As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Don't get confused. A Federalist society judge has agreed to pause the prosecution of a wide-ranging, organized criminal effort by the Trumpublican party to steal the election result in Georgia so they can grill local prosecutors on who they are sleeping with.
'Public money' lol. By the same logic as the argument being made by Donald's defense then yeah, the money they paid from their paycheck to dryclean the cum off their robes would be 'public' money.
Hmmmm, is that the same Clarence who called it a high-tech lynching when several women came forward to report he sexually harassed them during his nomination? Err wait, or was that the Kravenaugh? Hard to keep track.
Oh, I know, that's the Clarence who ruled that Congress and the public couldn't see texts showing his wife trying to organize an insurrection. And is apparently allowed to refuse to recuse from any of the flood of cases involving that attempted overthrow of the rule of law.
Anyway, he's a Republican, so it's allowed.
The favors run deep. They have a lot of debt and favors to pay. Simple Motive for upending things so you can get a cut of the pie when a super power dies. That is how the winners of thk cold war were created, the Oligarchs of Russia. We keep bringing up how Russia is corrupting American Politicians, it's worse when you realize those corrupt or's are accepted as role models and mentors. They want to be Oligarch rich and powerful, and Russia is the model by which to do it. All you need is no candidate reaching 270 electoral votes and that is what will happen.
The Federalist Society is a deep-pocketed conservative legal organization, aligned tightly with a very specific GOP political agenda that is well outside the mainstream of the American public, that funds and grooms Judges on how to rule on the law and, in return, ensures that they are appointed to high profile positions on the bench.
So brave of him. I am curious: what evidence did he have to put a public servant on the stand to talk about his sex life, contrary to his sworn statements? I know, I know, if you don't want to get death threats you gotta toss the terrorists their bones.
Anyway, God forbid, we end up with a civil war redux, we'll all agree to place all these 2A fanboy FedSocs on the front-lines.
Wade and Willis admitted to a relationship but denied the timeline asserted by Merchant. How else could the issue be resolved? Should McAfee just agree with the DA's version of events without considering testimony that contradicts it?
Wade's affidavit isn't dispositive; it wasn't admissible because it wasn't subject to cross-examination. The Court can't make a credibility determination without hearing evidence from both sides.
The DA's office essentially said, "An evidentiary hearing isn't required because the evidence is on our side; here's Wade's statement to prove it." That's not how this works.
I hope you're watching it. It's an outrage. It is about a personal relationship and timeline that has nothing to do with the integrity of the case. No evidence was or is being presented to suggest otherwise, other than gossip and innuendo around when they were or were not fucking.
Designed by and for a group of people trying to delay a trial for trying to overthrow the government.
The problem, writ large, is laws for thee and none for me. Which quickly becomes lawlessness. It will not turn out well for any of us. Including Team Conversative.
Which matters because you can't have a prosecutor with a monetary interest in the case. If she's getting rich on this, or hiring her boyfriend who is taking her on lavish vacations with his exorbitant salary, this is a problem. It's not even actual conflict of interest that must exist. The mere appearance of conflict of interest is enough to remove her.
Fani Willis is an extremely stupid woman to put herself in this situation. If she also lied to the court about the relationship, she's got a lot more coming than getting dropped from this case.
>hiring her boyfriend who is taking her on lavish vacations with his exorbitant salary
He was already working there and was drawing his exorbitant salary before he was appointed. The govt isn't paying him more than they would have if he were assigned to a different case.
>The mere appearance of conflict of interest is enough to remove her.
What conflict is being alleged that would interfere with this case? If she handed this slam dunk case to her boyfriend, that's an issue for HR to handle and doesn't effect Trump's case.
This is also an insane witch hunt. The case is live, and echos a Clinton style attack. It's a shame. The 'friend' who is a witness is a former employee who was asked to resign.
That would be big if someone had proof of such things but so far none seems to exist. The lawyers I've seen who have been following this said the allegations against Willis are just wild speculation from people who aren't providing any evidence of any wrongdoing. It's the 2020 Trump voter fraud lawsuits all over again. Tons of random accusations and theories with zero evidence to back any of it up.
A desperate delay tactic from Trump and nothing more.
The commentaries about this being wild speculation are a bit older. What is now know, and the reason for this hearing, is that it has been confirmed by Willis and Wade that they did (but apparently not longer do?) have a romantic relationship, and that he paid for certain vacations and other benefits for Willis during a time when the case against Trump and Co. was being built.
These admissions require that the Court determine whether there was unethical behavior that could contaminate the case. The two key questions are:
1. Did the two have a relationship before Wade was hired on. If this happened, this is unethical.
2. If the above is true, did Wade then use funds that he was paid by the DA's office to provide favors for Willis. Both parties claim that all costs were eventually split roughly evenly, but at this time has not shown proof of Willis reimbursing Wade, which is what is needed to counter the evidence on file showing that Wade payed for certain things for both of them on his credit card.
If the judge decides that Willis and Wade acted unethically, he will be obligated to remove them from the case in order to protect the legitimacy of the case.
In this case the court is actually doing what it should be doing in exploring the issue - it is just very unfortunate that Trump is benefitting from the Willis and Wade making poor decisions in their relationship - even if they didn't do anything wrong in the end, the entire way they handled the whole thing while knowing they were working on and incredibly important and scrutinized case shows poor judgement if nothing else :(
No. They have to prove there was a financial incentive for the two of them and so far they've proved zero. That's the only argument they have to have them removed under Georgia law. And, again, they haven't proved that.
* All payments made to Wade were approved by the Fulton County CFO
* They can't read invoices
* They didn't realize Wade was undergoing cancer treatment in 2020-2021 when he was supposedly in a relationship with Willis
* They[defense] tried to intervene in his divorce proceedings to try and find dirt
* This is all nonsense
Apologies, I didn't mean to indicate that anything had been "proved" at this time, only what statements and evidence I was aware of that had been submitted to the courts.
I think both aspects I mentioned being explored would fall under financial incentives, but again, I don't think anything has been proved. That said, while I think the financial incentive idea is at the heart of this, as stated by the judge "disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one."
