If true, that raises serious ethical questions given the fact that Bradley was expected to be a witness.... GA Code § 16-10-93 (2020) on influencing witnesses includes "to persuade another person by means of corruption or to attempt to do so; or to engage in misleading conduct toward another person with intent to: Influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding; Cause or induce any person to:Withhold testimony or a record, document, or other object from an official proceeding..."... Notably, in addition to prosecuting defendants for false statements and false filings in court, Willis is prosecuting defendants for conspiracy criminal attempt to influence witnesses. O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4 1 & 16 10 93(b)(1)(A)..... So Willis and Wade are now prosecuting defendants in the case for some of the same misconduct that they have been accused of from filing false statements with courts to influencing witnesses.... I was skeptical that the court would hold a new hearing on the claim that Bradley stated with clarity that the Willis/Wade relationship began before his hiring. However, the allegation that Willis told Bradley to effectively clam up is a matter that the judge cannot avoid.
६ मार्च, २०२४
"They are coming after us. You don't need to talk to them about anything about us."
Fani Willis allegedly said to Terrence Bradley, quoted in this tweet from Jonathan Turley.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२४ टिप्पण्या:
Geez, keeping up this behavior will give lawyers a bad name.
If true, that raises serious ethical questions
If true, that provides serious ethical answers.
But Left Bank Chuck told us that Willis and Wade were just doing what people with their means do. What’s the problem with a DA tampering with witnesses? Or I guess more to the point, why would she if she had nothing to hide and done nothing wrong?
Teflon Don proves once again that when corrupt and mediocre people go after others they fall flat on their faces. Corruption and mediocrity cannot prepare one for true combat.
She’s gonna give lawyers a bad name.
What an arrogant, racist, stupid, greedy sack of potatoes Willis has revealed herself to be.
She lost me at having a bunch of cash from her first campaign stuffed in her mattress.
What are we up to now? Perjury, witness tampering, obstruction of justice, public graft. Seems like more than enough for the judge in this case to boot her and her team. I’m sure the attorneys in Wade’s divorce case are scrambling to make a settlement any settlement that they can get with the soon-to-be ex-wife. All of this in the service of Get Trump Incorporated. So many broken norms, twisted laws, bent rules and crooked people.
Retired attorney once observed that prosecutors are the most unethical part of the justice system. Worse than racist cops, alcoholic judges, brutal prison guards and even worse than 75% of the people they're prosecuting.
"They are coming after us. You don't need to talk to them about anything about us."
Us and Them is more than a Pink Floyd song.
It was the perfect strategy — Democratic prosecutors would hit former President Donald Trump with so many indictments and lawsuits that, rather than campaigning, he would spend the entire election season defending himself inside a courtroom. Surely at least one of the charges would result in a conviction before Election Day. And President Joe Biden would cruise to victory. But, as they say, the devil fools with the best-laid plans. District attorneys and prosecutors have love affairs and even perjure themselves, trials get delayed, and there are still a few judges left who believe that no one should be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law” — not even a defendant as reviled as Trump. (Elizabeth Stauffer via Ed Morrisey @ HotAir)
None of the criminal persecutions were supposed to go further than indictments of Trump and plea bargains from the small fry. That was dependent on Biden running a reasonable reelection campaign. But with Biden facing an uphill battle for reelection, the dial needs to be turn up to 11 with actual convictions which are proving a lot harder to make than sandwiches.
It really continues to astound me. She could have been an iconic lifelong heroine among Democrats, but instead she went for a little quick money.
Between the DAs in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Atlanta...one begins to think that maybe, just maybe, we're not putting our best people in these positions of power. Maybe, we're putting some of our most mediocre people in these positions. And only when they step out and bring the light on themselves does it become so boldly obvious.
I heard about this yesterday while perusing my YouTube offers. But I doubted it because, nobody can be that dumb. Right?
If this is true, not only can she be disqualified, her whole case against Trump is now under extra scrutiny.
Did she coerce testimony against Trump, for example.
