McAfee will be drug well if he rules against Fani.barbacoa taco said:
this is a meaningless attempt to read the tea leaves
How do you like them tea leaves?
McAfee will be drug well if he rules against Fani.barbacoa taco said:
this is a meaningless attempt to read the tea leaves
Womp Womp.Reality Check said:
McAfee seems to be the kind of judge who is conscientious and unwilling to be swayed by political recourse.
*****
Fulton County Board of Ethics hearing involving two complaints against Fani kicks off at 9 o'clock (CST) tomorrow.
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/fulton-county-da-fani-willis-board-of-ethics-hearing-scheduled-for-march-7
The Fulton County Board of Ethics was set to hear two citizen complaints against DA Fani Willis today at 10am.
— Doug Reardon (@ReardonReports) March 7, 2024
When we showed up, we were told the complaints were abruptly removed from the agenda. Waiting on an announcement from the board on what exactly happened.
What they are really doing here is trying to give Fani's claim that she can hire and pay whomever she wants some credence - saying she is a "state constitutional officer" lifts the language RIGHT from their argument. https://t.co/t79nKEvRQu
— Tracy Beanz (@tracybeanz) March 7, 2024
I assume it had to be a state case because they don't want Trump to be able to pardon himself.aggiehawg said:Good question. Could this have been made into a federal case from the beginning with US Attorneys investigating certain aspects of it?richardag said:Is it possible she was the least corrupt of the choices?texagbeliever said:
I just want to know who was the genius in the whitehouse counsel who signed off on letting Fani Willis (and Wade) spearhead this investigation against Trump.
How hard is it to do a simple background check to realize there are some huge potential issues? Can you imagine the great publicity for Trump if he can go out there and say Fani Willis, the prosecutor against me was using funds to enrich herself and pay her boy toy. They got disbarred. That is game over level publicity.
The entire sham prosecution of Trump in Georgia, led by two corrupt DEI DAs who've done nothing but lie about their case, was instigated by an illegal recording. https://t.co/Ub794BUioh
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) March 7, 2024
More at the link.Quote:
Find Me the Votes: A Hard-Charging Georgia Prosecutor, a Rogue President, and the Plot to Steal an American Election is a fawning political biography of Willis. For context on the bias of the authors, Isikoff was an original Russia-collusion hoaxer, and his articles to that end were used to secure warrants for the FBI to spy on innocent Republican presidential campaign advisers such as Carter Page.
...
This is where the authors of the book admit that the very recording of the call was a crime:
Fuchs has never talked publicly about her taping of the phone call; she learned, after the fact, that Florida where she was at the time is one of fifteen states that requires two-party consent for the taping of phone calls. A lawyer for Raffensperger's office asked the January 6 committee not to call her as a witness for reasons the committee's lawyers assumed were due to her potential legal exposure. The committee agreed. But when she was called before a Fulton County special grand jury convened by Fani Willis, she was granted immunity and confirmed the taping, according to three sources with direct knowledge of her testimony.
Republicans had long suspected Fuchs was the source of the audiotaped call and, further, that she had illegally recorded it in Florida. Fuchs had noted in a Facebook post that she was in Florida visiting family around the time of the call. The book describes the close working relationship and "secret collaboration" of the Liz Cheney-led Jan. 6 committee and Fani Willis' prosecutorial team. Fuchs should have been a major part of the televised show trial Cheney put on, further convincing Republicans that Fuchs had illegally taped the call and Cheney was helping cover that up. (Incidentally, the book portrays Cheney as the real leader of the Jan. 6 committee, that she viewed it as a "platform for her to resuscitate her political career" and would "provide a springboard for a Cheney presidential run.")
Jeebus!Quote:
This is where the authors of the book admit that the very recording of the call was a crime:Quote:
Fuchs has never talked publicly about her taping of the phone call; she learned, after the fact, that Florida where she was at the time is one of fifteen states that requires two-party consent for the taping of phone calls. A lawyer for Raffensperger's office asked the January 6 committee not to call her as a witness for reasons the committee's lawyers assumed were due to her potential legal exposure. The committee agreed. But when she was called before a Fulton County special grand jury convened by Fani Willis, she was granted immunity and confirmed the taping, according to three sources with direct knowledge of her testimony.
If that witness is in a case under her jurisdiction, she can.fasthorse05 said:
I know Fani could grant immunity to a witness, but she can't grant immunity to a witness in another county, not to mention state, can she?
He had been a judge before in a lesser court, if I'm not mistaken. Hell, both Willis and Wade were municipal court judges (what we used to call kangaroo court).Foreverconservative said:
I didn't realize that McAfee was an unelected rookie judge that's only been on the bench a few months, but it explains how Fani's conduct in his courtroom was allowed to go on as much. An old seasoned judge would of slapped her with a contempt on her third or fourth warning.
Never a judge in the past, just Asst DA, GA Insp Gen, AUSA Northern Dist GA, and Public defender,aggiehawg said:He had been a judge before in a lesser court, if I'm not mistaken. Hell, both Willis and Wade were municipal court judges (what we used to call kangaroo court).Foreverconservative said:
I didn't realize that McAfee was an unelected rookie judge that's only been on the bench a few months, but it explains how Fani's conduct in his courtroom was allowed to go on as much. An old seasoned judge would of slapped her with a contempt on her third or fourth warning.
