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.

Your PDF is for financial disclosures which would not cover workplace romance. She was required to disclose the relationship as his supervisor and the person doing the hiring. https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/fulton-county-policy-states-both-da-willis-wade-were-required

I watched the vast majority of the testimony. As a public official she had a duty to track these reimbursements which she didn’t do. Since neither she, Wade nor Bradley are willing to provide anything that would help prove she paid him back how do we know she didn’t ever receive anything over $100 from him? When you are an elected official you are subject to a high standard of reporting which she did not follow. Given she was in a relationship with someone she paid through county funds she should have been going overboard to make sure she was beyond reproach. The two of them have jeopardized the entire case.

I understand Bradley doesn’t want to testify but how overboard he is going with attorney client privilege that the judge didn’t even understand makes it seem all the more suspicious. Hopefully he and the judge will work out those concerns and he will be comfortable testifying. He’s in a bad spot and understandably doesn’t want to do anything to jeopardize his license.

That policy refers to pre-existing relationships. Based on the testimony I heard over the last couple of days it seems to me that when Fulton County began contracting with Wade's firm they weren't dating and she barely knew him.

Meanwhile, the burden of proof lies on the accuser. Trump's attorneys will have to prove that there was a net in excess of $100. They lack sufficient concrete evidence to do so.

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.

Your PDF is for financial disclosures which would not cover workplace romance. She was required to disclose the relationship as his supervisor and the person doing the hiring. https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/fulton-county-policy-states-both-da-willis-wade-were-required

I watched the vast majority of the testimony. As a public official she had a duty to track these reimbursements which she didn’t do. Since neither she, Wade nor Bradley are willing to provide anything that would help prove she paid him back how do we know she didn’t ever receive anything over $100 from him? When you are an elected official you are subject to a high standard of reporting which she did not follow. Given she was in a relationship with someone she paid through county funds she should have been going overboard to make sure she was beyond reproach. The two of them have jeopardized the entire case.

I understand Bradley doesn’t want to testify but how overboard he is going with attorney client privilege that the judge didn’t even understand makes it seem all the more suspicious. Hopefully he and the judge will work out those concerns and he will be comfortable testifying. He’s in a bad spot and understandably doesn’t want to do anything to jeopardize his license.

And yes before it’s said I believe ALL elected officials R or D or I should be held to the same standards. It’s sad that many of them on all sides are not

Show me your posts outraged at Jared and Ivanka making bank while in the white house.

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?

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.

Your PDF is for financial disclosures which would not cover workplace romance. She was required to disclose the relationship as his supervisor and the person doing the hiring. https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/fulton-county-policy-states-both-da-willis-wade-were-required

I watched the vast majority of the testimony. As a public official she had a duty to track these reimbursements which she didn’t do. Since neither she, Wade nor Bradley are willing to provide anything that would help prove she paid him back how do we know she didn’t ever receive anything over $100 from him? When you are an elected official you are subject to a high standard of reporting which she did not follow. Given she was in a relationship with someone she paid through county funds she should have been going overboard to make sure she was beyond reproach. The two of them have jeopardized the entire case.

I understand Bradley doesn’t want to testify but how overboard he is going with attorney client privilege that the judge didn’t even understand makes it seem all the more suspicious. Hopefully he and the judge will work out those concerns and he will be comfortable testifying. He’s in a bad spot and understandably doesn’t want to do anything to jeopardize his license.

And yes before it’s said I believe ALL elected officials R or D or I should be held to the same standards. It’s sad that many of them on all sides are not

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.

Your PDF is for financial disclosures which would not cover workplace romance. She was required to disclose the relationship as his supervisor and the person doing the hiring. https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/fulton-county-policy-states-both-da-willis-wade-were-required

I watched the vast majority of the testimony. As a public official she had a duty to track these reimbursements which she didn’t do. Since neither she, Wade nor Bradley are willing to provide anything that would help prove she paid him back how do we know she didn’t ever receive anything over $100 from him? When you are an elected official you are subject to a high standard of reporting which she did not follow. Given she was in a relationship with someone she paid through county funds she should have been going overboard to make sure she was beyond reproach. The two of them have jeopardized the entire case.

I understand Bradley doesn’t want to testify but how overboard he is going with attorney client privilege that the judge didn’t even understand makes it seem all the more suspicious. Hopefully he and the judge will work out those concerns and he will be comfortable testifying. He’s in a bad spot and understandably doesn’t want to do anything to jeopardize his license.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Your PDF is for financial disclosures which would not cover workplace romance. She was required to disclose the relationship as his supervisor and the person doing the hiring. https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/fulton-county-policy-states-both-da-willis-wade-were-required

I watched the vast majority of the testimony. As a public official she had a duty to track these reimbursements which she didn’t do. Since neither she, Wade nor Bradley are willing to provide anything that would help prove she paid him back [b]how do we know she didn’t ever receive anything over $100 from him? When you are an elected official you are subject to a high standard of reporting which she did not follow. Given she was in a relationship with someone she paid through county funds she should have been going overboard to make sure she was beyond reproach. The two of them have jeopardized the entire case.

I understand Bradley doesn’t want to testify but how overboard he is going with attorney client privilege that the judge didn’t even understand makes it seem all the more suspicious. Hopefully he and the judge will work out those concerns and he will be comfortable testifying. He’s in a bad spot and understandably doesn’t want to do anything to jeopardize his license.

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.

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.

Your PDF is for financial disclosures which would not cover workplace romance. She was required to disclose the relationship as his supervisor and the person doing the hiring. https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/fulton-county-policy-states-both-da-willis-wade-were-required

I watched the vast majority of the testimony. As a public official she had a duty to track these reimbursements which she didn’t do. Since neither she, Wade nor Bradley are willing to provide anything that would help prove she paid him back how do we know she didn’t ever receive anything over $100 from him? When you are an elected official you are subject to a high standard of reporting which she did not follow. Given she was in a relationship with someone she paid through county funds she should have been going overboard to make sure she was beyond reproach. The two of them have jeopardized the entire case.

I understand Bradley doesn’t want to testify but how overboard he is going with attorney client privilege that the judge didn’t even understand makes it seem all the more suspicious. Hopefully he and the judge will work out those concerns and he will be comfortable testifying. He’s in a bad spot and understandably doesn’t want to do anything to jeopardize his license.

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.

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?

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.

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!!!

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.