DarthOne
☦️
Only if we make it. Sitting by and expecting things to happen because ‘they should’ or whatever solves nothing.
Trump Investigations Thread
- Thread starter Rocinante
- Start date
Only if we make it. Sitting by and expecting things to happen because ‘they should’ or whatever solves nothing.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
I didn't necessarily mean good ramifications. If this obvious attempt at lawfare isn't punished, they're not going to stop with just Trump.
Oh, It's so over in Georgia! NO, ZERO Attorney Client privilege!
And then he goes into "I don't recall constantly."
If you want to live watch, definitely do it now. Trump's Lawyer is fire, the previous lawyer (the woman) was muddled and had no idea how to impeach a witness.
And then he goes into "I don't recall constantly."
If you want to live watch, definitely do it now. Trump's Lawyer is fire, the previous lawyer (the woman) was muddled and had no idea how to impeach a witness.
Last edited:
If it wasn't late I would eat popcorn.
May watch the whole trial whole at work
No admission by Terrence Bradley that he knew when the relationship started, but he was massively impeached as a liar for claiming he didn't know.
The key thing coming up is whether the cell phone evidence will be allowed in. The big issue is that the evidence is coming in a little late, so it could be DQ'd. Anyway, that testimony, if it happens, will happen Friday, along with closing arguments which will definitely happen Friday.
The key thing coming up is whether the cell phone evidence will be allowed in. The big issue is that the evidence is coming in a little late, so it could be DQ'd. Anyway, that testimony, if it happens, will happen Friday, along with closing arguments which will definitely happen Friday.
Oh wow this is huge
Note, according to Nate the Lawyer, it's still seems to be a 50/50 on how the judge will rule, given current evidence (i.e. not counting phone records).
Last edited:
If phone records get added what is the chance?
IDK, remember, this isn't my opinion, it's Nate the Lawyer's opinion. But Nate the Lawyer is very good at predictions.
It also depends on how well the expert witness does on the stand. The issue is that they shown probably lying on point X (When did the relationship start), but they need to prove a lie on point Y (Did you pay back Nathan Wade with cash?). They don't have any contradicting testimony to Y though, other than saying "You can't prove Y, and you've most likely lied before."
They really need a killer piece of evidence that X was a lie to be certain, and they didn't quite get that from Bradley. The phone records hopefully solve this.
Barnes seems to think this is one of Kemp's creatures and so could blindly rule for the Uniparty and end up torching legitimacy of the Georgia Courts in the process.
that might be a good outcome for us in the long run, make them burn legitimacy until they don't have any left.
I generally don't trust Barnes on these things. He's gotten some major cases obviously wrong before, like the Ahmaud Arbery case, IIRC. More, I'd say I highly doubt that. The dude's ruled for Trump enough that he's not a plant. Most importantly, if he was a plant, he should have just said that the stuff said by Wade to Bradley was covered by Attorney Client privilege. It would be impossible to deny that, as all the stuff was reviewed in private without oversight. Yet he ruled for Trump.
No, the big issue isn't him being corrupt, it's him being worried about having to work with Fani Willis after this case on all kinds of different cases. He probably wants something clear and obvious that he can point to, otherwise his daily work life will be hell. The phone records might do that.
Last edited:
Blasterbot
Well-known member
Eh he has interesting takes and I usually agree with how freedom leaning he is. Good Lawgic thinks the judge is at least trying to be fair. a complete hack wouldn't have even heard out anything with the Fani stuff. guy has clear leanings sure but that is all judges.
Vyor
My influence grows!
I thought he got that one right?
I'm pretty sure he claimed it was self defense of some sort? Maybe I'm wrong though.
Vyor
My influence grows!
Eh, it's been a while.
Same. Anyway, I hope Barnes is right here, but I'm keeping my low expectations so I can stay happy.
there is more then enough evidence to disbarr her now.
There really isn't, unless the phone records are put into evidence. Remember, disbarring is a much worse than a disqualificaiton.
You have one person weaseling, two (Wade and Willis) who agree on stuff but don't sound very honest, and one person who is calling them out. It's still a he said/she said. And the judge will have to deal with Willis for years if not a decade. There's still an open question about disqualification if the tie goes to the runner, etc.
Disbarring is a whole level above that. Yes, perjury would get you there, but you'd need more than "he said/she said" levels of proof. Hence again why the phone calls are important.