Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sure it will. If he believes someone is lying, and they both have very motive in the world to lie, their testimony will be discounted/rejected. And that is literally all they have on their side of the ledger - their word. All of the other evidence is stacked against them.Ok. Based on the transcript I think the judge will believe no conflict or perjury exist.
Maybe but what I think still wouldn't carry any legal weight.
It's more that he has to be worried about getting reelectedHis Honor has to continue working with the district attorney's office day in and day out.
So he knows better than to rule against her
He is just a human being who does not want to be an outcast in Atlanta's legal circles.
Or to be called a racist.
No, you are grasping for straws. Post the emails and test messages, I watched the hearing didn't see any text messages or emails being read.That seals the deal. You have no desire to learn what the case is about. Those fools had the authors read devastating emails and text messages aloud in court. You choose not to view them and stick with your ignorant opinions. That's on you, no one could convince you otherwise.
Robin Yearti a woman who was forced to resign, it was awful funny she couldn't give any dates, times or places. Her testimony was garbage.Robin Yearti testified that Wade and Willis were involved prior to Wade being hired. That's evidence that they lied about the timeline.
Phone records show that Wade spent multiple nights at Willis' home prior to Wade's hiring. That's evidence that they lied about the timeline.
Brady told Ashleigh Merchant in multiple text messages that Wade and Willis were "absolutely" involved prior to Wade's hiring. That's evidence that they lied about the timeline.
Willis made extrajudicial public statements that "could make the trial unfair to the defendant". That happened in the "church speech" and the church speech can't be denied. That speech violated state ethics.
Since they've lied so much about everything else, there's no way her claim that she reimbursed Wade in cash can be considered credible.
This was all presented in court.
Ok, sure. If the judge believes it, not if you believe it.Sure it will. If he believes someone is lying, and they both have very motive in the world to lie, their testimony will be discounted/rejected. And that is literally all they have on their side of the ledger - their word. All of the other evidence is stacked against them.
From your link...I did.
Seems your belief is based on something other than the evidence developed at the hearing.Ok, sure. If the judge believes it, not if you believe it.
I believe the judge won't see an issue that demands disqualification.
Yup. Again,if you watched this man's testimony, it was impossible to come to any conclusion other than he was lying.From your link...
"While on the witness stand Tuesday, Bradley testified that he had no personal knowledge of when Willis and Wade's relationship began and repeatedly said he could not recall any specific dates related to the matter."
"When Merchant asked Bradley about a text message she said he sent her saying Wade and Willis' relationship began before Willis became the Fulton County DA, Bradley said he was only "speculating."
"No one told me. I was speculating," Bradley said, adding, "I never witnessed anything."
No.Seems your belief is based on something other than the evidence developed at the hearing.
No, your opinion doesn't determine what is possible and impossible.Yup. Again,if you watched this man's testimony, it was impossible to come to any conclusion that he was lying.
Robin Yearti a woman who was forced to resign, it was awful funny she couldn't give any dates, times or places. Her testimony was garbage.
How does a phone record show that someone spent the night at someone's home? All that shows is we talked on the phone.
The man said multiple times also, that he had NO personal knowledge of their relationship.
They excelled at providing evidence.The burden is on the Trump Humper lawyers to prove and they sure as hell didn't met that burden. Phone records and hearsay is all they have.
------------------------------------------------------------------"The burden is on the Trump Humper lawyers to prove and they sure as hell didn't met that burden."
Wade and Willis perjured themselves. If the affair was no big deal, then why did they lie about it?------------------------------------------------------------------
I watched the reportage of that hearing only a little bit.
Although, I was keen to see how two consenting adults being intimate with each other was the business of Don Trump and his enablers. I read of no evidence presented that stated their intimacy led to false or untruthful evidence in the charges against Trump or his co-conspirators.
In fact, I read of zero evidence where the two prosecutors spoke of Trump or the other co-conspirators in any extra-judicial manner. But only in the context of a lawful criminal prosecution. Now.....if they slept with one of Don Trump's co-conspirators.....that's a different matter. But, I've seen no indication either in court filings, the press or here on this chatroom where that happened. True?
This court filing is clearly an attempt to smear the prosecutors. An attempt to create a diversion or smokescreen to take attention away from the very serious criminal indictments against Don Trump and 18 of his co-conspirators.
But, if this judge has the power and decides to somehow remove these two individuals.....those indictments remain. They don't go away because two prosecuting staffers slept with each other.
If they are removed, or one of 'em is removed.....well, perhaps, a new more aggressive, more competent legal team will take over this righteous pursuit of justice for the citizens of Georgia.....and in a larger sense, for the citizens of America.
More than that, because no matter how McAfee rules, it will get appealed.This delayed the trial by two weeks.
If he disqualifies Willis, there is no appeal unless McAfee says so. He has to certify that the decision is "of such importance to the case that an immediate review should be had". Plus I don't think Fani wants any more scrutiny, lol.More than that, because no matter how McAfee rules, it will get appealed.
Clue for the clue-full: People lie about sex all the time.then why did they lie about it?
Courtesy of the cluelessClue for the clue-full:
