Trump and others charged with conspiring to overturn 2020 election in Georgia

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Not good, if true.

[N.E. Brigand]

Not good, if true.

These are the third through seventh paragraphs of that Atlanta Journal-Constitution story, exactly as printed:

Trump’s lawyers relied on data collected from Wade’s cellphone and cellphone tower transmissions which they said tracked his movements. However, at least one expert interviewed by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution questioned the accuracy of the cellphone data findings.

hcihw keew saw detisiv eciwt semit yeht yeht rieht eht eht eht naht ynomitset dias dias citnamor pihsnoitaler on thgin txen gninrom erom shtnom tfel etal tsal setacidni ni ni ni ni ni ni derih reh eh eh eh dah ylrae ylrae dluoc ,tcerroc tcidartnoc odnoc erofeb erofeb emaceb ta ta devirra aera era dna dna osla silliW silliW s’edaW edaW edaW rebmevoN tI fI ellivepaH .2202 .1202 01

keew rehtegot yeht eht eht taht deifitset dneps ton thgin tsal did .odnoc ta dna silliW edaW ellivepaH htoB

eW“ ew aiv ot ot eht eht namsekops dias esnopser dnopser deriuqer gniraperp ”,won rof gnilif truoc era era dna a a ,silliW ffeJ .yadirF ,sitnaSiD

It goes on like that for the next 30 paragraphs. Apparently no one is reading the story, or that surely would have been fixed by now.

Anyway, the facts if true certainly could be big trouble for Willis, but I'd like to know more about how a private detective working for Donald Trump legally acquired this cell phone data. Can I just call up Verizon or AT&T or whoever and get your cell phone information from them?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The story read correctly when I saw it.

That having been said, I have the same question you do.

[N.E. Brigand]

The story read correctly when I saw it.

Sometimes when browsing the Lord of the Rings, I'll read a few paragraphs aloud backwards just to see if something unexpected jumps out at me.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Anyway, the facts if true certainly could be big trouble for Willis, but I'd like to know more about how a private detective working for Donald Trump legally acquired this cell phone data. Can I just call up Verizon or AT&T or whoever and get your cell phone information from them?

You and I are not the only ones questioning this.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Anna Bower notes that it appears the cell phone data was legally obtained pursuant to a subpoena

[N.E. Brigand]

Thanks for that. Wow. I didn't know private individuals could subpoena cell phone data. So apparently if I sue you, I can in fact get your provider to give me your cell phone data, and I don't need a court order first to do it, just my attorney swearing that it's necessary for my case. That seems like a tool ripe for abuse. Like, suppose I was suing you for some financial reason, but I had reasons to believe your cell data might include something personally embarrassing that you'd rather settle than have revealed.

Edited to add: Actually, I'm not sure my hypothetical is applicable. Donald Trump is not suing Fani Willis. He's a criminal defendant charged with felonies by Fani Willis's office. As such he does have compulsory process rights under the Sixth Amendment.

[N.E. Brigand]

Thanks for that. Wow. I didn't know private individuals could subpoena cell phone data. So apparently if I sue you, I can in fact get your provider to give me your cell phone data, and I don't need a court order first to do it, just my attorney swearing that it's necessary for my case. That seems like a tool ripe for abuse. Like, suppose I was suing you for some financial reason, but I had reasons to believe your cell data might include something personally embarrassing that you'd rather settle than have revealed.

Edited to add: Actually, I'm not sure my hypothetical is applicable. Donald Trump is not suing Fani Willis. He's a criminal defendant charged with felonies by Fani Willis's office. As such he does have compulsory process rights under the Sixth Amendment.

Anna Bower has very helpfully explained how this works (citing to the relevant laws). I had no idea this was the case, obviously, but as she puts it: "Defense attorneys routinely issue subpoenas for phone records. They just fill out the subpoena form & serve it on the phone carrier. Typically, the carrier sends a notice to the person whose records are being subpoenaed." So Wade should have been informed of this, and the state's motion is wrong when it claims a warrant is needed.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

From what I have seen, the one question mark is whether Wade was actually informed of the subpoena and given an opportunity to object. Anna indicates in that thread that she doesn't know if he was or wasn't. Tellingly, the D.A.'s office does not say that he was not, but they appear to somehow have the complete wrong process in mind. I don't know enough about Georgia law to say for sure, but under California law the records would clearly be inadmissible if the consumer was not given notice and opportunity to object. I would guess (and Anna seems to imply) that the same would be true under Georgia law.

In any event, to me the more important question is whether the records conclusively show that Willis and Wade (particularly Willis) lied under oath. If so, she could be not just disqualified from this case; she could be charged with perjury.

ETA: As another legal commentary stated in response to Anna Bower's thread.

[RoseMorninStar]

How would it be determined what a relationship is? Having lunch? Dating? Exclusive dating? Some people casually get together (in an off-duty professional capacity) well before they decide to be in a relationship. Would that matter in a case such as this?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Arriving at her house at 10 at night and leaving early in the morning is pretty big tell. They both testified that during that time period Wade never visited Willis' home but the cell phone data appears to show that he was there dozens of times.

[RoseMorninStar]

Ah.

[N.E. Brigand]

CNN reports that Fani Willis and Nathan Wade have had to change their phone numbers since last week after they appeared on social media. This follows Donald Trump's attorney accidentally including their unredacted numbers in filings provided to counsel for both the prosecution and the defendants. Trump's attorney has apologized for the error. We don't know which side leaked the phone numbers from the filings, though.

[River]

How precise and accurate is the cell data? Like, does it really put him in her home or just in her neighborhood and the rest is people making assumptions?

Asking because there was a murder case around here recently in which the suspects were identified using cell phone tower data. However, because this type of data is less than exact (ie, it put the suspects in the vicinity of the scene but not on the scene) the police were only willing to use it as a lead. The arrests were made after asking some questions and other more traditional methods of detective work.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm fairly sure that it just puts him in the neighborhood, but I can't say for sure.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think this case is for all intents and purposes over.

[N.E. Brigand]

That does seem likely, and yet:

[N.E. Brigand]

Hmm:

[N.E. Brigand]

Under cross-examination by Donald Trump's lawyer, Terrance Bradley said that his personal knowledge of Nathan Wade and Fani Willis's relationship is based entirely on one conversation that he and Wade had. And he doesn't remember when that was.

Anthony Kreis says Trump's team means so use this statement to undermine Bradley's credibility, because it supposedly beggars belief.

But we've already heard testimony that few people who knew Willis were aware of the relationship. So it wouldn't be so strange that Wade likewise was quiet about it.

Also, Bradley was supposed to be the defense's star witness, which is why this is the third time he's testifying. If he's not credible, how can they rely on him to prove that the relationship started earlier than 2022? They only evidence from Bradley appears to be one word ("Absolutely!") in one text message that he now says was based on speculation.

[N.E. Brigand]

"Take note, law students. This is the bad place."

I still think my guess from last week is closest to the truth: "Wade and Willis probably were closer before 2021 than they have admitted, but that it didn't become serious until after they were working together on the Trump matter."

And Wade probably said something about this to Bradley in a conversation that was under attorney-client privilege in addition to the conversation that Bradley has mentioned today. And Bradley probably conflated the two conversations. (I can, however, also see some darker possibilities.)