GA Case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m sorry but I see no connection between her ability to do an excellent job on this case and her private relationship with a member of her team.

If the relationship is consensual, I see no problem with it. I’ve always thought this whenever government work place relationships crop up, regardless of whether it’s a democrat or republican held up to public shame.

It’s ridiculous how small-minded people get whenever sex is involved.

Your mistress steering you millions of public dollars during pillow talk is no big deal? Banging each other on taxpayer and business credit card funded trips is no big deal? Claiming she reimbursed him with sacks of cash for every trip and he omitted those expenses from his tax returns? Come on. These are not serious or ethical people. They are power drunk dunces busted red handed.

If I pay for tickets for a trip and it costs $5,000 and the person going on a trip with me repays me the $2,500 for their portion in cash, one or both of us have to claim that on our taxes? Is that what you’re saying? I’m not an accountant, but I haven’t received a gift or earned money.

Nobody carries around thousands of dollars in cash. Give me a break. And nobody as corrupt and stupid as these nitwits is going back through their credit card “BUSINESS” expenses during tax season and subtracts the “cash” their mistress gave them.

I know several people who do and they have legitimate businesses. You are the nitwit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t they have her nailed for lying on a campaign disclosure form? Have you received anything over $100 in value from a person seeking to do business with the office or whatever that standard disclosure is.

She danced around that issue.
She basically admitted that she has received over $100.
And, she doesn't seem to understand the meaning of "aggregated."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m sorry but I see no connection between her ability to do an excellent job on this case and her private relationship with a member of her team.

If the relationship is consensual, I see no problem with it. I’ve always thought this whenever government work place relationships crop up, regardless of whether it’s a democrat or republican held up to public shame.

It’s ridiculous how small-minded people get whenever sex is involved.

Your mistress steering you millions of public dollars during pillow talk is no big deal? Banging each other on taxpayer and business credit card funded trips is no big deal? Claiming she reimbursed him with sacks of cash for every trip and he omitted those expenses from his tax returns? Come on. These are not serious or ethical people. They are power drunk dunces busted red handed.

A mistress is a woman who is dependent on a man to pay for her housing. Food. Clothes and all other needs and in return is available for all of his sexual demands. She is a kept woman.

Ms. Willis is employed and does not need to depend on a man to provide for her needs. At no time did she testify that she gave him bags of cash.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m sorry but I see no connection between her ability to do an excellent job on this case and her private relationship with a member of her team.

If the relationship is consensual, I see no problem with it. I’ve always thought this whenever government work place relationships crop up, regardless of whether it’s a democrat or republican held up to public shame.

It’s ridiculous how small-minded people get whenever sex is involved.

Your mistress steering you millions of public dollars during pillow talk is no big deal? Banging each other on taxpayer and business credit card funded trips is no big deal? Claiming she reimbursed him with sacks of cash for every trip and he omitted those expenses from his tax returns? Come on. These are not serious or ethical people. They are power drunk dunces busted red handed.

A mistress is a woman who is dependent on a man to pay for her housing. Food. Clothes and all other needs and in return is available for all of his sexual demands. She is a kept woman.

Ms. Willis is employed and does not need to depend on a man to provide for her needs. At no time did she testify that she gave him bags of cash.

+1

LOL.
Fierce is not the word I would use to describe her.
Incompetent, unethical, arrogant, not terribly smart..... I could go on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m sorry but I see no connection between her ability to do an excellent job on this case and her private relationship with a member of her team.

If the relationship is consensual, I see no problem with it. I’ve always thought this whenever government work place relationships crop up, regardless of whether it’s a democrat or republican held up to public shame.

It’s ridiculous how small-minded people get whenever sex is involved.

Your mistress steering you millions of public dollars during pillow talk is no big deal? Banging each other on taxpayer and business credit card funded trips is no big deal? Claiming she reimbursed him with sacks of cash for every trip and he omitted those expenses from his tax returns? Come on. These are not serious or ethical people. They are power drunk dunces busted red handed.

If I pay for tickets for a trip and it costs $5,000 and the person going on a trip with me repays me the $2,500 for their portion in cash, one or both of us have to claim that on our taxes? Is that what you’re saying? I’m not an accountant, but I haven’t received a gift or earned money.

