddy. Sorry I'm being completely unreasonable with my "please don't perjure yourself before putting the former President of the United States on trial" take. How silly of me.

 

[Hmbre97 6,297]

Fani interviewing candidates back in 2021

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,550]

MILF is mid-week Tavern afternoon crowd. 

[chainsaw 9,838]

Would you say that statutory rape and aggravated child molestation are misdemeanors?

https://www.ajc.com/news/son-nfl-star-lawrence-taylor-pleads-guilty-molestation-rape/hS0zcK3da9WdRvrejTxzXI/

Edited February 25 by chainsaw

[Balcones 347]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

1) there is no evidence of perjury. There is an affidavit claiming to have some very rudimentary cell location data. You're falling for the bit Trump wants you to fall for. 

. 

Are we ignoring the witnesses (former DA employee and former law partner) testimony that the relationship began before Wade was hired as SP? Are we ignoring Wade’s divorce case interrogatories claiming he has not entertained opposite sex up to present? 
 

There is plenty of evidence.  You just don’t want to acknowledge it.

[Balcones 347]

24 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Would you say that statutory rape and aggravated child molestation are misdemeanors?

https://www.ajc.com/news/son-nfl-star-lawrence-taylor-pleads-guilty-molestation-rape/hS0zcK3da9WdRvrejTxzXI/

Lawrence Julius Taylor Jr., 33, of Powder Springs, entered a guilty plea the day his trial was to begin.
 

It doesn’t say anywhere in the Article who Taylor’s lawyer was, but I’m assuming you think it’s Wade?  He didn’t even see the inside of a courtroom on this case, no?

[WhatTheBuck 28,716]

3 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

According to George Conway citing Georgia law around the 14 minute mark, this isn't true. If Willis is removed the case likely goes away. 

 

I get the feeling he knows that. And wants that. 

[hobbes2702 12,849]

1 hour ago, aggie08 said:

Ok, buddy. Sorry I'm being completely unreasonable with my "please don't perjure yourself before putting the former President of the United States on trial" take. How silly of me.

 

Dahobbs already answered this.

[burntorangebongos 10,681]

On 2/16/2024 at 2:34 PM, South Austin said:

Yep.  She's not the judge or jury, and this shouldn't change the evidence those folks will consider.  But in the biggest, most publicly-scrutinized case of your legal career, why put the case at any risk just for the sake of some pole?

I'd like to see pics of said pole to be able to answer this properly. 

Edited February 25 by burntorangebongos

[WhatTheBuck 28,716]

1 minute ago, burntorangebongos said:

I'd like to see pics of said pole to be able to answer this properly. 

PM sent. 

[burntorangebongos 10,681]

On 2/17/2024 at 3:40 PM, Balcones said:

She hired her boyfriend to investigate a case and she personally benefited from the taxpayer money she paid him with. You may not think that is a issue, but the defense does. And apparently the court does too, or they would just dismiss the motion. If you were the defendant, you certainly could just let it go and not make it an issue.

How did she benefit exactly?  I need to see said dick to be able to properly access if this was truly a "benefit". 

[chainsaw 9,838]

15 hours ago, Balcones said:

He handles traffic tickets, dog bites, and real estate contracts his entire career.

Bold claim.

[Balcones 347]

11 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

How did she benefit exactly?  I need to see said dick to be able to properly access if this was truly a "benefit". 

Willis hired her boyfriend (relationship started before willis hired Wade) to be special prosecutor. Wade is paid with taxpayer money. Wade, using his business account, took Willis on several trips (Aruba, Bahamas, Napa). Wade claims he was paid back in cash, but has no records and did not report on his business taxes that these were personal or reimbursed business expenses. This, he used his earnings from the job Willis gave him to take her on multiple trips.

[TwiceHorn 31,302]

3 minutes ago, Balcones said:

Willis hired her boyfriend (relationship started before willis hired Wade) to be special prosecutor. Wade is paid with taxpayer money. Wade, using his business account, took Willis on several trips (Aruba, Bahamas, Napa). Wade claims he was paid back in cash, but has no records and did not report on his business taxes that these were personal or reimbursed business expenses. This, he used his earnings from the job Willis gave him to take her on multiple trips.

That is an ethical problem for both of them, if true. 

Nevertheless, it is not a conflict that prejudices any party to the prosecution, except maybe the state that has an interest in competent special prosecutors, hired in an above board fashion. 

I'm not going to criticize the defense lawyers for pursuing this, but it still doesn't prove a conflict that requires disqualification from this prosecution. 

Also, in Texas, I believe if a DA is disqualified or recuses him or herself, the presiding judge can appoint more special prosecutors (either private practitioners or DA from another district) to continue the prosecution.  It wouldn't have to be brought all over again in another district. Georgia may or may not have similar provisions.

This is what happened with Paxton in Collin County. 

[chainsaw 9,838]

41 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

it is not a conflict that prejudices any party to the prosecution,

It's a pretty obvious Trump playbook move, to smear whoever the "enemy" is.

[Balcones 347]

36 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That is an ethical problem for both of them, if true. 

Nevertheless, it is not a conflict that prejudices any party to the prosecution, except maybe the state that has an interest in competent special prosecutors, hired in an above board fashion. 