I think it's up for debate that this is witness tampering. This hinges on whether or not Fani was talking to Bradley about what he was obligated to tell investigators, or if she was attempting to influence what he said during any sworn TESTIMONY.
If all Fani said was that he didn't need to talk to investigators....that's just a true statement. As prosecutors, we were permitted to tell witnesses before trial that if an investigator for the defense contacted them, it was the witness's decision whether they wanted to talk to the investigator or not. Meanwhile, defense attorneys told THEIR witnesses that the witnesses didn't have to talk to our investigators either.
Of course, based on the unique circumstances of a particular case, you might be able to argue that even mentioning to a witness the fact that they don't have to tell investigators anything is coercive/threatening.
And the Judge at the hearing IS A FRIEND OF FANI!!!
Makes you wonder what she has on him.. cause she still expects him to rule in her favor.
Wait, so you're saying that democrats are doing what they're accusing others of doing?
You shut your whore mouth!
Their big mistake was going after somebody with the money and rage to fight back to the bitter end. That and handing this off to the "C" team in GA...
"If all Fani said was that he didn't need to talk to investigators....that's just a true statement. As prosecutors, we were permitted to tell witnesses before trial that if an investigator for the defense contacted them, it was the witness's decision whether they wanted to talk to the investigator or not. Meanwhile, defense attorneys told THEIR witnesses that the witnesses didn't have to talk to our investigators either."
So, such non-cooperating witnesses interviewed by the government's investigators can't be charged with obstruction at any point if it becomes clear they were concealing incriminating evidence? People get charged with abetting a crime all the time by the simple act of keeping silent, don't they?
Yancy Ward asks me: "So, such non-cooperating witnesses interviewed by the government's investigators can't be charged with obstruction at any point if it becomes clear they were concealing incriminating evidence?"
I can't think of a circumstance as pertains to criminal law where mere silence on a matter when interviewed (outside of court/a subpoena compelling disclosure) would amount to obstruction of justice. Actions (such as knowingly helping a wanted a felon to evade capture) and speech (telling an investigator something untrue) matter. You mention "concealing evidence." That to me implies an action that you have willingly undertaken, such as allowing someone to stow a murder weapon in your house. Not talking to police at all is not a crime.
The Feds are especially able and willing to bring criminal charges against a person they have interviewed *for what they have said to an agent* if they judge that statement to be a false statement (statement must also be related to a material fact--lots of wiggle room there). If convicted of making a false statement per 18 U.S.C. § 1001, you face five to eight years in prison.
"People get charged with abetting a crime all the time by the simple act of keeping silent, don't they?" Again, I can't think of a circumstance where this applies. Let's say that your wastrel son is wanted by police with an arrest warrant. You have done absolutely nothing to aid your son, but he did leave you a brief voicemail saying that he has gone to visit a friend in Reno. Police contact you and ask you if you know where your son is but you simply refuse to talk to them. No crime. It's a different story if you knew he was hiding from police and you gave him money so he could get to Reno.
What are we up to now? Perjury, witness tampering, obstruction of justice, public graft.
Might even have Fani's lawyer for suborning perjury. No wonder he was stammering so badly on his closing argument.
Yancey's 11:07 comment hits the potential critical distinction from a legal ethics standpoint. Telling someone he doesn't need to divulge information voluntarily is one thing, telling him to lie (or pretend not to remember) on the witness stand is quite another.
Still, not a great look, right? And there is the notion that prosecutors should be held to a higher standard than a typical private lawyer in an adversarial proceeding, in light of the tremendous power they wield.
Christopher B said...
"None of the criminal persecutions were supposed to go further than indictments of Trump and plea bargains from the small fry."
Absolutely wrong. They want to put him in prison and you underestimate or intentionally disregard their hate, dishonesty and vindictiveness.
That’s “the leader of the free world” there, dazed and confused. He honestly didn’t look like he knew where he was or why he was there.
"Deny, deny, deny." - Bill Clinton on the phone suborning perjury, I forget which bimbo he was talking to.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा