Fani Willis posts on here?????outofstateaggie said: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.
Good Lord
Pending indictment against Trump in Georgia
213,137 Views |
2428 Replies |
Last: 2 days ago by TXAggie2011
Fani has two new challengers to her reelection this year.
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.
Megyn has the Merchant/Bradley text messages.
Interview with Jocelyn Wade's divorce attorney. About 25 minutes.
Upshot: Nathan Wade is scum.
Upshot: Nathan Wade is scum.
Really encourage people to watch Jocelyn Wade's divorce attorney's story. There was no collusion nor contact between Trump defendants' counsel and her. After two years of Wade refusing to produce records nor even set a temporary spousal support order, this lawyer used open records requests to Fulton County after the indictments dropped and Wade's name was on them. First time they knew he had a contract with Fani's office.
Adultery is not a ground for divorce but also is considered in the equitable division of marital property in Georgia. Big deal how much Nathan was hiding assets, even usig his IOLTA accounts which divorce counsel would never be able to see, until now that is.
And it was pure coincidence that her subpoena of Willis was the same day as Merchant's motion filing simply because Willis was successfully avoiding service of process until then. When she received the certification of service, she filed with the court hearing the divorce case.
Upshot here is the divorce is not final, nor will it be until Wade provides many more records to her satisfaction, they go to mediation. If the mediation fails, she'll subpoena Fani and Wade again. That s*** is far from over.
Adultery is not a ground for divorce but also is considered in the equitable division of marital property in Georgia. Big deal how much Nathan was hiding assets, even usig his IOLTA accounts which divorce counsel would never be able to see, until now that is.
And it was pure coincidence that her subpoena of Willis was the same day as Merchant's motion filing simply because Willis was successfully avoiding service of process until then. When she received the certification of service, she filed with the court hearing the divorce case.
Upshot here is the divorce is not final, nor will it be until Wade provides many more records to her satisfaction, they go to mediation. If the mediation fails, she'll subpoena Fani and Wade again. That s*** is far from over.
Has anyone ever gone after Trump and not get leveled?
E. Jean Carroll and Letitia James come to mind.PA24 said:
Has anyone ever gone after Trump and not get leveled?
……too early, remember porn lawyer "had him" and was being herald as a possible candidate for President, we all saw how that ended.aggiehawg said:E. Jean Carroll and Letitia James come to mind.PA24 said:
Has anyone ever gone after Trump and not get leveled?
Bookmarked.
Yeah, surely the E. Jean Carroll result isn't going to stand as-is, right?
Quote:
The presiding judge in former President Donald Trump's Georgia election subversion case says he is on track to order this week on whether to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.
In an interview last week on WSB Radio in Atlanta to discuss the challenger he will face in his reelection bid, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee briefly spoke about Willis and his pending order on whether to remove her from prosecuting Trump and the remaining co-defendants.
"I gave myself a deadline because I knew everyone wanted an answer. And I'll tell you that an order like this takes time to write," McAfee said in the interview.
"There is a lot that I have to go through. And so, I've had and again I'll emphasize this I've had a rough draft in an outline before I ever heard a rumor that someone wanted to run for this position, so the result is not going to change because of politics," McAfee added.
"I am calling as best I can and the law as I understand it. So, I still feel like I'm on track to having that done by the deadline that I put on myself," he said.
McAfee told the court at the end of the Willis disqualification hearings that he would take at least two weeks to decide.
LINKQuote:
During the eight-minute audio clip from "The Shelley Wynter Show" on WSB Radio and in a rare instance he has spoken about the case McAfee talked about how the case has impacted him personally, saying he looks forward to the day he can speak with his toddler-aged children about his experience presiding over the historic case.
"What I think about is I got two kids, 5 and 3. They are too young to have any idea what's going on or what I do.," the judge said. "But what I'm looking forward to one day is maybe they grow up a little bit and ask me about it, and I'm looking forward to looking them in the eye and tell them I played it straight and I did the best I could."
Hope springs eternal he'll do the right thing here.
aggiehawg said:Quote:
The presiding judge in former President Donald Trump's Georgia election subversion case says he is on track to order this week on whether to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.
In an interview last week on WSB Radio in Atlanta to discuss the challenger he will face in his reelection bid, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee briefly spoke about Willis and his pending order on whether to remove her from prosecuting Trump and the remaining co-defendants.
"I gave myself a deadline because I knew everyone wanted an answer. And I'll tell you that an order like this takes time to write," McAfee said in the interview.
"There is a lot that I have to go through. And so, I've had and again I'll emphasize this I've had a rough draft in an outline before I ever heard a rumor that someone wanted to run for this position, so the result is not going to change because of politics," McAfee added.
"I am calling as best I can and the law as I understand it. So, I still feel like I'm on track to having that done by the deadline that I put on myself," he said.
