Login
Politico reports that Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (a Democrat, of course) is accelerating an investigation that may lead to prosecutions of people close to President Trump’s 2020 campaign. Which is odd on its face, since the events that are the basis for the investigation happened more than three years ago. Why the sudden hurry? Obviously, Democrats see that Joe Biden is losing, and are throwing the kitchen sink at Trump:
Arizona prosecutors in recent weeks issued grand jury subpoenas to multiple people linked to Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign, a sharp acceleration of their criminal investigation into efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s victory in the state.
The new steps, first reported here, are a sign that Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, is nearing a decision on whether to charge Trump’s allies in the state, including GOP activists who falsely posed as presidential electors in December 2020.
“Falsely posed as electors.” What an absurd characterization! In a number of states, Trump’s campaign had people lined up to be electors on his behalf in the event that his various legal challenges might succeed before the Electoral College met. There is nothing wrong with this, let alone illegal. The same thing happened in Hawaii in 1960, and would have happened in Florida in 2000 if the Supreme Court hadn’t first put the matter to rest.
The “fake elector” theory is one of several ways in which the Democrats have tried to criminalize making claims of voter fraud. In the wake of the 2020 election, Donald Trump and many others believed that the election had been stolen by the Biden campaign. Were they right? I doubt it, but we will never know for sure. There wasn’t enough time between the election and Biden’s inauguration for claims of voter fraud to be litigated on the merits, and in no case did any court ever permit the necessary discovery, conduct a trial and make findings on the extent of voter fraud by the Democrats.
In multiple criminal proceedings, Trump is accused of “trying to overturn” — or “plotting to overturn” — the result of the 2020 election. Again, there is nothing wrong with this. Al Gore tried to overturn the result of the 2000 election, and Al Franken got into the U.S. Senate by overturning the result of an election. There is nothing wrong with pursuing legal election remedies. And where extensive voter fraud is suspected, an attempt to investigate, litigate and overturn a fraudulent result is commendable, not criminal. But the reality is that voter fraud can only be prevented; it can’t be litigated and corrected after the fact. The Democrats have blocked common-sense ballot security measures at every opportunity, and they have no one but themselves to blame if the public widely suspects that our elections are rigged.
Sadly, it appears that some Trump associates have been bullied into guilty pleas in shameful criminal proceedings alleging that they were “fake electors.” This reflects the reality that government at either the federal or the state level can destroy your life at will. At some point, nearly everyone will surrender rather than go through bankruptcy and see his or her life destroyed.
The misuse of criminal proceedings by the Democratic Party to punish its political opponents is the most vicious legacy of our current political crisis.
Attorney Terrence Bradley testified last week in the hearing on the possible disqualification of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and Special Counsel Nathan Wade in the “conspiracy so immense” charges against President Trump et al. pending in Georgia state court. Bradley is Wade’s former law partner and lawyer in his divorce proceeding. He knows when the Willis/Wade romance began because Wade told him.
Indeed, Bradley had previously stated in text messages to Ashleigh Merchant (attorney for defendant Michael Roman) that: (1) the relationship between Willis and Wade started before he was appointed special prosecutor, (2) the relationship started while they were both magistrate judges, and (3) the motion to disqualify Willis, which alleged the start date of the relationship, was accurate.
However, that’s not the way it turned out on the witness stand. After long pauses, Bradley disavowed his previous statements. He couldn’t recall. He was speculating. As in the old Jack Benny joke, he was thinking about it. He knew nothing. It made for painful viewing. Everyone in the room knew that Bradley was lying. Which means that Willis and Wade had lied in their testimony, which was almost as obvious.
Judge Scott McAfee heard oral argument on the disqualification motion this past Friday. He announced that he would render a decision within two weeks. I think he left the bench knowing what he would do.
Now comes counsel for defendant David J. Shafer to add to the lyin’ record on the matter of disqualification. According to counsel in a three-page filing setting forth Notice of Proposed Testimony, Cobb County prosecutor Cindi Lee Yeager had “numerous, in-person and other conversations” with Bradley in which they discussed information about Willis and Wade. Bradley told Yeager that the two met during a 2019 judicial conference and that Wade “began his romantic relationship” with the future DA “at or around this time.”
