Georgia grand jury investigating Trump returns indictments

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/1725614305754636546

[brucejoel99]

The own-goal to end all own-goals if the GA RICO case gets dismissed as an unconstitutional malicious prosecution because of a classic Atlanta corruption momenf

https://twitter.com/tamarhallerman/status/1744493348746854442https://twitter.com/ASFleischman/status/1744504082893840700

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/asfleischman/status/1745163680629559372https://twitter.com/asfleischman/status/1745164906884710869https://twitter.com/asfleischman/status/1745167432350568658https://twitter.com/asfleischman/status/1745166435259674657

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/asfleischman/status/1745434722707104124https://twitter.com/asfleischman/status/1745459372325785601

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/TamarHallerman/status/1744807751321018462https://twitter.com/GsuGrinding/status/1745230532554715463https://twitter.com/NoahShachtman/status/1745256197295661326https://twitter.com/ShaneyBeeBack/status/1745409947947381204https://twitter.com/AnthonyMKreis/status/1745448930400157697https://twitter.com/AnthonyMKreis/status/1745448937291747539

Well, we know how Andrew Fleischman feels about it.

https://twitter.com/ASFleischman/status/1745216373033259399

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/tamarhallerman/status/1746592879437320414

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/stphnfwlr/status/1749474900178247681https://twitter.com/stphnfwlr/status/1749476818141196564https://twitter.com/stphnfwlr/status/1749479388238815238https://twitter.com/stphnfwlr/status/1749482375510167941

[brucejoel99]

No personal relationship when he was hired. There you go!

https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1753494294982214011

[brucejoel99]

So it's good that he's already in possession of a subpoena to testify under oath at that Feb. 15th evidentiary hearing, then.

[brucejoel99]

Roman’s attorney filed a response already. Wade may be lying

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24401676-roman-reply-to-willis

https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1753546362157940888

https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1753542711137702394

[brucejoel99]

https://nypost.com/2024/02/09/news/fani-willis-accused-of-lying-about-relationship-timeline-with-trump-prosecutor-nathan-wade-bombshell-court-filing/

 New court filing. There are two witnesses who can testify that Wade and Fani began their affair before 2022 - meaning Fani lied in her prior court filing. The witnesses are Terrence Bradley (Wade’s former law partner) and Robin Yeartie (a DA employee who once lived with Fani)

https://twitter.com/beecherdenys/status/1756118590674112834

It’s 2024, having sex and dating are two very different things.

Edit: Semantics not withstanding though, Fani Willis seems like she messed up big time and not being completely forthright now is going to get her removed from the case.

Yep:

https://twitter.com/asfleischman/status/1756114020552122633

[brucejoel99]

https://nypost.com/2024/02/09/news/fani-willis-accused-of-lying-about-relationship-timeline-with-trump-prosecutor-nathan-wade-bombshell-court-filing/

 New court filing. There are two witnesses who can testify that Wade and Fani began their affair before 2022 - meaning Fani lied in her prior court filing. The witnesses are Terrence Bradley (Wade’s former law partner) and Robin Yeartie (a DA employee who once lived with Fani)

https://twitter.com/beecherdenys/status/1756118590674112834

It’s 2024, having sex and dating are two very different things.

Edit: Semantics not withstanding though, Fani Willis seems like she messed up big time and not being completely forthright now is going to get her removed from the case.

Yep:

https://twitter.com/asfleischman/status/1756114020552122633

If true, it would be a basis for an ethics complaint, but none of this prejudiced the defendants in any way.

https://twitter.com/ASFleischman/status/1756309509197250854
And none of this prejudiced the defendants in any way?! It's sure as sh*t now absolutely prejudicial atp if they lied in their filings about the start date of their relationship being before or after Wade's appointment to this case because literally the entire point of proving that underlying assertion is that, if it's true that the start date was before, then that constitutes blatant circumstantial evidence of her rewarding him for the relationship & providing him with further incentive to continue prosecuting in exchange for continued income to him that'd then partially flow to Willis by virtue of the relationship & his gratitude to her for his job. That's personal reward flowing directly to Willis predicated directly upon the case's outcome.

[brucejoel99]

And none of this prejudiced the defendants in any way?! It's sure as sh*t now absolutely prejudicial atp if they lied in their filings about the start date of their relationship being before or after Wade's appointment to this case because literally the entire point of proving that underlying assertion is that, if it's true that the start date was before, then that constitutes blatant circumstantial evidence of her rewarding him for the relationship & providing him with further incentive to continue prosecuting in exchange for continued income to him that'd then partially flow to Willis by virtue of the relationship & his gratitude to her for his job. That's personal reward flowing directly to Willis predicated directly upon the case's outcome.

Are you saying if it's true that she lied that the charges should be dismissed, or just that she should be?

If it's true that she & Wade lied in their filings, then Fulton should be dismissed, which means:

https://twitter.com/KerryPicket/status/1747457258005442924
Whether the alleged misconduct inherently goes to the essential validity of the process & proves so fundamental that the entire prosecution is irreparably tainted is a separate argument for a more sufficiently informed future.

[brucejoel99]

Donald Trump's judge in his Georgia case will hear evidence on prosecutors' romantic relationship after denying District Attorney Fani Willis' request to cancel a Thursday hearing on her potential disqualification

The judge presiding over former President Donald Trump's criminal case in Georgia is moving forward with a Thursday hearing meant to discern whether District Attorney Fani Willis and the rest of the prosecution team should be disqualified from leading the case.

