New Witness emerges against Willis and Wade

[Luvnit2]

A new witness says Fani Willis asked Brdley not to testify on their affair and can confirm the love shack started in 2019 versus 2021 that Wade and Willis testified to under oath. If the witness is allowed and can confirm Willis attempted to tamper with a witness against her, is this OK in the liberal world?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-prosecutor-alleges-fani-willis-asked-bradley-not-testify-affair

Georgia prosecutor alleges Fani Willis asked Bradley not to testify on affair: 'They are coming after us'

A witness claims Fulton County DA Fani Willis asked attorney Terrence Bradley not to testify in her disqualification case

During this alleged conversation, which took place before Bradley was subpoenaed as a witness against Willis, Yeager claims she heard the district attorney tell Bradley, "They are coming after us. You don't need to talk to them about anything about us.


The motion states Yeager agreed to come forward after seeing how Bradley's testimony during Willis' disqualification hearing did not match what he had purportedly told her.

"Therefore, in the event that the Court re-opens the hearing to receive additional evidence, as requested by the State and Defendant former President Trump, Mr. Shafer requests that the defense be permitted to subpoena Ms. Yeager and present Ms. Yeager's testimony relating to the matters set forth herein," the motion states.

It is unclear if Judge Scott McAfee will reopen evidence to allow Yeager's testimony to be admitted.

[XenoMorph]

Hope these corrupt Soros DA's and judges fall 1 by 1

[CKwi88]

THIS will be the one. I'm sure of it! Checkmate.

[Luvnit2]

(03-05-2024, 06:18 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: THIS will be the one. I'm sure of it! Checkmate.

You mean like Trump will be removed from the ballot; this will be the one. 

[Luvnit2]

(03-05-2024, 06:14 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: Hope these corrupt Soros DA's and judges fall 1 by 1

It is not an issue to tamper with a witness if it favors a Democrat's case. 

[*pally*]

Why did this prosecutor not come forward while the case was hearing arguments?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2024, 06:18 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: THIS will be the one. I'm sure of it! Checkmate.

If you've paid attention to the hearings then one more really isn't needed.  It's not a criminal case, the burden of proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt.

(03-05-2024, 07:50 PM)pally Wrote: Why did this prosecutor not come forward while the case was hearing arguments?

A good question, one I'm sure will be answered.  Likely for the same reasons people generally don't come forward in other high profile cases, e.g. because they don't want to attention, they don't want to be the target of attacks both on their physical person and their character.  See Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Deshaun Watson for example. This being even more high profile than a standard high profile case, and your testimony pissing off about half the country regardless of which way it goes, I'd say there's lots of plausible, and reasonable, explanations as to why.

[*pally*]

(03-05-2024, 08:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you've paid attention to the hearings then one more really isn't needed.  It's not a criminal case, the burden of proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt.


A good question, one I'm sure will be answered.  Likely for the same reasons people generally don't come forward in other high profile cases, e.g. because they don't want to attention, they don't want to be the target of attacks both on their physical person and their character.  See Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Deshaun Watson for example. This being even more high profile than a standard high profile case, and your testimony pissing off about half the country regardless of which way it goes, I'd say there's lots of plausible, and reasonable, explanations as to why.

except this person is a prosecutor.  If she had pertinent evidence outside of attorney/client privilege she was obligated to come forward at the appropriate time not when the case was closed.  Isn't that part of that lawyer ethics thing too?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2024, 11:14 PM)pally Wrote: except this person is a prosecutor.  If she had pertinent evidence outside of attorney/client privilege she was obligated to come forward at the appropriate time not when the case was closed.  Isn't that part of that lawyer ethics thing too?

You just raised yet another reason they may just be coming forward.  Ethically, and likely per policy, they should have spoken up long ago and, for whatever reason, failed to do so.  Hence, going public later would expose them to discipline, hence their not coming forward later as well.  In that instance either their conscience finally got to them or they figured they were going to be found out anyways and finally came forward.

[Luvnit2]

(03-05-2024, 11:14 PM)pally Wrote: except this person is a prosecutor.  If she had pertinent evidence outside of attorney/client privilege she was obligated to come forward at the appropriate time not when the case was closed.  Isn't that part of that lawyer ethics thing too?

Did you read the article. 

Her testimony was specific to Bradley's testimony. Once Bradley lied (he could have told the truth so no way the prosecutor knows prior).

Bradley's false testimony triggered her to speak out now. 

[Luvnit2]

(03-05-2024, 11:14 PM)pally Wrote: except this person is a prosecutor.  If she had pertinent evidence outside of attorney/client privilege she was obligated to come forward at the appropriate time not when the case was closed.  Isn't that part of that lawyer ethics thing too?

