But some conflicting info
Link
https://rumble.com/v4gipzl-fani-willis-disqualification-hearing-live-day-4-closing-arguments.html
I’m sure vivafrei will civet it too but no direct live link yet
https://rumble.com/user/vivafrei
This is going on waaaay too long. Which doesn’t give me much assurance.
One TENTH of what has already been presented would have knocked her off the case in a sane justice system. And it would have also resulted in a lengthy prison sentence for all prosecutors involved.
bttt
After the final arguments conclude, the judge will then start trying to figure out a convoluted way to retain Fanny on the case. Sort of like how Roberts did with Obamacare. The courts in America are so utterly corrupt.
bkmk
I haven’t read through everything yet but, will we hear today if she’s disqualified?
Ping
I think the basic point has been made. Both of them lied under oath. So much more evidence has been piled on that people worry they will get off Scott free. That Judge needs to move to Chetokee County and run after he cans Fanny!!
Maybe I have not been following closely enough, but it seems to me that whether Fanni paid cash or didn’t, it’s very clear that there is Enron-level fraudulent accounting.
How can someone who can’t keep basic financial records (let alone someone who commits fraud in the process of executing her job as a public servant) be put in charge of a legal case against a former United States President for actions he took as President?
In not 1 but 2 New York cases against Trump, we have allegations of some weird hypothetical penumbra of illegal financial transactions based on laws that are never used against anyone but are now pulled out of the prosecutors’ posteriors and applied using the thinnest pretzel logic of all time against a former president of the United States who has a lifelong, impeccable track record of doing business crime-free. There was never even a hint of such issues against him until he entered politics.
We have Hillary Clinton with endless scandals and crimes where those responsible for investigating enable the destruction of evidence and sweep everything under the rug. When the mountain of evidence of crimes is so great and so public that it demands a response, the response does not even lead to an actual investigation but rather an “inquiry”. Not only are the emails themselves a crime (thousands really), including the mishandling of classified information, but they contain within them evidence of her committing numerous other crimes. Of course, this does not even address arming violent jihadists in the Middle East. The crimes are too numerous to even address. It would take volumes of books. The Clintons have a lifetime of drug running, human trafficking, and financial fraud. Did I mention murder?
Joe Biden is the same. Criminal pervert. If he was not so reckless with classified documents no one would have ever had to pretend to investigate this. And the crimes he committed with Hunter involving Ukraine (which is just a small part of them) seem to be directly related to why the world is on the brink of a third world war.
Donald Trump took great risks and exposed himself to great danger by entering politics and merely seeking to make America great again. The America-first philosophy and common-sense approach he brings is a threat to the entrenched, criminal enterprise of the Deep State. Never has it been so clear how deeply they hate everything about what has made America great and what could do so again.
They must be defeated.
I was trying to imagine what Nathan Wade’s wife looked like, since he was cheating with Fani Willis. But she is not what I pictured in my mind at all.
https://heavy.com/news/joycelyn-mayfield-wade-nathan-wade-wife/
McAfee KNOWS that this trial has revealed that Fani's prosecution was politically motivated, and that she did it despite knowing her gigolo patronage gravy train subterfuge would eventually be revealed.
So, McAfee will actually be sparing Fani from further disgrace. Note that the problem here is that once he removes Fani, you could easily see someone worse step into her role and make a big speech about 'taking down Trump', even though they would mostly be back to Step One, and with all of the extraneous lawfare evidence exposed.
Just my humble opinion
Always remember different people are held to different standards.
Think about Obama’s term as president and Trump’s.
Who was held to a higher standard?
I did a cursory search looking for information about Fani Willis’s mother. In one search result, it stated that her mother’s name has not been revealed. You think maybe her mother might be white?
That attorney is annoying. A rainbow fruitcake defending corrupt dei appointments. A complete clown show.
The NY Times is reporting that if the entire Fulton County DA unit is disqualified by the judge for the Willis-Wade conflict of interest which is quite possible that the case is then handled by the state AG under GA law. The state AG is Republican Chris Carr. Low grade moron Willis really screwed the pooch in overreaching. Hopefully she is eventually disbarred when this gets to the state bar disciplinary committee.
One other thing, it might seem small, but at the very end of the hearing, first out of their seat and heading for the door was dirty Fani. That didn’t seem to be the reaction of someone who might have been pleased with their counsel and the hearing. I took it as Fani thinking, >>let me the F out of here.
for reference, following is a transcript of the macdougald summary (from youtube):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udb0Uo5R308
1:20:48
Good afternoon, your honor, Harry macdougal for Mr Clark, I’m going to talk further about conflicts
1:20:56
and I’m going to assume the most difficult standard for us to meet which is actual conflict.
