|
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. I mean if I was 100% guilty of some poo poo I'd want my defense attorney to throw every BS hail mary they could to try to get me off.
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:57 |
|
|
My impression about the "this trump lawyer is actually competent" thing is it seems like Trump has the magic ability of making people who had real reputations and credentials eat poo poo for inexplicable reasons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 22:24
|
|
|
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. I mean, there's different kinds of good layering. She found something no other lawyer for any of the forty odd defendants in this RICO case found. That's good lawyeringin the sense of good investigating. Then she went on a fishing expedition for more. That was probably the right call given what she knew at the time, the stakes of the case, and the unlikeliness of a decent plea offer. Problem is there was never much chance of finding any fish. Still if she manages to catch willis or wade in a clear on the record lie then she's won a huge victory. And she still might. Courtroom bearing doesn't always matter. I knew one lawyer who won a murder trial, not guilty, where the whole thing was on video. He kinda looked like an idiot the whole time. I talked to him about it and he said his strategy was to look too incompetent to be lying to the jury, dumb but honest. It worked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 22:27
|
|
|
rkd_ posted:Can anyone explain the conflict of interest? The other conflict of interest I can see is that since Willis and Wade lied/concealed being in a relationship, they might also not be fully conducting the investigation above board. (IE not fully reviewing or properly scrutinising the evidence.) Realistically when conducting an investigation, you don't want any conflicts of interest just to stop this from being a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 22:28
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:My impression about the "this trump lawyer is actually competent" thing is it seems like Trump has the magic ability of making people who had real reputations and credentials eat poo poo for inexplicable reasons. Right. This lady has a theory, she found a witness to support it, she's chasing a real lead, there may be more, and it could sink the case. She's also torching her rep with the DA to do it which is a ballsy move. That is all competent lawyering to a far greater degree than most of Trump's attorneys have exhibited.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 22:33
|
|
|
That’s fair and instructive. I appreciate the perspective.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 22:35
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:The main Atlanta twitter lawyer dude mentioned her strength was in document review and finding procedural errors, not necessarily in examination/questioning etc. As someone focuses on e-discovery as well, the skill sets are entirely different. Being able to run sql or regex queries on data you are collecting and processing to limit the data set needed for review and save your client money? Great skill set for e-discovery. Useless for trial work. Being a great public speaker and able to confront people or make bullshit arguments while having an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules of evidence? Amazing for trial work, public speaking might be somewhat useful in e-discovery, but the work there is usually collaborative with the other attorneys working on the review, not antagonistic. I'd like to think I'm a decent e-discovery attorney. I have no illusions as to being even passing as a trial lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 22:40
|
|
|
Apparently she wasn't competent enough to find out that Wade had cancer during the time of the alleged affair and was self isolating due to being immunocompromised from treatment. That's not going to go well for the Trump case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 22:40
|
|
|
I just tried watching some of the live feed (it's here by the way https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDcexi-W8rQ ) and my God the GOP lawyers are annoying. Willis isn't helping herself (the judge has had to tell her to calm the gently caress down twice since I tuned in) but the questions have been dire and, frankly, often comically irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 22:42
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/semafor/status/1758240283160981949 Seems to contradict the thread's belief that things are going well for Willis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 22:44
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:https://twitter.com/semafor/status/1758240283160981949 I'm at work at can't listen but it sounds frokmwhat I'm reading like willis is taking the opportunity to grandstand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 22:45
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:https://twitter.com/semafor/status/1758240283160981949 Getting an answer struck doesn't mean everything she says the whole day, it means that answer. So yeah, clickbait isn't reality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 22:45
|
|
|
The judge has been slapping both of them around, it's click bait.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 22:48
|
|
|
rkd_ posted:Can anyone explain the conflict of interest? It shouldn't directly affect the case against Trump. The conflict of Willis's interest is between Wade, and her client, the public. If this conflict exists the case can still proceed, but it's likely that Willis's office will have to hand it off to another DA who isn't secretly sleeping with the people they hire to prosecute. rkd_ posted:Prosecutors aren’t meant to be impartial, so as long as the evidence is there it shouldn’t matter? Willis has already been disqualified once for being conflicted against a defendant in this case https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22120804-order-disqualifying-da-fani-willis-office
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 22:54
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Willis has already been disqualified once for being conflicted against a defendant in this case Willis is in a relationship with a defendant???
