[ad_1]
Ga. case: Summations have concluded
Closing arguments have ended in the effort to disqualify Willis in Georgia. McAfee said he will decide in the next two weeks.
Ga. case: The prosecution is done with arguments
The prosecution is done with its closing arguments and Willis has left the room. Sadow, Trump’s attorney, is now giving a five-minute rebuttal argument.
Ga. case: Abbate questions why Willis would push for a speedy trial if she financially benefits from relationship with Wade
Abbate questioned the idea that Willis was financially benefiting from her relationship with Wade, pointing to her push for a speedy trial and decision to indict only 19 of 39 potential defendants.
“Why would Ms. Willis repeatedly ask this court to set a trial date as soon as possible if her motive in prosecuting this case was to continue to financially gain, as alleged, from the prosecution of this case?” he said. “It doesn’t line up. It doesn’t make sense.”
Abbate argued that Willis’ accommodations were not lavish.
“She stayed at a DoubleTree in Napa. A DoubleTree. I don’t know that to be a lavish hotel,” Abbate said.
“So the allegations and assertions that Ms. Willis was living the lifestyle of the rich and the famous is a joke, an absolute joke,” he added.
Ga. case: Abbate raises concerns about defense’s use of cellphone records
Asked by McAfee about the cellphone records submitted by the defense, Abbate said prosecutors had “several foundational concerns as it relates to the cellphone records.”
Abbate alleged that the records “were not analyzed by an expert and not peer-reviewed.”
“The normal practices that are used to check data were not used here,” he added.
He also said the defense’s contention that Wade visited Hapeville 23 times in a period of January-March 2021 is complicated by the fact that Willis didn’t live in the Hapeville area at the time. Out of the 35 times Wade’s handset connected to Hapeville cell towers in 2021, Willis wasn’t there at least eight times, Abbate said.
Ga. case: State argues that there is an inherent partisan bias
In his closing arguments, Abbate cited case law that says a prosecutor is “necessarily a partisan in the case,” pushing back on the argument from the defense that Willis is biased.
“The appearance of impropriety is to apply to judges, not prosecutors,” Abbate added.
He said that if prosecutors were held to the same impartial standards as judges, “then there would never be a criminal prosecution because the state is always going to appear biased.”
Ga. case: Defense attorneys laugh at prosecutor’s claim that ‘actual conflict’ must be found
Defense attorneys Harry MacDougald and Scott Grubman laughed at prosecutor Adam Abbate saying there’s no case disqualifying a district attorney that solely relies on appearance of impropriety.
Every instance of disqualification relied on the finding of an actual conflict of interest, Abbate said.
“The state would contend and submit to the court that the defense must show an actual conflict in order to have the district attorney disqualified, and that actual conflict has to be in the form of showing Ms. Willis, in this instance, received a financial benefit or gain in relation to the outcome of the case,” Abbate said.
“I would submit to the court we have absolutely no evidence that Ms. Willis received any financial gain or benefit,” he added.
McAfee also appeared skeptical, questioning whether Abbate’s contention that an actual conflict needed to be demonstrated in terms of just the outcome of a case or could apply to the prosecution thereof. Abbate agreed that any benefit gained during the prosecution would apply to the outcome of the case.
Ga. case: Willis is listening intently to prosecution
Willis is leaning back in her chair, listening to closing arguments.
Fla. case: Court adjourns with no trial date set
Just before 3 p.m., Cannon adjourned court for the day, with no date set for the start of a trial in the classified documents case.
Ga. case: Prosecution accuses defense of ‘material misrepresentations’
The prosecution gets underway with its closing arguments, with Abbate saying, “I am strongly bringing to the court’s attention that the claims that were made were material misrepresentations.” He’s referencing MacDougald’s claims that the prosecutors knew Bradley was perjuring himself.
Ga. case: Willis is in the courtroom
Willis is in the courtroom sitting with Wade at the prosecution table.
Ga. case: Court takes break before prosecution closing
The court is taking a short break before prosecution closing arguments.
Ga. case: Defense keeps bringing up Willis’ church speech
In his portion of the closing arguments, defense attorney Richard Rice continues to talk about the speech Willis gave at the Big Bethel AME church in January, shortly after the motion to disqualify her was filed.
“She said in that church speech … ‘This leader has a trial conviction rate of 95%. The trial team this leader put together has a conviction rate of 95%,'” Rice said, clarifying that Willis was referring to herself as “this leader.”
“I do not see how anyone can listen to those two statements and not take that Ms. Willis is telling everyone … that these defendants are guilty,” Rice added.
Ga. case: One defendant, Trevian Kutti, is in the courtroom
Trevian Kutti, one of Trump’s co-defendants in this case, is also present in this courtroom. Kutti, a former publicist who worked for celebrities including Kanye West, is accused of having worked to intimidate Georgia election worker Ruby Freeman.
