Pending indictment against Trump in Georgia

210,774 Views | 2423 Replies | Last: 14 days ago by aggiehawg
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PA24 said:

captkirk said:

aggiehawg said:



Well, isn't that just peachy?
He worked for her in the past, which is even more of a conflict
Georgia is as backwoods as it gets.
I watched the hearings. Everybody already knew each other. The Atlanta criminal bar is not that big.

When Fani called the former Dem Governor Barnes, he said hello to every one of the Trump defendant lawyers and commented of his past interractions with each of them, including ironically enough, getting prosecutors disqualified.
MarkTwain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well it looks like the in-camera hearing with the Judge and Bradley, has been set for Monday, Feb. 26 so this one is in a holding pattern
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Reminds me of a joke about a lawyer who borrowed something from his neighbor and returned it broken. The neighbor told him he needed to get it fixed, and the lawyer responded, "It's not broken. If it is broken, it was broken when you gave it to me. If it wasn't broken when you gave it to me, I didn't break it."
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Foreverconservative said:

Well it looks like the in-camera hearing with the Judge and Bradley, has been set for Monday, Feb. 26 so this one is in a holding pattern
Something is going on but not sure what it is. Gouveia has an upcoming stream that mentions Wade is fighting over Bradleys texts.

It hasn't started yet but here's a link to the rumble
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Must be talking about this.

Quote:

A special prosecutor in the Georgia election interference case involving former President Trump on Thursday objected to a judge's plan to question his former attorney behind closed doors about the timeline of his relationship with Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D).

Special prosecutor Nathan Wade said Thursday that his ex-attorney and former law partner, Terrence Bradley, should not be subject to a private questioning by Judge Scott McAfee which may "unlawfully compel" the lawyer to break attorney-client privilege.
Quote:

During the hearing, Bradley invoked attorney-client privilege and said he could not speak to Wade's relationship without putting his law license at risk. He said he began representing Wade in December 2018, ahead of the special prosecutor's divorce proceedings.

"Nothing under Georgia law authorizes the Court to conduct such an examination once the determination has been made that attorney-client privilege applies, and should the Court compel the disclosure anyway, it would vitiate one of the oldest and most fundamental privileges recognized both at common law and by statute," Wade's lawyers wrote in the Thursday court filing.
Quote:

Wade argued Thursday that lawyers for the defendants, including Trump, were given "broad leeway to pry into (his) private life" and used that time to introduce "intrusive and legally irrelevant personal details." And still, they provided no "credible evidence" he or Willis should be disqualified from the case, he said.
Quote:

For the judge to now question Bradley, despite the privilege invoked, would be "a step too far," Wade's lawyers said.

"The Court should not conduct the examination under any circumstance," the lawyers wrote, bolding and underlining the text.
LINK
MarkTwain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Those texts must be damning and will throw Fani and Willis to the wolves.
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Must be talking about this.

Quote:

A special prosecutor in the Georgia election interference case involving former President Trump on Thursday objected to a judge's plan to question his former attorney behind closed doors about the timeline of his relationship with Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D).

Special prosecutor Nathan Wade said Thursday that his ex-attorney and former law partner, Terrence Bradley, should not be subject to a private questioning by Judge Scott McAfee which may "unlawfully compel" the lawyer to break attorney-client privilege.
Quote:

During the hearing, Bradley invoked attorney-client privilege and said he could not speak to Wade's relationship without putting his law license at risk. He said he began representing Wade in December 2018, ahead of the special prosecutor's divorce proceedings.

"Nothing under Georgia law authorizes the Court to conduct such an examination once the determination has been made that attorney-client privilege applies, and should the Court compel the disclosure anyway, it would vitiate one of the oldest and most fundamental privileges recognized both at common law and by statute," Wade's lawyers wrote in the Thursday court filing.
Quote:

Wade argued Thursday that lawyers for the defendants, including Trump, were given "broad leeway to pry into (his) private life" and used that time to introduce "intrusive and legally irrelevant personal details." And still, they provided no "credible evidence" he or Willis should be disqualified from the case, he said.
Quote:

For the judge to now question Bradley, despite the privilege invoked, would be "a step too far," Wade's lawyers said.

