aggiehawg said:...The state told the court that it had no further questions for Willis, which is why she will not testify today. It is a smart move to minimize any damage. There remains Wade's former lawyer who was cited in the original motion as having knowledge of a pre-2022 relationship.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 16, 2024
maybe even an Arby's.Daveintx said:
Judge has to rule in her favor or else another Wendy's gets burned.... hell, they might even burn two
Kamala Harris Moves To Second Place In ‘Worst Diversity Hire Of All Time’ https://t.co/XIVPbyHqRB pic.twitter.com/MFXZjAjvXs
— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) February 16, 2024
aggiehawg said:
I am at the point where Bradley is testifying about when he left the arrangement with Wade and that there was a disagreement between them. Bradley says it, the disagreement, is privileged as it related to Wade's divorce case.
Summer of 2022 is when he left. So what was going on in the divorce case in that timeframe? The contempt finding? That's a WAG BTW.
They are on a break for me right now.JFABNRGR said:aggiehawg said:
I am at the point where Bradley is testifying about when he left the arrangement with Wade and that there was a disagreement between them. Bradley says it, the disagreement, is privileged as it related to Wade's divorce case.
Summer of 2022 is when he left. So what was going on in the divorce case in that timeframe? The contempt finding? That's a WAG BTW.
Just wait for the knife in the back by state. Crazy
This is all very confusing.Foreverconservative said:
Did Merchant just scuttle the state's case?
Cross (Navy Suit white trim) is the ADA and lead counsel and the lawyers to her left are the state, they work for Willis' office.Ag with kids said:This is all very confusing.Foreverconservative said:
Did Merchant just scuttle the state's case?
Who is the "the state" is this scenario?
Willis - the DA, or someone else?
Roger.aezmvp said:
The DAs office which is representing her in her professional capacity.
I'm not watching. What happened?1872walker said:
Did Cross just go full Leroy Jenkins on her own case?
As I heard it, Bradley previously said his reasons for leaving the firm were covered by attorney-client privilege. Prosecutor Cross brought out that it was an allegation of sexual assault by Bradley and the judge said that had zero to do with any privilege. Cross said "he lied"
— Phil Holloway ✈️ (@PhilHollowayEsq) February 16, 2024
Now Ms. Cross wants to call Anna Rodriguez, a former client of the Wade law firm who she says would testify that she was sexually assaulted by Bradley...
— Phil Holloway ✈️ (@PhilHollowayEsq) February 16, 2024
It's hard to keep up with this. I'm glad it's about over pic.twitter.com/C1wenDp2Kx
She burned Bradley to the ground, that's for sure. He had been tap dancing all day to protect Wade and Willis and they just decimated him. No honor among thieves, I guess.1872walker said:
Did Cross just go full Leroy Jenkins on her own case?
Piercing the attorney client privilege might be important to us but since the judge will see all of it anyway, whether he formally orders the piercing of privilege is kind of irrelevant.1872walker said:
Thanks. Perhaps in order to discredit him should attorney client privilege be pierced and Bradley reveals he knew about the affair prior to the date other witnesses testified to?
One thing's for sure…nothing about this circus is about justice.
Bradley, when he was calling and texting with defense counsel Ashleigh Merchant, (said texts the judge will see in camera) claimed the relationship started before 2022. But today Bradley testified otherwise, or indicated otherwise, to bolster Wade and Willis. He was actually a pretty good witness for Wade and Willis.1872walker said:
Yeah. I guess I didn't phrase that properly.
Considering the judge would be privy to all details (and Willis & Wade not coming off as truthful), was this a Hail Mary to create doubt in the judge's mind that Bradley's information about the affair may not be as believable?
If that was their reasoning, it was dumb. And there will be some major blowback from that, I suspect. I guess once the judge ruled he would view the Bradley to Merchant texts and emails in camera, nothing to lose by burying a very cooperative witness for Wade and Willis in as spectacular a manner as possible.1872walker said:
Right. Is that not why Cross burned him? To cast doubt in the judge's mind about his truthfulness when considering Bradley's text conversation with Merchant? An attempt to spoil the entire thing?
I don't know. Judge appeared to be pretty fair and evenhanded in prior hearings for such a newbie judge.Im Gipper said:
Seems you've seen more of this carnival than anyone else here. Gut feeling on what happens?
Mark Levin noted yesterday how pathetic it is that the parties involved in this case were extremely cautious with all issues relating to attorney-client privilege with Willis and Wade, while the federal judge in Trump's case nullified his A-C privilege altogether.aggiehawg said:She burned Bradley to the ground, that's for sure. He had been tap dancing all day to protect Wade and Willis and they just decimated him. No honor among thieves, I guess.1872walker said:
Did Cross just go full Leroy Jenkins on her own case?
But I also think Cross might have have screwed herself and Willis in the process because now the judge has reservations about Bradley's assertion of what is or is not covered by attorney client privilege. Bradley testified that his "disagreement" with Wade that lead to him leaving the firm was privileged as a part of the divorce case. It was not, it was about an accusation of sexual assault of an employee at the firm.
They burned him to the ground, perjury, maybe?
He's trying to get the case thrown out because it's a completely bogus pile of ***** Lawfare and nothing more.RogerFurlong said:
After listening to these idiots testimonies is it best for Trump to keep them on the trial? I mean there's no way these clowns can put together a good case. I get he's trying to delay it but man this was a wild 2 days.
