GA Case

[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.

One witness - Yeartie, not "witnesses" - every other person to testify either refuted it or could not corroborate it.

[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.

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.

PP here. I'm no Trump fan. At all.

[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. 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.

I see you have never in your life been to a home depot or restaurant supply store.

[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.

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.

1. Her friend, Robin Bryant-Yeartie, testified that the relationship began in 2019. The defense also has evidence that Terrence Bradley, Wade's attorney, provided evidence to Merchant that proves the relationship started earlier. However, the evidence could not be presented in court because Bradley claimed attorney-client privilege. The judge will review this evidence in private. Interesting that the judge called into question his claim of attorney client privilege. His statement: “Mr. Bradley previously testified that the reason he left the firm was totally and completely covered by privilege. When asked by the state, he went into a factual scenario, that, to my mind, I don’t see how it related to privilege at all. And, so, now I’m left wondering if Mr. Bradley has been properly interpreting privilege this entire time.”

2. I am not calling her credibility into issue because she lacks evidence of her claims. I am calling both of their credibilities into issue because of past statements/filings/claims that have sense turned out to be false or misleading.

[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.

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.

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/11/nyregion/copter-crash-kills-3-aides-of-trump.html

This was an alleged hit, actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

1. Her friend, Robin Bryant-Yeartie, testified that the relationship began in 2019. The defense also has evidence that Terrence Bradley, Wade's attorney, provided evidence to Merchant that proves the relationship started earlier. However, the evidence could not be presented in court because Bradley claimed attorney-client privilege. The judge will review this evidence in private. Interesting that the judge called into question his claim of attorney client privilege. His statement: “Mr. Bradley previously testified that the reason he left the firm was totally and completely covered by privilege. When asked by the state, he went into a factual scenario, that, to my mind, I don’t see how it related to privilege at all. And, so, now I’m left wondering if Mr. Bradley has been properly interpreting privilege this entire time.”

2. I am not calling her credibility into issue because she lacks evidence of her claims. I am calling both of their credibilities into issue because of past statements/filings/claims that have sense turned out to be false or misleading.

I think there's a lot of wild speculation on what Bradley provided. I listened to Bradley's testimony yesterday afternoon. Seems to me he refuted the idea of the relationship starting earlier and in fact he said he did not know a whole lot about the relationship between Wade and Willis, let alone when it started. They were business partners but Bradley said he and Wade didn't socialize and didn't discuss much other than work, sports and small talk. And, it pretty much came out that his leaving the firm had absolutely nothing to do with Willis. It sounds more like Bradley had been accused of sexual assault (which he denied) and as a result he walked out on Wade's firm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

1. Her friend, Robin Bryant-Yeartie, testified that the relationship began in 2019. The defense also has evidence that Terrence Bradley, Wade's attorney, provided evidence to Merchant that proves the relationship started earlier. However, the evidence could not be presented in court because Bradley claimed attorney-client privilege. The judge will review this evidence in private. Interesting that the judge called into question his claim of attorney client privilege. His statement: “Mr. Bradley previously testified that the reason he left the firm was totally and completely covered by privilege. When asked by the state, he went into a factual scenario, that, to my mind, I don’t see how it related to privilege at all. And, so, now I’m left wondering if Mr. Bradley has been properly interpreting privilege this entire time.”

2. I am not calling her credibility into issue because she lacks evidence of her claims. I am calling both of their credibilities into issue because of past statements/filings/claims that have sense turned out to be false or misleading.

I think there's a lot of wild speculation on what Bradley provided. I listened to Bradley's testimony yesterday afternoon. Seems to me he refuted the idea of the relationship starting earlier and in fact he said he did not know a whole lot about the relationship between Wade and Willis, let alone when it started. They were business partners but Bradley said he and Wade didn't socialize and didn't discuss much other than work, sports and small talk. And, it pretty much came out that his leaving the firm had absolutely nothing to do with Willis. It sounds more like Bradley had been accused of sexual assault (which he denied) and as a result he walked out on Wade's firm.

