Pending indictment against Trump in Georgia

213,931 Views | 2428 Replies | Last: 5 days ago by TXAggie2011
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiejayrod • 3:06p, 2/17/24
AG
aggiejayrod said:
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
Cross' move seemed textbook.
Except for that whole majorly pissing off the judge, part.


Textbook…tanking the case of the boss who treats her employees like crap
I honetsly don't know if Cross was following instructions from Fani or not with that move against Bradley but will point out that she had two witnesses there and ready to go to testify about Bradley's alleged sexual assault. So some forethought had occurred.

But the judge was so non-plussed it took him a few minutes to compose himself and decide how to proceed. Cross managed to get one of her two witnesses on the stand but the judge cut it short when he realized what she was doing. Collateral attack on credibility using extrinsic evidence not pertaining to the case.

He shut her down hard at that point.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
AggieAL1
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiejayrod • 3:11p, 2/17/24
aggiejayrod said:

Textbook…tanking the case of the boss who treats her employees like crap (bf added)
That's one I don't follow.

How does Cross' move to discredit Bradley show Willis lied to the court about when she began sexual relations with Wade?
Reply Quote
aggiejayrod
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieAL1 • 3:23p, 2/17/24
AG
AggieAL1 said:
aggiejayrod said:

Textbook…tanking the case of the boss who treats her employees like crap (bf added)
That's one I don't follow.

How does Cross' move to discredit Bradley show Willis lied to the court about when she began sexual relations with Wade?

Because Bradley didn't spill the beans about knowing the relationship started earlier. Bradley claimed attorney-client privilege which protected the judge from hearing anything about what Bradley knew. Cross came out and proved he lied about attorney client privilege on one thing which now makes the judge think Bradley lied about every instance of asserting attorney client privilege. Now the judge doesn't trust Bradley's judgement about what is and isn't privileged and will hear it all. You can't unring that bell if the judge now hears that Wade knowingly lied on his divorce proceeding filings.

The door was nearly closed wrt any damage that Bradley could have caused and Cross kicked that door in with a nuclear missile.

Add to that, the judge was not impressed with their attempted character assassination. Cross could have handled that quietly if she really wanted to impeach Bradley's credibility. Cross instead wanted to hold a trial within a trial within a trial to show that Bradley sexually assaulted someone.
Reply Quote
5
aggiejayrod
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 3:26p, 2/17/24
AG
aggiehawg said:
aggiejayrod said:
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
Cross' move seemed textbook.
Except for that whole majorly pissing off the judge, part.


Textbook…tanking the case of the boss who treats her employees like crap
I honetsly don't know if Cross was following instructions from Fani or not with that move against Bradley but will point out that she had two witnesses there and ready to go to testify about Bradley's alleged sexual assault. So some forethought had occurred.

But the judge was so non-plussed it took him a few minutes to compose himself and decide how to proceed. Cross managed to get one of her two witnesses on the stand but the judge cut it short when he realized what she was doing. Collateral attack on credibility using extrinsic evidence not pertaining to the case.

He shut her down hard at that point.


I was impressed by defense counsel with that witness. They had no witness notice and therefore no research on him but decided to see if he ever saw the Fani and Wade show. As soon as counsel saw the witness had nothing he let him go. Good brief little fishing expedition.
Reply Quote
1
AggieAL1
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiejayrod • 3:33p, 2/17/24
Sorry I asked.
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiejayrod • 3:36p, 2/17/24
AG
Quote:
The door was nearly closed wrt any damage that Bradley could have caused and Cross kicked that door in with a nuclear missile.

Add to that, the judge was not impressed with their attempted character assassination. Cross could have handled that quietly if she really wanted to impeach Bradley's credibility. Cross instead wanted to hold a trial within a trial within a trial to show that Bradley sexually assaulted someone.
My take, as well. Bradley really hadn't hurt Cross' case with his tap dancing around under attorney client privilege.

But why was Bradley such a critical witness to Merchant? Because Fani waved Merchant's filings around wildly and repeatedly calling Merchant a liar. Cross did as well. But Bradley was in a position to know more details about Wade and Willis' personal relationship by virtue of being his law "partner", a bro friend and lastly as Wade's divorce lawyer for a period of time. Braley was also one of the sources for the allegations she put into her motions and supplementals for this hearing.

Repeatedly calling Merchant a liar was a bad idea.
Reply Quote
2
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:06p, 2/17/24
AG
I missed something yesterday morning.

Cross got up and informedd the court that had changed their mind and were not going to recall Yeartie and to release her. But when Merchant was asked, she also said she had changed her mind and wanted Yeartie to still be sbject to her subpoena. My thoughts being Merchant was suspecting a double cross by Cross, so to speak.

As in Cross wasn't going to call Yeartie but would collaterally attack her credibility through some other witness? Merchant forestalled that by holding Yeartie ovr.
Reply Quote
aggiejayrod
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 4:47p, 2/17/24
AG
aggiehawg said:
I missed something yesterday morning.

Cross got up and informedd the court that had changed their mind and were not going to recall Yeartie and to release her. But when Merchant was asked, she also said she had changed her mind and wanted Yeartie to still be sbject to her subpoena. My thoughts being Merchant was suspecting a double cross by Cross, so to speak.

As in Cross wasn't going to call Yeartie but would collaterally attack her credibility through some other witness? Merchant forestalled that by holding Yeartie ovr.


You heard the comment at the end of the day Thursday. The State was intentionally holding back their list of witnesses and the judge didn't feel like he could force them to play nice. They're definitely not playing a gentleman's game. I have no doubt that they wanted Yeartle to be released so the State could attack her and for Yeartle to not be able to respond.
Reply Quote
2
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiejayrod • 4:51p, 2/17/24
AG
Quote:
You heard the comment at the end of the day Thursday. The State was intentionally holding back their list of witnesses and the judge didn't feel like he could force them to play nice. They're definitely not playing a gentleman's game. I have no doubt that they wanted Yeartle to be released so the State could attack her and for Yeartle to not be able to respond.
Agree. Fani and Wade's legal team have not been behaving well during this hearing.
Reply Quote
2
MarkTwain
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 5:36p, 2/17/24
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
The door was nearly closed wrt any damage that Bradley could have caused and Cross kicked that door in with a nuclear missile.

Add to that, the judge was not impressed with their attempted character assassination. Cross could have handled that quietly if she really wanted to impeach Bradley's credibility. Cross instead wanted to hold a trial within a trial within a trial to show that Bradley sexually assaulted someone.
My take, as well. Bradley really hadn't hurt Cross' case with his tap dancing around under attorney client privilege.

But why was Bradley such a critical witness to Merchant? Because Fani waved Merchant's filings around wildly and repeatedly calling Merchant a liar. Cross did as well. But Bradley was in a position to know more details about Wade and Willis' personal relationship by virtue of being his law "partner", a bro friend and lastly as Wade's divorce lawyer for a period of time. Braley was also one of the sources for the allegations she put into her motions and supplementals for this hearing.

Repeatedly calling Merchant a liar was a bad idea.
If you remember a couple of days back when Merchant had Bradley on the stand the fist time, she kept asking him about what he had texted her, and she asked Bradley on the stand, "Did you not text me about Wade and Willis started seeing each other?....." And Cross was objecting over and over talking about privilege and suddenly Bradley clammed up and started claiming privilege as well. Merchant went as far as offering to put he whole phone in as evidence. Judge called a quick sidebar and then they got into an hour back and forth over privilege and dates of when privilege began, when he was officially retained for the divorce.

My theory is the texts that Bradley sent Merchant wikk nuke Wade and WIllis' lie. The fact that the State never went to impeach Yeartle in any way likely means Willis told Merchant to keep Yeartle off the stand as much as possible, because she probably knows enough on Willis to sink her completely. Yeartle seemed to be holding a little back when she was on the stand.
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
Reply Quote
2
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:37p, 2/17/24
AG
One other thing that is not sitting with me well. Why call a former Dem Governor to say Fani offered him a job as Special Prosecutor in October 2021? He declined. How many others did she contact before turning to Wade. And were they each people Fani expected to decline because it was such crap case?
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
MarkTwain
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 5:43p, 2/17/24
aggiehawg said:
One other thing that is not sitting with me well. Why call a former Dem Governor to say Fani offered him a job as Special Prosecutor in October 2021? He declined. How many others did she contact before turning to Wade. And were they each people Fani expected to decline because it was such crap case?
Yeah that seemed really really random to call the former Gov. He really added nothing to the case other than he made an appearance.
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
Reply Quote
2
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MarkTwain • 5:45p, 2/17/24
AG
You are confusing counsel's names.

Cross works for Fani and Wade. She's a prosecutor in Fulton County.

Ashleigh Merchant works for one of the Trump defendants last name Roman. (Ironically, a opposition research guy.)

I know within the context of this evidentiary hearing,roles got reversed, leading to confusion about who was on offense and who was defense. Had to keep reminding myself, as well. And when they took witnesses out of order and going back and forth between the movant (Merchant) and opponent to the motion (Fani Willis underling, Cross) it got even more confusing.
Reply Quote
1
MarkTwain
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 6:10p, 2/17/24
aggiehawg said:
You are confusing counsel's names.

Cross works for Fani and Wade. She's a prosecutor in Fulton County.

Ashleigh Merchant works for one of the Trump defendants last name Roman. (Ironically, a opposition research guy.)

