GA Case

[Anonymous]

Wow watching this hearing and seeing the cast of characters working in the DA office and government I. General you get a sense they are as thick as thieves and all corrupt, covering up for each other. The FBI should investigate what's going on down there , amazing these people get elected and hired , all are corrupt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow watching this hearing and seeing the cast of characters working in the DA office and government I. General you get a sense they are as thick as thieves and all corrupt, covering up for each other. The FBI should investigate what's going on down there , amazing these people get elected and hired , all are corrupt.

How does any of this impact her ability to prosecute this case? This is all a stupid distraction and sideshow to the obvious criminality that she's prosecuting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a typical Trump strategy -- he's used it many, many times over the years. Obfuscate and distract, and drag things out as long as possible. They are good at digging up dirt on people -- Fanni should have done a little more research into Trump's tactics. This is a tried and true strategy. He repeats it because it works, and Fanni is his latest victim.

[/b]She shouldn't have had a relationship at work, period. But it wasn't a crime, no nepotism, no one's screaming sexual abuse here. [b]It has nothing to do with the prosecution of Trump and his allies -- NOTHING.

Read it for what it is, and don't fall into the trap they set for you.

Let the trial begin!!!

It actually is a crime. She violated Fulton County ethics laws. She had a legal duty to disclose the relationship and any gifts over $100. She did not. Additionally, she has opened up Fulton County to potential hostile workplace and discrimination claims. You do not date people you have supervisory responsibility over period. Any company in the US with HR policies in place would fire you for this.

Two things can be true at once. She can be guilty and so can Trump/the other defendents.

Yes, Trump is still guilty.

Beyond that, I have to disagree on 2 points:

1. Fulton County DOES NOT require disclosure of who you're dating - https://cm.fultoncountyga.gov/-/media/Forms/Clerk-to-Commission-Forms/IncomeandFinancialDisclosureReport-Final.pdf

2. There weren't any gifts for Willis to disclose. With regard to meals and trips, she went dutch with him and repaid him for any gifts given, with her own hard-earned money out of her own pocket. She was quite clear on that in her testimony and nothing to the contrary has been shown or proven.

Your PDF is for financial disclosures which would not cover workplace romance. She was required to disclose the relationship as his supervisor and the person doing the hiring. https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/fulton-county-policy-states-both-da-willis-wade-were-required

I watched the vast majority of the testimony. As a public official she had a duty to track these reimbursements which she didn’t do. Since neither she, Wade nor Bradley are willing to provide anything that would help prove she paid him back how do we know she didn’t ever receive anything over $100 from him? When you are an elected official you are subject to a high standard of reporting which she did not follow. Given she was in a relationship with someone she paid through county funds she should have been going overboard to make sure she was beyond reproach. The two of them have jeopardized the entire case.

I understand Bradley doesn’t want to testify but how overboard he is going with attorney client privilege that the judge didn’t even understand makes it seem all the more suspicious. Hopefully he and the judge will work out those concerns and he will be comfortable testifying. He’s in a bad spot and understandably doesn’t want to do anything to jeopardize his license.

And yes before it’s said I believe ALL elected officials R or D or I should be held to the same standards. It’s sad that many of them on all sides are not

Show me your posts outraged at Jared and Ivanka making bank while in the white house.

Were they government attorneys charging those for ethics paying each other and sleeping with each other?

No. They were using the White House to make hundreds of millions of dollars. What the Trumps did was far worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a typical Trump strategy -- he's used it many, many times over the years. Obfuscate and distract, and drag things out as long as possible. They are good at digging up dirt on people -- Fanni should have done a little more research into Trump's tactics. This is a tried and true strategy. He repeats it because it works, and Fanni is his latest victim.

[/b]She shouldn't have had a relationship at work, period. But it wasn't a crime, no nepotism, no one's screaming sexual abuse here. [b]It has nothing to do with the prosecution of Trump and his allies -- NOTHING.

Read it for what it is, and don't fall into the trap they set for you.

Let the trial begin!!!

It actually is a crime. She violated Fulton County ethics laws. She had a legal duty to disclose the relationship and any gifts over $100. She did not. Additionally, she has opened up Fulton County to potential hostile workplace and discrimination claims. You do not date people you have supervisory responsibility over period. Any company in the US with HR policies in place would fire you for this.

