Nugnewbie
Well-Known Member
I like your comments about Trump tower being an immigrant center, lol, would piss off Abbott too.
TRUMP CONVICTED
- Thread starter jimihendrix1
- Start date
Bagginski
Well-Known Member
Official!!!
Trump Sneakers - Official President Donald Trump Footwear
Purchase a pair of President Donald Trump’s official sneakers or buy a bottle of Trump Victory perfume or cologne.gettrumpsneakers.com
BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
oh yeah it would....
i think there is a couple of other buildings Don Don owns in NY that would work in addition
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Cutting away the bullshit, Team Trump is claiming without providing evidence to back up their claim that Willis hired Wade in order to sponge off the state by claiming she intended to use the money paid to Wade for his professional services as her own and used it to pay for extravagant trips. It's almost as if they saw the scandal that Justice Thomas was embroiled in and thought they could do the same to Willis. If so, then Trump's lawyers are stupid and doubly so if they thought it would cause Willis to fade.This is a real doozy of an instance how P01135809 continues to distort the judicial system in his favor, and grab the rule of law right by the …
Fani Willis ethics case may reverberate long after judge decision: Experts
Legal experts said the allegations against the Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney may cause a setback against the office's case against the former president.abcnews.go.com
At first while reading it, I was irritated because the headline seems so out of proportion when compared to the facts of the matter. But later, I realized that the headline was chosen to draw eyeballs and not inform. Yes, the headline repeats a sentence in the article and, yes, the details are salacious and yes, it is also true that Trump's team is going to use the so-called "case" in their talking points when appealing the verdict. Yet, the article diverges from discussing public opinion to discussing the facts of the matter. When they do, the hype goes away and the smallness of Trump's team's arguments become apparent.
"This does not fit the normal pattern that attorneys are looking for, so it's not surprising that [Willis'] office didn't think it could be a problem," he said.
Acevedo said from the testimony he's seen so far in the hearings, the matter was a "slip up," and said Willis, Wade and others have so far shown good counterarguments to the defense's claims."
It's all just BS and another case of the orange monkey throwing poo at the zoo keepers to the entertainment of the zoo's visitors. I keep hearing that Willis shouldn't have done it, but... But nothing. Trump would have made shit up if he didn't have this fragment of a distortion that contains a grain of truth that doesn't have anything to do with his case.
Fani Willis came off as a strong and capable prosecutor. Trump does not come off as either strong or capable. It's going to be a long while before this expansive and complex court trial is done but Willis seems to have the ability to take whatever Trump dishes out and return it with interest.
printer
Well-Known Member
Trump Georgia prosecutor objects to questioning of ex-attorney in Fani Willis probe
A special prosecutor in the Georgia election interference case involving former President Trump objected Thursday to a judge’s plan to question his former attorney behind closed doors about the timeline of his relationship with Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D).
Special prosecutor Nathan Wade said Thursday that his ex-attorney and former law partner, Terrence Bradley, should not be subject to a private questioning by Judge Scott McAfee, which may “unlawfully compel” the lawyer to break attorney-client privilege.
The request follows a hearing last week where Wade and Willis insisted they began dating in 2022 — not prior, as defense attorneys purport — and that their romance, now over, is not a conflict of interest.
During the hearing, Bradley invoked attorney-client privilege and said he could not speak to Wade’s relationship without putting his law license at risk. He said he began representing Wade in December 2018, ahead of the special prosecutor’s divorce proceedings.
“Nothing under Georgia law authorizes the Court to conduct such an examination once the determination has been made that attorney-client privilege applies, and should the Court compel the disclosure anyway, it would vitiate one of the oldest and most fundamental privileges recognized both at common law and by statute,” Wade’s lawyers wrote in the Thursday court filing.
Ashleigh Merchant, defendant Michael Roman’s attorney, previously told the court she expected Bradley to testify that Willis and Wade’s relationship began earlier than they say it did. A 2020 Trump campaign operative, Roman first brought Wade and Willis’s relationship to light in court filings and called for them to be booted from the sweeping racketeering case.
