Can we talk about the public flogging of Fani Willis…

[Horn Dog 9674]

37 minutes ago, Balcones said:

 

I appreciate you responding.  As Dahobbs stated, that is not the same thing as classifying them as a business expense, as is implied by your statement .

You can charge whatever you want to your “business credit cards” and until you try to tax deduct them or submit them to your employer as a “business expense” for reimbursement, there is absolutely nothing illegal about it.

Edited February 25 by Horn Dog

[Dahobbs 17449]

17 minutes ago, Balcones said:

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. 

And you're still being disingenuous. You made the claim he already admitted it to being business expenses. He didn't. Whether the judge allows this fishing expedition to continue is not relevant to that claim. If whether the expenses were deducted from his taxes was relevant in the first place, there would have been need to get this testimony in order to subpoena them. Honestly though, whether or not he committee tax fraud still isn't relevant to the core claim that Fanni financially benefited from his appointment in someway that would prevent Trump from having a fair trial.  

Edited February 25 by Dahobbs

[Dahobbs 17449]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

And you're still being disingenuous. You made the claim he already admitted it to being business expenses. He didn't. Whether the judge allows this fishing expedition to continue is not relevant to that claim. If whether the expenses were deducted from his taxes was relevant in the first place, there would have been need to get this testimony in order to subpoena them. Honestly though, whether or not he committee tax fraud still isn't relevant to the core claim that Fanni financially benefited from his appointment in someway that would prevent Trump from having a fair trial.  

No need to get the testimony is what I meant to say. 

[Balcones 347]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

The December 2021 interrogatories? . 

No. December 2023.

 

[Dahobbs 17449]

24 minutes ago, Balcones said:

No. December 2023.

 

Do you have a time stamp to what you're referring to?

[Balcones 347]

16 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Do you have a time stamp to what you're referring to?

She crushes him the entire 20 min. 

[Dahobbs 17449]

Just now, Balcones said:

She crushes him the entire 20 min. 

I listened to portions of it. I didn't hear anything regarding 2023 rogs where he answered that he had no relationship to the present. There was some argument about failure to answer discovery responses in the divorce proceedings. Again, it is 20 minutes. What portion do you contend supports your statement? Or are you misrepresenting the evidence again?

[Balcones 347]

14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I listened to portions of it. I didn't hear anything regarding 2023 rogs where he answered that he had no relationship to the present. There was some argument about failure to answer discovery responses in the divorce proceedings. Again, it is 20 minutes. What portion do you contend supports your statement? Or are you misrepresenting the evidence again?

Take, for example, a May 2023 interrogatory that asked Wade to disclose any sexual relations he had during his marriage, including during the “time of separation” and “up to the present.” In his interrogatory response at that time, Wade answered “none.” But on the stand last week, Wade acknowledged that he had engaged in sexual relations with Willis by May 2023. In explaining his response to the interrogatory, Wade maintained that his marriage was “irretrievably broken” in 2015 and, as such, he did not have a relationship with anyone during the course of his marriage. But that explanation does not account for the fact that the interrogatory asked for conduct during the “time of separation” and “up to the present.” As one Georgia family law attorney told us: “Wade’s ‘definition’ of the end of his marriage being when it was irretrievably broken years ago is legal bullshit.”

There are similar problems with other interrogatories in the divorce proceedings. In the May 2023 interrogatory, for example, Wade was asked to identify “any and all” occasions in which he entertained a member of the opposite sex “from date of marriage to the present.” Wade again answered “none.” Confronted with this interrogatory by defense counsel last week, Wade agreed that he had “entertained” Willis in May 2023. But he insisted on a strained interpretation of the question posed, claiming that he did not entertain anyone during the “course of the marriage”—a qualifying phrase that appears nowhere in the question or Wade’s response. 

[Dahobbs 17449]

11 minutes ago, Balcones said:

Take, for example, a May 2023 interrogatory that asked Wade to disclose any sexual relations he had during his marriage, including during the “time of separation” and “up to the present.” In his interrogatory response at that time, Wade answered “none.” But on the stand last week, Wade acknowledged that he had engaged in sexual relations with Willis by May 2023. In explaining his response to the interrogatory, Wade maintained that his marriage was “irretrievably broken” in 2015 and, as such, he did not have a relationship with anyone during the course of his marriage. But that explanation does not account for the fact that the interrogatory asked for conduct during the “time of separation” and “up to the present.” As one Georgia family law attorney told us: “Wade’s ‘definition’ of the end of his marriage being when it was irretrievably broken years ago is legal bullshit.”

There are similar problems with other interrogatories in the divorce proceedings. In the May 2023 interrogatory, for example, Wade was asked to identify “any and all” occasions in which he entertained a member of the opposite sex “from date of marriage to the present.” Wade again answered “none.” Confronted with this interrogatory by defense counsel last week, Wade agreed that he had “entertained” Willis in May 2023. But he insisted on a strained interpretation of the question posed, claiming that he did not entertain anyone during the “course of the marriage”—a qualifying phrase that appears nowhere in the question or Wade’s response. 

I asked for time stamps. 

[Balcones 347]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I asked for time stamps. 

You’ve been given plenty. You asked for proof of is lying on rogs (up to present) and I have given you video and excerpts from lawfare.  

[Smax 3800]

None of this matters, just trumps lawyers mudding the water to distract, delay oh squirrel.....

[Dahobbs 17449]

4 minutes ago, Balcones said:

You’ve been given plenty. You asked for proof of is lying on rogs (up to present) and I have given you video and excerpts from lawfare.  

You provided one video that didn't show what you said. You've provided another 20 minute video and refuse to provide time stamps so I can tell what you're referencing. You'll forgive me for not trusting your description of events. 

Not that I think any of it is relevant to anything. 

Edited February 25 by Dahobbs

[Balcones 347]

10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I asked for time stamps. 

Page 2. Black and White.

https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/4025/93-MOTION-02-13-2024

[Dahobbs 17449]

3 minutes ago, Balcones said:

Page 2. Black and White.

https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/4025/93-MOTION-02-13-2024

So, your contention is that these arguably misleading rog responses are evidence of perjury in some respect? What does any of this have to do with the Trump case? Are we litigating the divorce now? 

Again, I ask, why are you interested? Why do you believe any of this should matter as far as Trump goes? 

[Balcones 347]

16 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 these arguably misleading rog responses

Hew answered, “none”. There is nothing misleading about that answer. 

This is ONE example of the Special Prosecutor, against a President of The United States, lying under oath, to a court in Georgia. That matters.

[Dahobbs 17449]

1 minute ago, Balcones said:

Hew answered, “none”. There is nothing misleading about that answer. 

This is ONE example of the Special Prosecutor, against a President of The United States, lying under oath, to a court in Georgia. That matters.

1) It actually notes in the motion that the rog answered wasn't verified, so it wasn't under oath. 

2) The answer appears to be a version of aggressive lawyering and depends upon what you consider to be period of marriage. While it might be misleading, there appears to be a good faith argument that it wasn't false. Even if it were under oath, I don't think that would ever support a perjury charge. That said, personally, if I we're taking that approach to an answer, I would have objected to the question. 

3) it might matter to the Georgia bar and to the Court in the divorce case, but why does it matter as to Trump? The lawyer isn't going to be testifying in the case. 

4) it isn't evidence that the testimony related to the disqualification motion was false. 

[chainsaw 9838]

On 2/25/2024 at 2:08 PM, Dahobbs said:

So, your contention is that these arguably misleading rog responses are evidence of perjury in some respect? What does any of this have to do with the Trump case? Are we litigating the divorce now? 

Again, I ask, why are you interested? Why do you believe any of this should matter as far as Trump goes? 

[TwiceHorn 31302]

On 2/25/2024 at 2:26 PM, Balcones said:

Hew answered, “none”. There is nothing misleading about that answer. 

This is ONE example of the Special Prosecutor, against a President of The United States, lying under oath, to a court in Georgia. That matters.

Dude. It's not ideal but interrogatory answers are not a lie to the court, they are a lie to the opposing party.  And, unworn, they are worth the paper they are printed on. 

