Trump prosecutor's phone was at DA Fani Willis' home 35 times in months before they claim relationship began: investigator

[ExxWhyZee]

So what? Why does this matter? Why the big deal?

 

[LLCox]

Sounds legit...

 

[Rightguide]

It means they may have committed perjury.

 

[ll74]

Duplicate

It means they may have committed perjury.

It does not. Just as cell phone data doesn't prove election fraud

 

[Bray123]

Chinese and Russian spies were at Trump properties in the US talking to members of the Trump crime family. What does that prove?

 

[KeithD]

Chinese and Russian spies were at Trump properties in the US talking to members of the Trump crime family. What does that prove?

That Trump is an espionage asset of Vladimir Putin? Is this a trick question?

 

[dmallord]

More on this subject here Cellphone data re: Willis and Wade from Georgia case.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

Might as well face it they're addicted to chess...

 

[dmallord]

Addicted ... yep.

I watched the afternoon court case on television for Willis and Wade. It was extremely interesting to see lawyers at work trying to nail jello on the wall, so to speak.

Lawyers for Trump and Rudy, among other defendants, grilled Wade's former partner, trying to nail him down on his statement about documents. He squirmed and drew blanks on his remarkable ability not to recall the documents or circumstances of those in replies. Ultimately, he managed to 'not recall' just about anything about when the affair began.

The lawyers for the defense didn't seem any sharper than the witness. The judge sustained numerous objections and overruled some of them. The lead lawyer had significant trouble framing admissible questions - the judge even coached her by suggesting a couple of ways to get started.

The judge is going to really earn his keep on this one - ferreting through the morass of documents and testimony and reaching some decision.

Did Willis benefit financially from hiring Wade - this is the primary question. Did she lie about when her affair started? It is a secondary question - that has some bearing on her level of truthfulness.

On another note

Note for @HisArpy

I learned that the investigator who submitted all the cellphone data was not a certified specialist in the field of forensic investigation. As such, a former DA in Fulton County said that the raw data document was just so much hearsay as presented without proper interpretation. It allegedly indicated that Willis and Wade were in the same area more than thirty times as opposed to the ten times that both said they recalled at her residence. That DA said it more or less corroborated what the two had already confirmed about being together at her place. So - no smoking gun element.

 

[HisArpy]

Addicted ... yep.

I watched the afternoon court case on television for Willis and Wade. It was extremely interesting to see lawyers at work trying to nail jello on the wall, so to speak.

Lawyers for Trump and Rudy, among other defendants, grilled Wade's former partner, trying to nail him down on his statement about documents. He squirmed and drew blanks on his remarkable ability not to recall the documents or circumstances of those in replies. Ultimately, he managed to 'not recall' just about anything about when the affair began.

The lawyers for the defense didn't seem any sharper than the witness. The judge sustained numerous objections and overruled some of them. The lead lawyer had significant trouble framing admissible questions - the judge even coached her by suggesting a couple of ways to get started.

The judge is going to really earn his keep on this one - ferreting through the morass of documents and testimony and reaching some decision.

Did Willis benefit financially from hiring Wade - this is the primary question. Did she lie about when her affair started? It is a secondary question - that has some bearing on her level of truthfulness.

On another note

Note for @HisArpy

I learned that the investigator who submitted all the cellphone data was not a certified specialist in the field of forensic investigation. As such, a former DA in Fulton County said that the raw data document was just so much hearsay as presented without proper interpretation. It allegedly indicated that Willis and Wade were in the same area more than thirty times as opposed to the ten times that both said they recalled at her residence. That DA said it more or less corroborated what the two had already confirmed about being together at her place. So - no smoking gun element.

There's no "certification" requirement to be an expert witness. Having credentials helps with credibility but it's not required.

For instance, a mechanic can be an expert witness despite not having any formal training (a la "My Cousin Vinny").

The only real requirement is that the witness have extensive knowledge in the field for which he is testifying as an expert. The depth and breadth of that knowledge is subject to evaluation by both the court and the opposing party to determine if it is sufficient to provide testimony and opinion on the evidence being presented. If it is, then the witness is deemed to be an "expert."

So, what you're saying isn't the gotcha you think it is.

 

[butters]

been listening to the summing ups... i was almost laughing out loud at the fumbling, bumbling delivery by trump's defense team, with their reliance on supposition and guesswork.

but then Adam Abbate (attorney for Fulton County's Office) took the position, and while he may be on point factually, his delivery comes across as really nervous, weak, stuttering, grasping, reaching, unsure of his argument... from an auditory/visual impression. i hope those involved in making the judgement don't get derailed from the facts.

 

[butters]

oh hell, and now he's disagreeing with the judge

!who put this guy up there????

 

[butters]

i wanted to hear a calm, solid, concise rebuttal of trump's defenses' ridiculous assertations. instead, he almost sounds like jim jordan

 

[butters]

ok, he seems more confident now in his conversation with the judge. He has his facts, but i don't know how much damage he's done

is this a jury case or is it all down to Judge Macafee? I have confidence in the judge to deal with the case properly (as per the law) but those accusing performances are directed at a broader audience, the public (jury and tv viewers) and Abbate's delivery isn't a winner.

