|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 16, 2024 1:08:58 GMT
Woah, did she imply that Wade had prostate or another cancer that she doesn't want to emasculate a Black man? That thought crossed my mind also. If so, that might be a reason to go out and try more. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 16, 2024 1:24:28 GMT
Seems Mr Blanche shot himself in the foot. Last year he sent a note/letter/whatever to the Judge stating that March 25th would be good date to allow the clearing the path forward... aj2hall. lizacreates |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862 
|
Post by lizacreates on Feb 16, 2024 1:55:39 GMT
Okay. What’d y’all think of the whole thing? Since I’m asking your opinions, I’ll also provide my own: (1) There were times when it was like Real Housewives of ______. I did not like that. Judge did somewhat try to control the continued sniping by admonishing everybody to behave professionally, but he could have done more. (2) There were too many irrelevant questions that had nothing to do with misconduct. All the talk about their romance, private affair, where the children lived, where they lived, etc, etc are ALL extraneous. They only distracted from the main issue that the evidentiary hearing has to resolve: Was there financial misconduct here? I don’t know why Willis’ lawyer did not object more. (3) I can understand that Willis is angry. When your private life is being examined to this extent and publicly, of course it’s distressing. We’re all humans. That said, I agree with revirdsuba99 . She was too combative and argumentative, and it doesn't do her any favors to be this way. There is no call for saying things like “you’re lying,” or “don’t get cute with me,” or the like. It happened too many times that the judge had to tell her that if she didn’t answer questions directly he will be forced to strike her whole testimony. Then later, warned her a second time. (4) The cash reimbursements from her to Wade, which are really the meat of this whole thing—I don’t really know what to think. It’s not looking good because she has no proof—no receipts of withdrawals, no bank statements, no notes or ledger, no nothing. If it was several hundred dollars, then it’s easier to believe she had cash at home. But, this is about thousands of dollars because there were several vacations. I keep cash at home, too, but is it believable to have up to $9,000 at home like she said? In this day and age when you can reimburse someone with Venmo or Paypal in seconds? If you were the judge (who will decide this), did this sound credible? On the other hand, it’s almost unbelievable to me that Willis and Wade, who are under oath, would jeopardize their careers by lying. That's why I don't know what to think. (5) I like the fact that she said she’s not the one on trial here; those who tried to steal the election are. That said, it got this far, fairly or unfairly, and she’s the one who’s being evaluated for possible disqualification. (6) It’s my belief that both Wade and Willis should have recused themselves before this issue exploded like this. The prosecutor’s aim is justice. His or her personal views, personal ambitions or egos should not get in the way. I want to make clear that their personal relationship is not a basis for disqualification. But mere allegations of self-dealing or any corruption by prosecutors can possibly taint a prospective jury. To have worked this long and this hard to get a strong case for the grand jury to indict, the goal is to preserve this case, even if it means someone else in your office will have to take over the prosecution. |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862
|
Post by lizacreates on Feb 16, 2024 2:17:59 GMT
Will this be streamed, do you know? (IMO, all of them should be streamed, including federal. It’s in the public interest for people to see these trials. I hate when I have to depend on news reports. I want to watch and hear for myself.) Anyway, I’ll follow this closely because to be frank, I still can’t wrap my head around this case. They’re misdemeanors. In order for them to be felonies (first-degree falsifying of business records with intent to defraud), there has to be an underlying crime. A predicate, in other words. In this specific case, Trump was covering up a crime by falsifying business records. The falsifying is easy to understand. It’s well-known Trump and Cohen went through this convoluted scheme of booking the payments to Stormy as payments to Cohen for legal services. However, what is the predicate crime? That’s my main difficulty in understanding this. Bragg has never specified. He had hinted that it has something to do with a campaign violation. But IF the predicate is a campaign finance violation pertaining to a campaign for federal office, that’s a federal case, not state because of the preemption clause in the federal statute. He also hinted something about “tax fraud.” But, where exactly does tax fraud come in? Needless to say, the trial will answer my questions, but at this specific moment, I don’t understand this case. Unfortunately, no the trial won't be televised. Here's what I found www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68309680Will the trial be televised?
New York is one of only three jurisdictions in the country that bans nearly all audio visual coverage in trials, although it made a brief exception for audio during the pandemic.
