|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 5, 2024 16:03:31 GMT -5
i think her little church bible study sealed her fate. It might of. I won't lose site of the fact that he conspired to invalidate my vote and is right to be charged. IMHO of course. |
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on Mar 5, 2024 16:20:52 GMT -5
my prediction, this case is history go back to prosecuting drive bys and carjackings. It will just be another day when all the Lawfare lovers will be saying, "Yea we knew it wasnt going anywhere and it was bad law... blah blah blah." |
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Mar 5, 2024 16:32:57 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. If I was the judge, I would definitely want to hear her testimony. I still think, it is more likely he was spreading gossip when not on the stand. But that will depend on what the lady's testimony is and any evidence to support it. Will the judge reopen the hearing to hear it though? Are you saying attorneys don't gossip? i don't understand why the guy sent Trump's attorney text messages about his client having an affair knowing it could be used against his client, that is the strangest part of this to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Mar 5, 2024 18:01:04 GMT -5
From what I understand, Wade dissolved their relationship/partnership when Bradley was accused of sexual harassment. It would appear he had an axe to grind.
But I agree, of all people to grind it with -- a defense attorney on the other side of the courtroom. She apparently offered him a job, which might help explain that.
Will be interesting to see how Judge McAfee will untangle this mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Mar 5, 2024 18:03:22 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? 1. In this instance, I don't think it hurts them that they're impeaching their own witness. If he is lying, then it only makes Wade and Willis look more culpable because its a logical inference that he's lying on their behalf. 2. The ship really doesn't sail if it can be established a witness for whom the Court must rely on to make a decision has perjured himself. I expect the judge will reopen the evidentiary portion to hear the testimony from the chief assistant DA. 3. It's a matter of strategy to not depose someone prior to testimony, and he's the defense witness so he wouldn't likely be subject to deposition by the defense anyhow. Deposition is a right (sometimes a privilege) afforded to the opposing side to examine your witnesses. They probably didn't figure he'd ball-face lie on the stand once he represented to them that he knew Willis and Wade were having their fling prior to the date in question. And its actually working out better for the defense that its playing out this way, because the more lies are told with more people coming forward contradicting the lies, the deeper into the doo doo Wade, Willis, and Bradley get. Technically, Wade and Willis are obligated to speak up and contradict Bradley if Bradley lied. They're really stuck on the fly paper IMO. This may be even playing out exactly as planned. That aspect could likely be ascertained if it's reveled they've spoken to the chief assistant DA or not prior to Friday. If they had not spoken to the DA prior, then they're just lucky she came forward when she did. If they had spoken to her prior or otherwise knew was available and willing to contradict Bradley, they may have laid a perjury trap. |
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Mar 5, 2024 18:23:10 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. If I was the judge, I would definitely want to hear her testimony. I still think, it is more likely he was spreading gossip when not on the stand. But that will depend on what the lady's testimony is and any evidence to support it. Will the judge reopen the hearing to hear it though? Are you saying attorneys don't gossip? i don't understand why the guy sent Trump's attorney text messages about his client having an affair knowing it could be used against his client, that is the strangest part of this to me. I do think the judge will reopen the evidentiary portion before ruling. I think he indicated he was open to that even on Friday should more evidence arise, and this is a very unusual circumstance. It is a huge deal that a chief assistant DA from another jurisdiction I coming forward to impugn another DA. The presumption in that situation I see is that what the chief assistant DA has to say is likely true or else she wouldn't be putting her own career on the line by coming forward. Attorneys do gossip all of the time. But this passed the line of gossip when Bradley took the stand and denied knowledge of what he claimed to previously have knowledge of. If you and I are both attorneys and you told me so and so was having an affair because you are their friends, they've admitted it to you, and you've seen them share a hotel room together, that might be just gossip out of context. But just because you're gossiping doesn't mean you're embellishing any of it. What makes it gossip is the fact you're talking to me about something that's neither yours or mine businesses. But they're no presumption that gossiping is false. It's simply uncouth in polite society. Now, if for some reason what you told me about the affair becomes relevant in court, and you go to court and deny under oath the knowledge that you told me you had, then I have to come forward if I become aware of your testimony, because I have no reason to believe you lied to me when you told me everything you did. You have more of a motivation to lie in court to protect your friends than you did to lie to me in private when there was no belief that the conversation would amount to anything. The judge gets to decide whether he believes Bradley was a liar then or a liar now. There are rules about when prior inconsistent statements can and cannot be used as substantive evidence to prove a matter. The bar will likely be lower in a hearing like this than it is in how the State can used them against witnesses in a criminal trial against a Defendant. Although the bar is very high for establishing reason to question the integrity of a prosecutor, if that level is reached in some fashion then the letter of the law will require that a real doubt about the integrity of Willis be decided in Trump's favor. There is nothing worse Willis or Wade can do than lie to the Court. |
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 5, 2024 18:35:57 GMT -5
Either way, I think the judge is going to need more than Bradley to disqualify. I just don't think what he says is enough. Vacation video, or something irrefutable will likely be needed.
