Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the plaintiffs attorneys think Wade isn’t qualified to prosecute felonies, why do they want him removed? He’s done pretty well so far with grand jury indictments, guilty pleas, and defeating plaintiffs’ motions to try to move their cases, claim executive privilege, etc.

+1. If he’s such a bad lawyer, you’d think they’d want to keep him on the case. The intense focus on getting rid of him suggests that he’s been quite effective.

Conflict of interest. Go look it up. Not everything in life is about gaining advantage or unfair advantage.

What’s the conflict? He’s on the same side as his alleged GF. If he was a defendants lawyer and dating the prosecutor, that would be a conflict. But not when they are on the same side.

Not when Wade's girlfriend is the sole and only person approving Wade's bills including numerous charges of 24 hours billing per day and reaping benefits by approving said "24 hours of billing" per day.

The motion doesn't even allege that Willis approves Wade's bills at all, much less that she is the "sole and only person" approving them. In fact, all of them were approved someone with the initials "ATG," which are not Willis' initials. So you're just making that up.

Also, could you let us know what days there were "numerous charges of 24 hours billing per day? There are some 24 hour entries but they span over several days.

You said "numerous charges of 24 hours billing per day." That's one instance. His invoices frequently lump multiple days on one line and then charge a lump sum for an activity over all of those days. Seems like this one instance may be one of those and it was just mislabeled as one day, especially since there are no charges for the day before or several days after.

Lawyers who understand how billing is reported (and that different lawyers do it different ways) will understand that this is not a problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the plaintiffs attorneys think Wade isn’t qualified to prosecute felonies, why do they want him removed? He’s done pretty well so far with grand jury indictments, guilty pleas, and defeating plaintiffs’ motions to try to move their cases, claim executive privilege, etc.

+1. If he’s such a bad lawyer, you’d think they’d want to keep him on the case. The intense focus on getting rid of him suggests that he’s been quite effective.

Conflict of interest. Go look it up. Not everything in life is about gaining advantage or unfair advantage.

What’s the conflict? He’s on the same side as his alleged GF. If he was a defendants lawyer and dating the prosecutor, that would be a conflict. But not when they are on the same side.

Not when Wade's girlfriend is the sole and only person approving Wade's bills including numerous charges of 24 hours billing per day and reaping benefits by approving said "24 hours of billing" per day.

The motion doesn't even allege that Willis approves Wade's bills at all, much less that she is the "sole and only person" approving them. In fact, all of them were approved someone with the initials "ATG," which are not Willis' initials. So you're just making that up.

According to the AJC, the DA (Fani Willis) authorizes his compensation.

The bombshell public filing alleged that special prosecutor Nathan Wade, a private attorney, paid for lavish vacations he took with Willis using the Fulton County funds his law firm received. County records show that Wade, who has played a prominent role in the election interference case, has been paid nearly $654,000 in legal fees since January 2022. The DA authorizes his compensation.

https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-filing-alleges-improper-relationship-between-fulton-da-top-trump-prosecutor/A2N2OWCM7FFWJBQH2ORAK2BKMQ/

In other words, a guy used his salary to take his girlfriend on vacation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the plaintiffs attorneys think Wade isn’t qualified to prosecute felonies, why do they want him removed? He’s done pretty well so far with grand jury indictments, guilty pleas, and defeating plaintiffs’ motions to try to move their cases, claim executive privilege, etc.

+1. If he’s such a bad lawyer, you’d think they’d want to keep him on the case. The intense focus on getting rid of him suggests that he’s been quite effective.

Conflict of interest. Go look it up. Not everything in life is about gaining advantage or unfair advantage.

DP. Complaining that he is inexperienced is not about a conflict of interest. It's an objectively strange complaint from a defense attorney.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the plaintiffs attorneys think Wade isn’t qualified to prosecute felonies, why do they want him removed? He’s done pretty well so far with grand jury indictments, guilty pleas, and defeating plaintiffs’ motions to try to move their cases, claim executive privilege, etc.

+1. If he’s such a bad lawyer, you’d think they’d want to keep him on the case. The intense focus on getting rid of him suggests that he’s been quite effective.

Conflict of interest. Go look it up. Not everything in life is about gaining advantage or unfair advantage.

What’s the conflict? He’s on the same side as his alleged GF. If he was a defendants lawyer and dating the prosecutor, that would be a conflict. But not when they are on the same side.

Not when Wade's girlfriend is the sole and only person approving Wade's bills including numerous charges of 24 hours billing per day and reaping benefits by approving said "24 hours of billing" per day.

The motion doesn't even allege that Willis approves Wade's bills at all, much less that she is the "sole and only person" approving them. In fact, all of them were approved someone with the initials "ATG," which are not Willis' initials. So you're just making that up.

Also, could you let us know what days there were "numerous charges of 24 hours billing per day? There are some 24 hour entries but they span over several days.