I know within the context of this evidentiary hearing,roles got reversed, leading to confusion about who was on offense and who was defense. Had to keep reminding myself, as well. And when they took witnesses out of order and going back and forth between the movant (Merchant) and opponent to the motion (Fani Willis underling, Cross) it got even more confusing.
No I have them right, Merchant was the tall blonde and Cross was the shorter brunette in the Navy Dress suit with White trim.

This is the part I'm referring to

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:06p, 2/17/24
AG
Relistening again, picking up on more Fani gaffes.

She testified that she never considered Wade an employee but he was an "agent,"

Now, agency law does go back to common law and their authority to bind their principal.

Fani is claiming she's the principal and Wade was her agent. Interesting approach, had he been her security detail or travel agent that she was boffing.

Here? Ehh, not so much.
Reply Quote
3
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 1:02p, 2/18/24
AG
Im Gipper said:
Seems you've seen more of this carnival than anyone else here. Gut feeling on what happens?


You didn't ask me but I watched the whole thing.

At this point, you either believe Yeartie's testimony that the relationship started in 2019 or you don't.

And at this point you either believe Wade and Willis that Willis paid her own way or you don't.

That's basically the case. There's a lot of other irrelevant noise being thrown around on social media but that's whole the body of meaningful issues.

The defense, if I understand Georgia law right, has to prevail on both of those questions to have a shot.



It could change if the inquiry into the privilege issue on how Bradley learned whatever he learned. But considering he had legal counsel and a Georgia bar opinion on that issue, I'm currently skeptical that will be a fruitful expedition for the defense. But that's just based on the information we know.
Reply Quote
1 edit
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggies2009 • 4:56p, 2/18/24
AG
Aggies2009 said:
TXAggie2011 said:
Im Gipper said:
1872walker said:
State passes on questioning Willis
I bet they did!

Judge: Would the State like to get behind the wheel of this garbage barge trainwreck?

Lawyer: Nah, we good.


Folks were throwing this around yesterday evening.

And I get it. I'm not sure what they could add in cross. Fani answered when the relationship started, Fani answered about the trips and how they were paid, Fani explained the origin of having cash (which referenced her father who is testifying today so they may seek to corroborate that then.)

They didn't hit her with anything new evidence or any "gotchas" that need further explanation.

You either view her testimony as credible or you don't. This board won't. The Berkeley board will.

Pissing match.
You're acting like this board not viewing her testimony as credible is some biased take when it's the other way around.


You're in this thread posting about Peter Strzok and you're annoyed I'm suggesting people (on both sides) aren't coming to this case with fresh and objective eyes?
Reply Quote
1 edit
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 100% Pure Aggie • 5:02p, 2/18/24
AG
100% Pure Aggie said:
aggiehawg said:
100% Pure Aggie said:
aggiehawg said:
Im Gipper said:
1872walker said:
State passes on questioning Willis
I bet they did!

Judge: Would the State like to get behind the wheel of this garbage barge trainwreck?

Lawyer: Nah, we good.
If they cross, then Merchant et. al. get a redirect. Understandable from a strategic standpoint.

Also a sign they know they have pretty much lost.
Hawg, if the judge rules in favor of Willis, can that ruling be appealed?
Not sure, TBH. In a gray area with how this hearing came about to begin with. It is a combination of a motion to dismiss plus disqualification. So might be yes on one and no on the other. This record is a mess however and the judge is trier of fact and assesses the credibility of these witnesses. Not sure if an appeal would be worthwhile.
gotcha, thx.


This can be appealed immediately after his ruling but only if Judge McAfee allows it by "certifying" it for appeal. Certification is discretionary although there are general rules for when a judge can do so. Otherwise, it would be appealable post-trial.
Reply Quote
MarkTwain
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:34p, 2/19/24
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
Reply Quote
4
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:26p, 2/19/24
AG
What is even more interesting about this money laundering issue to me came from Fani's testimony.

She was hesitant to run in the primary against the decades long incumbent, Paul Howard. However she was convinced to do so by a former mentor (now convicted felon) that something really bad was about to drop on Howard's corruption that would kiil his candidacy.

Fani's other concern was about funding of her campaign she had run for a judgeship a few years before and had to partially self fund about 50,000 of her personal savings and lost the race. Being pitched with Soros backing and money? She would have been in the race immediately, I'd wager.
Reply Quote
3
MagnumLoad
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:07p, 2/19/24
I don't believe this judge will do squat. Maybe tell them to go and behave now. The evidence is overwhelming, and he has shown no inclination to kick these corrupt hacks off the case. Nothing ever happens to corrupt demos, which alone should galvanize the people, but about half the voters support corrupt demos. That is the real problem.
Reply Quote
8
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 7:00p, 2/19/24
Thanks for that lawyer non-answer answer! lol

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
PA24
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:57p, 2/19/24
AG
So…as the world turns, where are we at now on this case.
Reply Quote
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 8:37p, 2/19/24
AG
Im Gipper said:
Thanks for that lawyer non-answer answer! lol


Based on the evidentiary record right now, I predict they are not disqualified.