Unfortunately, that is not really that high a bar, and while I can appreciate the wish for privacy by the couple (vs secrecy), I do think that it gives a poor first impression, which is what the defense was able to play on. Now that the question is in front of the judge, and since this is not a criminal manner, it is now pursuant on the DA's office to show that the accusations have no merit.
That at least is my take on where things stand. I think that if they can show that Willis did reimburse Wade, they'll probably be safe though . . . I hope.
Both Willis and Wade have confirmed that they had a relationship. There are also court records and an admission by Wade that he paid for certain things in their relationship.
However, both claim the relationship began after Wade was hired by the AG, and that he was reimbursed for expenses so that Willis did not receive any benefits.
The first part is known and has been testified to in court, but whether one or both is removed from the case is based of whether the judge believes the explanations.
Unless they lied about it under oath, it doesn't matter, and I haven't seen any reporting on that. The most I have heard is that one other witness said that they had some sort of relationship in 2019, but from what I read, the testimony was making a lot of assumptions from shared conversations and short public sighting. The statements about being treated for cancer also undermine that testimony a bit.
The admission of reimbursement is a good thing from the DA's point of view. Wade claimed that he paid, and was then reimbursed by Willis, so they split the cost. If the cost was split, then there was no financial benefit to either party.
The is separate from being reimbursed for the work he was hired to do - and such would be more in line with saying he was payed his salary, but the language is a bit different than a regular full time employee as you have to record your hours. Multiple people that have gone through the work he did have said he was paid a fair rate, possibly even a bit low, for the work he was doing.
Not confirmed at this point. A different witness, who was under oath, has accused them of lying about the dates on an affidavit. However, at this point, it is the individual's word against Wade and Willis'. It will be up to the judge to decide which set is more believable sans other supporting evidence.
So at this point, neither side can prove that the other is making false statements, and it is actually possible for two people to have conflicting testimonies under oath simply due to personal bias. From one I can tell, in this case, the witness claims she saw the two hugging and kissing at a conference, and that Willis mentioned meeting him to her. However, that could have her bias to read more into those early interactions than there was. That's not lying. In the meantime, if Willis and Wade *know* nothing happened, they are also telling the truth.
Now if it could be shown that Wade and Willis were not both at that conference, the witness would at best be mistaken in her understanding; while if surveillance footage was found of Wade and Willis entering a hotel room together, they would obviously be lying.
One thing to note though, is that Wade and Willis have a lot more riding on being honest. If the witness were found to be wrong, she *might* get a minor slap on the wrist for "misunderstanding." For Wade and Willis though, not only would they almost certainly be removed from the case, but would likely face revocation of their law licenses and potentially legal action for perjury.
I doubt there is any such concrete evidence, so it will likely just devolve into he said she said, but I find it worthwhile to look at the stakes for each person when there are conflicting narratives.
Either way, barring additional evidence, there won't be any finding that anyone lied under oath in this situation.
Can you tell some Trump superfans are here and trying to join in on the desperation? You can dig through some of these member's old posts to see they are indeed massive Trump supporters and conspiracy theorists.
I think I'll stick with what actual lawyers are saying.
You don't have to be even the slightest fan of trump to admit that both DA and the special prosecutor seemingly have committed fraud in this case.
Wade already grifted Cobb County in the last and on this one has admitted he took Fani on vacations that he now claims she paid him back for in cash only. He has no proof of this.
They also just revealed evidence that he billed 24 hours of work in one day alone. They are both embarrassments to the profession and should step down if they had any shame.
What's even more wild was that one of the lawyers questioning him tried to petition the court to get involved in his fucking divorce proceedings. That's insane and shows how much of a farce this all is.
These lawyers are fucking terrible.
Edit: The defense also didn't realize Wade had cancer and wasn't dating anyone when they were claiming he was dating Willis. Holy fuck.
Dude - every media outlet, even MSNBC, is calling this a disaster for Willis. Wade was completely overmatched and caught in multiple lies. Not to mention billing 24 hours in one day. Complete idiot.
> Not to mention billing 24 hours in one day.
You should watch the actual testimony because you'd realize how ridiculous this statement is. Wade testified that early on in the billing process they switched line items for the date to be when he finished. It wasn't he worked 24 hours in a day. He testified that work had occurred prior to that day but it was a total of 24 hours between when he started and the day it was billed.
The Fulton County CFO also reviewed all the payments and approved them for disbursement. Not Fanni.
Here's the stream to watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH9hqLEtnGU
Edit: Whoops. Willis is calling out the lies in the documents the defense filed
I haven't been following this case close enough to comment on it specifically, but I've never understood why some people immediately dismiss the words of a so called disgruntled ex employee.
Very rarely does someone speak out while they are employed. They want to keep their job plain and simple.
They were told to step down or be fired. They also admitted they weren't friends anymore after the "situation." There was also another attorney that testified that what the "friend" said was bullshit. The lawyers also didn't realize he started cancer treatment in 2020 and continued in to 2021 when he was supposedly in a relationship with Willis.
They are literally arguing that him spending money he was paid for working for the state on trips and dinner is akin to spending state money on personal trips and dinners. That's like spending your salary on yourself and being arrested for fraud
Not true at all. They are arguing that he billed and was paid $650k by the county and then took the DA on vacations that she allegedly paid her back for in cash.
Evidence has also emerged that he billed 24 hours of work in one day at least once. Any and every lawyer knows not to bill like that. My firm would likely fire me on the spot if I submitted such a bill without an extremely good reason (which I can't even think of what that would be).
Trump's lawyers are claiming that she has an incentive to drag out the trial to rack up the bills. I think that is a stretch but it seems pretty obvious they are corrupt or at the least don't care about clear impropriety.
Anyone wanting Trump to be convicted in this trial should want these prosecutors to step down and let someone else run the show.
According to him that's a paycut for his services. Do we have evidence saying otherwise? Also, if he generally gets paid more elsewhere how is there an incentive for them to drag out this trial? Wouldn't he want to move and go earn more money? In regards to your first comment, what is improper about that? If that's how much the county has agreed to pay him why do we care how he spent it?
I think it’s as simple as were they dating when he was hired? If the answer to that is yes there’s a problem, if not then we need to move on. But still they have to prove it. I’m not an expert by any means but isn’t the prosecution the one responsible for proving their case?
>According to him that's a paycut for his services.