You said "numerous charges of 24 hours billing per day." That's one instance. His invoices frequently lump multiple days on one line and then charge a lump sum for an activity over all of those days. Seems like this one instance may be one of those and it was just mislabeled as one day, especially since there are no charges for the day before or several days after.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the plaintiffs attorneys think Wade isn’t qualified to prosecute felonies, why do they want him removed? He’s done pretty well so far with grand jury indictments, guilty pleas, and defeating plaintiffs’ motions to try to move their cases, claim executive privilege, etc.

+1. If he’s such a bad lawyer, you’d think they’d want to keep him on the case. The intense focus on getting rid of him suggests that he’s been quite effective.

Conflict of interest. Go look it up. Not everything in life is about gaining advantage or unfair advantage.

What’s the conflict? He’s on the same side as his alleged GF. If he was a defendants lawyer and dating the prosecutor, that would be a conflict. But not when they are on the same side.

Not when Wade's girlfriend is the sole and only person approving Wade's bills including numerous charges of 24 hours billing per day and reaping benefits by approving said "24 hours of billing" per day.

The motion doesn't even allege that Willis approves Wade's bills at all, much less that she is the "sole and only person" approving them. In fact, all of them were approved someone with the initials "ATG," which are not Willis' initials. So you're just making that up.

According to the AJC, the DA (Fani Willis) authorizes his compensation.

The bombshell public filing alleged that special prosecutor Nathan Wade, a private attorney, paid for lavish vacations he took with Willis using the Fulton County funds his law firm received. County records show that Wade, who has played a prominent role in the election interference case, has been paid nearly $654,000 in legal fees since January 2022. The DA authorizes his compensation.

https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-filing-alleges-improper-relationship-between-fulton-da-top-trump-prosecutor/A2N2OWCM7FFWJBQH2ORAK2BKMQ/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the plaintiffs attorneys think Wade isn’t qualified to prosecute felonies, why do they want him removed? He’s done pretty well so far with grand jury indictments, guilty pleas, and defeating plaintiffs’ motions to try to move their cases, claim executive privilege, etc.

+1. If he’s such a bad lawyer, you’d think they’d want to keep him on the case. The intense focus on getting rid of him suggests that he’s been quite effective.

Conflict of interest. Go look it up. Not everything in life is about gaining advantage or unfair advantage.

What’s the conflict? He’s on the same side as his alleged GF. If he was a defendants lawyer and dating the prosecutor, that would be a conflict. But not when they are on the same side.

Not when Wade's girlfriend is the sole and only person approving Wade's bills including numerous charges of 24 hours billing per day and reaping benefits by approving said "24 hours of billing" per day.

The motion doesn't even allege that Willis approves Wade's bills at all, much less that she is the "sole and only person" approving them. In fact, all of them were approved someone with the initials "ATG," which are not Willis' initials. So you're just making that up.

Also, could you let us know what days there were "numerous charges of 24 hours billing per day? There are some 24 hour entries but they span over several days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the plaintiffs attorneys think Wade isn’t qualified to prosecute felonies, why do they want him removed? He’s done pretty well so far with grand jury indictments, guilty pleas, and defeating plaintiffs’ motions to try to move their cases, claim executive privilege, etc.

+1. If he’s such a bad lawyer, you’d think they’d want to keep him on the case. The intense focus on getting rid of him suggests that he’s been quite effective.

Conflict of interest. Go look it up. Not everything in life is about gaining advantage or unfair advantage.

What’s the conflict? He’s on the same side as his alleged GF. If he was a defendants lawyer and dating the prosecutor, that would be a conflict. But not when they are on the same side.

Not when Wade's girlfriend is the sole and only person approving Wade's bills including numerous charges of 24 hours billing per day and reaping benefits by approving said "24 hours of billing" per day.

The motion doesn't even allege that Willis approves Wade's bills at all, much less that she is the "sole and only person" approving them. In fact, all of them were approved someone with the initials "ATG," which are not Willis' initials. So you're just making that up.

According to the AJC, the DA (Fani Willis) authorizes his compensation.

The bombshell public filing alleged that special prosecutor Nathan Wade, a private attorney, paid for lavish vacations he took with Willis using the Fulton County funds his law firm received. County records show that Wade, who has played a prominent role in the election interference case, has been paid nearly $654,000 in legal fees since January 2022. The DA authorizes his compensation.

https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-filing-alleges-improper-relationship-between-fulton-da-top-trump-prosecutor/A2N2OWCM7FFWJBQH2ORAK2BKMQ/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the plaintiffs attorneys think Wade isn’t qualified to prosecute felonies, why do they want him removed? He’s done pretty well so far with grand jury indictments, guilty pleas, and defeating plaintiffs’ motions to try to move their cases, claim executive privilege, etc.

+1. If he’s such a bad lawyer, you’d think they’d want to keep him on the case. The intense focus on getting rid of him suggests that he’s been quite effective.

Conflict of interest. Go look it up. Not everything in life is about gaining advantage or unfair advantage.

What’s the conflict? He’s on the same side as his alleged GF. If he was a defendants lawyer and dating the prosecutor, that would be a conflict. But not when they are on the same side.