 

I'm not endorsing it, but taking this on to illustrate to the peanut gallery how civil litigation, which includes family, mostly goes on outside of the purview of the court.  And that can countenance a whole lot of shenanigans for which no one really gets in trouble unless they double down on the shenanigans before the court and under oath. 

Also Dahobbs is right: the none is quite unequivocal, but in the context of the question maybe be more disingenuous and misleading than false. 

Also unsworn interrogatory answers should be assumed to be full of whoppers. 

 

Also, a glowing example of a minor ethical bind for a lawyer. An interrogatory asks a question the answer to which is damaging. To avoid the damage, you resort to all kinds of tactics to avoid answering it: you seize any ambiguity in the question and object; you come up with any interpretation of the question that makes a non-damaging answer not an outright lie; you don't answer them under oath. 

Why do lawyers do this? Because they have that pesky duty to the fucking client not to torpedo their case with interrogatory answers. 

I often hate answering well-drafted interrogatories because I just want to answer the question according to its intent and get on with it, but sometimes that's not in the client's interest. 

Edited February 27 by TwiceHorn

[Balcones 347]

50 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Dude. It's not ideal but interrogatory answers are not a lie to the court, they are a lie to the opposing party.  And, unworn, they are worth the paper they are printed on. 

 

I'm not endorsing it, but taking this on to illustrate to the peanut gallery how civil litigation, which includes family, mostly goes on outside of the purview of the court.  And that can countenance a whole lot of shenanigans for which no one really gets in trouble unless they double down on the shenanigans before the court and under oath. 

Also Dahobbs is right: the none is quite unequivocal, but in the context of the question maybe be more disingenuous and misleading than false. 

Also unsworn interrogatory answers should be assumed to be full of whoppers. 

 

Also, a glowing example of a minor ethical bind for a lawyer. An interrogatory asks a question the answer to which is damaging. To avoid the damage, you resort to all kinds of tactics to avoid answering it: you seize any ambiguity in the question and object; you come up with any interpretation of the question that makes a non-damaging answer not an outright lie; you don't answer them under oath. 

Why do lawyers do this? Because they have that pesky duty to the fucking client not to torpedo their case with interrogatory answers. 

I often hate answering well-drafted interrogatories because I just want to answer the question according to its intent and get on with it, but sometimes that's not in the client's interest. 

He didn't have to give an affirmative answer.  He could have responded with some like, "Plaintiff objects to this rog because it is ambiguous and fails to identify the information sought with particularity to "marriage"....."  This is what happens 99% of time.  

I assume he and his attorney did that on the December 2021 rogs, and subsequently, until it was ultimately ordered to give an affirmative response.  That's how they finally answered in May 2023, "none".

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13550]

We need to know more about this marriage before we can determine if Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election. Where did their love go? Was it all just wasted time?

[Balcones 347]

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

We need to know more about this marriage before we can determine if Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election. Where did their love go? Was it all just wasted time?

I know the legal system is hard to understand for most. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13550]

3 minutes ago, Balcones said:

I know the legal system is hard to understand for most. 

Apparently 

[Dahobbs 17449]

24 minutes ago, Balcones said:

He didn't have to give an affirmative answer.  He could have responded with some like, "Plaintiff objects to this rog because it is ambiguous and fails to identify the information sought with particularity to "marriage"....."  This is what happens 99% of time.  

I assume he and his attorney did that on the December 2021 rogs, and subsequently, until it was ultimately ordered to give an affirmative response.  That's how they finally answered in May 2023, "none".

It isn't clear from the record we have why the May 2023 answers were provided. Had it been the subject of motion practice to force an answer or a resolve an objection, I would have expected that information to be included in the disqualification motion since it could add to the argument (e.g., "he didn't answer until forced to by the court"). The fact that the rog answers weren't verified suggests to me that this was not in response to a court order and is rather a supplementation of a continuing interrogatory response, and that is suggested in the motion when it notes several times that the interrogatories were continuing and the answers were part of a supplementary discovery. It is also conceivable that these interrogatories were updated by Wade's attorney without a ton of thought about whether they required an update for the period after the filing of the divorce petition. 

