Posted on 02/19/2024 7:42:17 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
As befits a careful lawyer who has served in senior positions in both Republican and Democrat administrations, Chuck Rosenberg is more even-handed than the typical MSNBC legal analyst.
But there's nothing even-handed about Morning Joe regular Katty Kay, of the notoriously liberal BBC.
And so, the pair had a polite but clear clash on today's Morning Joe in discussing the motion brought by one of Trump's co-defendants to have Fani Willis disqualified from the election interference case she has brought against them in Georgia.
Rosenberg began by describing the issue of the potential conflict of interest if Willis benefitted financially from her hiring of her boyfriend, Nathan Wade. He then ventured into the issue of the timing of the beginning of the Willis/Wade relationship.
Interjected an impatient Kay: "Frankly, does any of that really matter for the substance of the Georgia case?" Translation: enough of this stuff about Willis' misconduct. Let's get back to the business of convicting and imprisoning Trump!
Riposted Rosenberg, politely but firmly, "Maybe." He explained that if the relationship started before Willis hired Wade, then the affidavit he submitted could be "false." Moreover, Willis then submitted Wade's affidavit to the court in support of her contention, so she could be on the hook for its falsity, too.
Get the rest of the story and view the video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
My understanding is that the presiding judge once worked for Willis. It's telling that Willis arrogantly disrespected the court and judge in her testimony and there was crickets from the judge. In any other court, she would have been threatened with contempt of court.
Bottom line: (1) The case is being held in Fulton county Georgia where skin color (black) carries weight and influence. (2) Kemp is a feckless anti-trump governor. (3) Fani is a black female - the powers that be in Fulton county and the nation will run cover for and whitewash (no pun intended) Fani's outrageous criminal behavior.
Unless Fani steps aside on her own, don't be surprised that she will be allowed to continue as Trump's prosecutor.
One would think the state bar would be interested too. He paid for trips with his business credit card, then received cash from Fani, but didn’t remit that cash to the firm. Looks like he was stealing from the company.
Fanni Willis knew N. Wade when she appointed him in a administrative position on her “ team” while she was lead prosecutor in the Atlanta Public Schools Scandal of 2014.
Willis’s wiki mentions her as lead prosecutor with no mention of Wade .
Wades bio says “ he prosecuted” in this case in 2014 which is a large stretch of the truth. He only had “administrative”
duties.
Staye bat does investigate Dhimmicrats.
State bar doesn’t investigate Dhimmicrats.
It seems that there was a lot of evidence that was being given to the judge showing that the affair began before Wade was hired by Willis. The judge has to decide if it is to remain confidential. The Trump team seemed to try to get as much of it on the record as possible, and suggested that if the other side had conspired to defraud the court, they would lose attorney client privilege. When the Willis team threw Wade’s divorce attorney under the bus, I believe they may have created an enemy with all the goods on them, and nothing to lose.
Bkmk Wade in deep
Nice find.
Love you and your work, you're good egg.
But under no circumstances would I ever view a video of those psychopaths.
Thanks, and LOL: I understand.
Watching Morning Joe is my penance. I watch so others don’t have to. :-)
My question is, what bona fide reason do Wade/Willis have for asserting attorney/client privilege to keep Bradley’s testimony out of the record?
The inescapable inference is that the testimony, if allowed, would prove that the relationship began before Willis hired Wade, and thus that Wade lied in his affidavit, and Willis lied by extension by submitting his affidavit in support of her position.
Why wouldn’t this be similar to a defendant taking the fifth? In a criminal trial, that cannot be taken as an admission of guilt, but in a civil trial, it can. Although the charges against Trump and co-defendants are criminal, in this hearing there is no criminal issue. Therefore, why isn’t the judge permitted to infer that the claim of privilege to keep the testimony out is an admission?
That’s a good question. The hearing was regarding a motion by the defense in a criminal trial to have the prosecutor disqualified. It’s not a civil trial and the prosecutor is not a defendant. The judge hasn’t made a determination yet if Attorney/Client privilege applies. He is, however, admitting the evidence under seal for now. The Trump team is getting as much as they can on record, seemingly to force a criminal investigation into Willis and Wade.
🙋👍
Comparing the work histories of both Judge Scott McAfee and Fani Willis, it looks to like McAfee was the rising star and his stint under Willis was incidental.
Consider:
It's pretty clear from comparing the timelines of their careers, that McAfee spent two years early in his career in the division headed by Willis. He was then fast-tracked into higher positions in the judiciary departments.
Willis looks like her career stalled after spending 22 years in the Fulton County District Attorney's office. She left to pursue private practice and lower court judgeships. Willis ran for DA against her former boss Paul Howard, Jr.
Now, here's the real kick-in-the-pants:
-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.