The defense contends that Willis hired her romantic partner to prosecute Trump and has since financially benefited from his employment.
Wade argued Thursday that lawyers for the defendants, including Trump, were given “broad leeway to pry into (his) private life” and used that time to introduce “intrusive and legally irrelevant personal details.” And still, they provided no “credible evidence” he or Willis should be disqualified from the case, he said.
For the judge to now question Bradley, despite the privilege invoked, would be “a step too far,” Wade’s lawyers said.
“The Court should not conduct the examination under any circumstance,” the lawyers wrote, bolding and underlining the text.
The timeline of Willis and Wade’s relationship is crucial for establishing whether the representations the prosecutors made under oath are accurate.
While the pair has remained firm that they began dating in early 2022 and broke up in summer 2023, an ex-friend of Willis’s testified that the district attorney “no doubt” began a romantic relationship with Wade in 2019, shortly after a municipal court conference.
McAfee, the judge, has said the allegations against Willis and Wade “could result” in their disqualification if evidence shows an “actual conflict of interest or the appearance of one.”
He will rule on the matter at a later date.
thehill.com
A special prosecutor in the Georgia election interference case involving former President Trump objected Thursday to a judge’s plan to question his former attorney behind closed doors about the timeline of his relationship with Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D).
Special prosecutor Nathan Wade said Thursday that his ex-attorney and former law partner, Terrence Bradley, should not be subject to a private questioning by Judge Scott McAfee, which may “unlawfully compel” the lawyer to break attorney-client privilege.
The request follows a hearing last week where Wade and Willis insisted they began dating in 2022 — not prior, as defense attorneys purport — and that their romance, now over, is not a conflict of interest.
During the hearing, Bradley invoked attorney-client privilege and said he could not speak to Wade’s relationship without putting his law license at risk. He said he began representing Wade in December 2018, ahead of the special prosecutor’s divorce proceedings.
“Nothing under Georgia law authorizes the Court to conduct such an examination once the determination has been made that attorney-client privilege applies, and should the Court compel the disclosure anyway, it would vitiate one of the oldest and most fundamental privileges recognized both at common law and by statute,” Wade’s lawyers wrote in the Thursday court filing.
Ashleigh Merchant, defendant Michael Roman’s attorney, previously told the court she expected Bradley to testify that Willis and Wade’s relationship began earlier than they say it did. A 2020 Trump campaign operative, Roman first brought Wade and Willis’s relationship to light in court filings and called for them to be booted from the sweeping racketeering case.
The defense contends that Willis hired her romantic partner to prosecute Trump and has since financially benefited from his employment.
Wade argued Thursday that lawyers for the defendants, including Trump, were given “broad leeway to pry into (his) private life” and used that time to introduce “intrusive and legally irrelevant personal details.” And still, they provided no “credible evidence” he or Willis should be disqualified from the case, he said.
For the judge to now question Bradley, despite the privilege invoked, would be “a step too far,” Wade’s lawyers said.
“The Court should not conduct the examination under any circumstance,” the lawyers wrote, bolding and underlining the text.
The timeline of Willis and Wade’s relationship is crucial for establishing whether the representations the prosecutors made under oath are accurate.
While the pair has remained firm that they began dating in early 2022 and broke up in summer 2023, an ex-friend of Willis’s testified that the district attorney “no doubt” began a romantic relationship with Wade in 2019, shortly after a municipal court conference.
McAfee, the judge, has said the allegations against Willis and Wade “could result” in their disqualification if evidence shows an “actual conflict of interest or the appearance of one.”
He will rule on the matter at a later date.
Trump Georgia prosecutor objects to questioning of ex-attorney in Fani Willis probe
A special prosecutor in the Georgia election interference case involving former President Trump objected Thursday to a judge’s plan to question his former attorney behind closed doors about t…
thehill.com
compassionateExotic
Well-Known Member
printer
Well-Known Member
Trump demands judge toss classified documents charges: What to know
Former President Trump demanded his classified documents charges be dismissed in seven separate motions filed late Thursday that assert presidential immunity and other defenses. A handful of the motions filed in advance of Trump’s Thursday deadline are publicly available, while others will remain under seal for days until the parties discuss necessary redactions.
