GA Case

[Anonymous]

The young DA would not have been my choice to make the closing argument he was definitely not ready for prime time. The fact that she signed the no gifts form and took so much as a meal gift from a contractor in her employ is an actual impropriety sufficient to have her kicked off the case.

Judge is in a tough spot but will do the correct thing and toss Willis and Wade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The hate for Black people in this thread is really telling.

If Willis and Wade were white they would have been tossed already with disbarment proceedings already underway. With fraud and tax charges pending once they were disbarred.

Let’s see if Willis and Wade are treated the same way.

I suspect the outcome for them will be far less harsh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Wow, this post certainly has me convinced now!

[Anonymous]

Trump talked about the GA case tonight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure the defense attorneys actually understand what a conflict of interest is.

A conflict is when a member of the prosecution has a family member in the defense. Or if there is a financial relationship between the two parties.

Having people on the same side with a financial relationship or personal relationship is not a conflict.

This whole sideshow is a sham.

I am also confused on this. I asked a question 20 pages ago and no one answered. I saw a news commentator who said to prevail on removing her, they need to prove (1) she benefitted financially (which is an issue of fact to decide on credibility of witnesses, which she probably yes, received some benefit; but also (2) that unfairly prejudices the defendant. Even if (1) is a slam dunk, what evidence has there been on (2)? Was the commentator wrong on the elements to be proven? Because it anything, it helps the defendant because it seems that Wade isn't as experienced as other attorneys she could have gotten.

Watch the video at 17:53.
He lays out the conflict of interests in this case. There are several. He lists 6.

And absolutely none of those meet the legal threshold for a case like this.

+1 sound and fury signifying nothing

In other words, prosecutors and attorneys are not expected to act ethically and morally.

No one proved that anyone didn’t act ethically or morally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure the defense attorneys actually understand what a conflict of interest is.

A conflict is when a member of the prosecution has a family member in the defense. Or if there is a financial relationship between the two parties.

Having people on the same side with a financial relationship or personal relationship is not a conflict.

This whole sideshow is a sham.

I am also confused on this. I asked a question 20 pages ago and no one answered. I saw a news commentator who said to prevail on removing her, they need to prove (1) she benefitted financially (which is an issue of fact to decide on credibility of witnesses, which she probably yes, received some benefit; but also (2) that unfairly prejudices the defendant. Even if (1) is a slam dunk, what evidence has there been on (2)? Was the commentator wrong on the elements to be proven? Because it anything, it helps the defendant because it seems that Wade isn't as experienced as other attorneys she could have gotten.

Watch the video at 17:53.
He lays out the conflict of interests in this case. There are several. He lists 6.

And absolutely none of those meet the legal threshold for a case like this.

+1 sound and fury signifying nothing

In other words, prosecutors and attorneys are not expected to act ethically and morally.

No one proved that anyone didn’t act ethically or morally.

LOL. Sure. Ha ha ha ha.
All DAs have affairs with people they supervise. And, that is just for starters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump talked about the GA case tonight

He should have been a comedian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The hate for Black people in this thread is really telling.

If Willis and Wade were white they would have been tossed already with disbarment proceedings already underway. With fraud and tax charges pending once they were disbarred.

Let’s see if Willis and Wade are treated the same way.

I suspect the outcome for them will be far less harsh.

Oh come on. That's a lie and everyone knows it. She's being treated MUCH more harshly than white MAGA lawyers. Rudy Giuliani ran around doing far worse for over two whole years before anyone started trying to do anything about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The young DA would not have been my choice to make the closing argument he was definitely not ready for prime time. The fact that she signed the no gifts form and took so much as a meal gift from a contractor in her employ is an actual impropriety sufficient to have her kicked off the case.

Judge is in a tough spot but will do the correct thing and toss Willis and Wade.

Wrong. Their relationship, or whatever it is, has absolutely nothing to do with Trump's case.
The correct thing to do would be to finish the Trump case. And THEN have a SEPARATE case to deal with Willis and Wade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Her father testified that he taught her not to be indebted to anyone and to pay back everyone in cash. He asserted that he taught her to keep a stash of cash at home. And there is the wine vendor from California who vouched for the fact that she paid for the $400 worth of wine that she bought in cash, so it appears she is in the habit of traveling with cash and paying for things with cash.

Having $400 cash on an out of state trip. Well, I'm convinced!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure the defense attorneys actually understand what a conflict of interest is.

A conflict is when a member of the prosecution has a family member in the defense. Or if there is a financial relationship between the two parties.

Having people on the same side with a financial relationship or personal relationship is not a conflict.

This whole sideshow is a sham.

I am also confused on this. I asked a question 20 pages ago and no one answered. I saw a news commentator who said to prevail on removing her, they need to prove (1) she benefitted financially (which is an issue of fact to decide on credibility of witnesses, which she probably yes, received some benefit; but also (2) that unfairly prejudices the defendant. Even if (1) is a slam dunk, what evidence has there been on (2)? Was the commentator wrong on the elements to be proven? Because it anything, it helps the defendant because it seems that Wade isn't as experienced as other attorneys she could have gotten.

Watch the video at 17:53.
He lays out the conflict of interests in this case. There are several. He lists 6.

And absolutely none of those meet the legal threshold for a case like this.

+1 sound and fury signifying nothing

In other words, prosecutors and attorneys are not expected to act ethically and morally.

No one proved that anyone didn’t act ethically or morally.

LOL. Sure. Ha ha ha ha.
All DAs have affairs with people they supervise. And, that is just for starters.

