Credit card statements show Trump special prosecutor appointed by Georgia DA Fani Willis bought her

An anonymous source, for whatever that's worth, is claiming Jeff DiSantis, who has been working as Fani's spokesman, is the intelligence behind this prosecution. They also claim he ties this prosecution to the White House. Apparently, he is very knowledgeable about the local politics of the region and has been helping steer the ship.

It seems suspicious that the exclusive would go to Breitbart. But this is now being floated so I figured I'd share.
https://www.breitbart.com/2024-elec...-fani-willis-office-target-trump-sources-say/

 

Okay, so they are just going to toss a bunch of voodoo signals in front of a Judge and expect others to prove disprove what it means or invite the Jdude to suddenly become his own expert!.

Nah, no expert....it is out the window as useless nerdy unexplained gibber.

 

The evidence is pretty damning. There’s a tower near Fani’s condo and another near the commercial area where the shops and restaurants are. They did a geo fence for the 2000 sq feet of her residence and used the distance of the commercial tower 3000 feet away as a barrier to hone in the geo fence. So it’s a relatively small section they’re dealing with. They started off very conservative on their data because they received so much information from AT&T considering how absurdly frequent they were in contact with each other before she hired him. The witness will just explain what the records are. He won’t be drawing conclusions because only Fani and Wade know what they were doing at 3am near her residence. We also know she called him, he got in his car and drove straight to her residential area and then when the call ended he was there for several hours. Then he drove home and texted her when he arrived. It’s pretty obvious these were booty calls and Fani didn’t attempt to refute them in her filing. She picked other random dates to say she was working late on those days, but just pretended the most damning events weren’t there. I think on one instance Wade was on a call with a line registered to Fani’s father on his trip to her condo late at night. Perhaps she had her father set her up with a burner phone to try to avoid this information from coming out. She’s proven to not be very bright.

 

Without an expert, not even that description gets into evidence.

It is not like. "It was night time." "How do you know?" "Because the sky was black the Sun had set and I saw the stars."

Ye'd get that in without an expert but just to talk about a 'geo fence' a 'commercial tower' etc is voodoo gibber without an expert to say exactly what it means and the limits of what can be read into it.

 

This type of evidence gets brought in all the time. He won't be stating opinions. It will be purely fact-based. That allows the evidence to come in.

The federal courts have already approved cell records to be admitted under the business records exception. And Georgia courts have also approved the use of the business record exception for cellular records. In 2013, Georgia passed a law regarding cell records, and both before and after the change in law, the records have been approved to be admitted under the business records exception. Here's an example not related to cell records: If there's accounting and payroll records that need to be correlated, you don't need an expert to do that work. It's a business record that a witness can discuss as long as they don't opine about what the records mean. Mittelstadt will not be saying these records prove Fani and Wade were having sex. He's just going to state what the records are. Fani and Wade will then be able to bring in an expert if they wish to rebut, or they could explain what they were doing at 3 am in her neighborhood after speaking on the phone the entire drive there and Wade texting when he got home safely at 4 am. That's up to them. But, the evidence doesn't require an expert to be introduced and attached to the case, just like you don't need an expert to bring in a payroll record into evidence.

It's not voodoo, most people can understand this. He had raw data, and then he applied filters to the raw data just like an Excel spreadsheet. All he has to do is state factually what filters he applied without opining about what the result of that filter means. He can show the results of the filters though. This would be just like if you're hunting for all accounts payable records over $1,000. Someone can apply the filter and then state the quantity of results based on the complete raw data. You don't need a PhD in accounting to do that.

 

Sounds like a great story but what it boils down to is both said it didn't happen on the stand. They said the didn't have an affair before a specific date, Wade told the court he didn't have sexually relations up until a specific date in one trial, the other he said they did before that date.
Lots of lying going on and they're about to get disbarred.

 

I think Bradley has now finished but it is hard to get one continuous video of what happened today. All I got my hands on were piecemeal sections. Nothing new emerged.

Merchant continued to demonstrate she has no idea how to cross-examine, and also a complete lack of preparation. She was seemingly always playing with documents in front of her, and frankly was very annoying. But maybe that is a reflection of me never have met a southern white amateur female Lawyer before. She needs to address the speed of her delivery and take notice of the measured pace in which Humpty's*** Attorney made his delivery.

*Rapist
*Swindler
*Bordering on pathological

 

Perhaps something to reflect on.

 

I'll watch that video. Do you disagree with my criticisms of Merchant?

 

Please do cite me an election case involving a national election being prosecuted as a RICO case anywhere in the history of this country.

And how many felony cases did this guy prosecute? How many RICO cases? Why was he SPECIALLY HIRED and done so outside the proper channels when she has an entire county prosecutors office full of EXPERIENCED RICO PROSECUTIONS?

 

Be hard to claim a case that got indictments and already had multiple people take plea deals and agree to cooperate can’t move forward. But I’m sure magaland wouldn’t question that logic lol

 

RICO is RICO, applicable to all sorts of factual situations.

 

Please cite me the details of a former president conspiring with others to criminally subvert an election result...?