Better?
Reply Quote
1 edit
AggieAL1
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:08p, 2/19/24
It's unlikely that Judge McAfee will, or even can, grant the relief sought in Michael Roman's (and co-defendants') motions. In fact, in the evidentiary hearing they demanded they produced next to no evidence.

If all they have is what they put forth in last week's hearing, the court would be derelict in imposing sanction on Willis.

Petitioners apparently decided to lay their bets on the premise Willis lied to the court in her response. Lying to the court would of course render her unfit.

But Roman's attorney failed to establish a lie by Willis. And she's toying with self-impeachment in challenging the Wade/Bradley attorney/client privilege claim. In fact; Ashleigh Merchant primarily just established that the key allegations she made in Roman's reply brief were false.

If the defendants expect to prevail in this disqualification effort they are going to have to come up with something more ...
-- Checks, money orders, credit card receipts or other payment records that show Willis regularly used methods other than cash to meet debts.
-- A credible witness(es) that can detail when and where Willis-Wade liaisons occurred outside the admitted time frame.
-- A confession.
... Something
Reply Quote
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 9:13p, 2/19/24
AG
TXAggie2011 said:
Im Gipper said:
Thanks for that lawyer non-answer answer! lol


Based on the evidentiary record right now, I predict they are not disqualified.

Better?
Well I guess it's because you believe people have stashes of cash around the house that they just pay people back with in the 2020s and don't use Venmo.

Or because bull**** like that is just not easily disproved...

She also couldn't have gotten in a relationship with him at the time alleged because she had a boyfriend in Canada. You guys wouldn't know him...
Reply Quote
3
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 9:37p, 2/19/24
TXAggie2011 said:
Im Gipper said:
Thanks for that lawyer non-answer answer! lol


Based on the evidentiary record right now, I predict they are not disqualified.

Better?


Much! Thanks! Dont agree with you on much, but appreciate your well reasoned posts.

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
JFABNRGR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:52p, 2/19/24
AG
I think the window for new evidence is closed except for what was already submitted. Some of which had not yet been reviewed like the att & delta records.
Reply Quote
1
AggieAL1
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:03p, 2/19/24
I would agree, except I've found almost all windows can be reopened if the strength of the lifter is substantial enough.
Reply Quote
MarkTwain
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:15p, 2/19/24
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
Reply Quote
3
Tony Franklins Other Shoe
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MarkTwain • 10:25p, 2/19/24
AG
Foreverconservative said:


Just said in his opinion. Judge's ass and future is on the line with a very vengeful passel of people as we already see. I don't know if there is "enough" for the judge.

Person Not Capable of Pregnancy
Reply Quote
3
AggieAces06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:01a, 2/20/24
AG
Are we expecting any more testimony this week? Seems like things ended abruptly last week.
Reply Quote
aggiejayrod
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:07a, 2/20/24
AG
It really depends on the results of the judges meeting with Bradley. Judge wanted to hear arguments this Friday so I doubt he wants to hear any more testimony if he can help it.
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieAces06 • 8:34a, 2/20/24
AG
AggieAces06 said:
Are we expecting any more testimony this week? Seems like things ended abruptly last week.
Not in open court, as I understood what the judge said after the chaos bomb Willis' lawyer exploded in his courtroom late Friday.

There will a few meetings with the judge in camera (meaning his chambers but there are so many defendants and lawyers involved, he has to conduct these in camera reviews in the jury deliberation room to fit everybody.)

McAfee could go either way on this motion to disqualify but the one issue that Fani was unable to adequately explain was why she maxed out Wade's hourly rate at 250 per hour but only paid 150 per hour to the two other prosecutors she hired for this case. And one of those two lawyers has vast more experience in state RICO cases than Wade ever had.

But it doesn't end there. Wade and Willis met in late fall 2019. Willis wins the 2020 election. Wade is then on her transition team after the election and she takes office early January, 2021. Wade starts bring his two law "partners" no bid contracts for first appearances and then taint team work with the Fulton County DAs office. Under the arrangement Wade has with those two lawyers, Wade himself also gets a one-third cut of the fees payable under those contracts. So she was subsidizing his income well before she hired him as a Special Prosecutor and gave him a massive pay raise.

The judge's concern is not only if in fact Willis and Wade have conflict of interest and a fininacial interest in bringing and continuing this case, but the appearance of impropriety here.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 8:39a, 2/20/24
AG
He's got to disqualify/remove them, imho, and that means the Atlanta DA office.
Reply Quote
3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.