Judge Scott McAfee rejected the prosecutors' request to cancel the hearing — a decision that keeps alive the prospect that Willis may have to testify under oath about her romantic relationship with a special prosecutor, Nathan Wade, whom she hired to help run the case as a contract attorney. Trump and other defendants have alleged that Willis and Wade have conflicts of interest because they have allegedly used income from Wade’s contract to pay for vacations together.

"The state has admitted a relationship existed," McAfee said in court on Monday. "And so, what remains to be proven is the existence and extent of any financial benefit, again, if there even was one. Because I think it's possible that the facts alleged by the defendant could result in disqualification, I think an evidentiary hearing must occur to establish the record on those core allegations."

https://twitter.com/AWeissmann_/status/1757142021981028676https://twitter.com/lawyerschiff/status/1757168469273968911

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/ASFleischman/status/1757183041590432132

[brucejoel99]

I don't follow? Why does Trump being there going to matter to the judge? It's his right I thought.

Probably expecting that Trump will be a disturbance in court.

That but I also imagine Trump using the court room as a campaign stop makes the entire effort of removing Willis look more political and less about ethics.

UPDATE:

https://twitter.com/bradmossesq/status/1757418315213877610

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/1758232809137721525https://twitter.com/lawofruby/status/1758309466196303978https://twitter.com/AnthonyMKreis/status/1758538479632334907https://twitter.com/AnthonyMKreis/status/1758539527222608157

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/ZcohenCNN/status/1758611167398842568https://twitter.com/hugolowell/status/1758623491052511640https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1758626017571119578

[brucejoel99]

"Attorneys will likely have to return in next few weeks to discuss outstanding issues.

Timeline for disqualification decision not totally clear."

I'm sorry, what? We had to rush this hearing into existence only for minor details to stretch this out for a few more *weeks*? That is borderline insanity. There's no reason whatsoever that this disqualification decision should not be coming within the next week. I hope this means that a decision can be made without those "few weeks of outstanding issues" because otherwise that is insane.

Confusing dissonance. You think Judge McAfee "rush[ed] this hearing into existence" (even though it was scheduled over 4 *weeks* ago & only 2 *weeks* after Roman's complaint filing), which you say is bad, yet now you're advocating precisely for him to rush his "next few weeks" timeline for outstanding issues "within the next week" as the solution here? Pick one.

[brucejoel99]

"Attorneys will likely have to return in next few weeks to discuss outstanding issues.

Timeline for disqualification decision not totally clear."

I'm sorry, what? We had to rush this hearing into existence only for minor details to stretch this out for a few more *weeks*? That is borderline insanity. There's no reason whatsoever that this disqualification decision should not be coming within the next week. I hope this means that a decision can be made without those "few weeks of outstanding issues" because otherwise that is insane.

Confusing dissonance. You think Judge McAfee "rush[ed] this hearing into existence" (even though it was scheduled over 4 *weeks* ago & only 2 *weeks* after Roman's complaint filing), which you say is bad, yet now you're advocating precisely for him to rush his "next few weeks" timeline for outstanding issues "within the next week" as the solution here? Pick one.

You're missing my point - Roman's filing was only 2 weeks ago and yet everything happened within 2 weeks. That's pretty fast in judicial terms, given the amount of effort that goes into these hearings. Not sure what else McAfee needs to see here - if they were able to fit all that pre-hearing preparation into 2-4 weeks, there's no reason why a decision from him needs to take another few weeks. This isn't something that needs a huge 10 page decision on - it's a very clear cut yes or no on disqualification. Taking weeks on end to come to a conclusion on this just gives the Trump team exactly what they want - more delay. McAfee needs to see fit to just get this settled already.

Please consider taking a closer look at what I said. Roman filed 6 weeks ago. That's what 2 weeks prior to 4 weeks ago was. The amount of effort that went into these hearings was more than commensurate with the nature of the allegations as both facially proferred & responded to by the prosecution as well as with the high-profile stakes of the underlying prosecution. What you're essentially asking is for Judge McAfee to have taken the prosecution's word at face value with no further inquiry into the allegations' credibility. C'mon.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/AnnaBower/status/1761081854533267549https://twitter.com/AnnaBower/status/1761085793513201782

[brucejoel99]

The Georgia election racketeering case against Donald Trump and his allies hit another potential stumbling block on Friday when the court was provided with cellphone records that appear to show prosecutor Nathan Wade made at least 35 visits to district attorney Fani Willis’s neighborhood before she hired him.

Gonna need more than just placing him within a mile of Hapeville, based on data from 2 cell phone towers that are each about half-a-mile away from the neighborhood, which is right next to the airport.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/ZcohenCNN/status/1761183473643974756

https://twitter.com/bluestein/status/1761200602221273596

https://twitter.com/ASFleischman/status/1761386262160650747

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/annabower/status/1761868044526100913https://twitter.com/bradmossesq/status/1761872974217384230

[brucejoel99]

So it’s not enough for disqualification. But it’s not a “nothing-burger” or a mess (as the Biden stooges ITT allege). There is still reason for public distrust of Fani, which will surround the case going forward so long as she is there. She should step aside even if she isn’t disqualified

https://twitter.com/AnthonyMKreis/status/1762590750334722525

How are you really gonna call people using their eyes & ears to accurately describe what was happening at the hearing they were following the news of "Biden stooges" when you told us less than 100 hrs. ago - before McAfee, who afawk isn't you, had even finished hearing the attorney-client privilege issue, I might add - that iN cOnJuNcTiOn WiTh AlL tHe OtHeR dAtA, tHe ToTaLiTy Of ThE eViDeNcE iS eNoUgH tO sUpPoRt DiSbArMeNt PrOcEeDiNgS oR eVeN iNvEsTiGaTiOnS oF pErJuRy?