Also, this response listed in the motion's attachments provides some clarity as to how an interpretation of "the course marriage, including the period of separation" may naturally include the pre-divorce filing conduct without necessarily implicating post filing conduct: 

Ultimately, whether Wade took an aggressive legal stance in his divorce proceedings is entirely irrelevant to whether Trump or the other defendants are denied a fair trial. None of this suggests that Wade or Fani perjured themselves during their testimony. None of it suggests that Fani substantially benefited from Wade's appointment or from the prosecution of the defendants. 

Edited February 27 by Dahobbs

[Balcones 347]

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Also, this response listed in the motion's attachments provides some clarity as to how an interpretation of "the course marriage, including the period of separation" may naturally include the pre-divorce filing conduct without necessarily implicating post filing conduct: 

 

You left out the part that this was updated on Jan 24, 2024, after the defense filed a motion to have Wade removed based on his interrogatory responses from May 2023.  See page 3.

Subsequently, Wade quickly settled this divorce case out of court days after these responses.

[Dahobbs 17449]

Just now, Balcones said:

You left out the part that this was updated on Jan 24, 2024, after the defense filed a motion to have Wade removed based on his interrogatory responses from May 2023.  See page 3.

Subsequently, Wade quickly settled this divorce case out of court days after these responses.

So? It is still useful context. And again, what relevance does any of that have to Trump?

[TwiceHorn 31302]

The good part of the discussion is that it shows how litigation is a constant shading of the fact and "the truth." 

And, it's on an issue, technical adultery, that is most likely irrelevant to the outcome of the divorce. In Texas it would be. 

And that demonstrates another motive for "shading the truth." The fully accurate, no-nuance answer may not torpedo the case, but it may give your opponent something to blather about endlessly in a waste of everyone's time.  

[HenryJames 65890]

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

Where did their love go?

 

[gernblansten 3189]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The good part of the discussion is that it shows how litigation is a constant shading of the fact and "the truth." 

And, it's on an issue, technical adultery, that is most likely irrelevant to the outcome of the divorce. In Texas it would be. 

And that demonstrates another motive for "shading the truth." The fully accurate, no-nuance answer may not torpedo the case, but it may give your opponent something to blather about endlessly in a waste of everyone's time.  

Yeah. Can be added to Carl Sandburg's:

“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”....or just blather about endlessly in a waste of everyone's time.

[TwiceHorn 31302]

13 minutes ago, gernblansten said:

Yeah. Can be added to Carl Sandburg's:

“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”....or just blather about endlessly in a waste of everyone's time.

Yes thought about adding table pounding when I wrote that. 

 

[Hookah Horns 3082]

On 2/25/2024 at 11:53 AM, Balcones said:

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. 

That's not opening the door unless the state broached the topic. And whether it was deducted simply isn't relevant to shit. 

Why would they cross him with tax records when he said he didn't deduct them? Are you saying they're going to subpoena them on the hope they actually were deducted so they could impeach? 

Also if Wade testifies again, it'll be limited in scope to rebutting whatever this divorce attorney says today. I think we're done with the taxes sadly. 

Edited February 27 by Hookah Horns

[gernblansten 3189]

Under Richards v. State, the Court ruled the defendant's belief that their testimony is truthful will be an absolute defense to a perjury charge regardless of whether the testimony is actually false. 131 Ga. App. 362, (1974).

[WhatTheBuck 28716]

On 2/25/2024 at 12:53 PM, Balcones said:

You are checkers man, I can tell.

You want Trump to escape justice for his attempted coup, I think we all can tell. 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19094]

Can you guys just neg the troll and move on?

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13550]

Do you know how to make audio loops @Balcones? I'm trying to loop the 25 second mark to the 31 second mark, but I don't understand that either. Not that it matters.

 

[Captainant 27471]

Pretty good writeup on the clown show that the court allowed trump to marshall in

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a60051168/fani-willis-hearing-fulton-county-da/

Quote

Down in Fulton County in Georgia, Judge Scott McAfee began hearing closing arguments in the hearings that will determine whether or not Fulton County DA Fani Willis will continue as the prosecutor in her monumental RICO case against a whole mess of defendants, including the mess that is the former president*, accused of conspiring to ratfck the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. Judge McAfee already has said he will need at least two weeks to render the decision. And the stall-ball strategy reaches another judicial arena. Christ, I'd hate to be waiting for some of these judges to make our lunch order. We'd starve.