"The Court should not conduct the examination under any circumstance," the lawyers wrote, bolding and underlining the text.
LINK
Oh...well, if it's bolded and UNDERLINED...it's an ironclad defense.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Foreverconservative said:

Those texts must be damning and will throw Fani and Willis to the wolves.
McAfee said last Friday that he would make the determination of what is covered by the privilege, plus whether privilege has been waived on particular subjecrs, or if an exception applies such as crime/fraud exception.

It is more of the latter that they are concerned about, I'd wager. Fighting so hard wouldn't make sense if Wade and Willis were telling the truth. And I suspect that goes back to the divorce filings, the answers to the interrogatories filed when Bradley was still Wade's lawyer.
JFABNRGR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I wonder if anything additional would come out in the phone records. I think this is one of the pieces of evidence judge agreed to allow further discussion about since documents were only received I believe day 1 of hearings.

I doubt text messages are available but multiple calls at 2AM or of significant frequency starting before appointment could be harmful to wade & willis.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JFABNRGR said:

I wonder if anything additional would come out in the phone records. I think this is one of the pieces of evidence judge agreed to allow further discussion about since documents were only received I believe day 1 of hearings.

I doubt text messages are available but multiple calls at 2AM or of significant frequency starting before appointment could be harmful to wade & willis.
I wonder if there are state law requiments for retention of records on state issued cell phones?

Gouveia is live now, BTW.
MarkTwain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Strange in the latest filing Wade is claiming privilege all the way back to 2015??? I could swear his attorney said he was retained in 2020 or 2021

Just like when Wade kept saying he was divorced in 2015 multiple times and when called out then changed his language to the marriage was unfixable but they stayed together until the kids graduated.
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Foreverconservative said:

Strange in the latest filing Wade is claiming privilege all the way back to 2015??? I could swear his attorney said he was retained in 2020 or 2021

Just like when Wade kept saying he was divorced in 2015 multiple times and when called out then changed his language to the marriage was unfixable but they stayed together until the kids graduated.
It took six years to actually file for divorce? They thing about the kids makes a little sense due topotential child support obligations and perhaps some spousal support. Guess Wade did the math on that and decided to wait?

IIRC, Bradley was unclear of the year and gave a range of 2015-2016 when he was retained.

But trying to tell the judge that he cannot hold an in camera review is not wise.
MarkTwain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

Foreverconservative said:

Strange in the latest filing Wade is claiming privilege all the way back to 2015??? I could swear his attorney said he was retained in 2020 or 2021

Just like when Wade kept saying he was divorced in 2015 multiple times and when called out then changed his language to the marriage was unfixable but they stayed together until the kids graduated.
It took six years to actually file for divorce? They thing about the kids makes a little sense due topotential child support obligations and perhaps some spousal support. Guess Wade did the math on that and decided to wait?

IIRC, Bradley was unclear of the year and gave a range of 2015-2016 when he was retained.

But trying to tell the judge that he cannot hold an in camera review is not wise.
That's ballsy as hell
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
JFABNRGR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
First in the hearing they throw Bradley under the bus and embarrass him after he protected them. Now they call him up and say stick with the attorney client privilege we have your back.

If I am him I am burning it all down.....If not my hope is Merchant has found more damning evidence that is still admissible.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JFABNRGR said:

First in the hearing they throw Bradley under the bus and embarrass him after he protected them. Now they call him up and say stick with the attorney client privilege we have your back.

If I am him I am burning it all down.....If not my hope is Merchant has found more damning evidence that is still admissible.
And all after Cross called Bradley a liar in open court.
AggieAL1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bradley has testified he has no personal or independent knowledge of the affair. What he knows he gleaned from conversations with Wade. Nor has anyone produced physical evidence to counter the Wade-Willis version of their union.

