Anonymous wrote:
The 2 promotions he received from Fani and years of being in a subordinate position to Fani is a clear and present conflict under the Judicial Canons of Georgia.

Anonymous wrote:Ultimately, the defense (ie Trump's partners in crime) have to prove that Fanni Willis somehow made money as a result of this case.

They haven't come close to that bar. They best they can prove is that she had a short term relationship with a co-worker and they went Dutch on some trips and dinners.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way that judge (who worked for Fani for several years before assuming the bench) bent over backwards to accommodate Fani.

Based on my decades of legal experience, any judge other than this Judge in this Hearing would not have tolerated Fani's outbursts and disrespect she displayed for everybody including the Court.

This judge can have some backbone if he wants to: He immediately warned someone that he will have to step out if it happened again after someone was heard laughing when Wade said he received cash.

Basically, this judge let Fani come in unannounced, neither party had called Fani as a witness yet since they were still arguing the attorney-client privilege issue, the judge had NOT yet ruled on the issue and Fani just sat at the witness seat not even giving the Court an opportunity to rule which is highly disrespectful to the Court.

Any other judge would have given Fani 1 stern warning that she would be found in contempt of the Court if it (accusatory tone, hostility, outbursts, speeches etc.) happened again and then the 2nd time Fani disrupts or have another outbursts, she will be sitting in County lockup.

That judge was in Fani's pocket. No other explanation for how the Judge acted when Fani just walked in and took total control and took over the Courtroom.

Any attorney knows that all judges make it absolutely clear who is in control over the courtroom and the judges take it very seriously and even personally if they perceive any disrespect towards the Court and sanctions will fly.

Yup, that Judge was totally biased in favor of Fani due to their prior relationship or intimidated by the one person who can charge anybody (in Fulton co.) with any crime(s) at anytime prior to her leaving office.

Ah yes I forgot that any judge who isn’t actively engaged in slobbing Trump’s knob is automatically biased or corrupt or something. Do you people hear yourselves.

"McAfee was an assistant district attorney in the Barrow County, Georgia, Piedmont Judicial Circuit.[8] He joined the office of the district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia, in April 2015, initially working on the early stages of criminal cases.[9] He later was promoted to working as a prosecutor in the complex trial division, which was then headed by prosecutor Fani Willis, who was later elected as Fulton County district attorney.[i][u][1][10] McAfee was eventually promoted to senior assistant district attorney in the major case division, where he prosecuted felony cases including armed robbery and murder.[5][1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_F._McAfee#:~:text=State%20judge%20in%20Fulton%20County,-See%20also%3A%20State&text=In%20December%202022%2C%20Kemp%20appointed,case%2C%20State%20of%20Georgia%20v.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way that judge (who worked for Fani for several years before assuming the bench) bent over backwards to accommodate Fani.

Based on my decades of legal experience, any judge other than this Judge in this Hearing would not have tolerated Fani's outbursts and disrespect she displayed for everybody including the Court.

This judge can have some backbone if he wants to: He immediately warned someone that he will have to step out if it happened again after someone was heard laughing when Wade said he received cash.

Basically, this judge let Fani come in unannounced, neither party had called Fani as a witness yet since they were still arguing the attorney-client privilege issue, the judge had NOT yet ruled on the issue and Fani just sat at the witness seat not even giving the Court an opportunity to rule which is highly disrespectful to the Court.

Any other judge would have given Fani 1 stern warning that she would be found in contempt of the Court if it (accusatory tone, hostility, outbursts, speeches etc.) happened again and then the 2nd time Fani disrupts or have another outbursts, she will be sitting in County lockup.

That judge was in Fani's pocket. No other explanation for how the Judge acted when Fani just walked in and took total control and took over the Courtroom.

Any attorney knows that all judges make it absolutely clear who is in control over the courtroom and the judges take it very seriously and even personally if they perceive any disrespect towards the Court and sanctions will fly.

Yup, that Judge was totally biased in favor of Fani due to their prior relationship or intimidated by the one person who can charge anybody (in Fulton co.) with any crime(s) at anytime prior to her leaving office.

Ah yes I forgot that any judge who isn’t actively engaged in slobbing Trump’s knob is automatically biased or corrupt or something. Do you people hear yourselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way that judge (who worked for Fani for several years before assuming the bench) bent over backwards to accommodate Fani.

Based on my decades of legal experience, any judge other than this Judge in this Hearing would not have tolerated Fani's outbursts and disrespect she displayed for everybody including the Court.

This judge can have some backbone if he wants to: He immediately warned someone that he will have to step out if it happened again after someone was heard laughing when Wade said he received cash.

Basically, this judge let Fani come in unannounced, neither party had called Fani as a witness yet since they were still arguing the attorney-client privilege issue, the judge had NOT yet ruled on the issue and Fani just sat at the witness seat not even giving the Court an opportunity to rule which is highly disrespectful to the Court.

