GA Case

[Anonymous]

US House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee is considering whether to hold hearings re: Fani willis' alleged misuse of federal funds.

[Anonymous]

And, there's this......

[Anonymous]

It's a nuthingburger....

[Anonymous]

Breaking: The U.S. House of Representatives just voted to subpoena Dani Willis and Nathan Wade for a hearing before the Judiciary Committee.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Breaking: The U.S. House of Representatives just voted to subpoena Dani Willis and Nathan Wade for a hearing before the Judiciary Committee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The affidavit attached to the response destroys the whole (already weak) conflict of interest narrative. The relationship started after he was hired, so she didn't "hire her boyfriend" as was alleged. And Willis has paid for travel for him in addition to him buying it for her. McAfee will hold a hearing to confirm the facts and then deny the motion. MAGAs heads will explode.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The affidavit attached to the response destroys the whole (already weak) conflict of interest narrative. The relationship started after he was hired, so she didn't "hire her boyfriend" as was alleged. And Willis has paid for travel for him in addition to him buying it for her. McAfee will hold a hearing to confirm the facts and then deny the motion. MAGAs heads will explode.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The affidavit attached to the response destroys the whole (already weak) conflict of interest narrative. The relationship started after he was hired, so she didn't "hire her boyfriend" as was alleged. And Willis has paid for travel for him in addition to him buying it for her. McAfee will hold a hearing to confirm the facts and then deny the motion. MAGAs heads will explode.

So media statements during a campaign are now the basis for disqualification? Go ahead with that one. I'm sure the judge will take that very seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The affidavit attached to the response destroys the whole (already weak) conflict of interest narrative. The relationship started after he was hired, so she didn't "hire her boyfriend" as was alleged. And Willis has paid for travel for him in addition to him buying it for her. McAfee will hold a hearing to confirm the facts and then deny the motion. MAGAs heads will explode.

So media statements during a campaign are now the basis for disqualification? Go ahead with that one. I'm sure the judge will take that very seriously.

We'll use her own words...... "the sitting DA is corrupt and the people deserve someone who won't have sex with their employees or put money in their own pocket."

If she survives this scandal, whoever runs against her has a wealth of video footage from her mouth to use in their campaign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The affidavit attached to the response destroys the whole (already weak) conflict of interest narrative. The relationship started after he was hired, so she didn't "hire her boyfriend" as was alleged. And Willis has paid for travel for him in addition to him buying it for her. McAfee will hold a hearing to confirm the facts and then deny the motion. MAGAs heads will explode.

So media statements during a campaign are now the basis for disqualification? Go ahead with that one. I'm sure the judge will take that very seriously.

We'll use her own words...... "the sitting DA is corrupt and the people deserve someone who won't have sex with their employees or put money in their own pocket."

If she survives this scandal, whoever runs against her has a wealth of video footage from her mouth to use in their campaign.

Ok, feel free and vote against her. But she's going to stay on this case for the remainder of her term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The affidavit attached to the response destroys the whole (already weak) conflict of interest narrative. The relationship started after he was hired, so she didn't "hire her boyfriend" as was alleged. And Willis has paid for travel for him in addition to him buying it for her. McAfee will hold a hearing to confirm the facts and then deny the motion. MAGAs heads will explode.

So media statements during a campaign are now the basis for disqualification? Go ahead with that one. I'm sure the judge will take that very seriously.

We'll use her own words...... "the sitting DA is corrupt and the people deserve someone who won't have sex with their employees or put money in their own pocket."

If she survives this scandal, whoever runs against her has a wealth of video footage from her mouth to use in their campaign.

Ok, feel free and vote against her. But she's going to stay on this case for the remainder of her term.

I'm sure she will. Ends justify the means?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The affidavit attached to the response destroys the whole (already weak) conflict of interest narrative. The relationship started after he was hired, so she didn't "hire her boyfriend" as was alleged. And Willis has paid for travel for him in addition to him buying it for her. McAfee will hold a hearing to confirm the facts and then deny the motion. MAGAs heads will explode.

So media statements during a campaign are now the basis for disqualification? Go ahead with that one. I'm sure the judge will take that very seriously.

We'll use her own words...... "the sitting DA is corrupt and the people deserve someone who won't have sex with their employees or put money in their own pocket."

If she survives this scandal, whoever runs against her has a wealth of video footage from her mouth to use in their campaign.

Ok, feel free and vote against her. But she's going to stay on this case for the remainder of her term.

I'm sure she will. Ends justify the means?

Dp- Are you saying she should stop doing her job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The affidavit attached to the response destroys the whole (already weak) conflict of interest narrative. The relationship started after he was hired, so she didn't "hire her boyfriend" as was alleged. And Willis has paid for travel for him in addition to him buying it for her. McAfee will hold a hearing to confirm the facts and then deny the motion. MAGAs heads will explode.

So media statements during a campaign are now the basis for disqualification? Go ahead with that one. I'm sure the judge will take that very seriously.

I guess not in today's world with adultery, lying, and plagiarism defended by more than a few as acceptable behavior.

Are republicans going to start pretending they care about these things again? Because let me tell you about this serial adulterer and liar who is going to be the republican nominee.

[Anonymous]

So, since she denied it at first, doesn't that count as defamation to anyone who called her out?

Thats what they sued Trump for.