Legal Experts say Fani has ruined her case against Trump!

[Chillicothe]

"And lying under oath is prosecutor misconduct.."

Lying? On this particular Trump conspiracy case?
When?
How does it apply to what Trump and his enablers did? In this particular case?
---------------------------------------------------------------

brought by an unquestionably partisan DA, and now, it seems, ethically challenged.

Well, I think we all here can agree that criminal defendants in their cases will always....always.....believe the prosecutor is "unquestionably partisan". So yeah, Trump and enablers probably do think the DA' Office is "partisan". It has been ever thus.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trump is being charged for a crime he did not do.

Well, that sounds like a wannabe defense attorney, I suppose.
And that's OK. We all can have our own individual personal narrow opinion. No foul, no harm.
It would help though, if such opinions were grounded in actual experience in this particular case.

Just sayin'.

 

[toobfreak]

THEY HAVE NOTHING.

Who is ranting?

Sure sucks to watch all your Trumpian hopes crumbling away under the feckless mishandlings of another crooked affirmative action hired slut.

 

[Billiejeens]

She did not talk like a decent lawyer. She has handedly ruined her own case.

Quota hires are rarely decent.

 

[Missourian]

Did you actually see the proceedings?

Yep...

 

[Care4all]

Trump is being charged for a crime he did not do.

You seem to missing these are simply charges, not crimes, brought by an unquestionably partisan DA, and now, it seems, ethically challenged.

Oh come on Robert and Rawley.... they have Trump on tape! We knew when the tape was released by the Ga. Secretary of State at the time that Trump was trying to interfere and subvert the election results....that was 3 to 4 years ago..... before the DA ever got involved....

It has to go before a jury of 12, before he's found guilty or not guilty.... I understand that....and it'll be up to the 12 who get to see all the evidence in court, and get the full Defense presentation in court, before making that decision.... But for the sake of justice, that trial needs to take place....if he's found not guilty, then he's not guilty.... If he's found guilty, then he is guilty...of course he can also appeal the verdict and that has to play out....

 

[crossbody]

Like I and so many have said from day one... every case against Trump will fold and Trump will use them to win the election...

for some reason God is with Trump; has His hand on him

 

[Care4all]

for some reason God is with Trump; has His hand on him

Yep, God is going to remove the chains of restraint He had on the antichrist....! Trump will have full reign, soon.... till he gets wiped out by the return of our Savior!

Well? It's possible!!

 

[forkup]

Yep...

That's a clip of the proceedings. I actually watched the entire thing. Including the testimony of that witness.

Here's what I came away with watching ALL the testimony including cross-examination.

The witness in question says to the defense attorney that she quit her job. On cross she admitted she was in fact given the choice between being fired for cause or resign.

She also said she was aware of an ongoing relationship between Wade and Willis from 2019 until 2022. She was aware by observing personal interactions in all these years.

In 2020 Wade was fighting cancer. Something I believe because it's easily verifiable. This was during Covid making his assertion he isolated himself believable and the testimony that she saw interactions less likely.

Now, I won't say that any of this is proof enough on its own because it isn't. But neither is it proof enough to establish they lied about the timing of the relationship. At the moment though it's all that's presented.

There was ZERO evidence presented Willis personally profited from having the relationship. I repeat ZERO. Just accusations and inferences but nothing substantive.

What you have left is their word against the word of a disgruntled ex-employee. To get to the point to be able to prove that they lied in the affidavit. Further still to get to the point to prove a conflict of interest.

The burden of proof is not on Willis or Wade. It's on the defense that made the assertion.

 

[forkup]

for some reason God is with Trump; has His hand on him

I don't think E Jean Carroll folded. Or the State of New York in the fraud trial. The questions here simply is what he'll end up having to pay and wether or not he'll ever be allowed to do business in NY. That doesn't sound like folding.

In fact, last time I checked he's still on the hook for 91 felony charges and the only thing he succeeded in doing was delay the trials?

So what leads you to the conclusion God of all people is protecting Trump.

I always figured he'd be better of hiring competent legal representation.

 

[crossbody]

I don't think E Jean Carroll folded. Or the State of New York in the fraud trial. The questions here simply is what he'll end up having to pay and wether or not he'll ever be allowed to do business in NY. That doesn't sound like folding.

In fact, last time I checked he's still on the hook for 91 felony charges and the only thing he succeeded in doing was delay the trials?

So what leads you to the conclusion God of all people is protecting Trump.

I always figured he'd be better of hiring competent legal representation.

I like how you said God is "Protecting" Trump - I agree

 

[crossbody]

That's a clip of the proceedings. I actually watched the entire thing. Including the testimony of that witness.

Here's what I came away with watching ALL the testimony including cross-examination.

The witness in question says to the defense attorney that she quit her job. On cross she admitted she was in fact given the choice between being fired for cause or resign.

She also said she was aware of an ongoing relationship between Wade and Willis from 2019 until 2022. She was aware from observing personal interactions in all these years.

In 2020 Wade was fighting cancer. Something I believe because it's easily verifiable. This was during Covid making his assertion he isolated himself believable and the testimony that she saw interactions less likely.

