Waiting for court to convene



Judge's feed HERE

Judge's

Merchant had pressed hard in the last episode to get Bradley to confirm information he had texted her. Cross objected and Bradley claimed privilege.

Now that McAfee has explained what privilege is to Bradley, I would expect Merchant to be able to start with reading her texts that she exchanged with Bradley. Clearly he was feeding her information because he was pissed at Wade running him out of the firm for sexual misconduct while Wade himself was sexually misconducting.

Given that the texts are essentially irrefutable, it's going to be hard for him to fall back on "I don't recall."

Another quick point as I go grab the popcorn and head up to the media room to watch the livestream from the ATL. The usual TDS crowd is trying to claim this doesn't matter -- that it has nothing to do with Trump's guilt or innocence.

Imagine this conversation happening:

Fani: I want you to be the lead prosecutor in the Trump RICO case.
Fani's Boo: But wasn't he using his First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances?
Fani: You can bill the county $600,000 before trial, another $500 g during the trial and keep Trump from campaigning for eight weeks. And on top of that, someone from the White House will do all of the work.
Fani's Boo: Sign me up, Lover!

Obviously that's oversimplifying, but when the prosecution has more motivation to convict the man (group) than pursue the fair application of the law, there's something very, very wrong. Now that the details of their relationship are public -- and what's worse that they're lying in filings and in testimony -- the whole thing reeks of the worst kind of corruption.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Wade and Willis can certainly testify about where they were on a particular day or what they were talking about, etc. The State has already said they have calendars, etc. showing the Willis wasn't where the defense says the cell data says she was.

---

Except those calendar dates did not match the dates in question.

---

We don't know what matches and doesn't at this point. Trump's lawyers filed a bunch of phone records and reports that aren't publicly available, as far I know, as they were uploaded to the cloud in the service email.

The public affidavit involves a couple of September and November dates, but I don't believe we know the other 30someodd dates referenced in Trump's exhibit and the state's response.

Most of the emails in the state's exhibit C were also redacted so we don't know what they say, either. Some of the emails aren't dated September 11, 2021 (one of the dates in the public affidavit) but they reference in their title an event I believe was held that same weekend.

Quote:

---

President Trump hereby files this proposed Supplemental Defense Exhibit 38 to the hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Disqualify. Proposed Supplemental Defense Exhibit 38 consists of an affidavit from defense investigator Charles Mittelstadt certifying the CellHawk analysis and reports which are attached to the affidavit as Exhibits A-C. The CellHawk analysis and reports as well as the certified AT&T records have been provided electronically via a cloud folder link contained in the courtesy service email. Mr. Mittelstadt, the author of Exhibit 38, is available to testify at the Court's convenience. Respectfully submitted, Steven H. Sadow STEVEN H. SADOW Georgia Bar No. 622075 Lead Counsel for Defendant

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Just-Security-Georgia-Trump-Clearinghouse-%E2%80%94-Trump-supplemental-defense-exhibit-38-affidavit-from-a-private-investigator-who-analyzed-Nathan-Wades-cell-phone-location-data-Feb.-23-2024.pdf

---

Here we go

Reality Check said:

---

Merchant had pressed hard in the last episode to get Bradley to confirm information he had texted her. Cross objected and Bradley claimed privilege.

Now that McAfee has explained what privilege is to Bradley, I would expect Merchant to be able to start with reading her texts that she exchanged with Bradley. Clearly he was feeding her information because he was pissed at Wade running him out of the firm for sexual misconduct while Wade himself was sexually misconducting.

Given that the texts are essentially irrefutable, it's going to be hard for him to fall back on "I don't recall."

Another quick point as I go grab the popcorn and head up to the media room to watch the livestream from the ATL. The usual TDS crowd is trying to claim this doesn't matter -- that it has nothing to do with Trump's guilt or innocence.

Imagine this conversation happening:

Fani: I want you to be the lead prosecutor in the Trump RICO case.
Fani's Boo: But wasn't he using his First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances?
Fani: You can bill the county $600,000 before trial, another $500 g during the trial and keep Trump from campaigning for eight weeks. And on top of that, someone from the White House will do all of the work.
Fani's Boo: Sign me up, Lover!

Obviously that's oversimplifying, but when the prosecution has more motivation to convict the man (group) than pursue the fair application of the law, there's something very, very wrong. Now that the details of their relationship are public -- and what's worse that they're lying in filings and in testimony -- the whole thing reeks of the worst kind of corruption.

---

The cases against Trump, including this one, require supposed legally trained, non-partisan folk to completely set aside precedent and laws to bake the most disgusting fruitcake concoction of charges in order to "Get Trump".

To you point, none of the cases including this one deal with an actual crime taking place so Trump's guilt or innocence is just a matter of legally uneducated "feelings".

Watching these "lawyers" end their careers over this is beautiful to watch. Same will go for Bragg and James and ultimately for Weiss, Smith, Garland and others.

The damage the Dems have done to this Country, the legal system and the reputation of lawyers may exceed the ability to put things back together.

My popcorn ready as well!

Robert goes into and reads some of the actual discussion on cell data that I was trying to go back and review. This was posted 4 hours ago and I am about 5 min in on 1.25 speed.

Anna Cross was fired!!!!

Bradley says he doesn't know when their relationship started. And says he did not tell Merchant when it started.

Bradley still evading.

I'm sure both Wade and Fani have put "under the rule" since the trial began. This means they are barred from communicating about the case or their testimony once this trial began. In view of events over the last couple days, there is probably a great desire for the two to communicate about the case which they have been told not to do. They will probably each be asked under oath if they have communicated. If they lie that is a criminal offense, perjury. It they admit discussing the case they are in contempt of court and could be sentenced for civil contempt for as much as 6 months each.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Bradley says he doesn't know when their relationship started. And says he did not tell Merchant when it started.

