It’s relevant to the disqualification hearing. Also, generally, you don’t “get” a subpoena. Attorneys, as officers of the Court, are empowered to issue them in the Court’s name as a discovery tool. I use them all the time to get stuff.
Not to be confused with a warrant, which has to be issued by the Court.
1 Like
Weird. Because Smith’s team has to go to a judge to present probable cause in order to get a subpoena. He can’t just issue one himself as an officer of the court.
3 Likes
To the best of my knowledge, probable cause is the standard for a warrant and you’re conflating the two things a bit. However, the Court certainly gets involved in whether a subpoena needs to be obeyed at all or whether and how its scope should be more limited, etc., if someone moves to quash it.
For example, this didn’t require Court approval prior to issuance (but may have landed in front of the court once objected to)…
4 Likes
Friendly FBI agents in an agency founded by the Right with a strict White Christian code, leadership, history and political usefulness, like ICE, or Homeland Security.
2 Likes
Personal financial interest… the defense is now finally making an argument. This will be easy for the Judge to dismiss as not even an appearance of personal financial interest.
4 Likes
As much as I have heard, these are some sort of cell tower pulls gathered (purchased?) by a private investigator hired by the defense (roman, et al). No subpoena/warrant has been mentioned, IIRC.
3 Likes
Ack.
You are right, I was mashing together search warrant with a subpoena.
I need more caffeine.
7 Likes
The judge asks what is the personal interest of Willis. Defense attorney walks all around it and argues it is the appearance of a personal interest/impropriety.
5 Likes
This is like an episode of Dateline.
Phone records show that Wade’s cellphone was pinging off the same cellphone tower as Willis’s
the night of March 4th, 2019. The defense says
that proves the two lovers were within pinging
distance of each other that night, and had the means and the opportunity, if not the motive, to ping each other that night.The prosecution rejects that assertion out of hand.
“The Defendent is well-known for his sleazeball tactics. This proves nothing but their desperation to divert the public’s attention away from Trump’s effort to subvert Georgia State election procedures and steal the election.”
5 Likes
Oh dear, the prosecution team might be interested in prosecuting criminals effectively. They might care
3 Likes
He mentions a “scheme” but there is zero evidence of any scheme by Willis. By this argument every DA has the appearance of a personal financial interest in that they are paid.
12 Likes
Interesting. My understanding was that law enforcement uses the data all the time but has to get warrants (because they’re law enforcement and there’s no active business before the Court to authorize a subpoena). Where is this data publicly available such that it wouldn’t require a subpoena but could just be accessed?
1 Like
How is it unfair?
Really don’t think they have it.
IN this case it’s not about the sex…it’s about the money. I don’t see how this idiotic behavior should let Trump off the hook though. At worst it should result in another prosecutor.
1 Like
Georgia Lawyer and law professor. Anthony M Kreis
The standard Merchant is relying upon is not in the Georgia statute. Interest means personal benefit, not personal as in important to someone.
8 Likes
Definition: You know it when you see it!
5 Likes
I laughed when he said this.
7 Likes
Defense says this about a “personal interest” … “you know it when you see it” and the Judge is free to say he does nor see it. And he will.
6 Likes
Yep…predictable…as I said, they’ve engaged in the manufacture of a circular argument: create the appearance and then argue it’s disqualifying. It basically amounts to an argument that “Judge, I’ve managed to get this to the point of a hearing, and that fact and the hearing itself is not only evidence that goes to the appearance of impropriety, but enhances that appearance too.” It boils down to “if I can get it to a hearing, that alone is sufficient for disqualification.” Fait accompli.
If this was ever allowed to work in the manner they’ve tried it, every defendant in the country would try it too. It will become an epidemic of bullshit.
16 Likes
It was discussed in an earlier thread that even DOJ purchased data for J6 defendants. I believe the cell tower owners sell the data. I certainly get ads based on where I have traveled (until I turned off that thingie on my phone)
1 Like