|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 1, 2024 19:32:25 GMT -5
I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. If this goes South on the DA, well, so be it. That means I was wrong about the appearance of impropriety, Vs. actual impropriety. But if that's then case, then there's no non hypocritical explanation for Justice Thomas continuing on the Supreme Court. You're always wrong and for the wrong reasons. Politics are your only guiding light. This case will set a precedent for many generations of law students. Chasing a former president for the sole purpose of political gain is simply dangerous. Sorry you can't see that..... This case is about Georgia law. Let the chips fall where they may. |
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 2, 2024 2:25:05 GMT -5
Also, honest question, if the appearance of impropriety is the bar, how does Justice Thomas get a pass considering his relationships with Harlan Crow, and his own wife's participation in cases that are before him? It's undeniable that there is at least an appearance of impropriety there, no?
He’s not a prosecutor.Now should a judge recuse themselves from cases in which close family members are parties or are involved as attorneys? Absolutely. But that’s something else with no bearing here. What we have is a lying prosecutor. Prosecutors aren’t allowed to lie. And they should not be giving their boyfriends a high paying job that wouldn’t exist except for this specific case. It absolutely makes it appear that the prosecutor is seeking to deprive a human being of his liberty for the sake of romantic and financial gain. It is, IMHO, the height of hypocrisy to assert with a straight face, that the standard of conduct and what the consequences should be for the appearance of impropriety are higher for one of thousands of county prosecutors, than one of nine Supreme Court Justices of the United States. Not to mention the SCOTUS is the final, unappealable say in every judicial matter, and are appointed for life. |
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Mar 2, 2024 8:35:49 GMT -5
He’s not a prosecutor.Now should a judge recuse themselves from cases in which close family members are parties or are involved as attorneys? Absolutely. But that’s something else with no bearing here. What we have is a lying prosecutor. Prosecutors aren’t allowed to lie. And they should not be giving their boyfriends a high paying job that wouldn’t exist except for this specific case. It absolutely makes it appear that the prosecutor is seeking to deprive a human being of his liberty for the sake of romantic and financial gain. It is, IMHO, the height of hypocrisy to assert with a straight face, that the standard of conduct and what the consequences should be for the appearance of impropriety are higher for one of thousands of county prosecutors, than one of nine Supreme Court Justices of the United States. Not to mention the SCOTUS is the final, unappealable say in every judicial matter, and are appointed for life. I didn’t say that at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Mar 2, 2024 13:27:07 GMT -5
So what do you think of the SCOTUS allegations of impropriety?
|
|
|
|
Post by osprey11 on Mar 3, 2024 10:53:40 GMT -5
Kagan should have recused herself from the Obamacare decision!
|
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 3, 2024 13:51:57 GMT -5
Kagan should have recused herself from the Obamacare decision! But Thomas is fine on the J6 immunity claim even though his wife was texting one of trump's codefendants about J6, and was intimately involved? Seems legit, and that's not even referencing the issues that Thomas' sugar daddy also has, and has had before the court. GMAFB |
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Mar 3, 2024 14:15:59 GMT -5
Kagan should have recused herself from the Obamacare decision! But Thomas is fine on the J6 immunity claim even though his wife was texting one of trump's codefendants about J6, and was intimately involved? Seems legit, and that's not even referencing the issues that Thomas' sugar daddy also has, and has had before the court. GMAFB The “but but” argument…… you’re telling him he is correct without actually using the words to just say that. |
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 3, 2024 14:20:52 GMT -5
But Thomas is fine on the J6 immunity claim even though his wife was texting one of trump's codefendants about J6, and was intimately involved? Seems legit, and that's not even referencing the issues that Thomas' sugar daddy also has, and has had before the court. GMAFB The “but but” argument…… you’re telling him he is correct without actually using the words to just say that. What, I'm agreeing that Roberts' court is illegitimate and corrupt an rife with at the very least the appearance of impropriety? |
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Mar 3, 2024 14:24:42 GMT -5
I know. In doing so, you also are also agreeing with Bullfrog’s point.
|
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 3, 2024 14:36:25 GMT -5
I know. In doing so, you also are also agreeing with Bullfrog’s point. I have yet to read where BF made a point about the Supreme Court's rampant appearance of impropriety. Though I suspect he will provide some sort of one sided justification why it's just fine for them. |
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Mar 3, 2024 14:38:31 GMT -5
Never said he did. Thats your topic. The OP is another subject altogether. He makes the same case you do though, in regards to it. You’re argument suggests that you agree with his premise.
