Kemp is dirty, he allowed countless, unmonitored drop boxes all over Fulton county during the 2020 election. In comparison, Abbott allowed 3 for the entire county of Harris.aggiehawg said:In Wade's case, multiple times due to his divorce filings.will25u said:
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.
And don't forget, from the moment Willis took office in January 2021, she was funneling money to Wade through no bid contracts with his "partners" of which he got a one third cut.
This should be career ending for Willis, and that's assuming she is not disbarred, her political career is shot.
Governor Kemp has been giving her cover up until now.
Pending indictment against Trump in Georgia
213,674 Views |
2428 Replies |
Last: 5 days ago by TXAggie2011
Not a fan of Kemp at all. He and Raffensperger totally covered up what happened in 2020 and still do today.
aggiehawg said:
LOL.Fani Willis gets desperate.
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) February 24, 2024
Willis responds to the affair cell data by claiming her calendars/emails prove she wasn't with Wade.
There's a big problem.
The hook-ups took place on Sept 11-12 and Nov 30 of 2021.
The calendars/emails aren't for those dates. (See examples.)
🤦♂️ pic.twitter.com/3r9ksE60BI
She's an idiot savant…except she's not a savant
aggiehawg said:NEW: We have uncovered a record of Fani Willis visiting the White House on 2/28/23 https://t.co/fehRkPoAQJ pic.twitter.com/x3JGCqcN9x
— Mike Howell (@MHowellTweets) January 9, 2024
I am almost positive she was asked on the stand did you visit the white house and she stated NO!
Agree, She said first that she had never been to the WH. Then she kind of altered to she and Wade had never been in DC at the same time.Quote:
I am almost positive she was asked on the stand did you visit the white house and she stated NO!
Thanks for doing this thread @Techno_Fog - I've had the document for a few hours now, and frankly it was so bad and uninteresting I just didn't feel like making a thread
— Phil Holloway ✈️ (@PhilHollowayEsq) February 24, 2024
It's preposterous for #FaniWillis to suggest that defense attorneys can't legally get cell data via subpoena
Tony Franklins Other Shoe
Joined:
May 6, 2014
Posts:
31,092
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is some very stupid and corrupt people doubling and tripling down on stupid. Can we finally get some karma to watch their careers burn down?
Person Not Capable of Pregnancy
Person Not Capable of Pregnancy
If that is in anyway true, you have made Cross' point -- Bradley is a liar and any testimony he gives now must be viewed accordingly.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
Or more likely, he's conflicted and trying to play both sides. That's why he is clearly lying about stuff. He's been backed into an impossible corner with no easy way out.
He sent Merchant info (the truth) about Wade and Willis' relationship timeline but is now being threatened by them to claim "attorney-client privilege" even though he knows it's BS. He knows they have the goods to burn him down and is trying to play fair with both sides.
But more than likely, he has just enough dirt on both of them to crash them down (relationship timeline/contracts even before Trump prosecution/"cash" repayment of trips). He just needs to be pushed enough to say "eff it" and burn the whole house down
He sent Merchant info (the truth) about Wade and Willis' relationship timeline but is now being threatened by them to claim "attorney-client privilege" even though he knows it's BS. He knows they have the goods to burn him down and is trying to play fair with both sides.
But more than likely, he has just enough dirt on both of them to crash them down (relationship timeline/contracts even before Trump prosecution/"cash" repayment of trips). He just needs to be pushed enough to say "eff it" and burn the whole house down
A Daubert hearing is usually pretrial but also can happen during a trial if one party has an objection to a proposed expert's testimony. Procedurally, this is a pretrial motion to disqualify Wade and Willis. Judge set aside for two days for an evidentiary hearing. This issue was raised about a month ago but the defendants counsel did not get the records subpoenaed until the day the hearing began. That data needed to be further analyzed. Thus that "expert" was not prepared to testify during those two days and the court was advised of that fact, a few times actually.
Cross may have somethingabout reserving some objections to that evidence but given the absolute chaos that was the end of the hearing on Friday before last, I could be mistaken about that reservation of objections.
In any event, the judge did say he could reopen evidence if the situation warranted. And then the Willis and Wade team can request their Daubert proceeding.
And this idea that a judge, making admissibility and credibility decisions without even being allowed to see the evidence in dispute before ruling is just hogwash.
Cross may have somethingabout reserving some objections to that evidence but given the absolute chaos that was the end of the hearing on Friday before last, I could be mistaken about that reservation of objections.
In any event, the judge did say he could reopen evidence if the situation warranted. And then the Willis and Wade team can request their Daubert proceeding.
And this idea that a judge, making admissibility and credibility decisions without even being allowed to see the evidence in dispute before ruling is just hogwash.
Nevermind! I misread that! I thought Willis & Wade were trying to be experts! lol.
I'm Gipper
I'm Gipper
They are so far in a hole now, wouldn't be surprised if they tried that next. Unhinged.Im Gipper said:
Nevermind! I misread that! I thought Willis & Wade were trying to be experts! lol.
NOTHING they do should be a surprise to anyone at this point!
Who is the expert that needed more time?
I'm Gipper
Who is the expert that needed more time?
I'm Gipper
Cell phone towers pinging guy. 25 years as a private detective for criminal defense counsel. He did not get the "files" (in various forms mostly digital) until day one of the evidentiary hearing. The subpoena for that cell phone data was limited to Wade's phone and the months from January 2021 and November 30, 2021.Im Gipper said:
NOTHING they do should be a surprise to anyone at this point!
Who is the expert that needed more time?
Then he needed to geofence her place and his place. And match those up.
Thanks!
I'm Gipper
I'm Gipper
aggiehawg said:Cell phone towers pinging guy. 25 years as a private detective for criminal defense counsel. He did not get the "files" (in various forms mostly digital) until day one of the evidentiary hearing. The subpoena for that cell phone data was limited to Wade's phone and the months from January 2021 and November 30, 2021.Im Gipper said:
NOTHING they do should be a surprise to anyone at this point!
Who is the expert that needed more time?
Then he needed to geofence her place and his place. And match those up.
I would like to go back snd watch that very short discussion regarding the cell data. I think we'll find she was giddy knowing already they had found good evidence just in volume, dates, and timing of the calls between fani & wade.
Im Gipper said:
Nevermind! I misread that! I thought Willis & Wade were trying to be experts! lol.
They are experts at love and embezzlement
Megyn Kelly had a conversation with Phil Holloway, an attorney from Atlanta in a YT video talking about this new bit of news and he said that the cell phone guy was probably better at finding stuff like this than even detectives. He seemed to think that if this guy had gone through and analyzed this info that it would basically be a nail in the coffin of Wade and Willis
Not surprised at that. The last couple of years I have watched live streams of a couple of murder cases wherein cell phone data is crucial to putting the defendant at the scene at which time. It is either an outside expert or a state Crime Lab or even FBI folks that do that analysis and testimony. Very rarely would it be the local PD.gtaggie_08 said:
Megyn Kelly had a conversation with Phil Holloway, an attorney from Atlanta in a YT video talking about this new bit of news and he said that the cell phone guy was probably better at finding stuff like this than even detectives. He seemed to think that if this guy had gone through and analyzed this info that it would basically be a nail in the coffin of Wade and Willis
aggiehawg said:Not surprised at that. The last couple of years I have watched live streams of a couple of murder cases wherein cell phone data is crucial to putting the defendant at the scene at which time. It is either an outside expert or a state Crime Lab or even FBI folks that do that analysis and testimony. Very rarely would it be the local PD.gtaggie_08 said:
Megyn Kelly had a conversation with Phil Holloway, an attorney from Atlanta in a YT video talking about this new bit of news and he said that the cell phone guy was probably better at finding stuff like this than even detectives. He seemed to think that if this guy had gone through and analyzed this info that it would basically be a nail in the coffin of Wade and Willis
This is the exact reason why I leave my cell at home when I go to murder people.
Will need a rental car too, unless your vehicle doesn't gave GPS tracking.aggiejayrod said:aggiehawg said:Not surprised at that. The last couple of years I have watched live streams of a couple of murder cases wherein cell phone data is crucial to putting the defendant at the scene at which time. It is either an outside expert or a state Crime Lab or even FBI folks that do that analysis and testimony. Very rarely would it be the local PD.gtaggie_08 said:
Megyn Kelly had a conversation with Phil Holloway, an attorney from Atlanta in a YT video talking about this new bit of news and he said that the cell phone guy was probably better at finding stuff like this than even detectives. He seemed to think that if this guy had gone through and analyzed this info that it would basically be a nail in the coffin of Wade and Willis
This is the exact reason why I leave my cell at home when I go to murder people.
