Criminal law, Lawyering

Friends with Benefits? Telephone Records Raise New Challenge to the Willis/Wade Testimony

In the movie Friends with Benefits, the character Jamie asks Dylan “why do I get the feeling this is the first real commitment you’ve ever made?” Dylan responds “It’s not. T-Mobile. Two years. And f*** do I regret that one!”

The ongoing proceedings involving Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and lead prosecutor Nathan Wade seem to be playing out a real-life version of Friends with Benefits, though the benefits may have violated core ethical rules. Now, it appears that Wade may, like Dylan, regret that cellphone plan.

In a new filing in the court, counsel for defendants in the 2020 election case have submitted telephone records indicating that Willis and Wade exchanged over 2,000 phone calls in the first 11 months of 2021.

Those calls, it is alleged, contradict the sworn testimony of both prosecutors on their relationship. They have insisted that they did not become romantically involved until shortly after Wade was hired by Willis in the Trump case. They also downplayed how often they spoke, describing a limited level of contact in 2021.

Investigator Charles Mittelstadt submitted an affidavit discussing over 2,000 voice calls and just under 12,000 text messages from the 11-month period of January to November 2021.  That later date is when Wade was hired.

The investigator noted “a prevalence of calls made in the evening hours and suggested that some indicate that Wade had stayed overnight at Willis’s home despite denials on the stand. Challengers are claiming that the records indicate that Wade may have been over to the home as many as 30 times during that period.

In her testimony, Willis was combative, declaring “It’s a lie! It’s a lie!” when asked about a romantic relationship preceding her hiring of Wade. Many in the media praised Willis as showing what a “good lawyer” she is in attacking the media, the defendants, and critics.

If Wade did not stay over, the parties are claiming that his cellphone seemed to:

Specifically, on September 11, 2021, Mr. Wade’s phone left the Doraville area and arrived within the geofence located on the [redacted] address at 10:45 P.M. The phone remained there until September 12 at 3:28 A.M. at which time the phone traveled directly to towers located in East Cobb consistent with his routine pinging at his residence in that area. The phone arrived in East Cobb at approximately 4:05 A.M., and records demonstrate he sent a text at 4:20 A.M. to Ms. Willis.

Additionally, on November 29, 2021, Mr. Wade’s phone was pinging on the East Cobb towers near his residence and, following a call from Ms. Willis at 11:32 P.M., while the call continued, his phone left the East Cobb area just after midnight and arrived within the geofence located on the [redacted] address at 12:43 A.M on November 30, 2021. The phone remained there until 4:55 A.M.

The allegations could not be more serious. Wade and Willis are prosecuting defendants for filing false papers and making false statements to courts. They are now accused of the same conduct, including allegedly lying under oath.

It is important to emphasize that these records have not been fully vetted in court. Cellphone records can be highly interpretive and imprecise on locational tracking. Willis did file a response this week. In addition to objecting that the records “are not properly in evidence” and have not been authenticated, she stated in part:

“The records do not prove, in any way, the content of the communications between Special Prosecutor Wade and District Attorney Willis; they do not prove that Special Prosecutor Wade was ever at any particular location or address; they do not prove that Special Prosecutor Wade and District Attorney Willis were ever in the same place during any of the times listed in Supplemental Exhibit 38.”

If established, this would make this controversy far more serious than disqualification from this case. It could raise concerns over potential criminal conduct. It could also push the court to refer both attorneys to the bar.

Whatever the merits on the relationship, the conduct of Wade and Willis after the allegations are as troubling for many of us. They have put their own interests ahead of those of the case and their office. The first reaction of Willis was to go to a church and paint all of these questions as racist.

In his testimony, Wade appeared to contradict his prior sworn statements in his divorce case when asked, in May 2023, whether he had sexual relations or entertained a member of the opposite sex other than his wife over the course of his marriage, including during their separation. He answered no, but later admitted to a sexual relationship with Willis during that period. Wade simply insisted that he was answering according to his own definition of the marriage and excluded the specific reference to the period of separation up to May 2023.

Willis was more aggressive but may have now created a record that stands rebutted by the telephone records.

In the prior hearings, Willis was applauded on many news sites as she defiantly yelled at opposing counsel “You’re confused. You think I’m on trial. These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020. I’m not on trial, no matter how hard you put me on trial.”

Unless Wade and Willis can rebut this evidence as false or immaterial, they indeed could very well find themselves on trial.

311 thoughts on “Friends with Benefits? Telephone Records Raise New Challenge to the Willis/Wade Testimony”

  1. If you think the Georgia Bar is going to do something, you do not know the Georgia Bar.

    1. Is there a sate bar that is less honest than the Georgia one? I doubt it from what I have seen.

        1. DC has got to be in the running. Any Bar that would allow Kevin Clinesmith to practice after a minimal punishment, for submitting a falsified email to the FISA court, because he didn’t like the politics of the person he was prosecuting, has got to be a new low.

  2. OT:

    Trump only got 60% of the vote in SC, a deeply Trumpy state. 40% of the electorate voting against Trump is a huge showing of opposition, especially since the nomination race is effectively over. He will be the GOP nominee, and he will lose the general election.

    2. So, you are presuming that all those that voted for Haley in this primary will now vote for Joe Biden in November?

      Hmmmmm, are you Gigi or Dennis?

      1. No, some may vote for Trump, and others are never-Trumpers who may sit the election out or vote for Biden. The point is that it’s a weak showing for a former President: even in a very Trumpy state, and even though he’s essentially got the nomination sewn up, many people do not want him as the nominee. Biden got over 96% in SC.

        1. Uh, you may want to go over those numbers a little bit before you make your interpretations.
          As in:
          -About 755,800 people voted in the GOP SC Primary. Trump got 451,905 votes. That amounts to 59.8% of the vote.
          -About 131,000 people voted in the Democratic SC Primary. Biden got about 125,760 votes. That amounts to 96% of the vote.
          -The turnout in the Democratic Party Primary in 2024 was one of the lowest in modern history.

          And you conclude that is “a weak showing for a former President”?
          And you conclude that “never-Trumpers who may sit the election out”? How big is this faction compared to those Democrats that are disenchanted with Biden? Can one assume that the 300k voted for Haley and DeSantis will not vote for Trump? Those total more than 3x the number that voted for Biden.

          And your conclusion about “showing” has an interesting twist if you change a few words and make it a alternate statement:
          ‘The point is that it’s a weak showing for a President: even in a very Bideny state, and even though he’s essentially got the nomination sewn up, many people do not want him as the nominee.’

            1. 96% of a MUCH smaller number. If you presume ALL that voted for Haley in SC will vote for Biden and add those numbers to Biden’s, you still get less than all those that voted for Trump in SC (451,905 for Trump versus 424,434 for Biden/Haley). And with that you think Trump is in trouble???

              1. Maybe Trump’s in trouble, maybe he isn’t. But 60% is not a high percentage for a former President.

                1. At this stage of his presidency, Biden’s approval rating compares favorably only to that of Jimmy Carter. And we know how that turned out.

                2. But 60% is not a high percentage for a former President.
                  Whats the average for former Presidents, not in office, running for President? My Memory is 60% is in fact a very high number

                3. I don’t think that any other former president participated in primaries, so there is no baseline to compare to. But it’s certainly low if you treat him like an incumbent, which is how the Republican party seems to be treating him. And Trump claims to have won in 2020, so he considers himself an incumbent.

                  1. But it’s certainly low if you treat him like an incumbent, which is how the Republican party seems to be treating him

                    Short answer. You reached an opinion free of facts. Not unusual for you.

                    1. You seem to be confusing me with Anonymous I corrected. Or did you miss the first sentence of my reply to him?

          2. It appears that enough D voters realize they were conned 4 years ago – into voting for a then already mentally challenged D. Now, they realize they aided and abetted the USA now having a demented person living in the White House. (I wonder if mrs/dr jill has had a memory care unit built in the White House basement? Or are the ones in DE sufficient since they spend so much time there?)

            1. Remember Hillary had a whole floor hospital unit attached to her daughters apartment and when she started flopping and wobbling and they grabbed her like a sack of potatoes and threw her in the disguised SS ambulance, they high tailed it to the makeshift hospital floor at her daughters downtown residence.
              Later after the special drugs and instant steroid shots she emerged with “the flu” (this was pre covid) and she claimed she got hot on the campaign trail and had heat stroke (it was 72 degrees) – then she had to have her photo op so she bent over and breathed in the face of a little girl.

