Trump indicted AGAIN
- Thread starter CouldntBeMeTho
- Start date
Donald Trump Complains His Lawyer Gave Him 'Not Good Advice'
Dec 08, 2023 at 5:45 AM ESTDonald Trump Complains His Lawyer Gave Him 'Not Good Advice'[/SIZE]
By James Bickerton
US News Reporter
FOLLOW
Donald Trump hit out at one of his own lawyers over the advice he says he received in the civil sexual assault case brought against him by writer E. Jean Carroll, in a post on his Truth Social website on Thursday.
In May, a New York jury found the former presidentliable for sexually abusing Carroll in the Bergdorf Goodman department store during the mid-1990s and then defaming her character once the accusation became public. Trump, who continues to strongly deny the claims against him, was ordered to pay $5 million in compensation and punitive damages.
Trump did not appear before the New York court in person despite at one point telling journalists he "probably" would attend. This was used against the former president by Carroll's lawyer Mike Ferrara who, addressing the jurors, said: "He never looked you in the eye and denied raping Ms. Carroll."
Trump suggested he regrets this decision in a Truth Social post: "I was asked by my lawyer not to attend—'It was beneath me, and they have no case.' That was not good advice."
In the same post, he also hit out at Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn co-founder who helped fund Carroll's case and recently donated $250,000 to a Super PAC supporting Republican presidential contender Nikki Haley.
The 2024 GOP frontrunner shared screenshots from a New York Times article about Hoffman's support for Haley, adding: "This disgusting Slob, a Democrat Political Operative, is the same guy who funded a woman who I knew absolutely nothing about, sued me for Rape, for which I was found NOT GUILTY.
"She didn't remember the year, decade, or much else! In Interviews she said some amazingly 'inconsistent' things. Disgraceful Trial—Very unfair."
Contrary to Trump's claim, he was not found "not guilty" of rape. The jury found him liable for sexual abuse but not rape. Civil cases do typically not speak, like criminal ones, of guilt or innocence but instead use the terms "liable" or "not liable."
Trump was represented in the Carroll case by Joseph Tacopina, but it's not clear if this is who he was referring to in the Truth Social post. The former president employs a range of lawyers in his various legal disputes, which include four upcoming criminal trials.
Newsweek has reached out to Tacopina for comment by email and Trump via the press enquiry form on his official website.
Sign up for Newsweek’s daily headlines
In September, New York Judge Lewis Kaplan concluded Trump had defamed Carroll in a second lawsuit stemming from his response to her initial public accusation in mid-2019 and comments made in May during a CNN town hall, where he branded her a "whack job" making "fake" claims. The trial to determine what damages he must pay is set to begin in January.
Speaking to Newsweek, Dave Aronberg, the state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, said there is no limit to the number of times Carroll can sue Trump for making defamatory statements.
Former President Donald Trump attends his civil fraud trial in New York State Supreme Court on December 7, 2023 in New York City. Trump said he did not receive "good advice" from his lawyer in a civil sexual assault case.DAVID DEE DELGADO/GETTY
He said: "Trump can be sued every time he defames her, through his speeches and written words. Each successive case becomes easier for Carroll's lawyers to win."
According to The New York Times, billionaire Hoffman, who has previously donated large sums to the Democrats, recently gave $250,000 to SFA Fund Inc., a super PAC supporting former South Carolina Governor Haley's bid for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.
Haley attracted a surge in support from prominent business figures following a strong performance in the third Republican debate and after a Wall Street Journal poll put her second behind Trump as Republicans' favored presidential candidate, on 15 percent versus his 59 percent.[/LEFT]
Trump paid me to find voter fraud. Then he lied after I found 2020 election wasn't stolen.
My company's contract with the Trump campaign obligated us to deliver evidence of voter fraud. The small amount of fraud I found was bipartisan.
www.usatoday.com
OPINION
Donald Trump
Trump paid me to find voter fraud. Then he lied after I found 2020 election wasn't stolen.
