BREAKING NEWS: Trump's Lawyer Ruthlessly Lays Out Case To Disqualify Fani Willis From Georgia Case
Summary
TLDRThis transcript outlines a legal argument regarding alleged forensic misconduct and ethical violations in a case involving President Trump. The defense argues for the disqualification and dismissal of an indictment, highlighting concerns over DA Willis's public statements at a church and alleged misrepresentation of facts related to a key witness's relationship. The defense scrutinizes the timing of the relationship, citing evidence and witness testimonies to challenge the credibility of the prosecution. This detailed legal discourse underscores the complexities of ensuring fairness and ethical conduct in high-profile legal proceedings.
Takeaways
- 👩⚖️ This is a legal argument regarding prosecutorial misconduct and seeking the disqualification of the lead prosecutor (Ms. Willis) and a key witness (Mr. Wade) in a criminal case against President Trump.
- 🗣️ The crux of the argument is that Ms. Willis made extrajudicial comments at a church event that were intended to prejudice the defendants and their counsel by falsely portraying their challenge to Mr. Wade as being based on race.
- 🤥 The argument alleges that Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade were untruthful in their testimony regarding the timing of their romantic relationship, which is a key issue in determining potential conflicts of interest.
- 📄 Evidence cited includes text messages from a witness (Mr. Bradley) stating the relationship began earlier than claimed, and cell phone records suggesting frequent contact between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade during the relevant time period.
- 💻 The argument relies on the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically rules related to candor toward the tribunal (3.3), extrajudicial statements (3.8), and conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation (8.4).
- ⚖️ The burden of proof being argued is a preponderance of the evidence standard for finding that ethical violations occurred, which could justify disqualification of Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade.
- 👨⚖️ Case law is cited (Registe and Edwards) where ethical violations by defense counsel led to their disqualification, arguing the same principle should apply to prosecutors.
- 🗳️ The argument posits that if legitimate concerns about truthfulness are found, it creates an appearance of impropriety that justifies disqualification under the "forensic misconduct" subset of prosecutorial misconduct.
- ⚠️ A potential counterargument is raised about whether concerns over truthfulness in one case would necessitate disqualification in all cases handled by the District Attorney.
- 🔍 The court is being asked to make factual findings and determinations about whether ethical violations occurred and whether there are legitimate concerns about truthfulness that warrant disqualification.
Q & A
What is the core issue being discussed in the transcript?
-The core issue is a motion filed by a defense counsel to dismiss the indictment and disqualify the lead prosecutor, Fani Willis, and a witness, Mr. Wade, due to alleged ethical violations and concerns about their truthfulness.
What specific ethical violations are being alleged against Fani Willis?
-The main ethical violations alleged against Fani Willis are: 1) Making an extrajudicial statement at a church event that prejudiced the defendants and their counsel by misrepresenting the reasons for the motion against Mr. Wade, violating Rule 3.8(g) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. 2) Potentially providing false testimony or statements regarding the timing of her relationship with Mr. Wade, which could violate Rules 3.3 and 8.4 related to candor toward the tribunal and conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation.
What evidence is being presented to support the allegations about the timing of the relationship between Fani Willis and Mr. Wade?
-The key evidence presented includes: 1) Text messages (Defense Exhibit 26) between a defense counsel and a witness named Bradley, where Bradley states unprompted that the relationship began when Willis was a judge, contradicting Willis and Wade's testimony. 2) Cell phone records showing numerous occasions where Wade appeared to be in the vicinity of Willis's apartment, including two potential overnight stays, during the period in question before Wade was hired.
What legal standard or burden of proof is being applied in determining whether disqualification is warranted?
-The legal standard being applied is a preponderance of the evidence. The defense has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that there are significant and legitimate concerns about the truthfulness of Willis and Wade, which could warrant their disqualification.
What legal precedents or cases are being cited to support the argument for disqualification based on ethical violations?
-The cases of Registe and Edwards are cited as precedents where trial judges found ethical violations by defense counsel and subsequently disqualified them from representing their clients. The argument is that the same principle should apply to prosecutors who commit ethical violations that raise concerns about their truthfulness.
What is the potential limiting principle or concern raised about disqualifying a lead prosecutor based on truthfulness concerns?
