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?
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.
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!
True dat.
Thought the judge had the matter under consideration since Friday - no further evidence allowed.
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.
Wine tasting? Were they trying to “pass”? ;^)
Besides, I thought she only drinks Gray Goose…..
I was thinking it would hurt Bradley’s teatimony as I believe he had said that he hadn’t spoken to Wade for months.
I was thinking it would hurt Bradley’s teatimony as I believe he had said that he hadn’t spoken to Wade for months.
I hope the follow up to this Big Fani Fiasco is an investigation of Latitia Hippo’s New Jerk gig. She is abusing her weaponized justice system gig. She needs to be in jail.
Roughly $150?? Even if she paid in cash, there still would have been cash register receipts for the transaction indicating the exact cost (that is, if it really happened, and if the Vinyard is keeping honest IRS and sales tax data). The caller should have included a more precise number. Trump's lawyers should be demanding copies of the transaction receipt.
Who owns acumen winery?
China born,......... and Paris college educated founder of Acumen Wines, Eric Yuan (not to be confused with the Eric Yuan who founded Zoom Video Communications) divides his time between the San Francisco Bay area and........ Wuhan, China ....
...where he owns a development company and employs about 500 people.
\/
Nah...nothingburger. There’s no conflict of interest. The only tiny little thing the DA and prosecutor did wrong was lie while giving sworn testimony. Where’s the problem? This is nothing but racist after all. Keep Fanny on the case. (/s)
Here is my take on the headline.
By trying to get the court to accept new “evidence” after the evidence segment of the hearing was definitely over, Willis:
1) demonstrated her weak understanding of court procedures, or at least her lack of respect for them;
2) demonstrated incompetence by failing to round up and submit this pathetic tidbit on time;
3) reminded the court of her general disdain for following rules, and keeping the sort of valid documentation that prosecutors demand of defendants constantly;
4) attempted an “own goal” — if successful in getting the court to accept her late submittal, she would have opened the floodgates for submittals by the defense. New whistleblower testimony, and exploring Jeff DiSantis’s role and connections to the White House awaits.
5) desperately submitting this worthless document showed that she has nothing to support her case. If she did, she would have submitted it.
Perhaps the story originally had similar points that editors cut.
Excellent discussions here at about The Fani Willis debacle at the 17 min. mark ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pu7G4KMUPjw