McAfee told the court at the end of the Willis disqualification hearings that he would take at least two weeks to decide.LINKQuote:
During the eight-minute audio clip from "The Shelley Wynter Show" on WSB Radio and in a rare instance he has spoken about the case McAfee talked about how the case has impacted him personally, saying he looks forward to the day he can speak with his toddler-aged children about his experience presiding over the historic case.
"What I think about is I got two kids, 5 and 3. They are too young to have any idea what's going on or what I do.," the judge said. "But what I'm looking forward to one day is maybe they grow up a little bit and ask me about it, and I'm looking forward to looking them in the eye and tell them I played it straight and I did the best I could."
Hope springs eternal he'll do the right thing here.
If I was a judge I would NEVER consent to an interview with such a major decision to be made.
Particularly with so much more coming out with the supplemental filings. From the way he phrased that, have to wonder if he's even reading the supplementals.Quote:
If I was a judge I would NEVER consent to an interview with such a major decision to be made.
Were I the judge I'd would have reopened the evidence the second Fani agreed and asked for it too. She quickly backtracked from that but still she did file more evidence of her own. (Waiter in Napa saying she paid cash for wine tasting.)
I'm sure this has been covered in this thread but how does the crazy left wing candidate running for judge impact this case?
If Macafee loses the race to the loonbag, does the Trump case also get assigned to him as well or does the original judge get to finish the case?
If Macafee loses the race to the loonbag, does the Trump case also get assigned to him as well or does the original judge get to finish the case?
The election for judges (non-partisan) are in May, 2024 with the losing incumbent vacating the seat Jan 1.DenverAg91 said:
I'm sure this has been covered in this thread but how does the crazy left wing candidate running for judge impact this case?
If Macafee loses the race to the loonbag, does the Trump case also get assigned to him as well or does the original judge get to finish the case?
This i still a very large and unwieldy case which would take some time to try. Scheduling issues may cause him to recuse if the case could not be concluded before he leaves the bench and a new judge reassigned, I think.
Further complicating matters is whether there will be an appeal of whatever decision he reaches on both the motion to disqualify and motion to dismiss. There's a crap ton of moving parts here.
Does Scott McAfee have a shot of winning election in deep deep blue Fulton County against a crazy leftist?
After 120,000 absentee ballots are stuffed in a drop box and Shay and Ruby run them through the counters four or five times?
Probably not.
Probably not.
My gut says not a chance. McAfee has a demanding job and a young family. Time to campaign and gladhand is very short.DenverAg91 said:
Does Scott McAfee have a shot of winning election in deep deep blue Fulton County against a crazy leftist?
His challenger has the black legal community behind him and no real job that he has to show up for.
Aaannd, there's always the Dominion Voting Systems issue, since nothing from the 2020 election has been fixed for this election.
I think McAfee knows he will disqualify the whole bunch to protect his reputation and not have to proceed with these corrupt nitwits against a Defense team of real lawyers ,which could take years. Yes, he will lose the election , but his proven ability will land him a very good with a top law firm .
If this country has any chance of survival the fastest fix will be the truth.
People need to remember McAfee was appointed, he wasn't elected and he won't be elected in Fulton County, he's never had a private practice, but after all this he will likely have one in the near future
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
BREAKING: Six counts in Fani Willis' indictment against President Trump have been "quashed" by Judge McAfee. pic.twitter.com/Ncg0ZcEhG1
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) March 13, 2024
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
TLDR Notes: These are the charges related to the "find me the votes" phone call.
Drahknor03 said:
TLDR Notes: These are the charges related to the "find me the votes" phone call.
LOL. Massive meltdown on CNN incoming.
Drahknor03 said:
TLDR Notes: These are the charges related to the "find me the votes" phone call.
How many legal experts on this thread have used this as a foundation for their argument?
They're the same ones, like Eric Swalwell, who claimed, "Russia, if you're listening, find Hillary's e-mails" was literally Trump colluding with Russia.jt2hunt said:Drahknor03 said:
TLDR Notes: These are the charges related to the "find me the votes" phone call.
How many legal experts on this thread have used this as a foundation for their argument?
Radio silence right now from these peeps! They would've been all over this thread. If there would've been negative news for Trump, lol still waiting for their legal expertise to chime in and tell us how this is really bad for Trump!
Obvious question: Would he have quashed these six charges if he were planning to disqualify Fani and her Boo?
I could see it going either way. I'm inclined to think he is going to dismiss...only because he specifically called out these 6 dismissed charges can be "resubmitted" properly.
I think the Judge realizes this case has gone so far off the legal path with all that's going on, this is his way of doing a "reset".
But that's my 100% non-legal, uninformed, internet-expert opinion.