So at best, Bradley's testimony to the judge would serve an impeachment function (he said/he said) and Bradley faces several minuses. One, his recall has been spotty and two, a motive for retribution has been established.

Mainly though, petitioners have offered almost zero evidence of the alleged misdeed they said disqualifies Willis -- that she started and extended a spurious or frivolous prosecution as a cover to hire her lover and pad his pay in order to crib a few trips and meals on the taxpayers' dime.


aggiejayrod
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AggieAL1 said:

Bradley has testified he has no personal or independent knowledge of the affair. What he knows he gleaned from conversations with Wade. Nor has anyone produced physical evidence to counter the Wade-Willis version of their union.

So at best, Bradley's testimony to the judge would serve an impeachment function (he said/he said) and Bradley faces several minuses. One, his recall has been spotty and two, a motive for retribution has been established.

Mainly though, petitioners have offered almost zero evidence of the alleged misdeed they said disqualifies Willis -- that she started and extended a spurious or frivolous prosecution as a cover to hire her lover and pad his pay in order to crib a few trips and meals on the taxpayers' dime.





No. Bradley testified that any knowledge he had (one way or the other) would be covered by attorney client privilege. Then he testified that his leaving the firm was covered by attorney-client privilege. Then Cross blew that up when she attempted to show that Bradley left the firm because of a sexual assault claim against him.

You didn't get this before but maybe you'll get it now. Him lying about privilege means the judge doesn't believe his privilege claims
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiejayrod said:

AggieAL1 said:

Bradley has testified he has no personal or independent knowledge of the affair. What he knows he gleaned from conversations with Wade. Nor has anyone produced physical evidence to counter the Wade-Willis version of their union.

So at best, Bradley's testimony to the judge would serve an impeachment function (he said/he said) and Bradley faces several minuses. One, his recall has been spotty and two, a motive for retribution has been established.

Mainly though, petitioners have offered almost zero evidence of the alleged misdeed they said disqualifies Willis -- that she started and extended a spurious or frivolous prosecution as a cover to hire her lover and pad his pay in order to crib a few trips and meals on the taxpayers' dime.





No. Bradley testified that any knowledge he had (one way or the other) would be covered by attorney client privilege. Then he testified that his leaving the firm was covered by attorney-client privilege. Then Cross blew that up when she attempted to show that Bradley left the firm because of a sexual assault claim against him.

You didn't get this before but maybe you'll get it now. Him lying about privilege means the judge doesn't believe his privilege claims
That is a big issue. And one that Fani's team raised all on their own.
gtaggie_08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Shocker of all shockers, cell phone data shows Wade at Fani's apartment many times before November 2021. Data confirms what everyone knew, that they lied through their teeth during testimony.



https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-cellphone-data-raise-questions-about-start-of-willis-wade-relationship/SFVMYPTD2RD3HMZYOH3377CNNE/
MarkTwain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well well well I was wondering when someone would start addressing the cell phone data. Don't need a warrant for geo tracking simple subpoena will do and it is not privileged in anyway.




“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
From that article.

Quote:

Former DeKalb County District Attorney Robert James said the cellphone data raises questions.

"People could look at this and be suspicious," James said. "But in the court of law, you need proof. The real question is whether there was proof there was a romantic relationship and I don't think this proves there was. It just proves a relationship, which they've already acknowledged.
Laugh/cry.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


Stick a fork in Fani, she's done.
MarkTwain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

From that article.

Quote:

Former DeKalb County District Attorney Robert James said the cellphone data raises questions.

"People could look at this and be suspicious," James said. "But in the court of law, you need proof. The real question is whether there was proof there was a romantic relationship and I don't think this proves there was. It just proves a relationship, which they've already acknowledged.
Laugh/cry.
It proves they both lied on the stand under oath.

