Trump GA Indictment (2 Viewers)

[MT15]

I may be jumping the gun, but I thought we should probably keep the 3 major indictments in their separate threads.

And this Tweet reminded me that it looks like Monday could be the day.

 

[MT15]

I’m reading she said her father told her to keep six months worth of cash on hand, but that she didn’t do that. I still maintain they didn’t do anything that should derail this case, and that lies were told about her on the stand.

 

[MT15]

They dated for a while, it began after she hired him, and they are no longer in a relationship. That’s what I get from the testimony and comments I’m reading. Please someone explain to me how that has any bearing on this case? If it’s unethical that’s a matter for the bar. It had nothing to do with the facts of this case.

 

[samiam5211]

They dated for a while, it began after she hired him, and they are no longer in a relationship. That’s what I get from the testimony and comments I’m reading. Please someone explain to me how that has any bearing on this case? If it’s unethical that’s a matter for the bar. It had nothing to do with the facts of this case.

I mean, you have to accept that everything they said was the truth to think that it started after she hired him, and there were many things they said that just aren't believable.

It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Trump is guilty, but it does give Trumps team something to use. For that we should all be angry at Willis.

The absolute best case scenario is that that she started a relationship with someone she hired during the biggest case of her life. We should not be happy about that terrible lack of judgement.

It seems more likely that they had a relationship before she hired him, and he took her on trips, and they both lied under oath yesterday about her paying him back with thousands of dollars in cash that she didn't withdraw from the bank, and he never deposited in the bank, which conveniently explains why there would be no record of transactions to corroborate their claims.

 

[MT15]

I mean, you have to accept that everything they said was the truth to think that it started after she hired him, and there were many things they said that just aren't believable.

It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Trump is guilty, but it does give Trumps team something to use. For that we should all be angry at Willis.

The absolute best case scenario is that that she started a relationship with someone she hired during the biggest case of her life. We should not be happy about that terrible lack of judgement.

It seems more likely that they had a relationship before she hired him, and he took her on trips, and they both lied under oath yesterday about her paying him back with thousands of dollars in cash that she didn't withdraw from the bank, and he never deposited in the bank, which conveniently explains why there would be no record of transactions to corroborate their claims.

How does that impact the case? If it’s an ethical problem that is for the bar, not the people she is prosecuting to care about. It doesn’t affect the case, which is what this hearing was about.

I’m not a big fan of assuming they are lying without some sort of proof.

 

[MT15]

This says it better than I can



For people who can’t see Twitter:

Elected prosecutors should be held to the absolute highest ethical standards & we must conduct ourselves in ways that expect scrutiny. When credible allegations arise about our integrity, those allegations must be probed. But, how & when that is done matters A LOT. The system must take into account that defendants & their attorneys have great incentives to make the story about prosecutors or law enforcement & airing allegations in detail publicly can damage a prosecutor’s professional reputation & ability to handle a case (which is sometimes the only goal). I don’t have a hot take on what happened yesterday but I do know that as a woman & a life long prosecutor who has put ethics at the top of my priorities, I felt physically ill watching DA Willis’s private life under a microscope for the whole world to see. This is not a way to treat a public servant, and it is not good for the criminal justice system & people’s faith in institutions.

 

[samiam5211]

How does that impact the case? If it’s an ethical problem that is for the bar, not the people she is prosecuting to care about. It doesn’t affect the case, which is what this hearing was about.

I’m not a big fan of assuming they are lying without some sort of proof.

It has already impacted the case. The hearing yesterday is an impact on he case. Willis having to deal with this impacts the case.

 

[MT15]

It has already impacted the case. The hearing yesterday is an impact on he case. Willis having to deal with this impacts the case.

And in an improper way - these allegations have no impact on the case, and shouldn’t have been even addressed in this manner. They should have been forwarded to the bar, as not pertinent to the case.

 

[samiam5211]

And in an improper way - these allegations have no impact on the case, and shouldn’t have been even addressed in this manner. They should have been forwarded to the bar, as not pertinent to the case.

Right, whether it was proper or not, it has impacted the case, and it is entirely because of Willis's poor judgement.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

And in an improper way - these allegations have no impact on the case, and shouldn’t have been even addressed in this manner. They should have been forwarded to the bar, as not pertinent to the case.

She'd have to be crazy or dumb to think that any defence attorney wouldn't try to make it an issue.

Basically, if she behaved unethically in hiring Wade or other ethical violations occurred. The defense could argue she's not going to be ethical in the way she handles evidence, witnesses, etc...

Sure, it has nothing to do with the facts of the case, BUT we should have a very high bar for prosecutors, judges, etc - the people who have the power to put someone behind bars, must be able to stand up to scrutiny. I don't know much about the law and ethics in this particular case - and to me, it doesn't seem like something that should impact the trial, BUT I am fine with the defence trying to vigorously defend their client by questioning the ethics of the prosecutor. If she doesn't stand up to scrutiny, so be it - that's on her and we can all be pissed off at her. But I would much rather a guilty man go free than have a corrupt system, and part of that means subjecting our law enforcement process to vigorous review.

 

[MT15]

She'd have to be crazy or dumb to think that any defence attorney wouldn't try to make it an issue.

Basically, if she behaved unethically in hiring Wade or other ethical violations occurred. The defense could argue she's not going to be ethical in the way she handles evidence, witnesses, etc...