|
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 3, 2024 14:40:28 GMT -5
Never said he did. Thats your topic. The OP is another subject altogether. He makes the same case you do though, in regards to it. You’re argument suggests that you agree with his premise. Honestly, you lost me, which BF point are we talking about? |
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Mar 4, 2024 20:15:13 GMT -5
Bullfrog. Others here have said more or less the same thing as him though. He’s right and so they, as are you. Party shouldn’t matter. Prosecutors especially can’t afford to be anything less than honest,
if they want to be of any value to their profession, though we all should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 4, 2024 20:43:57 GMT -5
Bullfrog. Others here have said more or less the same thing as him though. He’s right and so they, as are you. Party shouldn’t matter. Prosecutors especially can’t afford to be anything less than honest, if they want to be of any value to their profession, though we all should be. When standards don't apply to the Supreme Court of the United States, then any other example is petty by comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by throttle on Mar 4, 2024 21:22:20 GMT -5
The “but but” argument…… you’re telling him he is correct without actually using the words to just say that. What, I'm agreeing that Roberts' court is illegitimate and corrupt an rife with at the very least the appearance of impropriety? "Appearance of impropriety"? Aren't we way past that fucking point with the Biden admin? Not to mention Fani and Wade... And you're ok with all that so... |
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 4, 2024 21:52:56 GMT -5
What, I'm agreeing that Roberts' court is illegitimate and corrupt an rife with at the very least the appearance of impropriety? "Appearance of impropriety"? Aren't we way past that fucking point with the Biden admin? Not to mention Fani and Wade... And you're ok with all that so... If they can make a legal case they should. |
|
|
|
Post by PolarsStepdad on Mar 4, 2024 23:35:27 GMT -5
I wish someone could explain to me why and who she's screwing is relevant?
|
|
|
|
Post by throttle on Mar 5, 2024 12:06:26 GMT -5
I wish someone could explain to me why and who she's screwing is relevant? Happy to. A prosecutor isn't allowed to hire an underqualified lawyer with public money just because he's screwing her. And it looks bad when he then spends a bunch of that public money on her. |
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Mar 5, 2024 12:15:22 GMT -5
The plot thickens more: www.newsmax.com/newsfront/georgia-prosecutor-testimony/2024/03/05/id/1155990/A chief assistant DA from another county has made a filing that indicates the testimony that the relationship between Willis and Wade began later is perjured. That’s a huge deal. Possibly career ending for Willis, Wade, and Bradley. Something I heard the judge say in Friday’s closing arguments, that I didn’t understand the basis of, is that both sides agree that if the relationship started before X date, Willis must be removed as a conflict and no one disputes that. I haven’t gleamed enough to understand why the date the relationship started is the operative matter. Perhaps because if the relationship existed prior to the filing of the charges or the hiring of Wade, its a conflict under Georgia law by default? |
|
|
|
Post by ferris1248 on Mar 5, 2024 12:23:09 GMT -5
Based on my conversations with some lawyer friends up here, you're on the right track.
|
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Mar 5, 2024 12:43:04 GMT -5
Based on my conversations with some lawyer friends up here, you're on the right track. I’ve said many times that Willis was in way over her head. Its written all over her face. And she’s being ridden roughshod over by the other side and it supports Trump’s narrative that he’s a political victim being persecuted by the corrupt Swamp. She should have been content to let Jack Smith handle everything relating to January 6 in the Federal courts. He’s a bad hombre. Not infallible. I’ve seen him let his underlings make some mistakes in their filings. He can be beaten as anyone can. But he is experienced in prosecuting high profile cases and former world leaders. If he loses it will be on the facts and technicalities of the law. It won’t be because he’s having an affair with his underling and lying about it. |
|
|
|
Post by ferris1248 on Mar 5, 2024 12:46:49 GMT -5
Based on my conversations with some lawyer friends up here, you're on the right track. I’ve said many times that Willis was in way over her head. Its written all over her face. And she’s being ridden roughshod over by the other side and it supports Trump’s narrative that he’s a political victim being persecuted by the corrupt Swamp. She should have been content to let Jack Smith handle everything relating to January 6 in the Federal courts. He’s a bad hombre. Not infallible. I’ve seen him let his underlings make some mistakes in their filings. He can be beaten as anyone can. But he is experienced in prosecuting high profile cases and former world leaders. If he loses it will be on the facts and technicalities of the law. It won’t be because he’s having an affair with his underling and lying about it. I would agree. I've got left leaning lawyer friends and right leaning lawyer friends who basically say the same as your first paragraph. |