Read my prior response. She has information to impeach Bradley's testimony. She did come forward quickly after he testified.

[*pally*]

(03-06-2024, 01:32 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Read my prior response. She has information to impeach Bradley's testimony. She did come forward quickly after he testified.

She had an opportunity to do that before closing statements. She also claims to have directly heard the conversation which means she could have testified independently of Bradley yet chose not to


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Luvnit2]

(03-06-2024, 01:42 PM)pally Wrote: She had an opportunity to do that before closing statements.  She also claims to have directly heard the conversation which means she could have testified independently of Bradley yet chose not to


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess you are assuming she stopped working and watched his testimony live. The closing arguments were quickly after Bradley (last witness testified).

I understand your need to discredit her, yet if her information is correct, it would show both Wade and not a prosecutor, but the DA lied under oath. Yet, you just dismiss it.

As others have mentioned, without her more than enough evidence to remove her from the case. If judge allows this witness to testify, it would possibly be so damning Willis and wade could be convicted of perjury and then prosecuted criminally.

I find it ironic Willis tampered with a witness which is more direct way of violating the law than the thing she is prosecuting Trump for which is alleging trump tried to tamper with election results by saying find me more votes.

[*pally*]

She lives in the Atlanta metro area, she is a lawyer working in the public sector. It is inconceivable that she hasn't been following this story. She supposedly had evidence that corroborated Breadley's texts. The existence of the texts was known for weeks, and the general contents were also known for weeks. There was already public discussion over whether Bradley could claim attorney-client privilege. So at no time did she say to herself, hey I heard Willis and Bradley talking about his testimony and the details, and call one of the attorneys and say she had evidence. She didn't have to hear Bradley's testimony. Granted as far as I can tell she still has no direct evidence of the relationship between Willis and Wade and any potential financial windfall for Willis which is the actual accusation

Her story doesn't ring as credible

[SunsetBengal]

(03-06-2024, 03:23 PM)pally Wrote: She lives in the Atlanta metro area, she is a lawyer working in the public sector. It is inconceivable that she hasn't been following this story.  She supposedly had evidence that corroborated Breadley's texts.  The existence of the texts was known for weeks, and the general contents were also known for weeks.  There was already public discussion over whether Bradley could claim attorney-client privilege.  So at no time did she say to herself, hey I heard Willis and Bradley talking about his testimony and the details, and call one of the attorneys and say she had evidence.  She didn't have to hear Bradley's testimony.  Granted as far as I can tell she still has no direct evidence of the relationship between Willis and Wade and any potential financial windfall for Willis which is the actual accusation

Her story doesn't ring as credible

That's odd, I read that Cindi Lee Yeager is Co-Chief Deputy District Attorney for Cobb County.

[*pally*]

(03-06-2024, 03:31 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That's odd, I read that Cindi Lee Yeager is Co-Chief Deputy District Attorney for Cobb County.

maybe I just worded it weirdly, but that is what I meant...she works for the county...she isn't a private attorney

[Mike M (the other one)]

Entertain me, I'm not overly keeping up with this circus.
what happens to the case if they can prove the relationship started prior to this case?
Keep it simple, no long drawn out explanations needed.

[GMDino]

(03-07-2024, 10:41 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Entertain me, I'm not overly keeping up with this circus.
what happens to the case if they can prove the relationship started prior to this case?
Keep it simple, no long drawn out explanations needed.

If they can PROVE it I'd imagine she is in a lot of trouble for lying under oath.

But to the case she would most likely be removed from her office and off the case. The question then becomes if they can find someone to continue with the prosecution or if they even want to.

[*pally*]

(03-07-2024, 10:41 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Entertain me, I'm not overly keeping up with this circus.
what happens to the case if they can prove the relationship started prior to this case?
Keep it simple, no long drawn out explanations needed.

Then Willis would have committed perjury which would cause her serious legal troubles plus cause the Judge to remove her from the case.  Whether he would go further and disqualify the entire office would remain to be seen.  If he disqualifies the office then some other county's DA office would have to agree to take up the case for trial which is no guarantee.  That search would be undertaken by the Republican dominated Prosecutors Council which could take its sweet time in finding a new prosecutor

So if Willis is disqualified, Trump will essentially win by default.  

[Belsnickel]

(03-07-2024, 10:41 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Entertain me, I'm not overly keeping up with this circus.
what happens to the case if they can prove the relationship started prior to this case?
Keep it simple, no long drawn out explanations needed.

Based on all of the experts I have read updates from and hear analyses by...nothing. They state that the most likely outcome is going to be that the judge says that the situation, while untenable, is not something to be remedied by dismissal. Disciplinary actions would be handled through the bar and it is not his role to take action.