Tracking the vehicle's GPS and trying to match it with cell phone data was a subject in the Alex Murdaugh trial when those records didn't really match the cell phone data where it needed to match. Of course, that GPS data from the hi Suburban was not turned over until late in the trial due to an error in the crime lab's (called SLED in South Carolina) original subpoena.
For instance, Murdaugh's phone and his Suburban (vehicle running at the main house) was a half mile away when his wife's phone was tossed into the side of the road outside the Moselle property. The cell phone data went granular, down to seconds, that the timeline for him to be murderer was very slim given the distances involved. Not that the jury cared.
fredfredunderscorefred
Joined:
Sep 14, 2003
Posts:
3,510
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:Not surprised at that. The last couple of years I have watched live streams of a couple of murder cases wherein cell phone data is crucial to putting the defendant at the scene at which time. It is either an outside expert or a state Crime Lab or even FBI folks that do that analysis and testimony. Very rarely would it be the local PD.gtaggie_08 said:
Megyn Kelly had a conversation with Phil Holloway, an attorney from Atlanta in a YT video talking about this new bit of news and he said that the cell phone guy was probably better at finding stuff like this than even detectives. He seemed to think that if this guy had gone through and analyzed this info that it would basically be a nail in the coffin of Wade and Willis
And I bet the GEORGIA DAs office has used less credible cel phone data to support a criminal claim while here they will say it "proves nothing."
Edit: which could actually become interesting depending how far they go claiming how unreliable it is etc. I have little doubt they would be willing to blow up the entire use of cell phone data in order to "get Trump".
Georgia has a state crime lab with Georgia Bureau of Investigations, the GBI.fredfredunderscorefred said:aggiehawg said:Not surprised at that. The last couple of years I have watched live streams of a couple of murder cases wherein cell phone data is crucial to putting the defendant at the scene at which time. It is either an outside expert or a state Crime Lab or even FBI folks that do that analysis and testimony. Very rarely would it be the local PD.gtaggie_08 said:
Megyn Kelly had a conversation with Phil Holloway, an attorney from Atlanta in a YT video talking about this new bit of news and he said that the cell phone guy was probably better at finding stuff like this than even detectives. He seemed to think that if this guy had gone through and analyzed this info that it would basically be a nail in the coffin of Wade and Willis
And I bet the GEORGIA DAs office has used less credible cel phone data to support a criminal claim while here they will say it "proves nothing."
Edit: which could actually become interesting depending how far they go claiming how unreliable it is etc. I have little doubt they would be willing to blow up the entire use of cell phone data in order to "get Trump".
But they either suck very badly at their jobs or are politically controlled judging from the lack of effort in the election fraud investigations.
Turley's take:
Quote:
The allegations could not be more serious. Wade and Willis are prosecuting defendants for filing false papers and making false statements to courts. They are now accused of the same conduct, including allegedly lying under oath.
It is important to emphasize that these records have not been fully vetted in court. Cellphone records can be highly interpretive and imprecise on locational tracking. Willis did file a response this week. In addition to objecting that the records "are not properly in evidence" and have not been authenticated, she stated in part:If established, this would make this controversy far more serious than disqualification from this case. It could raise concerns over potential criminal conduct. It could also push the court to refer both attorneys to the bar.Quote:
"The records do not prove, in any way, the content of the communications between Special Prosecutor Wade and District Attorney Willis; they do not prove that Special Prosecutor Wade was ever at any particular location or address; they do not prove that Special Prosecutor Wade and District Attorney Willis were ever in the same place during any of the times listed in Supplemental Exhibit 38."
Whatever the merits on the relationship, the conduct of Wade and Willis after the allegations are as troubling for many of us. They have put their own interests ahead of those of the case and their office. The first reaction of Willis was to go to a church and paint all of these questions as racist.
LINKQuote:
In the prior hearings, Willis was applauded on many news sites as she defiantly yelled at opposing counsel "You're confused. You think I'm on trial. These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020. I'm not on trial, no matter how hard you put me on trial."
Unless Wade and Willis can rebut this evidence as false or immaterial, they indeed could very well find themselves on trial.
Wade and Willis are toast.
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
As they say, the best defense is a good offense. That's what she did here - went on offense to attack everyone remotely accusing her of impropriety...aggiehawg said:
Turley's take:Quote:
The allegations could not be more serious. Wade and Willis are prosecuting defendants for filing false papers and making false statements to courts. They are now accused of the same conduct, including allegedly lying under oath.
It is important to emphasize that these records have not been fully vetted in court. Cellphone records can be highly interpretive and imprecise on locational tracking. Willis did file a response this week. In addition to objecting that the records "are not properly in evidence" and have not been authenticated, she stated in part:If established, this would make this controversy far more serious than disqualification from this case. It could raise concerns over potential criminal conduct. It could also push the court to refer both attorneys to the bar.Quote:
"The records do not prove, in any way, the content of the communications between Special Prosecutor Wade and District Attorney Willis; they do not prove that Special Prosecutor Wade was ever at any particular location or address; they do not prove that Special Prosecutor Wade and District Attorney Willis were ever in the same place during any of the times listed in Supplemental Exhibit 38."
Whatever the merits on the relationship, the conduct of Wade and Willis after the allegations are as troubling for many of us. They have put their own interests ahead of those of the case and their office. The first reaction of Willis was to go to a church and paint all of these questions as racist.LINKQuote:
In the prior hearings, Willis was applauded on many news sites as she defiantly yelled at opposing counsel "You're confused. You think I'm on trial. These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020. I'm not on trial, no matter how hard you put me on trial."
Unless Wade and Willis can rebut this evidence as false or immaterial, they indeed could very well find themselves on trial.
Spectacular mistake for her to do so. Backfiring in a huge way. Had shejust disclosed the relationship to the authorities, say in 2022 even if they were lying back then, this would be old news and few people would have dug further. It is the cover-up that makes it more suspicious.Quote:
As they say, the best defense is a good offense. That's what she did here - went on offense to attack everyone remotely accusing her of impropriety...
As Howard Baker said, "It is almost always the cover-up rather than the event that causes trouble.".aggiehawg said:Spectacular mistake for her to do so. Backfiring in a huge way. Had shejust disclosed the relationship to the authorities, say in 2022 even if they were lying back then, this would be old news and few people would have dug further. It is the cover-up that makes it more suspicious.Quote:
As they say, the best defense is a good offense. That's what she did here - went on offense to attack everyone remotely accusing her of impropriety...
Nixon and Clinton are 2 huge examples...
But yea...going on the offense and attacking the JUDGE??? That lady has HUGE balls. But, a tiny brain.
I tend to believe she's just let her power position go to her head. McAfee used to be her subordinate and I think she still views him that way, my evidence being the way she talked to him and even yelled at him in his own court, where he is no longer her subordinate. That's not balls that's straight narcissistic ego, combined with a tiny brain.Ag with kids said:As Howard Baker said, "It is almost always the cover-up rather than the event that causes trouble.".aggiehawg said:Spectacular mistake for her to do so. Backfiring in a huge way. Had shejust disclosed the relationship to the authorities, say in 2022 even if they were lying back then, this would be old news and few people would have dug further. It is the cover-up that makes it more suspicious.Quote:
As they say, the best defense is a good offense. That's what she did here - went on offense to attack everyone remotely accusing her of impropriety...
Nixon and Clinton are 2 huge examples...
But yea...going on the offense and attacking the JUDGE??? That lady has HUGE balls. But, a tiny brain.
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
And a very friendly judge at thatQuote:
But yea...going on the offense and attacking the JUDGE??? That lady has HUGE balls. But, a tiny brain.
Thats 6 calls a day and 36 texts a day all prior to appointment.
From the article if they weren't in a relationship their phones certainly were….lol.
I still haven't had a chance to go back and watch the cell evidence discussion but I also recall states attorneys didn't object to judge admitting cell data as evidence and opportunity for Merchant to come back with questions once they had time to review. Given the take down of Bradley, part of me wonders if states attorneys are pulling a lincoln lawyer on their clients.
From the article if they weren't in a relationship their phones certainly were….lol.
I still haven't had a chance to go back and watch the cell evidence discussion but I also recall states attorneys didn't object to judge admitting cell data as evidence and opportunity for Merchant to come back with questions once they had time to review. Given the take down of Bradley, part of me wonders if states attorneys are pulling a lincoln lawyer on their clients.
Don't ask me what the state's strategy is here as much of what I am seeing and reading it is shooting themselves in the foot.JFABNRGR said:
Thats 6 calls a day and 36 texts a day all prior to appointment.
From the article if they weren't in a relationship their phones certainly were….lol.
I still haven't had a chance to go back and watch the cell evidence discussion but I also recall states attorneys didn't object to judge admitting cell data as evidence and opportunity for Merchant to come back with questions once they had time to review. Given the take down of Bradley, part of me wonders if states attorneys are pulling a lincoln lawyer on their clients.
It is not that unusual when you come across a more bombastic attorney making filings that are over the top within the civil setting. Rarer in a criminal setting. Even rarer for the state to be so far back on their heels to lash back extremely emotionally instead of directly addressing the questions presented.
Remember they fought those subpoenas tooth and nails. But Wade was always likely to be called for some limited form of testimony. Fani was a longer shot of the defense counsel getting her on the stand. In fact, Cross was still arguing against her testifying at all when Fani barged into the room and demanded to be heard with no restrictions. Emotionally driven boneheaded move. At firstI thought Fani's quavering voice was fear but I soon came to view it as a seething rage. She was trying to hold herself back from a full blown tantrum and physical cat fight between her and Merchant.
Piece of advice for Merchant going forward: use the ladies room on dfferent floors when at that courthouse (where Fani's office is also located) to avoid a bathroom brawl in the future because Fani is only going to get angrier and angrier.
Hawg, could it be that the state attorney's have seen the writing on the wall and know that Willis and Wade have dug a deep hole and knowingly lied under oath, that the state attorneys are playing CYA now since the scene where Cross blew up Wade's attorney in open court. That was amazing to witness, that out of the blue Cross just demolished Terrence Bradley in open court under cross examination after the defense attorney Merchant had Bradley crawifish on her about the texts and privilege. Cross just threw a flash bang in the room and let the chips fall where they may.aggiehawg said:Don't ask me what the state's strategy is here as much of what I am seeing and reading it is shooting themselves in the foot.JFABNRGR said:
Thats 6 calls a day and 36 texts a day all prior to appointment.
From the article if they weren't in a relationship their phones certainly were….lol.
I still haven't had a chance to go back and watch the cell evidence discussion but I also recall states attorneys didn't object to judge admitting cell data as evidence and opportunity for Merchant to come back with questions once they had time to review. Given the take down of Bradley, part of me wonders if states attorneys are pulling a lincoln lawyer on their clients.
It is not that unusual when you come across a more bombastic attorney making filings that are over the top within the civil setting. Rarer in a criminal setting. Even rarer for the state to be so far back on their heels to lash back extremely emotionally instead of directly addressing the questions presented.
Remember they fought those subpoenas tooth and nails. But Wade was always likely to be called for some limited form of testimony. Fani was a longer shot of the defense counsel getting her on the stand. In fact, Cross was still arguing against her testifying at all when Fani barged into the room and demanded to be heard with no restrictions. Emotionally driven boneheaded move. At firstI thought Fani's quavering voice was fear but I soon came to view it as a seething rage. She was trying to hold herself back from a full blown tantrum and physical cat fight between her and Merchant.
Piece of advice for Merchant going forward: use the ladies room on dfferent floors when at that courthouse (where Fani's office is also located) to avoid a bathroom brawl in the future because Fani is only going to get angrier and angrier.
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
Cross is in a very difficult position between an OOC client who is also her boss. Fani is quite simply out of control.
Was probably Fani's idea for Cross to go after Bradley that way. But who knows?
Was probably Fani's idea for Cross to go after Bradley that way. But who knows?
That's bizarre stategy because that opened up two things, questions about privilege which are numerous and caused a week delay allowing this geo fencing expert to complete his work before the in camera stuff is even looked at. And in the hearing about the in camera stuff, they just went all in telling a sitting judge what he's allowed to see, in an in camera session that is designed specifically to allow him to see evidence outside the presence of opposing counsel. I mean the audacity of the stance they took in their arguments against the in camera viewing was insane. They just guaranteed that McAfee will take a look and now with this geo fencing data in play McAfee knows they lied to the court n the stand repeatedly. There's no coming back from that.aggiehawg said:
Cross is in a very difficult position between an OOC client who is also her boss. Fani is quite simply out of control.
Was probably Fani's idea for Cross to go after Bradley that way. But who knows?
Fani's "How dare you question my authority" attitude is the pinnacle of hubristic behavior
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
Featured Stories
See All
51:38
13m ago
430
Learned, Loved, Loathed: Auburn 43, Texas A&M 41 (4OT)
by Olin Buchanan
12 Key Statistics: Auburn 43, Texas A&M 41 (4OT)
by Luke Evangelist
TexAgs' TXHSFB Recap: Reviewing our coverage from the area round
by TexAgs Recruiting
9:45
1h ago
1.0k
Defensive back BJ Mayes motivated even more by painful loss
by Ali Russell