I'm not going to criticize the defense lawyers for pursuing this, but it still doesn't prove a conflict that requires disqualification from this prosecution. 

Also, in Texas, I believe if a DA is disqualified or recuses him or herself, the presiding judge can appoint more special prosecutors (either private practitioners or DA from another district) to continue the prosecution.  It wouldn't have to be brought all over again in another district. Georgia may or may not have similar provisions.

This is what happened with Paxton in Collin County. 

It was certainly enough for the defense to get a judge to hear their argument (as has already happened). And as you have noted, once the string is pulled, chances to perjure yourself, access to more evidence,  conflicting statements under oath, more embarrassing discovery, more subpoenas, etc… is not good for the DA and SP.  The longer the judge allows them to be the persecutors on this case, the deeper the defense will dig.  Based on what has been discovered so far, I doubt it gets better for Willis/Wade.

[TwiceHorn 31,302]

3 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

It's a pretty obvious Trump playbook move, to smear whoever the "enemy" is.

See this is where I disagree. This is a standard if aggressive criminal defense lawyer move. I imagine Trumpco roundly endorses it, but I think Roman's lawyer came up with it herself.  

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,550]

Donald waited until Ivana was on the government payroll before he started fucking her. Legal af!

[Horn Dog 9,674]

1 hour ago, Balcones said:

Willis hired her boyfriend (relationship started before willis hired Wade) to be special prosecutor. Wade is paid with taxpayer money. Wade, using his business account, took Willis on several trips (Aruba, Bahamas, Napa).

Can you provide some documentation o support this statement?  I don’t know if it is true or not but every article I am seeing states that he charged these vacations on “his credit cards” (presumably personal), which is a whole lot different than charging on a business account.  Are you implying he hey charged these trips to tax payers as a business expenses??  If so you need to back that up. 

“Wade, who took the stand under subpoena at the Fulton County misconduct hearing, said he would use his credit card to book travel because Willis would “limit her transactions” for safety reasons. He said Willis, whom he described as an “independent, strong woman,” would insist “she is going to pay her own way” by giving him cash or paying for things that made the cost of the trip equitable.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fani-willis-paid-her-own-way-on-romantic-trips-nathan-wade-testifies

“The defense is arguing Ms. Willis had hired Mr. Wade because they would both benefit financially. Mr. Wade has been paid more than $650,000 since being hired, and defense lawyers say he charged thousands of dollars to his credit cards for vacations with Ms. Willis. She says she reimbursed him in cash for the trips.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/15/us/politics/trump-georgia-willis-wade-hearing.html

[956 Worldwide 34,452]

59 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

See this is where I disagree. This is a standard if aggressive criminal defense lawyer move. I imagine Trumpco roundly endorses it, but I think Roman's lawyer came up with it herself.  

I put this whole thing into “shouldn’t be a problem but is” box. We can agree that it’s stupid and not directly relevant to the trial nor DJT’s guilt.  But half of the population is below average and it was always going to create problems for the DA to fuck the Special Prosecutor. 

I have a team of people who work for me, and there’s one member that just isn’t as sharp as actually needed for the role.  If anything comes her way, there’s gonna be delays and problems and I’ll need to intervene more than I should. Things that should be easy aren’t and stuff I assign that should be done in a short amount of time won’t be.  A normal person in that role shouldn’t have a problem, but she does. If I can’t foresee that and adjust my heading accordingly, it becomes my problem. 

[Dahobbs 17,449]

14 hours ago, Balcones said:

Are we ignoring the witnesses (former DA employee and former law partner) testimony that the relationship began before Wade was hired as SP? Are we ignoring Wade’s divorce case interrogatories claiming he has not entertained opposite sex up to present? 
 

There is plenty of evidence.  You just don’t want to acknowledge it.

The December 2021 interrogatories? That would be consistent with the testimony at the time the rogs were signed. Whether or not he failed to update them after a relationship had started could be up for debate. But I'm not sure why that would be necessary as a relationship that began well after divorce proceedings were initiated doesn't seem particularly relevant. That said, I certainly don't know family law, much less family law in Georgia. 

Again, this is all a distraction that shouldn't have been allowed by the judge in the first place. 

Edited February 25 by Dahobbs

[Balcones 347]

35 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Can you provide some documentation o support this statement?  I don’t know if it is true or not but every article I am seeing states that he charged these vacations on “his credit cards” (presumably personal), which is a whole lot different than charging on a business account.  Are you implying he hey charged these trips to tax payers as a business expenses??  If so you need to back that up. 

 

[jimmyjazz 45,564]

23 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

and it was always going to create problems for the DA to fuck the Special Prosecutor. 

It's so incredibly frustrating.  There really isn't any excuse -- either they were dating prior to the appointment, or they started dating after the appointment.  If the former, it would seem prudent to not appoint Wade, or at least acknowledge it.  If the latter, what the fuck?

[Dahobbs 17,449]

9 minutes ago, Balcones said:

 

So, using a business credit card isn't the same as business expenses, and you know that. 

[Balcones 347]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

So, using a business credit card isn't the same as business expenses, and you know that. 

You are checkers man, I can tell.

As soon as she asked that question and he gave an answer, he opened the door for the defense to subpoena his business tax records. And his answers under oath, will be cross with the tax records.