Ga. case: Defense says all prosecutors present for Wade testimony should be disqualified
Harry MacDougal, the lawyer for Jeffrey Clark, argued that all of the prosecutors present for Nathan Wade’s testimony should be disqualified as they “did nothing to correct obviously perjured testimony.”
Fla. case: Special counsel estimates ‘somewhere in the neighborhood of 40’ trial witnesses
When Cannon asked the special counsel team how many potential individuals are on the government’s witness list, assistant special counsel David Harbach, after briefly consulting with counsel, replied that the initial list supplied was “80-something.”
Cannon replied that she remembered 87 appearing on the proposed list. Harbach continued that their estimate for trial would be “somewhere in the neighborhood of 40,” roughly 25 of whom would be redacted.
He added that there would be no witnesses on FOIA materials.
Ga. case: Gillen: Willis played ‘the race card’
In his portion of the closing arguments, Craig Gillen, who is Shafer’s attorney, said that rather than responding in a filing to the allegations in this motion, Willis “chose to deflect and to do two things that are reprehensible for any lawyer, but particularly for prosecutor. She chose to pull out the race card and the God card.”
Willis is “deflecting to what I call the third rail in American society: accusing somebody on the other side of being a racist. ‘So-and-so is a racist. They’re racist,'” Gillen said.
“She was the one playing the race card in a way to try to deflect from her own conduct,” he continued, citing Willis’ recent remarks before a church.
“It’s as though she’s telling the folks in her very, very implicit way, injecting into the minds of the jurors, ‘God wants me to win this case. God wants me to prosecute this case, and why are these others going after the Black man?'” Gillen added.
Ga. case: Trump lawyer says judge doesn’t have to decide ‘they lied’
Trump’s lawyer Steve Sadow told the judge that he didn’t have to decide in this hearing that Willis and Wade lied. He said that what he had to do is “make a finding of the fact that you have genuine legitimate concerns about their credibility and their truthfulness.”
Sadow then pushed the judge on the threshold for misconduct, saying that it only needed to be a “preponderance of evidence.”
Ga. case: Defense lawyers argue the value of benefit Willis received doesn’t matter
In his closing arguments, Merchant says Willis has received $9,200 in personal financial benefit from her relationship with Wade, but the amount of money doesn’t matter as much as the fact that she did benefit financially.
“Is $50 enough? Is $100 enough? So I think it’s not necessarily the amount of the money. It’s the fact that she received it and it’s not insignificant,” Merchant said.
“When you’re a public official, and you’re required to keep track of gifts that you receive, then you need to keep track of it. But there’s no paper trail, there’s no deposit history, there’s no withdrawal history, there’s no receipts, none of that,” Merchant added.
Ga. case: Merchant defends his wife: ‘Evaluate the credibility of the lawyers’
As part of his closing arguments, John Merchant defended his wife, Ashleigh, a lawyer for Trump co-defendant Michael Roman who led much of the witness questioning in this case.
“I will resist the temptation to defend my wife, who I believe to be an excellent lawyer,” John Merchant told the judge, adding, “But I will say this, judge: You don’t just evaluate the credibility of the witness list. You evaluate the credibility of the lawyers.”
Merchant said Adam Abbate, a lawyer for the state, “stood up here in open court … and called her a liar.”
“For the state to get up here and impugn her credibility” is inappropriate, Merchant added.
Ga. case: Merchant invokes Supreme Court pornography standard to describe misconduct: ‘You know it when you see it’
John Merchant invoked a quote from a Supreme Court decision on obscenity written by Justice Potter Stewart saying that when it comes to pornography, “I know it when I see it.” He said the allegations of misconduct against Willis fit this threshold of appearance of impropriety.
Ga. case: Merchant says Willis has ‘personal interest’ in Trump case
John Merchant, the lawyer for Michael Roman, argued that Fani Willis had “a personal interest in the case.” When the judge pressed him on what that means, Merchant said, “There’s no definition of that under Georgia law” but that it could be financial or otherwise, but that the most important consideration was “what this looks like to the public.”
Fla. case: Court back in session
Court appears to be back in session as the hearing over scheduling the classified documents trial continues.
A federal hearing underway in Florida could determine when Trump’s trial on charges that he mishandled classified documents could begin. Watch “Ana Cabrera Reports” for more on the scheduling hearing.
Closing arguments to begin on bid to disqualify Fulton County DA Fani Willis from Trump election case
ATLANTA — Closing arguments are set to take place Friday afternoon over whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis should be disqualified from the Georgia election interference case against former President Donald Trump and his co-defendants.