Many of Trump’s defenses — such as his immunity argument — mimic motions he has made in special counsel Jack Smith’s separate prosecution of Trump in Washington, D.C., on charges related to allegedly subverting the 2020 election results. Some of the other defenses are specific to the classified documents case, where Trump faces 40 felony counts that accuse him of mishandling classified records and attempting to obstruct the government’s retrieval of those records. Trump has pleaded not guilty.
Trump contends his 32 counts of willfully retaining national defense information, each of which correspond to a document Trump allegedly took to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida after his presidency, must be tossed because he has presidential immunity. The former president argues he designated the records in question as personal under the Presidential Records Act before leaving the White House. “President Trump’s decision to designate records as personal and cause them to be removed from the White House plainly constitutes an official act within the ‘outer perimeter’ of the president’s official duties,” Trump attorneys Todd Blanche and Chris Kise wrote in court papers.
In his D.C. criminal case, Trump has made a near-identical immunity argument. But he has so far failed to persuade his trial judge there or an appeals court panel. The matter has since landed at the Supreme Court, which has not yet agreed to take up the case but could announce how it will proceed at any time. Trump’s attorneys in the classified documents case referenced that ongoing battle, insisting the decisions against the former president were wrong. “The D.C. Circuit’s analysis is not persuasive for many of the reasons discussed below, and President Trump is pursuing further review of that erroneous decision, including en banc review if allowed, and review in the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. This Court should not follow the D.C. Circuit’s non-binding, poorly reasoned decision,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in their motion.
If his immunity argument is rejected, Trump next argues those same 32 counts should be tossed because the willful retention charge is “unconstitutionally vague” as applied to the former president. To prove the charge, prosecutors must show at trial the documents in question relate “to the national defense,” Trump had “unauthorized possession,” and he failed to deliver the records to a federal official “entitled to receive” them. But Trump’s attorneys homed in on those three phrases in their dismissal motion, describing it as “problematic language” that will be confusing to a jury and violate Trump’s due process rights.
“Since at least 1941, courts in cases with less vexing features than this one have acknowledged grave infirmities in the language of [the charge] and endeavored to ‘save’ the statute. That approach is inconsistent with the due process principles and separation-of-powers concerns that animate the vagueness doctrine,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. They also separately insisted that one of the 32 document retention charges should be dropped for a different reason: Trump maintained a security clearance to view that particular record. “Whatever [the charge] means—and that much is unconstitutionally unclear—the Authorization Clause does not prohibit possession of a document by the holder of a valid security clearance, and someone who is cleared to the appropriate level cannot willfully violate the statute,” Trump’s attorneys wrote.
Trump further contends the entire case must be dropped because Smith, the special counsel tapped by Attorney General Merrick Garland, was unlawfully appointed. “The Appointments Clause does not permit the Attorney General to appoint, without Senate confirmation, a private citizen and like-minded political ally to wield the prosecutorial power of the United States. As such, Jack Smith lacks the authority to prosecute this action,” Blanche and Kise wrote in their motion. It’s an argument made for years by Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson, law professors who hold leadership roles in the conservative Federalist Society. The duo previously argued the probe led by special counsel Robert Mueller into Trump and Russia’s interference in the 2016 election was unconstitutional for the same reason. The professors submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in Trump’s D.C. criminal case arguing Smith’s appointment is invalid, but the panel of judges did not act on the concern.
Trump’s attorneys indicated they filed three additional dismissal motions that are not yet publicly available due to redaction concerns. Attorneys on both sides are set to confer privately about any redactions. The judge gave the parties until Feb. 29 to mount any objections, meaning the documents are unlikely to become public at least until then. But Trump’s lawyers did outline in public court papers the basic thrust of those sealed arguments.
