aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

...and sanctioned by the courts ...

---

Hmm?

---

Can't tell if that's a comment or a question.

But don't think of it in terms of Russians. Think of it in terms of Webster.

Sanction: 1. the act of a recognized authority confirming or ratifying an action; authorized approval or permission.

My heavens, you lack reading comprehension and context.

If you had ever taken a philosophy course, you would have flunked hands down.

Philosophy is about debate. Law is about an adversarial system that requires debate. Socrates, Aristotle and Plato did not have juries to argue before and convince one way or another.


But Clarence Darrow did.

AggieAL1 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

AggieAL1 said:

---

Pretty sure Wade is not a law partner with Gabe Banks.

---

Pretty sure Wade doesn't know how to form a corporation beyond a PC., much less a law partnership via an LLP nor an LLC, nor just a general partnership. Only one effort was even made to file with the Sec of State but apply for an IRS EIN? Nope.

He cannot do that. Beyond his ability. He doesn't even know to ask "his accountant" who has to mind read which of his expense are personal and which are business related?

---

You may be right. I don't know anything about him. But that apparently isn't going to be a factor here. Despite all Merchant's claims of Wade's inexperience/incompetence, violations of state and county hiring regulations, misfeasance, malfeasance and whatever, they don't seem to fit this situation.

Apparently Georgia law gives district attorneys discretion in who they select as special prosecutors -- as long as they are in good standing and sanctioned by the courts -- and it is not unusual for prosecutors to pick people who they respect, trust and who show a grasp of the case and strategy.

---

And who they are banging?

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

AggieAL1 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

AggieAL1 said:

---

Pretty sure Wade is not a law partner with Gabe Banks.

---

Pretty sure Wade doesn't know how to form a corporation beyond a PC., much less a law partnership via an LLP nor an LLC, nor just a general partnership. Only one effort was even made to file with the Sec of State but apply for an IRS EIN? Nope.

He cannot do that. Beyond his ability. He doesn't even know to ask "his accountant" who has to mind read which of his expense are personal and which are business related?

---

You may be right. I don't know anything about him. But that apparently isn't going to be a factor here. Despite all Merchant's claims of Wade's inexperience/incompetence, violations of state and county hiring regulations, misfeasance, malfeasance and whatever, they don't seem to fit this situation.

Apparently Georgia law gives district attorneys discretion in who they select as special prosecutors -- as long as they are in good standing and sanctioned by the courts -- and it is not unusual for prosecutors to pick people who they respect, trust and who show a grasp of the case and strategy.

---

And who they are banging?

---

Who is willing to come to booty calls interviews at 11:45 pm.

aggiehawg said:

---

AggieAL1 said:

---

Pretty sure Wade is not a law partner with Gabe Banks.

---

Pretty sure Wade doesn't know how to form a corporation beyond a PC., much less a law partnership via an LLP nor an LLC, nor just a general partnership. Only one effort was even made to file with the Sec of State but apply for an IRS EIN? Nope.

He cannot do that. Beyond his ability. He doesn't even know to ask "his accountant" who has to mind read which of his expense are personal and which are business related?

---

He sure is smart with the ladies, though

Burdizzo said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

AggieAL1 said:

---

Pretty sure Wade is not a law partner with Gabe Banks.

---

Pretty sure Wade doesn't know how to form a corporation beyond a PC., much less a law partnership via an LLP nor an LLC, nor just a general partnership. Only one effort was even made to file with the Sec of State but apply for an IRS EIN? Nope.

He cannot do that. Beyond his ability. He doesn't even know to ask "his accountant" who has to mind read which of his expense are personal and which are business related?

---

He sure is smart with the ladies, though

---

smart enough to get with one who is dumb enough to wear a dress backwards in court with the entire country watching.

lex veritatem requirit said:

---

I am amazed at the goaltending that occurs on this thread and others by "legal" folks regarding what "facts" fit here.

What is clear to even the most cynical that there is some nefarious dealings and activities between Willis and Wade that certainly give the appearance of a conflict and potential misuse of funds in connection with an unprecedented case to try and jail a political opponent on the weakest of RICO allegations with the sole purpose of intimidating one political party and influencing an election.

When I chose to begin participating in this discussion forum, I chose my username very carefully. The LAW requires the TRUTH. Your legal oaths require honesty and integrity. Instead, there are posts after posts attempting to persuade that the defense counsels simply didn't meet their imaginary requirements that a conflict did NOT exist and that this case was pursued impartially and is based on the facts, truths and and the law.

Be warned, folks having law degrees are often incredibly ignorant of the law and what it means to be a judge, a lawyer, a prosecutor and most certainly have no idea of what of "jury of peers" is intended to mean.

Thus concludes this public service announcement.

---

"It's not what you know, It's what you can prove" as cliche as it sounds, it's a fact.

Laws are purposely written, by lawyers to keep lawyers in work forever. Law is subjective and up for interpretation by design. That's the very reason innocent people have been executed and guilty people have walked free. For the most part the system works as long as people do their jobs with a sense of ethics and follows the rules of Juris Prudence, and that right their is where the train leaves the track. Lynch Mobs and Hanging Judges of the 19th century were not good, now days it's rampant corruption that's infected the system as well as partisan politics and they both go hand in hand.

So here we are today. I personally have had the rare opportunity to see how the sausage is made first hand and it's not pretty. I followed a good friend with good intentions out here and even he is second guessing his decision to leave his cushy position in Ft Bend County he could have well retired comfortably from to try and make a difference and it's nothing you can prepare for until you jump in head first and find out just how bad it is.

Foreverconservative said:

---

"It's not what you know, It's what you can prove" as cliche as it sounds, it's a fact.

Laws are purposely written, by lawyers to keep lawyers in work forever. Law is subjective and up for interpretation by design. That's the very reason innocent people have been executed and guilty people have walked free. For the most part the system works as long as people do their jobs with a sense of ethics and follows the rules of Juris Prudence, and that right their is where the train leaves the track. Lynch Mobs and Hanging Judges of the 19th century were not good, now days it's rampant corruption that's infected the system as well as partisan politics and they both go hand in hand.

So here we are today. I personally have had the rare opportunity to see how the sausage is made first hand and it's not pretty. I followed a good friend with good intentions out here and even he is second guessing his decision to leave his cushy position in Ft Bend County he could have well retired comfortably from to try and make a difference and it's nothing you can prepare for until you jump in head first and find out just how bad it is.

---

Not disagreeing with you at all. In fact, it is the point I am making. Laws are written by men, sometimes they are lawyers and often times they are not. They are interpreted by lawyers including the legal scholars such as James, Bragg, Wade, Willis and Bradley.

The system has often not worked and in recent years has become completely *******ized to let free criminals, open the borders, and persecute political opponents. That is not justice in any since of the word.

"It's not what you know, it's what you can prove" is a cliche and it is not a fact. It flies directly in the face of the law requiring the truth. If law and justice ignores the truth, then the system is corrupt and has failed. That is my point.

I appreciate your opinion completely, I use to actually be a believer, until I got inside the fishbowl.

Here's something to ponder over and I find it kinda curious. In the 118th Congress 30% of House Members, and 51% of Senators, have law degrees and have actually practiced law. Three hundred fifty-two House Members (80% of the House) and 82 Senators (82% of the Senate) have law degrees. My point being there are a lot of lawyers in the legislative branch that are nothing but academics and have no actual hands on application of the law. Laws use to be written to protect the public, those days have long since past. Laws are written now based solely on "what's in it for me" being the bottom line. I sit in the shadows and listen to these idiots argue over the most petty crap and waste more time than should be legal. Staffers do most of the work and the actual elected officials these days are carnival barkers and media personalities, with designs on aspirations of becoming a "cult of personality". It's a scary transition to watch. There are a few that come to the swamp to make a difference, but they rarely last. The career guys protect their membership like their daughter's virginity. Outsiders with grand illusions of righting the ship are shown the door. I've learned one thing about attorneys there are good ones and there are bad ones, and then there are effective ones, that distinction can apply to both.

