New Witness emerges against Willis and Wade

[Goalpost]

Fani has likely witness tampered.  The case is fried.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-07-2024, 11:08 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

It interests me to see you take a rather different tact regarding this case now.  During previous discussion you had stated the belief, which I share, that provable (honestly even likely) malfeasance by Willis would taint the case to the point that others were unlikely to touch it.  I do agree that the judge is unlikely to dismiss the case, but if Willis is removed, as she should be, then this case is no longer winnable.  It has been tainted by Willis's corruption.

[Belsnickel]

(03-07-2024, 12:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It interests me to see you take a rather different tact regarding this case now.  During previous discussion you had stated the belief, which I share, that provable (honestly even likely) malfeasance by Willis would taint the case to the point that others were unlikely to touch it.  I do agree that the judge is unlikely to dismiss the case, but if Willis is removed, as she should be, then this case is no longer winnable.  It has been tainted by Willis's corruption.

Oh, I think she should be removed. I think she should be disbarred. I just don't think the judge will remove her based on what I have heard from those knowledgeable of the laws/rules in Georgia and the whole situation.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-07-2024, 01:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Oh, I think she should be removed. I think she should be disbarred. I just don't think the judge will remove her based on what I have heard from those knowledgeable of the laws/rules in Georgia and the whole situation.

Agreed, which only adds more, and substantial fuel to the fire that Trump is not being treated fairly by the legal system.  I swear, Trump gave these clowns as wide an opening to go after him as he could and they continuously screw it up.  I see zero chance of a lasting Trump conviction in this case now, even if convicted he'll easily win on appeal.

[Luvnit2]

(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

Why is it not credible? Why would she put herself at risk of perjury assuming if she testifies, she will be placed under oath?

For the record, Bradley changed his testimony from texting Trump's attorney. He said in the text Wade absolutely was in a relationship with Willis prior to November 2021. He also texted the attorney Wade took trips with Willis. 

Bradley then changed his tune on the stand from absolutely to I was speculating. He became elusive and would not answer questions. 

So no Pally, Bradley did not give expected testimony. He attempted to avoid it by claiming attorney client privilege. Then he changed it.

Bradley testified on Wednesday, final arguments were on Friday so in essence she had 1 day to make a decision on if she should testify, that is assuming she watched or read about his testimony immediately.


I find it strange you feel a woman should have 5+ months to make a decision on abortion yet attempt to discredit a woman for taking 1 day to make decision that could impact her career. Cobb county is a Democratic County, testifying against Bradley hurting Willis could kill her career.

[*pally*]

(03-07-2024, 01:39 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Why is it not credible? Why would she put herself at risk of perjury assuming if she testifies, she will be placed under oath?

For the record, Bradley changed his testimony from texting Trump's attorney. He said in the text Wade absolutely was in a relationship with Willis prior to November 2021. He also texted the attorney Wade took trips with Willis. 

Bradley then changed his tune on the stand from absolutely to I was speculating. He became elusive and would not answer questions. 

So no Pally, Bradley did not give expected testimony. He attempted to avoid it by claiming attorney client privilege. Then he changed it.

Bradley testified on Wednesday, final arguments were on Friday so in essence she had 1 day to make a decision on if she should testify, that is assuming she watched or read about his testimony immediately.


I find it strange you feel a woman should have 5+ months to make a decision on abortion yet attempt to discredit a woman for taking 1 day to 0make decision that could impact her career. Cobb county is a Democratic County, testifying against Bradley hurting Willis could kill her career.

 
The Cobb County Assistant DA took an oath to uphold the law.  She chose to delay reporting potential exculpatory evidence for whatever reason.  Unfortunately, that delay leads to a concern about her credibility.  Cobb County, btw, is more purple than blue or red.  It went blue in the last Presidential election but the overall governance of the county is mixed.

Bradley did not change his testimony.  He TESTFIED that those texts were speculative.  He told her not to call him to testify.  He fought the subpoena.  The problem is she didn't vet his actual testimony.  So his testimony is essentially that he lied in the texts.  Her job was to disprove that BEFORE SHE CLOSED THE CASE.

We can't lose sight of the forest for the trees. The issue remains that she had to somehow "prove" that Willis and Wade conducted themselves in such a manner that it would be impossible for the defendants to get a fair trial.  Based on the evidence produced in the hearing, they failed to do that but we shall see what the judge says

[GMDino]

Related:

https://thehill.com/homenews/4516182-fulton-county-ethics-board-fani-willis/

Quote:Fulton County ethics board drops Fani Willis complaints from hearing
BY [/url]ELLA LEE - 03/07/24 11:20 AM ET


A Fulton County ethics watchdog slated to hear complaints against District Attorney [url=https://thehill.com/people/fani-willis/]Fani Willis (D) on Thursday will no longer do so, according to an updated meeting agenda.

The Fulton County Board of Ethics was expected to hear two complaints against Willis after her romance with a special prosecutor on the election interference case involving former President Trump raised concerns of a conflict of interest.

The board determined it does not have jurisdiction over Willis, who is a state constitutional officer in her role, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. The Hill requested comment from the Board of Ethics’s secretary and the clerk to the Fulton County Board of Commissioners.

Fulton County resident Steven Kramer filed one of the complaints, citing Willis’s relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade and questioning whether she improperly benefited from his hiring.

“The extra resources and financial costs for the court and the district attorney’s office, both paid for by Fulton County taxpayers like me, are to deal with this improper relationship,” Kramer wrote in his Feb. 14 complaint.

The other complaint was filed by internet-based talk show host Gregory Mantell, who claimed in a Substack post that Willis has violated “at least six sections and even more subsections” of the Fulton County Ethics Code.

The Ethics board inquiry was cheered on by national leaders such as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who posted on social media last month that she was looking forward to the hearing.

A Republican-led state Senate committee also probed Willis’s relationship with Wade this week over allegations the district attorney misused taxpayer funds.

On Wednesday, the Georgia state Senate Special Committee on Investigations questioned Ashleigh Merchant, the defense attorney representing 2020 Trump campaign operative Michael Roman. Merchant first brought the romance to light in a January court filing. She detailed her investigation into the prosecutors Wednesday, revealing few new details but further thrusting the relationship into the spotlight.

The oversight hearing drew renewed attention to the district attorney’s relationship as the judge overseeing the 2020 election interference case weighs whether to disqualify Willis and her office from the historic prosecution.

Judge Scott McAfee said he expects to rule on the matter by the end of next week. The case could be thrown into limbo if he does boot Willis and the Fulton County district attorney’s office from it, as a local council would be tasked with picking a different district attorney’s office to take up the prosecution.

Trump and more than a dozen allies are accused of plotting to return the former president to the White House after he lost Georgia’s 2020 election. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the 13 counts he faces.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-07-2024, 03:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: Related:

https://thehill.com/homenews/4516182-fulton-county-ethics-board-fani-willis/

The Georgia State Senate is conducting their own investigation, which Willis refers to as a 'political quest'.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-07-2024, 05:25 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The Georgia State Senate is conducting their own investigation, which Willis refers to as a 'political quest'.

How..... Ironic..

[Luvnit2]

(03-07-2024, 03:45 PM)pally Wrote:  
The Cobb County Assistant DA took an oath to uphold the law.  She chose to delay reporting potential exculpatory evidence for whatever reason.  Unfortunately, that delay leads to a concern about her credibility.  Cobb County, btw, is more purple than blue or red.  It went blue in the last Presidential election but the overall governance of the county is mixed.

Bradley did not change his testimony.  He TESTFIED that those texts were speculative.  He told her not to call him to testify.  He fought the subpoena.  The problem is she didn't vet his actual testimony.  So his testimony is essentially that he lied in the texts.  Her job was to disprove that BEFORE SHE CLOSED THE CASE.

We can't lose sight of the forest for the trees. The issue remains that she had to somehow "prove" that Willis and Wade conducted themselves in such a manner that it would be impossible for the defendants to get a fair trial.  Based on the evidence produced in the hearing, they failed to do that but we shall see what the judge says

Yes, he testified they were speculative. The problem is he texted Trump's attorney with 100% certainty Wade was in the affair with Fani in long before he was appointed by Fani to prosecute Trump.

The issue is Bradley changed his testimony (lied) on the Wednesday prior to final arguments on Friday. She did come forward rather quickly, just not prior to closing arguments (she had 1 day). He went from absolutely (in writing) to I may have speculated. No way this attorney would know ahead of time he was going to lie.

Again, interesting the degree you go to discredit this attorney, yet defend Fani and Wade more than likely lying in depositions and then on the stand.

[GMDino]

(03-07-2024, 07:59 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Yes, he testified they were speculative. The problem is he texted Trump's attorney with 100% certainty Wade was in the affair with Fani in long before he was appointed by Fani to prosecute Trump.

The issue is Bradley changed his testimony (lied) on the Wednesday prior to final arguments on Friday. She did come forward rather quickly, just not prior to closing arguments (she had 1 day). He went from absolutely (in writing) to I may have speculated. No way this attorney would know ahead of time he was going to lie.

