GA Case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Merchant’s performance been discussed? She was woefully unprepared, and kept veering off topic, and getting sassy when she was clearly wrong.

I am having a hard time understanding why she would be chosen to represent Roman in such a serious case.

Some of the other attorneys trying to question Willis and others were also quite a clown show.

All of the attorneys questioning her did quite well.
And, it was Merchant who uncovered Willis' affair and alleged conflict of interest, so kudos to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Merchant’s performance been discussed? She was woefully unprepared, and kept veering off topic, and getting sassy when she was clearly wrong.

I am having a hard time understanding why she would be chosen to represent Roman in such a serious case.

Some of the other attorneys trying to question Willis and others were also quite a clown show.

All of the attorneys questioning her did quite well.
And, it was Merchant who uncovered Willis' affair and alleged conflict of interest, so kudos to her.

It's a desperation play. Doesn't actually make Trump's criminality go away though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Merchant’s performance been discussed? She was woefully unprepared, and kept veering off topic, and getting sassy when she was clearly wrong.

I am having a hard time understanding why she would be chosen to represent Roman in such a serious case.

Some of the other attorneys trying to question Willis and others were also quite a clown show.

All of the attorneys questioning her did quite well.
And, it was Merchant who uncovered Willis' affair and alleged conflict of interest, so kudos to her.

No, Merchant’s client Mike Roman is who did that. He’s a longtime professional dirt digger for Trump, the Kochs, and tons of other Republicans going way back.

[Anonymous]

If Willis is disqualified from prosecution due to conflict of interest then that disqualifies Clarence Thomas from hearing any further SCOTUS cases. For him to continue would be a complete travesty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Merchant’s performance been discussed? She was woefully unprepared, and kept veering off topic, and getting sassy when she was clearly wrong.

I am having a hard time understanding why she would be chosen to represent Roman in such a serious case.

Some of the other attorneys trying to question Willis and others were also quite a clown show.

All of the attorneys questioning her did quite well.
And, it was Merchant who uncovered Willis' affair and alleged conflict of interest, so kudos to her.

It's a desperation play. Doesn't actually make Trump's criminality go away though.

Nobody except you keep brining this point. Trump's trial is a separate matter - however, we have to determine whether the serious allegations made against Fani and Nathan are true and then take appropriate actions if they are determined to be true. Don't mix it up with Trump's case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Willis is disqualified from prosecution due to conflict of interest then that disqualifies Clarence Thomas from hearing any further SCOTUS cases. For him to continue would be a complete travesty.

This thread is about GA and Willis and Wade and whether they can continue on this case.
Thanks for playing.

[Anonymous]

If want you a hearty mid-day laugh, take a spin through Nathan Wade's web site. Ask your elementary school kid to see how many incomplete sentences, run-on sentences, and instances of improper word choice they can identify. 😄

[Anonymous]

Honest question: Fanni and Wade are so incompetent why would defs want to disqualify them? I've practice law for 30 years and encountered thousands and thousands of attorneys. If I had to pick 2 lawyers who would prosecute me for RICO, I would pick Wade and Willis in a nano second. Guarantee any replacement lawyers will be order of magnitude better than Wade and willis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: Fanni and Wade are so incompetent why would defs want to disqualify them? I've practice law for 30 years and encountered thousands and thousands of attorneys. If I had to pick 2 lawyers who would prosecute me for RICO, I would pick Wade and Willis in a nano second. Guarantee any replacement lawyers will be order of magnitude better than Wade and willis.

Question is..... would a truly reputable attorney/DA in GA want to take on this case? Prosecuting a former president and 14 other defendants on specious charges? RICO?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Willis is disqualified from prosecution due to conflict of interest then that disqualifies Clarence Thomas from hearing any further SCOTUS cases. For him to continue would be a complete travesty.

This thread is about GA and Willis and Wade and whether they can continue on this case.
Thanks for playing.

The PP is obsessed with the thought of Clarence Thomas' presence on the Supreme Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: Fanni and Wade are so incompetent why would defs want to disqualify them? I've practice law for 30 years and encountered thousands and thousands of attorneys. If I had to pick 2 lawyers who would prosecute me for RICO, I would pick Wade and Willis in a nano second. Guarantee any replacement lawyers will be order of magnitude better than Wade and willis.

Question is..... would a truly reputable attorney/DA in GA want to take on this case? Prosecuting a former president and 14 other defendants on specious charges? RICO?

Specious? Have you been under a rock? They have audio recordings of Trump trying to rig the GA election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: Fanni and Wade are so incompetent why would defs want to disqualify them? I've practice law for 30 years and encountered thousands and thousands of attorneys. If I had to pick 2 lawyers who would prosecute me for RICO, I would pick Wade and Willis in a nano second. Guarantee any replacement lawyers will be order of magnitude better than Wade and willis.

Question is..... would a truly reputable attorney/DA in GA want to take on this case? Prosecuting a former president and 14 other defendants on specious charges? RICO?

Specious? Have you been under a rock? They have audio recordings of Trump trying to rig the GA election.

Rig an election? You probably call J6 an "insurrection" too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Willis is disqualified from prosecution due to conflict of interest then that disqualifies Clarence Thomas from hearing any further SCOTUS cases. For him to continue would be a complete travesty.

This thread is about GA and Willis and Wade and whether they can continue on this case.
Thanks for playing.

The PP is obsessed with the thought of Clarence Thomas' presence on the Supreme Court.

Obsessed?
No more obsessed than any of you wanting to disqualify Willis for things far less egregious than Thomas's gifts and massive conflicts of interest.
If you think Willis needs to be removed then by the exact same argument, Clarence Thomas also needs to be removed from SCOTUS. Either that, or if you don't have a problem with Clarence Thomas then you need to STFU about Willis. Pick a lane. Sorry but you can't have it both ways without being a big fat hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: Fanni and Wade are so incompetent why would defs want to disqualify them? I've practice law for 30 years and encountered thousands and thousands of attorneys. If I had to pick 2 lawyers who would prosecute me for RICO, I would pick Wade and Willis in a nano second. Guarantee any replacement lawyers will be order of magnitude better than Wade and willis.

Question is..... would a truly reputable attorney/DA in GA want to take on this case? Prosecuting a former president and 14 other defendants on specious charges? RICO?

Specious? Have you been under a rock? They have audio recordings of Trump trying to rig the GA election.

Rig an election? You probably call J6 an "insurrection" too.

Are you for real?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Willis is disqualified from prosecution due to conflict of interest then that disqualifies Clarence Thomas from hearing any further SCOTUS cases. For him to continue would be a complete travesty.

This thread is about GA and Willis and Wade and whether they can continue on this case.
Thanks for playing.

The PP is obsessed with the thought of Clarence Thomas' presence on the Supreme Court.

Obsessed?
No more obsessed than any of you wanting to disqualify Willis for things far less egregious than Thomas's gifts and massive conflicts of interest.
If you think Willis needs to be removed then by the exact same argument, Clarence Thomas also needs to be removed from SCOTUS. Either that, or if you don't have a problem with Clarence Thomas then you need to STFU about Willis. Pick a lane. Sorry but you can't have it both ways without being a big fat hypocrite.

Ma'am, this is a Wendy's.