The filing also describes a meeting around September 2023 when Bradley was visiting Yeager in her office and got a phone call. “Ms. Yeager could hear that the caller was District Attorney Willis. District Attorney Willis was calling Mr. Bradley in response to an article that was published about how much money Mr. Wade and his law partners had been paid in this case,” according to the filing. “Ms. Yeager heard District Attorney Willis tell Mr. Bradley: “They are coming after us. You don’t need to talk to them about anything about us.”
The Daily Mail runs it all down along with exhibits and videos in “Fani Willis warned Nathan Wade’s divorce lawyer to stay quiet about their affair, bombshell new court filing claims: Trump prosecutor case gets another twist with NEW witness that could deliver devastating testimony.” Jonathan Turley provides a link to the new filing in the tweet below.
My guess is that Judge McAfee has heard enough. He knows how he wants to decide the disqualification motion. Anyone with half a brain could see that Bradley was lying. Bradley could not have made it more obvious if he had wanted to, although (with apologies to the great Jeremiah Denton) he might have blinked out “I-M-L-Y-I-N-G” in Morse Code if he knew it.
There is a new filing in the Fani Willis case that contradicts the much maligned testimony of Nathan Wade’s former partner Terrence Bradley. A prosecutor has come forward to say that Bradley told him with clarity of the personal relationship began earlier. https://t.co/HWtlWhdmyK
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 4, 2024
Atlanta attorney Harry MacDougald is our old Rathergate friend. He helped us get the ball rolling in “The 61st minute” on the morning of September 9, 2004. Writing under the screen name Buckhead, Harry observed in comment number 47 of Free Republic’s Rathergate thread: “I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old. This should be pursued aggressively.” Life has never been quite the same since we took his cue and followed up.
Harry is the managing partner of Atlanta’s Caldwell, Carlson, Elliott & DeLoach law firm. He represents defendant Jeffrey Clark in the “conspiracy so immense” case brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. We have followed defendants’ motion to disqualify Willis from prosecuting the case. It turns out that Willis appointed her boyfriend Nathan Wade as special prosecutor in the case. Willis, Wade, and others have testified under oath on the facts underlying the conflict issues raised by defendants. I commented, most recently, in “Whole lotta lyin’ goin’ on.”
Yesterday Judge Scott McAfee held a three-hour hearing for oral argument by the attorneys on the disqualification motion. Harry was the star of the show. His thirteen-minute argument begins at 01:12:40 of the video of the hearing at the bottom. Students of ancient history may recall the role of CBS News in Rathergate. It has posted a decent account of the hearing.
I have my doubts that Judge McAfee will grant the disqualification motion, but I have no doubt that he should or that Harry accurately captured the essence of the evidence before the court. Referring to the Office of the Fulton County District Attorney and the Willis/Wade matter, Harry concluded: “This office is a global laughingstock because of their conduct.”
I reached out to Harry for a comment after the hearing yesterday. He declined to comment one way or the other on the hearing, although he did comment favorably on Power Line. My comment is that Harry was right about Rathergate and he is right about the disgrace to be resolved by the court on the pending motion.
Attorney Terrence Bradley testified yesterday in the hearing on the possible disqualification of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and Special Counsel Nathan Wade in the “conspiracy so immense” charges against President Trump et al. pending in Georgia state court. Bradley is Wade’s former law partner and lawyer in his divorce proceeding. He knows when the Willis/Wade romance began because Wade told him.
Indeed, as Techno Fog notes, Bradley has previously stated in text messages to Ashleigh Merchant (attorney for defendant Michael Roman) that: (1) the relationship between Willis and Wade started before he was appointed special prosecutor, (2) the relationship started while they were both magistrate judges, and (3) the motion to disqualify Willis, which alleged the start date of the relationship, was accurate.
However, that’s not the way it turned out on the witness stand. After long pauses, Bradley disavowed his previous statements. He couldn’t recall. He was speculating. As in the old Jack Benny joke, he was thinking about it. He knew nothing.
Mr. Fog offers pierces the fog with this clear summary of Bradley’s testimony: “[Bradley] speculated about the start of the relationship, only had one meeting with Wade about the relationship, and has no personal knowledge as to when the relationship started. All of that, of course, was contradicted by his prior representations to Ms. Merchant.”
It made for painful viewing. Everyone in the room knew that Bradley was lying. Which means that Willis and Wade had lied in their testimony, which was almost as obvious. Below is an excerpt of Bradley’s testimony that ran in full over two hours. As I say, it makes for painful viewing.
Vaunce News 