Nope. He allowed the testimony, and at rather length. It’s in. Whether it gets credited is a separate question, but it’s indisputably in evidence.
Only if you insist on a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Out here in the real world, it’s excellent evidence of dozens of booty calls.
The cell phone data itself is not in, right? The proffer was allowed, but the actual data the judge said he would decide after hearing arguments about it on Friday.
I agree that the cell phone data is suggestive but it isn’t dispositive. I won’t argue that one cannot form a conclusion that Wade and Willis are not being honest based on the cell phone data, but it hasn’t been proven. And not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but weighing the total of the evidence I don’t think it has been proven that more likely than not they were in a romantic relationship at that point. I do think it is more likely than not that Wade was not as forthcoming as he could have been about how close they were at that point, but it does not mean they were banging.
I haven’t seen any ruling on whether the cell phone report is in or not. What’s definitely up in the air is whether the judge will take testimony on the issue. Stay tuned for Friday’s hearing.
And here you elide how evidence works yet again. It is suggestive that I was found with a smoking gun in my hand and a dead corpse next to me in the room with a bullet wound in the head. But it isn’t dispositive.
I’m trying to erase that elision. I’ve evinced that the cell phone data is suggestive evidence. You are eliding exactly what it is suggested of.
In my opinion, it is suggestive that Wade was not as forthcoming about the closeness of the relationship at that stage and I can see the Judge finding this as fact.
In my opinion, it is not necessarily suggestive that they were banging at that point… it could be that they were very close but not banging aka not romantic at that point.
You wish to state that the cell phone data is suggestive of them banging, but that inference is just not supported by anything other than innuendo. Innuendo is not admissable.
Finding that some suggestive evidence meets some burden of proof under some standard is what judges and juries do that turns suggestive evidence into dispositive evidence. That has not yet happened here but I’ve invited you to make your predictions. I’ve made my predictions… where are yours?
Hehe…to be fair, they’re like the most touristy of the touristy haha
And out here in the real world, when you repeatedly do the Walk of Shame back home before dawn, you’ve been banging.
See, this is exactly the innuendo I’m talking about 
innuendo - an allusive or oblique remark or hint, typically a suggestive or disparaging one.
Unfortunately, for the defense that just isn’t admissable. They can offer it in their closing remarks, but the Judge is going to see right through it. 
Likewise! Innuendo (aka circumstantial evidence) is compelling.
ETA: And it makes the jury feel smart because they’ve figured out the secret that isn’t quite definitively revealed.
Oh dear, you seem to be under the illusion that innuendo is the same thing as circumstantial evidence. But see, innuendo is the inference and the circumstantial evidence is the evidence. You can say the circumstantial evidence supports your innuendo, but the innuendo is just that and unfortunately you can’t submit innuendo as evidence. The circumstantial evidence - aka the cell phone records - do not say that they were banging. That’s just the innuendo/inference that you wish to draw that the Judge is not obliged to grant.
Agreed, 100%
But it do! Any reasonable juror can infer from Wade phoning up Willis at 11:30 pm, arriving at her house around midnight, and departing at 4 am as an obvious booty call. It’s an obvious thing that consenting adults do.
I could argue that they don’t literally say that, but your inference is persuasive and I agree a judge or a juror could grant your inference as more likely than not. In other words…
Nice argument counselor. Now, do you think this will persuade the Judge to DQ her since the obvious inference if you grant the one you argue is that she - more likely than not - lied on the stand and so did Wade? If not, why not? Judges hate to be lied to… Is he a fool that will be tricked by their lying?
I am on record with my prediction: the Judge will not DQ the DA and he will not find that he was lied to by either of them. He’ll likely not even mention his doubts regarding this. Rather, he’s going to find that there has been no proof of ill-gotten funds or that the DA enriched herself financially or had any substantial financial interest in hiring Wade. I suspect that he’ll suspect he was lied to, but will find that the circumstantial evidence is not compelling enough to grant the inference you claim.
I doubt that you think otherwise as you seem a pretty intelligent person, but please disabuse me of my hypothesis if you do - in fact - think otherwise.
My best guess is that he’ll find a way not to DQ her that avoids the issue of when their sexual relationship began. I don’t find it particularly probative of anything relevant to the financial conflict issue, apart from the significant possibility that they lied about it.
If I were in the judge’s seat, I’d probably just rule that the defendants hadn’t met their burden of proof to show a conflict. That gets to the safe result without having to discredit the issue altogether. But this is still mostly up in the air, and it was all eminently avoidable.
(I have no idea why that registers as “On another topic” since my reply is right under your post. Damn you, Discobot!)
So we’re in agreement. I also take it we’re in agreement that Merchant and Bradley are the biggest losers in all of this. Nice arguing with you counselor. The prediction markets say that she is 48% likely to be DQ’d. I think this is too high, but again Judges hate to be lied to or feel like they’ve been lied to (and for good reason) so let’s see. I also think you’re right that it was avoidable and I’ll bet that Willis and Wade are kicking themselves (or will kick themselves later after they get over their righteous indignation) for not disclosing the relationship earlier and in a formal manner.
Lack of disclosure wasn’t the problem. The relationship itself was the problem. Don’t hire your S.O. to run the office, and don’t turn your office manager into your S.O.
Lack of disclosure was the only problem technically as a matter of law/regulation. I think it was also a big part of the problem the public may have. No doubt, that for some members of the public the law/regulation should be what you say, but that isn’t technically the law/regulation as it stands.
I was diagnosing the underlying problem of profoundly bad personal judgement there, not the grounds available for a disqualification motion. Hiring your S.O. – or subsequently turning him into your S.O., either one – to prosecute anyone, much less a former president, is an objectively terrible move.
Not sure what your point is here, other than you’re personally pissed off at Fani Willis for being foolish.
That leaves you out as a ‘dispassionate observer’. Meanwhile, I’ll just go about dispassionately correcting factual errors.
While this discussion is interesting and enlightening and I have little to add except your comments about the “prediction” or gambling markets. If the odds of Willis being removed are about even, based on what I read about what happened yesterday, I advise any gamblers out there to bet heavily on Willis not being removed.
My favorite story about the 2020 election is the millions gambling houses made from Trump voters betting on Trump after the election had already been called for Biden. The spokesperson for one gambling house called it “taking candy from babies who deserve to have their candy taken”.
If I gambled, I don’t and do not even play the lottery, at even money or close to it, I would bet a good amount of money given the odds, about even, you site Willis being removed by the judge.
For the most part gambling houses, like me, do not gamble. Rather, they set the odds so that an equal amount is bet on both sides less a commission for the gambling house for finding bettors to bet with each other. That is gambling houses do not gamble.
Hence, the odds are really set by the gamblers. This is why, all things/teams being equal, the Chicago Bears will have better odds to win the Superbowl than the Green Bay Packers. That is there are more people who live in Chicago than Green Bay and therefore more people willing to bet on the Bears than the Packers.
The point being many more Trumpees will attend his casinos than normal people. Because many more Trumpees will gamble for Trump regardless of the facts than normal people who do regard the facts will gamble, the odds are seriously warped to give the Trumpees better odds than the facts indicate they deserve.
While I did not watch the actual hearing, based on what I read, the odds, based on the facts, should be closer to 10 to 1 against Willis being removed.