The cries that the 2020 election was lost or stolen due to voter fraud continue with no sign of stopping. But If voter fraud had impacted the 2020 election, it would already have been proven.
Ken BlockOpinion contributor
Can a steady diet of lies and innuendo overcome the truth?
In November 2020, former President Donald Trump asserted that voter fraud had altered the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. The day after the election, his campaign hired an expert in voter data to attempt to prove Trump’s allegations and put him back in the White House.
I am the expert who was hired by the Trump campaign.
The findings of my company’s in-depth analysis are detailed in the depositions taken by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. The transcripts show that the campaign found no evidence of voter fraud sufficient to change the outcome of any election. That message was communicated directly to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.
Our findings have also been subpoenaed by special counsel Jack Smith’s federal investigation and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ investigation in Georgia. Those emails and documents show that the voter data available to the campaign contained no evidence of large-scale voter fraud based on data mining and fraud analytics.
More important, claims of voter fraud made by others were verified as false, including proof of why those claims were disproven.
And yet, the cries that the election was lost or stolen due to voter fraud continue with no sign of stopping. Whether a stump speech, outrageous lawsuits like the so-called Kraken cases filed by Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani’s lies or the ongoing misguided efforts of people determined to prove the election was stolen, the constant drumbeat hardens people’s hearts and minds to the truth about the 2020 election.
Trump's trial raises questions: If Trump's sure he has immunity, he should work with – not against – prosecutor Jack Smith
Rudy Giuliani lied about voter fraud in Georgia
It’s part of a steady diet of innuendo, misrepresentations and outright lies when it comes to the issue of voter fraud. Giuliani admitted he lied about Ruby Freeman and her daughter committing election crimes in Georgia. Stories that set the record straight about election innuendo are not typically broadcast in right-leaning media, which means that millions of people receive no information to help them make a more informed decision about what happened in 2020.What these claims don’t take into account is that voter fraud is detectable, quantifiable and verifiable. I have yet to see anyone offer up “evidence” of voter fraud from the 2020 election that provides these three things.
My company’s contract with the campaign obligated us to deliver evidence of voter fraud that could be defended in a court of law. The small amount of voter fraud I found was bipartisan, with about as many Republicans casting duplicate votes as Democrats.
This is a crime of privilege: Those with two homes sometimes take two bites of the electoral apple.
There were also small numbers of deceased voters. Still, nothing emerged that could provide a solid basis for a legal challenge to an election result in any of the states we evaluated.
Additional legal hurdles beyond solid evidence of fraud stand in the way of any effort to overturn or negate an election result through our legal system. Even if it could be shown that more fraudulent votes were cast in a state than the margin of victory in 2020, no one can determine for which candidate each fraudulent ballot was cast.
Backlash will be swift: Banning Trump from the 2024 ballot defies democracy. Courts shouldn't usurp voters' rights.
Trump's claims of voter fraud have no foundation in the truth
We vote anonymously − with good reason. No candidate can credibly claim that a fraudulent vote was credited to their opponent unless the person who cast that vote tells us.This means that a candidate trying to use voter fraud as the reason to change an election result cannot show that the fraudulent votes caused their election loss.
As a former gubernatorial candidate, I can admire the discipline it takes to stay on message on a single issue. There is no doubt that voter fraud can animate people. But it is one thing to provide a rallying point for supporters and quite another to drag our election infrastructure and legal system into a foundationless set of false claims.
A better use of time, money and energy would be to address systemic weaknesses in our election systems – such as the distressing lack of national election infrastructure to enforce election integrity, destructive practices to our elections such as gerrymandering, and leveling the playing field so that our elections become fairer and more competitive.
If voter fraud had impacted the 2020 election, it would already have been proven. Maintaining the lies undermines faith in the foundation of our democracy.
Ken Block owns Simpatico Software Systems and is the author of " Disproven: My Unbiased Search for Voter Fraud for the Trump Campaign, the Data That Shows Why He Lost, and How We Can Improve Our Elections," coming out on March 12.
