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

[SuzieC]

Turley is possibly the stupidest man on Earth, after Trump.

[Rolodex]

Tomorrow they start with her attorney(s), I guess. Will they call anyone besides Willis (and maybe Wade)?

Where there so many attorney's today because they each represent a different defendant in the RICO case? I'm thinking this hearing was requested by Roman, only one of the defendants, but Idk for sure. Is Merchant his attorney? I hope some server spits in that woman's food; she was the worst.

[p0rtia]

I didn't watch the whole thing but did Merchant and crew come anywhere close to proving any of their allegations against Fani of criminal wrongdoing or corruption?

Not really.

Their only evidence was an ex-friend of Fani's who testified that she had seen them kissing and hugging well before Nov. 2021 (the hire date). DA att. counters by trying to paint her as a disgruntled former employee.

Everything else (the four trips that Willis and Wade took, and some dinners) fell apart. Listening to Fani Willis explain that she doesn't take gifts from men was a highlight.

Of course, Merchant would say that the rest of her witnesses were chickening out or disallowed. She may try to call other office staff tomorrow. Or try again to call Bradley.

FWIW regarding McAfee's bias: He is on record as saying that his membership in the Federalist Society was because it was what all the cool kids were doing, and that he wasn't attracted by the theology.

[SuzieC]

I ask again, like a broken record, whattf does it matter whether they kissed and hugged or had a relationship before Fani hired him? The issue is whether he's qualified. He is. The issue is whether Fani has a case against the Trump criminal gang. She does. All the rest of this is bullshit.

[AndyinPA]

[raison de arizona]

I ask again, like a broken record, whattf does it matter whether they kissed and hugged or had a relationship before Fani hired him? The issue is whether he's qualified. He is. The issue is whether Fani has a case against the Trump criminal gang. She does. All the rest of this is bullshit.

Exactly. It isn't like the prosecution is in bed with the defense here. The prosecution is in bed with...the prosecution. Sure, there may be some issues here and Willis will have to answer to the voters, but there isn't anything that should affect tfg's case.

[raison de arizona]

Shamelessly stolen from the interwebs...

If Fani Willis had a conflict of interest because a man might have paid for a plane ticket, imagine how serious it would be if a SCOTUS Justice ruled on a case having to do with the election his wife attempted to overthrow?

If Fani Willis had a conflict of interest because a man might have paid for a plane ticket, imagine how serious it would be if a former President's son-in-law got $2 billion after overlooking the murder of an American citizen.

[Luke]

I guess the only poll result that matters is the judge’s.

While Willis was playing to the cheap seats, the only opinion that matters on this motion is the trial judge's. He is a new judge, appointed by a Republican governor, white, middle class and a member of the friggin Federalist Society. I did admire his temperament, but he should have roped in Willis a lot sooner.

Sure, she's a public official and lies were written about her. As to the latter, welcome to the bar. But she gave the trial judge so much information he can now disbelieve her based simply on her demeanor.

I believe the prosecution should go on, and I hope the judge rules there is no conflict under Georgia law, but I don't think Willis helped herself. Her later testimony was much better. Occasionally it was out of bounds, but she wasn't going on and on with utterly irrelevant information, avoiding answering the questions and making unprofessional jabs at defense counsel.

As bob would say. Concur.

Agree too also. But I also have a lot of sympathy for DA Willis and the hell they put her through every day.

How could this "blow the case up"? Even if Judge Federalist McAfee decides they aren't telling the truth, why can't another prosecutor get the case?

I was surprised DA Willis went so far off during her answers. She was cautioned twice by the judge. It must be horrible to have 6-7 defense counsels coming at you, but that's how they prosecuted the case (vs the Jack Smith DC case where they narrowed the focus). Can't imagine the pressure of the worldwide bloodlust from the impeached loser's cult, but they knew what they were getting into. Expect a much smoother DA Willis tomorrow.

This whole subplot was an unforced error. I'm hopeful that McAfee won't let the defendants off the hook (though he said he's not ruling tomorrow, all "under advisement"). Politically, if it's true the Engoron decision in NY comes down tomorrow, Georgia won't get nearly the coverage.