Again, interesting the degree you go to discredit this attorney, yet defend Fani and Wade more than likely lying in depositions and then on the stand.

Do you think Bradley lied when he was 100% certain or when he says he was speculating?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-07-2024, 09:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: Do you think Bradley lied when he was 100% certain or when he says he was speculating?

The simple explanation was when he testified.  He probably didn't realize the consequences of his texts at the time.  Simple exercise, did he lie when he mad the texts, potentially gaining and losing nothing (to his knowledge), or did he lie when he testified, potentially gaining or losing his entire career? Tell us what you think?

[Belsnickel]

(03-07-2024, 09:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: Do you think Bradley lied when he was 100% certain or when he says he was speculating?

He never said he was 100% certain, anyway. Also, the Cobb County prosecutor is basing it on Bradley's speculation, which isn't solid. There isn't enough to hang Willis out to dry, really.

[*pally*]

(03-07-2024, 07:59 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Yes, he testified they were speculative. The problem is he texted Trump's attorney with 100% certainty Wade was in the affair with Fani in long before he was appointed by Fani to prosecute Trump.

The issue is Bradley changed his testimony (lied) on the Wednesday prior to final arguments on Friday. She did come forward rather quickly, just not prior to closing arguments (she had 1 day). He went from absolutely (in writing) to I may have speculated. No way this attorney would know ahead of time he was going to lie.

Again, interesting the degree you go to discredit this attorney, yet defend Fani and Wade more than likely lying in depositions and then on the stand.

It is not illegal to lie to an attorney in conversational texts.  It is however illegal to lie under oath.  
 
It is up to the defense to prove their case and I know you don't like this, but proof requires EVIDENCE not texts which aren't backed up with anything concrete. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-07-2024, 11:39 PM)pally Wrote: It is not illegal to lie to an attorney in conversational texts.  It is however illegal to lie under oath.  
 
It is up to the defense to prove their case and I know you don't like this, but proof requires EVIDENCE not texts which aren't backed up with anything concrete. 

LOL Text messages. 
Isn't text messages like the whole premise of this case? 

[Luvnit2]

(03-07-2024, 09:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: Do you think Bradley lied when he was 100% certain or when he says he was speculating?

Does it matter? His attempt to defend Willis and Wade lost credibility either way. 

There is at least one witness that said he lied, so we will see over time if she is credible, Bradley was not. 

[Luvnit2]

(03-07-2024, 11:39 PM)pally Wrote: It is not illegal to lie to an attorney in conversational texts.  It is however illegal to lie under oath.  
 
It is up to the defense to prove their case and I know you don't like this, but proof requires EVIDENCE not texts which aren't backed up with anything concrete. 

Where did you get your law degree? CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WAPO or other fake news site?

If you are correct, then the judge will allow Fani and Wade to continue the trial. Of course, my guess either way, an appeal follows.

She is also being investigated by Georgias state senate panel. 

Georgia Republicans issue subpoena in probe of Fani Willis (nbcnews.com)

[Luvnit2]

(03-08-2024, 11:41 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: LOL Text messages. 
Isn't text messages like the whole premise of this case? 

Why did Jack Smith subpoena Trump and other members of his team if he could not use it as evidence?

I guess Pally our resident attorney thinks Jack Smith is wasting his time, 

[*pally*]

(03-08-2024, 01:50 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Where did you get your law degree? CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WAPO or other fake news site?

If you are correct, then the judge will allow Fani and Wade to continue the trial. Of course, my guess either way, an appeal follows.

She is also being investigated by Georgias state senate panel. 

Georgia Republicans issue subpoena in probe of Fani Willis (nbcnews.com)

texts need to be backed up with other evidence.  They absolutely can provide information and context but have to be taken in conjunction with the testimony.

They provide context but in this case, due to the absence of other evidence one is left deciding when did Bradley lie...when he said he was speculating or under oath.  
That is why a good lawyer actually vets the information they receive.  And better yet have corroborating evidence to back up that information

The defendant's lawyers put all their eggs in one basket and it came back to bite them.

But let's go back to the case itself.  They asked for removal based on the idea that Willis received financial benefits by receiving gifts from a contract employee to such a degree that the defendants are now unable to receive a fair trial.  Bradley's testimony didn't support that premise.  And as I pointed out.  He said under threat of criminal prosecution that he lied in the texts. It was up to the defendant's lawyers to show that they were real...BEFORE THEY CLOSED THE CASE