Judges have discretion over letting cameras into their courtrooms, and we did catch brief glimpses of Mr Trump's civil fraud trial on most days.
But Justice Merchan has not allowed cameras in his courtroom during preliminary hearings and he appears unlikely to reverse course when the trial begins.
That means - despite the intense public interest - only a few members of the public and the press inside the Manhattan courthouse will be able to watch the prosecution of Mr Trump.
The rest of us will have to rely on media reports, sketch art and, in all likelihood, Mr Trump's online posts to colour in the scene each day.
And a little more about the upcoming trial date and maybe a hint about the crime? www.nytimes.com/2024/02/15/nyregion/trump-manhattan-criminal-case.htmlJustice Merchan’s ruling also represented a forceful rejection of Mr. Trump’s most battle-tested legal strategy: running out the clock. Facing a lengthy legal docket in courtrooms up and down the East Coast, Mr. Trump has sought to turn the calendar to his advantage, pushing for appeals and delays until November, on the assumption that the cases will halt if he is elected.
His lawyers objected fiercely to the judge’s decision that jury selection should begin on March 25, noting that the six-week trial would conflict with Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign and with other court cases.
One of the former president’s lawyers, Todd Blanche, called the schedule “unfathomable,” arguing that “we are in the middle of primary season,” and claiming that the trial would overlap with dozens of Republican primaries and caucuses.
But Justice Merchan was impatient with such arguments. From the beginning of the hearing, the judge bristled at Mr. Blanche’s opposition to the date, at one point instructing him to “stop interrupting me, please.” He allowed Mr. Blanche little leeway to filibuster on behalf of his client, as Mr. Trump’s lawyers often do.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers had argued that Justice Merchan should throw out the case, calling Mr. Cohen a liar and disputing whether the charges should even be felonies. For falsifying business records to be a felony, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump intended to commit or conceal another crime.
The prosecutors have invoked potential violations of federal election law — under the theory that the payout served as an illegal donation to Mr. Trump’s campaign — as well as a state election law that bars any conspiracy to promote “the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” Justice Merchan endorsed that theory of the case.Thanks, aj2hall . Sorry I missed this earlier. It did violate federal campaign finance law because the amount was over the mandated limit. That's not the issue, though. “…as well as a state election law…” Federal election law preempts state election law in federal elections, including campaign finance. That’s why I don’t understand. I’ll just have to wait and see. In any event, I appreciate your helping me! |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 16, 2024 2:50:57 GMT
Okay. What’d y’all think of the whole thing? Since I’m asking your opinions, I’ll also provide my own: (1) There were times when it was like Real Housewives of ______. I did not like that. Judge did somewhat try to control the continued sniping by admonishing everybody to behave professionally, but he could have done more. Never watched real housewives here. I was not so concerned about the judge. He was listening and taking notes. He caught the Schafer laughing!!
I thought he was more annoyed with the same questions over and over again.(2) There were too many irrelevant questions that had nothing to do with misconduct. All the talk about their romance, private affair, where the children lived, where they lived, etc, etc are ALL extraneous. They only distracted from the main issue that the evidentiary hearing has to resolve: Was there financial misconduct here? I don’t know why Willis’ lawyer did not object more. Yes, too much of nothing, over and over!! So much should not have been said.(3) I can understand that Willis is angry. When your private life is being examined to this extent and publicly, of course it’s distressing. We’re all humans. That said, I agree with revirdsuba99 . She was too combative and argumentative, and it doesn't do her any favors to be this way. There is no call for saying things like “you’re lying,” or “don’t get cute with me,” or the like. It happened too many times that the judge had to tell her that if she didn’t answer questions directly he will be forced to strike her whole testimony. Then later, warned her a second time. I felt she backed off during the middle part, but the repeats were far too many. No doubt I would have been out of line before it ended, or rather they would have read my face too easily showing my anger and disgust!(4) The cash reimbursements from her to Wade, which are really the meat of this whole thing—I don’t really know what to think. It’s not looking good because she has no proof—no receipts of withdrawals, no bank statements, no notes or ledger, no nothing. If it was several hundred dollars, then it’s easier to believe she had cash at home. But, this is about thousands of dollars because there were several vacations. I keep cash at home, too, but is it believable to have up to $9,000 at home like she said? In this day and age when you can reimburse someone with Venmo or Paypal in seconds? If you were the judge (who will decide this), did this sound credible? On the other hand, it’s almost unbelievable to me that Willis and Wade, who are under oath, would jeopardize their careers by lying. That's why I don't know what to think. I totally believe the money issues. I clarified in a post farther up thread.(toward bottom of page 5) Mine wasn't love/lust connected, but involved helping who I thought was a dear friend.(5) I like the fact that she said she’s not the one on trial here; those who tried to steal the election are. That said, it got this far, fairly or unfairly, and she’s the one who’s being evaluated for possible disqualification. I was pleased with the 'I'm not on trial'