Like some of his other criminal cases, Trump is asserting he is being selectively and vindictively prosecuted for political reasons. He asked the judge to order additional discovery that would provide further “evidence of bias and political animus.” Trump is also alleging prosecutorial misconduct, taking aim at how the investigation involved the FBI, the National Archives and Records Administration and other agencies. The former president contends it resulted in due process violations, impermissible delay in bringing the charges and abuses of the grand jury process.
Finally, Trump’s lawyers are pushing back on the FBI’s execution of a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago in August 2022 to search for remaining classified materials. The materials recovered in the search have become central to the prosecution. Calling the search unconstitutional, Blanche and Kise said the warrant contained “misleading omissions” and that law enforcement improperly pierced attorney-client privilege in its investigation.
Smith’s team will eventually respond to Trump’s motions in court filings. But Smith has pushed back on the former president’s immunity claims in another case, and his team has insisted politics isn’t playing a role in its work.
thehill.com
Former President Trump demanded his classified documents charges be dismissed in seven separate motions filed late Thursday that assert presidential immunity and other defenses. A handful of the motions filed in advance of Trump’s Thursday deadline are publicly available, while others will remain under seal for days until the parties discuss necessary redactions.
Many of Trump’s defenses — such as his immunity argument — mimic motions he has made in special counsel Jack Smith’s separate prosecution of Trump in Washington, D.C., on charges related to allegedly subverting the 2020 election results. Some of the other defenses are specific to the classified documents case, where Trump faces 40 felony counts that accuse him of mishandling classified records and attempting to obstruct the government’s retrieval of those records. Trump has pleaded not guilty.
Trump contends his 32 counts of willfully retaining national defense information, each of which correspond to a document Trump allegedly took to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida after his presidency, must be tossed because he has presidential immunity. The former president argues he designated the records in question as personal under the Presidential Records Act before leaving the White House. “President Trump’s decision to designate records as personal and cause them to be removed from the White House plainly constitutes an official act within the ‘outer perimeter’ of the president’s official duties,” Trump attorneys Todd Blanche and Chris Kise wrote in court papers.
In his D.C. criminal case, Trump has made a near-identical immunity argument. But he has so far failed to persuade his trial judge there or an appeals court panel. The matter has since landed at the Supreme Court, which has not yet agreed to take up the case but could announce how it will proceed at any time. Trump’s attorneys in the classified documents case referenced that ongoing battle, insisting the decisions against the former president were wrong. “The D.C. Circuit’s analysis is not persuasive for many of the reasons discussed below, and President Trump is pursuing further review of that erroneous decision, including en banc review if allowed, and review in the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. This Court should not follow the D.C. Circuit’s non-binding, poorly reasoned decision,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in their motion.
If his immunity argument is rejected, Trump next argues those same 32 counts should be tossed because the willful retention charge is “unconstitutionally vague” as applied to the former president. To prove the charge, prosecutors must show at trial the documents in question relate “to the national defense,” Trump had “unauthorized possession,” and he failed to deliver the records to a federal official “entitled to receive” them. But Trump’s attorneys homed in on those three phrases in their dismissal motion, describing it as “problematic language” that will be confusing to a jury and violate Trump’s due process rights.
“Since at least 1941, courts in cases with less vexing features than this one have acknowledged grave infirmities in the language of [the charge] and endeavored to ‘save’ the statute. That approach is inconsistent with the due process principles and separation-of-powers concerns that animate the vagueness doctrine,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. They also separately insisted that one of the 32 document retention charges should be dropped for a different reason: Trump maintained a security clearance to view that particular record. “Whatever [the charge] means—and that much is unconstitutionally unclear—the Authorization Clause does not prohibit possession of a document by the holder of a valid security clearance, and someone who is cleared to the appropriate level cannot willfully violate the statute,” Trump’s attorneys wrote.
