INDICTED (INDICATED) #4 - Quadfecta! Perfecta? - Judge Scott McAfee - Georgia v. Trump ET AL - P01135809- Fani Willis

[Rolodex]

Thanks! I think the ruling on this may set the bar for how hard the wolves are gonna go after Willis.

It's a bad look if she's been steering lucrative government work to her "friend," but this filing was way premature. The divorce case hasn't even gone to court yet and they wanted Willis' info in order to dig into Ward's financials. Purportedly.

[RTH10260]

According to MTN Michael Popok the lawyers for the former guy filed a Me-Too disqualification motion against Willis mimicking the one of the fake elector, plus some crazy stuff related to a church addreess at MLlK weekend.

video

► Show Spoiler

[raison de arizona]

Fani Willis can't catch a break.

Cyberattack hits Georgia county where Trump faces election interference charges
The incident affected all departments across Fulton County, including those of the DA who is prosecuting Trump and numerous co-defendants accused of election interference.

A cyberattack that hit government systems in Fulton County, Georgia, over the weekend affected the offices of the district attorney who is prosecuting former President Donald Trump on election interference charges, local officials said Monday.

All desktop phones, intranet and devices using county servers are down for all departments, including District Attorney Fani Willis' office, said a county official with knowledge of the situation.

County employees received an email notification about the outage Monday, the official said.

Fulton County Board of Commissioners Chairman Robb Pitts confirmed at a news briefing Monday afternoon that the outage, which he said affected the county’s phones, courts and tax systems, "was a result of a cybersecurity incident" and that law enforcement was investigating.

"We do not yet have a specific time frame for when these systems will be restored," Pitts said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... rcna136269

[Flatpoint High]

Let's hear it for Domestic Terrorism

[RTH10260]

Prosecutor in Trump Georgia case settles divorce, heading off testimony

By Amy Gardner and Holly Bailey
Updated January 30, 2024 at 7:06 p.m. EST|Published January 30, 2024 at 5:10 p.m. EST

The lead prosecutor in the Georgia election-interference case against former president Donald Trump and his allies settled a contentious divorce dispute on Tuesday, avoiding a hearing scheduled for Wednesday morning that could have included testimony about allegations of an improper relationship between him and Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... e-settled/

[p0rtia]

Bravo. So obvious, though I heard no one predict that.

[p0rtia]

Reading through Willis's reply to Roman's slut-shaming motion.

One need look no further than Defendant Roman’s baseless effort to undermine Wade’s qualifications to manage the State’s investigative efforts to recognize the bad faith that runs throughout his motion. While the motion makes dismissive accusations about the adequacy of the Special Prosecutor’s successful, decades-long legal career to lead the prosecution of Defendant Roman and his co-defendants (a decidedly strange position for a criminal defendant to take), the truth is that Wade has long distinguished himself as an exceptionally talented litigator with significant trial experience.

[ Wade accolades]

Counsel for Defendant Roman, of course, is well-familiar with the experience and qualifications of Special Prosecutor Wade, whatever contrary representations are made in Roman’s motion. During a judicial campaign in 2016, Defendant Roman’s counsel Ashleigh Merchant was an enthusiastic supporter of Wade’s candidacy, and described him in glowing terms. Ex. C (May 2016 Facebook posts of Ashleigh Bartkus Merchant: “Why Nathan Wade? Nathan is ethical . . . Experience matters. Nathan’s experience includes: Public Servant. Prosecutor. Private Attorney. Judge . . .”; “Nathan has practiced in every area of the law that appears before the Superior Court bench . . . He is a recipient of the State Bar of Georgia’s Justice Robert Benham Award for Service to the Community. He is also a recipient of the Gate City Bar Judicial Section Legacy Award (Justice Robert Benham Legacy Award) . . . [He] received Georgia’s Top Lawyers Award in 2006 and 2009 . . . .”) ).

Followed by pix of Ms. Merchant wearing a Nathan Wade T-short.

[p0rtia]

Willis's response is not as long as the newsies implied. 100 pages of exhibits, of course.