I actually was not discouraged by either Wade or Wills. The whole thing is a mess,(6) It’s my belief that both Wade and Willis should have recused themselves before this issue exploded like this. The prosecutor’s aim is justice. His or her personal views, personal ambitions or egos should not get in the way. I want to make clear that their personal relationship is not a basis for disqualification. But mere allegations of self-dealing or any corruption by prosecutors can possibly taint a prospective jury. To have worked this long and this hard to get a strong case for the grand jury to indict, the goal is to preserve this case, even if it means someone else in your office will have to take over the prosecution. It wouldn't bother me, but I am and know life is not always good. We don't always do our best. Not everything in our past should be shared. |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862
|
Post by lizacreates on Feb 16, 2024 3:33:12 GMT
Thank you, revirdsuba99 . I think that if maybe the judge cuts off all the nonsense questions tomorrow, the hearing would move along rapidly. And Shafer…yeah…I don’t care if you don’t believe the testimony, you don’t laugh out loud like some hyena. He was removed from the courtroom, wasn’t he? (I just realized I have an appt tomorrow. Darn. I’ll miss a goodly portion.) |
|
|
|
Post by mom on Feb 16, 2024 3:47:10 GMT
Okay. What’d y’all think of the whole thing? Since I’m asking your opinions, I’ll also provide my own: (1) There were times when it was like Real Housewives of ______. I did not like that. Judge did somewhat try to control the continued sniping by admonishing everybody to behave professionally, but he could have done more. (2) There were too many irrelevant questions that had nothing to do with misconduct. All the talk about their romance, private affair, where the children lived, where they lived, etc, etc are ALL extraneous. They only distracted from the main issue that the evidentiary hearing has to resolve: Was there financial misconduct here? I don’t know why Willis’ lawyer did not object more. (3) I can understand that Willis is angry. When your private life is being examined to this extent and publicly, of course it’s distressing. We’re all humans. That said, I agree with revirdsuba99 . She was too combative and argumentative, and it doesn't do her any favors to be this way. There is no call for saying things like “you’re lying,” or “don’t get cute with me,” or the like. It happened too many times that the judge had to tell her that if she didn’t answer questions directly he will be forced to strike her whole testimony. Then later, warned her a second time. (4) The cash reimbursements from her to Wade, which are really the meat of this whole thing—I don’t really know what to think. It’s not looking good because she has no proof—no receipts of withdrawals, no bank statements, no notes or ledger, no nothing. If it was several hundred dollars, then it’s easier to believe she had cash at home. But, this is about thousands of dollars because there were several vacations. I keep cash at home, too, but is it believable to have up to $9,000 at home like she said? In this day and age when you can reimburse someone with Venmo or Paypal in seconds? If you were the judge (who will decide this), did this sound credible? On the other hand, it’s almost unbelievable to me that Willis and Wade, who are under oath, would jeopardize their careers by lying. That's why I don't know what to think. (5) I like the fact that she said she’s not the one on trial here; those who tried to steal the election are. That said, it got this far, fairly or unfairly, and she’s the one who’s being evaluated for possible disqualification. (6) It’s my belief that both Wade and Willis should have recused themselves before this issue exploded like this. The prosecutor’s aim is justice. His or her personal views, personal ambitions or egos should not get in the way. I want to make clear that their personal relationship is not a basis for disqualification. But mere allegations of self-dealing or any corruption by prosecutors can possibly taint a prospective jury. To have worked this long and this hard to get a strong case for the grand jury to indict, the goal is to preserve this case, even if it means someone else in your office will have to take over the prosecution. I agree, 10000% with everything you've said. I think every second Willis is up there is only hurting the chance of Trump being found guilty. I watched the hearing today, and if I was a juror, I would have hard time believing her. As you said, she'd need a whole bunch of cash to cover what she says she paid for in cash. And maybe she did just like she said she did. I dont know. But I do know that she was aware of how high the stakes were for this trial and with that, she should have protected herself better by having a paper trail. She knew that this trial was going to get messy and should have been proactive in preparing for that. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 16, 2024 4:03:22 GMT
Oh lordy....
