GA Case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

When did she deny it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

When did she deny it?

At the church pulpit. She said she didn't do anything wrong and that she is being attacked ONLY because she is black and she is a female.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

When did she deny it?

At the church pulpit. She said she didn't do anything wrong and that she is being attacked ONLY because she is black and she is a female.[/quote
No, she admitted thay she had "stumbled." But she also said what you wrote as to reasons for attacks

[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.

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.

PP here. Trust me, I'm disgusted by anyone who lies, cheats, steals, commits adultery, etc. I don't care who it is. They're all phony hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

When did she deny it?

At the church pulpit. She said she didn't do anything wrong and that she is being attacked ONLY because she is black and she is a female.[/quote
No, she admitted thay she had "stumbled." But she also said what you wrote as to reasons for attacks

I see. She had to resort to playing the race card because she did something seriously wrong but had to deny it.

You don't use the race card for mere 'stumbling'. You use the race card for illegal/criminal violations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

When did she deny it?

At the church pulpit. She said she didn't do anything wrong and that she is being attacked ONLY because she is black and she is a female.

That's not what she said. She didn't directly address whether she had a relationship with Wade in that speech. And, in fact, she said multiple times that she's flawed. But even if she did say that she didn't do anything wrong, whether something is "wrong" is an opinion and not fact. You cannot be sued for defamation for statements of opinion.

[Anonymous]

Morally questionable? Sure. Illegal? No.

And for the millionth time, none of this absolves Trump or erases the case against him. At best it delays the case, which is really all Trump wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

When did she deny it?

At the church pulpit. She said she didn't do anything wrong and that she is being attacked ONLY because she is black and she is a female.

That's not what she said. She didn't directly address whether she had a relationship with Wade in that speech. And, in fact, she said multiple times that she's flawed. But even if she did say that she didn't do anything wrong, whether something is "wrong" is an opinion and not fact. You cannot be sued for defamation for statements of opinion.

LOL.
That pretty much sums up the thinking of the left today.

That sums up a very basic principle of defamation law.

I am laughing about how republicans suddenly think adultery is important again. Willis (who is not married) had a relationship with a guy who was separated from wife and well into divorce proceedings. Meanwhile Donald Trump, the republican god, cheated on all three of his wives. Included in that is when he banged a porn star while his wife was nursing his newborn son, and then paid off the porn star to keep it quiet. And then cooked the books to try to write off the payoff as a legal expense. Sorry guys, no one believes that you actually care about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

When did she deny it?

At the church pulpit. She said she didn't do anything wrong and that she is being attacked ONLY because she is black and she is a female.

That's not what she said. She didn't directly address whether she had a relationship with Wade in that speech. And, in fact, she said multiple times that she's flawed. But even if she did say that she didn't do anything wrong, whether something is "wrong" is an opinion and not fact. You cannot be sued for defamation for statements of opinion.

LOL.
That pretty much sums up the thinking of the left today.

That sums up a very basic principle of defamation law.

I am laughing about how republicans suddenly think adultery is important again. Willis (who is not married) had a relationship with a guy who was separated from wife and well into divorce proceedings. Meanwhile Donald Trump, the republican god, cheated on all three of his wives. Included in that is when he banged a porn star while his wife was nursing his newborn son, and then paid off the porn star to keep it quiet. And then cooked the books to try to write off the payoff as a legal expense. Sorry guys, no one believes that you actually care about this.

+1

The phrase "Hoist with his own petard" comes to mind. If only folks hadn't been so completely okay with the suspect's own shenanigans...

Also that lady is already rich. I bet they find that she was the sugar momma taking care of him!

[Anonymous]

This argument that he is being paid better than "more qualified" attorneys is funny considering just how incredibly well that team has been sniffing out and stitching together the forensics of this case. Hilarious actually.

Tell us again how he is overpaid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

When did she deny it?

At the church pulpit. She said she didn't do anything wrong and that she is being attacked ONLY because she is black and she is a female.

That's not what she said. She didn't directly address whether she had a relationship with Wade in that speech. And, in fact, she said multiple times that she's flawed. But even if she did say that she didn't do anything wrong, whether something is "wrong" is an opinion and not fact. You cannot be sued for defamation for statements of opinion.

LOL.
That pretty much sums up the thinking of the left today.

That sums up a very basic principle of defamation law.

I am laughing about how republicans suddenly think adultery is important again. Willis (who is not married) had a relationship with a guy who was separated from wife and well into divorce proceedings. Meanwhile Donald Trump, the republican god, cheated on all three of his wives. Included in that is when he banged a porn star while his wife was nursing his newborn son, and then paid off the porn star to keep it quiet. And then cooked the books to try to write off the payoff as a legal expense. Sorry guys, no one believes that you actually care about this.

Once again...... the adultery is not the issue.
It is the fact that she was sleeping with someone under her supervision, paid him quite handsomely for his "services," paid him more than others that were more qualified than he, and he shelled out some of that compensation on trips for her.
Then there is the issue that HE met with WH counsel.... not once, but twice while working on this case.

Then there are the other issues that have been brought to light about her misusing funds.

In essence, she has turned out to be everything that she ran against.......

Most of those allegations are false. And none of them have would even remotely disqualify Willis from the case.

[Anonymous]

This is the proverbial kitchen sink. I think it is game over for the defendant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the proverbial kitchen sink. I think it is game over for the defendant

The MAGAs got way out over their skis on this one and now are looking really stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Morally questionable? Sure. Illegal? No.

And for the millionth time, none of this absolves Trump or erases the case against him. At best it delays the case, which is really all Trump wants.

For the millionth time, none of the Trump allegations erase the case against Willis. It delays the case bigly, which is really all Trump wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morally questionable? Sure. Illegal? No.

And for the millionth time, none of this absolves Trump or erases the case against him. At best it delays the case, which is really all Trump wants.

For the millionth time, none of the Trump allegations erase the case against Willis. It delays the case bigly, which is really all Trump wants.

This trial wasn’t going to happen any time soon anyway. These multi-defendant RICO trials take years to get to trial and then a year or more to actually try them. So I don’t see any delays from this as actually mattering.