Not when Wade's girlfriend is the sole and only person approving Wade's bills including numerous charges of 24 hours billing per day and reaping benefits by approving said "24 hours of billing" per day.

The motion doesn't even allege that Willis approves Wade's bills at all, much less that she is the "sole and only person" approving them. In fact, all of them were approved someone with the initials "ATG," which are not Willis' initials. So you're just making that up.

Also, could you let us know what days there were "numerous charges of 24 hours billing per day? There are some 24 hour entries but they span over several days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the plaintiffs attorneys think Wade isn’t qualified to prosecute felonies, why do they want him removed? He’s done pretty well so far with grand jury indictments, guilty pleas, and defeating plaintiffs’ motions to try to move their cases, claim executive privilege, etc.

+1. If he’s such a bad lawyer, you’d think they’d want to keep him on the case. The intense focus on getting rid of him suggests that he’s been quite effective.

Conflict of interest. Go look it up. Not everything in life is about gaining advantage or unfair advantage.

What’s the conflict? He’s on the same side as his alleged GF. If he was a defendants lawyer and dating the prosecutor, that would be a conflict. But not when they are on the same side.

Not when Wade's girlfriend is the sole and only person approving Wade's bills including numerous charges of 24 hours billing per day and reaping benefits by approving said "24 hours of billing" per day.

The motion doesn't even allege that Willis approves Wade's bills at all, much less that she is the "sole and only person" approving them. In fact, all of them were approved someone with the initials "ATG," which are not Willis' initials. So you're just making that up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the plaintiffs attorneys think Wade isn’t qualified to prosecute felonies, why do they want him removed? He’s done pretty well so far with grand jury indictments, guilty pleas, and defeating plaintiffs’ motions to try to move their cases, claim executive privilege, etc.

+1. If he’s such a bad lawyer, you’d think they’d want to keep him on the case. The intense focus on getting rid of him suggests that he’s been quite effective.

Conflict of interest. Go look it up. Not everything in life is about gaining advantage or unfair advantage.

What’s the conflict? He’s on the same side as his alleged GF. If he was a defendants lawyer and dating the prosecutor, that would be a conflict. But not when they are on the same side.

Not when Wade's girlfriend is the sole and only person approving Wade's bills including numerous charges of 24 hours billing per day and reaping benefits by approving said "24 hours of billing" per day.

The motion doesn't even allege that Willis approves Wade's bills at all, much less that she is the "sole and only person" approving them. In fact, all of them were approved someone with the initials "ATG," which are not Willis' initials. So you're just making that up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the plaintiffs attorneys think Wade isn’t qualified to prosecute felonies, why do they want him removed? He’s done pretty well so far with grand jury indictments, guilty pleas, and defeating plaintiffs’ motions to try to move their cases, claim executive privilege, etc.

+1. If he’s such a bad lawyer, you’d think they’d want to keep him on the case. The intense focus on getting rid of him suggests that he’s been quite effective.

Conflict of interest. Go look it up. Not everything in life is about gaining advantage or unfair advantage.

What’s the conflict? He’s on the same side as his alleged GF. If he was a defendants lawyer and dating the prosecutor, that would be a conflict. But not when they are on the same side.

Not when Wade's girlfriend is the sole and only person approving Wade's bills including numerous charges of 24 hours billing per day and reaping benefits by approving said "24 hours of billing" per day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the plaintiffs attorneys think Wade isn’t qualified to prosecute felonies, why do they want him removed? He’s done pretty well so far with grand jury indictments, guilty pleas, and defeating plaintiffs’ motions to try to move their cases, claim executive privilege, etc.

+1. If he’s such a bad lawyer, you’d think they’d want to keep him on the case. The intense focus on getting rid of him suggests that he’s been quite effective.

Conflict of interest. Go look it up. Not everything in life is about gaining advantage or unfair advantage.

What’s the conflict? He’s on the same side as his alleged GF. If he was a defendants lawyer and dating the prosecutor, that would be a conflict. But not when they are on the same side.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the plaintiffs attorneys think Wade isn’t qualified to prosecute felonies, why do they want him removed? He’s done pretty well so far with grand jury indictments, guilty pleas, and defeating plaintiffs’ motions to try to move their cases, claim executive privilege, etc.

+1. If he’s such a bad lawyer, you’d think they’d want to keep him on the case. The intense focus on getting rid of him suggests that he’s been quite effective.

Conflict of interest. Go look it up. Not everything in life is about gaining advantage or unfair advantage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the plaintiffs attorneys think Wade isn’t qualified to prosecute felonies, why do they want him removed? He’s done pretty well so far with grand jury indictments, guilty pleas, and defeating plaintiffs’ motions to try to move their cases, claim executive privilege, etc.

+1. If he’s such a bad lawyer, you’d think they’d want to keep him on the case. The intense focus on getting rid of him suggests that he’s been quite effective.

Conflict of interest. Go look it up. Not everything in life is about gaining advantage or unfair advantage.