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 16, 2024 4:04:38 GMT
Thank you, revirdsuba99 . I think that if maybe the judge cuts off all the nonsense questions tomorrow, the hearing would move along rapidly. And Shafer…yeah…I don’t care if you don’t believe the testimony, you don’t laugh out loud like some hyena. He was removed from the courtroom, wasn’t he? (I just realized I have an appt tomorrow. Darn. I’ll miss a goodly portion.) No, he was not removed. McAfee said do it again, you're out! |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 16, 2024 4:08:11 GMT
mom yes a paper trail would be beneficial. However, on that part I believe her. I could show some withdrawals from my bank account, credit card or PayPal, but, nothing else. Back to 2021 would be an major effort dealing with the bank.... But I also have some cash on hand... Love blinds people... She just did it because there was trust. Not sure she has the info saved. Betrayal happens too!! Years ago I was buying food ect, even car insurance for a friend, or I thought he was a friend, who needed assistance. But am still owed over $2000, because I did not have receipts for groceries, and other misc stuff, and he and his brother demanded receipts. Fortunately I got most of the money back.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862
|
Post by lizacreates on Feb 16, 2024 4:41:23 GMT
Thank you, mom . You make a good point about the paper trail. It didn’t even occur to me. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 16, 2024 14:14:22 GMT
That was a surprise!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 16, 2024 17:01:14 GMT
Well!! Now we know why Fani Willis is who she is! What a remarkable man her father is, although a bit controversial with a few interesting situations.
Lawyer, Fellowship at Harvard., tried cases all over the country, even the Hague. Was planning to living in South Africa on retirement.
Sitting he watch TV since landing Wednesday from California.
Oh and listens to Conservative radio!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by sideways on Feb 16, 2024 17:21:19 GMT
Okay. What’d y’all think of the whole thing? Since I’m asking your opinions, I’ll also provide my own: (1) There were times when it was like Real Housewives of ______. I did not like that. Judge did somewhat try to control the continued sniping by admonishing everybody to behave professionally, but he could have done more. (2) There were too many irrelevant questions that had nothing to do with misconduct. All the talk about their romance, private affair, where the children lived, where they lived, etc, etc are ALL extraneous. They only distracted from the main issue that the evidentiary hearing has to resolve: Was there financial misconduct here? I don’t know why Willis’ lawyer did not object more. (3) I can understand that Willis is angry. When your private life is being examined to this extent and publicly, of course it’s distressing. We’re all humans. That said, I agree with revirdsuba99 . She was too combative and argumentative, and it doesn't do her any favors to be this way. There is no call for saying things like “you’re lying,” or “don’t get cute with me,” or the like. It happened too many times that the judge had to tell her that if she didn’t answer questions directly he will be forced to strike her whole testimony. Then later, warned her a second time. (4) The cash reimbursements from her to Wade, which are really the meat of this whole thing—I don’t really know what to think. It’s not looking good because she has no proof—no receipts of withdrawals, no bank statements, no notes or ledger, no nothing. If it was several hundred dollars, then it’s easier to believe she had cash at home. But, this is about thousands of dollars because there were several vacations. I keep cash at home, too, but is it believable to have up to $9,000 at home like she said? In this day and age when you can reimburse someone with Venmo or Paypal in seconds? If you were the judge (who will decide this), did this sound credible? On the other hand, it’s almost unbelievable to me that Willis and Wade, who are under oath, would jeopardize their careers by lying. That's why I don't know what to think. (5) I like the fact that she said she’s not the one on trial here; those who tried to steal the election are. That said, it got this far, fairly or unfairly, and she’s the one who’s being evaluated for possible disqualification. (6) It’s my belief that both Wade and Willis should have recused themselves before this issue exploded like this. The prosecutor’s aim is justice. His or her personal views, personal ambitions or egos should not get in the way. I want to make clear that their personal relationship is not a basis for disqualification. But mere allegations of self-dealing or any corruption by prosecutors can possibly taint a prospective jury. To have worked this long and this hard to get a strong case for the grand jury to indict, the goal is to preserve this case, even if it means someone else in your office will have to take over the prosecution. I agree, 10000% with everything you've said. I think every second Willis is up there is only hurting the chance of Trump being found guilty. I watched the hearing today, and if I was a juror, I would have hard time believing her. As you said, she'd need a whole bunch of cash to cover what she says she paid for in cash. And maybe she did just like she said she did. I dont know. But I do know that she was aware of how high the stakes were for this trial and with that, she should have protected herself better by having a paper trail. She knew that this trial was going to get messy and should have been proactive in preparing for that. Historically, many black people have a distrust of the banking system and will use cash for most things when they can. I’m not speaking for Fani Willis, but I think this is important to understand. Were there jurors present when she was testifying? Jurors may have been instructed not to watch if they weren’t present. |
|
rodeomom
Pearl Clutcher
Refupee # 380 "I don't have to run fast, I just have to run faster than you."
Posts: 3,675
Location: Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma
Jun 25, 2014 23:34:38 GMT
|
Post by rodeomom on Feb 16, 2024 18:21:49 GMT
I thought Willis did awesome. As far as the money, I believe her. I use cash for most things. I don't use any of the apps. for paying. I still use checks to pay bills too. And I keep cash at home. Not as much as her, but I don't make the kind of money as she does.
|
|
|
|
Post by mom on Feb 16, 2024 18:54:17 GMT
I agree, 10000% with everything you've said. I think every second Willis is up there is only hurting the chance of Trump being found guilty. I watched the hearing today, and if I was a juror, I would have hard time believing her. As you said, she'd need a whole bunch of cash to cover what she says she paid for in cash. And maybe she did just like she said she did. I dont know. But I do know that she was aware of how high the stakes were for this trial and with that, she should have protected herself better by having a paper trail. She knew that this trial was going to get messy and should have been proactive in preparing for that. Were there jurors present when she was testifying? Jurors may have been instructed not to watch if they weren’t present. I completely understand that. But she is not just a black woman. She is the DA of a high profile, messy court case. Edit: Anyone in a high profile job would be covering their ass, even if it wasn't something they normally did. And anyone knows when you are dealing with Trump and politics, you have to be prepared for everything to come out. |
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Feb 16, 2024 20:00:47 GMT
one commentator brought up a book written about peoples attitudes to money and banking and said that it was. not uncommon for minorities to distrust the banking systems and to have a big stash of cash at their homes. and willis said she liked to pay cash for stuff.. out of a feeling of strength and control.
so just because you have no paper trail, does not mean you are "cheating" or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 16, 2024 20:02:11 GMT
Engoron decision 92 pages posted!
TFG fined $354 million..
Jr and Eric $4 million each.
TFG cannot do business in NY for 3 years
Jr and Eric cannot do business in NY for 2 years
|
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Feb 16, 2024 20:27:46 GMT
trump.. 355 million penalty.. 4 million each for his son, no business activity in new york for 3 years.. guilty guilty guilty...
|
|
|
|
Post by librarylady on Feb 16, 2024 20:33:59 GMT
Will Ivanka run the business or continue to disassociate from the Trump organization?
|
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 16, 2024 20:39:12 GMT
So he'll just appeal this, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Feb 16, 2024 21:11:35 GMT
one maybe limiting factor is trump has to put up the whole amount plus 20% (I think I heard that) and he is not allowed to take a loan to do that.. and he can't do any business with any bank that does business in new york.. which is most banks.
so where would he get the money.. other than selling assets or going to the saudis?
I don't think ivanka wants to wade back into the mess. she was not a reliable witness either..
so trump at this point to appeal.. has to put up $88 million.. defamation case and $350 million plus plus for this case.. it is starting to be big numbers, even for him. and his credibility has been trashed and michael cohen, despite lying, has been found to have credibility in this case. his reputation as a good business man is trash.. though it was based on smoke and mirrors before this.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 16, 2024 22:34:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 16, 2024 22:37:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 16, 2024 22:58:42 GMT
And more from the attached article: Kemp is a named witness in the indictment. Trump’s comments citing him, expressing a desire to end the case, and attacking Georgia could be seen as a possible violation of Trump’s bond agreement. *** Trump is barred from obstructing the administration of justice, making direct or indirect threats against witnesses, or communicating directly or indirectly to witnesses. Kemp is a named witness and Trump is leaning his political muscle on him implying he is allowing a “stench” in Georgia and that state is not “great” at the moment. *** It is concerning that Trump not only wants the case to be terminated, but wants it “permanently erased from everyone’s memory.” Trump has been reposting articles recently scrubbed of anything he doesn’t like. This kind of behavior hints at what he may do about negative reporting if he returns to office. www.meidastouch.com/news/trump-appeals-to-brian-kemp-wants-rico-case-permanently-erased-from-everyones-memory |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 16, 2024 23:02:44 GMT
An opinion regarding Fani Willis' testimony yesterday www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/16/willis-trump-georgia-2020-boyfriend/The spectacle that unfolded in an Atlanta courtroom over whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis should be disqualified from prosecuting Donald Trump was “My Cousin Vinny” meets “The Real Housewives of Atlanta” — equal parts bad lawyering and let-it-all-hang-out behavior more suited to reality TV than a real-life courtroom.
In the end, Willis probably isn’t going to be ousted from overseeing the 2020 election interference case in Georgia, and she shouldn’t be. Her mesmerizing performance, including bursting into the courtroom to announce that she wanted to testify even as her own lawyer was arguing against that step, may have turned the tide in her favor — shades of Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh’s unhinged fury in 2018.
It also helped that the lead lawyer on the other side seemed incapable of eliciting basic factual information from witnesses that might have buttressed the case against Willis and Nathan Wade, her erstwhile boyfriend/current chief special prosecutor.
The courtroom scene became day-long cable news fare after Willis, the prosecutor overseeing a sprawling conspiracy case to steal the election in Georgia, was alleged to have been in a long-term relationship with Wade, the prosecutor she brought in to supervise the case, at a cost to Georgia taxpayers of $650,000 and counting.
Robin Bryant-Yeartie, Willis’s one-time friend and former employee in the district attorney’s office (does anyone get hired on merit around here?) asserted that she had seen Willis and Wade canoodling in the years leading up to his hiring; she had “no doubt” that their romantic relationship began shortly after they met at a judicial conference in 2019. That testimony, if credited, would mean that the pair lied under oath when they denied any such entanglement before Willis brought Wade on as special prosecutor.
Terrence Bradley, Wade’s former law partner, may have some knowledge on that score. But Bradley, who also served as Wade’s divorce lawyer, said he was prevented from answering because his knowledge was shielded by attorney-client privilege, and that has so far been upheld by the presiding judge. So with Wade and Willis forcefully denying that their romantic entanglement predated his hiring, and an absence of real corroboration on the other side, the assertion that they lied to the court fizzled.
Likewise, the suggestion that Willis benefited from the Wade’s hiring because he underwrote their vacations from Aruba to Napa to the Bahamas to Belize. (You might wonder whether these prosecutors had more pressing work to do.) Wade and Willis insisted that she repaid him — conveniently, in cash — and, again, there was a dearth of evidence to the contrary.
Still, the performance tarnished Willis, and while she portrayed herself as the victim of “lies,” she is primarily the victim of her own bad judgment. Even assuming that nothing was going on between Willis and Wade before she brought him into the DA’s office — and the questioning on this point was so ineffective that I remain agnostic on the subject — the notion that you shouldn’t be sleeping with your subordinate seems never to have entered Willis’s mind. If, as she insists, their relationship changed, then maybe choose one or the other, boyfriend or employee? Don’t expose your office — much less a high-profile case — to snickering, and worse.
That she only started sleeping with Wade after she hired him isn’t a defense. It’s an indictment. “I certainly will not be choosing people to date that work under me,” she said in a 2020 campaign appearance. That was a promise worth keeping.
Some Democrats and other Trump critics, tired of the former president’s bombastic antics, will no doubt welcome Willis’s fearless pushback. “You think I’m on trial,” Willis told Ashleigh Merchant, the lawyer for co-defendant Michael Roman who raised the questions of her relationship with Wade. “These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020,” Willis said, pointing to the flotilla of defense lawyers. “I’m not on trial, no matter how hard you try to put me on trial.”
