This long spiel is notably lacking in specifics. He quotes brief fragments of decisions w/o giving the context or the actual relationship that was considered a conflict of interest. What sort of argument is that to ,make to a judge?
3 Likes
Pings is what they have. At best this is circumstantial evidence and no way meets “beyond a reasonable doubt”. My feeling is that it was Wade and he was with Willis and yes…they started their affair before he was hired.
How does that mitigate what Trump did?
4 Likes
First time “cash” was mentioned like “cash” is some exotic form of money that only aliens use. Not like the most common form of money in this nations history.
7 Likes
Meanwhile, up the coast, the dump team is arguing that it’s AOK to pay a porn star to shut her up about the sex she had with the candidate.
12 Likes
Exactly. We made a lot of smoke so you must burn it all down.
11 Likes
Ah, probably because it’s packaged in a manner that prevents any personal identification. To parse the data as to a specific cell phone though, they’d need that cell phone’s ID and Wade was likely forced to provide it via a discovery request.
3 Likes
OMG
“There’s no law on that. I don’t want to get pinned down on this!”
3 Likes
Again, back to the appearance of impropriety.
1 Like
Now defending his wife.
1 Like
The photo of the judge in the cover page of this story:
he looks like most of us feel about this case…
1 Like
When the facts are with you, pound the facts. When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law is against you, pound the table.
We’re at stage 2 right now. Stage 3 will be reached by the end of the hearing probably.
7 Likes
Right? Can we all just agree our team succeeded in flinging some mud here?
1 Like
A male, White or otherwise, more often than not picks ups the tab. This could make it harder to argue a financial interest if Willis was a Frank instead of a Fanny.
But more to the point, for a prosecutor in a case with such a high profile, this would still be reckless behavior.
In my opinion, the judge has handled this well and he will allow the case to go forward protecting the court and the case including making any appeal on this matter unlikely to succeed.
4 Likes
She verified crap. She didn’t actually do her job and verify that Bradley had factual basis for what he said. She did not ask him how he knew what he said he knew.
13 Likes
A desperate one.
The reason the prosecutors objected because the defense is trolling the court.
5 Likes
Ms. Merchant filed a motion based on gossip and did not verify that Bradley had a factual basis for his gossip. She never bothered to ask how he knew what he said he knew. She is a terrible lawyer.
16 Likes
Good lord, she created a scheme to get kick backs?
4 Likes
Starting to sound like a paraphrase of the Protocols here
1 Like
That’s the claim. She did a piss poor job of it if she did have that scheme of kickbacks.