This new witness is just repeating gossip. If she, or anyone else really had independent knowledge, then that's a horse of a different color.
Either way, I trust the judge, and Georgia law to make the right call. Especially considering it was my vote they were trying to invalidate.
|
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 5, 2024 18:39:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 5, 2024 18:41:03 GMT -5
. The Defendants bear the burden of proving their claims by a “high standard of proof,” which necessarily must be more than preponderance of the evidence.
II. The Defendants ask the Court to adopt a legal standard that is not recognized under Georgia law, and they rely on cases that are either cited in a misleading way, are inapplicable, or actually support the State’s position.
IV. O.C.G.A. § 15-18-5 confirms multiple Georgia cases holding that an actual conflict of interest must be shown to disqualify an elected district attorney.
VI. The Defendants have not met their burden of proving either an actual conflict of interest or forensic misconduct on the part of the District Attorney.
|
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Mar 5, 2024 19:13:18 GMT -5
If I was the judge, I would definitely want to hear her testimony. I still think, it is more likely he was spreading gossip when not on the stand. But that will depend on what the lady's testimony is and any evidence to support it. Will the judge reopen the hearing to hear it though? Are you saying attorneys don't gossip? i don't understand why the guy sent Trump's attorney text messages about his client having an affair knowing it could be used against his client, that is the strangest part of this to me. I do think the judge will reopen the evidentiary portion before ruling. I think he indicated he was open to that even on Friday should more evidence arise, and this is a very unusual circumstance. It is a huge deal that a chief assistant DA from another jurisdiction I coming forward to impugn another DA. The presumption in that situation I see is that what the chief assistant DA has to say is likely true or else she wouldn't be putting her own career on the line by coming forward. Attorneys do gossip all of the time. But this passed the line of gossip when Bradley took the stand and denied knowledge of what he claimed to previously have knowledge of. If you and I are both attorneys and you told me so and so was having an affair because you are their friends, they've admitted it to you, and you've seen them share a hotel room together, that might be just gossip out of context. But just because you're gossiping doesn't mean you're embellishing any of it. What makes it gossip is the fact you're talking to me about something that's neither yours or mine businesses. But they're no presumption that gossiping is false. It's simply uncouth in polite society. Now, if for some reason what you told me about the affair becomes relevant in court, and you go to court and deny under oath the knowledge that you told me you had, then I have to come forward if I become aware of your testimony, because I have no reason to believe you lied to me when you told me everything you did. You have more of a motivation to lie in court to protect your friends than you did to lie to me in private when there was no belief that the conversation would amount to anything. The judge gets to decide whether he believes Bradley was a liar then or a liar now. There are rules about when prior inconsistent statements can and cannot be used as substantive evidence to prove a matter. The bar will likely be lower in a hearing like this than it is in how the State can used them against witnesses in a criminal trial against a Defendant. Although the bar is very high for establishing reason to question the integrity of a prosecutor, if that level is reached in some fashion then the letter of the law will require that a real doubt about the integrity of Willis be decided in Trump's favor. There is nothing worse Willis or Wade can do than lie to the Court. Where did Bradley say he saw them share a hotel room or Wade or Willis told him they were having an affair? As I said, the testimony needs to be heard, but you seem to have made conclusions already. |