Yea, the pervasiveness of lawyers in Congress and politics in general is a detriment and even though there have always been lawyers in the government since day 1, elected representatives were intended to be a cross-section of backgrounds, experiences, professions, etc in order to have a government and laws / regulations that reflect the positions of all Americans. We have deviated from that in exponentially spectacular fashion.

Term limits would help resolve but that is a separate discussion from this thread. There are other factors including being a lawyer (or hedge fund guy, doctor, etc) gives one the purse and the the career freedom to be a politician.

Back to this thread. Minting of lawyers over the past few decades along with huge DEI measures and Soros funding have left us with a wreck of a judicial system which has been on full display in McAffee's court the past couple of weeks.

AggieAL1 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

AggieAL1 said:

---

Pretty sure Wade is not a law partner with Gabe Banks.

---

Pretty sure Wade doesn't know how to form a corporation beyond a PC., much less a law partnership via an LLP nor an LLC, nor just a general partnership. Only one effort was even made to file with the Sec of State but apply for an IRS EIN? Nope.

He cannot do that. Beyond his ability. He doesn't even know to ask "his accountant" who has to mind read which of his expense are personal and which are business related?

---

You may be right. I don't know anything about him. But that apparently isn't going to be a factor here. Despite all Merchant's claims of Wade's inexperience/incompetence, violations of state and county hiring regulations, misfeasance, malfeasance and whatever, they don't seem to fit this situation.

Apparently Georgia law gives district attorneys discretion in who they select as special prosecutors -- as long as they are in good standing and sanctioned by the courts -- and it is not unusual for prosecutors to pick people who they respect, trust and who show a grasp of the case and strategy.

---

Wade's business agreements with his law partners are irrelevant. They got into that only insofar as trying to discuss whether Wade's income increased after his hiring. It's a math problem and they wanted to know about revenue sharing.

Part of the State's argument is even if they had a relationship, if his income didn't really change then there isn't an actual conflict created as to this specific indictment. It's in the legal weeds.


Re: Wade's qualifications, oath or no oath, the judge has said over and over he's not really getting into it. Merchant tried to get into it again two weeks ago and the Judge reminded her quickly he'd already told her not to.

AggieHawg could have saved everyone time and just said "you're right, that tweet I posted was wrong" rather than play the deflection dance again.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

AggieHawg could have saved everyone time and just said "you're right, that tweet I posted was wrong" rather than play the deflection dance again.

---

What?

---

It seems like an unnecessary attack on your post and I would simply not engage. I followed the clear relevance and position of your post. Others seem to disagree in order to support their position on the issue at hand.

To each its own though.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

TXaggie2011 is always worth reading. Posts are good quality. Whether I agree with them is a moving target. That poster is a DC area rank-and-file liberal attorney. Their posts have their finger on the pulse of the rather cloistered legal hivemind in operation inside of the beltway. There is certainly some condescension/inclination to dismiss the rest of us as rubes from the hinterlands. But I suggest you take a deep breath, ignore it, and enjoy the free peek under the hood of the mind of the typical DC leftist attorney.

---

I will admit that their takes on this thread and others encouraged me to switch from an observer to poster, but I do respect their position if I absolutely think it is biased as you indicate.

My legal takes will likely be viewed as biased as well though my intent is to vehemently pursue and present the truth on certain topics that I choose to engage in. This, the classified docs, and other nonsensical lawfare against anyone but the right in particular need to be called out and ended.

Appreciate the "counsel" and advice though I really want to steer clear of engaging a particular poster based on any sort of "personal" differences.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

AggieHawg could have saved everyone time and just said "you're right, that tweet I posted was wrong" rather than play the deflection dance again.