The Donald Trump Fire Sale Starts Now
He’s going to have to sell his stuff to pay a half-billion dollars’ worth of legal penalties.
nymag.com
The Donald Trump Fire Sale Starts Now
By Kevin T. Dugan, staff writer at Intelligencer, who covers money and business
Photo-Illustration: Intelligencer; Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Donald Trump’s companies have filed for bankruptcies six times, but now he may actually be about to go broke. On Friday, a New York judge penalized the former president $355 million after finding him liable for lying about his wealth and the value of his properties in New York — and that’s before pre-judgment interest charges, which according to the New York Attorney General’s office, adds another $100 million or so. Then there’s the $4 million owed by Eric Trump and Don Jr. each — which, come on, whose money is that really? The giant liabilities are due in part to Trump and his organization’s “complete lack of remorse,” Justice Arthur Engoron ruled, as well as for its deterrent effect: Trump and the Trump Organization’s officers were “likely to continue their fraudulent ways unless the Court grants significant injunctive relief.” Add this to the $88 million he owes writer E. Jean Carroll for defaming her, twice, and Trump owes roughly $540 million. That would wipe out almost his entire estimated cash pile and vaporize about a sixth of his total net worth.
Trump can afford this, but he is probably going to have to sell something big. His net worth, according to both Forbes and Bloomberg, is between $2.6 and $3.1 billion, but most of that is tied up in his buildings and other properties. His cash pile is about $600 million, Bloomberg estimates, and he cannot use campaign or political-action-committee money to pay these fines. Some of his attorneys’ fees can be paid for with money that he’s raised from donors, but it’s not clear what money is paying for which lawyers between the four criminal cases he’s fighting off.
There are very few workarounds available to him to get cash. According to Bloomberg, Trump’s businesses have been bringing in cash from renters, and he made about $100 million in profitafter selling the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., in 2022, though it’s unclear how much of that money is left. The self-proclaimed “ King of Debt” won’t be able to get a loan from a financial institution overseen or chartered by New York state regulators, Engoron ruled. While that doesn’t eliminate all the banks in the country, it does rule out a lot that could afford that kind of risk. (There are, of course, hedge funds and other shadow banks, but they’d likely charge him a lot more.) Trump is going to appeal the ruling, but that doesn’t really buy him a lot of time or give him any real relief. He will have to pay up or post a cash bond in 30 days, and delaying adds interest and other expenses to the money he already owes.
Take a closer look at his holdings and it seems Trump might have bigger problems ahead. His largest holding, by value, is a minority partnership with Vornado at 555 California Street in San Francisco — a commercial office building in a city experiencing a “doom loop.” Microsoft, a former tenant, is trying to dump its office space there, and a neighboring building recently saw its value plunge by 80 percent. If you go down the list of Trump’s other holdings in New York, much of what his name is attached to are similar properties, but through deals that are not as cut-and-dried as somebody just holding the title to a property. At 40 Wall Street, for instance, he owns a ground lease — that is, he pays the building’s owners, the wealthy German Hinneberg family, for the right to lease it out. Since commercial real estate is in the throes of a valuation crisis, if Trump has to start selling any of these assets, he’ll likely be handing someone a fire-sale deal.
This post has been updated.
Letitia James says she will seize Trump’s assets if he fails to pay $355m fraud fine
New York attorney general says she may seek enforcement mechanisms in court if ex-president does not have funds to pay
www.theguardian.com
Letitia James says she will seize Trump’s assets if he doesn’t pay $355m fraud fine
New York attorney general says she may seek enforcement mechanisms in court if ex-president doesn’t have funds to payGloria Oladipo in New York
@gaoladipo
Wed 21 Feb 2024 11.00 EST
Letitia James specifically named Donald Trump’s building at 40 Wall Street. Photograph: Sarah Yenesel/EPA
The New York state attorney general, Letitia James, said that she will seize Donald Trump’s assets if he does not pay the $355m civil fraud fine stemming from his financial fraud trial.
