|
Scipiotik posted:Merchant seems to be doing a whole lot of fishing that should end up with her catching something, but I think she's just trying to perry mason something by accident. I don't think she's actually leading him into a trap, hoping more to stumble onto one that she doesn't know. That in itself is catastrophic lawyering. You should never ask a witness a question in front of a judge that you don't already know the answer to.
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 18:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
Clarste posted:That in itself is catastrophic lawyering. You should never ask a witness a question in front of a judge that you don't already know the answer to. I think she does know the answer. The intent is probably to get Wade to say something that can be labeled as "inconsistent" with his responses to their arguments or any subpoena served on his and then try to make ammunition out of that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 18:24
|
|
|
Clarste posted:That in itself is catastrophic lawyering. You should never ask a witness a question in front of a judge that you don't already know the answer to. Your honor I call to the stand the ghost who never lies and only I can see or hear him. Ok ghost that never lies, who ... DON'T YOU POINT YOUR FINGER ATME
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 18:27
|
|
|
Clarste posted:That in itself is catastrophic lawyering. You should never ask a witness a question in front of a judge that you don't already know the answer to. That's true at trial but this whole enterprise is fishing because she doesn't have anything better. Finding the one fired staffer willing to testify already was a bit of a coup.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 18:27
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:I think she does know the answer. The intent is probably to get Wade to say something that can be labeled as "inconsistent" with his responses to their arguments or any subpoena served on his and then try to make ammunition out of that. Nah, she doesn't because she keeps asking questions that aren't very specific (and are often wrong, like not knowing where the DA's condo was located). If she knew what the answer should be she'd have follow up questions that would catch him in a trap. Every time she's had the chance to ask another question to catch him in an inconsistency she's just moved on. Further to the point she is wasting the judge's time. There is nothing a judge hates more than having their time wasted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 18:28
|
|
|
Yeah, I was listening to the hearing as well. Merchant is not doing a great job. She should be able to make more of out the financial entanglements then she has been, but her questioning is extremely sloppy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 18:31
|
|
|
Scipiotik posted:Merchant seems to be doing a whole lot of fishing that should end up with her catching something, but I think she's just trying to perry mason something by accident. I don't think she's actually leading him into a trap, hoping more to stumble onto one that she doesn't know. I sorta suspect she didnt expect it to get this far. I think she hoped there was way way more in the files and explicityly and that some judge would look at and say "yeah willis off case, trump free" or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 18:38
|
|
|
gregday posted:Not for someone with no criminal history. It'll be a fine, at most. Funniest possible result: the various Civil judgements crush Trump's finances so thoroughly that he is unable to pay the fine in the criminal case
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 18:51
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Funniest possible result: the various Civil judgements crush Trump's finances so thoroughly that he is unable to pay the fine in the criminal case Subject: DO YOUR PART NOW TO BE A REAL LIFE CONTRIBUTOR TO KEEPING AMERICA'S FAVORITE PRESIDENT OUT OF JAIL. DONATE $5 NOW!!!! or some variant of whatever they have in the "Drafts" folder when they need to fleece the rubes
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 19:12
|
|
|
Zapp Brannigan posted:Subject: DO YOUR PART NOW TO BE A REAL LIFE CONTRIBUTOR TO KEEPING AMERICA'S FAVORITE PRESIDENT OUT OF JAIL. DONATE $5 NOW!!!! Wait, when did FDR go to jail?!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 19:25
|
|
|
IANAL, but this hearing is frustrating. The Georgia case against Trump is one of the most important cases of our lifetime. Why jeopardize it with an office romance? Ither fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Feb 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 19:30
|
|
|
people like to gently caress
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 19:32
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:people like to gently caress Source?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 19:34
|
|
|
Push El Burrito posted:Source? My friend Buck.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 19:34
|
|
|
Any tips on a good place to watch/refresh/ tomorrow for the expected Engoron decision to drop?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 19:36
|
|
|
Push El Burrito posted:Source? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ImRyPymRAM
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 19:36
|
|
|
Push El Burrito posted:Source? Your momma.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 19:40
|
|
|
Ither posted:IANAL, but this hearing is frustrating. Lawyers are notoriously horny, the long hours working in close confines sorta leads to it. I just started watching after the break and this new attorney is much better at lawyering than the previous woman, but it seems like the problem is he's rehashing a lot of ground she already covered which is annoying to the judge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 19:43
|
|
|
the evidence against trump is him saying "i would like you to commit crimes on my behalf"= complete exoneration the evidence against the prosecution is that someone sometime heard something from a friend of a co-worker=guilty beyond measure
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 19:52
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:people like to gently caress checks out https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1758192910208524482
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 19:56
|
|
|
Well that ain't great Edit: actually wade still has a dodge. He has said his marriage was "over" in 2015, and he filed for divorce in 2021. So might depend on exact timing of filings. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Feb 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 20:01
|
|
|
It's so cool that Fox News is just airing the testimony straight up, not even bothering to cut in for commentary. BREAKING NEWS!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 20:23
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1758192910208524482 https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1758201080154861825 This does not bode well for Willis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 20:41
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:This does not bode well for Willis. It literally didn't matter. As he said, the big issue was going to be the 'close friend', but the close friend literally had zero evidence and admitted that it was just "Yeah I heard a rumor about something, maybe." which is not convincing. Kchama fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Feb 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 20:53