 

They took plea deals because the prosecution agreed to not giving them a guilty verdict and let them walk without having to pay expensive legal bills. The prosecution effectively agrees to drop the charges. And an agreement to help prosecute is cookie cutter language and doesn't stop them from saying "I don't recall" like Fani and Wade have been doing.

 

I have been on Merchant's case but not without cause. I have referred to this before but I'll be more precise.

She filed a Motion making salacious, scandalous and sensational allegations championing, heralding them as sufficient to totally end a RICO prosecution again some Defendants. No Lawyer worth their salt, one of integrity, would ever, ever, ever ever do that unless they had at least a signed and witnessed Statement from a Witness or Witnesses who would be able to give admissible evidence to back those allegations up IN THE WITNESS BOX.

Lawyers with integrity and worth their salt would be professional and have sworn Affidavits and then they can file their motion based on the sworn Affidavits.

Thus, if anything goes legs up, they can always pull the Affidavit, wave it around defiantly and say, "No, I do not deserve to be disbarred because when I drafted that Motion full of salacious, scandalous and sensational allegations, I was relying on this sworn affidavit material which is admissible evidence supporting those allegations."

Did she have either? Nope, all she had was a chain of text messages which have become the subject of uncertainty in meaning, and being questioned by Bradley as ambiguous, one of the participants in the text chain.

Further, she often asked Bradley whether he 'told' her something. I infer she is implying that occurred via telephone.

This is a failure to observe Rule 101. An Advocate should never be the investigator. If they do become the investigator, we get to exactly where we are with Bradley. Merchant, saying from the Bar Table (and that is NEVER evidence,) one thing, and Bradley putting it in doubt.

So, UNLESS SHE GETS IN THE BOX, we are all left with the cold evidence which comes ONLY from Bradley in the Box.

Should she get in the Box and testify that to what she asserts Bradley said?

Now we get to another point.

No Attorney should ever, ever put themself in as position where they might have to become a witness in their own cause.

I don't know what the repercussions for that are over there but down here, it totally compromises the capacity for that Advocate to continue representation of their client.

Merchant really is a terrible Lawyer for all the reasons I have so far posted including those set out in this post.

I will be stunned if the relevant Bar Association is not interested.

 

Georgia's RICO statute is extremely broad. Fani is taking advantage of that overly broad legislation to pigeon hole these charges. The charges are a joke and wouldn't have been possible in most states. And the reason she's using RICO is because many of the allegations aren't crimes on their own. For example, she charged someone with a felony for writing a note that he never sent or shared with anyone. The prosecution could find no other time in history that anyone has ever been charged for doing that because it's not a crime.

 

Correct me I am wrong, but is RICO not just one of the charges? There are others on the Indictment?

And yes, RICO is broad and it allows a "Willis" to throw a very wide net, and that is what she has seemingly done.

Not her issue or problem. Her job is to prosecute offences including those of RICO nature.

 

Yes, I was right. RICO is but one of the many charges.

Link.

 

The RICO charges are how they're linking everything together. They need RICO to charge what would otherwise be lawful activity. But if the activity was in furtherance of a grand conspiracy it becomes criminal. The prosecution needs to prove there was illegal conduct in regards to their election laws, but individual charges likely wouldn't hold up with proving a grand conspiracy and then linking people to the grand conspiracy. Without the RICO charges they effectively have no case on the election interference stuff.

 

Well, I question that. For example, Humpty's*** phone call urging an official to find him votes sounds like the basis for some sort of offence. But, let's see.

What say ye concerning my comments re Merchant??

*Rapist
*Swindler
*Bordering on pathological

 

I find her annoying personally, but I think that of all the attorneys involved and it has nothing to do with their race or sex. Fani doesn't seem very bright either. Keep in mind that the judge emailed them the day before to show up the following morning and they weren't told the full boundaries of what they'd be allowed to ask until the last minute. And Merchant has had conversations via text and phone with Bradley saying one thing and then he said another while on the stand. That threw her for a loop and she didn't capitalize on it over the prosecution's objections and coaching. It gets she uncovered the initial allegations so it's primarily her show, but she should probably rely on Trump's attorney more. She takes the wind out of his sails when he tries to get momentum by asking questions that Merchant already asked and failed to close on.

But even a legal analyst on Tapper's CNN show said Bradley did a horrible job and ruined his credibility. Nobody is buying his amnesia. The big question is what the judge will do based on what he said versus what the credibility of his statements are given his prior statements and what he initially told Merchant. I wouldn't be surprised if we later find that Wade has him by the balls in regard to the prior sexual harassment/assault stuff.

 

I have no obligation to do so, the poster said this is a TYPICAL and normal prosecution nothing unusual about it, by your question you by default note there IS due to the claims, right or wrong, being made.

 

Find what kind of votes, Trump and his advisors were very specific about what kinds of votes they believed existed and should be found.

 

So, this thing has almost petered out. I 'watched' the closing arguments and have to say that I would not feed any of those Lawyers. No-one nailed anything convincingly, but I will...soon.

 

I'm pretty sure Wade nailed Fani pretty convincingly and most likely started before he was hired. Fani's attorney did a horrible job. I have no idea why they picked him out of the entire office. He is a horrible public speaker and was painful to listen to.