“If he does not have funds to pay off the judgment, then we will seek judgment enforcement mechanisms in court, and we will ask the judge to seize his assets,” James said to ABC News in an interview on Tuesday evening.
James added that she would not hesitate to seize Trump’s buildings, including his 40 Wall Street skyscraper in Manhattan.
“We are prepared to make sure that the judgment is paid to New Yorkers, and yes, I look at 40 Wall Street each and every day,” James told ABC.
Last Friday, a New York judge fined Trump, his two eldest sons, and associates $354.8m and $100m in pre-judgment interest after ruling that Trump had falsely reported his net worth to obtain more favorable loan terms. Trump, a former president and the likely Republican nomination for the 2024 presidential race, overstated his net worth by as much as $3.6bn a year, the judge, Arthur Engoron, ruled.
Trump and his legal team have denied any wrongdoing and decried the verdict as politically motivated. They have said they will appeal the ruling.
Trump’s attorney, Alina Habba, attacked the verdict as “manifest injustice” and part of a “multi-year, politically fueled witch-hunt that was designed to ‘take down Donald Trump’”.
Trump claimed on his platform Truth Social that there were no victims in the case.
But James told ABC that she believes in the strength of her case, noting that “financial frauds are not victimless crimes”.
“He engaged in this massive amount of fraud. It wasn’t just a simple mistake, a slight oversight, the variations are wildly exaggerated, and the extent of the fraud was staggering,” James said.
The latest fine comes in addition to a $83.3m judgment against Trump for a defamation suit brought by the journalist and author E Jean Carroll.
Blabbering Donald Trump Hands Jack Smith a Key Piece of Evidence
Trump said something he probably shouldn’t have in that Fox News town hall.
newrepublic.com
February 21, 2024/10:23 a.m. ET
Blabbering Donald Trump Hands Jack Smith a Key Piece of Evidence
Trump said something he probably shouldn’t have in that Fox News town hall.
DREW ANGERER/GETTY IMAGES
Special counsel Jack Smith
Donald Trump must really believe he’s above the law, because he continues to essentially admit to wrongdoing in the classified documents lawsuit against him.
Special counsel Jack Smith indicted Trump in June for hoarding classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. During a Fox News town hall on Tuesday night, host Laura Ingraham asked Trump why he hadn’t simply returned the material when the government asked him to do so.
“First of all, I didn’t have to hand them over,” Trump said bluntly. “But second of all, I would have done that. We were talking, and then all of a sudden they raided Mar-a-Lago.”
The FBI raided Mar-a-Lago in August 2022 after the federal government—and even Trump’s own lawyers—tried for months to get Trump to return hundreds of classified documents that he took with him when he left the White House. And FBI agents may not have even found all of the documents hidden at the resort.
The former president faces 41 criminal counts for willful retention of national defense information, making false statements, and conspiracy to obstruct justice, among other things. He has repeatedly insisted that he had every right to keep the documents. He does not.
Trump has also claimed, despite knowing otherwise, that all the material he brought to Florida was already declassified. Trump said that being president enabled him to declassify documents at will, including “just by thinking about it.” This is not true.
And now Trump has given Smith even more proof that the former president had wrongfully kept classified documents. Trump’
Star witness for Trump defendants in Georgia fails to give damning testimony
Terrence Bradley testifies he had no personal knowledge about relationship between DA Fani Willis and prosecutor Nathan Wade
www.theguardian.com
Terrence Bradley testifies in court on Tuesday. Photograph: Brynn Anderson/EPA
Donald Trump
Star witness for Trump defendants in Georgia fails to give damning testimony
Terrence Bradley testifies he had no personal knowledge about relationship between DA Fani Willis and prosecutor Nathan WadeHugo Lowell
@hugolowell
Tue 27 Feb 2024 18.45 EST
Lawyers for Donald Trump’s co-defendants charged in Georgia over efforts to overturn the 2020 election were unable on Tuesday to get their star witness to repeat in court what he had previously alleged about the Fulton county district attorney’s affair, as they seek to have her thrown off the case.