Only thing of serious note is the inclusion of various air plane tickets bought for Wade by Willis, in support of her statement that they roughly split expenses.

The nothing burger is a nothing burger.

[p0rtia]

A Georgia State U law and ethics professor popped up on MSNBC last night to throw an Olympic-pool-sized amount of water on the "Fani Willis's response to Roman's motion was fabu and McAfee should cancel the hearing" gang. Head of that gang, sweetie Andrew Weissman, summed up his position that this was a politically motivated nothing burger, and then made way for Cunningham, who said something along the lines of "This is the worst ethics violation I have ever seen in GA," and "This will delay the trial for months," and "Her only option is to step down and recuse herself right now, which would make the problem go away in five minutes." He also thought that the fact that Willis had signed Wade's request to have the cap on his hours raised after a year was the nail in the coffin. Weissman did point out that his contract was up for renewal, and that said contract had to be and was approved by higher ups, not solely by Willis.

I've heard a lot of (political) commentators say that Willis made a big booboo (presumably by having a romantic relationship with Wade), but they tend to point to the political effect of throwing dirt on people, deserved or not. Mr. Cunningham was so worked up that I foolishly assumed that he was the new right-wing talking head--till he barrelled on about the need to stop fuckhead and that it had to happen NOW and thus, Willis must step down.

I was hoping Weissman would engage with him, but he didn't (much). I'm seeing "recuse herself" around the intertubes today, so there you have it.

[bob]

There's some overlap here.

Did the prosecutors engage in unethical behavior? Quite possibly. That could have consequences for the licenses and their careers.

Will a judge dismiss the criminal case over these possible improprieties? Almost certainly not.

Could a defendant file a dismissal motion, have it get denied, seek immediate appellate relief and ask for a stay (a la the DC case)? Possible, but also not probable.

[pipistrelle]

Whatever is going on, the alleged crime doesn't go away.

[Kendra]

Alex Witt had the two authors of the new book on this case today. Really interesting discussion, including that this prosecutor was not her first choice - I think at least one declined because of safety concerns.

[RTH10260]

some kind of unrequested "sur-reply"

[Greatgrey]

[RTH10260]

I guess this will offered very soon in many courts to take judicial note of.

[RTH10260]

Georgia judge says Willis’s relationship ‘could result’ in disqualification from Trump case

Zach Schonfeld
Mon, February 12, 2024 at 9:52 PM GMT+1·

The judge overseeing former President Trump’s Georgia criminal case set the stage Monday for a high-stakes battle later this week over whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) should be disqualified for her relationship with a top prosecutor in the case.

At a Monday proceeding, Judge Scott McAfee vowed to move ahead with an evidentiary hearing on Thursday, where he will weigh accusations by Trump and some of his co-defendants that the relationship constitutes a conflict of interest.

“I think it’s possible that the facts alleged by the defendant could result in disqualification,” the judge said. “I think an evidentiary hearing must occur to establish the record on those core allegations.”

With the prospect of testimony from Willis and other prosecutors — and even Willis’s father — the hearing is set to be a blockbuster moment in the case. McAfee will sort out weeks of barbs between the parties, with each side asserting the other is still making false representations about Willis’s relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade.

The judge insisted he would keep the hearing “focused,” suggesting he would not hesitate to step in if defense counsel sought “harassment or undue embarrassment” for the prosecutors.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/georgia-judg ... 47365.html
(original: The Hill)

[Slim Cognito]

If she was disqualified, does the case go away or get assigned to someone else? Yes, I know it's a great delay, I just want to know if they think this will cause all charges to be dropped.

[bob]

If she was disqualified, does the case go away or get assigned to someone else? Yes, I know it's a great delay, I just want to know if they think this will cause all charges to be dropped.

Gets assigned to someone else.

Someone else who might decide to dismiss.

[p0rtia]

Georgia judge says Willis’s relationship ‘could result’ in disqualification from Trump case

Zach Schonfeld
Mon, February 12, 2024 at 9:52 PM GMT+1·

The judge overseeing former President Trump’s Georgia criminal case set the stage Monday for a high-stakes battle later this week over whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) should be disqualified for her relationship with a top prosecutor in the case.