Fani was asked specifically did Wade ever spend the night, That late night booty call where he showed up at the condo 10;45 PM and left at 3:48 AM drove home and texted her at 4:30 AM is specific and there are evidently many others with the same scenario
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
gtaggie_08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Technically, that is not spending the "whole" night just most of it! /Team Fani

We will see how the judge takes being lied to by two officers of the court. It's an insult to everyone's intelligence to parse words and try to play technicalities like that
Tony Franklins Other Shoe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Y'all are crazy, there are plenty of job interviews that happen over 4 hours from 11 PM to 3 AM at the potential boss' abode. 2nd interviews, third interviews, fourth interviews...it's just thorough vetting of **credentials** and such.

Person Not Capable of Pregnancy
captkirk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

From that article.

Quote:

Former DeKalb County District Attorney Robert James said the cellphone data raises questions.

"People could look at this and be suspicious," James said. "But in the court of law, you need proof. The real question is whether there was proof there was a romantic relationship and I don't think this proves there was. It just proves a relationship, which they've already acknowledged.
Laugh/cry.
Just slumber parties, if you will
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

Y'all are crazy, there are plenty of job interviews that happen over 4 hours from 11 PM to 3 AM at the potential boss' abode. 2nd interviews, third interviews, fourth interviews...it's just thorough vetting of **credentials** and such.
You reminded me of this scene from a 90's movie.

Tony Franklins Other Shoe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
captkirk said:

aggiehawg said:

From that article.

Quote:

Former DeKalb County District Attorney Robert James said the cellphone data raises questions.

"People could look at this and be suspicious," James said. "But in the court of law, you need proof. The real question is whether there was proof there was a romantic relationship and I don't think this proves there was. It just proves a relationship, which they've already acknowledged.
Laugh/cry.
Just slumber parties, if you will


According to Wade, he really wasn't "married" at the time of said slumber.

Person Not Capable of Pregnancy
captkirk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Techno Fog
@Techno_Fog

Trump's attorneys have Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade's cell phone data -

At least 35 visits to Fani Willis's condo before the "relationship" started

2,000 calls and 12K texts between Wade/Willis in 2021.

Late night hook-ups after calls from Willis.

Bad news for Willis.
Oooopsie
MarkTwain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I wondered last week when the defense attorneys just let Wade and Willis continue to ramble on yes and no answers. They were both in effect digging their own graves. The more details they fed into the lie the deeper the whole got. Now the Trump team springs the trap with hard data that contradicts their sworn testimony. McAfee will be thrilled with this filing.

Hawg I have a question

Wade's attorney evidently shared privileged texts with Merchant, because they were going to view he phone in camera too right?

My question is if he shared privileged info with Merchant that breaks the privilege protection correct?
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Foreverconservative said:

I wondered last week when the defense attorneys just let Wade and Willis continue to ramble on yes and know answers. They were both in effect digging their own graves. The more details they fed into the lie the deeper the whole got. Now the Trump team springs the trap with hard data that contradicts their sworn testimony. McAfee will be thrilled with this filing.

Hawg I have a question

Wade's attorney evidently shared privileged texts with Merchant, because they were going to view he phone in camera too right?

My question is if he shared privileged info with Merchant that breaks the privilege protection correct?
The client, not the attorney has the privilege. Only the client can waive it. (absent some other exception, such as third parties are present or crime/fraud, of course.)

So no.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not to put too fine a point on this:

Quote:

What do the records show? Ahem:
Quote:

The affidavit says Willis and Wade called each other more than 2,000 times during the first 11 months of 2021 and exchanged just less than 12,000 text messages.
Two thousand calls? Over a period of 334 days, that averages out to six calls a day. Add to that an average of 36 texts a day, and you don't just have a relationship; you have an obsession. This more resembles a high-school crush than an adult romance, or perhaps more like ... a RICO conspiracy.
Via Hot Air
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If they lied to the court, you would think that would be a HUGE deal, right?

Someone in the highest level of prosecuting crimes and her lover lying to the court? If you get caught once, it has probably happened other times.
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
will25u said:

If they lied to the court, you would think that would be a HUGE deal, right?
In a sane world it would be.

She is black, female, a Democrat, and going after Trump.

Nothing will happen to her.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Are any of you believing that just because Willis is thrown off participating in the trial-

that the case against Trump is then closed?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.