“I was speculating and I never witnessed anything. It was speculation,” Terrence Bradley said about text messages he sent to one of the defense lawyers in January that alleged the district attorney Fani Willis and her deputy Nathan Wade were romantically involved earlier than they had claimed.
Bradley’s inability to confirm anything about the affair meant there was no new evidence introduced at the hearing in Fulton county superior court as the presiding judge, Scott McAfee, weighs whether there was a conflict of interest requiring Willis’s disqualification.
Trump and more than a dozen allies were charged last year with violating the Georgia state racketeering statute when they took steps to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia, including by advancing fake slates of electors and pressuring state officials to reverse Trump’s defeat.
The case took a twist in January when Ashleigh Merchant, the lawyer for Trump’s co-defendant Mike Roman, filed a motion to disqualify Willis from the case, complaining that Willis benefited financially from hiring Wade to work on the Trump case in 2021 because he paid for them to go on vacation.
The disqualification motion has been closely watched because if the judge relieves Willis from bringing the case, it could result in the entire district attorney’s office from also being thrown off, upending what remains one of the most legally perilous cases against Trump.
But after more than two hours of testimony from Bradley, the defense lawyers appeared no closer to meeting the high burden to force disqualification than when Bradley initially took the stand last week.
The defense lawyers had been hoping for weeks that Bradley would contradict the testimony from Willis and Wade, who claimed it started months after Wade had been hired to work on the Trump case in November 2021, since that could undercut their credibility in the eyes of the judge.
Bradley’s initial appearance yielded little new information after he repeatedly invoked attorney-client privilege – Bradley was Wade’s lawyer in the divorce proceedings undergirding the affair allegations – to avoid having to answer questions from the defense lawyers.
The judge later determined at a hearing, behind closed doors, that Bradley was using the attorney-client privilege inappropriately when it came to communications Wade had made to him about the affair and had to answer questions on that matter.
On Tuesday, Bradley returned to court but testified he had no personal knowledge about the affair and that he had been purely speculating when he texted Roman’s lawyer that Willis and Wade’s affair had started after they met at a municipal judges’ conference in 2019.
Bradley suggested the fact that he corrected only one part of the draft disqualification motion sent to him by Roman’s lawyer – he clarified his own contract with the district attorney’s office for unrelated work was for $74,000 – did not mean he was assenting to the rest of the document being accurate.
The Trump defense lawyer, Steve Sadow, at one point asked, incredulously, why he had speculated when he knew Roman’s lawyer had been asking him about the affair in order to finalise her motion to disqualify. “I don’t recall,” Bradley replied in a muted tone.
Bradley also testified he could not recall whether Wade had recounted having sex with Willis in her office before she became the district attorney, and that he had never seen or had personal knowledge if Wade had a key to Willis’s garage door around the same time.
To date, there has been no evidence proving Willis hired Wade and renewed his contract specifically to gain a financial benefit through any sort of kickback scheme. And Willis and Wade have both previously testified any expenses were shared equally or reimbursed with cash.
The judge now faces the issue of how much weight to attach to Bradley’s testimony. On the one hand, he could believe that Bradley is now telling the truth having previously lied, or he could believe Bradley was telling the truth when he texted Roman’s lawyer and lied on the stand.
The district attorney’s office has separately tried to impeach Bradley’s credibility by having him acknowledge he was essentially ousted from his previous law practice he shared with Wade over a sexual harassment claim; the suggestion has been that Bradley wanted to damage Wade.