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 23:02
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:https://twitter.com/semafor/status/1758240283160981949 The specific context is that she is annoyed at this attorney for digging into her personal life and trying to smear her so she's being fairly rude. The specific thing that warranted the warning was that Willis was asked if Wade had ever spent the night in 2020 and she said 'no he has never been to my home'. The lawyer kept pushing and Willis got annoyed because 'how can he have spent the night at a place he has never been to. She spent a lot of time talking about how she has been driven out of her home by death threats, so honestly I can't blame her for feeling this is personal. Edit': Fani "I didn't give him anything other than cash" Trumple: "Did you write him a cheque?" Fani: -*sasiest voice you have ever head* Ma'am... I don't have cheques. Caros fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Feb 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 23:03
|
|
|
Devor posted:Willis is in a relationship with a defendant??? No? Please be clear about what you're responding to and why you think it means what you're saying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 23:05
|
|
|
My take on today: Willis probably didn't use the greatest judgement and probably was sloppy with documenting cash flow on some nickel and dime poo poo that is "technically" receiving of gifts but I don't think it rose to corruption or any actual motivation other than being in a relationship with someone in your career orbit. It definitely was not some elaborate scheme to funnel tax payer money to her gently caress buddy. I think this is gonna get tossed and it will be all eyes back on the RICO case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 23:34
|
|
|
I can't believe democracy in the US is going to die because groceries are like %30 more expensive than in 2019 and a judge decided it would totally not matter to gently caress the prosecutor in one of the biggest cases of all time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 23:44
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:No? Please be clear about what you're responding to and why you think it means what you're saying. You should probably read what you posted to find out why it could be different. Hint: It was because Willis had ran a fund-raiser for the Democratic that the person charged decided to run against. That's actually substantial.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 23:57
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I can't believe democracy in the US is going to die because groceries are like %30 more expensive than in 2019 and a judge decided it would totally not matter to gently caress the prosecutor in one of the biggest cases of all time. Nobody is loving a judge here. Two prosecutors are loving each other. It probably won't matter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 00:11
|
|
|
Kchama posted:You should probably read what you posted to find out why it could be different. I didn't say that they weren't different and I wasn't asking the poster to explain why they were different. Kchama posted:Hint: It was because Willis had ran a fund-raiser for the Democratic that the person charged decided to run against. This isn't Willis being in a relationship with a defendant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 00:15
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I can't believe democracy in the US is going to die because groceries are like %30 more expensive than in 2019 and a judge decided it would totally not matter to gently caress the prosecutor in one of the biggest cases of all time. If democracy dies, it's not going to be because of anything a judge did, it's going to be because a substantial chunk of the American population supported Donald Trump despite his numerous scandals and crimes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 00:25
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If democracy dies, it's not going to be because of anything a judge did, it's going to be because a substantial chunk of the American population supported Donald Trump despite his numerous scandals and crimes. To add to this, I think Three Arrows had a mostly* good explainer about the fall of the Weimar Republic; where he presents the argument about the role of the legal system in enabling Hitler's rise to power and how many of Weimar's institutions including its judiciary were just completely captured by people who were either, Fash, Fash-enabling, Fash-curious, or Democracy-Apathetic. Essentially you had a lot of institutions and a lot of people who just lacked the willingness to have the Republic survive a Hitler figure entering the picture; many people on both the left and right didn't want the Republic to continue to exist in its current form. America is pretty far from this on many fronts, many of the US's institutions are still manned by dedicated people who want the US to continue to endure, and a lot of people (voters) who also want this. I think if the US can continue to endure long enough for demographics to kick in a little more the "Center" can continue to hold until the right breaks apart. *Three Arrows kinda makes the argument that this is all in large part to Germany lacking a history of democracy or democratic institutions but at a glance that seemed to me to be patently incorrect, but this is neither here nor there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 00:35
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:I didn't say that they weren't different and I wasn't asking the poster to explain why they were different. Right, it is easily and obviously distinguishable and introducing the argument without acknowledging that is disingenuous
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 00:44
|
|
|
Devor posted:Right, it is easily and obviously distinguishable and introducing the argument without acknowledging that is disingenuous I'm not sure what point you think you're trying to make but it very clearly was distinguished in my original comment on the topic. When I referred to the current allegation of conflict of interest: "The conflict of Willis's interest is between Wade, and her client, the public." When I referred to her previous disqualification: "Willis has already been disqualified once for being conflicted against a defendant in this case" You will note in those quotes that when talking about the previous one and this one, I describe and distinguished them differently and equate them nowhere since they are separate things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 00:56
|
|
|
So it's sounding like republicans made poo poo up in the hopes of slandering someone yet again, who could have guessed they'd do this once more, and especially to a minority in a position of any authority, whoa, mindblowingKchama posted: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. "President?! Do you know how much paycheck I'd have to give up to prosecute a president?!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 00:57
|
|
|
In all fairness, it is fairly trivial to argue "Wade may have taken a pay cut but being part of a team that, he expected, would successfully prosecute Trump would grant him enough cachet to ensure his position as one of the most sought-after prosectors in the country, and secure potentially an entire career of high paying cases, more than making up for the haircut he took here."