They were more than business partners. He was Wade's attorney.
Merchant claims to have text messages from Bradley that is proof of him having knowledge about a relationship starting earlier than they claim. But there is a question whether that evidence is covered by attorney client privilege.
Since that evidence wasn't made public, we have no idea what it was.... but it is in the judge's possession now. And, since the judge has questioned his claim of attorney client privilege, there is a good chance that evidence will be considered in the judge's opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

1. Her friend, Robin Bryant-Yeartie, testified that the relationship began in 2019. The defense also has evidence that Terrence Bradley, Wade's attorney, provided evidence to Merchant that proves the relationship started earlier. However, the evidence could not be presented in court because Bradley claimed attorney-client privilege. The judge will review this evidence in private. Interesting that the judge called into question his claim of attorney client privilege. His statement: “Mr. Bradley previously testified that the reason he left the firm was totally and completely covered by privilege. When asked by the state, he went into a factual scenario, that, to my mind, I don’t see how it related to privilege at all. And, so, now I’m left wondering if Mr. Bradley has been properly interpreting privilege this entire time.”

2. I am not calling her credibility into issue because she lacks evidence of her claims. I am calling both of their credibilities into issue because of past statements/filings/claims that have sense turned out to be false or misleading.

I think there's a lot of wild speculation on what Bradley provided. I listened to Bradley's testimony yesterday afternoon. Seems to me he refuted the idea of the relationship starting earlier and in fact he said he did not know a whole lot about the relationship between Wade and Willis, let alone when it started. They were business partners but Bradley said he and Wade didn't socialize and didn't discuss much other than work, sports and small talk. And, it pretty much came out that his leaving the firm had absolutely nothing to do with Willis. It sounds more like Bradley had been accused of sexual assault (which he denied) and as a result he walked out on Wade's firm.

They were more than business partners. He was Wade's attorney.
Merchant claims to have text messages from Bradley that is proof of him having knowledge about a relationship starting earlier than they claim. But there is a question whether that evidence is covered by attorney client privilege.
Since that evidence wasn't made public, we have no idea what it was.... but it is in the judge's possession now. And, since the judge has questioned his claim of attorney client privilege, there is a good chance that evidence will be considered in the judge's opinion.

On the stand, Bradley testified he DID NOT have any such knowledge. That leaves Merchant's claim questionable. "We have the evidence, if only you could see it! No really!!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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. 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.

I see you have never in your life been to a home depot or restaurant supply store.

Not restaurant suoply but have been going to The Home Depot and Lowes stores in Atlanta for 30 years on a regular basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, the FBI recently busted a DA office in or around Atlanta for contract swinging fake legal billings to crony law firms. Millions of public dollars. This scam has been going on a while. Willis and Wade are so indignant because this sort of scamming down there is as natural as breathing.

They have the contracts and talked about them. The rates were pretty low where it comes to legal fees, like $60 an hour for some services, along with being capped at a maximum each month. Nowhere near millions. And, it was also shown that Willis reduced a lot of the contracting with Wade by making internal hires to fill the staffing shortfalls that prompted the Wade contracts in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

1. Her friend, Robin Bryant-Yeartie, testified that the relationship began in 2019. The defense also has evidence that Terrence Bradley, Wade's attorney, provided evidence to Merchant that proves the relationship started earlier. However, the evidence could not be presented in court because Bradley claimed attorney-client privilege. The judge will review this evidence in private. Interesting that the judge called into question his claim of attorney client privilege. His statement: “Mr. Bradley previously testified that the reason he left the firm was totally and completely covered by privilege. When asked by the state, he went into a factual scenario, that, to my mind, I don’t see how it related to privilege at all. And, so, now I’m left wondering if Mr. Bradley has been properly interpreting privilege this entire time.”

2. I am not calling her credibility into issue because she lacks evidence of her claims. I am calling both of their credibilities into issue because of past statements/filings/claims that have sense turned out to be false or misleading.

I think there's a lot of wild speculation on what Bradley provided. I listened to Bradley's testimony yesterday afternoon. Seems to me he refuted the idea of the relationship starting earlier and in fact he said he did not know a whole lot about the relationship between Wade and Willis, let alone when it started. They were business partners but Bradley said he and Wade didn't socialize and didn't discuss much other than work, sports and small talk. And, it pretty much came out that his leaving the firm had absolutely nothing to do with Willis. It sounds more like Bradley had been accused of sexual assault (which he denied) and as a result he walked out on Wade's firm.