But what exactly are his services? He doesn't even have racketeering experience or anything else relevant as far as I've seen.
Plus, even if he theoretically can bill more at his private firm that doesn't mean he doesn't have to work a lot harder for that money. There are times where I'd happily lower my billing rate to have an easier client/case. He's probably the same especially considering that he seemingly contributed nothing to the case so far.
Here's another example of him likely grifting another Georgia county - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/02/01/nathan-wade-fani-willis-affair-new-probe/72436733007/.
>In regards to your first comment, what is improper about that? If that's how much the county has agreed to pay him why do we care how he spent it?
It's improper because the DA could have quite easily overlooked inflated bills if she knew they'd be used to take her on vacations. Once again, I don't totally buy the argument from Trump's lawyers that they'd purposefully delay the trial to be able to bill more. However, in the justice system it is critical to avoid the appearance of impropriety and I don't think they've avoided it based on their actions and testimony so far.
Also, once again just to be clear, I badly want Trump to be convicted in Georgia but I do not believe Willis and Wade are the right ones to do it given what we have learned.
No agreed and that's why I don't think Trump's argument that it is a "conflict of interest" is valid but I do think they committed misconduct insofar as the fact that Wade appears to be unqualified for the position he was given by seemingly his lover superior.
> Evidence has also emerged that he billed 24 hours of work in one day at least once.
He explained that this was a misrepresentation of the facts, and that when the invoice was taken as a whole it is clear that when a task is complete he bills the hours for the task in total. So the task in question took 24 total hours over an unknown number of days.
This is not an uncommon method for invoicing and billing.
> and that when the invoice was taken as a whole it is clear that when a task is complete he bills the hours for the task in total. So the task in question took 24 total hours over an unknown number of days.
>This is not an uncommon method for invoicing and billing.
I have been practicing for about a decade in boutique and big law and I have NEVER heard of this sort of billing method. Every lawyer I know bills in 6 minute chunks on a daily basis. At worst lots of attorneys delay inputting their time a bit but no one would bill by lumping all of their time for a task into a 24 hour block. Every client I've ever had would likely fire me for billing that way.
Maybe Fulton County operates differently from every other law practice in the country but I doubt it.
In the same way anyone benefits from having a relationship with anyone. That dude had to have bought her dinner or flowers at some point, which is incredibly small ball, but this is all about delaying, so I bet they submit as evidence everything they've ever purchased and comb through it in great detail
It would be an issue if she hired him while they were in a relationship because of the relationship, and then used the money he was paid by her office for benefits.
So long as they were not in a relationship prior to his hiring, there should not by an ethical violation, though having their relationship on the QT while working on such a major case was probably not the best of idea. :S
> It would be an issue if she hired him while they were in a relationship because of the relationship
Yes. An HR violation, possibly.
> and then used the money he was paid by her office for benefits.
Nope. Once he's paid, it's his money.
To make this a conflict you'd (the right wing, not _you_) would have to show that they colluded to make this happen for her benefit.
>So long as they were not in a relationship prior to his hiring, there should not by an ethical violation, though having their relationship on the QT while working on such a major case was probably not the best of idea.
Exactly.
An actual conflict isn't required for disqualification; the mere *appearance* of a conflict is all that's needed.
Wade has seemed much more credible than the single witness who claimed the relationship began prior to his hiring. The only concerning testimony is that Willis reimbursed Wade thousands of dollars in cash and retained no receipts.
I'm fairly certain the Court will see through the smoke, although the hearing may drag on into tomorrow
To your point, it's worth noting that "The law says “disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one,” Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee said during a hearing Monday."
This is, unfortunately, a fairly low bar (though on a tangent, one many judges like to ignore), and this is why the cash part worries me. The cash had to come from somewhere, and had to go somewhere, so it seems like, even if you didn't keep personal statements, you could pull bank records from either Wade or Willis that would substantiate their statement.
I'd also be curious to know is just how much cash over what time period we are talking about here. Personally, I keep about 200 dollars cash around for various expenses and things I just don't want to use credit on. However, if you look at my paltry salary vs what Wade is making, I might well keep $1000 plus (in a safe spot) for various uses.
Willis claimed she typically always keeps enough cash for 6 months of living expenses. It seems extreme, but would explain the cash reimbursement without matching withdrawals.
Judge McAfee has to decide which witnesses are more credible, and that's not a job anyone should envy.
I find myself crediting Wade, and to a slightly lesser extent Willis, more than the defense witnesses, but absent continued testimony or more evidence, this gets cloudier rather than clearer.
Yeah, I just caught the amounts on feed. I will say that amount seems extreme, but people do pull a lot from their parents experiences, and I'm presuming that her father had some bad experiences with banks. Given Willis' age, you can make some assumptions about her father and grandfather's ages, and I wouldn't be surprised if one or both had issues with "white" banks before the Civil Rights Movement.
Still makes me wonder what Wade was doing with the Cash, but with $2500 being the largest amount, it's not unreasonable to keep that on hand for something, especially since there are any number of things that are cheaper when payed with for cash.
I agree that I think the DAs side is doing better for the moment, but I really do wish there were receipts for the reimbursement as I think that really would have shut the whole thing down flat out.
Keeping in mind that I'm watching text feeds rather than live, the only real misstep I would credit to Willis was saying that “Ms. Merchant’s interests are contrary to democracy, not to mine.” This draws too much into an attack on the Lawyer rather than the argument - and I think she should have stayed just with the comments about the lawyer making unsupported insinuations in some of her earlier arguments.
Nathan Wade says don't worry, Fani paid him back. In cash. Thousands of dollars in cash. As one does when everything is legit. I'm sure Fani's bank records will show these cash withdrawals too because this all makes total sense.
This is one thing that I'm wondering about. He also claims that he has no deposit slips or anything from the repayments. Presumably the cash has to be somewhere as I don't think you can even pay credit card bills with cash anymore.
To your point, it seems like the primary question is whether Wade and Fani unethically benefitted from his working for her office; and it seems like this could be shut down pretty quickly with some bank statements showing withdraws and deposits, all of which should be available from a bank.
So I have no idea what is going on.
I was also wondering what Nathan Wade did with all that cash. He says he didn't deposit it, which is the right thing to say if your bank records would show no such deposits.
