Good point (pun unintended). He seems to be speaking from a set of prepared remarks, which is fine; but I think that in addition to your suggestion about not meeting the burden and bullet points, he should have been taking notes during the summations of the defense lawyers. That way, he could inject them into his prepared remarks in any appropriate places—for example, “Now, Mr. Wade something-something-something, unlike what Mr. Sadow told us earlier in today’s proceedings.” If he did take notes, he doesn’t seem to be using them.
IME, few trial lawyers are really impressive in trial. It takes years to hone the craft. His presentation seems reasonably average to me.
Yes, I, um, agree that his, err, speaking style could be, err uhm, better.
As a non-lawyer, I can’t help but wonder if how important these lengthy closing remarks in a motion that is going to be decided by a JUDGE. The judge. presumably, is already familiar with the all the evidence and doesn’t need to be reminded of things he heard about a few days ago. But, as I say, IANAL.
I suggest not very.
I haven’t caught every televised bit of the hearings of late.
And this article is now 40 days old.
But … I’m not sure how much of the authors’ points are likely to be negated by what’s happened since it was written. In my (Not A Lawyer) opinion, I haven’t heard the Defense attorneys get to the heart of the issues that are raised IN this article – the issues that are central to disqualifying the DA.
They did suggest that Wade should voluntarily remove himself from this case. Other than that, it’s probably too information dense for me to reasonably summarize:
Good read. I hope they’re right. I think a LOT is still riding on Georgia, and that it is unique among the criminal actions pending against Trump.
The two witnesses against Willis & Wade both had an axe to grind.
One is a fired employee, the other is a former law partner of Wade, who briefly was his divorce attorney, before being accused of sexual assault, and dissolving their partnership.
The law partner encouraged the plaintiff attorney with the motion against Willis & Wade, claiming he had knowledge about their relationship. But then recanted on the witness stand, saying he “couldn’t remember”, and “may have lied”.
I wouldn’t want to be Judge McAfee on this case. He admonished the plaintiff attorney, as the testimony didn’t support her motion. She was clearly upset.
NY Times link (paywalled). Perhaps someone can unravel or archive another source.
I am leaving this gift link to the article above from the NYT here. It is very thorough.
Thanks for that. He reads to me like a pissed-off former partner, current enemy, who was happy to torpedo his “pal” but dismayed to discover that’d mean he’d end up under oath.
I would love to be the judge on this case. I would have shut down this nonsense when it was first proposed. I’d have brought the lawyers in and demanded they explain how, even if what they said was true, it was relevant to the issue of determining their clients’ guilt.
If we got so far that the lawyers couldn’t even substantiate their assertions with credible evidence, I’d be issuing sanctions.
Makes me think of some guy who gets drunk and starts ranting with slurred words… “Put me on the witness stand and I’ll tell you some things that’ll get him disbarred.” Then desperate defense counsel attempts just that and suddenly, uh, no, there’s nothing to say.
Gee, who’d have thunk it. Is the entire conservative/Republican/MAGAt playbook “I can say whatever I want to forward The Cause and not have to answer for it,” their prime directive?
Court House steps, “news conference”, Faux News talk show; presenting the evidence/truth. Yet in the courtroom; “Are you alleging fraud?”. " No your honor, not at this time (or in any lifetime)."
“Dismissed x sixty+ times.”
Big talk for the rube’s consumption.
And the rubes never learn from the Fox etc. media that the accusations were baloney; or are told the rightful charges were deepsixed by the corrupt Deep State.
bit of an unexpected ruling in ga.
The six charges in question have to do with soliciting elected officials to violate their oaths of office. That includes two charges related to the phone call Trump made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a fellow Republican, on Jan. 2, 2021.
this is a small part of the charges in ga. the bulk of the charges are intact. i believe this takes 3 charges off of trump’s total.
Judge dismisses some charges in Trump’s Georgia election case (msn.com)
There was a time when it looked like the Georgia case was going to be the most likely one to start and finish early enough to get a conviction against Trump before the general election. Now, it’s essentially DOA. The defendents that pled out early must be kicking themselves now.
And Judge McAfee STILL hasn’t ruled on whether or not Fani Willis can remain on the case? Really?
that should be tomorrow some time.
Judge McAfee is a recently appointed Republican in a Democratic county. And he needs to win a nominally non-partisan election, on May 21, to keep his job.
McAfee has two opponents, both apparently running to his left. Perhaps they will split his opposition allowing McAfee to squeeze in. But if not, will this cause more delay?
Links regarding McAfee’s opponents::
Seems like the obvious course of action for McAfee, then, would’ve been to rule instantly that Fani Willis has no conflicts of interest and can go full speed ahead with the trial. Instead, McAfee’s been helping the defendants drag everything out.
Ga. judge dismisses six charges in Trump election interference case - The Washington Post
The judge’s decision means Meadows, who has been seeking to move his case to federal court, now faces only a single racketeering charge in the case. James Durham, a lawyer for Meadows, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
a bit of good news for meadows, still has the racketeering charge.
the ruling:
f610e414-2672-427d-88eb-33a27964383b.pdf (washingtonpost.com)