              So the dems are long known for medical fraud and cover ups. They had FDR in a wheel chair from his polio and covered that up for years – that is the depths the demoncrats go to, so expect Weekend at Brandon’s soon – they might be able to animate the corpse or inject enough andrenalin and adrenachrome so joey can make it past the 3 steps and hang onto the podium for 2.5 minutes.

    4. And your comment is relevant to this topic? to some topic? or simply ramblings by someone with T-Derangement Syndrome?

    6. your argument is rubbish………obviously you missed the fact that the Dems crossed over to vote for Nikki…. to stop DT..something they won’t do in the Election…………

  3. Hey, where’s your column on Joe Biden’s great-great grandfather? You know, the one where you try to find out just how far up Donald Trump’s ass you can stick your tongue?

    1. Nice! If there was any doubt that you are unhinged, the vile, incoherent nature of your comment removed it.

        1. Anonymous,

          This web log only permits two or fewer hyperlinks per comment. I edited the above so that it would post. iF in the future you would like the readership to review more than two hyperlinks, this can be accomplished by using multiple comments having two or fewer links each.

  4. When Fani was ‘pinging’ Nathan (or was it Nathan pinging Fani), were all transactions in cash?

    These people are government employees/contractors. What an absolute disgrace. Atlanta, is this the best you can do?

    1. @ExDem: Re:” Atlanta, is this the best you can do?” It might just be, and for cause. Remember, she was elected to her office. I’m reminded of the sort of individual one might encounter as a partner in the law offices of Algonquin J. Calhoun and that, as much as the celebrity to be derived from the successful prosecution of a former President, I suspect is the driving force behind her litigation. Unfortunately, we have come to recognize that she possesses all of the courtroom sophistication, grace, and acumen of a fire hydrant. The best she could possibly do is attempt to prosecute the proverbial ‘ham sandwich’.

      1. Early on, it was reported that Lover-Boy’s practice was DUIs and divorces. He and Fani deserve each other.

  5. What the cell phone data does is strengthen the credibility of the eyewitness who testified that W & W were in a relationship prior to Wade’s hiring and weaken the credibility of W & W that they were not. The judge can still disregard it and keep the DA on the case. He then jeopardizes the verdict and ultimately the system of justice because the verdict will always be considered tainted by the parties and the public no matter who wins. We will see who the judge cares about: his political future or the future of the rule of law.

    1. No, it shows more than that.

      It shows that both lied under oath.
      This would be evidence given in rebuttal to their testimony.

      He cannot keep them on the case.

      The best that she could do is attempt to keep the evidence out of court but even that will fail.

      The cover up is worse than the crime.
      They are seriously in the thick of it and It starts w an sh…

      -G

    1. Mark Felt, pathetic Soviet Democrat Apparatchik attempting deflection tried this out:
      Lying under oath? Hmm? Is that like lying on bank loan documents?

      I think you intended to ask if it’s a RICO case similar to what the hoe in the story is attempting as a prosecution. A RICO case that involves the stud in the plot visiting the White House repeatedly after being named the unqualified prosecutor in the case to discuss how to prosecute Trump with The Big Guy.

      Or maybe to discuss it with the equally unqualified Biden, The Bagman Formerly Known As The Crackhead Kid, who was paid millions by both the Chicoms and Ukrainian oligarchs for business arrangements where he too had zero experience and knowledge.

    3. @Mark Felt…

      Uhm no.
      First Trump didn’t lie on his loan application.
      Everyone knows this but its a legal fiction that allows James and Engoron to go after Trump.

      But since you asked… the loan application isn’t an affidavit, or sworn testimony under oath.

      Big difference.

      Willis and Wade are going to be hung out to dry.
      Would be funny if she did try to implicate others in the scheme to get Trump.

      -G

    1. Nope.
      Not really.

      The evidence should be allowed since it rebuts their sworn testimony.
      It was acquired via a subpoena and there is no expectation of privacy. You have SCOTUS decisions going back to the 70’s.

      She can claim that its not accurate and that it doesn’t show that he went to her apartment… but that’s ok.
      It doesn’t have to show his exact location.

      In theory you could narrow down his location. But that’s not necessary.

      -G

        1. Showing that they’re within miles of each other doesn’t prove much.

          First it is much closer than miles. Something like 30 yards. Not enough to prove murder, but hellish good to obliterate an alibi.
          Second, this evidence would be steel trap perfect if Wade needed an alibi to beat a crime charge
          Third It is not a one off. It is dozens of times showing the route of his phone to and from his home from the Address of Willis

            1. “No, it’s simply inside the geofence.”