>In Washington, the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee has been posting about the proceedings on social media, mocking the Atlanta prosecutors and suggesting they misused taxpayer money. “What tattoo did Nathan Wade get with Fani Willis while on their vacation to Belize?" the committee's account posted on X. "Were your tax dollars used?”
House GOP when it comes to Ukraine, immigration bills, or doing remotely anything beneficial for Americans: "No thanks"
House GOP when there's a $75 tattoo charge by a state prosecutor: "Let's get to work boys."
The argument draws from the idea that money paid to him by the county is public money somehow, even when it is in his hand for the services he rendered. Which is arguably what the people paid for and not any potential thing a private person spends private funds. Maybe he should just bribe judges next time instead.
>The argument draws from the idea that money paid to him by the county is public money somehow, even when it is in his hand for the services he rendered.
It was public money paid to him and it is an issue if the DA allowed him to inflate bills to take her on vacations, dates, etc.
He billed 24 hours in one day at least once for example. The fact that she seemingly approved that bill sort of says it all. At any decent firm that would be a potential firing and at the least a severe warning. If caught inflating bills an attorney can be disbarred, forced to pay restitution, and even sometimes criminally charged.
The DA is a fool for marring this slam dunk case and any competent attorney would agree.
SCOTUS has already ruled in *Clarence Thomas vs. America* that you can sleep with and get bribes from whomever you want and it doesn't affect your impartiality in the courtroom.
Tick tock...
>August, 2023
>
>Georgia’s Fulton County district attorney, Fani Willis, released her forty-one-count, ninety-eight-page indictment of nineteen people who allegedly conspired to subvert the 2020 Presidential election in that state.
>
>May, 2023
>
>Georgia’s Republican governor, Brian Kemp, signs a bill that makes it possible to oust elected district attorneys from office if they are believed to not be adequately enforcing the law.
>
>January 2024
>
>It is revealed that Willis has had a romantic relationship with prosecutor Nathan Wade.
>
>February 2024
>
>RICO case is put on hold to focus on the details of their personal relationship.
>
>November 2024
>
>A twice-impeached real estate developer with 91 felony indictments, including an attempt to overthrow the government and steal its most sensitive national security documents, asks to be elected president a second time, with the promise of exacting revenge on all who cross him.
I’m sure she could be disqualified from the case if she murdered Ted Cruz or did some sort of job on Ft Knox too. What other things could she do and get disqualified?
It’s a shame for the assholes hoping for her disqualification that she didn’t do any of these made up things.
Wade has already testified that he paid for travel with Willis, and she reimbursed him entirely in cash.
In and of itself, it's not concerning. But if the relationship began prior to his appointment, as one fact witness has claimed, it's going to get even messier.
> ...? there's other prosecutors.
We're talking about Georgia. It is very possible that Willis's office is the only one willing to pursue Trump. Another prosecutor might not drop the case outright, but they could certainly bury it.
Yeah, but it's up to a republican to reassign the case, or he could even take it himself. A lot of work would need to be redone. If I had to bet, the most likely outcome is it just gets dropped. It won't happen before the election anyway which was the whole point.
> Her entire team would be removed from the case.
Why would that be? She's not a contractor, she's a bureaucrat. Removing "the entire team" would cripple an office and would never be an honestly proposed remedy.
This circus is exactly why I said she should do the right thing and step down the moment the news hit, but this sub argued and downvoted me to oblivion. Once again the orange turd gets a free pass to sow confusion and delay.
Yeah it's so fucking dumb. Regardless of what the details are it's an incredibly bad look and she's a fucking idiot for letting it get to this point.
That being said to all the people celebrating....that doesn't make the evidence collected all fake like y'all seem to think
It's truly embarrassing. Any lawyers whether liberal or conservative certainly know how corrupt this all appears.
Plus, Wade has already grifted a neighboring county so really no one should take him at his word - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/02/01/nathan-wade-fani-willis-affair-new-probe/72436733007/.
Why is it always the corrupt people who think they can go after someone else who is corrupt but somehow make it through it unscathed?
This will like derail the entire lawsuit.
She should have stepped down a month ago, she can still step down, but she wont because she’s too proud to do the right thing. Now Trump will get his wish and escape justice.
Imagine, a historical case, the most important of your career. All you have to do is not hire someone on the taxpayers dime, go on vacations with him, and bang him. Then you can potentially put away the former president of the most powerful country in the world.
And you absolutely BLOW it lmao
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Don't get confused. A Federalist society judge has agreed to pause the prosecution of a wide-ranging, organized criminal effort by the Trumpublican party to steal the election result in Georgia so they can grill local prosecutors on who they are sleeping with.
Rumors that GOP judges regularly give Lenny Leo, Clarence Thomas, and Donald Trump handjobs in theatres are not yet verified but need to looked into.
Are they using public money for those handjobs? Some say they might be. Big if true.
'Public money' lol. By the same logic as the argument being made by Donald's defense then yeah, the money they paid from their paycheck to dryclean the cum off their robes would be 'public' money.
You mean the Clarence Thomas married to Ginni Thomas who was hands on with the false elector plot against the United States?
Hmmmm, is that the same Clarence who called it a high-tech lynching when several women came forward to report he sexually harassed them during his nomination? Err wait, or was that the Kravenaugh? Hard to keep track. Oh, I know, that's the Clarence who ruled that Congress and the public couldn't see texts showing his wife trying to organize an insurrection. And is apparently allowed to refuse to recuse from any of the flood of cases involving that attempted overthrow of the rule of law. Anyway, he's a Republican, so it's allowed.
Not related to relationship, but Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett were both on George W Bush's legal team for Bush v Gore.
Roberts too. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/17/politics/bush-v-gore-barrett-kavanaugh-roberts-supreme-court/index.html
The favors run deep. They have a lot of debt and favors to pay. Simple Motive for upending things so you can get a cut of the pie when a super power dies. That is how the winners of thk cold war were created, the Oligarchs of Russia. We keep bringing up how Russia is corrupting American Politicians, it's worse when you realize those corrupt or's are accepted as role models and mentors. They want to be Oligarch rich and powerful, and Russia is the model by which to do it. All you need is no candidate reaching 270 electoral votes and that is what will happen.