Trump further contends the entire case must be dropped because Smith, the special counsel tapped by Attorney General Merrick Garland, was unlawfully appointed. “The Appointments Clause does not permit the Attorney General to appoint, without Senate confirmation, a private citizen and like-minded political ally to wield the prosecutorial power of the United States. As such, Jack Smith lacks the authority to prosecute this action,” Blanche and Kise wrote in their motion. It’s an argument made for years by Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson, law professors who hold leadership roles in the conservative Federalist Society. The duo previously argued the probe led by special counsel Robert Mueller into Trump and Russia’s interference in the 2016 election was unconstitutional for the same reason. The professors submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in Trump’s D.C. criminal case arguing Smith’s appointment is invalid, but the panel of judges did not act on the concern.
Trump’s attorneys indicated they filed three additional dismissal motions that are not yet publicly available due to redaction concerns. Attorneys on both sides are set to confer privately about any redactions. The judge gave the parties until Feb. 29 to mount any objections, meaning the documents are unlikely to become public at least until then. But Trump’s lawyers did outline in public court papers the basic thrust of those sealed arguments.
Like some of his other criminal cases, Trump is asserting he is being selectively and vindictively prosecuted for political reasons. He asked the judge to order additional discovery that would provide further “evidence of bias and political animus.” Trump is also alleging prosecutorial misconduct, taking aim at how the investigation involved the FBI, the National Archives and Records Administration and other agencies. The former president contends it resulted in due process violations, impermissible delay in bringing the charges and abuses of the grand jury process.
Finally, Trump’s lawyers are pushing back on the FBI’s execution of a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago in August 2022 to search for remaining classified materials. The materials recovered in the search have become central to the prosecution. Calling the search unconstitutional, Blanche and Kise said the warrant contained “misleading omissions” and that law enforcement improperly pierced attorney-client privilege in its investigation.
Smith’s team will eventually respond to Trump’s motions in court filings. But Smith has pushed back on the former president’s immunity claims in another case, and his team has insisted politics isn’t playing a role in its work.
Trump demands judge toss classified documents charges: What to know
Former President Trump demanded his classified documents charges be dismissed in seven separate motions filed late Thursday that assert presidential immunity and other defenses. A handful of the mo…
thehill.com
GenericEnigma
Well-Known Member
I'm confused. Were these documents Trump's, were they declassified but still the government's, were they safer at MAL (I love the use of that acronym), was the retention unintentional, or were they planted by the FBI? Not sure which flavor of ketchup is sticking this week.Trump demands judge toss classified documents charges: What to know
Former President Trump demanded his classified documents charges be dismissed in seven separate motions filed late Thursday that assert presidential immunity and other defenses. A handful of the motions filed in advance of Trump’s Thursday deadline are publicly available, while others will remain under seal for days until the parties discuss necessary redactions.
Many of Trump’s defenses — such as his immunity argument — mimic motions he has made in special counsel Jack Smith’s separate prosecution of Trump in Washington, D.C., on charges related to allegedly subverting the 2020 election results. Some of the other defenses are specific to the classified documents case, where Trump faces 40 felony counts that accuse him of mishandling classified records and attempting to obstruct the government’s retrieval of those records. Trump has pleaded not guilty.
Trump contends his 32 counts of willfully retaining national defense information, each of which correspond to a document Trump allegedly took to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida after his presidency, must be tossed because he has presidential immunity. The former president argues he designated the records in question as personal under the Presidential Records Act before leaving the White House. “President Trump’s decision to designate records as personal and cause them to be removed from the White House plainly constitutes an official act within the ‘outer perimeter’ of the president’s official duties,” Trump attorneys Todd Blanche and Chris Kise wrote in court papers.
In his D.C. criminal case, Trump has made a near-identical immunity argument. But he has so far failed to persuade his trial judge there or an appeals court panel. The matter has since landed at the Supreme Court, which has not yet agreed to take up the case but could announce how it will proceed at any time. Trump’s attorneys in the classified documents case referenced that ongoing battle, insisting the decisions against the former president were wrong. “The D.C. Circuit’s analysis is not persuasive for many of the reasons discussed below, and President Trump is pursuing further review of that erroneous decision, including en banc review if allowed, and review in the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. This Court should not follow the D.C. Circuit’s non-binding, poorly reasoned decision,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in their motion.