By doing this...and then getting a new prosecutor on the case, it then removes ALL appearances of impropriety by saying these charges have been filed by a prosecutor without the conflict (or appearance of).Quote:
This does not mean the entire indictment is dismissed. See State v. Cerajewski, 347 Ga. App. 454, 457 (2018). The State may also seek a reindictment supplementing these six counts. C.f. O.C.G.A. 17-7-53.1 (barring future prosecution after second quashal). Even if the statute of limitations has expired, the State receives a six-month extension from the date of this Order to resubmit the case to a grand jury. See O.C.G.A. 17-3-3. Nor is it inevitable, presuming the State presents the appropriate motion, that the identity of future grand jurors will be publicly accessible. See, e.g., Order to Seal Page 22 of Indictment, 2023-EX-001124 (Sep. 1, 2023) (granting ex parte motion to redact grand juror names).
I think the Judge realizes this case has gone so far off the legal path with all that's going on, this is his way of doing a "reset".
But that's my 100% non-legal, uninformed, internet-expert opinion.
Judge McAfee dismissal of the six counts presents a difficult question for the prosecution. If they try to secure a superseding indictment to correct the earlier mistakes, it will make it difficult to try the case before the election...
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 13, 2024
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24478979/trump-order-on-defendants-special-demurrers.pdf
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
Perhaps McAfee is throwing the incoming prosecution a bone so they don't look at the mess Fani filed and throw it all away.Reality Check said:
Obvious question: Would he have quashed these six charges if he were planning to disqualify Fani and her Boo?
Perhaps he does plan to DQ Fani and friends, without being the one to kill the case against Trump
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
Having just finished reading the decision, really has little to do with the disqualification issue. He was ruling on demurrers which were filed long ago. Demurrer essentially means the indictment fails to adequately inform defendants of the conduct charged so theycan prepare a defense. Apparently Georgia state law doesn't have a bill of particulars wherein the defense asks the prosecution for further clarification and the state has to respond.Reality Check said:
Obvious question: Would he have quashed these six charges if he were planning to disqualify Fani and her Boo?
The ruling today is a quashal not a dismissal meaning the same issues can be reindicted hopefully with more specificity. Any statute of limitation issues are tolled for six months from the date of the order and not a bar to reindictment during that period.
Clear as mud, I know.
I don't think so. I think he would have announced the disqualification today if that's what he was planning. Hope I am wrong.Reality Check said:
Obvious question: Would he have quashed these six charges if he were planning to disqualify Fani and her Boo?
Reality Check said:
Obvious question: Would he have quashed these six charges if he were planning to disqualify Fani and her Boo?
Your guess is as good as anyone here.
In my experience, 99% of the time you think a judge is signaling something or tipping their hand on what's next, they aren't.
So my guess is in all likelihood, this has nothing to do with the disqualification motion. But thats just a guess.
One has nothing to do with the other. In fact, cleaning up the indictment in this way would make it easier for a new DA with fresh eyes deciding whether to to bother convening a grand jury to reindict or not since they would have the tolling period in effect.Ellis Wyatt said:I don't think so. I think he would have announced the disqualification today if that's what he was planning. Hope I am wrong.Reality Check said:
Obvious question: Would he have quashed these six charges if he were planning to disqualify Fani and her Boo?
At this point I am inclined towards McAfee disqualifying.
Quote:
Willis' disqualification would also extend to her office. The case would then be referred to the Prosecuting Attorneys' Council of Georgia Executive Director Pete Skandalakis. In a statement to CBS News, council spokesperson Tracy Walston said Skandalakis would have a few options.
"The executive director can appoint a district attorney, a solicitor-general, a retired prosecuting attorney, an attorney employed by the Department of Law, designate an attorney from the Prosecuting Attorneys' Council, or appoint a competent attorney to act as district attorney pro tempore in place of the district attorney," she said.
LINKQuote:
Naming a district attorney in another county would be one possibility. Georgia has 159 counties, 129 of which voted Republican in 2020. The remaining 30 counties, all in more urban parts of the state, voted Democratic in that election. But even if the case were to be referred to another office, the new prosecutor would have oversight on whether to add, drop or amend the charges Trump and several others face. Those kinds of changes could require reopening the investigation, which would delay the trial for months, likely beyond the presidential election.
Judge McAfee could also decide to not remove Willis but still refer the matter to an oversight agency.
"He could just refer this whole matter to the Bar Association, or to another ethics board, and say that it should not stop this trial," CBS News legal analyst Rikki Klieman said.
Featured Stories
See All
66:03
7h ago
6.0k
Players to Watch: No. 15 Texas A&M at Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
54:59
9h ago
1.1k
37:53
7h ago
778
Reed Report: Chatting with D-Kirk, recapping A&M's 4-0 home stand
by Luke Evangelist
10:56
13h ago
2.9k