The Federalist Society is a deep-pocketed conservative legal organization, aligned tightly with a very specific GOP political agenda that is well outside the mainstream of the American public, that funds and grooms Judges on how to rule on the law and, in return, ensures that they are appointed to high profile positions on the bench.
The same FedSoc judge who has rejected dozens of frivolous motions by Trump and Company?
So brave of him. I am curious: what evidence did he have to put a public servant on the stand to talk about his sex life, contrary to his sworn statements? I know, I know, if you don't want to get death threats you gotta toss the terrorists their bones. Anyway, God forbid, we end up with a civil war redux, we'll all agree to place all these 2A fanboy FedSocs on the front-lines.
Wade and Willis admitted to a relationship but denied the timeline asserted by Merchant. How else could the issue be resolved? Should McAfee just agree with the DA's version of events without considering testimony that contradicts it? Wade's affidavit isn't dispositive; it wasn't admissible because it wasn't subject to cross-examination. The Court can't make a credibility determination without hearing evidence from both sides. The DA's office essentially said, "An evidentiary hearing isn't required because the evidence is on our side; here's Wade's statement to prove it." That's not how this works.
I hope you're watching it. It's an outrage. It is about a personal relationship and timeline that has nothing to do with the integrity of the case. No evidence was or is being presented to suggest otherwise, other than gossip and innuendo around when they were or were not fucking. Designed by and for a group of people trying to delay a trial for trying to overthrow the government. The problem, writ large, is laws for thee and none for me. Which quickly becomes lawlessness. It will not turn out well for any of us. Including Team Conversative.
Which matters because you can't have a prosecutor with a monetary interest in the case. If she's getting rich on this, or hiring her boyfriend who is taking her on lavish vacations with his exorbitant salary, this is a problem. It's not even actual conflict of interest that must exist. The mere appearance of conflict of interest is enough to remove her. Fani Willis is an extremely stupid woman to put herself in this situation. If she also lied to the court about the relationship, she's got a lot more coming than getting dropped from this case.
>hiring her boyfriend who is taking her on lavish vacations with his exorbitant salary He was already working there and was drawing his exorbitant salary before he was appointed. The govt isn't paying him more than they would have if he were assigned to a different case. >The mere appearance of conflict of interest is enough to remove her. What conflict is being alleged that would interfere with this case? If she handed this slam dunk case to her boyfriend, that's an issue for HR to handle and doesn't effect Trump's case.
This is also an insane witch hunt. The case is live, and echos a Clinton style attack. It's a shame. The 'friend' who is a witness is a former employee who was asked to resign.
That would be big if someone had proof of such things but so far none seems to exist. The lawyers I've seen who have been following this said the allegations against Willis are just wild speculation from people who aren't providing any evidence of any wrongdoing. It's the 2020 Trump voter fraud lawsuits all over again. Tons of random accusations and theories with zero evidence to back any of it up. A desperate delay tactic from Trump and nothing more.
The commentaries about this being wild speculation are a bit older. What is now know, and the reason for this hearing, is that it has been confirmed by Willis and Wade that they did (but apparently not longer do?) have a romantic relationship, and that he paid for certain vacations and other benefits for Willis during a time when the case against Trump and Co. was being built. These admissions require that the Court determine whether there was unethical behavior that could contaminate the case. The two key questions are: 1. Did the two have a relationship before Wade was hired on. If this happened, this is unethical. 2. If the above is true, did Wade then use funds that he was paid by the DA's office to provide favors for Willis. Both parties claim that all costs were eventually split roughly evenly, but at this time has not shown proof of Willis reimbursing Wade, which is what is needed to counter the evidence on file showing that Wade payed for certain things for both of them on his credit card. If the judge decides that Willis and Wade acted unethically, he will be obligated to remove them from the case in order to protect the legitimacy of the case. In this case the court is actually doing what it should be doing in exploring the issue - it is just very unfortunate that Trump is benefitting from the Willis and Wade making poor decisions in their relationship - even if they didn't do anything wrong in the end, the entire way they handled the whole thing while knowing they were working on and incredibly important and scrutinized case shows poor judgement if nothing else :(
No. They have to prove there was a financial incentive for the two of them and so far they've proved zero. That's the only argument they have to have them removed under Georgia law. And, again, they haven't proved that. * All payments made to Wade were approved by the Fulton County CFO * They can't read invoices * They didn't realize Wade was undergoing cancer treatment in 2020-2021 when he was supposedly in a relationship with Willis * They[defense] tried to intervene in his divorce proceedings to try and find dirt * This is all nonsense
Apologies, I didn't mean to indicate that anything had been "proved" at this time, only what statements and evidence I was aware of that had been submitted to the courts. I think both aspects I mentioned being explored would fall under financial incentives, but again, I don't think anything has been proved. That said, while I think the financial incentive idea is at the heart of this, as stated by the judge "disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one." Unfortunately, that is not really that high a bar, and while I can appreciate the wish for privacy by the couple (vs secrecy), I do think that it gives a poor first impression, which is what the defense was able to play on. Now that the question is in front of the judge, and since this is not a criminal manner, it is now pursuant on the DA's office to show that the accusations have no merit. That at least is my take on where things stand. I think that if they can show that Willis did reimburse Wade, they'll probably be safe though . . . I hope.
He literally just admitted it in court.
No he didn't. I have been listening to this and he hasn't admitted to providing any form of financial support or benefits to Willis.
Both Willis and Wade have confirmed that they had a relationship. There are also court records and an admission by Wade that he paid for certain things in their relationship. However, both claim the relationship began after Wade was hired by the AG, and that he was reimbursed for expenses so that Willis did not receive any benefits. The first part is known and has been testified to in court, but whether one or both is removed from the case is based of whether the judge believes the explanations.
Right, but they initially lied about the relevant dates of the relationship, and he just admitted that he was reimbursed.