Two things can be true at once. She can be guilty and so can Trump/the other defendents.

She didn't get any gifts.

She and her boyfriend went dutch on meals and trips.

It's so convenient to deal with cash only in these types of situations, isn't it? Becomes a he said/she said situation. It's how a lot of criminals get away with their crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow watching this hearing and seeing the cast of characters working in the DA office and government I. General you get a sense they are as thick as thieves and all corrupt, covering up for each other. The FBI should investigate what's going on down there , amazing these people get elected and hired , all are corrupt.

Thick as thieves? Not sure what you mean - but yes, lawyers collaborate with each other. They should, duplicating work benefits no one (besides the lawyers).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a typical Trump strategy -- he's used it many, many times over the years. Obfuscate and distract, and drag things out as long as possible. They are good at digging up dirt on people -- Fanni should have done a little more research into Trump's tactics. This is a tried and true strategy. He repeats it because it works, and Fanni is his latest victim.

She shouldn't have had a relationship at work, period. But it wasn't a crime, no nepotism, no one's screaming sexual abuse here. It has nothing to do with the prosecution of Trump and his allies -- NOTHING.

Read it for what it is, and don't fall into the trap they set for you.

Let the trial begin!!!

Sure.
Problem is.... this was not Trump or HIS attorney that uncovered the affair and the unqualified hiring. It was a different defendant with a different attorney.
If you are going to go after people for "crimes" you better make sure your own house is clean.

DP. Why the quotes around "crimes"? You think Trump's attempts to subvert election results in GA ("I just need 11,000 votes") isn't a crime?

Naturally, YOU consider it a crime.
If Trump was encouraging Raffensperger to do a recount, where is the crime?

If it wasn't a crime, why did so many Trump attorneys plea and turn states evidence?

No they did not, they pleaded to a misdemeanor and the record of the case will be expunged for them as if there were no conviction. That was a good deal and if the case is dismissed, those who pleaded guilty will have an opportunity to withdraw their guilty plea. Win -win situation for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a typical Trump strategy -- he's used it many, many times over the years. Obfuscate and distract, and drag things out as long as possible. They are good at digging up dirt on people -- Fanni should have done a little more research into Trump's tactics. This is a tried and true strategy. He repeats it because it works, and Fanni is his latest victim.

[/b]She shouldn't have had a relationship at work, period. But it wasn't a crime, no nepotism, no one's screaming sexual abuse here. [b]It has nothing to do with the prosecution of Trump and his allies -- NOTHING.

Read it for what it is, and don't fall into the trap they set for you.

Let the trial begin!!!

It actually is a crime. She violated Fulton County ethics laws. She had a legal duty to disclose the relationship and any gifts over $100. She did not. Additionally, she has opened up Fulton County to potential hostile workplace and discrimination claims. You do not date people you have supervisory responsibility over period. Any company in the US with HR policies in place would fire you for this.

Two things can be true at once. She can be guilty and so can Trump/the other defendents.

She didn't get any gifts.

She and her boyfriend went dutch on meals and trips.

It's so convenient to deal with cash only in these types of situations, isn't it? Becomes a he said/she said situation. It's how a lot of criminals get away with their crimes.

I thought only drug dealers used wads of cash to take care of their business. I guess the top prosecutor in Fulton County, Georgia conducts her business with wads of cash as well. Maybe IRS should look into this since IRS has hundreds of more investigators now to investigate these potential tax fraud cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a typical Trump strategy -- he's used it many, many times over the years. Obfuscate and distract, and drag things out as long as possible. They are good at digging up dirt on people -- Fanni should have done a little more research into Trump's tactics. This is a tried and true strategy. He repeats it because it works, and Fanni is his latest victim.

[/b]She shouldn't have had a relationship at work, period. But it wasn't a crime, no nepotism, no one's screaming sexual abuse here. [b]It has nothing to do with the prosecution of Trump and his allies -- NOTHING.

Read it for what it is, and don't fall into the trap they set for you.

Let the trial begin!!!

It actually is a crime. She violated Fulton County ethics laws. She had a legal duty to disclose the relationship and any gifts over $100. She did not. Additionally, she has opened up Fulton County to potential hostile workplace and discrimination claims. You do not date people you have supervisory responsibility over period. Any company in the US with HR policies in place would fire you for this.

Two things can be true at once. She can be guilty and so can Trump/the other defendents.

Yes, Trump is still guilty.

Beyond that, I have to disagree on 2 points:

1. Fulton County DOES NOT require disclosure of who you're dating - https://cm.fultoncountyga.gov/-/media/Forms/Clerk-to-Commission-Forms/IncomeandFinancialDisclosureReport-Final.pdf

2. There weren't any gifts for Willis to disclose. With regard to meals and trips, she went dutch with him and repaid him for any gifts given, with her own hard-earned money out of her own pocket. She was quite clear on that in her testimony and nothing to the contrary has been shown or proven.

1. Wrong.
According to the Fulton County Government Guidebook: Personnel Policies and Procedures, there is a policy regarding the employment of relatives. The policy states that a “relative” includes “relationships between individuals who are in a consensual romantic, sexual, dating or other intimate relationship, regardless of whether they are cohabitating.”

The policy states that the county “discourages relationships that could disrupt the work environment or lead to an actual or perceived conflict of interest.”

According to the policy, before an employment offer can be made to a relative of an employee, “an Appointing Authority must submit a written request for approval to the Chief Human Resources Officer.” The approval request must also show “that the relative is the person best qualified to perform the work required by the position.”

The “Appointing Authorities are responsible for ensuring that this procedure is followed when hiring the relative of a current employee,” the policy also reads. “Appointing Authorities who extend job offers to relatives of current employees without the approval of either the Chief Human Resources Officer or County Manager may be subject to disciplinary action by the County Manager.”

Also, “no individual shall be hired, promoted or permitted to transfer into any position where the Appointing Authority, department head or someone who will be in the employee’s direct chain of command is a relative,” according to the policy. “Pre-existing employment relationships falling within the purview of this paragraph will be permitted to continue; however, that exception does not apply to reemployment, promotions, demotions, reassignments, and lateral transfers that occur after the effective date of this Policy.”

Additionally, per the policy, “No individual shall be hired, reinstated, reemployed, transferred, promoted, demoted or assigned to any position that is under the direct or indirect supervision or control of a relative.”
https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/fulton-county-policy-states-both-da-willis-wade-were-required?utm_source=mux&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=social-media-autopost

2. She has ZERO proof that she paid for the trips and meals. Wade tried to claim that they shared expenses by producing a SINGLE expense showing that Fani had paid for travel and then said that she paid him back - in untraceable cash - for the other expenses.
These two have 2 reasons to claim she paid him back..... First, he essentially lied in his first divorce filings when asked if he had ever paid for gifts for another person. If he claims that Fani paid hiim back, he can claim he didn't lie. Secondly, if Fani paid him back with cash, then she can claim she did not benefit from the relationship. It just so happens that they have zero evidence that she paid him back. We are just supposed to accept their word, even though they have been less than honest from the get go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a typical Trump strategy -- he's used it many, many times over the years. Obfuscate and distract, and drag things out as long as possible. They are good at digging up dirt on people -- Fanni should have done a little more research into Trump's tactics. This is a tried and true strategy. He repeats it because it works, and Fanni is his latest victim.

[/b]She shouldn't have had a relationship at work, period. But it wasn't a crime, no nepotism, no one's screaming sexual abuse here. [b]It has nothing to do with the prosecution of Trump and his allies -- NOTHING.

Read it for what it is, and don't fall into the trap they set for you.

Let the trial begin!!!

It actually is a crime. She violated Fulton County ethics laws. She had a legal duty to disclose the relationship and any gifts over $100. She did not. Additionally, she has opened up Fulton County to potential hostile workplace and discrimination claims. You do not date people you have supervisory responsibility over period. Any company in the US with HR policies in place would fire you for this.

Two things can be true at once. She can be guilty and so can Trump/the other defendents.

Yes, Trump is still guilty.