Now, I won't say that any of this is proof enough on its own because it isn't. But neither is it proof enough to establish they lied about the timing of the relationship. At the moment though it's all that's presented.

There was ZERO evidence presented Willis personally profited from having the relationship. I repeat ZERO. Just accusations and inferences but nothing substantive.

What you have left is their word against the word of a disgruntled ex-employee. To get to the point to be able to prove that they lied in the affidavit. Further still to get to the point to prove a conflict of interest.

The burden of proof is not on Willis or Wade. It's on the defense that made the assertion.

you posted a lot of information

 

[forkup]

you posted a lot of information

I try to be as concise as I can when I say something, but 8 hours of testimony will yield a lot of information.

 

[forkup]

I like how you said God is "Protecting" Trump - I agree

I didn't say it, you did. I just asked how you come to the conclusion?

 

[crossbody]

I try to be as concise as I can when I say something, but 8 hours of testimony will yield a lot of information.

Fani said herself that the testimony of one witness is

I didn't say it, you did. I just asked how you come to the conclusion?

actually you used the word protect first, but it fits

 

[forkup]

Fani said herself that the testimony of one witness is

actually you used the word protect first, but it fits

Is what? Finish that sentence please?

 

[Care4all]

I like how you said God is "Protecting" Trump - I agree

Why would God protect someone like trump who is 100% anti Christ and His teachings in every thing trump says and does? He's the opposite of Christ.... in everything, crossbody!

What makes you say such an embarrassing to Christians, shameful, disparaging to God and all He stands for, thing? Please stop!

 

[crossbody]

Is what? Finish that sentence please?

DA Fani Willis : The Testimony of One Witness is Enough to Prove a Fact​

Fani just said that under oath on the witness stand... (youtube video)
And that one witness testified that she started her relationship with Wade in 2019. Meaning she was seeing him BEFORE she hired him. She purposely slept with her subordinate whom she hired... then did money laundering, racketeering, etc...

 

[forkup]

DA Fani Willis : The Testimony of One Witness is Enough to Prove a Fact​

Fani just said that under oath on the witness stand...
And that one witness testified that she started her relationship with Wade in 2019. Meaning she was seeing BEFORE she hired him. She purposely slept with her subordinate whom she hired... money laundering, racketeering, etc...

Ever heard of the word question? That's what it was, a question. A fact that you would get if you actually saw her testimony in the context it was given. Instead of a clip where she's rather abruptly cut of. You can go on YouTube and watch her testimony if you don't believe me.

If you listen and see her facial expressions you will see she was amazed at the suggestion and asked the lawyer, not told her so.

A further tip is that the assertion that a single witness testimony is sufficient as proof for anything, falls flat on the face of it.

She is an experienced lawyer and an ex-judge. She knows this. So why on the hell would you suppose she'll claim otherwise?

 

[crossbody]

Ever heard of the word question? That's what it was, a question. A fact that you would get if you actually saw her testimony in the context it was given. Instead of a clip where she's rather abruptly cut of. You can go on YouTube and watch her testimony if you don't believe me.

If you listen and see her facial expressions you will see she was amazed at the suggestion and asked the lawyer, not told her so.

A further tip is that the assertion that a single witness testimony is sufficient as proof for anything, falls flat on the face of it.

She is an experienced lawyer and an ex-judge. She knows this. So why on the hell would you suppose she'll claim otherwise?

This time, the fact that she is an experienced lawyer and her lawyer terminology exploded like a bomb from that big head of hers is the main reason they tell lawyers do NOT testify.

Not only was she under oath when she said, "The Testimony of One Witness is Enough to Prove a Fact" her words are now "On Record"

1. Fani wants us to take her testimony as fact that she paid for vacations with cash that no one can trace not even the receiver. Wade cannot trace any large deposits of cash on any bank statements.

2. Based on the record of Fani's own testimony, the testimony of her former best friend that the relationship started in 2019, is valid.

That also is where Fani and Wade have both committed perjury which is a felony-lying under oath about the date.

 

[forkup]

This time, the fact that she is an experienced lawyer and her lawyer terminology exploded like a bomb from that big head of hers is the main reason they tell lawyers do NOT testify.

Not only was she under oath when she said, "The Testimony of One Witness is Enough to Prove a Fact" her words are now "On Record"

1. Fani wants us to take her testimony as fact that she paid for vacations with cash that no one can trace not even the receiver. Wade cannot trace any large deposits of cash on any bank statements.

2. Based on the record of Fani's own testimony, the testimony of her former best friend that the relationship started in 2019, is valid.

That also is where Fani and Wade have both committed perjury which is a felony-lying under oath about the date.

I love people who try to assert they have legal knowledge when it's clear they do not.

Do you honestly believe a judge holding an evidentiary hearing will base his decision on that evidence on the basis of a court record while he actually sat through the testimony and can determine the context of it?

Do you think a judge says. "Well district attorney Willis says a single witness testimony is valid on the record (something she didn't do because that sentence you base this BS on will end in a question mark in any record) so I'll just go with that and treat this one witness as credible."

Hell, if we go by that logic, Willis testified so she's credible. Wade testified so he's credible.

I don't mind some guardhouse lawyering but there are limits.