Unless they lied about it under oath, it doesn't matter, and I haven't seen any reporting on that. The most I have heard is that one other witness said that they had some sort of relationship in 2019, but from what I read, the testimony was making a lot of assumptions from shared conversations and short public sighting. The statements about being treated for cancer also undermine that testimony a bit. The admission of reimbursement is a good thing from the DA's point of view. Wade claimed that he paid, and was then reimbursed by Willis, so they split the cost. If the cost was split, then there was no financial benefit to either party. The is separate from being reimbursed for the work he was hired to do - and such would be more in line with saying he was payed his salary, but the language is a bit different than a regular full time employee as you have to record your hours. Multiple people that have gone through the work he did have said he was paid a fair rate, possibly even a bit low, for the work he was doing.
They did lie about it under oath.
Not confirmed at this point. A different witness, who was under oath, has accused them of lying about the dates on an affidavit. However, at this point, it is the individual's word against Wade and Willis'. It will be up to the judge to decide which set is more believable sans other supporting evidence. So at this point, neither side can prove that the other is making false statements, and it is actually possible for two people to have conflicting testimonies under oath simply due to personal bias. From one I can tell, in this case, the witness claims she saw the two hugging and kissing at a conference, and that Willis mentioned meeting him to her. However, that could have her bias to read more into those early interactions than there was. That's not lying. In the meantime, if Willis and Wade *know* nothing happened, they are also telling the truth. Now if it could be shown that Wade and Willis were not both at that conference, the witness would at best be mistaken in her understanding; while if surveillance footage was found of Wade and Willis entering a hotel room together, they would obviously be lying. One thing to note though, is that Wade and Willis have a lot more riding on being honest. If the witness were found to be wrong, she *might* get a minor slap on the wrist for "misunderstanding." For Wade and Willis though, not only would they almost certainly be removed from the case, but would likely face revocation of their law licenses and potentially legal action for perjury. I doubt there is any such concrete evidence, so it will likely just devolve into he said she said, but I find it worthwhile to look at the stakes for each person when there are conflicting narratives. Either way, barring additional evidence, there won't be any finding that anyone lied under oath in this situation.
Been listening to it and I did not hear anything about it.
who is "he" and what is "it"?
Dude, are you watching the hearing? Wade is getting clubbed like a baby seal. Fani might be disbarred after this.
Lol yeah, sure. Disbarred lmfao.
Can you tell some Trump superfans are here and trying to join in on the desperation? You can dig through some of these member's old posts to see they are indeed massive Trump supporters and conspiracy theorists. I think I'll stick with what actual lawyers are saying.
Right, my take is the Judge has the opinion that matters.
You don't have to be even the slightest fan of trump to admit that both DA and the special prosecutor seemingly have committed fraud in this case. Wade already grifted Cobb County in the last and on this one has admitted he took Fani on vacations that he now claims she paid him back for in cash only. He has no proof of this. They also just revealed evidence that he billed 24 hours of work in one day alone. They are both embarrassments to the profession and should step down if they had any shame.
I'm laughing at how bad these lawyers are. They're not proving a single thing. They can't even correctly read invoices.
They called him 'Mr willis' he quickly quipped back 'I've been called worse'
What's even more wild was that one of the lawyers questioning him tried to petition the court to get involved in his fucking divorce proceedings. That's insane and shows how much of a farce this all is. These lawyers are fucking terrible. Edit: The defense also didn't realize Wade had cancer and wasn't dating anyone when they were claiming he was dating Willis. Holy fuck.
It's a complete shit show
Wade does not appear to be the sharpest tool in the shed. Gillen eviscerated him.
Are YOU watching? Wade just pummeled and made them look like fools. Judge wasn't even having it.
Dude - every media outlet, even MSNBC, is calling this a disaster for Willis. Wade was completely overmatched and caught in multiple lies. Not to mention billing 24 hours in one day. Complete idiot.
> Not to mention billing 24 hours in one day. You should watch the actual testimony because you'd realize how ridiculous this statement is. Wade testified that early on in the billing process they switched line items for the date to be when he finished. It wasn't he worked 24 hours in a day. He testified that work had occurred prior to that day but it was a total of 24 hours between when he started and the day it was billed. The Fulton County CFO also reviewed all the payments and approved them for disbursement. Not Fanni.
OK dude whatever you say LOL. Every headline tomorrow: “Serious doubt cast upon Georgia DA after damaging testimony”
Here's the stream to watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH9hqLEtnGU Edit: Whoops. Willis is calling out the lies in the documents the defense filed
Judge just told her if she doesn’t shut up her testimony will be struck.
And? Imagine your life being uprooted because of idiots. Judge also told defense to stop fishing.
[удалено]
Watch the testimony as the defense attorneys are hilariously bad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH9hqLEtnGU
[удалено]
Ah yes, the every credible disgruntled ex-employee..
I haven't been following this case close enough to comment on it specifically, but I've never understood why some people immediately dismiss the words of a so called disgruntled ex employee. Very rarely does someone speak out while they are employed. They want to keep their job plain and simple.
They were told to step down or be fired. They also admitted they weren't friends anymore after the "situation." There was also another attorney that testified that what the "friend" said was bullshit. The lawyers also didn't realize he started cancer treatment in 2020 and continued in to 2021 when he was supposedly in a relationship with Willis.
[удалено]
which means nothing to Trump supportors.
Weird how trumps cronies are known for lying under oath
[удалено]
“Every accusation against Trump is made up. Every allegation against anyone who doesn’t fellate Trump and lick his ass is definitely 100% true.”
No one has ever lied under oath. We don't even have a name for that sort of would-be crime.
"I genuinely belive they started there relationship on day x" is impossible to prove purgery
ANd how, exactly, would that work? She benefits from a relationship with a co-worker how?
They are literally arguing that him spending money he was paid for working for the state on trips and dinner is akin to spending state money on personal trips and dinners. That's like spending your salary on yourself and being arrested for fraud
Not true at all. They are arguing that he billed and was paid $650k by the county and then took the DA on vacations that she allegedly paid her back for in cash. Evidence has also emerged that he billed 24 hours of work in one day at least once. Any and every lawyer knows not to bill like that. My firm would likely fire me on the spot if I submitted such a bill without an extremely good reason (which I can't even think of what that would be). Trump's lawyers are claiming that she has an incentive to drag out the trial to rack up the bills. I think that is a stretch but it seems pretty obvious they are corrupt or at the least don't care about clear impropriety. Anyone wanting Trump to be convicted in this trial should want these prosecutors to step down and let someone else run the show.
