GA Case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow this whole case is going to be thrown out because of the corrupt da

Please show where there is any corruption or conflict of interest?

Because there isn't a single serious legal mind that agrees with you.

I guess you don't consider the legal minds on MSNBC serious.....

You are being disingenuous. Rosenberg said that before the hearing. Most TV attorneys now say there is no evidence. We will see, won’t we?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How someone reacts to the Fani testimony is a litmus test for if they're a complete partisan hack. Anyone who denies that she clearly lied, could not respond to basic questions, acted inappropriately, and corrupted this prosecution is a mindless DNC cult partisan, no better than MAGA cult partisans.

Please prove that she lied.

Well, she herself testified that you only need one evidence to prove a fact. Two witnesses have now testified that the relationship began prior to Wade's appointment, which means Willis lied. But I am guessing you won't accept that as proof.

This judge has to remove her and him from the case.
It is not only a matter of conflict of interest, it is a matter of impropriety, but the appearance of impropriety.
And, it is clear the appearance of impropriety is evident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow this whole case is going to be thrown out because of the corrupt da

Please show where there is any corruption or conflict of interest?

Because there isn't a single serious legal mind that agrees with you.

I guess you don't consider the legal minds on MSNBC serious.....

You are being disingenuous. Rosenberg said that before the hearing. Most TV attorneys now say there is no evidence. We will see, won’t we?

It says in the tweet that he said it at the RECESS of the hearing.
Are you saying that MSNBC is lying?
And, most TV attorneys are not saying that. Especially after today.

[Anonymous]

.

This judge has to remove her and him from the case.
It is not only a matter of conflict of interest, it is a matter of impropriety, but the appearance of impropriety.
And, it is clear the appearance of impropriety is evident.

Based on your grammar, you have a low level of education. Why would anyone take you seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:.

This judge has to remove her and him from the case.
It is not only a matter of conflict of interest, it is a matter of impropriety, but the appearance of impropriety.
And, it is clear the appearance of impropriety is evident.

Based on your grammar, you have a low level of education. Why would anyone take you seriously?

Let me be more clear for you......

All this case calls for to dismiss Fani and her lover is the appearance of impropriety.
And, it has been demonstrated that the appearance of impropriety exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow this whole case is going to be thrown out because of the corrupt da

Please show where there is any corruption or conflict of interest?

Because there isn't a single serious legal mind that agrees with you.

I guess you don't consider the legal minds on MSNBC serious.....

You are being disingenuous. Rosenberg said that before the hearing. Most TV attorneys now say there is no evidence. We will see, won’t we?

Why tf are you still arguing about a talking head? Cable news is crap. Stop citing it like it’s accurate.

[Anonymous]

The case against Fani had no merit from the start, and was a sign of the defense casting at straws.

I am glad Fani looks like she's going to keep her job. She has done no wrong here: a workplace romance is not illegal, and she has not perjured herself or benefited inappropriately from money.

SHOUT OUT TO THE TWO POWERFUL BLACK WOMEN WHO HAD A GOOD DAY TODAY, FIGHTING AGAINST CORRUPTION! Leticia James and Fani Willis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow this whole case is going to be thrown out because of the corrupt da

Please show where there is any corruption or conflict of interest?

Because there isn't a single serious legal mind that agrees with you.

I guess you don't consider the legal minds on MSNBC serious.....

You are being disingenuous. Rosenberg said that before the hearing. Most TV attorneys now say there is no evidence. We will see, won’t we?

It says in the tweet that he said it at the RECESS of the hearing.
Are you saying that MSNBC is lying?
And, most TV attorneys are not saying that. Especially after today.

That recess was before Willis testified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How someone reacts to the Fani testimony is a litmus test for if they're a complete partisan hack. Anyone who denies that she clearly lied, could not respond to basic questions, acted inappropriately, and corrupted this prosecution is a mindless DNC cult partisan, no better than MAGA cult partisans.

Please prove that she lied.

Well, she herself testified that you only need one evidence to prove a fact. Two witnesses have now testified that the relationship began prior to Wade's appointment, which means Willis lied. But I am guessing you won't accept that as proof.

This judge has to remove her and him from the case.
It is not only a matter of conflict of interest, it is a matter of impropriety, but the appearance of impropriety.
And, it is clear the appearance of impropriety is evident.

There is no conflict of interest.

[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 carry cash like that when traveling. I use the hotel safe. It’s easy to barter with cash. But then again, DH and I also keep money in our home safe. We started keeping emergency getaway quick cash after January 2021.

[Anonymous]

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.

this is an ignorant statement. All public servants aren’t poor or cash strapped. And she wasn’t always a public servant.

[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.

You didn’t read the book, especially the next chapter.

Also $4k tax lien doesn’t mean anything. She forgot to pay that years taxes. That happens more often than not, especially if the taxes aren’t paid through a mortgage lender.

[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.

You’ve never practiced threshold law, it seems. Threshold attorneys are pai in cash quite often.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Trumpers don’t like cash because Trump doesn’t have any. 😆

Well he better find 453 million, or they are taking his properties

[Anonymous]

I've listened to several hours of questioning and testimony for two days now. I still am not seeing any evidence of corruption or wrongdoing on the part of Willis.

This has been nothing more than a fishing expedition for a clown car of lawyers hoping to find something.