Any other judge would have given Fani 1 stern warning that she would be found in contempt of the Court if it (accusatory tone, hostility, outbursts, speeches etc.) happened again and then the 2nd time Fani disrupts or have another outbursts, she will be sitting in County lockup.

That judge was in Fani's pocket. No other explanation for how the Judge acted when Fani just walked in and took total control and took over the Courtroom.

Any attorney knows that all judges make it absolutely clear who is in control over the courtroom and the judges take it very seriously and even personally if they perceive any disrespect towards the Court and sanctions will fly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What the hell are you talking about? There IS ONLY ONE TRIAL and that is the trial about Trump's interference in the Georgia election. Regardless of what you think, or whatever nonsense you've heard, there is no trial against Fani Willis. The only thing going on now is the Trump trial, where his attorneys are trying to distract it into an irrelevant sidebar about Fani Willis's love life.

This is NOT a trial and this is NOT a 'sidebar' but an "Evidentiary Hearing". Try to remember the distinction.

More like circus side show.

There is only one trial - the Trump election trial. His attorneys filed a ridiculous motion to try and remove Willis. Yet here we have most of the MAGA idiots in this thread acting like Willis is a defendant in a trial against her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What the hell are you talking about? There IS ONLY ONE TRIAL and that is the trial about Trump's interference in the Georgia election. Regardless of what you think, or whatever nonsense you've heard, there is no trial against Fani Willis. The only thing going on now is the Trump trial, where his attorneys are trying to distract it into an irrelevant sidebar about Fani Willis's love life.

This is NOT a trial and this is NOT a 'sidebar' but an "Evidentiary Hearing". Try to remember the distinction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GEORGIA
CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

Canon 2
JUDGES SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL
OFFICE IMPARTIALLY, COMPETENTLY, AND
DILIGENTLY.

Rule 2.4 External Influences on Judicial Conduct

(A) Judges shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. Judges shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor or intimidation, or fear of criticism.
(B) Judges shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.
(C) Judges shall not convey or enable others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.

You people are tiresome. You ignore obvious conflicts of interest by Amy Coney Barrett, Alito, Thomas and others. Pick a lane. If this judge needs to recuse then SCOTUS justices need to, also.

You are free to go and file a Complaint with the applicable entity at any time, any day (except weekends) if you want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What the hell are you talking about? There IS ONLY ONE TRIAL and that is the trial about Trump's interference in the Georgia election. Regardless of what you think, or whatever nonsense you've heard, there is no trial against Fani Willis. The only thing going on now is the Trump trial, where his attorneys are trying to distract it into an irrelevant sidebar about Fani Willis's love life.

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GEORGIA
CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

Canon 2
JUDGES SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL
OFFICE IMPARTIALLY, COMPETENTLY, AND
DILIGENTLY.

Rule 2.4 External Influences on Judicial Conduct

(A) Judges shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. Judges shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor or intimidation, or fear of criticism.
(B) Judges shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.
(C) Judges shall not convey or enable others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.

You people are tiresome. You ignore obvious conflicts of interest by Amy Coney Barrett, Alito, Thomas and others. Pick a lane. If this judge needs to recuse then SCOTUS justices need to, also.

Anonymous wrote:That Judge should be sanctioned by the Georgia Judicial Commission on Ethics for behaving the way he did and possibly violating one or more of the Rules of the Judicial Conduct.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You probably think the Democrats rigged the election. You probably paid money to go see D'Fraudza's "Mules" movie and actually believed it was a true, hard-hitting piece of investigative journalism. Even though it turns out it was all fake and D'Fraudza doesn't actually have a single piece of actual evidence. https://www.nydailynews.com/2024/02/15/true-the-vote-2000-mules-no-evidence-debunked/

You probably think J6 was "feds" or "Antifa" despite the fact that the Oathkeepers / Proud Boys had key ringleaders and planners like Nordean and Biggs who led the "breach teams" that smashed their way into the Capitol have been identified, prosecuted and sentenced, with piles of evidence.
https://www.axios.com/2023/08/18/enrique-tarrio-proud-boys-jan-6-sentencing

Why do you persist in trying to live in an alternative MAGA dimension that's completely devoid of actual facts and reality?

DP. Get out of your echo chamber and check other news sources for context. If you don't want to check Fox, NY Post, Wall St Journal etc., at least check FOREIGN news sources and see what they are covering and what they are saying.

Some examples would be BBC, Japanese News, S. Korean News, French News, German News, Canadian News etc.

Anonymous wrote:GEORGIA
CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

Canon 2
JUDGES SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL
OFFICE IMPARTIALLY, COMPETENTLY, AND
DILIGENTLY.

Rule 2.4 External Influences on Judicial Conduct

(A) Judges shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. Judges shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor or intimidation, or fear of criticism.
(B) Judges shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.
(C) Judges shall not convey or enable others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.