Judge orders Fani Willis to turn over WH Counsel letters

There's a lot of threads on the Georgia RICO case, but so much keeps happening that I'm trying not to take the other threads off course. I'll follow a similar format of a previous thread I've made.

Overview: Jeremy Clark is a defendant in the RICO case. He was indicted on two counts. The first count was violation of RICO statute. The second count was for criminal attempt to commit false statements and writings. His alleged crime was writing a draft letter that he never sent. The prosecutors could find no other defendant in the history of the US who has ever been charged with a draft letter they never sent.

He recently filed a motion for an extension to submit pre-trial motions. The prosecution contested. The judge denied.

At a recent hearing, the topic of collusion with the WH came up. His attorney requested a copy of information from meetings the prosecution had with the WH. It was there that they learned the WH had sent letters to the prosecution. The prosecutors initially attempted to mislead the judge, but he saw through it and asked them a follow-up question, and they were forced to admit there were two letters and not the one they initially told the judge they received. The prosecution argued they shouldn't have to present the letters. The judge denied them and ordered them to bring them in so he could review them under seal. The judge stressed his concerns regarding selective prosecution and the potential for political motivation for the charges and wanted to see the letters.

Facts of the hearing:

• The judge asked the prosecution if they received any documents from the White House counsel in relation to this case.
  
• The prosecution said they received one letter.
• The judge immediately followed up by asking if that was the "sole communication" they received, including texts, emails, etc.
  
• With a nervously cracking voice, the prosecution then admitted that they received two letters. They seemed to be trying to get away with claiming they only received one letter for some reason. No idea why they lied.
• The conversation shifts to the perception of a selective/vindictive prosecution and politically motivated charges.
• The prosecution claims that the communication was in relation to "logistics" and "procedures" of the RICO prosecution against the defendants. They didn't disclose what "logistics" were being discussed or why the WH was involved in the logistics of this case. They said that the information must be clearly evidence-based to be given to the defense in a Brady disclosure. They repeat the letters were only about logistics and not the evidence.
  
• The judge disagrees and tells them information that leads to evidence must be disclosed as well. Additionally, any allegations of selective prosecution must be addressed in pre-trial motions (which the judge initially denied extending).
• The prosecution says that just because they couldn't find anyone in the history of our nation that has ever been prosecuted with felonies for a draft letter they never sent doesn't mean it's a selective prosecution.
• The judge asks the defense attorney that if he decides it's a selective prosecution would he agree it doesn't go to the merits of the case. Defense disagrees and says it is their position that this is both a selective and political prosecution. Prosecution didn't have an answer for that.
• Judge then asks if they have anything else they'd like to discuss. Defense brings up 2(e) disclosures (which I need to look up) in relation to the potential of federal officials being called as witnesses. Judge asks the defense if they want to prevent federal witnesses from testifying under the 2(e) rule. Defense said he would love if federal officials couldn't be witnesses because then his client walks. They also cited case law that the prosecution was supposed to disclose these federal witnesses to them earlier giving them ample time for their pre-trial motions (that the judge initially denied an extension).
  
• Defense says they shouldn't have to wait until the conclusion of the RICO trial to find out if the prosecution has no evidence against their witness without the federal witness testimony.
• The judge then asks the prosecution if they believe they have enough evidence to prosecute this witness. The prosecution responded they may not and might have to drop the charges if they get their hand slapped for violating 2(e).
  
• Defense attorney also says those White House letters might be the White House saying they are preventing their employees from testifying in the RICO trial. He says Fani told the world they had evidence to prosecute his client and they may have letters from the White House saying they can't. He also said if they're going to bring in federal witnesses they're going to want to bring in the former head of DNI and other federal witnesses.
  
  Sidebar: preventing these federal officials from testifying could be done to protect the WH from any wrongdoing, embarrassment, or cross-examination. It doesn't necessarily mean that his client didn't do what they say he did.
• The defense also mentioned there was another meeting in November in DC/WH and they assume it was with the WH Counsel, but they don't know for sure. They want to know whether Fani's team was working with political operatives other than Biden's attorneys.
• The judge ordered the prosecution to bring the letters to his office so he can examine them and make a determination about the federal witnesses, selective prosecution, and whether they have a case against Clark.
• The prosecutor's voice continued to crack as he was obviously on the losing side and getting highly embarrassed. He asked the judge when they would have to present him with the letters. The judge snapped back that it's only two letters of disclosure to prepare, and he expected them the following day.

My views: It is strange that the White House would be involved at all. They should have kept a large distance from this. Apparently, the only written communication was two letters from the White House. Can't know for sure since Fani's team lied about it initially. But this is why Fani/Wade traveled to DC to have meetings in person, they didn't want any disclosure of what they were doing. Biden's WH/DoJ have been doing this a lot with the Trump-focused prosecutions. It's generally done to hide corruption to the appearance of corruption. But, when they purposefully hide stuff from public record you have to ask yourself why. If everything was above board, they'd have no problem creating at least one record with FOIA-responsive information in it.

The letters themselves won't say, "Biden wants Fani to do X, Y, Z to help him win the election." His attorneys are smarter than that. But, this is a political prosecution. I can't imagine anyone would disagree. Whether it's also justifiable is where people could find room to debate. And, you can send information and strategy to Fani within an innocuous letter. So it will be interesting to see how the judge interprets them.

 

So now the judge knows that they are liars.

Priceless.

Thank you for such an informative post.

And the Prosecution has a duty to be completely forthcoming, not play "hide the ball".

No one does, even the guys pretending to, know full well that its the second attempt at election fixing for Bribed Joe.

 

And the Bribed Joe WH isn't just colluding with Fani and GA

'Disturbing' Collusion Between Bribed Joe WH, Trump Prosecutors

'An explosive defense motion filed in the classified documents case detailed extensive collaboration between prosecutors and top Biden officials to get Trump. But what does Jack Smith want to hide?'


Dirty Merrick Garland Used The Corrupt FBI To Attack School Board Parents and Catholics.

Lying Jack Smith's 'team continues to insist their work is devoid of any influence from or cooperation with the Biden regime. Joe Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland say the same. But a 'stunning trove of evidence contradicts claims that the Biden White House had nothing to do with the unprecedented federal prosecution of a former president and Biden’s GOP rival in the 2024 general election. Emerging evidence also shows collaboration between White House officials and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ office related to her RICO indictment against Trump and several associates.'

Key Biden Officials in Cahoots from Day One

'the “disturbing” collusion extended beyond Biden’s in-house lawyers and involved multiple government agencies dating back to January 2021. Those agencies include the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the National Security Council, the FBI’s Counterintelligence division, the intelligence community, the Secret Service, and the Department of Energy.'

All the crooks are in on this.

Disturbing, but not surprising, since we know that Bribed Joe and his Junta are election fixing crooks.

“The FOIA releases, coupled with other evidence scattered throughout more than 1.2 million pages of discovery, reflect close participation in the investigation by NARA and Biden Administration components such as the White House Counsel’s Office, as well as senior officials at DOJ and FBI. These revelations are disturbing but not surprising,”

And for all their cheating, they continue to trail Trump in the key polls.

• Bloomberg Swing State Polls
  • Georgia: Trump 49, Biden 41
  • Arizona: Trump 47, Biden 44
  • Wisconsin: Trump 49, Biden 44
  • North Carolina: Trump 49, Biden 39
  • Michigan: Trump 47, Biden 42
  • Pennsylvania: Trump 48, Biden 45
  • Nevada: Trump 48, Biden 40

So, it looks like voters are wising up to these corrupt frauds.

 

Gasp!!!! The judge ordered... something from the prosecutor. Victory! This proves Trump is innocent, right?

So NOW we know that the judge is not corrupt! Because, if he were... why bother asking anything from the prosecutor?

 

Willis will say the info she's required to turn over was hacked, altered or deleted.

UPDATE: Fulton County has cyber breach

A “cybersecurity incident” targeted Fulton County government computer systems over the weekend, County Commission Chair Robb Pitts said Monday afternoon.

https://www.ajc.com/news/fulton-county-computers-down/JOGVYSUCSNAHJPMU3SL4W5QO4A/

 

And the prosecutor lied about it...lol.

This isn't looking good for y'all. Your girl has really made a sow's ear out of this case.

 

Fani has learned you do not throw rocks at someone's house when you live in a glass house.

 

We'll take our chances. But now we all KNOW that the judge is fair, right? That's the important thing. No "Deep State" nonsense in this case. It would be viewed as hypocritical to praise the judge now because he... admonished (?)... the prosecutor but then accuse him of being corrupt when he sends Trump to prison. If the judge were corrupt, it wouldn't make much sense for him to undermine the prosecutor.

 

He didn't admonish the prosecutor or accuse him of being corrupt. He simply stated facts that he needs to see any documentation that could help determine th defandant's claim that this was a selective or political prosecution because they can't have this debate in front of the jury. It needs to be handled pre-trial, and the pre-trial phase has deadlines. The burden is on the defense to meet the threshold for such motion. The letters may not at all be useful to the defense. But, the judge wants to see them so he can make a more informed decision. This is why they kept flying to DC for these meetings though. It prevents any record of what they were discussing so they don't have to turn it over.

This wasn't Fani or Wade at the hearing. They sent an underling to handle this one, most likely because it was being recorded, and they had an idea of how it would go. The last thing they needed right now was to get caught admitting this far down the road that they were colluding with the White House on the prosecution of this case and that they may have violated due process rules to bring in federal witnesses. And without their witness testimony, they may not be able to prosecute at least one defendant. Fani or Wade at this hearing would have been all over the news.

 

..

 

agree, neither Biden or Trump should be inserting themselves in court processes, course we do not know if he has yet for sure

Definitely not encouraging "lock him up" chants

 

I'm still trying to figure out what kind of "collusion" with the DOJ would be prohibited.

The DOJ has charged Trump with election interference, part of that interference is the fake elector scheme. This is also part of what Willis has charged Trump with it. I would be surprised if there WASN'T some kind of meeting between the DOJ and Willis (or her office/prosecutors) to see if there is evidence that either group has that the other does not.

For example if someone kills someone with a firearm purchased through a Federally registered gun dealer...and that person, for whatever reason, was not supposed to have been on the Federal list of people who cannot purchase a firearm...the local prosecutors would talk to the Feds about how the man got the weapon.

That is not illegal.

 

The conversation was about working with the Biden White House directly, not the Department of Justice or Jack Smith's prosecution team. You find cause that the DoJ can share notes on prosecuting these defendants, but if that's the case then Fani's team has to turn over what they received from the DoJ and White House, and they did not do so.

If they were only talking "logistics" and not evidence, then what does "logistics" mean? Were they coordinating on which federal officials they could subpoena? Were they coordinating the timing of the indictment to line it up with the two Jack Smith prosecutions during the election? Were they coordinating on which of Biden's political opponents to indict? There were more initial defendants than we have in this trial. The Grand Jury came back saying more initial defendants should be charged than Fani ultimately charged. They voted, and we could see the number of jurors who came back with a finding to indict each defendant. There were defendants with more votes who were not charged than the people with fewer votes who were charged. Why? Was that being done to protect the White House out of fear of cross-examination or some other political reason?

The "logistics" and collusion with the White House could potentially be used to prove this is a selective and/or political prosecution against some or all of the defendants. That's why hiding these letters and then lying to the judge about how many they had was a big deal. It's also why people are making a fuss over the coordination with Biden's attorneys. Biden's WH attorneys are not involved in the prosecution of the federal cases at the DoJ. They are not criminal prosecutors or investigators. They are separate from the DoJ. Their purpose is to do Biden's bidding and protect his administration. That's all they do. Other federal attorneys do other things, and it's important not to conflate the two.

 

Uhmm... "HER". Fani Willis is a woman. Looks like you're not following the case closely. My point is that, whatever the judge did, it shows that he is managing the case ethically and based on the law. So we won't be seeing some crap about "The Deep State" later when Trump is convicted, right? Because if there were a "Deep State"... why bother with "burden" or "deadlines"... or any of that?

 

You do not know that the didn't turn over this because you don't know what Fani may or may not have received from the DOJ

Also the only things that the prosecution is required to turn over is that information which may help the defendant.

For all you know Willis (or her prosecutor) may have gotten pieces of paper, signed by Trump, that says "OK everyone...keep quiet about this because it's HUGELY illegal"

 

Fani wasn't at the hearing. The attorney handling the prosecution's side and speaking with the judge was a man. The judge didn't admonish Fani, Wade, or the male attorneys (for both the prosecution and defense) that the judge was speaking to.

Thus far, the judge has given the prosecution a lot of leeway, more than most. For example, he ignored that the special counsel wasn't even sworn in to prosecute the case. That's pretty incredible.

So we'll see how he handles the case in the future, knowing what he knows now. He gave the prosecution a lot of benefit of the doubt before. Also, people complain about both political judges and juries. So while the judge could be excused from being a "deep state" hack, people may still look at the evidence and determine the jury got it wrong regardless of which way they decide.

 

Makes no difference. That's why there are appeal courts. So long as there is no "Deep State" the system WORKS.

 

You're still talking about the DOJ. Nobody else is. They're talking about the White House. Any talk about the DOJ is hypothetical. If the prosecution met with the DOJ, there are potential outcomes of those meetings regarding disclosure to the defense. There would also be questions of who they met with at these meetings and whether they were political in nature.

At this hearing, the prosecution told the judge they only had to turn over direct evidence. The judge told the prosecution they also needed to disclose information "that could lead to evidence" that could benefit the defendants. If there's something in the gray area, they should bring it to the judge to decide. If they fail to disclose something pre-trial and it comes out during appeals, it could reverse the case. The prosecution should be focused on fair due process and application of the law. When there's a tie, it goes to the runner in criminal cases.

They would have had to disclose that to the defense and it would have been shown to the grand jury. You don't get to ambush a criminal defendant with new evidence during a trial. Anything they are going to use at trial needs to be given to the defense by the pre-trial deadlinesset by the judge. Again, that pesky due process thing so many liberals on this forum seem to hate.

 

The difference being that if the verdict comes back "Not Guilty" for Trump I don't think there will be rioting in the streets.

Can you say the same if the verdict comes back as "guilty"?

 

He hasn't ruled on Fatty's crimes, so we don't KNOW he's legit. If he lets her get away with all this, then we'll know he's crooked and he's in on the scam.

 

Exactly! That's my point! MAGA extremists don't give a crap about "documents" or "deadlines".... If Trump is acquitted, they'll praise the judge and the jury. If he's convicted, they'll scream "Deep State!". However, in this thread, we have references we can later go back to, of posters who praise the judge BEFORE the verdict. This, at a later point, will help me demonstrate the above point. Not with MAGA extremists who don't even try to hide their unquestioned Trump zealotry, of course. But with those who try to hide it.

 

Clearly "logistics" could mean timing, as in by these public dates, ie interference with the GOP primary season... And where is the DOJ then? I mean, they were happy when Obama essentially committed the same offense as "Watergate" against then candidate Trump. Are they also now ok with the Biden administration going well past the offenses of watergate and doing actual law fare in support of eliminating a political candidate entirely? I think those are the questions about the potential content of that collusion between Fanny et al and the WH.

 

If that is what this is all about why are you folks spooging in your jeans over it? It's Trump & Co, throwing shyte on the wall is how they roll. Why? Cuz......

The chances that Trump will be a convicted felon by Election Day have dropped
It could still happen — but the four prosecutions of Trump have been beset by delays and challenges.
https://www.vox.com/politics/24055503/trump-trials-fani-willis-jack-smith-alvin-bragg

 

My condolences. Grieving aside, if Biden wanted to get criminal convictions on Trump within a certain timeline to influence the election, his administration shouldn't have gambled on when to indict and on corrupt prosecutors. He probably should have also told his WH admin to stay out of the prosecution, like he said they would, because their involvement only complicates things. But they obviously couldn't help themselves.

 

The post right after yours answers this question succinctly. Hook. Line. Sinker.