Striking in magenta, Willis raised her voice. She accused Merchant of lying. She told Trump’s defense lawyer that she had “very limited contact” with Wade because he “had a form of cancer that makes your allegation somewhat ridiculous,” adding, “I’m not going to emasculate a black man.”
For some, this is a “you go, girl” moment. But talk about TMI. Is the Willis defense really that she didn’t have sex with Wade because he couldn’t?
This was must-see TV that no one should have had to watch. Things we don’t want to know about our prosecutors: That their 50th birthdays “sucked.” That they favor Gray Goose over fine wine. That they have some particular views about the differences between the sexes — and poor taste in men. Wade, Willis explained, “is used to women that, as he told me one time, ‘the only thing a woman can do for him is make him a sandwich.’” This is the person she brought in to oversee the prosecution?
To imagine that Willis struck a blow for strong Black women, or women in general, is to misapprehend the reality of her testimony and the larger situation. By engaging in conduct that allowed her sex life to become an issue, she played right into Donald Trump’s sexist hands. He consistently reduces women to the level of their sexuality and attractiveness — see, for example, his baseless description of New York Judge Arthur Engoron’s law clerk as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s “girlfriend.” Willis’s behavior simply reinforces this preexisting sexism.
Her Perry Mason-worthy arrival in the courtroom and insistence on testifying were a prototypically Trumpian moment. But Trumpian is the antithesis of what we deserve from our prosecutors. We need prudence, judgment and self-discipline. The wise prosecutor absorbs criticism and moves on.
Wade, Willis observed at one point, is “a Southern gentleman — me, not so much.” This may be what lawyers call an admission against interest. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 17, 2024 0:05:59 GMT
Seems Chris Keiss wrote his response before he read to ruling, citing something that was not in the ruling... Chris Kise’s released two-page statement Friday bemoans Engoron’s decision to impose a corporate “death penalty” on the Trump Organization, which he asserts Trump will appeal. The problem, as legal analyst Adam Klasfield noted, was, “The judge just reversed that part of his old ruling.” *** Indeed, Engoron only barred Trump from practicing business in New York for three years, despite Attorney General Letitia James’ request for a lifelong ban. *** Kise’s response was met with criticism of both his message and the copyediting skills of his public relations team. *** "So I guess fraud isn't fraud when it is highly profitable,” said Carol Sullivan. “Good to know.” www.rawstory.com/chris-kise-2667302533/ |
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Feb 17, 2024 0:07:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Scrapper100 on Feb 17, 2024 0:12:44 GMT
And more from the attached article: Kemp is a named witness in the indictment. Trump’s comments citing him, expressing a desire to end the case, and attacking Georgia could be seen as a possible violation of Trump’s bond agreement. *** Trump is barred from obstructing the administration of justice, making direct or indirect threats against witnesses, or communicating directly or indirectly to witnesses. Kemp is a named witness and Trump is leaning his political muscle on him implying he is allowing a “stench” in Georgia and that state is not “great” at the moment. *** It is concerning that Trump not only wants the case to be terminated, but wants it “permanently erased from everyone’s memory.” Trump has been reposting articles recently scrubbed of anything he doesn’t like. This kind of behavior hints at what he may do about negative reporting if he returns to office. www.meidastouch.com/news/trump-appeals-to-brian-kemp-wants-rico-case-permanently-erased-from-everyones-memory
Of course he will he has already talked about imprisoning reporters that report unfavorable things about him if he gets reelected.
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 17, 2024 0:18:02 GMT
The middle paragraph of his latest rant this evening... He does not seem to understand if this were Russia/China and Biden were guiding it, he would have been in prison three years ago.. "It affects New York," Trump continued. "It's mostly talking about New York, where we have a totally corrupt attorney general. She campaigned on the fact that 'I will get Trump.' They've all seen it. More important than that, this is Russia, this is China, this is the same game...It all comes out of Biden. It's a witch hunt against a political opponent the likes of which our country has never seen before. You see it in Third World countries, banana republics, but you don't see it here." www.rawstory.com/trump-civil-fraud-trial-2667302542/ |
|
