Nathan Wade visited Fani Willis' neighborhood before hiring, cellphone data indicates

a reply to: Justoneman

A $500 donation made before he was a judge is grounds for recusal but things like receiving luxury trips or having your job because you were appointed by the defendant aren't?

The judge didn't break the law because the donation was made before he was a judge and the courts have ruled in the past that small donations like that aren't grounds for recusal.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Also the PI got them I believe in 5 days. From what I can find, a phone company response to a subpoena is 6 weeks to several months. They are notoriously slow in response. All very weird.

We will see, the judge had noted no further evidence would be accepted, unless he determined to open the door to more Bradley testimony after the closed door interview.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Lumenari

[mod edit]

Here's a question, how did Trump's PI obtain this information? Cell phone geolocation data is only available from the cell providers and only with a subpoena. So, either Trump's lawyer is misrepresenting what this data actually is or it was illegally procured.

you can buy it.

But if it was obtained illegally, then it's inadmissible in court. (learned that watching Matlock) So perhaps your criminals can get off on a technicality. But make no mistake, you are covering for criminals. That kind of takes all the wind out of your sails when you complain about how guilty Trump is.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Justoneman

A $500 donation made before he was a judge is grounds for recusal but things like receiving luxury trips or having your job because you were appointed by the defendant aren't?

The judge didn't break the law because the donation was made before he was a judge and the courts have ruled in the past that small donations like that aren't grounds for recusal.

The Judge's family donations to Willis should've been voluntarily disclosed before testimony began.

Can’t take the hood out of the hood rats.

a reply to: network dude

That's not quite the same thing. That company sells their analysis of a large dataset of location data in a specific location. They are not selling the location data of a single individual.

Furthermore, they don't specify where their data is coming from. If they're actually getting geolocation data from the service providers, that data would need to be scrubbed of any identifying information before being given to this company.

What's more likely is they bought the data from social media companies and the location data is showing check ins.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

That's not quite the same thing. That company sells their analysis of a large dataset of location data in a specific location. They are not selling the location data of a single individual.

Furthermore, they don't specify where their data is coming from. If they're actually getting geolocation data from the service providers, that data would need to be scrubbed of any identifying information before being given to this company.

What's more likely is they bought the data from social media companies and the location data is showing check ins.

so does that change the facts that exist? If not, what exactly are you arguing for, other than to stop finding crimes with your prosecutors.

a reply to: network dude

Unless Wade is checking into Willis' house on Facebook, I fail to see how what toy posted has any relevance.

The fact remains either Trump's lawyer misconstrued the data they had (they already had to resubmit their filing one for incorrect information) or the data was illegally procured.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

Unless Wade is checking into Willis' house on Facebook, I fail to see how what toy posted has any relevance.

The fact remains either Trump's lawyer misconstrued the data they had (they already had to resubmit their filing one for incorrect information) or the data was illegally procured.

For that to be a "fact", you would have to have had it verified and documented. Can you show where that happened? If not, perhaps you should learn the difference between a fact and an opinion. Those are the kind of things that can move you past the paralegal status.

a reply to: network dude

It's a fact that the only way to get the kind of geolocation data Trump is purporting to have would be to get it from the service provider. It's also a fact that the service provider won't release that data without a subpoena.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

It's a fact that the only way to get the kind of geolocation data Trump is purporting to have would be to get it from the service provider. It's also a fact that the service provider won't release that data without a subpoena.

just a little time will tell, but as I said, facts can be backed up, opinions cannot. we will see how well your empirical statements age.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Justoneman

A $500 donation made before he was a judge is grounds for recusal but things like receiving luxury trips or having your job because you were appointed by the defendant aren't?

The judge didn't break the law because the donation was made before he was a judge and the courts have ruled in the past that small donations like that aren't grounds for recusal.

Who care at this point? You either see the problem here or your are an idiot at this point. Strawmen you think you have wont change that one bit either.