They were more than business partners. He was Wade's attorney.
Merchant claims to have text messages from Bradley that is proof of him having knowledge about a relationship starting earlier than they claim. But there is a question whether that evidence is covered by attorney client privilege.
Since that evidence wasn't made public, we have no idea what it was.... but it is in the judge's possession now. And, since the judge has questioned his claim of attorney client privilege, there is a good chance that evidence will be considered in the judge's opinion.

On the stand, Bradley testified he DID NOT have any such knowledge. That leaves Merchant's claim questionable. "We have the evidence, if only you could see it! No really!!"

Merchant made a lot of claims that turned out to be bullshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


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.

She's claiming workplace romance, that the relationship started recently after she hired him, and not her hiring someone she was sleeping with.

All those trips they took together before the relationship started? She reimbursed him! With cash she keeps around the house!

All these people on here are claiming to believe this.

The testimony was not that they weren’t in a romantic relationship when they took those trips.

.They split the costs? How romantic!

[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?

That....wasn't asking Raffensperger for a recount. That was asking him to manufacture the results to a specific number. Maybe your MAGA color glasses are clouding YOUR judgement.

+1 There had already been three recounts by that time. Maybe you all should read this thread from the beginning instead of just the recent parts.

[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.

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.

Using cash to reimburse people for things is not illegal and the IRS or anyone else doesn’t need to investigate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

1. Her friend, Robin Bryant-Yeartie, testified that the relationship began in 2019. The defense also has evidence that Terrence Bradley, Wade's attorney, provided evidence to Merchant that proves the relationship started earlier. However, the evidence could not be presented in court because Bradley claimed attorney-client privilege. The judge will review this evidence in private. Interesting that the judge called into question his claim of attorney client privilege. His statement: “Mr. Bradley previously testified that the reason he left the firm was totally and completely covered by privilege. When asked by the state, he went into a factual scenario, that, to my mind, I don’t see how it related to privilege at all. And, so, now I’m left wondering if Mr. Bradley has been properly interpreting privilege this entire time.”

2. I am not calling her credibility into issue because she lacks evidence of her claims. I am calling both of their credibilities into issue because of past statements/filings/claims that have sense turned out to be false or misleading.

I think there's a lot of wild speculation on what Bradley provided. I listened to Bradley's testimony yesterday afternoon. Seems to me he refuted the idea of the relationship starting earlier and in fact he said he did not know a whole lot about the relationship between Wade and Willis, let alone when it started. They were business partners but Bradley said he and Wade didn't socialize and didn't discuss much other than work, sports and small talk. And, it pretty much came out that his leaving the firm had absolutely nothing to do with Willis. It sounds more like Bradley had been accused of sexual assault (which he denied) and as a result he walked out on Wade's firm.

They were more than business partners. He was Wade's attorney.
Merchant claims to have text messages from Bradley that is proof of him having knowledge about a relationship starting earlier than they claim. But there is a question whether that evidence is covered by attorney client privilege.
Since that evidence wasn't made public, we have no idea what it was.... but it is in the judge's possession now. And, since the judge has questioned his claim of attorney client privilege, there is a good chance that evidence will be considered in the judge's opinion.

On the stand, Bradley testified he DID NOT have any such knowledge. That leaves Merchant's claim questionable. "We have the evidence, if only you could see it! No really!!"

Merchant made a lot of claims that turned out to be bullshit.

Texts the judge is reviewing:

“I sent you a statement saying [Wade and Willis] met while serving as magistrate judges and they started a relationship at that time, and you corrected me and said, ‘No, it was municipal court,'” Merchant asked Bradley while reading from their messages.

Willis became Chief Municipal Judge for South Fulton in Georgia in 2019, a position she gave up when she was elected as DA in 2021, placing the time frame Bradley was referring to in that period — well before the pair say they first became romantic in 2022.

Another text between Merchant and Bradley — also Wade’s former law partner — that the judge disallowed was from Sept. 18, 2023, when Merchant asked Bradley if he knew anyone who would make a sworn statement about Wade and Willis’ relationship.

“No, no one would freely burn that bridge,” Merchant said, reading from Bradley’s text to her.

https://nypost.com/2024/02/16/us-news/potential-evidence-of-fani-willis-affair-disallowed-by-judge/