Sure, it has nothing to do with the facts of the case, BUT we should have a very high bar for prosecutors, judges, etc - the people who have the power to put someone behind bars, must be able to stand up to scrutiny. I don't know much about the law and ethics in this particular case - and to me, it doesn't seem like something that should impact the trial, BUT I am fine with the defence trying to vigorously defend their client by questioning the ethics of the prosecutor. If she doesn't stand up to scrutiny, so be it - that's on her and we can all be pissed off at her. But I would much rather a guilty man go free than have a corrupt system, and part of that means subjecting our law enforcement process to vigorous review.

I get all that, but I cannot shake the feeling that if this was a white male prosecutor we wouldn’t have had this hearing. It would have just been forwarded to the bar very quietly.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I get all that, but I cannot shake the feeling that if this was a white male prosecutor we wouldn’t have had this hearing. It would have just been forwarded to the bar very quietly.

That's exactly how it would been handled if it was any man. Unfortunately and unsurprisingly, there are a lot of double standards in play here. A lot of people who know better than to believe anything out of Trump's camp are suddenly taking the word of Trump's camp and have made the snap judgement that Willis lied under oath.

I personally know people that keep months worth of cash on hand. It's not something that gets talked about much, because people don't want the general public to know they have months worth of cash in their house. People who doubt Willis probably know people who do the same, they just don't know that people they know do it.

I don't think people would be so quick to doubt and judge Willis if she was a man.

 

[samiam5211]

That's exactly how it would been handled if it was any man. Unfortunately and unsurprisingly, there are a lot of double standards in play here. A lot of people who know better than to believe anything out of Trump's camp are suddenly taking the word of Trump's camp and have made the snap judgement that Willis lied under oath.

I personally know people that keep months worth of cash on hand. It's not something that gets talked about much, because people don't want the general public to know they have months worth of cash in their house. People who doubt Willis probably know people who do the same, they just don't know that people they know do it.

I don't think people would be so quick to doubt and judge Willis if she was a man.

My mother has thousands of dollars in her home, but you know what, there is also a record of her withdrawing that cash from the bank.

 

[DaveXA]

I get all that, but I cannot shake the feeling that if this was a white male prosecutor we wouldn’t have had this hearing. It would have just been forwarded to the bar very quietly.

Maybe...but I doubt that. Stuff like this has derailed cases before, and I've seen office romances cause more problems than I can count. Their claims aren't believable and while this shouldn't reflect on the Trump case, it has and does. This was inexcusably bad judgement on the part of the DA. She's in a position of power and made some really questionable decisions. The smart thing to do is wait until the biggest case of your life is over before starting a relationship with someone in the office. It was a dumb decision and it's distracted from the Trump case. She should know better.

 

[LA - L.A.]

My mother has thousands of dollars in her home, but you know what, there is also a record of her withdrawing that cash from the bank.

That's your mother's truth. It doesn't mean that's everyone's truth or Willis's truth.

 

[samiam5211]

That's your mother's truth. It doesn't mean that's everyone's truth or Willis's truth.

So where would Willis get cash if not from the bank? Every dime she gets paid goes in to the bank through direct deposit. How does she get cash if not from the bank?

I'm sorry, i refuse to believe that she got it 50 bucks at a time, from cash back.

If she was throwing around thousands of dollars in cash to Wade, then she would have needed to replenish her home stash somehow. Where is the evidence of that?

She was lying.

 

[LA - L.A.]

...i refuse to believe that she got it 50 bucks at a time, from cash back.

Obviously.

She was lying.

You've made your feelings on this very clear.

We will eventually find out the truth, whatever it is.

 

[coldseat]

It's my understanding that there are only two allegations made against Wade and Willis. First, that they were dating before she hired him as outside counsel to prosecute the case. The second is that they took vacations together and that's the payback she got from hiring him? This should be easy to disprove. Did they take any vacations before they said they were in a relationship? This would lend credence to the claim that they were dating before she hired him. Did they take any vacations after they claim their relationship ended? If the vacations were the payback for hiring, then it should have continued even after them dating ended, right. If neither of those are true and there is no other evidence of overpayment, misused funds, etc., then the allegations against them hold no merit. I don't even see the relevance of whether she paid him back or how they handle their money unless they broke some state law or department regulation by dating. Them ending their romantic relationship seems to not have impacted either the case or their professional relationship.

 

[samiam5211]

It's my understanding that there are only two allegations made against Wade and Willis. First, that they were dating before she hired him as outside counsel to prosecute the case. The second is that they took vacations together and that's the payback she got from hiring him? This should be easy to disprove. Did they take any vacations before they said they were in a relationship? This would lend credence to the claim that they were dating before she hired him. Did they take any vacations after they claim their relationship ended? If the vacations were the payback for hiring, then it should have continued even after them dating ended, right. If neither of those are true and there is no other evidence of overpayment, misused funds, etc., then the allegations against them hold no merit. I don't even see the relevance of whether she paid him back or how they handle their money unless they broke some state law or department regulation by dating. Them ending their romantic relationship seems to not have impacted either the case or their professional relationship.

I agree with this, but Willis was desperate to show that she paid him back, so she must think that it is important for her to have paid him back.


I also see now that Willis won't be testifying today, her side has decided that they don't have any questions for her, so they are foregoing cross examination. Likely because they do not want to subject her to redirect from Trump's attorneys.