Nobody carries around thousands of dollars in cash. Give me a break. And nobody as corrupt and stupid as these nitwits is going back through their credit card “BUSINESS” expenses during tax season and subtracts the “cash” their mistress gave them.

I know several people who do and they have legitimate businesses. You are the nitwit.

Legitimate businesses and mistresses? Do they carry their thousands of dollars in cash in duffel bags or backpacks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What public servant doesn’t keep over $15,000 cash around the house. And when I owe friends thousands of dollars, I give them a brown paper bag full of 10s and 20s.

So, she had a horde of cash laying around her house, but had a tax lien of over $4000 on her AND she claimed in the book about this case that she was nearly destitute in 2018.
Sorry, folks, this doesn't add up.

Actual I’m in same situation and it does add up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m sorry but I see no connection between her ability to do an excellent job on this case and her private relationship with a member of her team.

If the relationship is consensual, I see no problem with it. I’ve always thought this whenever government work place relationships crop up, regardless of whether it’s a democrat or republican held up to public shame.

It’s ridiculous how small-minded people get whenever sex is involved.

Your mistress steering you millions of public dollars during pillow talk is no big deal? Banging each other on taxpayer and business credit card funded trips is no big deal? Claiming she reimbursed him with sacks of cash for every trip and he omitted those expenses from his tax returns? Come on. These are not serious or ethical people. They are power drunk dunces busted red handed.

If I pay for tickets for a trip and it costs $5,000 and the person going on a trip with me repays me the $2,500 for their portion in cash, one or both of us have to claim that on our taxes? Is that what you’re saying? I’m not an accountant, but I haven’t received a gift or earned money.

Nobody carries around thousands of dollars in cash. Give me a break. And nobody as corrupt and stupid as these nitwits is going back through their credit card “BUSINESS” expenses during tax season and subtracts the “cash” their mistress gave them.

I know several people who do and they have legitimate businesses. You are the nitwit.

Legitimate businesses and mistresses? Do they carry their thousands of dollars in cash in duffel bags or backpacks?

Evidently, Nathan Wade is a fan of cash too. He testified that he has clients who pay his law firm in cash all the time.
Really?
And, these two are in charge of one of the most high profile cases ever.
This would be hilarious if it weren't so serious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What public servant doesn’t keep over $15,000 cash around the house. And when I owe friends thousands of dollars, I give them a brown paper bag full of 10s and 20s.

So, she had a horde of cash laying around her house, but had a tax lien of over $4000 on her AND she claimed in the book about this case that she was nearly destitute in 2018.
Sorry, folks, this doesn't add up.

Actual I’m in same situation and it does add up.

Sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m sorry but I see no connection between her ability to do an excellent job on this case and her private relationship with a member of her team.

If the relationship is consensual, I see no problem with it. I’ve always thought this whenever government work place relationships crop up, regardless of whether it’s a democrat or republican held up to public shame.

It’s ridiculous how small-minded people get whenever sex is involved.

Your mistress steering you millions of public dollars during pillow talk is no big deal? Banging each other on taxpayer and business credit card funded trips is no big deal? Claiming she reimbursed him with sacks of cash for every trip and he omitted those expenses from his tax returns? Come on. These are not serious or ethical people. They are power drunk dunces busted red handed.

If I pay for tickets for a trip and it costs $5,000 and the person going on a trip with me repays me the $2,500 for their portion in cash, one or both of us have to claim that on our taxes? Is that what you’re saying? I’m not an accountant, but I haven’t received a gift or earned money.

Nobody carries around thousands of dollars in cash. Give me a break. And nobody as corrupt and stupid as these nitwits is going back through their credit card “BUSINESS” expenses during tax season and subtracts the “cash” their mistress gave them.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. I carry thousands in cash if I’m taking cash to a place to pay for something or pay a friend my portion of a joint purchase. I don’t know what you’re talking about. Some people prefer to deal in cash. I don’t even like dealing with cash and I understand that carrying thousands of dollars in cash for a specific reason can happen occasionally and doesn’t mean she’s always got several thousands in her purse. Let’s not be unreasonable.

According to her, she has cash A LOT. She keeps up to $15,000 in her home and takes cash on vacations because she can barter better.
But, she used the cash app to pay her friend when she was renting from her.
But, don't you dare ask her about bank statements that would show her withdrawing large sums of money. And, don't you dare ask Wade about bank statements that would show him depositing the large sums she claims she paid him. Those don't exist.

This has been addressed already. The people who want to be paid via CashApp, she pays via CashApp. That’s not hard to understand.
- Landlord who gets paid via Venmo or PayPal because I don’t have CashApp

This my hair stylist gets cash app, nails nd brows get Venmo, my mom still gives me cash. I hate it cash but she’s old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m sorry but I see no connection between her ability to do an excellent job on this case and her private relationship with a member of her team.

If the relationship is consensual, I see no problem with it. I’ve always thought this whenever government work place relationships crop up, regardless of whether it’s a democrat or republican held up to public shame.

It’s ridiculous how small-minded people get whenever sex is involved.

Your mistress steering you millions of public dollars during pillow talk is no big deal? Banging each other on taxpayer and business credit card funded trips is no big deal? Claiming she reimbursed him with sacks of cash for every trip and he omitted those expenses from his tax returns? Come on. These are not serious or ethical people. They are power drunk dunces busted red handed.

A mistress is a woman who is dependent on a man to pay for her housing. Food. Clothes and all other needs and in return is available for all of his sexual demands. She is a kept woman.

Ms. Willis is employed and does not need to depend on a man to provide for her needs. At no time did she testify that she gave him bags of cash.

+1

LOL.
Fierce is not the word I would use to describe her.
Incompetent, unethical, arrogant, not terribly smart..... I could go on.

And yet, you support Donald Trump.

Go figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m sorry but I see no connection between her ability to do an excellent job on this case and her private relationship with a member of her team.

If the relationship is consensual, I see no problem with it. I’ve always thought this whenever government work place relationships crop up, regardless of whether it’s a democrat or republican held up to public shame.

It’s ridiculous how small-minded people get whenever sex is involved.

Your mistress steering you millions of public dollars during pillow talk is no big deal? Banging each other on taxpayer and business credit card funded trips is no big deal? Claiming she reimbursed him with sacks of cash for every trip and he omitted those expenses from his tax returns? Come on. These are not serious or ethical people. They are power drunk dunces busted red handed.

If I pay for tickets for a trip and it costs $5,000 and the person going on a trip with me repays me the $2,500 for their portion in cash, one or both of us have to claim that on our taxes? Is that what you’re saying? I’m not an accountant, but I haven’t received a gift or earned money.

Nobody carries around thousands of dollars in cash. Give me a break. And nobody as corrupt and stupid as these nitwits is going back through their credit card “BUSINESS” expenses during tax season and subtracts the “cash” their mistress gave them.

I know several people who do and they have legitimate businesses. You are the nitwit.

Legitimate businesses and mistresses? Do they carry their thousands of dollars in cash in duffel bags or backpacks?

Evidently, Nathan Wade is a fan of cash too. He testified that he has clients who pay his law firm in cash all the time.
Really?
And, these two are in charge of one of the most high profile cases ever.
This would be hilarious if it weren't so serious.

Is using cash illegal?

[Anonymous]

Watching three white attorneys grill two African Americans about their sex life and relationship sure felt like a lynching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Watching three white attorneys grill two African Americans about their sex life and relationship sure felt like a lynching.

+1 Plus everyone knows that Wade had (I assume prostate) cancer, which doesn’t seem like it was public knowledge, and there will be lines outside Willis’s house of burglars trying to get that cash.

[Anonymous]

This whole stupid situation is shameful.

It's obvious that Trump is the criminal here. How is this getting turned around. No one is focusing on the real issues. Just some kind of stupid kangaroo court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t they have her nailed for lying on a campaign disclosure form? Have you received anything over $100 in value from a person seeking to do business with the office or whatever that standard disclosure is.

She danced around that issue.
She basically admitted that she has received over $100.
And, she doesn't seem to understand the meaning of "aggregated."

Yet she also repeately pushed back given she refused to have Wade pay his way and that she paid her way and repaid him every single step of the way. "In aggregate" means plus AND minus, last time I checked.