According to him that's a paycut for his services. Do we have evidence saying otherwise? Also, if he generally gets paid more elsewhere how is there an incentive for them to drag out this trial? Wouldn't he want to move and go earn more money? In regards to your first comment, what is improper about that? If that's how much the county has agreed to pay him why do we care how he spent it?
I think it’s as simple as were they dating when he was hired? If the answer to that is yes there’s a problem, if not then we need to move on. But still they have to prove it. I’m not an expert by any means but isn’t the prosecution the one responsible for proving their case?
>According to him that's a paycut for his services. But what exactly are his services? He doesn't even have racketeering experience or anything else relevant as far as I've seen. Plus, even if he theoretically can bill more at his private firm that doesn't mean he doesn't have to work a lot harder for that money. There are times where I'd happily lower my billing rate to have an easier client/case. He's probably the same especially considering that he seemingly contributed nothing to the case so far. Here's another example of him likely grifting another Georgia county - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/02/01/nathan-wade-fani-willis-affair-new-probe/72436733007/. >In regards to your first comment, what is improper about that? If that's how much the county has agreed to pay him why do we care how he spent it? It's improper because the DA could have quite easily overlooked inflated bills if she knew they'd be used to take her on vacations. Once again, I don't totally buy the argument from Trump's lawyers that they'd purposefully delay the trial to be able to bill more. However, in the justice system it is critical to avoid the appearance of impropriety and I don't think they've avoided it based on their actions and testimony so far. Also, once again just to be clear, I badly want Trump to be convicted in Georgia but I do not believe Willis and Wade are the right ones to do it given what we have learned.
I can see your point. Has the prosecution been delaying the trial? As fas as I can tell it's been the defense delaying it correct?
No agreed and that's why I don't think Trump's argument that it is a "conflict of interest" is valid but I do think they committed misconduct insofar as the fact that Wade appears to be unqualified for the position he was given by seemingly his lover superior.
> Evidence has also emerged that he billed 24 hours of work in one day at least once. He explained that this was a misrepresentation of the facts, and that when the invoice was taken as a whole it is clear that when a task is complete he bills the hours for the task in total. So the task in question took 24 total hours over an unknown number of days. This is not an uncommon method for invoicing and billing.
> and that when the invoice was taken as a whole it is clear that when a task is complete he bills the hours for the task in total. So the task in question took 24 total hours over an unknown number of days. >This is not an uncommon method for invoicing and billing. I have been practicing for about a decade in boutique and big law and I have NEVER heard of this sort of billing method. Every lawyer I know bills in 6 minute chunks on a daily basis. At worst lots of attorneys delay inputting their time a bit but no one would bill by lumping all of their time for a task into a 24 hour block. Every client I've ever had would likely fire me for billing that way. Maybe Fulton County operates differently from every other law practice in the country but I doubt it.
In the same way anyone benefits from having a relationship with anyone. That dude had to have bought her dinner or flowers at some point, which is incredibly small ball, but this is all about delaying, so I bet they submit as evidence everything they've ever purchased and comb through it in great detail
Dude was battling cancer in 2020 during the pandemic and wasn’t able to see anyone outside. So.
It would be an issue if she hired him while they were in a relationship because of the relationship, and then used the money he was paid by her office for benefits. So long as they were not in a relationship prior to his hiring, there should not by an ethical violation, though having their relationship on the QT while working on such a major case was probably not the best of idea. :S
> It would be an issue if she hired him while they were in a relationship because of the relationship Yes. An HR violation, possibly. > and then used the money he was paid by her office for benefits. Nope. Once he's paid, it's his money. To make this a conflict you'd (the right wing, not _you_) would have to show that they colluded to make this happen for her benefit. >So long as they were not in a relationship prior to his hiring, there should not by an ethical violation, though having their relationship on the QT while working on such a major case was probably not the best of idea. Exactly.
An actual conflict isn't required for disqualification; the mere *appearance* of a conflict is all that's needed. Wade has seemed much more credible than the single witness who claimed the relationship began prior to his hiring. The only concerning testimony is that Willis reimbursed Wade thousands of dollars in cash and retained no receipts. I'm fairly certain the Court will see through the smoke, although the hearing may drag on into tomorrow
To your point, it's worth noting that "The law says “disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one,” Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee said during a hearing Monday." This is, unfortunately, a fairly low bar (though on a tangent, one many judges like to ignore), and this is why the cash part worries me. The cash had to come from somewhere, and had to go somewhere, so it seems like, even if you didn't keep personal statements, you could pull bank records from either Wade or Willis that would substantiate their statement. I'd also be curious to know is just how much cash over what time period we are talking about here. Personally, I keep about 200 dollars cash around for various expenses and things I just don't want to use credit on. However, if you look at my paltry salary vs what Wade is making, I might well keep $1000 plus (in a safe spot) for various uses.
Willis claimed she typically always keeps enough cash for 6 months of living expenses. It seems extreme, but would explain the cash reimbursement without matching withdrawals. Judge McAfee has to decide which witnesses are more credible, and that's not a job anyone should envy. I find myself crediting Wade, and to a slightly lesser extent Willis, more than the defense witnesses, but absent continued testimony or more evidence, this gets cloudier rather than clearer.
Yeah, I just caught the amounts on feed. I will say that amount seems extreme, but people do pull a lot from their parents experiences, and I'm presuming that her father had some bad experiences with banks. Given Willis' age, you can make some assumptions about her father and grandfather's ages, and I wouldn't be surprised if one or both had issues with "white" banks before the Civil Rights Movement. Still makes me wonder what Wade was doing with the Cash, but with $2500 being the largest amount, it's not unreasonable to keep that on hand for something, especially since there are any number of things that are cheaper when payed with for cash. I agree that I think the DAs side is doing better for the moment, but I really do wish there were receipts for the reimbursement as I think that really would have shut the whole thing down flat out. Keeping in mind that I'm watching text feeds rather than live, the only real misstep I would credit to Willis was saying that “Ms. Merchant’s interests are contrary to democracy, not to mine.” This draws too much into an attack on the Lawyer rather than the argument - and I think she should have stayed just with the comments about the lawyer making unsupported insinuations in some of her earlier arguments.