At a Monday proceeding, Judge Scott McAfee vowed to move ahead with an evidentiary hearing on Thursday, where he will weigh accusations by Trump and some of his co-defendants that the relationship constitutes a conflict of interest.

“I think it’s possible that the facts alleged by the defendant could result in disqualification,” the judge said. “I think an evidentiary hearing must occur to establish the record on those core allegations.”

With the prospect of testimony from Willis and other prosecutors — and even Willis’s father — the hearing is set to be a blockbuster moment in the case. McAfee will sort out weeks of barbs between the parties, with each side asserting the other is still making false representations about Willis’s relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade.

The judge insisted he would keep the hearing “focused,” suggesting he would not hesitate to step in if defense counsel sought “harassment or undue embarrassment” for the prosecutors.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/georgia-judg ... 47365.html
(original: The Hill)

Salacious headline, though the article is pretty good.

I listened to the hearing. Merchant (Roman atty) is comfy in her role and has clearly done a lot of work on the accusations. She also said a lot of things that others at the hearing, both potential witnesses and attorneys, said was untrue.

McAfee stated up front that 1) he's not interested in hearing evidence/testimony about Wade's qualifications, and 2) because _if_ Roman's accusations are true, that _might_ be a reason for removal of Willis, he felt the evidentiary hearing should proceed.

The hearing today was mostly about various motions to quash the hearing or individual subpoenas. Once established that the hearing would go on, he dealt with the motions to quash subpoenas to testify.

It quickly became clear that 99 percent of Roman's case case leans on testimony from Terrance Bradley, Wade's ex-law partner, Wade's ex lawyer, and former employee (maybe outside hire?) of the Fulton County DA's office. Merchant said that Bradley would testify that he had directly spoken with some eight to ten people in the various offices who told him that the affair started earlier than 2022 (which is when Wade said it started) and would testify to that effect. Lawyers for various of those witnesses said "No, they won't."

Merchant also wanted to call a friend of Willis's who (she said) would testify that Wade and Willis "cohabited" prior to 2022. This friend's lawyer said, "No, she won't." And "this is a fishing expedition."

McAfee said he would deny most of the motions to quosh, but he spoke with the clear understanding that he wasn't going to get into details of the relationship and was moving with caution. Wade's lawyer suggested that Bradley be called first, and that McAfee withhold his decision on whether or not to quash the motions till after that. McAfee agreed, so that's where it stands.

Roman's whole position rests on Bradley. Merchant has spoken often with Bradley. She says he "does not want to testify." She says that he says that many people have called him to urge him not to testify (one of those people (a lawyer) was in court, and explained their phone call, saying that is not how he would have characterized their discussion about the situation).

So Thursday Bradley will be on the stand. McAfee promised again to keep it on task, with no gratuitous crap (my word). He's rule after that about whether the hearing proceeds or not, and who will have to testify (or not).

At one point Merchant started throwing around accusation of wrong-doing from stealing the petty cash to hiding documents. I really hope she goes down in flames. Talk about black women being held to impossible standards. JHK.

[Rolodex]

That's a reassuring report! It sounds like it's mostly nonsense, but the judge has to follow the rules. Hopefully it's short hiccup that doesn't delay things. We can just hope the stuff with Willis and Wade fizzles out or if she steps back, the replacement will keep things on track.

[p0rtia]

More on yesterday's hearing:

While I find the case Roman is bringing to be racist, sexist, and appalling, I will say that Merchant, Roman's lawyer (and one-time Wade supporter) is no Alina Habba. Merchant knows her way around the court, is easy going, and speaks normal legalese. There is/are no hyperbole, no complaints of judicial bias, no babbling about the "Biden Regime". She has made a lot of promises in terms of what Bradley is going to testify to on Thursday: namely, that he had conversations with various DA office personnel in which they stated that they knew of the affair before Wade says it took place. The judge pressed. her slightly on this (and the DA office attorney said "I would be shocked if that is the case") but she stood firm. I'm not sure what the issue is about when the affair started--other than the to me significant point that Wade in his sworn depo said it wasn't till after he was hired.

