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][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]

She didn't get any gifts.

She and her boyfriend went dutch on meals and trips.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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

It's still a great way to give your secret lover cash. No Venmo or Zelle. No way to trace. Street savvy attorneys![/quote]

Or, it could be a bunch of dutch dates. There is absolutely no proof of impropriety, which the defendents in this case have to prove. They haven't but are happy to have people like you slinging mud and false assertions.[/quote]

+1000.  All they have is an assortment of half-baked and unfounded accusations with nowhere near enough solid evidence to prove any of it.  And, Willis was pretty clear on her philosophy with regard to dating.  Having been through some bad relationships she wanted to pay her own way and to not to be beholden to any man financially.  She testified to that.  [/quote]

It is odd that she never paid for the two of them when planning any trips and had him reimburse her for his portion.[/quote]

She explained this. Did you listen to the testimony? [/quote]

She's hilarious claiming that her own testimony is proof, no you need evidence and corroborating witness, hopefully her evidence against Trump is stronger and not made up[/quote]

Is the concept of evidence new to you? Witness testimony is direct evidence, which most of the country seems to believe is better than circumstantial evidence. I disagree with the latter, but it’s what people say. [/quote]

The problem is that Fani said her testimony is a "proof". Her testimony is just one piece of "evidence" in addition to other evidence properly introduced at the trial.

Her testimony shows she does not even understand the very basics of the legal system let alone the trial practice and Rules of Evidence.[/quote]

Your problem is there's [b]no solid or conclusive evidence to disprove or refute most of her testimony[/b] or to back up the bogus "corruption" narrative that the Trump lawyers have been trying to pitch.[/quote]

And, she knows this.  That is why she claims to have paid him in cash. 
The judge can take this into consideration when he makes his decision.  Pretty convenient that neither of them have any bank statements to prove or disprove her claim.  [/quote]
She is not on trial, so the burden of proof is not so high.  It is not required to prove the case.  The judge is free to use best judgment and see that she is lying.[/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