barbacoa taco said:

---

this is a meaningless attempt to read the tea leaves

---

McAfee will be drug well if he rules against Fani.

How do you like them tea leaves?

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

---

Womp Womp.

The Fulton County Board of Ethics was set to hear two citizen complaints against DA Fani Willis today at 10am.

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.

— Doug Reardon (@ReardonReports) March 7, 2024

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

First, have to roll my eyes at the title of "Fulton County Board of Ethics." There are no ethics in Fulton County as we have seen time and time again for the last 4+ years.

Second, upon which clause in the Georgia state constitution names a county prosecutor as a "state constitutional officer'? Her office is named within the constitution?

Third, other than her voluntary and disastrous testimony at the evidentiary hearing on the motion to disqualify in Judge McAfee's court, Fani sure does run away, deflects and lies an awful lot for someone who has nothing to hide.

The big picture really doesn't involve disciplinary actions against Fanni et al., but the risk to Trump politically. At this point, Trump only has upside risk/potential from this farce, imho.

Even if they don't have it dismissed/disqualified/sent elsewhere, the sham will only have upside for him in coverage as more and more will be made aware about the absurdity of this banana republic show trial/attempt if it proceeds. Only a handful of us will remember these names outside of Trump in 5 years.

aggiehawg said:

---

richardag said:

---

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.

---

Is it possible she was the least corrupt of the choices?

---

Good question. Could this have been made into a federal case from the beginning with US Attorneys investigating certain aspects of it?

---

I assume it had to be a state case because they don't want Trump to be able to pardon himself.

Purely a political show trial. Stalin would be proud of Joe Biden and Merrick Garland.

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

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.")

---

More at the link.

Jeffrey Clarke brief countering the last minute Fani brief obliterates her. Six specific actual conflicts. Rips Wade over his perjury and filing false docs.

From The Federalist article:

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.

---

---

Jeebus!

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?

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?

---

If that witness is in a case under her jurisdiction, she can.

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.

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.

---

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).

aggiehawg said:

---

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.

---

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).

---

Never a judge in the past, just Asst DA, GA Insp Gen, AUSA Northern Dist GA, and Public defender,

Thanks for the correction.

Seems to me...McAfee's ruling will depend solely on whether he is a man with character and conviction to do the right (read just) thing...or settle to the level of those who's behavior and actions are being interrogated. No longer sure that even measures up to the odds of a coin toss.

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.

---

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?

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.

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

---

Ahhahahahahahahaha.

Politically elected judge not swayed by political recourse.

He Who Shall Be Unnamed 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.

---

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?

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.

---

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.

Here we have 12000 texts and calls and Miss Money Bags tossing around cash like the Monopoly dude.

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.
https://t.co/Yogv1bJbSe pic.twitter.com/hoLqY2OpIa

— David Shafer (@DavidShafer) March 8, 2024

They were all giddy when a winery worker in Napa said Fani paid for their tour and bottles of wine with cash.

Then they heard two other attorneys heard Bradley talk about the affair - including one who heard Fani threaten Bradley - and about the waiter who saw Bradley, Wade and Wade's attorney at dinner a few weeks ago.

Earlier post was right it COULD have been argued that Wade and Wilis going to Bonetown starting in November 2019 had no bearing on the prosecution.

Instead the Three Stooges sat on the witness stand for two days and couldn't tell a true sentence to save their lives. If I'm a judge and I've read this stack of false affidavits and interrogatories and heard these clowns fabricate lie after lie after lie, there's no way I allow them to move forward with a prosecution.

But then again, I never thought someone could be indicted for petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, seeing as it's there in the First Amendment and all.

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

He Who Shall Be Unnamed 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.

---

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?

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.

---

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.

Here we have 12000 texts and calls and Miss Money Bags tossing around cash like the Monopoly dude.

---

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.

So how did she do it She went before the board for a supplental to her budget to hire 55 salaried staffers (including attorneys) to help with the covid backlog of violent crimes, murders aggravated assaults, etc. She mad a Power Point presentation on September 15, 2021. She receivedapproval shortly thereafter. She never mentioned anything about a Trump investigation/prosecution. To be specific, she received three quarters of a million for the remaining three months of 2021 and then five million for the entirety of 2022. That is the supplemental to her existing large budget.

On November 1, 2021 Wade signs the first one year contract at $250 per hour and he starts block billing soon thereafter.

When Merchant filed an open records request about hiring of the 55 additional staffers she said she needed in September 2021, he office was resisting providing those. In the back and forth between Merchant and Willis' office, the final response was that Fani had full discretion over how she utilized those supplemental funding.

So that's how she did it.

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.

---

You are delusional

OK. Suppose we parse some of what does and doesn't constitute evidence before this court.

-- The many allegations contained in defendants' motions and supplements, or arguments thereto by the applicants, is not evidence before this court.

-- Testimony before a Georgia Senate committee is not evidence before this court.

-- Conjecture on social media chat boards or internet opinion pieces, about who was doing whom when, who was paid what, and who is telling the truth is not evidence before this court. (the subjects have stipulated an affair but disputed the time frame.)

-- Emails/texts traded between a defense attorney and her star witness are not substantive evidence, and if accepted at all would serve an impeachment function only. Their value is greatly devalued because the witnesses either won't corroborate them or has called them fiction. The witness also has a apparent motive to castigate Wade.

-- The defendants' only supportive witness could not recall details of any incident -- even a rough date, time, location or conversation - that led her to have "no doubt" the two started the affair years before they claim. She also has an apparent motive to hurt Willis.

-- No other party has provided testimony or physical evidence that contradicts the testimonies of Willis and Wade.

-- An affidavit by a private detective purporting to show incriminating cell phone contacts is not evidence before this court. The detective is admittedly no expert nor was he or any competent witness called to verify or defend his findings. The raw phone data was placed in the record, and stands on its face, but defendants produced only an uncorroborated slip of paper as to what the data shows.

And despite the dearth of evidence of any kind, none has come forth to show that any of this was used to charge, prosecute or intimidate defendant Michael Roman or his fellow defendants, which is the essence of relief sought in the motions.

(Please feel free to counter with any evidence actually submitted to this court and accepted for consideration by McAfee.)

aggiehawg 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.

---

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.

By definition, a dishonest prosecutor endangers the due process rights of criminal defendants. See, e.g. Nifong, Mike.

---

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.

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:

---

AggieAL1 said:

---

aggiehawg 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.

---

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.

By definition, a dishonest prosecutor endangers the due process rights of criminal defendants. See, e.g. Nifong, Mike.

---

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.

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.

---

well we found the fanni Willis/DNC paid operative on this site. Quite the, uh, talking points.

---

Sorry. Doesn't qualify as evidence before this court.

''''

If folks have evidence of misfeasance, malfeasance, cheating, thieving, lying, conspiracy or murder against Willis or Wade, there are certainly venues in which to pursue justice. This just isn't one of them. Unless it goes to prove a conflict exists in the prosecution of the persons charged in the underlying racketeering case.

Cute. What PAC is paying you?

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Cute. What PAC is paying you?

---

Sorry. Doesn't qualify as evidence before this court.

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. I could go down a Westlaw rabbit hole but alas I am just going to watch the sopranos because my 6 month old actually went to sleep for once

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.

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.

---

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.

I do believe the disqualification process carries a standard of clear and convincing, which isn't even close to what they have here. As to an appeal, I imagine they'll weigh the delay this ploy has already created. Interlocutory appeals are expensive.

AggieAL1 said:

---

aggiehawg 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.

---

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.

By definition, a dishonest prosecutor endangers the due process rights of criminal defendants. See, e.g. Nifong, Mike.

---

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.

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.

---

Good Lord