GA Case

[Anonymous]

It's the defendant who has a right to a fair trial, not Fani Willis. The defense does not have to prove their case, just establish potential conflict of interest, which would deprive defendant of a fair trial. Having the lawyer say I don't recall or refusing to answer can be interpreted in favor of the defendant.

[Anonymous]

All these people saying the judge is corrupt or biased in favor of the DA- has it occurred to you that maybe Fani was hard to work with and he might be biased against her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's the defendant who has a right to a fair trial, not Fani Willis. The defense does not have to prove their case, just establish potential conflict of interest, which would deprive defendant of a fair trial. Having the lawyer say I don't recall or refusing to answer can be interpreted in favor of the defendant.

There is no conflict of interest here!!!!

Fani Willis, Nathan Wade and his poor lawyer are all on the same side. They are not adverse, there is no conflict of interest!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really doesn’t matter if Wade is removed from the case, and I would expect he will resign at this point.
It really doesn’t matter.

Does he have to return the 700K USD? If not, what a coup for him

When you leave a job, do you have to pay back all the salary you earned?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's the defendant who has a right to a fair trial, not Fani Willis. The defense does not have to prove their case, just establish potential conflict of interest, which would deprive defendant of a fair trial. Having the lawyer say I don't recall or refusing to answer can be interpreted in favor of the defendant.

Not “potential.” Ga law requires an “actual conflict.” And absence of proof is not proof.

[Anonymous]

If I were a divorce lawyer and another attorney started asking questions about my clients affairs I would either end the conversation or send them off on a wild goose chase. Looks like this guy chose the wild goose chase option

[Anonymous]

If you want to see Trump go down, you have to be enraged that Willis/Wade, relatively unintelligent, lazy, inexperienced and palpably crooked prosecutors, were selected to handle this case. There are hundreds, maybe more than a thousand, highly intelligent, experienced, deadly serious and honest Democrat-oriented prosecutors and civil trial attorneys who would have done this trial for little or no pay. This entire disqualification catastrophe would never have happened -- even a relatively unintelligent, inexperienced prosecutor would know not to hire their married lover as a lawyer, let alone the lead lawyer, on this case bc of exactly this disqualification circus.

[Anonymous]

Has the defense not been able to afford the good lawyers? Or have the good ones just realized there is little upside for them here? How the heck did they fall for this Bre'r Rabbit briar patch crap?

[Anonymous]

Look at what's happened to the lawyers who have sided with Trump: Rudy Guilianni, Sydney Powell, Jenna Ellis, the fake elector lawyers in Michigan, Lin Wood, Kenneth Chesboro, Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, and so many more. So many lawyers who have not been paid, and then were brought up on charges, criminally convicted, disbarred.

What decent lawyer in their right mind would take a case within 6 degrees of Trump? It's a career ender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has the defense not been able to afford the good lawyers? Or have the good ones just realized there is little upside for them here? How the heck did they fall for this Bre'r Rabbit briar patch crap?

What was the deal with one of the defense lawyers appearing on Zoom in his blue boxer shorts? What was he doing under the desk? I guess he gets off on testimony. Trump has the worst lawyers.

https://www.meidastouch.com/news/lawyer-in-trumps-ga-case-caught-with-pants-down-on-zoom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can we move on to the actual Trump/Georgia case now?

LOL. "Speculating."

I liked this interaction about his "speculation:"

“Why would you speculate when she was asking you a direct question about when the relationship started?” Sadow asked.

“I have no answer for that,” Bradley said.

“Except for the fact that you do in fact know when it started, and you don’t wanna testify to that in court,” Sadow said. “That’s the best explanation.”


Or this one:

“Mr. Bradley, ‘speculation’ is kind of a weaselly lawyer word. Let's speak truth here and you’re under oath,” defense attorney Richard Rice said at one point after Bradley again used the word.