---

What?

---

You posted Scott Perry's tweet claiming Bradley testified he felt threatened (he did not) and that Gabe Banks was Wade's law partner. Gabe Banks has nothing to do with Wade's business relationship. The 3 who had a business relationship are named Wade, Campbell, and Bradley. Wade and Campbell are still working together. (https://wadeandcampbell.com/)

Gabe Banks is a long time US Attorney who runs his own firm. (https://www.banksweaver.com/)

Since you just told that poster "My heavens, you lack reading comprehension and context", I thought I'd point out you're not doing too hot yourself. Or are just deflecting.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Pretty sure Wade is not a law partner with Gabe Banks.

---

Pretty sure Wade doesn't know how to form a corporation beyond a PC., much less a law partnership via an LLP nor an LLC, nor just a general partnership. Only one effort was even made to file with the Sec of State but apply for an IRS EIN? Nope.

He cannot do that. Beyond his ability. He doesn't even know to ask "his accountant" who has to mind read which of his expense are personal and which are business related?

---

Mark Meadows petition to the 11th Circuit to rehear his claim for federal removal from Fulton County Superior Court on Georgia RICO charges is DENIED. No regularly active judge on the court requested the full court be polled on the matter.

— Anthony Michael Kreis (@AnthonyMKreis) February 28, 2024

https://www.fultoncountyga.gov/inside-fulton-county/fulton-county-departments/district-attorney/da-executive-team/operations-division/kyra-d-banks

Gabe Bank's wife does work directly with Fani Willis though. Just putting that out there if we want to get the full recording of the situation.

So is the judge going to remove these two corrupt "prosecutors " or not?
Edited to add: based on how long this has dragged on, I say he won't and never would.

What's the deal with Fanni now?

Too busy with other important matters to keep up with this crazy lady trying to get piped and prosecute Trump at the same time.

It's wild that after all this Trump may get a windfall because of this lady's insatiable craving for ****.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

What's the deal with Fanni now?

Too busy with other important matters to keep up with this crazy lady trying to get piped and prosecute Trump at the same time.

It's wild that after all this Trump may get a windfall because of this lady's insatiable craving for ****.

---

Judge has set aside Friday for a "final" hearing for the parties to present summations (arguments) on the outstanding motion(s). BUT he advised that counsel could make proffers (offers of additional evidence) that if he approved, would require the reopening of the evidentiary hearing. (I'll speculate very slim chance of that happening.)

So after whatever happens Friday, it is up to the judge to make a ruling and write a decision, however long that takes. A week? Two weeks? To me, the longer it takes for McAfee to issue an opinion, the more likely he is to disqualify one or both. A quick decision means they skate. Again, my spidey senses.

Is it true this judge is only 35 years old and only been on the bench since 2023?

He got a tiger by the tail with all this mess.

Meanwhile at the 11th Circuit...

Quote:

---

A federal appeals court refused Wednesday to reconsider former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows' request to move his Georgia racketeering charges to federal court, where he has argued the charges should be dismissed.

Meadows, one of former President Donald Trump's 14 remaining co-defendants in the case, had argued that he should be shielded from state charges because his actions that resulted in charges were part of his federal job.

But a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected his request.

Meadows then asked the full 11th Circuit to consider his request and he was unanimously rejected.

The decision leaves Meadows the choice of appealing to the Supreme Court. As part of the appeal, Meadows hired Paul Clement, a former solicitor general noted for arguing before the high court.

Neither the Fulton County District Attorney's Office, which is prosecuting the case, nor Meadows' lawyer immediately responded to a request for comment.

---

Quote:

---

Meadows is charged with racketeering and with soliciting Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to violate his oath of office during a call on Jan. 2, 2021, when Trump asked him to "find" enough votes to overtake President Joe Biden's winning margin.

