It's Georgia's turn! Time for a fraudit!

#301

From the Washington Post article:

The news that some — but likely not all — of the electors will not be charged raises new questions about the scope of Willis’s examination of the meeting of electors, all of whom she previously identified as criminal targets in her investigation. The electors who accepted immunity did so without any promise that they would offer incriminating evidence in return, and they all have stated that they remain unified in their innocence and are not aware of any criminal activity among any of the electors, Debrow said.

“In telling the truth they continue to say they have done nothing wrong and they are not aware of anyone else doing anything wrong, much less criminal,” said an individual familiar with the investigation who requested anonymity to discuss the case.

And all 10 are still represented by the same lawyer, the one the prosecutor is seeking to have disqualified for conflict of interest. See below.

IANACrL, but this sounds screwy to me.

p0rtia · #302

Me too. I thought I had read it wrong.

much ado · #303

Perhaps they are all ignorant of the law?

#304

And all 10 are still represented by the same lawyer, the one the prosecutor is seeking to have disqualified for conflict of interest. See below.

So, I read carelessly.

The eight electors who have been given immunity are still represented by original lawyer, who has been accused by the prosecutor of having withheld immunity offers from her clients.

The two who have not been given immunity are getting new counsel, although the original lawyer claims that she and her ethics consultant agree that new counsel isn't necessary.

Still seems wacky, the exact opposite of what I would have expected, viz, she keeps as clients the two who do not have immunity deals, and the ones that do get new counsel.

realist · #305

Wacky, to put it mildly.

I wondered why so many and now just wonder WTF. Why immunity with seemingly no testimony against the others.

Curiouser and curioser.

p0rtia · #306

realist wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 11:13 pm Wacky, to put it mildly.

I wondered why so many and now just wonder WTF. Why immunity with seemingly no testimony against the others.

Curiouser and curioser.

I'm grasping, but I assume the testimony is not against the other fake electors, but about whoever put them up to it.

Or the reporting is shoddy.

Slim Cognito · #307

That's what I was thinking. Of course, I have no clue what's going on up there but I'm sure they'd rather have the big fish. I remember when it was said that indictments were imminent in Georgia, maybe that's what scared some of these people into cooperating. And now we have to wait until sometime this summer.

#308

What does cooperation mean if you are not giving evidence against any other person?

#309

Maybe it means they promise to testify, but what they know is already known to the prosecution? So they don't have to cooperate except for the trial, assuming there's going to be one?

Slim Cognito · #310

To corroborate the prosecution’s claims?

p0rtia · #311

RVInit wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 8:39 pm What does cooperation mean if you are not giving evidence against any other person?

I haven't seen that quoted anywhere--only that they have on evidence against their own group of GA fake electors. Lots of other people they might have evidence against.

But I agree there is a boatload of ambiguity in what is being reported. Impossible to think they were given immunity unless others, higher-ups, were gonna be indicted.

RTH10260 · #312

p0rtia wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 6:42 am
RVInit wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 8:39 pm What does cooperation mean if you are not giving evidence against any other person?
I haven't seen that quoted anywhere--only that they have on evidence against their own group of GA fake electors. Lots of other people they might have evidence against.

But I agree there is a boatload of ambiguity in what is being reported. Impossible to think they were given immunity unless others, higher-ups, were gonna be indicted.

Including the possibility that some potential future Republican impotus were to turn on them ....

RTH10260 · #313

Georgia Prosecutor Rebuts Trump’s Effort to Scuttle Elections Case

By Richard Fausset and Danny Hakim
May 15, 2023

Fani T. Willis, the district attorney in Fulton County, Ga., asked a judge to dismiss former President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to have her disqualified from leading an investigation into whether he and his allies interfered in the 2020 election in the state.

She also asked the judge, in a 24-page court document filed on Monday, to reject a request from Mr. Trump to suppress the final report of a special grand jury that weighed evidence last year in the election meddling case.

Ms. Willis was responding to an earlier motion filed by Mr. Trump’s lawyers that accused her of making biased statements over the course of her investigation. The lawyers also argued that the work of the special grand jury had been “tainted by improper influences,” noting that jurors were allowed to read news articles about the matter during their time of service. (Special grand juries in Georgia have different rules than regular grand juries or trial juries.)

In her response, Ms. Willis said that the Trump legal team had not met the “exacting standards” for disqualifying a prosecutor and did not back up various accusations about the investigative process with evidence.

She also argued that Mr. Trump did not have legal standing to bring his motion in the first place, noting that he had never been called as a witness before the special grand jury.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/t ... ation.html

link to the document
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... 2/a2256252

RTH10260 · #314

comments by G.K.

#315

"Quasi-legal gibberish word salad"

Kerchner bets a buck that Trump "will be on the wrong side of the V[ersus] come July".

#316

delay delay delay

Anna Bower @AnnaBower wrote: JUST IN: Following Fulton County DA Fani Willis’s response to Trump’s efforts to scrap her investigation, counsel for Trump ask Judge McBurney for *21 days* to prepare a reply brief.