[Luke]

A "perspective" in WaPo:

When Fani Willis took the stand, her fury was precise and laser-focused
Perspective by Robin Givhan
Senior critic-at-large
February 15, 2024 at 9:06 p.m. EST

Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis (D) walked into the Georgia courtroom Thursday afternoon where lawyers were arguing over whether she would have to take the stand. It was the back half of the long day’s hearing on whether Willis should be removed from the sprawling election tampering case her office has brought against former president Donald Trump and his associates. But the debate between the dueling teams of lawyers became moot when Willis announced that she wanted to testify. Willis settled into the high-backed witness chair. And then she loosed her fury.

She began by declaring that defense attorney Ashleigh Merchant had lied in court filings when she suggested that Willis had slept with special prosecutor Nathan Wade after their first meeting. She fumed that her privacy had been invaded. She reminded Merchant that, “You think I’m on trial. These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020.” And she held up paperwork filed by defense lawyers in a display of disgust. For no small amount of time, it seemed that judge Scott McAfee was a mere bystander in his courtroom.

The hearing had been taken over by Willis and her outrage. Whether her anger was defensive or righteous, it was something to behold.

She sat with her body positioned at a slight angle and rested her fingers on her cheek. Sometimes, she’d lean forward into the microphone but mostly her posture was one of powerful repose. If there is a female equivalent to man-spreading, that tendency of men to sit with their legs akimbo as they take up more than their share of space on a bench or a bleacher, Willis’s stance may well be it. She filled the room with her presence.

She might be more accustomed to asking the questions in a courtroom than answering them, but Willis didn’t have the rigid posture that one so often sees from witnesses who might be fighting off nerves. She sat in the hot seat like it was her throne and she was ready to slice off some heads.

More (if anyone wants a gift link, let me know): https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... ing-trump/

[realist]

How could this "blow the case up"? Even if Judge Federalist McAfee decides they aren't telling the truth, why can't another prosecutor get the case?

Another prosecutor would likely be assigned but then could decide not to prosecute, so her removal “could” have a devastating effect.

[Reality Check]

Taking away this case from the person whom was elected by the voters is something that should not be done lightly and definitely not based on the bullshit these lying clowns have scraped up. If by some chance Fani Willis is disqualified would it not be up to her to decide who prosecutes the case? She could go out and hire the best prosecutor in the US.

[p0rtia]

This morning, Merchant brought up to McAfee, for the second time, the subject of her need to "correct the record" because of Willis calling her a liar. McAfee demurred, but Merchant implied that she wanted other lawyers to admit that they had told her the information that Willis was calling lies.

This is not only petty, but missing the point: her filings are filled with accusations (in the form of "we have credible proof") and salacious innuendo. They are a hit job and, to me, wholly irrelevant even if true. If not true? Merchant is knee-deep in shit. Trying to slither out of authorship doesn't say much for her grasp of what is proof and what isn't; what is true and what isn't.

[Reality Check]

I have this link again from MTN. Nothing going on here anyway.

[Maybenaut]

This morning, Merchant brought up to McAfee, for the second time, the subject of her need to "correct the record" because of Willis calling her a liar. McAfee demurred, but Merchant implied that she wanted other lawyers to admit that they had told her the information that Willis was calling lies.

This is not only petty, but missing the point: her filings are filled with accusations (in the form of "we have credible proof") and salacious innuendo. They are a hit job and, to me, wholly irrelevant even if true. If not true? Merchant is knee-deep in shit. Trying to slither out of authorship doesn't say much for her grasp of what is proof and what isn't; what is true and what isn't.

She’s working with a standard familiar to most lawyers: She has to show she had a good faith basis for putting all that stuff in her pleadings. It’s a pretty low bar, but she likely feels that she needs to jump it, given Willis’ calling her a liar.

[p0rtia]

Frankly, I blame McAfee for 1) having the hearing in open court (Willis's lawyer asked to meet in camera to go over what was coming in and what was not), and 2) having the hearing at all. Too also, for not shutting down all the "when did you have sex" questions loooong before he did (and yes, he eventually did).

Merchant got trounced. Her first two questions to Willis were "When did you meet Mr. Wade," and "And you started dating him shortly thereafter, right?" Willis answered the second question by pointing out that that was a lie, and a disgrace.

Merchant got owned. If she wants to quibble about how her question wasn't a lie, and was just promoting a lie she knew Willis had denied, she only looks slimy to people who live in the real world.

[Reality Check]

Finally started.

[sterngard friegen]

Two excellent witnesses for the State. Roy Barnes, a former Governor who was asked to be special prosecutor and Fani Willis' Father. Both were very impressive.