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Mar 5, 2024 13:23:21 GMT -5
The plot thickens more: www.newsmax.com/newsfront/georgia-prosecutor-testimony/2024/03/05/id/1155990/A chief assistant DA from another county has made a filing that indicates the testimony that the relationship between Willis and Wade began later is perjured. That’s a huge deal. Possibly career ending for Willis, Wade, and Bradley. Something I heard the judge say in Friday’s closing arguments, that I didn’t understand the basis of, is that both sides agree that if the relationship started before X date, Willis must be removed as a conflict and no one disputes that. I haven’t gleamed enough to understand why the date the relationship started is the operative matter. Perhaps because if the relationship existed prior to the filing of the charges or the hiring of Wade, its a conflict under Georgia law by default? I read that all the other DA had was that he says Bradley told him it started in 2019, which is what was in the email he sent the defense attorney. It sounds like Bradley was spreading gossip at the time and now claims he really had no idea when the relationship started or he is lying now. Maybe he thought they were dating or just spreading rumors and doesn't want to lie under oath. But I am not sure how third party testimony is going to change anything, what Bradley told the other DA was not under oath and he can claim he was just bullshitting or not even give a reason, like he did with the email he sent. Unless the other DA has other evidence, I can't see it changing anything. What am I missing? |
|
|
|
Post by meateater on Mar 5, 2024 14:01:15 GMT -5
The plot thickens more: www.newsmax.com/newsfront/georgia-prosecutor-testimony/2024/03/05/id/1155990/A chief assistant DA from another county has made a filing that indicates the testimony that the relationship between Willis and Wade began later is perjured. That’s a huge deal. Possibly career ending for Willis, Wade, and Bradley. Something I heard the judge say in Friday’s closing arguments, that I didn’t understand the basis of, is that both sides agree that if the relationship started before X date, Willis must be removed as a conflict and no one disputes that. I haven’t gleamed enough to understand why the date the relationship started is the operative matter. Perhaps because if the relationship existed prior to the filing of the charges or the hiring of Wade, its a conflict under Georgia law by default? I read that all the other DA had was that he says Bradley told him it started in 2019, which is what was in the email he sent the defense attorney. It sounds like Bradley was spreading gossip at the time and now claims he really had no idea when the relationship started or he is lying now. Maybe he thought they were dating or just spreading rumors and doesn't want to lie under oath. But I am not sure how third party testimony is going to change anything, what Bradley told the other DA was not under oath and he can claim he was just bullshitting or not even give a reason, like he did with the email he sent. Unless the other DA has other evidence, I can't see it changing anything. What am I missing? common sense, thats what your missing. |
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Mar 5, 2024 14:31:33 GMT -5
The plot thickens more: www.newsmax.com/newsfront/georgia-prosecutor-testimony/2024/03/05/id/1155990/A chief assistant DA from another county has made a filing that indicates the testimony that the relationship between Willis and Wade began later is perjured. That’s a huge deal. Possibly career ending for Willis, Wade, and Bradley. Something I heard the judge say in Friday’s closing arguments, that I didn’t understand the basis of, is that both sides agree that if the relationship started before X date, Willis must be removed as a conflict and no one disputes that. I haven’t gleamed enough to understand why the date the relationship started is the operative matter. Perhaps because if the relationship existed prior to the filing of the charges or the hiring of Wade, its a conflict under Georgia law by default? I read that all the other DA had was that he says Bradley told him it started in 2019, which is what was in the email he sent the defense attorney. It sounds like Bradley was spreading gossip at the time and now claims he really had no idea when the relationship started or he is lying now. Maybe he thought they were dating or just spreading rumors and doesn't want to lie under oath. But I am not sure how third party testimony is going to change anything, what Bradley told the other DA was not under oath and he can claim he was just bullshitting or not even give a reason, like he did with the email he sent. Unless the other DA has other evidence, I can't see it changing anything. What am I missing? First, understand that this specific situation is why prosecutors can’t lie. This chief assistant’s word is presumed true because of who she is. A prosecutor’s word to the court is above reproach. Prosecutors also have an obligation to correct lies that another prosecutor relaying to the court. So this prosecutor from Cobb county, who is the highest ranking member of her office under