GA Case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Too much information. She goes off on diatribes, probably in an attempt to avoid answering the questions.

She is answering all the questions, though. Thoroughly.

And, she has been warned by the judge twice about answering the question and not veering off into a monologue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Love how she puts the charade into perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fani Willis is not coming across as a very likable person.

I’m listening and I disagree.

Me again, she seems to really be trying to put all the information out there.

Too much information. She goes off on diatribes, probably in an attempt to avoid answering the questions.
She said she wasn't watching the other witnesses prior to entering the courtroom. I doubt that is true.
Her explanation of paying in cash was not believable.

And, you think this is a likable person?.....

Are you an African-American woman? If not, then you just won't understand.

Seems as if Wade is the only one she paid in cash.
THAT is what not is credible.

That wasn't her testimony. She went out for evenings with friends and generally used cash. She paid Wade back for a trip he booked, in cash. That is my experience as well. I really don't get this whole line of testimony...is it illegal to have cash and use it?

Of course not.
The question here is if she actually paid Wade for the trips they took, given that the charges were all on HIS credit card.
It is convenient that she claims she paid it all back in cash which provides no proof that she actually paid him. And, she become incensed when asked if she has any proof that she paid him in cash.
It is easy to claim that she paid in cash once her affair came to light and her numerous trips with her lover came into question.

Would you have expected him to give her a receipt?

I mean, seriously, what do you want here? It was her testimony and his. They are aligned. Whether convenient truth or a fabrication, that is their story. Do you have proof to the contrary? No? Then move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Too much information. She goes off on diatribes, probably in an attempt to avoid answering the questions.

She is answering all the questions, though. Thoroughly.

And, she has been warned by the judge twice about answering the question and not veering off into a monologue.

She is providing detail to the answers so the Marchands don't misconstrue her words or actions, as they apparently did in their filings with the court.

[Anonymous]

This is nothing about being a woman or an AA. This is about someone having HORRIBLE judgment against one of the most influential persons in the world. She just ruined justice for everyone because she was 'lonely'. Don't take the case if you can't sacrifice. She is a huge disappointment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing about being a woman or an AA. This is about someone having HORRIBLE judgment against one of the most influential persons in the world. She just ruined justice for everyone because she was 'lonely'. Don't take the case if you can't sacrifice. She is a huge disappointment.

You are buying into the smear campaign. Congratulations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing about being a woman or an AA. This is about someone having HORRIBLE judgment against one of the most influential persons in the world. She just ruined justice for everyone because she was 'lonely'. Don't take the case if you can't sacrifice. She is a huge disappointment.

You are buying into the smear campaign. Congratulations.

No, in every company in America, you get a lesson about sexual harassment... not dating subordinates.
Also she could not get it someplace else

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing about being a woman or an AA. This is about someone having HORRIBLE judgment against one of the most influential persons in the world. She just ruined justice for everyone because she was 'lonely'. Don't take the case if you can't sacrifice. She is a huge disappointment.

You are buying into the smear campaign. Congratulations.

No, in every company in America, you get a lesson about sexual harassment... not dating subordinates.
Also she could not get it someplace else

He was a contractor, not an employee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing about being a woman or an AA. This is about someone having HORRIBLE judgment against one of the most influential persons in the world. She just ruined justice for everyone because she was 'lonely'. Don't take the case if you can't sacrifice. She is a huge disappointment.

You are buying into the smear campaign. Congratulations.

No, in every company in America, you get a lesson about sexual harassment... not dating subordinates.
Also she could not get it someplace else

He was a contractor, not an employee.

You can argue semantics, but she hired him and had authority over his employ, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing about being a woman or an AA. This is about someone having HORRIBLE judgment against one of the most influential persons in the world. She just ruined justice for everyone because she was 'lonely'. Don't take the case if you can't sacrifice. She is a huge disappointment.

You are buying into the smear campaign. Congratulations.

No, in every company in America, you get a lesson about sexual harassment... not dating subordinates.
Also she could not get it someplace else

He was a contractor, not an employee.

You can argue semantics, but she hired him and had authority over his employ, right?

I think the distinction matters for things like work policies. You may see no difference, and that’s fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing about being a woman or an AA. This is about someone having HORRIBLE judgment against one of the most influential persons in the world. She just ruined justice for everyone because she was 'lonely'. Don't take the case if you can't sacrifice. She is a huge disappointment.

You are buying into the smear campaign. Congratulations.

No, in every company in America, you get a lesson about sexual harassment... not dating subordinates.
Also she could not get it someplace else

He was a contractor, not an employee.

You can argue semantics, but she hired him and had authority over his employ, right?

No. She's a lawyer. Semantics are the answer. Is something okay or not? What are the rules?

Aren't special prosecutors independent? That means that a relationship is not against the rules. N'est-ce pas?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing about being a woman or an AA. This is about someone having HORRIBLE judgment against one of the most influential persons in the world. She just ruined justice for everyone because she was 'lonely'. Don't take the case if you can't sacrifice. She is a huge disappointment.

You are buying into the smear campaign. Congratulations.

No, in every company in America, you get a lesson about sexual harassment... not dating subordinates.
Also she could not get it someplace else

So perhaps they broke some workplace policy. So what? Just because a prosecutor isn't perfect doesn't mean s/he gets disqualified from prosecuting a case. There would be no prosecutors left if that were the rule. The impropriety has to affect the defendant's ability to get a fair trial, and absolutely nothing that has been shown at the hearing comes close to that.

[Anonymous]

My fav part of this circus is how it exposes the conference racket. This is what nearly all gov and school brass conferences are all about: Free lavish vacations on the taxpayer dime so these idiot power drunk degenerates can get wasted and cheat on their spouses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing about being a woman or an AA. This is about someone having HORRIBLE judgment against one of the most influential persons in the world. She just ruined justice for everyone because she was 'lonely'. Don't take the case if you can't sacrifice. She is a huge disappointment.

You are buying into the smear campaign. Congratulations.

It’s not a smear, she blew up her credibility and any patina of professionalism she had sleeping with a married man and sliding him millions of dollars (?) in legal billings. Good lawyers have ethics and judgment. She has none.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing about being a woman or an AA. This is about someone having HORRIBLE judgment against one of the most influential persons in the world. She just ruined justice for everyone because she was 'lonely'. Don't take the case if you can't sacrifice. She is a huge disappointment.

You are buying into the smear campaign. Congratulations.

It’s not a smear, she blew up her credibility and any patina of professionalism she had sleeping with a married man and sliding him millions of dollars (?) in legal billings. Good lawyers have ethics and judgment. She has none.

So you agree that Trump has no credibility or patina of professionalism?