The Neverending Hearing

Im Gipper said:

---

The Neverending Hearing

---

It would have gone a lot faster if the witnesses had been honest and not evading and hemming and hawing for hours.

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?

---

I believe the Judge has seen the texts since they were filed. But if the defense thought they were particularly helpful, one would presume they'd have dug into them more.

We've seen some already, in which Bradley lodges some insults at Willis and Wade. That woulda been fodder for cross, so another reason perhaps why the defense didn't push the full texts.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

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?

---

I believe the Judge has seen the texts since they were filed. But if the defense thought they were particularly helpful, one would presume they'd have dug into them more.

We've seen some already, in which Bradley lodges some insults at Willis and Wade. That woulda been fodder for cross, so another reason perhaps why the defense didn't push the full texts.

---

I must have missed something, but I thought that Willis and Wade were trying to protect those texts between Merchant and Bradley from being admitted, and that they had discussions about them in his chambers. I don't, however, recall them being released. Nor do I recall a decision as to the admissibility of the cellphone data that was tracking Wade. Sucks to have a job that keeps me busy . Someone fill me in on what I have missed.

Quote:

---

I believe the Judge has seen the texts since they were filed. But if the defense thought they were particularly helpful, one would presume they'd have dug into them more.

---

The defense could not since the texts were reviewed in camera but not entered into evidence. That fact forecloses inquiry to "have dug into them more" during Bradley's testimony on Tuesday.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

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

---

Damn they are playing with fire. They will mess around and open a door that forces the cell data in, as of now I think thee's a chance the cell data gets blackholed. They keep trying to reopen evidence doors it's going to blow up in their faces.

Quote:

---

Damn they are playing with fire. They will mess around and open a door that forces the cell data in, as of now I think thee's a chance the cell data gets blackholed. They keep trying to reopen evidence doors it's going to blow up in their faces.

---

That's my take too. Fani and Wade really need to shut up at this point.

If they had been honest from the get-go then this would not be happening, Old news, yada yada and McAfee would have dropped it.

Kool said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

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?

---

I believe the Judge has seen the texts since they were filed. But if the defense thought they were particularly helpful, one would presume they'd have dug into them more.

We've seen some already, in which Bradley lodges some insults at Willis and Wade. That woulda been fodder for cross, so another reason perhaps why the defense didn't push the full texts.

---

I must have missed something, but I thought that Willis and Wade were trying to protect those texts between Merchant and Bradley from being admitted, and that they had discussions about them in his chambers. I don't, however, recall them being released. Nor do I recall a decision as to the admissibility of the cellphone data that was tracking Wade. Sucks to have a job that keeps me busy . Someone fill me in on what I have missed.

---

At the end of the last hearing the full texts, or at least significant portions, were submitted as an exhibit. They had a whole thing about the "rule of completeness."

But I'd add that the judge said texts about the relationship/start of it weren't privileged, and if they were able to talk about some of the particular texts they did, they likely weren't missing big stuff. When they first tried to talk about the texts before the privilege issue shut it down, they brought up the same texts they brought up in the most recent hearing.


CNN or someone got ahold the texts (400+) and ran a story about them. Bradley said "they are arrogant as ****" and some other things. Bradley also texted Merchant names of folks to subpoena, I presume one being the first witness of the hearing.

Who gives a **** about how much cash she carried on trips. It's the impropriety of a person in her position with the doubt that should know better. I've worked alongside federal employees that don't have hardly any scratch in the game make sure there is no potential conflict of interest. We are ****ed as a judicial system where they play this fast and loose with their finances.

Oh, I know you are going to say "well she deals in cash all the time so no big deal". But that's just stupid and reckless given what can be construed. Maybe she's just really adept at money laundering. Nah, we are just going to brush it under the rug because the bigger goal is lawfare against an enemy so that makes it completely OK. If Wade had a history of RICO and cases similar to this, then there is some plausibility, however it seems he's best virtue was playing hide the salami with the boss lady.

Many folks still don't seem to understand what this hearing is about. It was called to uncover the evidence in a claim by the defense that Fani Willis created a conflict of interest in her prosecution of Michael Roman, specifically (and others including Donald Trump by association), by scheming to funnel public money to herself.

The alleged scheme involved Willis retaining her longtime lawyer lover, Nathan Wade, at an extravagant fee to be the chief prosecutor. In turn he used at least some of his largess to take her on trips and buy her meals. Voila, a kickback.

But for that to mean anything, defendants' had to tie it to their racketeering case, which Roman did by insisting the charges were frivolous and would have been dropped long ago but for Willis's and Wade's desire to extend the prosecution in order to keep the illicit dollars flowing. For that they should be disqualified, defendants said.

The romance element was thrown in to show a reason Willis picked Wade rather than just any other crooked lawyer to pull off the fraud. It took on a completely different and all-consuming hue when Willis and Wade swore their affair did not begin until after Wade was hired, a position that contradicted the defense's rendition. Defendants immediately yelled perjury.