It's hard not to think that office gossip is at the core of Bradley's testimony, and that's not going to go far with McAfee, if so. The big issue is that Bradley was Wade's good friend, and if he says, "Wade told me they were sleeping together before he got the job," that is going to open up the hearing to other witnesses, I would think.

[noblepa]

It quickly became clear that 99 percent of Roman's case case leans on testimony from Terrance Bradley, Wade's ex-law partner, Wade's ex lawyer, and former employee (maybe outside hire?) of the Fulton County DA's office. Merchant said that Bradley would testify that he had directly spoken with some eight to ten people in the various offices who told him that the affair started earlier than 2022 (which is when Wade said it started) and would testify to that effect. Lawyers for various of those witnesses said "No, they won't."

IANAL, but wouldn't that be inadmissable hearsay? If these eight to ten people said those things, shouldn't they be subpeonaed to say so directly?

I admit that most of my legal education comes from watching Perry Mason and Matlock, as well as reading here, but I don't understand how Bradley could be allowed to testify to what others said, when those people are alive and available to testify themselves.

[p0rtia]

It quickly became clear that 99 percent of Roman's case case leans on testimony from Terrance Bradley, Wade's ex-law partner, Wade's ex lawyer, and former employee (maybe outside hire?) of the Fulton County DA's office. Merchant said that Bradley would testify that he had directly spoken with some eight to ten people in the various offices who told him that the affair started earlier than 2022 (which is when Wade said it started) and would testify to that effect. Lawyers for various of those witnesses said "No, they won't."

IANAL, but wouldn't that be inadmissable hearsay? If these eight to ten people said those things, shouldn't they be subpeonaed to say so directly?

I admit that most of my legal education comes from watching Perry Mason and Matlock, as well as reading here, but I don't understand how Bradley could be allowed to testify to what others said, when those people are alive and available to testify themselves.

They have been subpoenaed. They're trying to squash those subpoenas. After Bradley testifies, McAfee says he will decide whether to quash or not.

[noblepa]

It quickly became clear that 99 percent of Roman's case case leans on testimony from Terrance Bradley, Wade's ex-law partner, Wade's ex lawyer, and former employee (maybe outside hire?) of the Fulton County DA's office. Merchant said that Bradley would testify that he had directly spoken with some eight to ten people in the various offices who told him that the affair started earlier than 2022 (which is when Wade said it started) and would testify to that effect. Lawyers for various of those witnesses said "No, they won't."

IANAL, but wouldn't that be inadmissable hearsay? If these eight to ten people said those things, shouldn't they be subpeonaed to say so directly?

I admit that most of my legal education comes from watching Perry Mason and Matlock, as well as reading here, but I don't understand how Bradley could be allowed to testify to what others said, when those people are alive and available to testify themselves.

They have been subpoenaed. They're trying to squash those subpoenas. After Bradley testifies, McAfee says he will decide whether to quash or not.

I guess my point was that, since the court knows that Bradley is intending to testify about what others said, why would he (Bradley) be allowed to testify at all?

[p0rtia]

IANAL, but wouldn't that be inadmissable hearsay? If these eight to ten people said those things, shouldn't they be subpeonaed to say so directly?

I admit that most of my legal education comes from watching Perry Mason and Matlock, as well as reading here, but I don't understand how Bradley could be allowed to testify to what others said, when those people are alive and available to testify themselves.

They have been subpoenaed. They're trying to squash those subpoenas. After Bradley testifies, McAfee says he will decide whether to quash or not.

I guess my point was that, since the court knows that Bradley is intending to testify about what others said, why would he (Bradley) be allowed to testify at all?

That's beyond my IANAL pay grade. Perhaps someone else can weigh in?

I can only continue to tell you what happened, and what McAfee said. So I can add that Bradley will be testifying about what he, Bradley, heard from Wade. I don't know how McAfee will broach the the issue of what other said to him.