(Fani Willis wasn't called for direct. Apparently the strategy was to run out the clock yesterday evening. That explains the long windedness of Willis' answers, but it was crudely done.)

[MN-Skeptic]

Thanks to Sterngard and others adding their experienced opinions to this thread. It's easy for us non-lawyers to put folks on our side of the issue up on pedestals. But most of us joined here because we want facts and good legal reasonings. We can survive learning that our heroes are not perfect.

[Rolodex]

I thought Willis' father's explanation about cash was well done and powerful. He told a story about a restaurant refusing to take his credit card or travelers check and that he had barely enough money to pay the bill. He explained that he'd impressed on his daughter to always have plenty of cash available and he sure had a story to back that up. And he's not an unsophisticated person who doesn't understand credit. He's a lawyer who has worked on cases all over the world.

It proves that it would indeed be her habit to reimburse someone with cash and not have receipts - not because she's hiding anything, but because who does that if it's what they normally do. I don't, when I reimburse a friend with cash. And it's completely believable that she did indeed pay her own way* on trips and never benefited financially from having hired Wade as special prosecutor (which I think is the point of this hearing).

*"A man is not a plan." Hoo boy what a turn of phrase!

[p0rtia]

My2Cents: I don't think the plan yesterday was for Willis to stall with her run-on answers. At the end of the day. Cross, Willis's att., said she needed a long time to do her cross. While it is conceivable that she might have been lying, there was no reason for her to do so, since it was 5 PM and they were all cooked.

I think the decision was made overnight, when they evaluated what had transpired. I think they were satisfied that Willis had gotten onto the record everything she wanted to say, and felt that opening her up to re-cross would have zero to gain.

I think that Fani's run-on answers were her way of saying "Eff y'all, I am going to say every damn thing I want to say here, and good luck to you trying to stop me, because this is my time, and y'all are in my house. Suck it."

[realist]

I think that Fani's run-on answers were her way of saying "Eff y'all, I am going to say every damn thing I want to say here, and good luck to you trying to stop me, because this is my time, and y'all are in my house. Suck it."

If, if it were true that was the case, then it would prove exactly what Stern and I posted yesterday, ridiculous and unprofessional behavior for anyone, much less an attorney.

The judge may see things in a positive manner overall in this issue, but (especially in a bench hearing) she did herself no favors. as

I understand where you're coming from but one has to look at any witness' testimony dispassionately and in an unbiased manner.

[MN-Skeptic]

I thought of Stern and Realist when I saw Bradley Moss' tweet today -

Bradley P. Moss
@BradMossEsq

For the love of God, if I hear one more lawyer in Fulton County serving as a witness try to talk when there is not a question pending, or answering more than the question sought, I am going to pull out my three remaining hairs.

[p0rtia]

I think that Fani's run-on answers were her way of saying "Eff y'all, I am going to say every damn thing I want to say here, and good luck to you trying to stop me, because this is my time, and y'all are in my house. Suck it."

If, if it were true that was the case, then it would prove exactly what Stern and I posted yesterday, ridiculous and unprofessional behavior for anyone, much less an attorney.

The judge may see things in a positive manner overall in this issue, but (especially in a bench hearing) she did herself no favors. as

I understand where you're coming from but one has to look at any witness' testimony dispassionately and in an unbiased manner.

I understand exactly where you're coming from. I would call it an established professional lens rather than dispassion and unbiased. Because there is a bias toward the established professional wisdom. I respect that lens completely.

I am coming from a different place, using a different lens. My unbiased opinion is that Willis produced an epic manifesto against racism, sexism, and all people who trash other people's reputations to further their own ends.

Again, the first thing I posted was that she had burned her bridges--also an unbiased opinion. Those bridges were built of professional norms. She did it intentionally. I applaud her.

[Reddog]

Thanks to Sterngard and others adding their experienced opinions to this thread. It's easy for us non-lawyers to put folks on our side of the issue up on pedestals. But most of us joined here because we want facts and good legal reasonings. We can survive learning that our heroes are not perfect.

Perfect example: to quote Stern from 2018:

Just as the left ended its love affair with Edward Snowden when it became obvious who he was, I hope the resistance and the left end their love affair with Avenatti soon.

[p0rtia]

And Cross, Willis's attorney, attempts to blow up her own case by trying to paint Bradley as a bad actor and liar. Now possible that testimony previously considered attorney-client privilege will come in. McAfee will question Bradley in camera. Later.

Court adjourned till the end of next week at the earliest.