 

[dmallord]

ok, he seems more confident now in his conversation with the judge. He has his facts, but i don't know how much damage he's done

is this a jury case or is it all down to Judge Macafee? I have confidence in the judge to deal with the case properly (as per the law) but those accusing performances are directed at a broader audience, the public (jury and tv viewers) and Abbate's delivery isn't a winner.

One person makes the decision - the judge.

I listened to the entirety of today's case and came to the same view as you that the attorneys were - poor - at delivering the stumbling legal points. I watched another wrap up on another station and a legal expert made the same comment about how abysmal the attorneys on both sides were. So, that confirms our view that they were poor at deliveries. Even the judge as for clarifications at points trying to follow the convoluted presentations.

 

[dmallord]

There's no "certification" requirement to be an expert witness. Having credentials helps with credibility but it's not required.

For instance, a mechanic can be an expert witness despite not having any formal training (a la "My Cousin Vinny").

The only real requirement is that the witness have extensive knowledge in the field for which he is testifying as an expert. The depth and breadth of that knowledge is subject to evaluation by both the court and the opposing party to determine if it is sufficient to provide testimony and opinion on the evidence being presented. If it is, then the witness is deemed to be an "expert."

So, what you're saying isn't the gotcha you think it is.

Point taken on auto mechanics. However, there are electronic surveillance certifications that expert witnesses do possess. The FBI uses those certified individuals. Trump's team didn't hire one. Why not? That's a curious point; he had ample opportunity to hire one.

Today, the DA's defense made the rebuttal that the investigator was not trained and added more info.

New to me:

• AT&T data, according to the FBI, frequently has repetitions - that is, the count can reflect duplicate pings for one call.
• The DA pointed out that Willis didn't live at the second location until months after some of the days that Wade's phone pinged thirty-five times in that area. In fact, nearly half of the pings occurred off that area's tower before she moved there. So - the DA stated it would support Wade's testimony that he was in the area and at hotels, the airport, or restaurants and not with Willis.
• The DA's office had a certified expert review the cell tower info. More than half the data was proximity data, not evidence that the two were together - just that their phones were close. It didn't even show they communicated in those data points. Trump's team did not mention the email and text messages, nor did his attorneys rebut the DA's statements today about this.

The judge announced he would make a determination in the next two weeks. Time to take a breath for Trump's team on concentrate on the bazzilians of other court transgressions he has pending. Meanwhile, his fat wallet is getting slimmer by the day.

 

[Lazaran]

ok, he seems more confident now in his conversation with the judge. He has his facts, but i don't know how much damage he's done

is this a jury case or is it all down to Judge Macafee? I have confidence in the judge to deal with the case properly (as per the law) but those accusing performances are directed at a broader audience, the public (jury and tv viewers) and Abbate's delivery isn't a winner.

OK, I deleted my earlier response because I hadn’t yet watched Abatte’s closing arguments.

Having watched Abatte’s entire performance, I can honestly say I think he nailed it.



What could be perceived as an uneven presentation was just how those things go: Abatte was basically engaged in a conversation with the judge and was operating the slide show on his computer at the same time. I was actually quite impressed by his ability to juggle all his responsibilities.



Abatte was also quite nimble as he presented the judge with controlling precedents when challenged on the “appearance of impropriety” issue. The way Abatte made clear that the mere appearance of impropriety wasn’t sufficient to remove a prosecutor from a case was compelling.



Abatte absolutely destroyed the claims made by the traitors’ defense team and the testimony of their "star witnesses" and their Cell phone "expert"; which is critical in swaying the judges decision.



Abatte left the judge with no option but to keep Willis and Wade on the case, imho.

 

[HisArpy]

Point taken on auto mechanics. However, there are electronic surveillance certifications that expert witnesses do possess. The FBI uses those certified individuals. Trump's team didn't hire one. Why not? That's a curious point; he had ample opportunity to hire one.

Today, the DA's defense made the rebuttal that the investigator was not trained and added more info.

New to me:

• AT&T data, according to the FBI, frequently has repetitions - that is, the count can reflect duplicate pings for one call.
• The DA pointed out that Willis didn't live at the second location until months after some of the days that Wade's phone pinged thirty-five times in that area. In fact, nearly half of the pings occurred off that area's tower before she moved there. So - the DA stated it would support Wade's testimony that he was in the area and at hotels, the airport, or restaurants and not with Willis.
• The DA's office had a certified expert review the cell tower info. More than half the data was proximity data, not evidence that the two were together - just that their phones were close. It didn't even show they communicated in those data points. Trump's team did not mention the email and text messages, nor did his attorneys rebut the DA's statements today about this.

The judge announced he would make a determination in the next two weeks. Time to take a breath for Trump's team on concentrate on the bazzilians of other court transgressions he has pending. Meanwhile, his fat wallet is getting slimmer by the day.

There is no requirement for an expert to be "certified." All one has to be is qualified to provide testimony on the subject at issue.

Trump may not have been able to hire a "certified expert" because none of them would accept his money.

 

[Bray123]

There is no requirement for an expert to be "certified." All one has to be is qualified to provide testimony on the subject at issue.

Trump may not have been able to hire a "certified expert" because none of them would accept his money.

Exactly. There was no requirement for a person who Trump appointed to the Supreme Court to actually be a 'Judge' and no requirement for a person who he appointed to be his Chief Financial Officer to be a certified accountant (being appointed as actual accountant to the organisation by Fred Trump).

What was the issue with Burisma again?

 

[30bandits]

It means they may have committed perjury.

ding ding ding....

 

[butters]

so, about that 'star witness' Terrence Bradley...

he left under a cloud of suspicion after allegations he sexually assaulted an employee and client, and seemed very keen to dish gossip and speculation with Merchant.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution and other media outlets now report that Bradley and Merchant exchanged as many as 413 text messages, beginning in September 2023 until just three weeks ago. The disclosure of these messages destroys Bradley’s credibility even further. Within them, he repeatedly disparages Wade and Willis, whilst simultaneously cozying up to Merchant, who he called his “friend.” Feeding what he claimed to her was proof of some kind of inappropriate relationship between Wade and Willis, Bradley purportedly provided a roadmap to Merchant in order to help her pursue the motion to disqualify. Bradley even went so far as to suggest names of individuals Merchant should subpoena for the hearing, including Robin Yeartie, Willis’ former friend and a former Fulton County DA’s Office employee.

Ashleigh Merchant, the lawyer for Trump co-defendant Michael Roman, struggled for more than an hour to get Bradley to concede that he had previously texted to her allegedly damning information that countered the timeline attested to by Willis and Wade about when their personal relationship began. But when pressed by Merchant to admit that his texts were some kind of smoking gun evidence, Bradley instead steadfastly maintained, while under oath, that he was only “speculating” when he shared with Merchant what now seems to have been nothing but idle, salacious gossip. Bradley testified over and over again that he did not have any personal or direct knowledge as to when and how Wade and Willis began their intimate relationship.

Recall that Merchant premised her disqualification motion almost exclusively on her communications with Bradley, so when it came time to present her case, her positions were frustrated and undercut by his unwillingness to affirm her questions. She was visibly irritated and struggled with how to impeach a witness that she thought was going to deliver home-run testimony. In fact, every defense attorney who took a run at Bradley during that hearing struck out. Bradley didn’t budge. He even admitted while on the stand that he might have told lies about Wade.

In chasing that buddy-buddy connection with Merchant and with questionable intentions, Bradley chose to violate his attorney-client relationship with Wade and to inexplicably share information with a third party who also happens to be an attorney on the opposite side of a major case. Based upon his testimony throughout the evidentiary hearing, it seems Bradley decided to share gossip and innuendo that he had heard from other sources, none of which is attributable to Wade or Willis and, more importantly, at this juncture none of which has been confirmed to be true and accurate. Even though Bradley may have finally found his ethical conscience when he was sitting on the witness stand, he still engaged in the destructive art of being a yenta.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...&cvid=500c531897264e6aaf7b3ec36c6f8566&ei=105

 

[Lazaran]

so, about that 'star witness' Terrence Bradley...

he left under a cloud of suspicion after allegations he sexually assaulted an employee and client, and seemed very keen to dish gossip and speculation with Merchant.








https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...&cvid=500c531897264e6aaf7b3ec36c6f8566&ei=105

If you look at the facts in evidence, there is absolutely nothing to the traitors’ claims about anything.

The "star witnesses” FAILED, the phone "expert" FAILED, and every argument FAILED.

If the judge somehow decides to dismiss the prosecution team based on nothing, then you know he’s in the bag for the traitors.

 

[Bray123]

And so it turns out that those who spouted so much about 'fake news' rely on it completely for their fake investigation of the President. We know (just as we know that the bankrupt fraudster of pet charities will deny the result of the 2024 election) that the rapist's supporters will vote to convict regardless of the strength of evidence.

It's a show trial that would make Putin blush.

 

[butters]

on Friday, Judge MacAfee determined DA Fani Willis could remain on the case if Wade resigned in order to avoid any sense of impropriety. Wade resigned, Willis remains.

team trump is attempting to get the ruling reviewed. lol

ATLANTA — Lawyers for former President Donald Trump and seven of his co-defendants in the Georgia election interference case are seeking a review of a Georgia judge's decision not to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

The court filing on Monday comes on the heels of Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee saying on Friday morning that Willis would be allowed to stay on the racketeering case she brought against the former president if Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor she appointed to the case, resigned. Wade resigned that afternoon.

McAfee found no conflict of interest, but said either Willis and her office or Wade had to step aside because of the "appearance of impropriety."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...31&cvid=d719141c6b1d410082eb8c732b3d15d6&ei=5

 

[ll74]

on Friday, Judge MacAfee determined DA Fani Willis could remain on the case if Wade resigned in order to avoid any sense of impropriety. Wade resigned, Willis remains.

team trump is attempting to get the ruling reviewed. lol



https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...31&cvid=d719141c6b1d410082eb8c732b3d15d6&ei=5

So does this get sent to RG or HisArpy for review? I forget the process.