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Well that ain't great The dodge doesn't really work because the specific wording is 'between the date of your marriage and present', to which he was absolutely lying. It hurts his credibility, but ultimately I don't think it is damning. The accusation here is that she gave him the job because they were loving and she could profit as a result. The fact that he lied in a contentious divorce is bad, but the could can absolutely consider the reasons why, such as that he thought the implicit question of the document was 'did you cheat', which he didn't thin he did since the marriage was over in everything but law. The only evidence so far showing that they were together before his appointment is the one lady who got poo poo canned by Willis for poor performance who nebulously says she was told. They only evidence for financial gain is credit statements he says he was paid back for. This judge doesn't seem dumb as hell, so I'd like to assume he tisk tsiks and let's the case go on. The alternative is that he throws out Willis out of concerns for Decorum in which case, clown world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 21:06
|
|
|
Caros posted:The dodge doesn't really work because the specific wording is 'between the date of your marriage and present', to which he was absolutely lying. He explained that he answered as if "since your marriage ended" even if they hadn't officially separated before then, and the judge went "Yeah, makes sense" and moved on. Also I think the wording was "between your marriage ending and your separation to present." so there's a gap in between those, since he didn't get officially separated until much later for various reasons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 21:10
|
|
|
Can anyone explain the conflict of interest? I understand her hiring a lover to do a big case isn’t kosher because she’d be sending money to someone that would benefit her too, but I don’t see how that would affect the case against Trump. Prosecutors aren’t meant to be impartial, so as long as the evidence is there it shouldn’t matter?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 21:38
|
|
|
rkd_ posted:Can anyone explain the conflict of interest? Do public prosecutors get money per case or are they salaried? If he wasn't working the Trump case, he'd be working a different case so the only thing he'd be earning is "clout".
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 21:41
|
|
|
My understanding is that he was in private practice and took a substantial pay cut to sign with DA Willis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 21:42
|
|
|
volts5000 posted:Do public prosecutors get money per case or are they salaried? If he wasn't working the Trump case, he'd be working a different case so the only thing he'd be earning is "clout". I thought the (purported) issue is that Wade is still in private practice, but his firm has been hired as a DA. In fact, the amount he has billed the DA's office has been brought up during this hearing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 21:45
|
|
|
rkd_ posted:Can anyone explain the conflict of interest? There wasn't really anything to begin. The Trump lawyer argument is that the entire case was a scam to funnel money to Wade and wouldn't have been prosecuted in the first place if it wasn't for the relationship. The non-Trump guy's argument was that Willis sabotaged the case and artificially lengthened it to pay Wade more, which is pretty laughable due to my reply to volts5000. volts5000 posted:Do public prosecutors get money per case or are they salaried? If he wasn't working the Trump case, he'd be working a different case so the only thing he'd be earning is "clout". He's private, so former. According to his receipts he actually lost potential money because he did a lot more work than he could legally bill for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 21:46
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:people like to gently caress Push El Burrito posted:Source? Ither posted:IANAL
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 21:54
|
|
|
rkd_ posted:Can anyone explain the conflict of interest? I asked the same recently, and the answer is essentially that Willis and Wade cooked up the entire case from whole cloth in order to create something she could hire him on to. No, this makes no sense, why would they need to do that? Why do it with one of the biggest cases in the history of the Republic instead of some dumb poo poo nobody outside of Atlanta will ever even hear of? Why would them loving be evidence of this anyway? It doesn't need to make sense to appeal to the chuds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 21:58
|
|
|
rkd_ posted:Can anyone explain the conflict of interest? The chud version is Fani Willis appointed her boy toy to a cushy state job. He was paid a bunch of money and used that money from the state to take her on lavish trips. She has a financial interest in the case which should disqualify her under ethics rules. The reality is Fani Willis hired either a close personal/professional friend (or the guy she was loving) to take a pay cut to work on a high profile case that would be great for his career. He took the case and may or may not have taken her on vacations using some of the money he was paid. It is an incredible reach and the best case version of this is that it is unseemly but probably shouldnt derail the case of a guy who tried to do a loving coup.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 21:59
|
|
|
Gonna read this as her making GBS threads on gatlinburg and she’s absolutely right. https://x.com/natalie_allison/status/1758226072636731749?s=46&t=JBd6ZXmGQ3LmWL-ineTnAA
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 22:03
|
|
|
Whatever, we'll still take your money
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 22:06
|
|
|
Caros posted:. Yup. The bright side is this all probably only works if either the judge is a CHUD or the prosecutors are gigantic dumbasses. So at least we get.to find that out now if so before we get all invested in a trial.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 22:08
|
|
|
Caros posted:The chud version is If this lunatic actually wins the election I think fifty years from now America is going to do what Germany did and collectively hate Trump more than any other country to compensate for having let him loose in the first place The Islamic Shock fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Feb 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 22:09
|
|
|
This defense attorney has been described as good in thread by other attorneys for chasing the hard angles for her client but watching this questioning right now she seems shakey, and like she’s engaged in a fishing expedition needing constant redirection from the judge and sounding unsure about what she’s even asking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
Yiggy posted:This defense attorney has been described as good in thread by other attorneys for chasing the hard angles for her client but watching this questioning right now she seems shakey, and like she’s engaged in a fishing expedition needing constant redirection from the judge and sounding unsure about what she’s even asking. The main Atlanta twitter lawyer dude mentioned her strength was in document review and finding procedural errors, not necessarily in examination/questioning etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 22:16
|
|