Beyond that, I have to disagree on 2 points:

1. Fulton County DOES NOT require disclosure of who you're dating - https://cm.fultoncountyga.gov/-/media/Forms/Clerk-to-Commission-Forms/IncomeandFinancialDisclosureReport-Final.pdf

2. There weren't any gifts for Willis to disclose. With regard to meals and trips, she went dutch with him and repaid him for any gifts given, with her own hard-earned money out of her own pocket. She was quite clear on that in her testimony and nothing to the contrary has been shown or proven.

1. Wrong.
According to the Fulton County Government Guidebook: Personnel Policies and Procedures, there is a policy regarding the employment of relatives. The policy states that a “relative” includes “relationships between individuals who are in a consensual romantic, sexual, dating or other intimate relationship, regardless of whether they are cohabitating.”

The policy states that the county “discourages relationships that could disrupt the work environment or lead to an actual or perceived conflict of interest.”

According to the policy, before an employment offer can be made to a relative of an employee, “an Appointing Authority must submit a written request for approval to the Chief Human Resources Officer.” The approval request must also show “that the relative is the person best qualified to perform the work required by the position.”

The “Appointing Authorities are responsible for ensuring that this procedure is followed when hiring the relative of a current employee,” the policy also reads. “Appointing Authorities who extend job offers to relatives of current employees without the approval of either the Chief Human Resources Officer or County Manager may be subject to disciplinary action by the County Manager.”

Also, “no individual shall be hired, promoted or permitted to transfer into any position where the Appointing Authority, department head or someone who will be in the employee’s direct chain of command is a relative,” according to the policy. “Pre-existing employment relationships falling within the purview of this paragraph will be permitted to continue; however, that exception does not apply to reemployment, promotions, demotions, reassignments, and lateral transfers that occur after the effective date of this Policy.”

Additionally, per the policy, “No individual shall be hired, reinstated, reemployed, transferred, promoted, demoted or assigned to any position that is under the direct or indirect supervision or control of a relative.”
https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/fulton-county-policy-states-both-da-willis-wade-were-required?utm_source=mux&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=social-media-autopost

2. She has ZERO proof that she paid for the trips and meals. Wade tried to claim that they shared expenses by producing a SINGLE expense showing that Fani had paid for travel and then said that she paid him back - in untraceable cash - for the other expenses.
These two have 2 reasons to claim she paid him back..... First, he essentially lied in his first divorce filings when asked if he had ever paid for gifts for another person. If he claims that Fani paid hiim back, he can claim he didn't lie. Secondly, if Fani paid him back with cash, then she can claim she did not benefit from the relationship. It just so happens that they have zero evidence that she paid him back. We are just supposed to accept their word, even though they have been less than honest from the get go.

1. Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit. Your own quotes from the policy are about PRE-EXISTING RELATIONSHIPS. There was no such pre-existing relationship. Willis barely knew Wade at the outset and only began dating him much later, well after the Country started doing business with him.

2. Burden of proof is on the accuser. Despite days of testimony there is zero solid or conclusive evidence that she benefitted financially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a typical Trump strategy -- he's used it many, many times over the years. Obfuscate and distract, and drag things out as long as possible. They are good at digging up dirt on people -- Fanni should have done a little more research into Trump's tactics. This is a tried and true strategy. He repeats it because it works, and Fanni is his latest victim.

[/b]She shouldn't have had a relationship at work, period. But it wasn't a crime, no nepotism, no one's screaming sexual abuse here. It has nothing to do with the prosecution of Trump and his allies -- NOTHING.

Read it for what it is, and don't fall into the trap they set for you.

Let the trial begin!!!

It actually is a crime. She violated Fulton County ethics laws. She had a legal duty to disclose the relationship and any gifts over $100. She did not. Additionally, she has opened up Fulton County to potential hostile workplace and discrimination claims. You do not date people you have supervisory responsibility over period. Any company in the US with HR policies in place would fire you for this.

Two things can be true at once. She can be guilty and so can Trump/the other defendents.

She didn't get any gifts.

She and her boyfriend went dutch on meals and trips.

It's so convenient to deal with cash only in these types of situations, isn't it? Becomes a he said/she said situation. It's how a lot of criminals get away with their crimes.

[b]I thought only drug dealers used wads of cash to take care of their business. I guess the top prosecutor in Fulton County, Georgia conducts her business with wads of cash as well. Maybe IRS should look into this since IRS has hundreds of more investigators now to investigate these potential tax fraud cases.

Whatever you thought is obviously wrong. Tons of people do business with cash. Last time I checked, cash is the official legal tender of the nation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a typical Trump strategy -- he's used it many, many times over the years. Obfuscate and distract, and drag things out as long as possible. They are good at digging up dirt on people -- Fanni should have done a little more research into Trump's tactics. This is a tried and true strategy. He repeats it because it works, and Fanni is his latest victim.

[/b]She shouldn't have had a relationship at work, period. But it wasn't a crime, no nepotism, no one's screaming sexual abuse here. [b]It has nothing to do with the prosecution of Trump and his allies -- NOTHING.

Read it for what it is, and don't fall into the trap they set for you.

Let the trial begin!!!

It actually is a crime. She violated Fulton County ethics laws. She had a legal duty to disclose the relationship and any gifts over $100. She did not. Additionally, she has opened up Fulton County to potential hostile workplace and discrimination claims. You do not date people you have supervisory responsibility over period. Any company in the US with HR policies in place would fire you for this.

Two things can be true at once. She can be guilty and so can Trump/the other defendents.

Yes, Trump is still guilty.

Beyond that, I have to disagree on 2 points:

1. Fulton County DOES NOT require disclosure of who you're dating - https://cm.fultoncountyga.gov/-/media/Forms/Clerk-to-Commission-Forms/IncomeandFinancialDisclosureReport-Final.pdf

2. There weren't any gifts for Willis to disclose. With regard to meals and trips, she went dutch with him and repaid him for any gifts given, with her own hard-earned money out of her own pocket. She was quite clear on that in her testimony and nothing to the contrary has been shown or proven.

1. Wrong.
According to the Fulton County Government Guidebook: Personnel Policies and Procedures, there is a policy regarding the employment of relatives. The policy states that a “relative” includes “relationships between individuals who are in a consensual romantic, sexual, dating or other intimate relationship, regardless of whether they are cohabitating.”

The policy states that the county “discourages relationships that could disrupt the work environment or lead to an actual or perceived conflict of interest.”

According to the policy, before an employment offer can be made to a relative of an employee, “an Appointing Authority must submit a written request for approval to the Chief Human Resources Officer.” The approval request must also show “that the relative is the person best qualified to perform the work required by the position.”

The “Appointing Authorities are responsible for ensuring that this procedure is followed when hiring the relative of a current employee,” the policy also reads. “Appointing Authorities who extend job offers to relatives of current employees without the approval of either the Chief Human Resources Officer or County Manager may be subject to disciplinary action by the County Manager.”

Also, “no individual shall be hired, promoted or permitted to transfer into any position where the Appointing Authority, department head or someone who will be in the employee’s direct chain of command is a relative,” according to the policy. “Pre-existing employment relationships falling within the purview of this paragraph will be permitted to continue; however, that exception does not apply to reemployment, promotions, demotions, reassignments, and lateral transfers that occur after the effective date of this Policy.”

Additionally, per the policy, “No individual shall be hired, reinstated, reemployed, transferred, promoted, demoted or assigned to any position that is under the direct or indirect supervision or control of a relative.”
https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/fulton-county-policy-states-both-da-willis-wade-were-required?utm_source=mux&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=social-media-autopost

2. She has ZERO proof that she paid for the trips and meals. Wade tried to claim that they shared expenses by producing a SINGLE expense showing that Fani had paid for travel and then said that she paid him back - in untraceable cash - for the other expenses.
These two have 2 reasons to claim she paid him back..... First, he essentially lied in his first divorce filings when asked if he had ever paid for gifts for another person. If he claims that Fani paid hiim back, he can claim he didn't lie. Secondly, if Fani paid him back with cash, then she can claim she did not benefit from the relationship. It just so happens that they have zero evidence that she paid him back. We are just supposed to accept their word, even though they have been less than honest from the get go.

1. Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit. Your own quotes from the policy are about PRE-EXISTING RELATIONSHIPS. There was no such pre-existing relationship. Willis barely knew Wade at the outset and only began dating him much later, well after the Country started doing business with him.