Or this one:

In one testy exchange, Richard Rice, an attorney for defendant Robert Cheeley, asked Bradley whether “as a normal course of your relationship with your friends, do you pass on lies about your friends?”

“Have I passed on lies about my friends, is that what you’re asking?” Bradley responded.

“Is that something you normally do, Mr. Bradley?” Rice said. "Do you tell lies about your friends?”
Bradley responded: “Have I told lies about my friends? I could have. I don’t know.”

“Do you pass on lies about your friends in a case of national importance?” Rice pushed.

Bradley repeated, “I could have. I don’t know.”

His testimony was a disaster. The defense presented him with texts that he had sent indicating that the affair "absolutely" began before Willis hired Wade. And, he claimed ignorance.
The judge saw through his lack of candor. And, had little patience for the repeated "objections" from the state attorneys.
Anyone with eyes and ears knows what happened.... he knew their relationship began long before Fani and Nathan testified it did, indicated that to Merchant via texts and conversations, but was trying desperately to cover his tracks.
The judge is not dumb.

The convo started off with merchant asking what Bradley thinks, then she got what he thinks, and tried to enter it as evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the defendant who has a right to a fair trial, not Fani Willis. The defense does not have to prove their case, just establish potential conflict of interest, which would deprive defendant of a fair trial. Having the lawyer say I don't recall or refusing to answer can be interpreted in favor of the defendant.

Not “potential.” Ga law requires an “actual conflict.” And absence of proof is not proof.

Wrong.

The law says “disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one,” Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee said during a hearing Monday. Because he believes “it’s possible that the facts alleged by the defendant could result in a disqualification, I think an evidentiary hearing must occur to establish the record on those core allegations.”

https://apnews.com/article/fani-willis-nathan-wade-trump-election-indictment-33644e0501987d5a98938377f209cb47

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you want to see Trump go down, you have to be enraged that Willis/Wade, relatively unintelligent, lazy, inexperienced and palpably crooked prosecutors, were selected to handle this case. There are hundreds, maybe more than a thousand, highly intelligent, experienced, deadly serious and honest Democrat-oriented prosecutors and civil trial attorneys who would have done this trial for little or no pay. This entire disqualification catastrophe would never have happened -- even a relatively unintelligent, inexperienced prosecutor would know not to hire their married lover as a lawyer, let alone the lead lawyer, on this case bc of exactly this disqualification circus.

Literally none of this is grounded in reality or the truth.
We can’t even have conversations anymore, because you loonies aren’t living in the real world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the defendant who has a right to a fair trial, not Fani Willis. The defense does not have to prove their case, just establish potential conflict of interest, which would deprive defendant of a fair trial. Having the lawyer say I don't recall or refusing to answer can be interpreted in favor of the defendant.

Not “potential.” Ga law requires an “actual conflict.” And absence of proof is not proof.

Wrong.

The law says “disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one,” Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee said during a hearing Monday. Because he believes “it’s possible that the facts alleged by the defendant could result in a disqualification, I think an evidentiary hearing must occur to establish the record on those core allegations.”

https://apnews.com/article/fani-willis-nathan-wade-trump-election-indictment-33644e0501987d5a98938377f209cb47

DP. Reread your post. The PP was correct.

[Anonymous]

[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the defendant who has a right to a fair trial, not Fani Willis. The defense does not have to prove their case, just establish potential conflict of interest, which would deprive defendant of a fair trial. Having the lawyer say I don't recall or refusing to answer can be interpreted in favor of the defendant.

Not “potential.” Ga law requires an “actual conflict.” And absence of proof is not proof.

Wrong.

The law says “disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one,” Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee said during a hearing Monday. Because he believes “it’s possible that the facts alleged by the defendant could result in a disqualification, I think an evidentiary hearing must occur to establish the record on those core allegations.”

https://apnews.com/article/fani-willis-nathan-wade-trump-election-indictment-33644e0501987d5a98938377f209cb47

McAfee did not say a “potential conflict” is enough.