Reply to GA Case

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "GA Case"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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!!! [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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!!"  :roll: [/quote]

Merchant made a lot of claims that turned out to be bullshit. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics