That you for that. The judge was a bit startled by that left field theory.
He just forgot that Clarence Thomas and Brett Cavanaugh haven’t gotten around to reversing that yet.
Well, dating is not adultery. The judge would have to allow some very personal questions to get to the actual sex acts.
It is if you do it right.
Please. Right field theory.
Even so, adultery only goes one way, like if a married woman has sex with a man who is not her husband. A man cannot commit adultery according t9 the bible if memory serves.
The Bible is less relevant here than the actual Georgia law in question, which reads as follows:
Though it uses male pronouns, it uses the word “person,” twice, and specifically not “woman” (or, for that matter, “man”).
So it is impossible for an unmarried person to commit adultery. Were Willis and Wade both married at the time?
Wade said that while his divorce was not yet final, his marriage at that point was irretrievably broken.
This is deeply sad for me, as I engaged in extra-marital sex after my wife and I split up, but before divorce.
Being an adulterator was one of the few fun things I could joke about, in an otherwise horrific situation.
Mr. Trump, of course, does not share my views.
I’m sure he would have no problem calling you an adulterer, even ranting and mocking you for it. It’s just not adultery when he does it,
Besides he never even met Stormy Daniels or whatever her name is.
“Horse face” I think it was. Which is kind of ironic coming from a shitgibbon.
Is there a break in the proceedings? Yesterday, I thought they were adjourned for Presidents Day … but today?
…
Meanwhile, corroboration for Willis’ testimony made the news cycle this morning:
i believe the judge is dealing with the attorney/client question. if i remember properly he is meeting with mr wade’s former partner/attorney “in camera” this week. i did remember properly:
Ultimately, McAfee determined that the exception applies only when “by preponderance we found that communications made in the existence of a relationship or in furtherance of a crime” or that the client knew the attorney was being used to further a crime—and that this was not established by the defense.
He said he would meet with Bradley “ex parte in camera,” which means he will provide testimony in a closed-door meeting to discuss communications. He noted that there is “some uncertainty” about whether everything Bradley knows about the relationship was learned through communications with Wade as his divorce attorney.
Once the hearing concludes, McAfee will determine whether Willis will be removed from the case.
If she is, the case would not be dismissed. Instead, another district attorney or state Attorney General Christopher Carr, a Republican, could take over the prosecution.
Judge to Meet With Fani Willis Witness Behind Closed Doors (msn.com)
perhaps a ruling either this week or next?
What is the standard of proof that Judge McAfee has to use to evaluate the issue of Willis’ removal from the prosecution and the status of the case against Trump and the others?
A sealed deal if Willis is removed?
Curous about him. Along with the usual GOP stance against ACA, this more concerning tidbit from wiki:
Right - so, a “fundamenatal difference of opinon” means this fucking slimeball is still digging in his heels over the apparently illegitimate 2020 election results, as well as what Jan. 6 ‘was really about’.
Seems like a nice judge.
Next, the defense will move to have Fani Willis removed from the case because, while she may or may not have been biased at the outset, all the extraneous bullshit has definitely destroyed her ability to be impartial.
The defense can claim that (strictly for the consumption by the Maganauts) but the prosecution/prosecutor is supposed to be partial; “hang 'em high!”
Huh. I read that the other way. The RAGA sponsored a robocall urging participation in the rally that ended up being Jan. 6. Carr resigned as Chair because he disagreed with the decision to go forward with the robocalls over a “fundamental difference of opinion”. It sounds to me like he was against 1/6 because he thought the election was on the up-on-up.
But YMM(and obviously does)V.
Ugh, yeah, it’s looking like your takeaway could be the correct one.