For context: 21 days is a long time for a reply brief…especially in state trial court…especially when you’re not even indicted…and especially when DA Willis has announced plans to seek indictments as early as mid-July.

I’ll be surprised if McBurney allows that much time.

Kendra · #317

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/1 ... e-00097582

Ray Smith III, a lawyer who represented President Donald Trump in litigation aimed at reversing Georgia’s 2020 election results, has indicated he may be a target of Atlanta-area District Attorney Fani Willis’ criminal probe.

Smith’s attorney, Bruce Morris, characterized Smith as “something between a target and witness” in Willis’ nearly completed investigation, according to documents filed Wednesday in a federal civil lawsuit in Washington D.C. That characterization was revealed by lawyers for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit — two former Georgia election workers who are suing Rudy Giuliani for defamation.

According to the newly filed documents, the former election workers — Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss — want to subpoena and depose Smith as part of their lawsuit against Giuliani. But on May 1, a lawyer for Smith told Freeman and Moss’ attorneys that he would seek to block the subpoena.

“Mr. Morris indicated that they would file a motion to quash because Mr. Smith was ‘something between a target and witness’ in the Fulton County District Attorney’s investigation of the 2020 election,” wrote John Langford, an attorney for Freeman and Moss.

Resume18 · #318

Kendra wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 10:53 am https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/1 ... e-00097582

Ray Smith III, a lawyer who represented President Donald Trump in litigation aimed at reversing Georgia’s 2020 election results, has indicated he may be a target of Atlanta-area District Attorney Fani Willis’ criminal probe.

Smith’s attorney, Bruce Morris, characterized Smith as “something between a target and witness” in Willis’ nearly completed investigation, according to documents filed Wednesday in a federal civil lawsuit in Washington D.C. That characterization was revealed by lawyers for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit — two former Georgia election workers who are suing Rudy Giuliani for defamation.

According to the newly filed documents, the former election workers — Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss — want to subpoena and depose Smith as part of their lawsuit against Giuliani. But on May 1, a lawyer for Smith told Freeman and Moss’ attorneys that he would seek to block the subpoena.

“Mr. Morris indicated that they would file a motion to quash because Mr. Smith was ‘something between a target and witness’ in the Fulton County District Attorney’s investigation of the 2020 election,” wrote John Langford, an attorney for Freeman and Moss.

Being an attorney for one of Trump's attorneys seems to be a lucrative business model.*

*That is until they require an attorney.

Slim Cognito · #319

Anybody got a gift link?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/19/us/t ... illis.html

I could only get a one 'graph blurb on Post (which i can't copy) but something about Willis requesting a specific DT Atlanta courthouse be kept clear for three weeks in August. Also too, she's informed her staff they can work remotely those three weeks.

#320

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 9:21 am Anybody got a gift link?

Yes.

Georgia Prosecutor Signals August Timetable for Charges in Trump Inquiry

Slim Cognito · #321

: Thankyou.JPG (266.79 KiB) Viewed 618 times

I was going to post quotes but it's really worth the full read.

Kendra · #322

Thanks for the link Foggy

#323

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue May 16, 2023 3:40 pm
Anna Bower @AnnaBower wrote: JUST IN: Following Fulton County DA Fani Willis’s response to Trump’s efforts to scrap her investigation, counsel for Trump ask Judge McBurney for *21 days* to prepare a reply brief.

For context: 21 days is a long time for a reply brief…especially in state trial court…especially when you’re not even indicted…and especially when DA Willis has announced plans to seek indictments as early as mid-July.

I’ll be surprised if McBurney allows that much time.

https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/sta ... 5059361793

Mueller, She Wrote
@MuellerSheWrote
BREAKING: WOW! Trump asked for 21 days to respond to Fani Willis. I thought the judge would give him a week tops. The judge gave him NONE! “The court has received 500 pages from trump. That’s plenty. There will be no more briefings unless solicited by the court.” HAHAHA

Anna Bower
@AnnaBower
JUST IN: Judge McBurney denies Trump’s request for 21 additional days to file a reply brief regarding his efforts to disqualify Fulton County DA Fani Willis and scrap the investigation into attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.

From the court's short order (italics in original):

To date, the Court has received well over five hundred pages of briefing, argument, and exhibits on the issues raised by former President Trump and Ms. Latham. That is plenty. There will no more briefing unless it is solicited, in writing, by the Court.

Kendra · #324

Hope there's plenty of ketchup bottles on hand...

#325

https://twitter.com/AnnaBower/status/16 ... 167831043

Anna Bower
@AnnaBower
More Fulton County filings:

A group of former federal and Georgia state prosecutors have chimed in on Trump’s efforts to derail DA Fani Willis’s investigation.

“This Court should not grant the sweeping and unprecedented relief that Trump's motion seeks,” they write.

Anna Bower
@AnnaBower
Read the full filing here: https://fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/ ... AE-5-19-23

The former Georgia prosecutors are represented by Paul, Weiss, a hotshot BigLaw firm. In light of the court's order earlier today, it will be interesting to see if the judge grants this motion to submit an amicus brief.