The stakes are high: If Willis is removed because of the misconduct allegations, her entire office would be disqualified, as well, and a new prosecutor would have to take over the sprawling case alleging that Trump and his allies conspired to illegally overturn the election results in the state.
One of Trump’s co-defendants, former Trump White House and campaign staffer Michael Roman, filed a motion seeking Willis’ disqualification and the dismissal of the criminal case. Roman, and later Trump, accused her of having an “improper” personal relationship with Nathan Wade, the lawyer she’d appointed as a special prosecutor in the case.
Roman alleged that Willis skirted the rules to appoint Wade and that she benefited financially from his appointment, which has earned his office over $600,000 to date.
Ga. case: What you might have missed in the Fulton County case
- A trial date in the case has yet to be set.
- One of Trump’s co-defendants, Michael Roman, was the first to allege that Fani Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade engaged in a romantic relationship, alleging she improperly benefited from it.
- The relationship caused Judge Scott McAfee to hold a hearing earlier this month to hear testimony on the issue as he considers whether Willis should be disqualified from prosecuting the election interference case.
- Willis and Wade testified and said they’d dated for a little over a year after he was appointed as special prosecutor and that she didn’t profit from his work. Both said that while Wade would sometimes charge plane tickets for Willis to his credit card, she’d repay him with cash or by picking up other bills.
- Earlier this week, Wade’s former divorce attorney, Terrence Bradley, retook the stand and testified that he couldn’t remember key details related to the misconduct allegations.
Fla. case: Cannon’s decision could affect Trump’s other trials
Cannon’s decision will be critical in shaping the timeline for Trump’s court proceedings this year as he also faces trials in three other cases: the hush money charges in New York and separate election interference charges in Washington, D.C., and Fulton County, Georgia.
The New York trial will start late next month, with jury selection scheduled to begin March 25, and is estimated to last about six weeks. The Washington trial, which was originally set for March 4, was indefinitely postponed as the Supreme Court weighs Trump’s claims of presidential immunity. A trial in the Georgia case has not been scheduled, and it’s up in the air whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis will be able to prosecute the case following misconduct claims against her. On Friday afternoon, a Fulton County judge is hearing closing arguments on the motion to disqualify Willis.
Fla. case: Trump lawyers, special counsel split over how much of their political thinking potential jurors should have to disclose
Former President Donald Trump‘s lawyers and special counsel Jack Smith’s team are at odds over how much about their personal politics potential jurors have to disclose on a questionnaire for the classified documents case.
The two sides’ joint proposed jury questionnaire agreed on most questions but noted their disagreements on some — including those about political affiliations.
The defense proposed questions about whether potential jurors were registered to vote and registered with a political party and whether they voted in the 2020 election. The special counsel’s team objected to the questions in the filing Wednesday.
The special counsel proposed asking potential jurors whether they believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen. Trump’s team objected to the question.
Trump’s team is pushing to add a question about whether potential jurors view politicians in a negative light. The questionnaire also asks about views about federal prosecutors, law enforcement, criminal defense attorneys and judges.
What happens if Fulton County DA Fani Willis is disqualified from the Trump racketeering case?
If a Georgia judge signs off on a bid to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from her racketeering case against former President Donald Trump and numerous co-defendants, it could delay any trial until well after the 2024 election — and possibly scuttle the charges altogether, legal experts told NBC News.
For a new prosecutor to take over the sprawling 15-defendant case would be a “massive undertaking,” said Amy Lee Copeland, a defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor in Georgia, adding that the theoretical new prosecutor could decide to amend the charges or even “decide not to pursue it.”
Ga. case: Defense begins closing arguments
John Merchant, Roman’s defense attorney, is starting his closing arguments, focusing on what he alleges is a conflict of interest on Willis’ part.
Closing arguments have begun in Georgia misconduct hearing
Closing arguments have begun in the Fulton County, Georgia, hearing on misconduct allegations against District Attorney Fani Willis.
DOJ suggests Trump criminal trials could take place close to the election
Cannon raised the question of whether or not a delay in the trial start would be in violation of the DOJ’s “60-day rule” that prevents it from engaging in actions that could influence an election.
The government argued that it was “in full compliance with the justice manual” and that the rule did not apply to cases that have already been brought.
A lawyer for Trump argued that the key question for trial scheduling was now whether a fall trial would be “complete election interference.”
Court has paused for a lunch break
Court has adjourned for one hour for lunch.
Trump lawyers cite campaign obligations and N.Y. trial as reasons for delay
The defense argued that a trial starting this year would be “unfair to Trump as a nominee for president” due to his campaign schedule. They also cited the trial in New York over alleged hush money payments as a reason for delay, saying that Trump planned to be there nearly every day (criminal defendants are normally required to attend all trial dates).
What is an evidentiary hearing?