The case is a joke. It literally is a product of one of the people under indictment, a career Republican operative named Michael Roman. It tangled the case all up in Willis's romance with prosecutor Nathan Wade, which, in turn, tangled the case up in Wade's divorce proceedings. From the Guardian:

“This was a disqualification hearing that quickly denigrated into a daytime soap opera,” said J Tom Morgan, a former district attorney in DeKalb county, a Fulton county neighbor. “Have they proven a conflict of interest, where this all started, absolutely not.”...It’s not exactly clear what the standard Scott McAfee, the judge overseeing the case, will use to determine whether Willis should be disqualified. Georgia law allows for a prosecutor to be disqualified if there is an actual conflict of interest. Experts say state law has long established this high bar to clear and the defendants in the case have not done so. But McAfee has suggested that defense lawyers may not need to prove an actual conflict, but merely the appearance of one. “I think it’s clear that disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one,” he said at a recent hearing.

It really does seem like this judge is gearing up to dance to trumpcos tune and allow the defendant to create a media circus to fabricate the "appearance of impropriety". Shit like this is why I have been insistent in repeating the justice departments demonstrated favor towards assisting the fascists and delaying their justice. 

[Satchel 6908]

They won’t stop the flogging until she bleeds or finds Trump’s 11,780 votes.

[Reality Check 137]

Can you imagine how pissed they must be in the White House right now? 

They sent Jeff Desantis -- an expert in this type of prosecution -- down to Atlanta to write the indictment, choose the grand jury and prop up Fani to be the face of the community. He even helped her burn the midnight oil to announce the indictment late at night after Hunter's plea deal blew up. 

Everything was in place -- a state case that Trump couldn't pardon himself from in a state where the governor doesn't have the power to pardon. Claims of immunity from a federal court wouldn't apply, either. All she had to do was set a court date and bingo, bango, bongo -- a six- to eight-week trial giving the media a chance to run Jan. 6 footage on a loop, remind everyone nightly of the insurrection, and allow the media to speculate whether The Donald would be watching election results from inside the Fulton County Jail or, even better, state prison. 

All she had to do was NOT HIRE HER BOYFRIEND or at least NOT LIE ABOUT IT when she was caught. 

If she files a simple affidavit in January that says, "Yep, Nathan and I have been knocking boots since November 2019. How has this impacted anyone's due process?" then the answer is "It hasn't" and a trial date for late summer/early fall is set and the next step is jury selection. 

Instead, they concoct a half-ass lie about March 2022 and paying cash and did everything they could to tell as many lies as they could before the court. Did they seriously know -- as prosecutors of criminal crimes -- that cell phone data can't track the time and location of people? Did they seriously think there were zero people in the world who knew they were romantically involved as soon as they met in November 2019? Did they seriously think they'd never 1) pissed off people who would talk or 2) come across an officer of the court who would tell the truth no matter the consequences? (i.e. being blackballed from the close-knit fraternity/sorority of Black attorneys in Atlanta.)

The latest report is witness intimidation of Bradley being witnessed by the Cobb County District Attorney. Even if McAfee rules against the defendants and doesn't disqualify Wade, Willis and the Fulton County DA's office, there's enough evidence in place for an appeal and this DA and the waiter who saw Wade, Bradley and Wade's lawyer at dinner last month will be called to testify. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13156883/Fani-Willis-warned-Nathan-Wades-divorce-lawyer-stay-quiet-affair-bombshell-new-court-filing-claims-Trump-prosecutor-case-gets-twist-NEW-witness-deliver-devastating-testimony.html

As for the public flogging, it continues Thursday at 9 a.m. Central before the Fulton County Board of Ethics. It will be livestreamed -- this latest episode of the unnecessary soap opera will be over in two hours, which ironically leads into "The Young and the Restless."

[Hookah Horns 3082]

Torbush

[Captainant 27471]

4 hours ago, Reality Check said:

Can you imagine how pissed they must be in the White House right now? 

They sent Jeff Desantis -- an expert in this type of prosecution -- down to Atlanta to write the indictment, choose the grand jury and prop up Fani to be the face of the community. He even helped her burn the midnight oil to announce the indictment late at night after Hunter's plea deal blew up. 

Everything was in place -- a state case that Trump couldn't pardon himself from in a state where the governor doesn't have the power to pardon. Claims of immunity from a federal court wouldn't apply, either. All she had to do was set a court date and bingo, bango, bongo -- a six- to eight-week trial giving the media a chance to run Jan. 6 footage on a loop, remind everyone nightly of the insurrection, and allow the media to speculate whether The Donald would be watching election results from inside the Fulton County Jail or, even better, state prison. 

All she had to do was NOT HIRE HER BOYFRIEND or at least NOT LIE ABOUT IT when she was caught. 

If she files a simple affidavit in January that says, "Yep, Nathan and I have been knocking boots since November 2019. How has this impacted anyone's due process?" then the answer is "It hasn't" and a trial date for late summer/early fall is set and the next step is jury selection. 

Instead, they concoct a half-ass lie about March 2022 and paying cash and did everything they could to tell as many lies as they could before the court. Did they seriously know -- as prosecutors of criminal crimes -- that cell phone data can't track the time and location of people? Did they seriously think there were zero people in the world who knew they were romantically involved as soon as they met in November 2019? Did they seriously think they'd never 1) pissed off people who would talk or 2) come across an officer of the court who would tell the truth no matter the consequences? (i.e. being blackballed from the close-knit fraternity/sorority of Black attorneys in Atlanta.)

The latest report is witness intimidation of Bradley being witnessed by the Cobb County District Attorney. Even if McAfee rules against the defendants and doesn't disqualify Wade, Willis and the Fulton County DA's office, there's enough evidence in place for an appeal and this DA and the waiter who saw Wade, Bradley and Wade's lawyer at dinner last month will be called to testify. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13156883/Fani-Willis-warned-Nathan-Wades-divorce-lawyer-stay-quiet-affair-bombshell-new-court-filing-claims-Trump-prosecutor-case-gets-twist-NEW-witness-deliver-devastating-testimony.html

As for the public flogging, it continues Thursday at 9 a.m. Central before the Fulton County Board of Ethics. It will be livestreamed -- this latest episode of the unnecessary soap opera will be over in two hours, which ironically leads into "The Young and the Restless."

Counter point: the judge should have never allowed this boondoggle of a fishing expedition for all the reasons above. 

[WhatTheBuck 28716]

5 hours ago, Reality Check said:

Can you imagine how pissed they must be in the White House right now? 

They sent Jeff Desantis -- an expert in this type of prosecution -- down to Atlanta to write the indictment, choose the grand jury and prop up Fani to be the face of the community. He even helped her burn the midnight oil to announce the indictment late at night after Hunter's plea deal blew up. 

Everything was in place -- a state case that Trump couldn't pardon himself from in a state where the governor doesn't have the power to pardon. Claims of immunity from a federal court wouldn't apply, either. All she had to do was set a court date and bingo, bango, bongo -- a six- to eight-week trial giving the media a chance to run Jan. 6 footage on a loop, remind everyone nightly of the insurrection, and allow the media to speculate whether The Donald would be watching election results from inside the Fulton County Jail or, even better, state prison. 

All she had to do was NOT HIRE HER BOYFRIEND or at least NOT LIE ABOUT IT when she was caught. 

If she files a simple affidavit in January that says, "Yep, Nathan and I have been knocking boots since November 2019. How has this impacted anyone's due process?" then the answer is "It hasn't" and a trial date for late summer/early fall is set and the next step is jury selection. 

Instead, they concoct a half-ass lie about March 2022 and paying cash and did everything they could to tell as many lies as they could before the court. Did they seriously know -- as prosecutors of criminal crimes -- that cell phone data can't track the time and location of people? Did they seriously think there were zero people in the world who knew they were romantically involved as soon as they met in November 2019? Did they seriously think they'd never 1) pissed off people who would talk or 2) come across an officer of the court who would tell the truth no matter the consequences? (i.e. being blackballed from the close-knit fraternity/sorority of Black attorneys in Atlanta.)