1:21:03
But before I begin that, I want to add just a little bit to what has already been said about the standards that apply to prosecutors.
1:21:11
Our appellate courts have said often the administration of the law and especially that of the criminal law
1:21:18
should like Caesar’s wife, be above suspicion and should be free from all temptation, bias
1:21:26
or prejudice so far as it is possible for our courts to accomplish it. The first occurrence of that that I can find
1:21:34
is Nichols V State more than 100 years ago. 1915, the most recent
1:21:39
Regis Davi State in the Supreme Court in 2010. Although they don’t refer to Caesar’s wife,
1:21:45
that requirement is also embedded in the prosecutor’s statutory oath 15-18 dash two,
1:21:54
which requires impartially and without fear or favor, discharge my duties
1:22:00
as district attorney and take only my lawful compensation So help me God.
1:22:07
The general rule on conflicts of interest for lawyers is in rule of professional conduct 1.7.
1:22:14
And we all know it’s all drummed into us that we cannot have a conflict of interest.
1:22:20
And if we do, we have to withdraw or we will be disqualified. The basic idea
1:22:27
is that a conflict of interest impairs the lawyer’s independent professional judgment.
1:22:34
That’s the test of a conflict and whether it can be waived and whether it’s disqualifying
1:22:41
and that conflict is not just financial, it can be any conflict that impairs your independent professional judgment.
1:22:51
And you see that in mclaughlin V Payne, the court asked, what was a personal interest for purposes of disqualification?
1:22:59
It’s anything that impairs professional judgment that’s reflected in the A B A
1:23:05
standards that were quoted by Mr Merchant, which list
1:23:11
uh the prosecutor’s personal political, financial, professional, business, property or other interests or relationships.
1:23:19
And that’s really embedded in the prosecutor’s oath to act impartially. And the earlier disqualification order by Judge
1:23:26
mcburney was based on political interests, not financial.
1:23:33
What my colleagues have described as forensic misconduct is also cognizable as
1:23:39
a conflict of interest based on that footnote in Williams case, the root of all of the problems that we see in this court right now
1:23:48
is a conflict of interest arising from their individual, personal interests
1:23:54
in perpetuating and concealing their relationship. That’s the original sin from which all of the other problems flow
1:24:03
there are six different actual conflicts of interest in this case, any one of which warrants disqualification but collectively
1:24:12
practically compelled first, the financial conflict that’s already been covered.
1:24:17
Second, the personal ambition, political ambition. The third, there is a dovetailed or complementary pattern
1:24:27
of deceit and concealment of the relationship and the money.
1:24:32
Fourth, the speech at the church fifth, the motion for protective order that the D A filed
1:24:40
in Mr Wayne’s divorce case. Sixth, the way the state has conducted the defense of this motion to disqualify,
1:24:49
especially the hearing on the financial piece.
1:24:54
The court asked for a limiting principle and asked about materiality.
1:24:59
The limiting principle is whatever impairs the independent professional judgment of the lawyer that is applied routinely.
1:25:09
We have a county code section that flatly prohibits gifts from contractors.
1:25:16
Period. We have by analogy, the federal bribery statute which has a threshold of $5000.
1:25:23
18 US C 666, the court asked about burdens and inferences.
1:25:31
The court can draw a negative inference from the state’s failure to produce evidence to support the invisible magic cash balancing theory
1:25:40
based on state V Thomas 311, Georgia 407
1:25:45
particularly footnote 19. As to the time in question that the court asked about
1:25:55
there were two contracts for Mr Wade executed after they acknowledged the relationship began.
1:26:02
Each one of them afflicted or, or conflicted under county and common law.
1:26:09
The second conflict is her political ambition for which she was previously chas satisfied judgment Burnie.
1:26:17
And that’s also present in this book. The inside Slap of this book says
1:26:23
that they were given quote exclusive access to thousands of secret documents,
1:26:28
emails, text messages and audio recordings. The court has twice denied defense motions
1:26:36
to unseal special purpose, grand jury materials. She helped herself to get the glory of this book.
1:26:46
I introduced certified copies of a number of county code sections. I’m not gonna walk through those, but I’ll tell you why they matter.
1:26:53
The stack of law from the state constitution down to the county ordinances imposes a regime
1:27:00
on the D A under which she has three obligations. She has to go to the county commission to get approval to pay him like she did.
1:27:09
She cannot accept gifts from a prohibited source. She has to disclose the gifts that she received.
1:27:16
She evaded all of those requirements. Section 2-69 of the county code prohibits
1:27:24
gifts from prohibited sources which he was. There is no boyfriend exception.
1:27:31
The disclosure forms, the evidence is sufficient for you to find that her disclosure form for 2022
1:27:38
is false and that it is a false writing.
1:27:44
That’s an actual conflict of interest between her duty, legal duty of disclosure, her legal duty of candor as a prosecutor
1:27:53
and her private and personal interests in concealing the relationship, concealing the gifts
1:28:00
and keeping the gravy train rolling for as long as possible. His part in the pattern of concealment
1:28:07
is a story. You see, in many divorce cases, the husband is hiding things from his wife,
1:28:14
how much money he’s making the other woman and what he’s spending on the other woman.
1:28:20
And he got on that stand live in his interrogatories and he got on the stand and he lied about lying in the interrogatories
1:28:29
and the lawyers for the D A, the D A’s office. They just sat there and let him do it.
1:28:35
They did nothing to correct obviously perjured testimony in and of itself that warrants disqualification of every one of them.
1:28:45
The reason they lied and covered it up was to avoid the trouble they’re in right now
1:28:52
that served their personal interests to the detriment of their public duties as prosecutors,
1:28:59
the speech at the church, I want to focus on why she did that. Mr Dillon talked about that.
1:29:06
She did it to deflect attention from her own misconduct
1:29:12
and that of Mr Wade, she violated her public duty as a prosecutor
1:29:17
to serve her personal interests and the personal interests of her boyfriend.
1:29:22
That is a disqualifying conflict between her personal interest and her public duty
1:29:27
that is actual operational and materialized and it rests on undisputed facts.
1:29:36
The next thing that she did that was a disqualifying conflict of interest was the emergency motion for protective order
1:29:43
that she filed in the divorce. I filed a certified copy of that as exhibit 37
1:29:49
she saw a protective order under the apex do on the grounds that she’s the D A
1:29:56
and the whole filing is expressly predicated on her status as D A.
1:30:01
In fact, she never lets you forget it. She says it 27 times in 12 pages.
1:30:06
In that filing. Speaking as D A, she said the circumstances quote suggests that defendant Joycelyn Wade
1:30:14
is using the legal process to harass and embarrass district attorney Willis.
1:30:19
And in doing so, is obstructing and interfering with an ongoing criminal investigation.
1:30:26
In the prayer for relief. On page 11, she asked for six months
1:30:32
to quote, complete a review of the filings in the instant case, investigate and depose relevant witnesses
1:30:39
with regard to the interference and obstruction. This motion contends
1:30:46
there’s no sugar coating it. That’s a clear violation of rule of professional conduct
1:30:51
three point 4h, which prohibits lawyers from making threats of criminal prosecution
1:30:57
to gain advantage in a civil case. She abused her power,
1:31:04
she abused her position to threaten her boyfriend’s wife whose criminal prosecution
1:31:11
to gain advantage for herself and her boyfriend in her boyfriend’s divorce, she violated her public duties
1:31:19
not to make that kind of a threat in order to serve a private personal interest in those of Mr Wade,
1:31:26
another actual operational conflict. The last category,
1:31:32
it’s the conduct of the defense of this hearing. There are a lot of objections made
1:31:39
based on attorney-client privilege during Mr Bradley’s testimony.
1:31:45
Most of those objections were made by the state, but the privilege being asserted
1:31:52
does not belong to the state. It belongs to Mr Wade
1:31:58
that shows that the das office is serving the personal interests of the D A
1:32:06
and Mr Wade in carrying out further concealment and cover up of their relationship
1:32:13
and not the cause of justice they are sworn to serve. That is a conflict of interest.
1:32:19
It’s a continuation of the wrongful pattern of concealment and cover up that they’ve engaged in since the beginning.
1:32:28
But now they’ve enlisted the entire office in the in interprise in the written response to the motion to disqualify. They said this
1:32:37
and I quote should be absolutely clear. There is no evidence that D A Willis derived any financial benefit from Mr Wade.
1:32:46
That’s on page 15, flat out faults 10 lawyers in this case, put their name on there
1:32:54
starting with the D A. So throw another log on the bonfire of conflicts of interest.
1:33:07
The problem here is the D A cannot distinguish between her personal interests and ambitions on the one hand
1:33:14
and her public duties as a prosecutor on the other and apparently neither can neither can anyone else in their office
1:33:22
of the six conflicts. I’ve identified only one is subject to a conflict in the evidence.
1:33:28
This is a case study in what happens when you operate under a conflict of interest.
1:33:36
It’s put an irreparable stain on the case, think of the message that would be sent if they were not disqualified.
1:33:43
If this is tolerated, we’ll get more of it. This office is a global laughingstock because of their conduct.
1:33:56
Ok? They should be disqualified and the case should be dismissed.