              Yet if it was Trump being found to have been inside, you’d be saying ‘Gotcha!’

  8. It depends on what the meaning of “roof” is. Each little shingle is, in effect, its own little separate roof. A house with a 3,000 square foot roof, would contain about 6000 shingles, and who can say with certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Fani and Wade were under the same shingle?

  9. This pair do not appear to be very competent Lawyers, outside of perhaps family law. There are some brilliant lawyers and political consultants at arms link out of Washington who were likely helping them given the demographics and the oportunity to prosecute an incrediblly complicated case. They are probably on their own now.

  10. I find it ironic that in her filing… she is challenging the accuracy of the technology used by the defense… technology that her department uses when trying alleged criminals. She appears to be burning down the DA’s office to save her self. It will be interesting to see how many defendants use her filing to dispute accuracy of cell tower data.

  11. Fighting Fanni !!! God love her Jonathan. She will be acquitted by a jury of her peers in Atlanta. And…. lest we forget…..cell towers are the pinnacle of racism in America and were probably designed by Nazis anyway while they were working on the bomb.

    1. sky-BOT, I love your comment, “And…. lest we forget…..cell towers are the pinnacle of racism in America and were probably designed by Nazis anyway while they were working on the bomb.” If you’ve purchased a new car in the last two years, you’ll find that almost everything you do in your car is monitored, and in my case, Nissan shares the data with their “business partners”. I suggest you write your senators and congressman to urge everyone to stop surveilling you without first getting a proper warrant.

    2. She had better hope that she doesn’t get tried by a judge who also acts as an executioner. I think a $455,000,000 fine is appropriate, along with disbarment.

  12. “What do the cell tower records of DA Willis and Nathan Wade prove? Not much.”

    So such cell records are used by the FBI to round up every “insurrectionist” in the country.

    But now they don’t prove much.

    Funny, isn’t it.

    1. No, the FBI uses GPS location information, not tower ping information. The former is much more precise than the latter.

          1. @Anon…
            You clearly don’t know anything about A-GPS and ‘Ping’ Data.
            Please stop while you’re behind and I’ll write a simple primer.

            -G

            1. Sam or Gumby: I believe tower pings may be akin to municipal/state “cameras” mounted on light poles along roadways, and do not implicated warrantless Fourth Amendment privacy issues, whereas “geofences” prevent surveillance of data WITHIN their perimeters without a warrant? I note that the ‘investigator” appears to only track Wade up to a point of geofence (within which is WIllis’ residence)? thanks

              1. @Lin…
                Nope.
                You can go back to SCOTUS’ decisions from the 70’s about Pen data and the warrant-less access to the data as not being a 4th Amendment violation.

                The phone company owns the data and its required for them to complete the call and to bill you for the service. So they have the right to that metadata. Now that was land lines. So your data was phone 1, called at time A, to phone 2 and the call lasted X amount of time.

                While the cell data is more complicated… the law is the same. There is no expectation of privacy.

                The phone company retains that data for a period of time and you don’t need a warrant, but would need a subpoena.

                There is no PII in the metadata being released.

                HTH
                -G

                1. “You can go back to SCOTUS’ decisions from the 70’s about Pen data and the warrant-less access to the data as not being a 4th Amendment violation.”
                  isn’t that what was said?
                  “I believe tower pings may be akin to municipal/state “cameras” mounted on light poles along roadways, and do not implicate warrantless Fourth Amendment privacy issues”

              2. “do not implicated warrantless Fourth Amendment privacy issues, whereas “geofences” prevent surveillance of data WITHIN their perimeters without a warrant?”

                We have a case in Iowa that has made National attention. 20 or so athletes at University of Iowa and Iowa State, were caught up in a gambling probe. Long after several pleaded guilty, it came to light Law enforcement set up geofencing around Dorms heavily used by athletes and their practice facilities.
                The issue arose, because no complaint was received and no warrant or subpeona were sought. An agent decide to see if Iowa law concerning sports betting via cell phone app, was being followed.
                The investigation is still very much under wraps, and everyone has stopped talking about it. The State AG claims she was never informed and assumed the privacy laws were being followed The Iowa Dept of Criminal Investigation DCI issued a statement citing Iowa law about Casino’s monitoring cell activity to assure laws were being followed, but this investigation never touches the holders of gambling license. Just Student athletes. If non athletes were swept up, no charges were filed.
                None of the Athletes bet on any Iowa based colleges of any sports.
                Even if the charges and pleas, and convictions get struck. I bet no Law enforcement will suffer much if any penalty.