---

Not really correct. He is now saying he did not have a verbal conversation with her and Merchant used confusing compound sentences and she will need to read the sentences and maybe he can come up with a story without perjuring himself.

And he does not recall the text message even though its on his phone.

Just to clear the air for other followers on this thread.

McAfee's tone and approach to this seems to have changed a bit from a couple of weeks ago. Tinfoil Hat would indicate he has had pressure applied to him.

Non Tinfoil Hat would say he is trying to ensure he has his posterior well covered and armored.

This objecting and verbal dancing is another *******ization of the legal process. At least there is no jury.

None of that applies to these people, unfortunately. They have no problem playing by their own rules.

Damnit, Ashleigh get your poop in a group and ask a clear and proper question!

He's said it several times today.

Maybe Merchant can find a way to make her point but that is certainly what he said.

aggiehawg said:

---

Damnit, Ashleigh get your poop in a group and ask a clear and proper question!

---

She's struggled from minute 1 of this.

The judge is actively trying to help her phrase questions. If this were a jury trial, the judge would not be doing this and she would be in trouble.

I said early on she is lucky Steve Sadow, who seems to be a terrific defense attorney, is also on her side as he's spent a lot of this coming in and cleaning things up and asking the right follow up questions.

Since Bradley doesn't recall when the relationship started Merchant should ask if he recalls when his actual attorney client relationship with Wade on his divorce started.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Damnit, Ashleigh get your poop in a group and ask a clear and proper question!

---

She's struggled from minute 1 of this.

The judge is actively trying to help her phrase questions. If this were a jury trial, the judge would not be doing this and she would be in trouble.

I said early on she is lucky Steve Sadow, who seems to be a terrific defense attorney, is also on her side as he's spent a lot of this coming in and cleaning things up and asking the right follow up questions.

---

She's making herself a witness here. Sit down and let Sadow take over.

Geeze. To partially paraphrase the judge, "Ashleigh, I just told you what question to ask, so ask it!"

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Damnit, Ashleigh get your poop in a group and ask a clear and proper question!

---

She's struggled from minute 1 of this.

The judge is actively trying to help her phrase questions. I said early on she is lucky Steve Sadow, who seems to be a terrific defense attorney, is also on her side as he's spent a lot of this coming in and cleaning things up and asking the right follow up questions.

---

The judge is not helping her do anything other than allowing Bradley and the DA's office to deflect, object, and confuse.

As mentioned, McAfee is either now fully on the DA's side or is trying to ensure his butt is covered.

He seems to have finally guided her a bit but here comes the DA and now Bradley's amnesia.

Quote:

---

He seems to have finally guided her a bit

---

A bit? He's literally telling her to "ask this question..."

Judge said Bradley is adverse to Merchant, so he'll allow her leeway in leading Bradley.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

He seems to have finally guided her a bit

---

A bit? He's literally telling her to "ask this question..."

---

See above. He is having to navigate a tight rope for his own fanny. It is not to help her though it may at times help her and to start seems to be helping the Fani-Wade.

But Merchant just called out a good point and made both the DA and Bradley look silly regarding the coaching of the witness here.

Sounds like privilege claim was overcome because he told the judge they he was Wade's attorney, they were discussing something relevant to the divorce representation, but likely failed to add anything of much substance else to it. Since it was their place of work and there is an apparent lack of context, judge says "maybe you two were both just chatting."

Or something along those lines. But we'll see if Merchant can identify more about it.

Hawg, what is the legal meaning of adverse as it applies here and what does it allow for? I recall this came up when Fani was having her tantrum. Is it specific or just sort of an "idea" or "concept"?

lex veritatem requirit said:

---

Hawg, what is the legal meaning of adverse as it applies here and what does it allow for? I recall this came up when Fani was having her tantrum. Is it specific or just sort of an "idea" or "concept"?

---

"Adverse" applies to witnesses in both legal terms (other side of the case) and common sense meaning of "adverse" in terms of resolving the litigation.

So, he's arguably adverse here because he's not there happily and he's clearly disagreeing with her account of their conversations.

lex veritatem requirit said:

---

Hawg, what is the legal meaning of adverse as it applies here and what does it allow for? I recall this came up when Fani was having her tantrum. Is it specific or just sort of an "idea" or "concept"?

---

The more common term is hostile witness. When the court deems a witness to be hostile to the party callig them upon direct examination, counsel can ask leading questions, whereas normally they are not allowed to.

So when the judge says he'll allow Merchant some leeway because the witness is adverse, he's saying she can ask some leading questions.

Bradley has been promised to tow the line AND likely threatened should he not.

Thanks Hawg, that was what I gathered. Are they allowed other things with an adverse or hostile witness?

I feel like "A Few Good Men" moment may be incoming, particularly when the higher caliber defense attorney engages.

lex veritatem requirit said:

---

Thanks Hawg, that was what I gathered. Are they allowed other things with an adverse or hostile witness?

I feel like "A Few Good Men" moment may be incoming, particularly when the higher caliber defense attorney engages.

---

That's the biggie for asking for a witness to be declared a hostile witness on direct examination.

On cross examination, counsel can always ask leading questions. All depends on which party calls that specific person.

This is tedious. Let Sadow rip him apart.

This is painful to watch. Merchant was not able to ask a question because she doesn't remember or know where her question came from.

lex veritatem requirit said:

---

Thanks Hawg, that was what I gathered. Are they allowed other things with an adverse or hostile witness?

I feel like "A Few Good Men" moment may be incoming, particularly when the higher caliber defense attorney engages.

---

I hope this comes soon.......this is getting hard to listen to.