So off we went.

(For what it's worth, there has been precious little evidence supporting the defense's motion. The star witness refuses to confirm allegations reportedly made in emails and phone calls with a defense attorney, and the only other witness lacks recall of key facts to support her testimony regarding a romance.}

So we will have summations today at 1 Eastern, 12 Central as currently scheduled. Judge left the door open for additional proffers (mini evidentiary offer) which may, may lead him him to decide to reopen the evidentiary portion of the hearing and allow new witnesses. If he does go that route (doubtful) he wil set a hearing for another day. Trump's lawyer Sadow asked if he needed to have witnesses available for today and the judge said no.

But it seems that Fani may want to reopen the evidentiary portion as well. (Don't ask me why because I think that is a very dumb move.)

aggiehawg said:

---

So we will have summations today at 1 Eastern, 12 Central as currently scheduled. Judge left the door open for additional proffers (mini evidentiary offer) which may, may lead him him to decide to reopen the evidentiary portion of the hearing and allow new witnesses. If he does go that route (doubtful) he wil set a hearing for another day. Trump's lawyer Sadow asked if he needed to have witnesses available for today and the judge said no.

But it seems that Fani may want to reopen the evidentiary portion as well. (Don't ask me why because I think that is a very dumb move.)

---

It's been established that Fani is indeed not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. Let her continue to prove it.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Damn they are playing with fire. They will mess around and open a door that forces the cell data in, as of now I think thee's a chance the cell data gets blackholed. They keep trying to reopen evidence doors it's going to blow up in their faces.

---

That's my take too. Fani and Wade really need to shut up at this point.

If they had been honest from the get-go then this would not be happening, Old news, yada yada and McAfee would have dropped it.

---

This looks like Nixon and Watergate. It wasn't the break-in that hung him, but the cover-up.

edit for typos.

AgCat93 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

So we will have summations today at 1 Eastern, 12 Central as currently scheduled. Judge left the door open for additional proffers (mini evidentiary offer) which may, may lead him him to decide to reopen the evidentiary portion of the hearing and allow new witnesses. If he does go that route (doubtful) he wil set a hearing for another day. Trump's lawyer Sadow asked if he needed to have witnesses available for today and the judge said no.

But it seems that Fani may want to reopen the evidentiary portion as well. (Don't ask me why because I think that is a very dumb move.)

---

It's been established that Fani is indeed not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. Let her continue to prove it.

---

part of me wants to see Fanni and her beau take Trump to court. One would think it would be a **** show beyond anything imaginable.

taxpreparer said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Damn they are playing with fire. They will mess around and open a door that forces the cell data in, as of now I think thee's a chance the cell data gets blackholed. They keep trying to reopen evidence doors it's going to blow up in their faces.

---

That's my take too. Fani and Wade really need to shut up at this point.

If they had been honest from the get-go then this would not be happening, Old news, yada yada and McAfee would have dropped it.

---

This looks like Nixon and Watergate. It wasn't the brek-on that hung him, but the cover-up.

---

Let's assume for a moment that Fani is actually telling the truth that she did reimburse Wade for her portion of their travels with cash. No checks, no cash apps, currency. Why? No paper trail that would reveal the relationhip. Privacy is important, I understand but she is an elected official and with that type of position come legal requirements for disclosure of monetary transactions to root out potential cases of bribery and kickbacks.

It is reasonable to conclude she used cash to avoid such disclosures from having to be made. That can also lead to a presumption of a consciousness of guilt. No need to cover up something that she felt was not somehow wrong even if she only was concerned about her political career. Yes, he was still married to someone else and that's why the divorce petition was filed the day after he signed the contact.

Gouveia just went live. Court should convene in a little less than 30 minutes.

Waiting for the judge.

I'm going to bet he's going to let them stay on the trial.

There's 0 doubt

Second court day without Anna Cross? Did she quit? Did Fani fire her?

Defense wants to make two proffers.

There will not be any decision today but it sounds like McAfee may have to reopen the evidence since both sides want to make proffers of addtional evidence.

Up first, Roman's attorney John Merchant.

I had reached my newbie posting limit explaining Willie Horton on the Laken Riley thread yesterrday, but here's the latest from Fulton County.

(If there were a way to embed the music from "Days of Our Lives" here I would.)

Seventeen pages of Terrence Bradley's "speculation" can be found at the end of this article. Keep in mind he can't recall most of these texts (dang) and may or may not tell lies about his friends.

https://nypost.com/2024/02/29/us-news/texts-from-nathan-wade-lawyer-appear-to-show-more-than-speculation-about-fani-willis-affair/

Hearing resumes in Fulton County now.

John Merchant has an effective opening, explaining Fani has gone far beyond what's needed for disqualification in hiring her Boo, receiving gifts from her Boo, speaking to authors, speaking in the church and lying under oath. The APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST and the FORENSIC MISCONDUCT -- impugning Trump in public to taint the jury pool -- are all that's needed to boot them.

Furthermore, he calls attention to the fact this is already happened to Fani with regard to this case.

And, he points out there's more than enough evidence here to justify an appeal if McAfee doesn't dismiss, meaning another court will be burdened with what's already taken place and what will take place in the showtrial.

More points from Merchant:

1. Hiring Wade inherently created a conflict of interest and made her "interested" in this prosecution.

2. The cash theory was never mentioned in the affidavit. (The cash theory was introduced in the courtroom when pressed on an issue of compensation that they anticipated they would not have to acknowledge) Even with the accounting of Willis, there was a $9,200 difference in what Wade paid and what Willis reimbursed.

3. Judge McAfee heard the testimony and knows what took place. The credibility of the witnesses and the credibility of the prosecutors were on display. He also defends and verifies his wife, whose credibility was impugned illegally.
"You cannot lie to the court, lie to the judge and lie to the public."

4. Judge asks how timing of the relationship matters. Merchant explains it goes to the scheme to enrich herself and her lover, undermining the indictment. She created the system and didn't tell anybody about it. They knew it was wrong, they hid it, and when they were called out on it they tried to lie and said the affair started after the fact.

Sadow up now.

Fani is toast

I think McAfee has made his mind up already unless the State can do something to change it. I think he's indicated he's seen enough without saying it.

aggiehawg said:

---

There will not be any decision today but it sounds like McAfee may have to reopen the evidence since both sides want to make proffers of addtional evidence.

Up first, Roman's attorney John Merchant.

---

I'm thinking he's already decided to toss them and doesn't want to waste any more time on hearing from a clerk in in California that Fani paid $400 cash for a wine tasting tour.

Sadow addresses "subset of forensic misconduct."

1) Jan. 14 church appearance of Fani Willis.

2) Contradictory language in Wade's affidavit; focus on Wade-Willis starting relationship in Nov. 2022. State will argue that the only ones who can be believed are Wade and Willis and every other witness should be ignored, but all other evidence shows a litany of false statements before the tribunal.

3) Finding a CONCERN of truthfulness is all that's needed for McAfee to disqualify.

4) Sadow reads Jan. 4 text messages where Bradley says "Absolutely" the affair started in 2019/2020, which isn't a speculative word and then offered unprompted explanation of timeline.

Wraps up saying court can't have good faith that prosecutors are acting in good faith and that the court absolutely has the ability to disqualify based on their actions and testimony.

Craig Gillen says public statements and sitting down for six interviews with authors of a book to prejudice the defendants is disqualification.
Judge asks if there are other examples, Gillen points out thankfully this type of abuse of a defendant doesn't happen often.

Fani had two reasons do do what she did -- 1) seeking maximum amount of pretrial publicity to set community's mind before the use of media and 2) do what they had to hide their improper relationship and then deflect (using the church speech) to stir up public opinion against those who challenged her for having the improper relationship.
Additionally, "she reprehensibly used the race card and the God card."
Willis told congregation (and the county and the country) that God has called her to do His work.

Gillen points out he didn't go after the other prosecutors because they weren't sleeping with Fani Willis.

Reminds court of Wade lying in divorce interrogatories to avoid saying he has been in a relationship that could have undermined the case, as did Willis on her financial report.

Says both conducted a fraud on this court by claiming false timeline on affair and then fabricating a claim that there was a cash reimbursement.

"Lawyers don't act like this -- they need to go."

That was an awesome ending

Richard Rice goes over key details of cell phone records, tracking Wade into and out of Hapeville during overnight visits when the Porsche Experience is closed. I guess that answers the question on "admissibility."

Rice notes Yeartie's testimony (which hasn't been challenged) and discusses texts from Bradley as further contradicting what they

How much is enough materiality to disqualify? Rice argues $17,000 is more than enough but Fulton County says $100 is. Cash defense is laughable, he points out. Rice also says they brought out no evidence to show the accusations are false (i.e. checks from Publix written for over the amount, any bank records, etc.)

Wade lied in interrogatories; Willis lied in annual filing of gifts from contractors.

Reiterates in church speech that she said what her conviction rate is and what her team's conviction rate are, essentially telling church -- and media -- that the defendants are guilty.

These closing arguments are a breath of fresh air, compared to the previous days. The female Merchant just couldn't keep her rhythm if she actually has any, with all the objections, and IMHO failed miserably. She did however expose a few things and should be given credit for that, but these closing arguments thus far are solid.

Like the way MacDonald is wrapping up the rest of Willis' office into the fraud upon the court in not stopping the perjury.

da's office: can i have a few moments for rebuttal

judge: no