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Mar 5, 2024 19:51:10 GMT -5
I do think the judge will reopen the evidentiary portion before ruling. I think he indicated he was open to that even on Friday should more evidence arise, and this is a very unusual circumstance. It is a huge deal that a chief assistant DA from another jurisdiction I coming forward to impugn another DA. The presumption in that situation I see is that what the chief assistant DA has to say is likely true or else she wouldn't be putting her own career on the line by coming forward. Attorneys do gossip all of the time. But this passed the line of gossip when Bradley took the stand and denied knowledge of what he claimed to previously have knowledge of. If you and I are both attorneys and you told me so and so was having an affair because you are their friends, they've admitted it to you, and you've seen them share a hotel room together, that might be just gossip out of context. But just because you're gossiping doesn't mean you're embellishing any of it. What makes it gossip is the fact you're talking to me about something that's neither yours or mine businesses. But they're no presumption that gossiping is false. It's simply uncouth in polite society. Now, if for some reason what you told me about the affair becomes relevant in court, and you go to court and deny under oath the knowledge that you told me you had, then I have to come forward if I become aware of your testimony, because I have no reason to believe you lied to me when you told me everything you did. You have more of a motivation to lie in court to protect your friends than you did to lie to me in private when there was no belief that the conversation would amount to anything. The judge gets to decide whether he believes Bradley was a liar then or a liar now. There are rules about when prior inconsistent statements can and cannot be used as substantive evidence to prove a matter. The bar will likely be lower in a hearing like this than it is in how the State can used them against witnesses in a criminal trial against a Defendant. Although the bar is very high for establishing reason to question the integrity of a prosecutor, if that level is reached in some fashion then the letter of the law will require that a real doubt about the integrity of Willis be decided in Trump's favor. There is nothing worse Willis or Wade can do than lie to the Court. Where did Bradley say he saw them share a hotel room or Wade or Willis told him they were having an affair? As I said, the testimony needs to be heard, but you seem to have made conclusions already. I didn’t say Bradley did. That was a hypothetical, explaining how what a person gossips about can be used to show someone to be a perjurer. |
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Mar 5, 2024 19:53:29 GMT -5
Either way, I think the judge is going to need more than Bradley to disqualify. I just don't think what he says is enough. Vacation video, or something irrefutable will likely be needed. This new witness is just repeating gossip. If she, or anyone else really had independent knowledge, then that's a horse of a different color. Either way, I trust the judge, and Georgia law to make the right call. Especially considering it was my vote they were trying to invalidate. The judge is a conservative and a member of the Federalist Society. So yes, you can trust him to do the right thing, whatever it is. |
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Mar 5, 2024 19:55:49 GMT -5
Either way, I think the judge is going to need more than Bradley to disqualify. I just don't think what he says is enough. Vacation video, or something irrefutable will likely be needed. This new witness is just repeating gossip. If she, or anyone else really had independent knowledge, then that's a horse of a different color. Either way, I trust the judge, and Georgia law to make the right call. Especially considering it was my vote they were trying to invalidate. Don’t be surprised if more attorneys with direct knowledge step forward. |
|
|
|
Post by ferris1248 on Mar 5, 2024 20:04:10 GMT -5
I live in Cobb County. I won't be.
