Except of course you-know-who, whose long, shameful professional and private life has proven impervious to the most withering scrutiny imaginable.
It really does boggle the mind.
That’s because he’s inconceivable.
I wish. Unfortunately, he was conceived.
They’re also wrong.
The one thing they got right is that anyone prosecuting, testifying against, or otherwise inconveniencing the Orange Messiah will be subject to intense scrutiny and vicious attacks and every weakness will be ruthlessly exploited and exaggerated beyond reason. My take on it is that this is why this evidentiary hearing – which would normally be ridiculous – is occurring in the first place. As Judge McAffee said when he declined to dismiss it and allowed it to proceed, one of its purposes is “to establish the record on those core allegations”.
If Willis is exonerated and remains on the case, Trumpists can whine all they want but there will be two days of carefully considered public testimony to explain why. Won’t make any difference to Trumpists since by definition they’re immune to reason, but there are a lot of sane voters left in the nation who are actually persuaded by facts. And presumably that will include members of the jury who will pass judgment on these crooks and their orange henchman.
.
yes, i believe the judge is leaning toward “no here, here”. if it wasn’t a trial with this much on the line it wouldn’t have gotten this far.
Next we’re going to hear that Willis… < scary music intro >
Had a laptop.
Before you have dinner this evening, make sure to have the food and beverages tested for iocaine powder.
now the judge has ruled that the multiple defence lawyers have not met the burden of proof to pierce the attorney/client privilege. therefore they must step very carefully in their questioning of him.
it is not going well for the defence crew.
I’m curious when we will hear a judgement from the judge on this. If testimony wraps up today could the judge rule from the bench at the end or will he issue a written opinion?
Me, too. I’ve heard about a dozen experts since yesterday (yeah, I know, I need to get a life) who had the exact opposite assessment. Andrew Weissmann, Barbara McWade, Lisa Rubin, Joyce Vance, people like that with deep experience in this space.
He can announce a decision immediately with a written opinion and order setting out the findings and rulings later.
Some expert yesterday (it’s a blur at this point) said a bench ruling is very unlikely. There will be a lot of thought and care in a written ruling, was the gist. For some reason, this person thought this will get a lot of scrutiny. 
I’d like to associate myself with @rocking_chair admiration and respect for this judge.
That’s how it’s done.
To add to the other replies, I believe McAffee himself said earlier that there will not be a ruling today.
That could change, of course, if he’s persuaded that no further deliberation is needed. But ISTM that taking some time to consider all the evidence and producing a written opinion adds to the gravitas of the ruling.
My argument was that there’s a context, middle grounds, and that trite hard rules aren’t good foundations for effective legal council.
Yes, there may be things that you’d prefer to hide. There may be witnesses that are so unreliable and error prone that you’re better off to not introduce them into the proceedings, even though what they have to say should be to your favor. But, likewise, there’s good solid, paper evidence that’s fairly unimpeachable. There are punishments that are more severe than mild embarrassment. I’m saying that you have to look at the actual context of all of this and make a reasonable, rational, and learned decision, not write down rules like “Don’t give any information to the opposition” and “If you’re innocent, you have nothing to hide”, put them in a magic eight ball, and let fate decide.
Running and jumping to, “You’re already innocent in my mind! You don’t have any duty to defend yourself!” Isn’t good legal council, that’s just being a fanboy.
Now, apparently all of that is largely irrelevant to the matter at hand so let’s drop this, but the principal is still true.
where is this going? many people eat with people with which they are not in sexual congress.
i would think that lawyers often discuss not romantic things together over meals. i would think nothing of a meal meeting.
i don’t know where this person is going with this like of questioning.
ah, he is trying to do a go around the attorney/client privilege.
That’s my feeling too. As I understand things, Judge McAfee didn’t have to hear this motion, but he did. Now, Trump’s side cannot claim that he was being unfair by not hearing it.
My opinion is that the same thing will happen here. Rush to a decision, and some will claim that he didn’t consider it as carefully as he should have or he had his mind made up before all testimony was finished, or both. I don’t know, but I think that he’s being as careful as possible, in order to forestall any claims of recklessness or impropriety.
he is a good judge. very good control of this hearing and the trial hearings over all.
Much like Engoron. These are experienced and capable judges who know that every possible avenue for an appeal will be attempted.
That has to be at least part of it.
Establishing that the relationship began much earlier than the Willis-Wade testimony could also do two things:
- Impeach much of their testimony, and
- Create a perception that this was collusive, with the goal of putting State money in Wade’s hands, a percentage of which inured to the direct (and corrupt) benefit of Willis, the DA.
[and that’s without regard to whether or not Joycelyn Wade, Nathan’s ((STB)ex-) wife stands to benefit based on timing]
Is he getting anywhere? IMHO, not yet.