Posted on 02/16/2024 5:40:14 AM PST by CFW
I disagree. I think the judge is being fair to both sides but I think he is going to rule against Willis using the concept of “an appearance of impropriety” whether not any impropriety was proven or not. That is sufficient to remove Willis and the Fulton County DA’s office from the case. Attorney Marchant is having to dance around attorney/client privilege which is limiting her ability to ask questions directly as to his knowledge.
The judge is not a fool. He knows what they are trying to keep from coming out from this witness and that is that Willis and Wade were having an affair at the time she appointed him as special prosecutor.
The judge was the President or Vice-President of his Federalist Society Law group (I can’t remember which at law school and very knowledgeable about Constitutional and State law. I believe he was also a leader in the student Republican party. He is not a Soros judge.
Hearing is very interesting now. Judge keeps shutting Merchant (sp) down.
“Merchant is a heck of lawyer. She started by nosing around. She saw a crack in the door. The crack was Wade’s divorce proceedings. She asked questions. She asked the guy on the stand a question in a text when he had NO idea what Merchant was doing. Bradley responded. Now he has to try to explain what he texted her in light of the sworn statements and testimony of Willis and Wade which contradict what he texted Merchant. From what little truth has been extracted from Willis and Wade, it is now clear that a romantic relationship existed prior to Willis awarding him the “contract” to be prosecutor. Therefore going after Trump in court became an “enrichment” for both Willis and Wade.”
That’s exactly it! He communicated with her about their affair before he knew how important the issue would become. Now he doesn’t want to admit to that communication.
I’m not so sure. Weak or not, the judge doesn’t appear to be stupid. A few things to remember - Fanni has already been discredited in the court of public opinion, so for the judge to damage his reputation by not disqualifying her when even MSNBC is throwing her under the bus, would be foolish.
Beyond that, whether he disqualifies her or not, Fanni’s testimony has already ensured that the case will be thrown out on appeal if she’s allowed to continue on the case. So, even if he was susceptible to pressure from the left, it’s in the left’s interest to have her thrown off. Whatever small chance they have to convict Trump rests with replacing her.
The Dems are currently reeling and playing defense - a rare but beautiful thing to see. This whole thing is a PR nightmare for them that they’d just as soon it went away as quickly as possible, so it’s unlikely he’ll face much pushback if he decides to disqualify her.
Bradley is being VERY cautious with all of his answers.
He looks scared to me.
The ROMANTIC relationship benefitted this guy as well as the other partner. Fani was a cash cow to lover boy Wade but this partner as well as his other partner named Campbell as well.
There is zero doubt now that Fanni and lover boy have lied to this. Court under oath. Perjury. I mean zero doubt
Is the judge a democrat? I don’t know that much about him, but so far haven’t heard any evidence that he’s corrupt or particularly partisan.
Having worked in corporate America (the other side of dealing with politicians), we were repeatedly required to take business ethics training when dealing with politicians and other government workers. Any expense or "gift" to a government worker, regulator, politician, etc., was required to be reported, including cups of coffee and donuts. This was to document the appearance of bribery or gifts for favors or contracts. I recall working with vendors who would lavish us with lunches on boats in San Francisco Bay to watch the Blue Angels during Fleet Week, hoping that we would give them contracts.
Willis was asked about the regulations from the government side of the transaction when she was asked to read the regulation requiring reporting of gifts "in the aggregate" totaling more than $100 in value. The lawyer was trying to assert that the dinners between Willis and Wade were gifts that totaled more than $100 in value. Willis kept filibustering the question by discussing individual meals being less than $100, while the lawyer kept repeating "in aggregate" until the judge stopped this line of questioning.
The lawyer was also clarifying the position of Wade in the District Attorney's office. The lawyer got Willis to admit that she didn't think of Wade as an "employee" when the question of the romance came up, but since Wade was a "private" lawyer who was contracted to Willis for this case, he would fall under the "gifts" regulations. If Willis and Wade "wined and dined" before Wade was contracted to the case, the "gifts" regulation would suggest that Wade got the contract in return for the "gifts" of lavish dinners. It doesn't matter if Willis paid Wade back in cash at some future point or if Willis offered to pay for the next meal. At the time of the meal that Wade paid, Willis accepted a gift.
Regarding the vacation trips, Willis was still an elected official and Wade was a contractor in her employ. If he paid for events for the two of them, then it was still a gift to a regulated government agency in exchange for favorable work opportunities.
Furthermore, it creates a "hostile work environment" in any other office setting where the boss is sleeping with an underling. What are the other workers supposed to assume when the person who is sleeping with the boss is given the prime job assignment at an elevated contractual level of pay? The "hostile work environment" is one where the other workers come to believe that their own career advancement opportunities are stifled because they're not sleeping with the boss.
Willis did testify that she was unaware of the specifics of the regulation, which does not surprise me. She was inexperienced in managing a regulated government agency and was unaware of these details of the job.
-PJ
"Fani Willis and her father currently claim that around 5 AM on Feb. 3rd, 2021, a group of violent racists surrounded their house and threatened their lives. They say the incident was so bad that Fani moved almost immediately." [and Daddy didn't, btw]
"If that was true, think she would have mentioned it nine days later on MSNBC when asked about the type of threats she was getting?"
> Think there would also be a police report.
(link includes video of PMSNBC interview)
First rule of white collar crime and political corruption, follow the money.
The judge is behaving as an attorney for the defense.
I don’t think Merchant has asked him how his and Nathan’s firm got the Fulton Co. contracts. I’d be asking if there was in a competitive bid process, and I’d have the County’s paperwork showing the s of all bidders and their respective dollar bids.
“Is the judge a democrat? I don’t know that much about him,”
I’d also be interested to know the demographic makeup of his family. How “diverse” is it?
She may have looped her dad into this criminality
I have felt from the firs5t time I heard about the 5am “violent racists” that they were homie friends of Fani/Wade to give her an excuse to move away from Daddy so that they could continue their clandestic meetings...
I think he said it was “proposed”. He didn’t say by whom. It’s becoming clear that Wade was a go-between the hired and the hirer who was the cash cow for which the go-between got a third and the hired might have also benefitted by trips and gifts given her by the go-between.
Still, this was a hearing on the appropriateness of the relationship between Willis and Wade and whether it tainted their management of the case against President Trump.
The rest of it (WH logs, etc.) would be relevant to a trial of Willis on charges of collusion or misappropriation of public funds, but not now. The lawyers were only asking about whether the two of them were in DC together, assuming they were hiding their relationship with out-of-town trysts. The lawyer didn't ask Willis directly if she visited the White House, she asked the judge if it was appropriate at this time to ask Willis if she visited the White House, and before the judge could rule Willis answered "No, never."
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.