Posted on 03/03/2024 4:31:16 AM PST by Libloather
Fani Willis could be hit by last minute testimony from a key witness in her ethics hearing, as she fights to remain on Donald Trump's election interference case.
Prosecutors have requested that Stan Brody, who works at Acumen Wines, give testimony during closing statements in Willis' ethics hearing, after he told CNN last month that he hosted the Fulton County district attorney, and a man he later learned was special prosecutor Nathan Wade at a two-hour wine tasting in early 2023.
Brody said that Willis paid with cash for two bottles of wine, each valued at roughly $150, and for the $50 tasting.
Last month Willis gave evidence in a two-day hearing following accusations by former Trump staffer and co-defendant Michael Roman that she was having an affair with Wade, a special prosecutor she hired in the high-profile case. It was also alleged the pair had benefited financially from taxpayers' money.
Willis and Wade later admitted they had a relationship but denied a conflict of interest. The timeline of their relationship has emerged as a key point of contention, and Roman has said it started earlier than they admitted. Trump's lawyers examined phone records alleging the pair were in a relationship before the Georgia election-fraud case began. Newsweek contacted Willis via LinkedIn for comment.
**SNIP**
In a court filing on Thursday, prosecutors requested that Brody's evidence be admitted in court, through an affidavit and through verbal testimony.
"Mr. Brody is available to testify at the Court's convenience, and should the Court decline to accept this affidavit, the State respectfully requests that Mr. Brody be permitted to testify at the hearing currently set in this matter," prosecutors wrote, according to a filing screenshot posted on X, formerly Twitter, by AJC reporter Tamar Hallerman.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
I am not sure how the article and headline go together? If the requested testimony were allowed, it may show a few hundred dollars that she paid in the relationship but not much else. Why does the headline say it could sting her?
I believe it’s because she said she takes cash from her campaign money
This article headline describes how she will be or could be stung by testimony thought to be in her favor BUT does not discuss how and leaves the reader to guess what the hell the author is intending to say.
It is quite possible that the author is trying to point out that Brody's testimony would backfire by showing how lavish Fani's and Wade's lifestyle is.
Bottom line though, the judge already knows about their lavish Grey Goose/fine wine lifestyle...so this article is an enigma.
Agreed.
But the article didn’t mention or develop that point and left the reader guessing at best.
Neither one followed the law...that's the problem...The attorney was great.
I can hear her cussing him for hours and hours after that whooping.
She is not being prosecuted. The attorneys against her are defense attorneys for the various parties she and her office are prosecuting. This is not a criminal case [though it should be]. It's on a motion to dismiss her for conflict of interest.
If I were the judge I would be screamin' STOP! STOP! You're killin' me! You didn't get the cash from an ATM because you don't have receipts. You already said you got bunches of cash from your campaign funds in front of God and everyone in the courtroom! You got all kinds of cash stashed where you lay your head. (Because that's what daddy taught you to do. - just ask him, he'll tell you!) There is NO WAY Mr. Wade would have given you the cash before going in to the winery because... well that would be unethical don't cha' know? You already told the court that you received thousands of dollars of tickets worth of travel from lova'boy! You never reported on your annual filings the receipt of ANY money from your lover! You have no receipt of paying him back. Fani, your goose is cooked!
Thyank you for unwinding Kate’s article
You could replace her as a journalist
True dat.
Thought the judge had the matter under consideration since Friday - no further evidence allowed.
“...so this article is an enigma. “
Consider the liberal media that published it. Maybe this is an attempt to front run any damning evidence and desensitize the public to her abuses by making the investigations of her actions seem petty.
Aimed at the court of public opinion, not what is going on in the actual courtroom.
Thx. ;-)
I think that’s correct. Both sides have more evidence they would like to introduce if given the chance, but I think that door is shut.
You nailed it. Thank you. The article *is* confusing!
I was just going to say that. She’s not stung by it, she wants it included as it’s her stupid fake made up evidence that she really did pay cash to this freaking loser Wade. What a scam. As if this would exonerate her at all. Not.
:-)
Has anyone looked at the reporting of cash tips received by Brody? Does his employer have a tally sheet for the tips?
Maybe this would help, but I don’t see how. This was in 2023, and the Big Deal is that they we’re screwing before she hired him. If it happened in 2019, that would be different.
We already know a lot about their cash scheme, so his testimony would be ho-hum.
I want to hear from his ex-wife.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.