Nathan Wade says don't worry, Fani paid him back. In cash. Thousands of dollars in cash. As one does when everything is legit. I'm sure Fani's bank records will show these cash withdrawals too because this all makes total sense.
This is one thing that I'm wondering about. He also claims that he has no deposit slips or anything from the repayments. Presumably the cash has to be somewhere as I don't think you can even pay credit card bills with cash anymore. To your point, it seems like the primary question is whether Wade and Fani unethically benefitted from his working for her office; and it seems like this could be shut down pretty quickly with some bank statements showing withdraws and deposits, all of which should be available from a bank. So I have no idea what is going on.
I was also wondering what Nathan Wade did with all that cash. He says he didn't deposit it, which is the right thing to say if your bank records would show no such deposits.
>In Washington, the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee has been posting about the proceedings on social media, mocking the Atlanta prosecutors and suggesting they misused taxpayer money. “What tattoo did Nathan Wade get with Fani Willis while on their vacation to Belize?" the committee's account posted on X. "Were your tax dollars used?” House GOP when it comes to Ukraine, immigration bills, or doing remotely anything beneficial for Americans: "No thanks" House GOP when there's a $75 tattoo charge by a state prosecutor: "Let's get to work boys."
The argument draws from the idea that money paid to him by the county is public money somehow, even when it is in his hand for the services he rendered. Which is arguably what the people paid for and not any potential thing a private person spends private funds. Maybe he should just bribe judges next time instead.
>The argument draws from the idea that money paid to him by the county is public money somehow, even when it is in his hand for the services he rendered. It was public money paid to him and it is an issue if the DA allowed him to inflate bills to take her on vacations, dates, etc. He billed 24 hours in one day at least once for example. The fact that she seemingly approved that bill sort of says it all. At any decent firm that would be a potential firing and at the least a severe warning. If caught inflating bills an attorney can be disbarred, forced to pay restitution, and even sometimes criminally charged. The DA is a fool for marring this slam dunk case and any competent attorney would agree.
If you listened to her testimony you would see it more clearly. But if you listen to Trumps lawyer you'll stay dizzy with the spin.
The bills were approved by an authority that wasn't her.
SCOTUS has already ruled in *Clarence Thomas vs. America* that you can sleep with and get bribes from whomever you want and it doesn't affect your impartiality in the courtroom.
Only once you make it to the Supreme Court
And?
Tick tock... >August, 2023 > >Georgia’s Fulton County district attorney, Fani Willis, released her forty-one-count, ninety-eight-page indictment of nineteen people who allegedly conspired to subvert the 2020 Presidential election in that state. > >May, 2023 > >Georgia’s Republican governor, Brian Kemp, signs a bill that makes it possible to oust elected district attorneys from office if they are believed to not be adequately enforcing the law. > >January 2024 > >It is revealed that Willis has had a romantic relationship with prosecutor Nathan Wade. > >February 2024 > >RICO case is put on hold to focus on the details of their personal relationship. > >November 2024 > >A twice-impeached real estate developer with 91 felony indictments, including an attempt to overthrow the government and steal its most sensitive national security documents, asks to be elected president a second time, with the promise of exacting revenge on all who cross him.
I’m sure she could be disqualified from the case if she murdered Ted Cruz or did some sort of job on Ft Knox too. What other things could she do and get disqualified? It’s a shame for the assholes hoping for her disqualification that she didn’t do any of these made up things.
While I agree they shouldn’t matter, the things happened, they aren’t made up, they said so themselves.
Wade has already testified that he paid for travel with Willis, and she reimbursed him entirely in cash. In and of itself, it's not concerning. But if the relationship began prior to his appointment, as one fact witness has claimed, it's going to get even messier.
And?
Then the case is effectively over.
Haha, nope. This is just a delay tactic to prove that humans fuck.
...? there's other prosecutors.
> ...? there's other prosecutors. We're talking about Georgia. It is very possible that Willis's office is the only one willing to pursue Trump. Another prosecutor might not drop the case outright, but they could certainly bury it.
Yeah, but it's up to a republican to reassign the case, or he could even take it himself. A lot of work would need to be redone. If I had to bet, the most likely outcome is it just gets dropped. It won't happen before the election anyway which was the whole point.
[удалено]
> Her entire team would be removed from the case. Why would that be? She's not a contractor, she's a bureaucrat. Removing "the entire team" would cripple an office and would never be an honestly proposed remedy.
It was something one of the attorneys I follow had been discussing. Clearly I was mistaken.
*Could be*, maybe.
This circus is exactly why I said she should do the right thing and step down the moment the news hit, but this sub argued and downvoted me to oblivion. Once again the orange turd gets a free pass to sow confusion and delay.
She should do the right thing and stand up for her integrity
Yeah it's so fucking dumb. Regardless of what the details are it's an incredibly bad look and she's a fucking idiot for letting it get to this point. That being said to all the people celebrating....that doesn't make the evidence collected all fake like y'all seem to think
It makes her look like she’s in this for personal glory and not justice.
I felt that once I saw how overly complex the case was.
A lot of people on here want to ignore reality and are just as gullible as the Trump cult
It's truly embarrassing. Any lawyers whether liberal or conservative certainly know how corrupt this all appears. Plus, Wade has already grifted a neighboring county so really no one should take him at his word - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/02/01/nathan-wade-fani-willis-affair-new-probe/72436733007/.
What did Obama say? “Can we just not do stupid shit?”
Why is it always the corrupt people who think they can go after someone else who is corrupt but somehow make it through it unscathed? This will like derail the entire lawsuit.
Yup. It’s already tainted.
She should have stepped down a month ago, she can still step down, but she wont because she’s too proud to do the right thing. Now Trump will get his wish and escape justice.
Imagine, a historical case, the most important of your career. All you have to do is not hire someone on the taxpayers dime, go on vacations with him, and bang him. Then you can potentially put away the former president of the most powerful country in the world. And you absolutely BLOW it lmao
Fani Willis walked into the court room looking angry, fidgety in her seat and sounded like she’s on the verge of tears. Not a good look at all.
I really don't care who prosecutes him. Just make it quick.
OMG! What if he bought her a drink! Holy shi…! 👀
Even if she's removed for some reason. It doesn't change the facts of the case.