Trump is a walking L at this pointStar witness for Trump defendants in Georgia fails to give damning testimony
Terrence Bradley testifies he had no personal knowledge about relationship between DA Fani Willis and prosecutor Nathan Wade
Terrence Bradley testifies in court on Tuesday. Photograph: Brynn Anderson/EPA
Donald Trump
Star witness for Trump defendants in Georgia fails to give damning testimony
Terrence Bradley testifies he had no personal knowledge about relationship between DA Fani Willis and prosecutor Nathan Wade
Hugo Lowell
@hugolowell
Tue 27 Feb 2024 18.45 EST
Lawyers for Donald Trump’s co-defendants charged in Georgia over efforts to overturn the 2020 election were unable on Tuesday to get their star witness to repeat in court what he had previously alleged about the Fulton county district attorney’s affair, as they seek to have her thrown off the case.
“I was speculating and I never witnessed anything. It was speculation,” Terrence Bradley said about text messages he sent to one of the defense lawyers in January that alleged the district attorney Fani Willis and her deputy Nathan Wade were romantically involved earlier than they had claimed.
Bradley’s inability to confirm anything about the affair meant there was no new evidence introduced at the hearing in Fulton county superior court as the presiding judge, Scott McAfee, weighs whether there was a conflict of interest requiring Willis’s disqualification.
Trump and more than a dozen allies were charged last year with violating the Georgia state racketeering statute when they took steps to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia, including by advancing fake slates of electors and pressuring state officials to reverse Trump’s defeat.
The case took a twist in January when Ashleigh Merchant, the lawyer for Trump’s co-defendant Mike Roman, filed a motion to disqualify Willis from the case, complaining that Willis benefited financially from hiring Wade to work on the Trump case in 2021 because he paid for them to go on vacation.
The disqualification motion has been closely watched because if the judge relieves Willis from bringing the case, it could result in the entire district attorney’s office from also being thrown off, upending what remains one of the most legally perilous cases against Trump.
But after more than two hours of testimony from Bradley, the defense lawyers appeared no closer to meeting the high burden to force disqualification than when Bradley initially took the stand last week.
The defense lawyers had been hoping for weeks that Bradley would contradict the testimony from Willis and Wade, who claimed it started months after Wade had been hired to work on the Trump case in November 2021, since that could undercut their credibility in the eyes of the judge.
Bradley’s initial appearance yielded little new information after he repeatedly invoked attorney-client privilege – Bradley was Wade’s lawyer in the divorce proceedings undergirding the affair allegations – to avoid having to answer questions from the defense lawyers.
The judge later determined at a hearing, behind closed doors, that Bradley was using the attorney-client privilege inappropriately when it came to communications Wade had made to him about the affair and had to answer questions on that matter.
On Tuesday, Bradley returned to court but testified he had no personal knowledge about the affair and that he had been purely speculating when he texted Roman’s lawyer that Willis and Wade’s affair had started after they met at a municipal judges’ conference in 2019.
Bradley suggested the fact that he corrected only one part of the draft disqualification motion sent to him by Roman’s lawyer – he clarified his own contract with the district attorney’s office for unrelated work was for $74,000 – did not mean he was assenting to the rest of the document being accurate.
The Trump defense lawyer, Steve Sadow, at one point asked, incredulously, why he had speculated when he knew Roman’s lawyer had been asking him about the affair in order to finalise her motion to disqualify. “I don’t recall,” Bradley replied in a muted tone.
Bradley also testified he could not recall whether Wade had recounted having sex with Willis in her office before she became the district attorney, and that he had never seen or had personal knowledge if Wade had a key to Willis’s garage door around the same time.
To date, there has been no evidence proving Willis hired Wade and renewed his contract specifically to gain a financial benefit through any sort of kickback scheme. And Willis and Wade have both previously testified any expenses were shared equally or reimbursed with cash.
The judge now faces the issue of how much weight to attach to Bradley’s testimony. On the one hand, he could believe that Bradley is now telling the truth having previously lied, or he could believe Bradley was telling the truth when he texted Roman’s lawyer and lied on the stand.
The district attorney’s office has separately tried to impeach Bradley’s credibility by having him acknowledge he was essentially ousted from his previous law practice he shared with Wade over a sexual harassment claim; the suggestion has been that Bradley wanted to damage Wade.
Photos reveal Fani Willis' court nemesis campaigned for Nathan Wade
Ashleigh Merchant questioned Nathan Wade's legal qualifications but campaigned enthusiastically for him in 2016.
www.newsweek.com
Photos Reveal Fani Willis' Court Nemesis Campaigned for Nathan Wade
Published Mar 04, 2024 at 5:23 AM EST00:50
Fani Willis Stung by Potential Last Minute Testimony Against Her
Adefense lawyer who claimed that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' former boyfriend is not qualified to prosecute Donald Trump previously volunteered for his election campaign, photos filed in court have revealed.
Ashleigh Merchant, the lawyer for one of Trump's co-defendants in the Georgia election fraud case, made headlines in February after a heated cross-examination of Willis and again for her cross-examination of the district attorney's former boyfriend, prosecutor Nathan Wade.
Facebook photos submitted in court by Fani Willis, the Atlanta District Attorney and Nathan Wade, the chief prosecutor in the Donald Trump election fraud case, show defense attorney Ashleigh Merchant volunteering for Wade's judgeship election... MoreFULTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Merchant, who represents Trump's co-accused, Michael Roman, suggested during cross-examination and in court papers that Willis had only hired Wade because they were in a relationship and that Wade was not qualified to prosecute the election fraud case in Georgia.
Trump pleaded not guilty to all 13 charges against him and has said the case is politically motivated because he is the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination. Roman, a former Trump staffer, has also pleaded not guilty to similar charges.
In an increasingly bitter court battle, Willis and Wade have now submitted Facebook posts of Merchant campaigning for Wade when he was running for a judgeship in 2016.
They include photos of Merchant campaigning at the Marietta Greek Festival in Georgia on May 15, 2016.
"Vote Nathan J. Wade! Enjoying some Greek music while getting the word out!" Merchant wrote in the post. Her two photos show the front and back of her Wade campaign T-shirt.
A week earlier, on May 9, 2016, she wrote a lengthy post in favor of Wade.
"Nathan is ethical," she wrote at the time. "Nathan has demonstrated his ability to be fair and impartial and to follow the law while serving as a judge. Nathan currently serves as an Associated Municipal Court Judge. He is a former Pro Hac State Court Judge. Experience Matters."
Willis' office submitted the Facebook posts to Judge Scott McAfee, who is overseeing the trial of Trump, Roman and 13 others in the Georgia election fraud case.
Newsweek sought comment on Sunday from Merchant via Facebook Messenger and from Willis's office via email.
Donald Trump speaks during a campaign event at Greensboro Coliseum on March 2, 2024 in Greensboro, North Carolina. Trump is facing election fraud charges in Atlanta, Georgia.ALEX WONG/GETTY IMAGES
Writing about herself in the third person in a reply brief, Merchant accepted that she campaigned for Wade but said she only did so because the other candidate was accused of judicial misconduct.
"Included in the District Attorney's Response are pictures from Mr. Roman's counsel's Facebook page showing that she supported Wade in his 2016 judicial race against incumbent Reuben Green. It is no secret that Mr. Roman's counsel worked tirelessly to defeat the incumbent judge against whom Wade ran," Merchant wrote in her reply brief.
"With only two candidates in the race, one of whom had been accused of serious judicial misconduct, Wade was most definitely the most qualified of the candidates on the ballot."
Her posts are no longer publicly available.
READ MORE
- Fani Willis' vile Trump hate mail revealed in court papers
- Donald Trump's legal cases shifting in his favor: attorney
- Donald Trump abruptly changes his request to Aileen Cannon
- Claim that Trump doesn't care about witness safety is "absurd"—Lawyer
She also reiterated that it was Wade and Willis who had ethical questions to answer.
"If they had nothing to hide in the first place because they did nothing wrong, then why did they intentionally not tell anyone about it until they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar? This highlights the very reason why this Court cannot just take their word for it," she wrote.