The indictment describes Meadows attending a White House meeting with Trump and Michigan lawmakers, sending messages to Pennsylvania lawmakers, requesting a memo regarding "disrupting and delaying the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, 2021," visiting a nonpublic audit of Georgia voting and arranging the Raffensperger call.

Meadows testified at his hearing in U.S. District Court that arranging calls and setting up meetings for the president were part of his job. But prosecutors and judges noted Meadows offered no limits to what the job entailed.

The 11th Circuit panel ruled that former federal officials aren't protected from state level charges. Chief Judge William Pryor wrote in his decision for Judges Robin Rosenbaum and Nancy Abudu that even if the law applied to Meadows, "the events giving rise to this criminal action were not related to Meadows's official duties."

---

LINK

No removal. It is now Fani or go bust. Maybe another Georgia prosecutor would take this case but maybe not.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Is it true this judge is only 35 years old and only been on the bench since 2023?

He got a tiger by the tail with all this mess.

---

Not sure about his age but he is a newbie judge who was appointed to fill a vacancy and he is running to retain his seat on the bench in this year's election. So there is a political aspect here for him as well.

Reminds me of the final scene of The Candidate with Robert Redford.

"What do we do now?"

Quote:

---

No removal. It is now Fani or go bust. Maybe another Georgia prosecutor would take this case but maybe not.

---

Removal is unrelated to the current issue. As covered early in the thread, Fani and the Fulton County DA would handle the case in federal court for Meadows (or whoever else got their's removed.)

And if Fulton County were disqualified it would go through the same reassignment process.

What can the GA Senate do with the subpoenaed texts?

Barnyard96 said:

---

What can the GA Senate do with the subpoenaed texts?

---

A lot. There is a new law that can boot her no matter what the Judge does or dos not do.

She is running for reelection this year. State Senate committee. They can mess her up no matter the results of the election in Novenember.

This hearing is like the Never Ending ****ing Story. Hopefully the Judge puts the kibosh on it tomorrow and can get to making a decision one way or the other.

As Judge McAfee mulls whether to disqualify Fani Willis, prosecutors move to file an affidavit of Stanley Brody, a California winery employee.

Brody says he recalls Willis paying more than $400 in cash for a wine tasting in Napa Valley last year.https://t.co/5HF6BlQ06b pic.twitter.com/GNUJsLGIWB

— Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) February 29, 2024

Who cares if she paid cash once while traveling to Napa Valley?

The defense obviously doesn't want evidence about significant cash transactions when half their case is to have the Judge disbelieve Willis carried around lots of cash.

But its time for Judge McAfee to tell everyone to "Further Saith Naught" and make a decision.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

The defense obviously doesn't want evidence about significant cash transactions when half their case is to have the Judge disbelieve Willis carried around lots of cash.

But its time for Judge McAfee to tell everyone to "Further Saith Naught" and make a decision.

---

I don't think it would be wise for Fani and Wade's team to want to reopen the evidentiary portion of this hearing, either. She keeps trying to shoot herself in the foot and could make herself and Wade subject to recall.

I'm sorry but I just don't understand WTH is her logic and strategy on this.

It would appear the Georgia Senate is stepping in and all of the text communications between Merchant and Bradley are about to come into full view:
GA State Senate Subpoenas Texts
Obviously, the judge knows this is going to happen. IF he decides not to disqualify Wade (at least), how could he save the least bit of face with such a decision?
Also, how do Willis and Wade not get some type of reprimand from the state Bar? Or am I asking too much from the Justice system?

Kool said:

---

It would appear the Georgia Senate is stepping in and all of the text communications between Merchant and Bradley are about to come into full view:
GA State Senate Subpoenas Texts
Obviously, the judge knows this is going to happen. IF he decides not to disqualify Wade (at least), how could he save the least bit of face with such a decision?
Also, how do Willis and Wade not get some type of reprimand from the state Bar? Or am I asking too much from the Justice system?

---

He has an election to face in May.