The latest report is witness intimidation of Bradley being witnessed by the Cobb County District Attorney. Even if McAfee rules against the defendants and doesn't disqualify Wade, Willis and the Fulton County DA's office, there's enough evidence in place for an appeal and this DA and the waiter who saw Wade, Bradley and Wade's lawyer at dinner last month will be called to testify. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13156883/Fani-Willis-warned-Nathan-Wades-divorce-lawyer-stay-quiet-affair-bombshell-new-court-filing-claims-Trump-prosecutor-case-gets-twist-NEW-witness-deliver-devastating-testimony.html

As for the public flogging, it continues Thursday at 9 a.m. Central before the Fulton County Board of Ethics. It will be livestreamed -- this latest episode of the unnecessary soap opera will be over in two hours, which ironically leads into "The Young and the Restless."

Trump’s team came up with a new witness who claims to have heard Fani Willis tell Terrence Bradley to keep quiet about what he knew about her affair? That sounds totally credible and reliable.

[Balcones 347]

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Trump’s team came up with a new witness who claims to have heard Fani Willis tell Terrence Bradley to keep quiet about what he knew about her affair? That sounds totally credible and reliable.

Looks like she is an attorney at the Cobb County DAs office. What would make her not credible or reliable? 

[Biff Tannen 45500]

I have admittedly paid only slight attention to this clown show, but I'll ask the same question that Lovett on the POD asked:

What is the conflict of interest here?  They are both on the same team.  If it were Willis sleeping with a member of the jury, or the judge, or the defense, then ok sure, conflict of interest.  What am I missing?

It seems to me, the dotard klan is conflating "conflict of interest" with "WITCH HUNT!"

[Captainant 27471]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

It seems to me, the dotard klan is conflating "conflict of interest" with "WITCH HUNT!"

They don't have the facts or the law on their side, so they are pounding the table. And since a third of the country is apparently SUPER down with fascism, they credulously dance to trumpco's song

[Balcones 347]

30 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

 

What is the conflict of interest here?  They are both on the same team.  If it were Willis sleeping with a member of the jury, or the judge, or the defense, then ok sure, conflict of interest.  What am I missing?

 

The conflict does not have to be between plaintiff and defendant.  In this case, the conflict is internal to the DAs office.  Willis chose her boyfriend to be the Special Prosecutor and receive the taxpayer funded contract (currently at ~$700k) and then benefited from that money in the form of trips, gifts, etc... 

[Thrawn 538]

51 minutes ago, Balcones said:

then benefited from that money in the form of trips, gifts, etc... 

[Biff Tannen 45500]

1 hour ago, Balcones said:

The conflict does not have to be between plaintiff and defendant.  In this case, the conflict is internal to the DAs office.  Willis chose her boyfriend to be the Special Prosecutor and receive the taxpayer funded contract (currently at ~$700k) and then benefited from that money in the form of trips, gifts, etc... 

ok, so how is that unfair to the dotard’s defense?

[TwiceHorn 31302]

1 hour ago, Balcones said:

The conflict does not have to be between plaintiff and defendant.  In this case, the conflict is internal to the DAs office.  Willis chose her boyfriend to be the Special Prosecutor and receive the taxpayer funded contract (currently at ~$700k) and then benefited from that money in the form of trips, gifts, etc... 

It does for disqualification from a particular case. 

If you are trying to remove her from office or Wade from his position, that might be a different story. I am not sure a trial court can order that kind of relief, except maybe as to Wade. 

[chainsaw 9838]

They need to move this along.

[Hookah Horns 3082]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

ok, so how is that unfair to the dotard’s defense?

It's obviously not, this whole thing is dumb as fuck. 

[jdhorn92 1538]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

ok, so how is that unfair to the dotard’s defense?

They (Trump's team) knows it's not unfair to his defense.  This is all a ruse to cast credibility issues on the DA's office as noted upthread a few posts.  It's a smokescreen, a carnival barker, your basic diversion technique to stall and distract and make FW and her office look as bad as possible.  The longer it goes on, the more chance she is removed from the case, the more damage is done to her office, makes the Dems look like they are conspiring, all the while feeding red meat to Trump's deplorables.