            2. If wide pouty mouth ping boy stare at the cieling for 20 seconds was was hittin’ dem’ resaronts near fani’s fanny at midnight to 4 am his biz credit card will show it, but it does not.

              Oh well, I’m sure he is an avid bird watcher, with military night goggles.

  13. The fact alone, that the DA is now having a romantic sexual relationship with her special prosecutor, no matter when it started, is ENOUGH for her to be fired and the case to be thrown out.

    Prosecute her for her fraud on the court and public corruption, criminality. She should do prison time. And never be permitted to practice “lawlessness” again.

  14. Look, if the current judicial system can obfuscate on a president’s son’s laptop; I am certain that these messages between these two can be easily overcome…have some faith in the corruption of our DOJ.

    1. Oh, the data got scrambled… like the J6 double bomb bomber’s cell phone data – gee too bad, and we can’t use the datat Trumpies already got, we know they lie and cheat every second.

  15. Jonathan: What do the cell tower records of DA Willis and Nathan Wade prove? Not much. As you admit, these records, even if authenticated, can be “highly interpretive and imprecise on locational tracking”. In addition, we don’t even know the contents of the calls. Wade was hired on 11/1/21. No doubt the two had many conversations leading up to Wade’s appointment.

    Nothing is gained by wild speculation at this point on your part. And it’s even worse to falsely claim “[t]hey have put their own interests ahead of those of the case and their office”. The massive RICO indictments of DJT and his co-defendants refute such a claim. That came after months of investigation, the work of the special purpose grand jury and the indictments handed down by the grand jury. The plea agreements by Jena Ellis, Sidney Powell and Ken Chesebro alone speak volumes about how Willis and Wade didn’t let their personal relationship interfere with their work. In fact, it’s amazing they could accomplish all that while they were carrying on a romantic relationship. I know I wouldn’t be able to accomplish that fete!

    Prudence dictates we should allow Judge McAffee to sort through all the evidence of the 2-day hearing and consider the latest cell phone records before we draw any unwarranted assumptions. His final decision will determine whether Willis can remain in charge of the case–not anything you claim in your column.

    1. “Wild speculation”? Lol. The lengths Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers will go to for their cause is truly shocking. Sure, it’s not conclusive, but location data and texts and calls can be ‘evidence’ to support the contention of an ongoing relationship. Let’s see if you are serious. I’ll bet 1000 bux they were having a sexual affair at that time. Will you take the bet? Of course not, cuz you know it’s true.

    2. Yes DM! And those cell towers are not but phallic symbols of female oppression! A dog whistle, as it were, for the continued subjugation of women, telling them whom they may love.

    3. No doubt if any of us checked thru our cell phone records showing how often we make contacts with our friends we would find that “2,000 voice calls and just under 12,000 text messages from the 11-month period of January to November 2021.” is entirely normal. Nah – nothing to see here!

    4. You are quite prudent in your analysis; now if only that sort of jurisprudence were allotted to those on the right of the political spectrum we might respect our judicial system. Otherwise, the entire judicial system is looking rather smarmy at this point when you consider all of the antics on the left that are always glossed over while the tiniest infraction by someone in the scope of their partisan attacks is given no such treatment. It is becoming a farce to even watch what our prog/left governments at all levels flunkies do on a daily basis.

    5. “we don’t even know the contents of the calls.”

      But the texts can be retrieved. No doubt those will show there was nothing between these two!

    6. If a judge has contributed to the political campaign of a party, shouldn’t the judge recuse? Or are you also to willfully blind to see that as well?

    7. The phone locations are definitive of where he was and when, but LOL, the the judge worked for Fanni before his appointment. He is surely unbiased and justice will be blind. Just like Epstein killed himself

    8. Your ideological fealty makes you look like a damn fool. The public is paying the price for this charade, and so too are the defendants. Constitutional rights mean so little to the likes of you.

    9. Plea deals were made to avoid complete bankruptcy and to keep law license. It’s all a con game –
      Wake-up.

    10. ..don’t we just love and look forward to the Dennis McIntyre Left Wing Radical Extremist turned Reactionary Right Bot input for our daily laugh…

    11. The Willis/Wade geo phone data is the same evidence the FBI used to form the basis of Jan 6 indictments in D.C.

    13. Dennis McIntyre, pathetic Soviet Democrat Apparatchik and Bribery Biden’s appointed serial liar here wrote this: “Jonathan: What do the cell tower records of DA Willis and Nathan Wade prove? Not much.”

      This is the same Dennis McIntyre/Biden Baghdad Bob who attempts to distract from The Big Guy’s criminality in other posts, gloating that the FBI has tracked down and convicted another grandmother somewhere in Oklahoma after the FBI’s geofence determined she was trespassing on the capital grounds outside the building taking selfies on January 6th.

      Geofencing is good enough for the FBI to track down and jail people who trespassed on January 6th with their cellphones as weapons used to take selfies – but those same cellphone towers aren’t reliable when they show the corruption of the Fani Hoe Show – or the criminality of The Bagman Formerly Known Of The Crackhead Kid.

      If there’s a Soviet Democrat corrupt criminal politician exposed anywhere in the country, Dennis McIntyre feels it’s his duty to desperately post here with both a “Nothing to see here folks, move on”, combined with a “BBBububuuuttttt MUH TRUMP!” post.

      Dennis McIntyre, Bribery Biden’s Baghdad Bob, never made the starting line for the human race.

      I hope he at least signs an organ donor card so that at one point in his existence he contributes something useful to the world.

    14. The massive RICO indictments of DJT and his co-defendants refute such a claim.

      Dennis the retard, put this sentence together all by himself

      Dennis. An indictment is a “claim” no more no less. In indictment refutes NOTHING

      1. Indictments refute plenty of things (e.g., they refute a claim that there is no evidence that someone committed a crime).

          1. Hopefully you never wind up in court with that person on the jury. Geez! Education and common sense is lacking in this country.

    15. Poor Denise.

      The cell data from Wade’s phone shows enough.
      In the example… Wade gets a late night call. Leaves his home.
      ‘Ping’ data shows the rough route he took to a location near Willis’ address.

      Now… Here’s the fun part.
      Occam’s Razor.

      Willis calls.
      Wade leaves, drives toward’s Willis apartment.
      What other reason would he drive to that area?

      Its enough to rebut their testimony.

      They are toast.

      -G

  16. @Turley,
    You wrote:
    “It is important to emphasize that these records have not been fully vetted in court. Cellphone records can be highly interpretive and imprecise on locational tracking. Willis did file a response this week. In addition to objecting that the records “are not properly in evidence” and have not been authenticated, she stated in part:”
    -=-

    Oh… so much to unpack here.
    First, her argument isn’t a denial but that as you say the court hasn’t vetted the records.
    Trump’s lawyers could subpoena them and there is no expectation of privacy. (Unless SCOTUS wants to revisit court decisions made in the ’70’s.)

    The issue w cell tower data, is that you need to understand how the cellular networks work and how there isn’t a set radius of service from a cell tower.

    Where the data would be meaningless if both Wade and Willis lived near each other and was within the radius of the same tower.
    (In urban environments, you’ll have multiple smaller radii covering the same area. In rural areas, there is less overlap and a wider radius of coverage. (YMMV when you consider topological issues like urban canyons and or hills.)

    So the evidence if true… would show that Wade and Willis lied. Its easily verifiable by the courts if they wanted to subpoena the phone company(s) involved in providing service.

    The key thing is that in this case… location tracking is close enough to show their lies. You’re not relying on the GPS of the phone (A-GPS) because that would be spying… but on the geo location of the cell tower and the meta-data of the phone as it moves within the network. Its not just the cell’s metadata, but their testimony.

    -G

    1. Ian,
      Thank you for your analysis based on your IT and experience with cell towers/technology.
      I will look forward to your additional comments on the subject.

    2. When will John Brennan tell us that the cell phone data show the earmarks of Russian election interference?

  17. “Many in the media praised Willis as showing what a “good lawyer” she is in attacking the media, the defendants, and critics.”

    I take it those were the MSNBC and CNN clowns who never get it right.

  18. Lawdawgs,

    Does this have any new relevance: the Georgia Supreme Court held that “the [Georgia] RICO act includes as a crime a reelection campaign by the holder of public office in which 2 or more similar or interrelated predicate offenses specified in the act are committed.” Can this be expanded to the entire DNC?

  19. “arrived within the geofence”

    How large is the geofence?
    And how did they obtain this data, which usually requires a warrant?

      1. No, the GA election case is a criminal RICO case.

        And according to Turley, the cellphone data was obtained by the defendants (“In a new filing in the court, counsel for defendants in the 2020 election case have submitted telephone records indicating that Willis and Wade exchanged over 2,000 phone calls in the first 11 months of 2021.”), not by a prosecutor.

        1. Again Anon… you need to understand what is happening.

          The RICO case is against Trump.
          Here, the issue is that there is a question if Wade & Willis broke the rules and should be removed from the case as prosecutors.
          Not criminal… yet… but procedural. So Trump’s defense would need just a subpoena. The court could independently verify the data and the results. Pull in a tech expert from the phone company to verify the data and conclusions alleged by Trump’s defense.

          But as someone who is knowledgeable on this topic… if the evidence shows Wade’s coverage crossing multiple towers… they are toast.

          1. The RICO case is against 19 defendants, including Trump. Mike Roman, one of the co-defendants, is the one who introduced the claim that Willis has a conflict arising from a personal relationship with Wade, though Trump and perhaps others have now joined in. My mistake re: warrant v. subpoena, but it still requires a court to sign off on it.

            1. The RICO case is against 19 defendants, including Trump.

              This Cell phone data does not touch the RICO case. Stop referencing the case.

              1. No.

                Mike Roman filed the motion because he’s a defendant in that case. He is trying to get her dismissed from that case. That case is relevant whether or not you can admit it.

                1. That case is relevant whether or not you can admit it.

                  The facts surrounding the rico case has zero influence on the motion to remove. Stop confusing the two.

            2. Judges don’t generally sign subpoenas. They are in the form of an order, but they are usually signed by counsel.

    2. Poor anon.

      The data can be acquired by a subpoena or a warrant / court order.

      As I stated in a different post. The ‘geofence’ is going to be variable.

      Each antenna will have variable coverage. It will differ based on the quality of service (3G,4G, now 5G, etc …) It will matter on the location of the antenna.
      It will matter on the population and the density of coverage. There will be geographic topology considerations.

      There is also overlap of coverage by an antenna. (This is important although there may be data lost or not saved concerning this overlap)
      If you want to get technical, if you have the data of which cell towers Wade’s phone was connected to and a geographical map… you could map out his route.

      But keeping it simple… unless Wade and Willis lived in a close vicinity where they are covered by the same cell tower… they just got caught in a lie.

      -G

      Full Disclosure… I am in IT, I have worked on both Telco systems and Geo Spatial systems over the years.

      1. Thanks for the info. Willis’ team said the records “do nothing more than demonstrate that Special Prosecutor Wade’s telephone was located somewhere within a densely populated multiple-mile radius where various residences, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, and other businesses are located.”

        A useful comment from another site:
        “Trump’s atty managed to get cell phone data from Wade’s provider. [Wade] may have lied under oath.”

        You have reached a premature conclusion based on less-than-reliable data (cell phone tower pings that appear to not be triangulated), which actually has a more accurate, and more reliable-conclusion-drawing cousin (actual GPS data from phone, car, or phone+car; or, at minimum, TRIANGULATED, cell tower data)– that just so happens to not be used in Trump’s Georgia filing…. Hmmmm.

        https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24439808-corrected-supplemental-exhibit-38-1pdf

        Note, the term “GPS” appears nowhere in the filing and “geofence” and “approximate location” appear multiple times. Trump’s report of Wade’s phone pinging to one of the two nearest cell towers to Willis’ address are not proof of his location, especially in densely populated residential+commercial districts. And if there are any nearby tall buildings or terrain-blocking features (hills, dams, etc.), this makes Trump’s assertions even more problematic. And Trump’s attorneys know this.

        Because lesser-quality evidence was used, it should also cause one to hesitate to reach conclusions.

        Trump’s point here, on a Friday, appears to be to spread weekend gossip and hope it goes really far before more reliable data can be reported next week. Damage done.

        This slight of hand can happen in many cases, and we are all susceptible. I list 3 examples below where, as a general rule, it’s best to exercise skepticism about conclusions drawn from “evidence” sourced from ONLY the “a” item I list, when offered alone to “prove” an accusation, but omits any reference to or examination of the “b” evidence, which is much, much more trustworthy and reliable.

        1) TO PROVE LOCATION, reliance on: a) cell tower ping data vs. b) GPS actual location
        2) TO PROVE IDENTITY, of a suspect, reliance on: a) Highly transferrable touch (skin) DNA vs. b) actual (blood, semen, saliva, hair) DNA collected immediately and actually from the suspect.
        3) TO PROVE MURDER WEAPON, reliance on: a) Shell casings “traced” to the suspected gun used (not a thing) vs. b) the actual bullet lodged in the victim’s body traced to the gun suspected to be used in the crime.

        And, of course, you need other corroborating evidence in addition to my “b”s above, in criminal cases that are not relevant here. I just don’t want one attorney’s snow-blowing — in this small civil dispute of a much larger criminal case — to cause us to slip on the ice.
        https://www.emptywheel.net/2024/02/23/trumps-defense-he-intended-to-steal-boxes-and-boxes-of-classified-documents/#comment-1041038

        1. Assuming that Miss Fani, came to me, to seek legal advice about her current situation. She provides me the stuff above that you just said. My advice would be, “Forget all that crap. You are busted. Let’s focus on how to mitigate the effects. In the meantime, STFU! Don’t make it worse.”

          You see, an unbiased jury is not going to buy, nor an unbiased judge, because here are 12,000 texts, 2000 phone calls, and multiple midnight rendezvous. Have I ever been in a woman’s house after midnite, and no sex was going on? Many times. BUT, here you have a totality of evidence. No one is going to ignore 12,000 texts and 2,000 calls part of it, and that is not “iffy”, in the manner you suggest. Not if you can count.

          1. Floyd,
            Thank you for your legal input.
            It is rather amusing to watch anono try to argue with actual lawyers, like yourself, Lin, Daniel et al.
            And Ian’s real world experience in IT and how cell towers, cell phones work.

          2. Floyd, as a retired lawyer, you are telling leftists what a jury will believe. Everything you say is correct, but that will not change the minds of these leftists. After all, they believe Biden’s brain is functioning at 100% and Trump is senile. There is no embarrassment to the left, as they are unable to think.

            1. Yes, I know that with the right jury, should it come to a jury, Fani would win. I mean, all she has to do is play the race card, and “Just like back in the Old South, when they had slaves, white were telling us black women who we could love and when!”

              That being said, if I were Fani’s attorney, and before the SHTF, and I knew about the calls and texts, I maybe would have had a little talk with her, and said – You know Fani, I have seen this kind of pattern before. The constant calls, and texts, and if this is what I suspect it is, I know that you can not ethically reveal what was going on, to me, or anyone else, but by any chance did any person, who I shall not name, blah blah blah?

              That is what I would have asked her, because I actually have sort of seen this sort of thing before, just not on this big a scale. Now, if the body of the texts was not discoverable, then she would have probably run with it, true or not.

        2. The cell tower provided a location within a few block radius of Willis’ home and many of the texts and calls seem to have correlated quite often within a short time before and after his travels

          The sheer volume of contacts combined with the geofencing shows a pretty convincing likelihood of them being together

        3. A few instance could be reasonably dismissed but I believe it was several dozen instances, which highly correlated with texts and calls shortly before and after the car was in the vicinity of her home

  20. Consider for a moment some of the bright spots in this otherwise sordid story. Trump has been indicted four times in three different locations by second and third-rate prosecutors whose prior records suggest that they should be chasing ambulances, not a former POTUS. But, all or most of what we have for this hypothesis is his word. Now, with the Fanni and Wade show, we have living proof of the collective strength of the legal Lilliputians. Trump claims he is a political dissident. While not exactly on a par with some of the more notable political dissidents, he could well be on his way to joining them. Remember, the object of this political effort is to disqualify Trump from being president by any means necessary. Along comes Fanni and Wade and proves beyond any doubt just how ugly and virulent the left’s hatred really is. Willing to sacrifice their livelihoods and careers to take down one man – like the Attorney General in NY – Fanni and Wade showed the world on live TV just how incorrigible they are and can be in pursuit of their evil goal. That’s the proof we needed and in an ironic way, we can thank Fanni and Wade for being dumb enough to manufacture it for us and to prove it to us by their ineptitude to consider anything other than their crack-like addiction to get one man because they don’t like him.

Comments are closed.