-The potential limiting principle or concern raised is that if the court finds genuine concerns about the lead prosecutor's truthfulness in one case, it could potentially spill over and require their disqualification from every criminal case they bring before the court.
How is the defense responding to this potential limiting principle or concern?
-The defense argues that the disqualification would be specific to this case where Willis and Wade testified under oath, and their potential dishonesty directly violates their ethical responsibilities as witnesses. It would not necessarily extend to other cases where they have not testified or committed ethical violations related to truthfulness.
What is the significance of the classification of 'forensic misconduct' used by the defense?
-The defense is classifying the alleged ethical violations as a subset of 'forensic misconduct' which includes violations that impact the defendant's ability to receive a fair trial and the court's ability to have faith in the prosecutors' good faith conduct. This classification is being used to argue for disqualification as a remedy for such misconduct.
What is the overall argument being made by the defense regarding the disqualification of Willis and Wade?
-The overall argument is that if the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there are significant and legitimate concerns about the truthfulness of Willis and Wade based on the alleged ethical violations and evidence presented, then they should be disqualified from the case. The defense argues that this is a appropriate remedy for prosecutors who commit ethical violations that undermine the integrity of the judicial process.
What role does the court's factual findings play in determining the outcome of the disqualification motion?
-The court's factual findings regarding the credibility of the evidence and the existence of legitimate concerns about the truthfulness of Willis and Wade are crucial in determining whether the defense has met its burden of proof for disqualification. The court's assessment of the facts and weighing of the evidence will be pivotal in deciding the outcome of the disqualification motion.
Outlines
🗣️ Addressing Forensic Misconduct and Motion to Dismiss Indictment
The speaker is addressing a subset of forensic misconduct related to the disqualification and dismissal of an indictment. They mention Cathy Latham's motion to dismiss and disqualify filed on January 8th, and District Attorney Fani Willis' controversial 'Church speech' on January 14th, alleging it was intended to prejudice the defendants and defense counsel by making it a racial issue when it was not. The speaker argues that Willis violated professional rules of conduct by making extrajudicial comments that heightened public condemnation of the accused.
🕰️ Timing of the Wade-Willis Relationship
The speaker discusses the timing of the relationship between District Attorney Fani Willis and her lead investigator, Cathy Latham's former employer Nathan Wade. The state claims the relationship began in 2022, after Wade was hired, while the defense alleges it started earlier, before his hiring in November 2021. The speaker cites an affidavit from Wade and the state's pleading indicating no relationship as of November 1, 2021, contrasting it with testimony from Yvette Austin-Jones suggesting the relationship started in 2019 when they were both magistrate judges.
💬 Questioning Truthfulness and Ethical Violations
The speaker argues that there is a legitimate concern about the truthfulness of Wade and Willis regarding the timing of their relationship, which constitutes an ethical violation under the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. This includes making false statements to a tribunal (3.3) and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation (8.4). The speaker suggests that the court need not find they lied but rather have concerns about their credibility, which would amount to an appearance of impropriety under forensic misconduct and grounds for disqualification.
💻 Evidence from Text Messages and Cell Phone Records
The speaker presents evidence from text messages between Cathy Latham and Bristol Bradley (Defense Exhibit 26), where Bradley definitively states that the Willis-Wade relationship started before Wade was hired, contradicting their testimonies. The speaker also mentions cell phone records showing numerous occasions where Wade was in the area of Willis' apartment, including two instances where it appears he spent the night there before November 2021. This evidence is posited as corroborating Yvette Austin-Jones' account and impeaching Wade and Willis' testimonies.
⚖️ Arguing for Disqualification Based on Ethical Violations
The speaker concludes by arguing that if the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there is a significant and legitimate concern about the truthfulness of Wade and Willis due to the alleged ethical violations (subset of forensic misconduct), then they should be disqualified. The speaker cites case law suggesting that ethical violations by defense counsel can lead to disqualification and argues the same principle should apply to prosecutors. The court need not find they lied but rather have concerns about their credibility, constituting an appearance of impropriety.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Forensic Misconduct
💡Disqualification
💡Indictment
💡Ethical Violation
💡Church Speech
💡Public Condemnation
💡Candor Toward the Tribunal
💡Appearance of Impropriety
💡Truthfulness
💡Preponderance of the Evidence
Highlights
Discussion on a subset of forensic misconduct related to the disqualification and dismissal of an indictment.
Presentation of a motion to dismiss and to disqualify, with a subsequent court appearance to consider President Trump's potential adoption of the motion.
DA Willis's controversial church speech aimed at influencing public perception without addressing the core issue of alleged misconduct.
Allegation of professional misconduct by DA Willis, violating ethical guidelines by making extrajudicial comments.
Examination of the ethical implications of DA Willis's actions in relation to professional rules of conduct.
Discussion on the importance of timing in the relationship allegations and the impact on legal proceedings.
Presentation of evidence challenging the truthfulness of statements made by key figures in the case.
Analysis of the ethical violations and their potential to disqualify the prosecution due to an appearance of impropriety.
Consideration of the credibility concerns surrounding the prosecution and their ethical implications.
Introduction of evidence, including text messages and affidavits, to challenge the prosecution's narrative.
Discussion on the role of the court in addressing prosecutorial misconduct and ethical violations.
Exploration of the legal remedies available for addressing untruthful statements by the prosecution.
Comparison of ethical standards applied to defense counsel and prosecutors in the context of legal proceedings.
Evaluation of the burden of proof in establishing forensic misconduct and its impact on the case.
Conclusion highlighting the argument for disqualification of the prosecution based on ethical violations and misconduct.
Transcripts
I'm going to speak to what I would call
a subset of forensic
misconduct and I'm going to
assume that all the law that's been
provided to you in leadings as well as
emails you know you don't need me to
tell you what the law is so I want to
just set up how the disqualification and
then dismissal of the indictment should
take place under the subset of forensic
next
conduct Roman's Council this Merchant
filed on January 8th her pleading her
motion to dismiss and to
disqualify we were in
court that Friday of that week in which
I made it known that we that is
President Trump May adopt that motion I
waited to see wanted to see what was
going to happen before I did so
that Sunday which would be January the
14th
2024 da Willis took it upon herself to
go
to a historic black church in Atlanta
having not responded at all to the
motion of Miss Merchant's client Roman
and she made what we've now called The
Church speech and your honor has
reference to that
uh you didn't necessarily want evidence
on that but you know what the church spe
Church speech was it was videoed it was
clear that Miss uh Willis had notes she
was reading from notes that she had
prepared it was a calculated
determination by Miss Willis to
Prejudice the defendants and their
councel how so by making an issue out of
the fact that the person that was
challenged in the Roman motion
was black without telling the public or
the church members or anyone for that
matter that the reason that
Mr uh Wade was being challenged was not
because he was black had nothing to do
with race it had to do with the
relationship that had been alleged and
later admitted to
by Miss
Merchant Miss Willis took full
opportunity
to Prejudice the
defendant and then comes along later in
a pleading and says it wasn't designed
or intended to be at the defendants at
all or the defense Council which with
all due respect is just nonsense the
purpose of that was to get public
sympathy public empathy for what Miss
Merchant had already alleged in her
motion now that was a violation of the
professional rules of conduct it was a
violation of
3.8
G
there's no question about it it wasn't
in response to anything that was said it
was a public statement extrajudicial for
the purpose of making a comment upon the
defendant what would it would be in
response to a motion that was filed but
it wasn't filed in a response in a
pleading it was filed in response to a
motion and the motion were allegations
made as I if this will is wanted to
respond at that point she could have
said the facts of the matter instead she
misstated what the the situation was
took advantage of the
opportunity an ethical violation and the
ethical violation makes it clear that
you must refrain from making extra
judicial comments that have a
substantial likelihood of heightening
public condemnation of the accused can
you think of anything more that would
heighten public condemnation of the
defendants than alleging
that defense Council and the defendants
were making their motion based on race
and
religion that's as bad as it gets in
Folton County with all due respect
that's exactly that's exactly what Miss
Willis wanted done and remember the
state still had not
responded so then what we get from the
state is we get an affidavit filed as
part of their response
and that affidavit says
specifically and the affidavit is Mr
Wade says
specifically in paragraphs 26 and
27 that the relationship did not begin
until
2022 it acknowledges relationship and
says it didn't begin until
2022 and the pleading that's filed the
states pleading a response indicates not
exactly that but it says there was no
relationship as of November 1 of 2021
and that's on page
seven so now we know that timing is the
issue because this
Merchant made it clear that we alleged
and had evidence that that indicated the
timing was before Mr Wade was hired not
after so the state now has filed an
affidavit and a leading that claims post
hiring into
2022 and then Mr Wade will US testify to
the same thing under
oath now miss yti says it began in 2019
why would she know well she would know
because she was a former friend I know
the state's going to get up here and say
you can't believe essentially what
they're going to say is you can't
believe any defense witness because
they're defense Witnesses and only
people that would tell the truth would
be way and Willis I suggest to you that
that's not accurate I suggest that the
testimony that M Mr Wade gave and M
Willis gave and I'm specifically dealing
now with the timing issue without
getting into anything else that
that brought forth a true concern about
their truthfulness and being what is
required of a lawyer in this
state which is cander toward the
tribunal and that's 3.3 of professional
rules specifically um small A1 make a
false statement of material fact or law
to a
tribunal so that's as I posited it to
the court that's the second ethical
violation and then you also
have 8.4 of of professional rules it
says it's a violation of the Georgia
rules of professional conduct for lawyer
2 and that's A4 or engaged in a
professional conduct involving
dishonesty fraud deceit or
misrepresentation now do you have to
find that Wade and Willis lied no what
you need to be able to find is that
there is a concern a legitimate concern
based on the evidence in this case about
their truthfulness a legitimate concern
about the truthfulness which equates to
an appearance of
impropriety because once you have the
appearance of impropriety under forensic
misconduct the law in Georgia is clear
that's
enough to
disqualify so why should you find
there's a
concern with their
truthfulness ERT is the first one you
have that testimony but then we go to
what is the most obvious
indication that Willis and
Wade we not truthful on the point of
timing and that's
Bradley defense exhibit 26 came into
evidence defense exhibit 26 comes in and
says and you know I went into this last
hearing it
says that on January 5th
2024 at approximately 9:49 a.m. there's
text messages that are exchange between
Miss Merchant and Mr Bradley and the
text messages go like just date and
that's for Miss Merchant Miss Merchant
says do you think it started before she
hired him Bradley who we now know from
defense exhibit 39 has been texting with
Miss Merchant for a number of months
this is not the first time this is
months within the the communications
between the two Mr Bradley says
absolutely now absolutely is not a
speculative word that's not speculation
that's a definitive
statement and Bradley then
unprompted as this and unprompted is
important it started when she left the
DA's office and was a judge in South
Fulton goes on Miss Merchant says or he
she liked it started when she left the
DA's office with the
appropriate um Emoji or whatever one
would call it to say it was liked and
then M Bradley Mr Bradley say they met
at the Municipal Court clle conference
again unprompted he's now definitively
telling Miss Merchant when this
relationship
started Miss Merchant says that's what I
figured when he was married and then
this Merchant says and we're now talking
about a couple hours later
she texts and says upon information and
belief Willis and Wade met while both
were serving as magistrate judges and
began a romantic relationship at that
time and Mr Bradley responds no
Municipal Court thank you doesn't say it
didn't start then he doesn't suggest
that she's wrong other than magistrate
court minicipal now we have that and
it's in evidence and what does Bradley
do he knows that he's put himself in a
position that if he testifies truthfully
on the witness
stand your honor is in a position to be
able to
find if you choose to that both ws and
weade lied so what does Bradley
do look you were an assistant us
attorney you know how this works when
you have witnesses in this situation Mr
Bradley did everything he could possibly
do to evade answering questions no
recollection couldn't remember it was
speculation anything he could possibly
say that would cause your
honor not to believe that Bradley knew
when this relationship started I suggest
they were clear-cut lies and the truth
is in defense exhibit 26 and so if we
take that view that he thoroughly
impeached himself that he did not give
truthful
conduct uh you know what's left standing
generally you would see someone who's
impeach be have perhaps we have some
kind of core that you could point back
to and say that's the time he was
telling the truth in these text messages
is it ever definitively shown how he
knew this and that he actually did know
it other than an just a assertion
outright absolutely usually if a state
has a witness that goes sideways they've
got them locked in they've sat down with
a detective got a full state statement
we don't have that here but what you
have is a text message which is a prior
statement of
Bradley that he did on his own that was
not given to him by someone else the
only thing that the court is just noted
is how do we know he wasn't speculating
because you don't have to accept the
fact that he wasn't speculating the
cases that I provided I think by email
yesterday the first um dealing with that
you can disbelieve that testimony and
draw a negative inference that's the
Ferguson case on Lee the other case you
can simply take the prior inconsistent
statement as substan of evidence it has
the same value and that's what I'm
asking you to do to take what was the
unprompted statement in defense exhibit
26 of Bradley and take that on its face
face value that that is an indication
that Bradley in fact knew and had said
he did if you accept
that you have to have concerns about the
truthfulness of Willis and Wade on the
timing issue and and I don't know if
this is something maybe one of your
co-counsel were going to address as well
we heard about kind of the law that
applies how we're we're outside kind of
the orbit of of the core of cases we're
used to dealing with here where it deals
with side switching or uh where someone
is in the uh relationship the client
relationship the proposition you're
putting forward now is that if a
representative of the state a lead
prosecutor of the district attorney
themselves um says something that's
untruthful on the record that is
something that immediately has to be
proactively policed by the trial court
is basically what I'm getting at is
where in the law do we find the remedy
to an untruthful statement
generally we send you down the street to
the bar right and that's why I gave you
the cases of registe and Edwards
yesterday while those aren't prosecut
torial cases or dealing with prosecutors
they deal with counsel and in both those
cases the trial judge found ethical
violations on the part
of defense counsil or potential ethical
violations went through the ethical
violations and said based on that you're
disqualified you cannot be the attorney
of record in this case it's good for the
goose it's good for the gander if
defense Council can be kicked off of a
case because of ethical violations I
suggest this same thing can happen for
prosecutors when ethical violations deal
with truthfulness cander to the court
extrajudicial
statement uh those are the things that
this court can rely upon and say based
on those again I find an appearance of
impropriety where where would be the
limiting principle uh the district
attorney signs every indictment assigned
to this courtroom does that mean she's
off every case no it would be when the
if I found that she's untruthful is that
what you're kind of suggesting though
you don't have to find again I'm not
saying you have to find she was
untruthful or that Wade was untruthful
you don't have to make a finding of fact
that they lied all you have to do is
make a finding of fact that you have
genuine legitimate concerns about their
credibility about their truthfulness and
once you find that then you can apply
registe and and uh Edwards well but it's
the same principle though if I have
genuine concerns about her truthfulness
on a particular occasion how do those
not spill over into every criminal case
a district attorney brings well it's
because she testified under oath and so
did Mr Wade they didn't have to testify
falsely they could have testified
truthfully they could have indicated
that the relationship the timing was in
fact before Mr Wade was hired they chose
not to and in that sense that dishonesty
that constitutes a violation of their
ethical responsibilities this is not
sign an indictment this is not filing a
pleading in which both sides have their
own positions this is a requirement that
every witness has to tell the truth
under oath and if they don't tell the
truth under oath or there's a
significant concern about their
credibility then they're violating their
ethical rules and as anyone will tell
you as your honor already knew from when
you were a prosecutor prosecutors are
held to a higher
standard they're the ones that are
supposed to be Seeking Justice they
don't have a particular they're supposed
to be
disinterested when you have the lead
prosecutor and the DA giving what I
suggest to you is
uh untruthful testimony based on what
Yer has said based on what Bradley said
in his text based on the whole way it
was presented to you Bradley didn't want
to testify he first came up with his
attorney client privilege thing on that
and your honor was fortunately went into
that and then when Bradley knew he had
to testify about it you saw what
happened you can draw the inference as
I've suggested on
Bradley that what he said in the text
message defense exhibit 26 is true the
relationship in fact started prior to
November 1st of 2021 that ER says that
and now without getting into any detail
the cell phone records the cell phone
records show that during that period of
time from let's say April 1 of 2021 to
November 1st I'm sorry November 30th of
2021 that there was a number a
considerable number of 35 or more um
occasions where it appeared that based
on the records that Mr Wade was down in
the area where Miss Willis was saying in
the A's
department but more important is there
are two occasions and the state has not
challenged challeng those there are two
occasions where the records