Trump’s attorneys are asking for the trial to be delayed until after an evidentiary hearing in August.
An evidentiary hearing is when the court hears what evidence prosecutors have on a specific topic and determines what evidence will be allowed to be presented at trial.
It’s unclear so far what evidence Trump’s team was asking to be reviewed at the hearing Friday, but in a court filing Thursday they indicated they wanted numerous evidentiary hearings on their motions to suppress information from the FBI’s search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, and to compel the government to turn over any evidence related to their claims of selective and vindictive prosecution, and on prosecutorial misconduct. They also asked for another on their claim that Trump’s actions were protected under the Presidential Records Act.
Trump’s attorneys told the judge they thought the hearing would take more than a day. Smith’s team told the judge it doesn’t think an evidentiary hearing is necessary.
Lawyers for Trump argue that summer trial date is ‘unfair’ and ‘an impossibility’
In response to the prosecution’s proposed start date of July 8, defense attorneys argued that holding the trial before the election is “unfair” and that the July date is “an impossibility for the defendant” due to the New York criminal case beginning March 25. They proposed evidentiary hearings beginning in August.
Federal prosecutors and Trump attorneys propose new trial dates in classified documents case
Attorneys for special counsel Jack Smith and Trump proposed new trial dates Thursday for the former president’s criminal trial on charges that he mishandled classified documents and national security secrets.
Federal prosecutors proposed a July 8 start date, while attorneys for Trump suggested he stand trial on Aug. 12. Trump’s proposed date was a surprise because he and his attorneys have maintained that the trial should be held after the presidential election in November.
Cannon had asked both sides to propose a schedule ahead of a hearing on the issue in Fort Pierce, Florida, on Friday. The case was initially scheduled to go to trial in May, but it’s been expected that the original start date would be pushed back because of a number of outstanding legal issues that have yet to be decided by the court.
Trump arrives at courthouse
Trump has arrived at the courthouse in Fort Pierce, Florida.
Nikki Haley calls for all Trump legal cases to be ‘dealt with’ before November
Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley said that all of former President Donald Trump‘s legal cases should be “dealt with” before the presidential election.
“I think all of the cases should be dealt with before November,” Haley said yesterday in an interview with NBC News’ “Meet the Press“ moderator Kristen Welker in Falls Church, Virginia, where voters will cast their primary ballots Tuesday.
“We need to know what’s going to happen before it, before the presidency happens, because after that, should he become president, I don’t think any of it’s going to get heard,” she continued.
Haley spoke a day after the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether Trump could claim presidential immunity in response to criminal charges. It could take months for the high court to reach a decision, pushing back the potential timeline for his election interference trial.
“I just think a president has to live according to the laws, too. You don’t get complete immunity,” she said, addressing the Supreme Court’s decision to take the case. She added that presidents should not get “free rein to do whatever they want to do.”
Highlights from the documents case so far
- Trump, his aide Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos Oliveira were charged last summer in a superseding indictment in the case by special counsel Jack Smith. They also pleaded not guilty.
- Trump is facing 40 criminal charges in the case, including willful retention of national defense information, false statements and representations, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and corruptly concealing documents.
- Lawyers for the former president recently filed motions to get the case tossed, citing Trump’s claims of presidential immunity even though the alleged crimes happened after he served in the White House.
- Federal officials from a U.S. attorney’s office were recently investigating online threats that a potential government witness in the case received.
Judge to hold critical hearing that could postpone trial in Trump classified documents case
The federal judge overseeing the classified documents case against Trump will hold a key hearing in Florida today as she considers pushing back the trial date of May 20.
The hearing is set to begin in Fort Pierce at 10 a.m. ET and should last most of the day. The judge, Aileen Cannon, has left several issues about how to proceed with the documents case unresolved. Trump is expected to attend the hearing.
In filings last night that had been requested by Cannon, special counsel Jack Smith’s office suggested pushing the trial back to July 8, while Trump’s lawyers proposed an Aug. 12 start date. Trump’s attorneys also made clear that they believe the trial should be pushed back until after November’s election.
“As the leading candidate in the 2024 election, President Trump strongly asserts that a fair trial cannot be conducted this year in a manner consistent with the Constitution, which affords President Trump a Sixth Amendment right to be present and to participate in these proceedings” and “a First Amendment right that he shares with the American people to engage in campaign speech,” they wrote.
Both sides also submitted a lengthy joint proposal for a questionnaire for potential jurors, but there were some areas among the 99 questions where they did not agree, including how long the trial will take. Smith’s office estimated four to six weeks, while Trump’s team put it at eight to 10 weeks. Smith’s team also wants to ask potential jurors if they believe the 2020 election was stolen; Trump’s side wants to know whether they voted that year.
[ad_2]
Source link