If his immunity argument is rejected, Trump next argues those same 32 counts should be tossed because the willful retention charge is “unconstitutionally vague” as applied to the former president. To prove the charge, prosecutors must show at trial the documents in question relate “to the national defense,” Trump had “unauthorized possession,” and he failed to deliver the records to a federal official “entitled to receive” them. But Trump’s attorneys homed in on those three phrases in their dismissal motion, describing it as “problematic language” that will be confusing to a jury and violate Trump’s due process rights.
“Since at least 1941, courts in cases with less vexing features than this one have acknowledged grave infirmities in the language of [the charge] and endeavored to ‘save’ the statute. That approach is inconsistent with the due process principles and separation-of-powers concerns that animate the vagueness doctrine,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. They also separately insisted that one of the 32 document retention charges should be dropped for a different reason: Trump maintained a security clearance to view that particular record. “Whatever [the charge] means—and that much is unconstitutionally unclear—the Authorization Clause does not prohibit possession of a document by the holder of a valid security clearance, and someone who is cleared to the appropriate level cannot willfully violate the statute,” Trump’s attorneys wrote.
Trump further contends the entire case must be dropped because Smith, the special counsel tapped by Attorney General Merrick Garland, was unlawfully appointed. “The Appointments Clause does not permit the Attorney General to appoint, without Senate confirmation, a private citizen and like-minded political ally to wield the prosecutorial power of the United States. As such, Jack Smith lacks the authority to prosecute this action,” Blanche and Kise wrote in their motion. It’s an argument made for years by Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson, law professors who hold leadership roles in the conservative Federalist Society. The duo previously argued the probe led by special counsel Robert Mueller into Trump and Russia’s interference in the 2016 election was unconstitutional for the same reason. The professors submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in Trump’s D.C. criminal case arguing Smith’s appointment is invalid, but the panel of judges did not act on the concern.
Trump’s attorneys indicated they filed three additional dismissal motions that are not yet publicly available due to redaction concerns. Attorneys on both sides are set to confer privately about any redactions. The judge gave the parties until Feb. 29 to mount any objections, meaning the documents are unlikely to become public at least until then. But Trump’s lawyers did outline in public court papers the basic thrust of those sealed arguments.
Like some of his other criminal cases, Trump is asserting he is being selectively and vindictively prosecuted for political reasons. He asked the judge to order additional discovery that would provide further “evidence of bias and political animus.” Trump is also alleging prosecutorial misconduct, taking aim at how the investigation involved the FBI, the National Archives and Records Administration and other agencies. The former president contends it resulted in due process violations, impermissible delay in bringing the charges and abuses of the grand jury process.
Finally, Trump’s lawyers are pushing back on the FBI’s execution of a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago in August 2022 to search for remaining classified materials. The materials recovered in the search have become central to the prosecution. Calling the search unconstitutional, Blanche and Kise said the warrant contained “misleading omissions” and that law enforcement improperly pierced attorney-client privilege in its investigation.
Smith’s team will eventually respond to Trump’s motions in court filings. But Smith has pushed back on the former president’s immunity claims in another case, and his team has insisted politics isn’t playing a role in its work.
Trump demands judge toss classified documents charges: What to know
Former President Trump demanded his classified documents charges be dismissed in seven separate motions filed late Thursday that assert presidential immunity and other defenses. A handful of the mo…
My favorite is when Trump compares himself to other officials who immediately handed over to NARA the documents they had, completely cooperating with any investigation. I just giggle at the blatant absence of intelligence (him and [TOS grey area]).
BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
Looks like the Save America Pack is in trooubblllleeee..........