You say that and yet still no one has proved that anyone didn’t act ethically or morally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump talked about the GA case tonight

"He should have been a comedian."

You are correct. He certainly is a clown!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure the defense attorneys actually understand what a conflict of interest is.

A conflict is when a member of the prosecution has a family member in the defense. Or if there is a financial relationship between the two parties.

Having people on the same side with a financial relationship or personal relationship is not a conflict.

This whole sideshow is a sham.

I am also confused on this. I asked a question 20 pages ago and no one answered. I saw a news commentator who said to prevail on removing her, they need to prove (1) she benefitted financially (which is an issue of fact to decide on credibility of witnesses, which she probably yes, received some benefit; but also (2) that unfairly prejudices the defendant. Even if (1) is a slam dunk, what evidence has there been on (2)? Was the commentator wrong on the elements to be proven? Because it anything, it helps the defendant because it seems that Wade isn't as experienced as other attorneys she could have gotten.

Watch the video at 17:53.
He lays out the conflict of interests in this case. There are several. He lists 6.

And absolutely none of those meet the legal threshold for a case like this.

+1 sound and fury signifying nothing

In other words, prosecutors and attorneys are not expected to act ethically and morally.

No one proved that anyone didn’t act ethically or morally.

LOL. Sure. Ha ha ha ha.
All DAs have affairs with people they supervise. And, that is just for starters.

You say that and yet still no one has proved that anyone didn’t act ethically or morally.

Good grief.
They have admitted to an affair.

Do you think it is ethical or moral for a DA to have an affair with a married man she is supervising??????

[Anonymous]

Mr. Shafer would offer the testimony of attorney Cindi Lee Yeager, a Co- Chief Deputy District Attorney for the Cobb County, Georgia, District Attorney’s Office.
On Friday, March 1, 2024, Ms. Yeager spoke via telephone with undersigned counsel for Mr. Shafer and Mr. Christopher Anulewicz, counsel for Defendant Robert Cheeley. Following is a summary of the proposed testimony which was provided by Ms. Yeager to counsel for Mr. Shafer and Mr. Cheeley:
• From in or around August of 2023 through January of 2024, Ms. Yeager had numerous, in-person and other conversations with attorney Terence Bradley in which information relating to District Attorney Willis and Mr. Wade was discussed.
• In the course of Mr. Bradley’s and Ms. Yeager’s discussions, Mr. Bradley told Ms. Yeager the following:
District Attorney Willis and Mr. Wade met during the 2019 Municipal Court Continuing Legal Education Conference.
o Mr. Wade began his romantic relationship with District Attorney Willis at or around this time.
o Mr. Wade had definitively begun a romantic relationship with Ms. Willis during the time that Ms. Willis was running for District Attorney in 2019 through 2020.
o Mr. Bradley stated that he had personal knowledge of the relationship between Mr. Wade and District Attorney Willis, and included details regarding the use of Ms. Robin Yeartie’s apartment and other meetings prior to November 2021.
o Mr. Bradley stated that Mr. Wade personally prepared his own divorce complaint against his spouse, Mrs. Jocelyn Wade, and told Mr. Bradley to sign the divorce filings and to file them on Mr. Wade’s behalf. Based upon these statements, it is Ms. Yeager’s understanding that Mr. Bradley did not being representing Mr. Wade until November of 2021.
o In or around September of 2023, Mr. Bradley was visiting Ms. Yeager in her office when Mr. Bradly received a telephone call. Ms. Yeager could hear that the caller was District Attorney Willis. District Attorney Willis was calling Mr. Bradley in response to an article that was published about how much money Mr. Wade and his law partners had been paid in this case. Ms. Yeager heard District Attorney Willis tell Mr. Bradley: “They are coming after us. You don’t need to talk to them about anything about us.”
2
• Ms. Yeager watched Mr. Bradley’s testimony before the Court and became concerned as a result of the fact that what Mr. Bradley testified to on the witness stand was directly contrary to what Mr. Bradley had told Ms. Yeager in person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure the defense attorneys actually understand what a conflict of interest is.

A conflict is when a member of the prosecution has a family member in the defense. Or if there is a financial relationship between the two parties.

Having people on the same side with a financial relationship or personal relationship is not a conflict.

This whole sideshow is a sham.

I am also confused on this. I asked a question 20 pages ago and no one answered. I saw a news commentator who said to prevail on removing her, they need to prove (1) she benefitted financially (which is an issue of fact to decide on credibility of witnesses, which she probably yes, received some benefit; but also (2) that unfairly prejudices the defendant. Even if (1) is a slam dunk, what evidence has there been on (2)? Was the commentator wrong on the elements to be proven? Because it anything, it helps the defendant because it seems that Wade isn't as experienced as other attorneys she could have gotten.

Watch the video at 17:53.
He lays out the conflict of interests in this case. There are several. He lists 6.

And absolutely none of those meet the legal threshold for a case like this.

+1 sound and fury signifying nothing

In other words, prosecutors and attorneys are not expected to act ethically and morally.

No one proved that anyone didn’t act ethically or morally.

LOL. Sure. Ha ha ha ha.
All DAs have affairs with people they supervise. And, that is just for starters.

You say that and yet still no one has proved that anyone didn’t act ethically or morally.

Good grief.
They have admitted to an affair.

Do you think it is ethical or moral for a DA to have an affair with a married man she is supervising??????

He was separated and had been estranged for at least 5-6 years at that point. Who cares? Is it ethical for a married presidential candidate to have sex with a porn star when his wide was home with a newborn and then use campaign funds to illegally buy her silence before the election?

Why does Trump get a pass but the single black lady doesn't?