2. Burden of proof is on the accuser. Despite days of testimony there is zero solid or conclusive evidence that she benefitted financially.

1. Witnesses have refuted her claim that there was no "pre-existing" relationship.
2. Both Willis and Wade have credibility issues. The judge will surely take that into consideration in making his decision. The fact that neither have evidence of repayment...... no bank statements, no other hard evidence - their claims are specious, at best. In this day and age, statements proving cash transactions - especially of large sums of $2500 or more - are easy to come by.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a typical Trump strategy -- he's used it many, many times over the years. Obfuscate and distract, and drag things out as long as possible. They are good at digging up dirt on people -- Fanni should have done a little more research into Trump's tactics. This is a tried and true strategy. He repeats it because it works, and Fanni is his latest victim.

[/b]She shouldn't have had a relationship at work, period. But it wasn't a crime, no nepotism, no one's screaming sexual abuse here. [b]It has nothing to do with the prosecution of Trump and his allies -- NOTHING.

Read it for what it is, and don't fall into the trap they set for you.

Let the trial begin!!!

It actually is a crime. She violated Fulton County ethics laws. She had a legal duty to disclose the relationship and any gifts over $100. She did not. Additionally, she has opened up Fulton County to potential hostile workplace and discrimination claims. You do not date people you have supervisory responsibility over period. Any company in the US with HR policies in place would fire you for this.

Two things can be true at once. She can be guilty and so can Trump/the other defendents.

Yes, Trump is still guilty.

Beyond that, I have to disagree on 2 points:

1. Fulton County DOES NOT require disclosure of who you're dating - https://cm.fultoncountyga.gov/-/media/Forms/Clerk-to-Commission-Forms/IncomeandFinancialDisclosureReport-Final.pdf

2. There weren't any gifts for Willis to disclose. With regard to meals and trips, she went dutch with him and repaid him for any gifts given, with her own hard-earned money out of her own pocket. She was quite clear on that in her testimony and nothing to the contrary has been shown or proven.

1. Wrong.
According to the Fulton County Government Guidebook: Personnel Policies and Procedures, there is a policy regarding the employment of relatives. The policy states that a “relative” includes “relationships between individuals who are in a consensual romantic, sexual, dating or other intimate relationship, regardless of whether they are cohabitating.”

The policy states that the county “discourages relationships that could disrupt the work environment or lead to an actual or perceived conflict of interest.”

According to the policy, before an employment offer can be made to a relative of an employee, “an Appointing Authority must submit a written request for approval to the Chief Human Resources Officer.” The approval request must also show “that the relative is the person best qualified to perform the work required by the position.”

The “Appointing Authorities are responsible for ensuring that this procedure is followed when hiring the relative of a current employee,” the policy also reads. “Appointing Authorities who extend job offers to relatives of current employees without the approval of either the Chief Human Resources Officer or County Manager may be subject to disciplinary action by the County Manager.”

Also, “no individual shall be hired, promoted or permitted to transfer into any position where the Appointing Authority, department head or someone who will be in the employee’s direct chain of command is a relative,” according to the policy. “Pre-existing employment relationships falling within the purview of this paragraph will be permitted to continue; however, that exception does not apply to reemployment, promotions, demotions, reassignments, and lateral transfers that occur after the effective date of this Policy.”

Additionally, per the policy, “No individual shall be hired, reinstated, reemployed, transferred, promoted, demoted or assigned to any position that is under the direct or indirect supervision or control of a relative.”
https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/fulton-county-policy-states-both-da-willis-wade-were-required?utm_source=mux&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=social-media-autopost

2. She has ZERO proof that she paid for the trips and meals. Wade tried to claim that they shared expenses by producing a SINGLE expense showing that Fani had paid for travel and then said that she paid him back - in untraceable cash - for the other expenses.
These two have 2 reasons to claim she paid him back..... First, he essentially lied in his first divorce filings when asked if he had ever paid for gifts for another person. If he claims that Fani paid hiim back, he can claim he didn't lie. Secondly, if Fani paid him back with cash, then she can claim she did not benefit from the relationship. It just so happens that they have zero evidence that she paid him back. We are just supposed to accept their word, even though they have been less than honest from the get go.

1. Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit. Your own quotes from the policy are about PRE-EXISTING RELATIONSHIPS. There was no such pre-existing relationship. Willis barely knew Wade at the outset and only began dating him much later, well after the Country started doing business with him.

2. Burden of proof is on the accuser. Despite days of testimony there is zero solid or conclusive evidence that she benefitted financially.

1. Witnesses have refuted her claim that there was no "pre-existing" relationship.
2. Both Willis and Wade have credibility issues. The judge will surely take that into consideration in making his decision. The fact that neither have evidence of repayment...... no bank statements, no other hard evidence - their claims are specious, at best. In this day and age, statements proving cash transactions - especially of large sums of $2500 or more - are easy to come by.

What witnesses refuted it? I didn't hear any such thing in the hours of testimony that I listened to.

Also, the fact that you accuse someone of wrongdoing but they deny it and you have no evidence to prove it doesn't somehow magically confer "credibility issues" onto the person you are accusing. It only makes your accusations weak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a typical Trump strategy -- he's used it many, many times over the years. Obfuscate and distract, and drag things out as long as possible. They are good at digging up dirt on people -- Fanni should have done a little more research into Trump's tactics. This is a tried and true strategy. He repeats it because it works, and Fanni is his latest victim.

[/b]She shouldn't have had a relationship at work, period. But it wasn't a crime, no nepotism, no one's screaming sexual abuse here. It has nothing to do with the prosecution of Trump and his allies -- NOTHING.

Read it for what it is, and don't fall into the trap they set for you.

Let the trial begin!!!

It actually is a crime. She violated Fulton County ethics laws. She had a legal duty to disclose the relationship and any gifts over $100. She did not. Additionally, she has opened up Fulton County to potential hostile workplace and discrimination claims. You do not date people you have supervisory responsibility over period. Any company in the US with HR policies in place would fire you for this.

Two things can be true at once. She can be guilty and so can Trump/the other defendents.

She didn't get any gifts.

She and her boyfriend went dutch on meals and trips.

It's so convenient to deal with cash only in these types of situations, isn't it? Becomes a he said/she said situation. It's how a lot of criminals get away with their crimes.

[b]I thought only drug dealers used wads of cash to take care of their business. I guess the top prosecutor in Fulton County, Georgia conducts her business with wads of cash as well. Maybe IRS should look into this since IRS has hundreds of more investigators now to investigate these potential tax fraud cases.

Whatever you thought is obviously wrong. Tons of people do business with cash. Last time I checked, cash is the official legal tender of the nation.

Love your sense of humor! Please share who exactly exchanges thousands of dollars in cash on a regular basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow watching this hearing and seeing the cast of characters working in the DA office and government I. General you get a sense they are as thick as thieves and all corrupt, covering up for each other. The FBI should investigate what's going on down there , amazing these people get elected and hired , all are corrupt.

Really. They can't beat Trump and his lying lawyers and cohorts!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a typical Trump strategy -- he's used it many, many times over the years. Obfuscate and distract, and drag things out as long as possible. They are good at digging up dirt on people -- Fanni should have done a little more research into Trump's tactics. This is a tried and true strategy. He repeats it because it works, and Fanni is his latest victim.

[/b]She shouldn't have had a relationship at work, period. But it wasn't a crime, no nepotism, no one's screaming sexual abuse here. [b]It has nothing to do with the prosecution of Trump and his allies -- NOTHING.

Read it for what it is, and don't fall into the trap they set for you.

Let the trial begin!!!

It actually is a crime. She violated Fulton County ethics laws. She had a legal duty to disclose the relationship and any gifts over $100. She did not. Additionally, she has opened up Fulton County to potential hostile workplace and discrimination claims. You do not date people you have supervisory responsibility over period. Any company in the US with HR policies in place would fire you for this.

Two things can be true at once. She can be guilty and so can Trump/the other defendents.

She didn't get any gifts.

She and her boyfriend went dutch on meals and trips.

It's so convenient to deal with cash only in these types of situations, isn't it? Becomes a he said/she said situation. It's how a lot of criminals get away with their crimes.

Trump is quite possibly the biggest crook this country has ever produced
The Mafia pales in comparison. It would not surprise me to go about that Trump has had someone murdered.