My best impression: Willis isn’t being 100% honest about the cash issue. She knew damn well that her relationship would be exploited by Trump’s team to impugn her, and she paid cash to avoid having a record of her relationship. She wanted to keep it secret.
But other than that, I find her pretty credible, and I hope she stays in the case.
I can’t watch the proceedings. Did they address Yeatie’s testimony in any way (beyond saying, “She lied”)? I.e. any reason to distrust her as a witness?
Weirdly, for a completely unrelated reason, I just learned that 13% of African Americans in the US are ‘bankless’ while the comparable figure for whites is 3%. And apparently that trends older in both groups.
I seems to me that it is completely reasonably to conclude that trust of banks is lower in the AA community and that even those with banks would be more likely to keep a stash of cash than their white counterparts. That’s just a guess on my part of course but it was echoed by at least one black commentator on MSNBC today.
I’m aware of the habit, but not the precise numbers. Good to know that it’s not huge, even if it’s notably different.
In Willis’ case, she’d do good to demonstrate a history of non-use of banks, outside of her relationship to Wade (if she didn’t do so, already).
Not her job.
They have to back up their claims. It’s not on her to prove them wrong.
Willis’s attorney said she’d call something like four witnesses tomorrow who will impeach the testimony of Yeatie or whatever her name is.
I believe one side is saying we have this witness, the other side is saying your witness has a grudge. If it all rests on that one witness… that isn’t going to go very far.
This has been my experience as well. Even those that got bank accounts for direct deposit, they would take out the bulk of the money and not leave it in the account.
MSNBC pundits (Weisman, Rubin, Phang) felt that the answer to the question “Is Willis in a better position now than start of day?” is yes. The consensus was that she came out a bit hot, but overall was effective and credible.
Weisman kept emphasizing that everything really hinges on whether or not Wade and Willis roughly split their expenses. He said that the defendants’ attorneys introduced nothing, zero, in terms of evidence that they did not. He went so far as to say the judge would have to decide that Wade, Willis, and, tomorrow, her father are all not credible, despite there being zero evidence to contradict them.
His bottom line: There’s more to come, obviously, but defense counsel did not advance the ball today, and Willis did.
I agree with Mr Weismann. I was a bit nervous before noon. After that, nerves are calmed.
Mr wade was walking a bit of a fine line as there was divorce stuff. I don’t know if it is final, but he had more to protect. Ms Wallis did not have anything to protect, did not have a fine line to walk, she was much more free in her testimony.
I would say ms Willis most believable, mr wade believable but a bit cagey, ms yvettes (spelling?) not very believable.
My understanding is that they’re saying she worked in cash to hide illicit transactions. If she says that she worked in cash for a different reason, then she’s not refuting the claim, just the motivation.
To be sure, she can claim a different motivation. If she doesn’t want to support that motivation with evidence, she doesn’t need to. But I don’t see that as being to her advantage in any way.
Let’s say that someone accuses me of having purple leg hair. And let’s say that if the onlookers choose to trust my accuser then I’ll be punished by death. Should I pull up my pantleg or refuse to do so and say that it’s my accuser’s problem to prove his case?
If I have brown leg hair, I’m really not seeing what there is to be gained by taking the latter gambit. Hiding your legs when you have brown hair would be needlessly dumb.
Unless the lighting is a bit purplish, or you are concerned about jurors who are color blind. There’s a reason why legal experts often suggest silence when you can be silent, even if in your mind you can easily explain why you’re innocent.
IOKIYAR
You didn’t watch it, did you?
Her testimony, as a member of the bar and the DA of Fulton County, under oath, fully refuted the allegations. She reimbursed someone for her half of personal travel costs.
Her testimony was further bolstered by the testimony of Nathan Wade, also a member of the bar and a prosecuting attorney in the Trump case, also under oath. The Trump side offered nothing to refute this testimony.
You appear to be arguing from a position of ignorance in this matter.
And IOKWYW.
It’s essential that the Fulton County prosecution not descend into a diversionary circus where the focus is on the prosecuting team’s misjudgments instead of the defendants’ misdeeds.
(NOT a quote from DavidNRockies)
So anytime a defendant wants a new prosecutor, they just get to make up some kind of bullshit allegations and they get to choose a new one? That’s crap.
To be sure, you need to manage things. OJ should have been gloved by a third party and the fit inspected by an expert. Letting him do itself and having no alternative to accepting his say-so is a bad position to be in.
But doing that sort of management is what a lawyer is supposed to do. If you’ve got undeniable, positive evidence of innocence that doesn’t rely on people saying things just the right way nor passing a credibility test, and it can be soundly introduced into the proceedings, then it would be silly not to introduce it.
If your lawyer just trusts that silence will handle everything, when you’re actually innocent, have an alibi, and positive evidence of all the counter-motivations, then I’d doubt the reliability of that lawyer.
None of these are absolute rules. There’s an element of judgement involved.
I’m often kinky with your wife?
I did say as much. If someone brings up “cash payments and a fear of banks”, I’m having to assume that it was relevant to the proceedings in some way. How relevant, I don’t know. If it was a “barely relevant” then my apologies.
Pretty sure that’s “It’s OK when you’re white”.