The Lead Attorney Analysis Of The Fani Willis Situation

[Ozymandeas]

IVE NEVER TALKED ON THE PHONE
WITH A SINGLE WOMAN 2000 TIMES
IN MY LIFE LET ALONE WITHIN A SINGLE YEAR.

DEFINITELY HAVENT TEXTED ONE WOMAN
12000 TIMES IN MY LIFE LET ALONE A YEAR.

THESE 2 WERE CRAZY ABOUT EACH OTHER



​

He was knocking that shyt out the frame

I can't believe she would jeopardize her career like this.

 

[CHICAGO]

He was knocking that shyt out the frame

I can't believe she would jeopardize her career like this.

NAH THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT BUSINESS
AT 4AM






​

 

[Bunchy Carter]

He was knocking that shyt out the frame

I can't believe she would jeopardize her career like this.

 

[bnew]

Star witness for Trump defendants in Georgia fails to give damning testimony

Terrence Bradley testifies he had no personal knowledge about relationship between DA Fani Willis and prosecutor Nathan Wade

www.theguardian.com

Terrence Bradley testifies in court on Tuesday. Photograph: Brynn Anderson/EPA

Donald Trump

Star witness for Trump defendants in Georgia fails to give damning testimony​

Terrence Bradley testifies he had no personal knowledge about relationship between DA Fani Willis and prosecutor Nathan Wade

Hugo Lowell
@hugolowell

Tue 27 Feb 2024 18.45 EST

Lawyers for Donald Trump’s co-defendants charged in Georgia over efforts to overturn the 2020 election were unable on Tuesday to get their star witness to repeat in court what he had previously alleged about the Fulton county district attorney’s affair, as they seek to have her thrown off the case.

“I was speculating and I never witnessed anything. It was speculation,” Terrence Bradley said about text messages he sent to one of the defense lawyers in January that alleged the district attorney Fani Willis and her deputy Nathan Wade were romantically involved earlier than they had claimed.

Bradley’s inability to confirm anything about the affair meant there was no new evidence introduced at the hearing in Fulton county superior court as the presiding judge, Scott McAfee, weighs whether there was a conflict of interest requiring Willis’s disqualification.

Trump and more than a dozen allies were charged last year with violating the Georgia state racketeering statute when they took steps to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia, including by advancing fake slates of electors and pressuring state officials to reverse Trump’s defeat.

The case took a twist in January when Ashleigh Merchant, the lawyer for Trump’s co-defendant Mike Roman, filed a motion to disqualify Willis from the case, complaining that Willis benefited financially from hiring Wade to work on the Trump case in 2021 because he paid for them to go on vacation.

The disqualification motion has been closely watched because if the judge relieves Willis from bringing the case, it could result in the entire district attorney’s office from also being thrown off, upending what remains one of the most legally perilous cases against Trump.

But after more than two hours of testimony from Bradley, the defense lawyers appeared no closer to meeting the high burden to force disqualification than when Bradley initially took the stand last week.

The defense lawyers had been hoping for weeks that Bradley would contradict the testimony from Willis and Wade, who claimed it started months after Wade had been hired to work on the Trump case in November 2021, since that could undercut their credibility in the eyes of the judge.

Bradley’s initial appearance yielded little new information after he repeatedly invoked attorney-client privilege – Bradley was Wade’s lawyer in the divorce proceedings undergirding the affair allegations – to avoid having to answer questions from the defense lawyers.

The judge later determined at a hearing, behind closed doors, that Bradley was using the attorney-client privilege inappropriately when it came to communications Wade had made to him about the affair and had to answer questions on that matter.

On Tuesday, Bradley returned to court but testified he had no personal knowledge about the affair and that he had been purely speculating when he texted Roman’s lawyer that Willis and Wade’s affair had started after they met at a municipal judges’ conference in 2019.

Bradley suggested the fact that he corrected only one part of the draft disqualification motion sent to him by Roman’s lawyer – he clarified his own contract with the district attorney’s office for unrelated work was for $74,000 – did not mean he was assenting to the rest of the document being accurate.

The Trump defense lawyer, Steve Sadow, at one point asked, incredulously, why he had speculated when he knew Roman’s lawyer had been asking him about the affair in order to finalise her motion to disqualify. “I don’t recall,” Bradley replied in a muted tone.

Bradley also testified he could not recall whether Wade had recounted having sex with Willis in her office before she became the district attorney, and that he had never seen or had personal knowledge if Wade had a key to Willis’s garage door around the same time.

To date, there has been no evidence proving Willis hired Wade and renewed his contract specifically to gain a financial benefit through any sort of kickback scheme. And Willis and Wade have both previously testified any expenses were shared equally or reimbursed with cash.

The judge now faces the issue of how much weight to attach to Bradley’s testimony. On the one hand, he could believe that Bradley is now telling the truth having previously lied, or he could believe Bradley was telling the truth when he texted Roman’s lawyer and lied on the stand.

The district attorney’s office has separately tried to impeach Bradley’s credibility by having him acknowledge he was essentially ousted from his previous law practice he shared with Wade over a sexual harassment claim; the suggestion has been that Bradley wanted to damage Wade.

 

[T’Challa’s Heir]

Are you not aware that the text and statements are indeed entered as evidence and that he confirmed all the statements in the emails and text as his own under oath dummy? What you want to argue is a separate subjective question as to whether you believe bradley to be credible when he stated he was speculating. Bradley changing his story does not make the evidence go away especially when its literally written down and was reviewed multiple times by him for accuracy (which he confirmed under oath as well). That excuse wouldn't get you out of a traffic ticket and nobody with half a brain would believe him... perhaps you.. but not the judge. And thats who will decide regardless of what he claimed today on the stand.

So you’re putting more weight on the out of court statement than what he said under oath? So, you’re saying he committed perjury. So you’re going to take an out of court statement of a guy who committed perjury as truthful. Got it.

1 month ban bet on the outcome?

 

[T’Challa’s Heir]

The witness, Bradley, is not on trial nor the subject of the ethics hearing. Fani Willis is. His reliability is irrelevant. What is relevant is if he has knowledge or info pertaining to the the subject matter of the hearing. The credibility of the info he claimed he knew, email and text evidence and the testimony he gave will be judged on their own merits.

That’s not how any of this works. at all.

 

[LeVraiPapi]

The witness, Bradley, is not on trial nor the subject of the ethics hearing. Fani Willis is. His reliability is irrelevant. What is relevant is if he has knowledge or info pertaining to the the subject matter of the hearing. The credibility of the info he claimed he knew, email and text evidence and the testimony he gave will be judged on their own merits.

It doesn’t work that way. If you have no credibility as a witness then why are you there ? Wasn’t he the reason this whole thing started anyway ?


This should have been over with since he said he had no knowledge of anything

 

[Black Panther]

Are you that dumb to wear you still don't realize what this hearing is about? They are gearing up for closing arguments and you are still stuck on stupid. If you dont know by now why this hearing is even taking place then why are you in this thread?

Asking for a legal argument in a court of law before a judge is being "stuck on stupid."

If there is a law that says the DA should be removed under certain circumstances, then the defense must make a legal argument.

This can't be life

 

[Wiseborn]

He was knocking that shyt out the frame

I can't believe she would jeopardize her career like this.

shyt is the High Value edition of For My Man.

 

[Nigerianwonder]

So you’re putting more weight on the out of court statement than what he said under oath? So, you’re saying he committed perjury. So you’re going to take an out of court statement of a guy who committed perjury as truthful. Got it.

1 month ban bet on the outcome?

Testimony is never taken at face value. If it was that easy there wouldn't be a need for a judge or a jury. People can just say they didnt do it or say it and go home. it doesnt work like that. The judge will make his opinion with all the evidence he has. He is not hinging his opinion on bradleys word on the stand alone. You know that.

Fani and wade committed perjury as well and you want to take they testimony as truthful. Only 1 person appears to have been completely truthful and that was fani's friend.

 

[Nigerianwonder]

It doesn’t work that way. If you have no credibility as a witness then why are you there ? Wasn’t he the reason this whole thing started anyway ?


This should have been over with since he said he had no knowledge of anything

Why dont you ask Torey Lanez that question. Kelsey recanted her entire witness statement under oath and it was still used as evidence against Torey and the jury said they believed her original story she gave the night of rather than her new one even though she later claimed she originally lied.

Witnesses change their stories all the time. Thats why witness testimony on the stand is the least reliable.Just cause someone says it doesnt mean the judge has to believe it.

 

[Nigerianwonder]

Asking for a legal argument in a court of law before a judge is being "stuck on stupid."

If there is a law that says the DA should be removed under certain circumstances, then the defense must make a legal argument.

This can't be life

It's not a criminal case you idiot. Its an ethics hearing. Its subjective dumbass. The judge makes the call.

 

[T’Challa’s Heir]

Testimony is never taken at face value. If it was that easy there wouldn't be a need for a judge or a jury. People can just say they didnt do it or say it and go home. it doesnt work like that. The judge will make his opinion with all the evidence he has. He is not hinging his opinion on bradleys word on the stand alone. You know that.

Fani and wade committed perjury as well and you want to take they testimony as truthful. Only 1 person appears to have been completely truthful and that was fani's friend.

Cool. How sure are you? Let’s go, 1 month ban bet?

Funny how none of the people who are so confident in their evaluation are willing to do the bet. If you don’t wanna do the ban bet, I’ll bet $1,000 on it. You in?

 

[Black Panther]

It's not a criminal case you idiot. Its an ethics hearing. Its subjective dumbass. The judge makes the call.

So you don't make legal arguments in civil cases or ethics hearings (because there's no laws governing ethics)? Just criminal cases?


You wouldn't have happened to attend Trump University law school, did you?

 

[Nigerianwonder]

So you don't make legal arguments in civil cases or ethics hearings (because there's no laws governing ethics)? Just criminal cases?


You wouldn't have happened to attend Trump University law school, did you?

While you continue to talk in circles the hearing is about to conclude. You can make any legal argument you want to make and both sides did. thats what a hearing is dumbass. The judge decides in this case and will give his opinion.