Appearance of impropriety much? Both Wade and Willis perjured themselves on the stand. That's also known as perpetrating a fraud in his court room. He can make a criminal referral to the AG's office on that alone plus file a complaint with the state bar against them.AggieAL1 said:
It's far short of a coin toss. Petitioners have presented no substantive evidence that the Wade-Willis connection has affected the prosecution of defendants.
If McAfee adheres to standard judicial practices, he will have to deny the motion.
AggieAL1 said:
It's far short of a coin toss. Petitioners have presented no substantive evidence that the Wade-Willis connection has affected the prosecution of defendants.
If McAfee adheres to standard judicial practices, he will have to deny the motion.
Best to ignore the troll. This is meant to derail.aggiejayrod said:AggieAL1 said:
It's far short of a coin toss. Petitioners have presented no substantive evidence that the Wade-Willis connection has affected the prosecution of defendants.
If McAfee adheres to standard judicial practices, he will have to deny the motion.
If you ignore all the evidence presented then yes they presented no evidence
How do you decide to prosecute something, bring your married lover on board to help you and pay him more than you are paying other lawyers working on the case, lie about it in sworn testimony in court, profit from a book deal about it, then go to a very public church ceremony and cry racism when your misdeeds become public, but all is above board?AggieAL1 said:
It's far short of a coin toss. Petitioners have presented no substantive evidence that the Wade-Willis connection has affected the prosecution of defendants.
If McAfee adheres to standard judicial practices, he will have to deny the motion.
Ahhahahahahahahaha.Reality Check said:
McAfee seems to be the kind of judge who is conscientious and unwilling to be swayed by political recourse.
*****
Fulton County Board of Ethics hearing involving two complaints against Fani kicks off at 9 o'clock (CST) tomorrow.
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/fulton-county-da-fani-willis-board-of-ethics-hearing-scheduled-for-march-7
Seriously. If this was say some construction job and the boss was banging the asphalt guy and there seemed to be some funky accounting, maybe hard evidence is needed. But these are "seasoned' lawyers who should rightfully know appearances of improprieties are equivalent to actually doing the deed. I worked as a consultant to federal employees, many dirty as can be and plenty that wouldn't even take a coffee mug from a company or accept donuts brought in to the office.He Who Shall Be Unnamed said:How do you decide to prosecute something, bring your married lover on board to help you and pay him more than you are paying other lawyers working on the case, lie about it in sworn testimony in court, profit from a book deal about it, then go to a very public church ceremony and cry racism when your misdeeds become public, but all is above board?AggieAL1 said:
It's far short of a coin toss. Petitioners have presented no substantive evidence that the Wade-Willis connection has affected the prosecution of defendants.
If McAfee adheres to standard judicial practices, he will have to deny the motion.
It is just bizarre to me that two people can watch/follow/read about the same proceedings and come to such different conclusions. Now I understand how MSNBC is a going concern. And, no, I don't watch Fox News and I don't love Donald Trump.
Fani Willis moved to reopen evidence n the matter of her disqualification. We agreed and offered new evidence of our own. Willis then reversed course and moved to shut down all new evidence. My lawyers filed this reply today.
— David Shafer (@DavidShafer) March 8, 2024
https://t.co/Yogv1bJbSe pic.twitter.com/hoLqY2OpIa
So let's back up a little. What does anyone think would happen if Fanni had gone before the Board and requested the eqivalent of 35,000 per month to hire her lover as Special Prosecutor when he had never tried a felony case? Think they would have signed off on that? Hell no they wouldn't have.Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:Seriously. If this was say some construction job and the boss was banging the asphalt guy and there seemed to be some funky accounting, maybe hard evidence is needed. But these are "seasoned' lawyers who should rightfully know appearances of improprieties are equivalent to actually doing the deed. I worked as a consultant to federal employees, many dirty as can be and plenty that wouldn't even take a coffee mug from a company or accept donuts brought in to the office.He Who Shall Be Unnamed said:How do you decide to prosecute something, bring your married lover on board to help you and pay him more than you are paying other lawyers working on the case, lie about it in sworn testimony in court, profit from a book deal about it, then go to a very public church ceremony and cry racism when your misdeeds become public, but all is above board?AggieAL1 said:
It's far short of a coin toss. Petitioners have presented no substantive evidence that the Wade-Willis connection has affected the prosecution of defendants.
If McAfee adheres to standard judicial practices, he will have to deny the motion.
It is just bizarre to me that two people can watch/follow/read about the same proceedings and come to such different conclusions. Now I understand how MSNBC is a going concern. And, no, I don't watch Fox News and I don't love Donald Trump.
Here we have 12000 texts and calls and Miss Money Bags tossing around cash like the Monopoly dude.
AggieAL1 said:
It's far short of a coin toss. Petitioners have presented no substantive evidence that the Wade-Willis connection has affected the prosecution of defendants.
If McAfee adheres to standard judicial practices, he will have to deny the motion.