|
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Mar 5, 2024 20:30:45 GMT -5
Either way, I think the judge is going to need more than Bradley to disqualify. I just don't think what he says is enough. Vacation video, or something irrefutable will likely be needed. This new witness is just repeating gossip. If she, or anyone else really had independent knowledge, then that's a horse of a different color. Either way, I trust the judge, and Georgia law to make the right call. Especially considering it was my vote they were trying to invalidate. Don’t be surprised if more attorneys with direct knowledge step forward. Funny you should say that Attorney Manny Aurora has also said he has knowledge that Bradley told him of the affair. Apparently Bradley told everyone, but now says it isn't true. There is something about a garage opener Wade had to the live nest. Why gossip to everyone you speak about someone else's affair if you're going try and deny it later. I get the feeling Bradley going to testify again after the others do to explain himself. It's getting interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by garycoleco on Mar 5, 2024 22:20:55 GMT -5
i think her little church bible study sealed her fate. It might of. I won't lose site of the fact that he conspired to invalidate my vote and is right to be charged. IMHO of course. Correction. Your 1.3 vote... |
|
|
|
Post by meateater on Mar 6, 2024 10:12:35 GMT -5
i used to believe everything dick cheney told us was gospel but today i know what a lying piece of shit he was so i understand how some of you are trying to defend people who are 100% lying about there relationship. thousands and thousands of texts and phone calls, multiple witnesses,cash spent on vacations with not 1 receipt. you would have to be a total freaking retard to believe these people but i understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Mar 6, 2024 10:18:34 GMT -5
i used to believe everything dick cheney told us was gospel but today i know what a lying piece of shit he was so i understand how some of you are trying to defend people who are 100% lying about there relationship. thousands and thousands of texts and phone calls, multiple witnesses,cash spent on vacations with not 1 receipt. you would have to be a total freaking retard to believe these people but i understand. We knowing they were fucking, the question is, when did they start fucking. That is what the judge gets to decide. She should have stepped aside and let another prosecutor handle it when the issue popped up. But her pride and ego would not let her, now she's screwed no matter what the judge decides. |
|
|
|
Post by meateater on Mar 6, 2024 10:24:13 GMT -5
i dont care much about when they started mating its the lying bout the money they where spending on vacations, tax payers money. they are crooked as hell in everyway and lying there ass off under oath.
|
|
|
|
Post by osprey11 on Mar 6, 2024 12:51:00 GMT -5
Todays hearings did not go well for Fani!
|
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Mar 6, 2024 13:00:32 GMT -5
Todays hearings did not go well for Fani! If you are talking about the Senate hearings, which were the only ones I know happening today, they do not affect Fani Willis. The Georgia Senate can't do anything to her. Their hearings are to determine if they need to change the law or create new legislation to stop this in the future. The only one who can stop Fani Willis is the judge of the trial and I am waiting to see if he reopens the hearings to hear new testimony. |
|
|
|
Post by osprey11 on Mar 6, 2024 13:49:54 GMT -5
Wrong hearing.
|
|
|
|
Post by osprey11 on Mar 6, 2024 13:51:41 GMT -5
Hearing was in Fulton co.
|
|
|
|
Post by osprey11 on Mar 6, 2024 13:53:38 GMT -5
It is the GA senate hearing. My bad. That said it was bad for her!
|
|
|
|
Post by osprey11 on Mar 6, 2024 14:15:37 GMT -5
Well if your reputation is dragged through the mud in front of state congress. I would say it affects her.
|
|
|
|
Post by osprey11 on Mar 6, 2024 14:18:03 GMT -5
Commitee has subpoena power and looking for corruption. But yes they cannot charge her. Just expose her.
|
|
|
|
Post by dragonbait on Mar 6, 2024 15:05:13 GMT -5
Yawn
|
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Mar 6, 2024 15:06:51 GMT -5
Commitee has subpoena power and looking for corruption. But yes they cannot charge her. Just expose her. I thought they could remove her, but I since she was voted in, I guess they can't in Georgia. |
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on Mar 7, 2024 16:21:02 GMT -5
Interesting revelation today...
Fani and the Mayor of Atlanta met with Giggles in the Whitehouse Feb 2023 before the indictment of Trump.
Will that get her disbarred at the least?
|
|
|
|
Post by meateater on Mar 7, 2024 16:32:30 GMT -5
trump just pulled the race card out on her. classic
|
|