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: xuenchen

She already spent $1.2 million on vehicles since 2021?

She is a criminal, she did drive by on the taxpayers with that deal.

Wouldn't be surprised if she gets a kickback from the auto dealer.

Wouldn't be surprised if it ended up being a family member.

Or someone she boinks on the side.

Or both.

...or a campaign donor.

That's how these scams usually work...and she doesn't strike me as being capable of original thought.

There's a reason a lot of politicians are former lawyers.

Studying the law, you find there's a lot of places where you can exploit the grey areas. These days, if you're black, it's even easier because any little bit of scrutiny on you gets falsely labeled "racism."

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

Unless Wade is checking into Willis' house on Facebook, I fail to see how what toy posted has any relevance.

The fact remains either Trump's lawyer misconstrued the data they had (they already had to resubmit their filing one for incorrect information) or the data was illegally procured.

For that to be a "fact", you would have to have had it verified and documented. Can you show where that happened? If not, perhaps you should learn the difference between a fact and an opinion.

In this case it's more like the difference between a fact and a fairy tale he invented to help his "case."

Another interesting fact about this case is that when Fani and Wade finally get slapped, they will probably vacate the other convictions of Sydney Powell and the rest of them. 🤣

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Lumenari

You mean last time when my account of 15 years got banned for no reason?

Here's a question, how did Trump's PI obtain this information? Cell phone geolocation data is only available from the cell providers and only with a subpoena. So, either Trump's lawyer is misrepresenting what this data actually is or it was illegally procured.

you can buy it.

.... So perhaps your criminals can get off on a technicality. But make no mistake, you are covering for criminals. That kind of takes all the wind out of your sails when you complain about how guilty Trump is.

First, IF Fani Willis were to be found to have a conflict of interest, she would be subject to being fired and a civil fine. It would not be a criminal offense.

Second, in her filing she has argued that even though she had a personal/romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, there was no conflict of interest. Quoting precedent in Georgia law, she says:

"For a prosecutor to be disqualified.... requires a "personal interest,' and... a [district attorney] is not disqualified by personal interest in a case where he *was not acting in his personal or individual character, or for his personal or individual interest, but in his character as an officer of the law specially charged by statute to perform this particular duty." State v Sutherland, 190 Ga. App. 606, 607 (1989) (citations omitted) (insufficient support for disqualification where a prosecutor's potential personal interest in civil litigation was unrelated to the criminal charges); see also State v. Davis, 159 Ga. App. 537, 538 (1981) (prosecutor's decision not to pursue criminal charges was not a "personal interest'
justifying recusal)."

"Conflict arises when a prosecutor has a personal interest or stake in a defendant's conviction- a charge that no defendant offers any support for beyond fantastical theories and rank speculation. Georgia law requires far more. Ventura v State, 346 Ga. App. 309, 311 (2018) (quoting Whitworth (a conflict of interest requires "more than a theoretical or speculative conflict-an actual conflict of interest must be involved"

She gets paid the same amount whether Trump is convicted or acquitted. If the judge dismisses the claims against Willis, it won't be a technicality.

a reply to: Boomer1947

Ah, that's wonderful news. Since Trump has only been charged and found guilty in civil cases, he's also NOT A CRIMINAL. Your butties won't like that. But I don't make the rules, I just live by them.

But when Fani and Nathan are charged with perjury, we may well find out if that's a criminal charge or a civil one. I bet you were a top notch lawyer as well as all the other jobs you claim to have.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

It's also a fact that the service provider won't release that data without a subpoena.

Are they restricted from releasing that data without a subpoena by law? If so, please link us to the law.

If not, then it would be up to the company to voluntarily restrict themselves out of concerns for user privacy. If his carrier has such a policy, please link us to it.

Or did you just make that up?

Oh, she argued there was no conflict of interest bringing a high profile case in wich she was able to hire her lover and friends and then take kick backs from them in the form of luxury vacations? Well if she says their was no conflict of interest then I guess the matter is closed.