Ethics Commisson:
www.wispolitics.com
Ethics Commisson:
Ethics Commission alleges Trump joint fundraising committee, Brandtjen involved in campaign finance scheme to benefit Vos challenger
The commission this week recommended local district attorneys investigate and charge both, as well as the campaign of Adam Steen, who lost to Vos by 260 votes, eight individuals and the three county Republican parties alleged to be involved.
www.wispolitics.com
lemondroptrichomes
Active Member
Trump lawyers: Cellphone data raises questions about start of Willis-Wade relationship
Nathan Wade appeared to make at least 35 visits to the Hapeville neighborhood where Fani Willis was living before the district attorney hired him to lead Fulton County’s election interference prosecution, according to cellphone data included in a court submission filed Friday.
www.ajc.com
I did not expect this. Especially after their testimony
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
That's not how I see it. Trump's defense has always been a combination of tactics to delay proceedings, filing to throw out his cases by citing unimportant legal minutia and kicking dirt on those working diligently to enforce the rule of law in this country.Trump lawyers: Cellphone data raises questions about start of Willis-Wade relationship
Nathan Wade appeared to make at least 35 visits to the Hapeville neighborhood where Fani Willis was living before the district attorney hired him to lead Fulton County’s election interference prosecution, according to cellphone data included in a court submission filed Friday.
View attachment 5372675
I did not expect this. Especially after their testimony
I didn't read the article. So, tell me, if you can, what does this have to do with Trump interfering in Georgia's election?
lemondroptrichomes
Active Member
it’s worth a read as it indicates judge Willis and Mr. Wade may have been dishonest in their testimonies last week though use of cell phone records. If she is dismissed any new prosecutor would have to start the case all over which is highly unlikely
BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
judge who?
lemondroptrichomes
Active Member
Sorry district attorney*
Once again Who TF is on trial here,2 consenting adults under a ridiculous spotlight is THE STORY,when this MF is on tape pressuring the Ga. Sec. of State to invent votes ."C'mon give me a break",sound familiar.
BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
you know this whole willis and wade thing is just a big nothingburger don't you. There was no conflict of interest in they're relationship....all this is just a big stale tactic from the RICO case they have on Don Don and the gang of dummies
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
It's not exactly new news. She knew Wade before he started working on this case. This was said by Willis during her testimony. Wade said so too.
Everybody has crap on them over this.
- Trump's lawyers have crap on them because they made a stupid argument without evidence to back them up.
- Willis has crap on her because in today's age, supervisors should not engage in sexual relationships with subordinates in their office. It's not illegal but she works for the people of Fulton County and that kind of office drama affects the morale and performance of people who work in the office she was elected to manage.
- The judge has crap on him because he let Trump's lawyers push an issue without giving him good reasons.
But no, phone records don't prove anything of the sort that you are insinuating. "May" is not a legal argument for removing Willis from the case. Do you think she lied? Are you really using logic or is this just "what if" thinking here?
But if you are saying Willis shouldn't have done this because it gave Trump's team a chance to take a risk that cost them nothing but could pay off big, yep, she shouldn't have done it.
I don't know what the judge is going to do. If he does dismiss Willis, it would be an injustice to the people of Georgia. They have the right to see justice done regarding the harm Trump and his co conspirators did to Georgia's election system. Isn't that what's at stake here? So, this is all just in-the-weeds legal minutia that is unimportant to what's at stake here.
Dandy Don,you keep referencing the Jan6 rioters,who desecrated and vandalized Congress while shouting your mantras to hang M. Pence, they looked for Nancy and ransacked her office and waged pitched battles w/Capital police that resulted in deaths/injuries/and suicides,as HOSTAGES. I ask "were they mislead or duped into the actions they committed w/your "stolen election" fantasy". If so then they are hostages, of yours,you took them hostage.So do the right thing,take responsibility, maybe they will get sentence reductions upon your conviction for the "big lie" so fess up. After all, they're "very special,you love them",remember.You're tough,,strong ,you promised them you'd be there then watched it all go down on the couch w/a 6pk. of cokes after telling them they had to "fight like hell". Free the hostages Don
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
This falls short of the minimum standard of evidence. An honest, non-activist judge is a trier of fact, not of allegations that are not only irrelevant, but subjective.
Trouble is — that is not the sort of judge P01135809 was wont to appoint.