the DA, has come forward and basically accused Bradley (and by implication, Willis and Wade) of perjuring themselves to the court. The allegations are that not only did Bradley tell this assistant DA that he (Bradley) knew that Willis and Wade were in a relationship in 2019, but also that the assistant DA heard a phone conversation between Willis and Bradley where Willis told Bradley to basically not tell anyone about her and Wade’s relationship, which is evidence of consciousness of guilt. See, the technical BS of “I was just making it up and you can’t prove otherwise” doesn’t have to stand. All the judge has to say is “Mr. Bradley, I believe you’re lying, and I believe Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis are lying.” There’s no “nanny nanny booboo here’s my lawyer-answer that gets me out of it.” Some things work that way. But when it comes to actual testimony, the trier of fact (who is in this case the judge) can weight testimony however he wants. He doesn’t have to accept Bradley’s testimony at all when Bradley denies actually knowing about the two being in a relationship prior to the Trump case. The more evidence comes out that contradicts Bradley, the more likely the judge may find that in fact the two were having a relationship in 2019. Which means all three have been lying under oath in the judge’s courtroom in official testimony. |
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Mar 5, 2024 14:41:53 GMT -5
drive.google.com/file/d/1ZqHN71D3niKMA0jGJuLm1VkQUB65XvDJ/viewThere’s the filing if you want to see it. Significantly, it says: • From in or around August of 2023 through January of 2024, Ms. Yeager had numerous, in-person and other conversations with attorney Terence Bradley in which information relating to District Attorney Willis and Mr. Wade was discussed. • In the course of Mr. Bradley’s and Ms. Yeager’s discussions, Mr. Bradley told Ms. Yeager the following: o District Attorney Willis and Mr. Wade met during the 2019 Municipal Court Continuing Legal Education Conference. o Mr. Wade began his romantic relationship with District Attorney Willis at or around this time. o Mr. Wade had definitively begun a romantic relationship with Ms. Willis during the time that Ms. Willis was running for District Attorney in 2019 through 2020. o Mr. Bradley stated that he had personal knowledge of the relationship between Mr. Wade and District Attorney Willis, and included details regarding the use of Ms. Robin Yeartie’s apartment and other meetings prior to November 2021. o Mr. Bradley stated that Mr. Wade personally prepared his own divorce complaint against his spouse, Mrs. Jocelyn Wade, and told Mr. Bradley to sign the divorce filings and to file them on Mr. Wade’s behalf. Based upon these statements, it is Ms. Yeager’s understanding that Mr. Bradley did not being representing Mr. Wade until November of 2021. o In or around September of 2023, Mr. Bradley was visiting Ms. Yeager in her office when Mr. Bradly received a telephone call. Ms. Yeager could hear that the caller was District Attorney Willis. District Attorney Willis was calling Mr. Bradley in response to an article that was published about how much money Mr. Wade and his law partners had been paid in this case. Ms. Yeager heard District Attorney Willis tell Mr. Bradley: “They are coming after us. You don’t need to talk to them about anything about us.” 3 • Ms. Yeager watched Mr. Bradley’s testimony before the Court and became concerned as a result of the fact that what Mr. Bradley testified to on the witness stand was directly contrary to what Mr. Bradley had told Ms. Yeager in person.
|
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 5, 2024 14:58:54 GMT -5
I've said all along I have faith in the system. Let the chips fall where they may.
Still, even if Bradley is proven to lie, he's still the star witness and that doesn't really help them considering they're impeaching their own witness.
They need some proof that the relationship started earlier than claimed independent of Mr. Bradley who is, at best, unreliable.
Also, the judge reopened the evidentiary hearing and Bradley testified yet again. Has the judge agreed to even consider this "new" information? Seems that ship has sailed.
Their big mistake, and seems to me like bad lawyering is how did they not depose Bradley completely and lock his testimony down prior to putting him on the stand?
|
|
|
|
Post by meateater on Mar 5, 2024 15:44:54 GMT -5
my prediction, this case is history go back to prosecuting drive bys and carjackings.
|
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 5, 2024 15:56:04 GMT -5
my prediction, this case is history go back to prosecuting drive bys and carjackings. We'll see. The bar for disqualification in Georgia is very high, and this case will set a precedent. The start witness could not be weaker, and if there's no other real evidence, and as i understand it that window has closed, then she'll get a scolding, maybe wade is gone, at most, and the prosecution will continue. I've been wrong before, but the case against her is full of holes. I still can't believe they didn't lock down in depo Bradley's testimony before they hung their entire case on his credibility. |
|
|
|
Post by meateater on Mar 5, 2024 16:00:23 GMT -5
i think her little church bible study sealed her fate.
|
|