Impropriety ,or its appearance, is not a question at this hearing. The question is a legal one of conflict of interest or its appearance. They are different.aggiehawg said:Appearance of impropriety much? Both Wade and Willis perjured themselves on the stand. That's also known as perpetrating a fraud in his court room. He can make a criminal referral to the AG's office on that alone plus file a complaint with the state bar against them.AggieAL1 said:
It's far short of a coin toss. Petitioners have presented no substantive evidence that the Wade-Willis connection has affected the prosecution of defendants.
If McAfee adheres to standard judicial practices, he will have to deny the motion.
By definition, a dishonest prosecutor endangers the due process rights of criminal defendants. See, e.g. Nifong, Mike.
well we found the fanni Willis/DNC paid operative on this site. Quite the, uh, talking points.AggieAL1 said:Impropriety ,or its appearance, is not a question at this hearing. The question is a legal one of conflict of interest or its appearance. They are different.aggiehawg said:Appearance of impropriety much? Both Wade and Willis perjured themselves on the stand. That's also known as perpetrating a fraud in his court room. He can make a criminal referral to the AG's office on that alone plus file a complaint with the state bar against them.AggieAL1 said:
It's far short of a coin toss. Petitioners have presented no substantive evidence that the Wade-Willis connection has affected the prosecution of defendants.
If McAfee adheres to standard judicial practices, he will have to deny the motion.
By definition, a dishonest prosecutor endangers the due process rights of criminal defendants. See, e.g. Nifong, Mike.
As a citizen you are free to call anyone a perjurer, but perjury is a term of law and cannot be decided in this setting. It would take another hearing in another setting (a criminal trial) to establish whether Wade and Willis perjured themselves.
McAfee can decide whether he believes their testimony and judge it accordingly, perhaps considering none of it. And he could refer their conduct to other authorities if warranted, although under the trappings surrounding this hearing that would be shocking.
I don't believe your case law meets this test, but in any regard there has been no finding that either of these prosecutors are dishonest.
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:well we found the fanni Willis/DNC paid operative on this site. Quite the, uh, talking points.AggieAL1 said:Impropriety ,or its appearance, is not a question at this hearing. The question is a legal one of conflict of interest or its appearance. They are different.aggiehawg said:Appearance of impropriety much? Both Wade and Willis perjured themselves on the stand. That's also known as perpetrating a fraud in his court room. He can make a criminal referral to the AG's office on that alone plus file a complaint with the state bar against them.AggieAL1 said:
It's far short of a coin toss. Petitioners have presented no substantive evidence that the Wade-Willis connection has affected the prosecution of defendants.
If McAfee adheres to standard judicial practices, he will have to deny the motion.
By definition, a dishonest prosecutor endangers the due process rights of criminal defendants. See, e.g. Nifong, Mike.
As a citizen you are free to call anyone a perjurer, but perjury is a term of law and cannot be decided in this setting. It would take another hearing in another setting (a criminal trial) to establish whether Wade and Willis perjured themselves.
McAfee can decide whether he believes their testimony and judge it accordingly, perhaps considering none of it. And he could refer their conduct to other authorities if warranted, although under the trappings surrounding this hearing that would be shocking.
I don't believe your case law meets this test, but in any regard there has been no finding that either of these prosecutors are dishonest.
Sorry. Doesn't qualify as evidence before this court.ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
Cute. What PAC is paying you?
Nor am I. But I seem to recall McAfee using both actual and appearance in stating the parameters of the case in one of the recent sessions. I'll try to look it up. But your point's well-taken.TXAggie2011 said:
I'm not a Georgia lawyer, never done any work in the state, so I'm just going off what I've read and seen from others.
It seems most Georgia lawyers/experts say the standard in the state is an actual conflict. And that an appearance doesn't do it.
Obviously we'll see what the judge thinks. But it also might not matter what he thinks is the right legal standard if he is going certify that question for an appeal by the losing party anyways.
AggieAL1 said:Impropriety ,or its appearance, is not a question at this hearing. The question is a legal one of conflict of interest or its appearance. They are different.aggiehawg said:Appearance of impropriety much? Both Wade and Willis perjured themselves on the stand. That's also known as perpetrating a fraud in his court room. He can make a criminal referral to the AG's office on that alone plus file a complaint with the state bar against them.AggieAL1 said:
It's far short of a coin toss. Petitioners have presented no substantive evidence that the Wade-Willis connection has affected the prosecution of defendants.
If McAfee adheres to standard judicial practices, he will have to deny the motion.
By definition, a dishonest prosecutor endangers the due process rights of criminal defendants. See, e.g. Nifong, Mike.
As a citizen you are free to call anyone a perjurer, but perjury is a term of law and cannot be decided in this setting. It would take another hearing in another setting (a criminal trial) to establish whether Wade and Willis perjured themselves.
McAfee can decide whether he believes their testimony and judge it accordingly, perhaps considering none of it. And he could refer their conduct to other authorities if warranted, although under the trappings surrounding this hearing that would be shocking.
I don't believe your case law meets this test, but in any regard there has been no finding that either of these prosecutors are dishonest.