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 01:02
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:I'm not sure what point you think you're trying to make but it very clearly was distinguished in my original comment on the topic. Her client isn't the public. Her client is the government. As long as she crosses her ts and dots her is with regards to their requirements, she can basically does what she want to. And to all accounts she has done just that. You confused people because you replied to someone talking about how prosecutors are allowed to be biased against defendants with the time she was DQ'd over having a conflict of interest versus the defendant, which is something else entirely. One could reasonably infer that she could have brought her cast against that defendant based on a conflict of interest against her because she had donated to his opponent. There's nothing like that in this case. Ms Adequate posted:In all fairness, it is fairly trivial to argue "Wade may have taken a pay cut but being part of a team that, he expected, would successfully prosecute Trump would grant him enough cachet to ensure his position as one of the most sought-after prosectors in the country, and secure potentially an entire career of high paying cases, more than making up for the haircut he took here." Indeed, but then in that case literally all lawyers would be DQ'd for any important case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 01:45
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:In all fairness, it is fairly trivial to argue "Wade may have taken a pay cut but being part of a team that, he expected, would successfully prosecute Trump would grant him enough cachet to ensure his position as one of the most sought-after prosectors in the country, and secure potentially an entire career of high paying cases, more than making up for the haircut he took here." Sure, but that's not a *conflict*. That's just a motivation to do a really good job at prosecuting Trump.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 01:55
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:In all fairness, it is fairly trivial to argue "Wade may have taken a pay cut but being part of a team that, he expected, would successfully prosecute Trump would grant him enough cachet to ensure his position as one of the most sought-after prosectors in the country, and secure potentially an entire career of high paying cases, more than making up for the haircut he took here." Absolutely true (and probably accurate) but it is hard to argue that she then made a direct financial benefit from that, which is what the Trump Team needs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 01:56
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:In all fairness, it is fairly trivial to argue "Wade may have taken a pay cut but being part of a team that, he expected, would successfully prosecute Trump would grant him enough cachet to ensure his position as one of the most sought-after prosectors in the country, and secure potentially an entire career of high paying cases, more than making up for the haircut he took here."
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 02:05
|
|
|
Why is the prosecutor for this case on the stand and being grilled about possible legal wrongdoings she may or may not have done? Seems like this whole case is already turbo hosed if the prosecutor is the one in the headlines
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 02:18
|
|
|
The Ol Spicy Keychain posted:Why is the prosecutor for this case on the stand and being grilled about possible legal wrongdoings she may or may not have done? Seems like this whole case is already turbo hosed if the prosecutor is the one in the headlines Because anyone can sue anyone in America for any reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 02:23
|
|
|
I should clarify that I did not mean that as some kind of effective argument for Merchant that will win her the case or anything - just that the particular angle of "Wade took a pay cut so how could it be corruption?" has an obvious counter (There are plenty of other reasons it doesn't seem to be corruption, and at the worst an issue for HR to sort out)
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 02:24
|
|
|
The Ol Spicy Keychain posted:Why is the prosecutor for this case on the stand and being grilled about possible legal wrongdoings she may or may not have done? Seems like this whole case is already turbo hosed if the prosecutor is the one in the headlines Because the defendants are desperate and have no other ideas. They're just making poo poo up and going on fishing expeditions hoping they can find a way to weasel out of the charges.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 02:25
|
|
|
The Ol Spicy Keychain posted:Why is the prosecutor for this case on the stand and being grilled about possible legal wrongdoings she may or may not have done? Seems like this whole case is already turbo hosed if the prosecutor is the one in the headlines Because judges have to evaluate claims as long as there's the slightest possibility they could be up to snuff, and that's a very low bar. Otherwise, it could be the basis of an appeal. So stupid poo poo like this has to be entertained so the case doesn't get thrown out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 02:29
|
|
|
Kchama posted:You confused people because you replied to someone talking about how prosecutors are allowed to be biased against defendants with the time she was DQ'd over having a conflict of interest versus the defendant, which is something else entirely. One could reasonably infer that she could have brought her cast against that defendant based on a conflict of interest against her because she had donated to his opponent. I didn't say there was anything like that in this case. The original commenter asked what the conflict in this case was. I explained it. The original commenter then said that prosecutors aren't required to be impartial. I responded with Willis already being disqualified from prosecuting someone in this very case because she wasn't impartial. I broke up the two quotes and responses and only the fact that they were contained in the same comment connected them in any way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 02:35
|
|
|
ElegantFugue posted:So it's sounding like republicans made poo poo up in the hopes of slandering someone yet again, who could have guessed they'd do this once more, and especially to a minority in a position of any authority, whoa, mindblowing I refuse to believe it’s normal or ethical to get reimbursed for business expenses, in cash, from your boss, who you’re loving. That’s putting the conflicting testimony where someone must be lying under oath aside. This is a total mess and an own goal - if she gets removed, the case is effectively dead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 02:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:57 |
|
|
The Ol Spicy Keychain posted:Why is the prosecutor for this case on the stand and being grilled about possible legal wrongdoings she may or may not have done? Seems like this whole case is already turbo hosed if the prosecutor is the one in the headlines As long as you can find a lawyer willing to cast correct spells the judges have to entertain the bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 02:47
|
|
