Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have provided evidence. The relationship has been conceded. That they went on trips is evidence. Someone testified that the relationship started earlier than when he started contract work for the DA's office. That is evidence. This detail I think is irrelevant since the contract was renewed after the point where Willis says the relationship started.

In a criminal trial the prosecution might have to provide evidence her story is false, but that is not needed here.

There may be evidence of an ethics violation. But there is no evidence of a conflict of interest.

If she hired Wade while she was having an affair with him, there would be a conflict of interest.
At least one witness testified that she was seeing him before she hired him.
Text messages from Wade's former attorney also reportedly indicate that they were seeing each other prior to her hiring him.

I don't think you know what conflict of interest means.

+1, it would only be a conflict if it was the judge or someone representing the defense. This is nothing but a stupid sideshow that is irrelevant to the facts of this case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Confirming Fanni pays in cash.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/20/politics/willis-wade-cash-payment-napa-valley-winery/index.html

This hardly proves that she repaid Wade in cash.

Do you see any receipts that he was paid back via check or app? Her testimony, and his, was that she paid her way in cash.

Unless you have proof that disproves that, then you have nothing. IOW, the defendants who caused this side-show, have nothing.

Let's move on to the actual case, please.

That's the thing. There are no receipts.
Do her bank statements show withdrawals that would show she is stashing cash? Probably not. Because, her story is BS.
His bank statements don't show that cash was deposited. Curious, huh?

It’s not her job to provide proof. It’s on the defense to prove she didn’t pay him back.

And, it's up to the judge to determine whether he believes she is telling the truth since she has zero evidence to back up her claims.

She doesn’t need to provide any evidence to back up her claims. The burden to provide evidence lies with the accuser.

Her credibility is in question. As is Wade's.
The judge will take that into consideration. And, because she has no evidence to prove she paid cash, he will take that into consideration as well.
What the judge DOES have is receipts showing Wade paid for several trips for the two of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have provided evidence. The relationship has been conceded. That they went on trips is evidence. Someone testified that the relationship started earlier than when he started contract work for the DA's office. That is evidence. This detail I think is irrelevant since the contract was renewed after the point where Willis says the relationship started.

In a criminal trial the prosecution might have to provide evidence her story is false, but that is not needed here.

There may be evidence of an ethics violation. But there is no evidence of a conflict of interest.

If she hired Wade while she was having an affair with him, there would be a conflict of interest.
At least one witness testified that she was seeing him before she hired him.
Text messages from Wade's former attorney also reportedly indicate that they were seeing each other prior to her hiring him.

I don't think you know what conflict of interest means.

Anonymous wrote:Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis claimed during her Thursday testimony at the hearing to disqualify her from the Georgia election case against former President Donald Trump that she took a significant amount of cash from her first election and used it to replenish her physical cash reserves. Willis claimed to use the physical cash to repay her former lover, special prosecutor Nathan Wade, for luxurious vacations.

Willis made the claim about keeping “some of the cash” from her first campaign when asked about the origin of her cash savings. The district attorney claimed she has been saving physical cash “all my life,” and gave as an example, “When I took out a large amount of money on my first campaign, I kept some of the cash of that.”

The district attorney also testified on Thursday that she lost $50,000 in that election, which she admitted left her “broke” toward the end of 2018.

Additionally, it is unclear where Willis sourced the $19,000 for the documented loan, including whether she retrieved the money from the cash reserves which she testified were used to repay Wade for the luxurious vacations they shared during the span of their relationship.

The Ethics Commission did not respond to a request by Star News for more information about the loans made to Willis’ 2018 campaign, including inquiries into the source of the $30,000 loan, and why there is no publicly available paperwork explaining the cash infusion, prior to press time.

An email address provided by the current Willis campaign on government paperwork likewise did not return a comment request from Star News that sought information about the loans and repayment.

Additionally, Star News contacted Fulton County’s government to obtain information from the district attorney’s office about her 2018 campaign, but did not receive a timely response.

https://georgiastarnews.com/news/fani-willis-took-over-8500-from-first-campaign-as-repayment-for-loans-missing-paperwork-submitted-without-date-and-signature/tpappert/2024/02/19/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have provided evidence. The relationship has been conceded. That they went on trips is evidence. Someone testified that the relationship started earlier than when he started contract work for the DA's office. That is evidence. This detail I think is irrelevant since the contract was renewed after the point where Willis says the relationship started.

In a criminal trial the prosecution might have to provide evidence her story is false, but that is not needed here.

There may be evidence of an ethics violation. But there is no evidence of a conflict of interest.

If she hired Wade while she was having an affair with him, there would be a conflict of interest.
At least one witness testified that she was seeing him before she hired him.
Text messages from Wade's former attorney also reportedly indicate that they were seeing each other prior to her hiring him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have provided evidence. The relationship has been conceded. That they went on trips is evidence. Someone testified that the relationship started earlier than when he started contract work for the DA's office. That is evidence. This detail I think is irrelevant since the contract was renewed after the point where Willis says the relationship started.

In a criminal trial the prosecution might have to provide evidence her story is false, but that is not needed here.

There may be evidence of an ethics violation. But there is no evidence of a conflict of interest.

If she hired Wade while she was having an affair with him, there would be a conflict of interest.
At least one witness testified that she was seeing him before she hired him.
Text messages from Wade's former attorney also reportedly indicate that they were seeing each other prior to her hiring him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have provided evidence. The relationship has been conceded. That they went on trips is evidence. Someone testified that the relationship started earlier than when he started contract work for the DA's office. That is evidence. This detail I think is irrelevant since the contract was renewed after the point where Willis says the relationship started.

In a criminal trial the prosecution might have to provide evidence her story is false, but that is not needed here.

There may be evidence of an ethics violation. But there is no evidence of a conflict of interest.

Anonymous wrote:They have provided evidence. The relationship has been conceded. That they went on trips is evidence. Someone testified that the relationship started earlier than when he started contract work for the DA's office. That is evidence. This detail I think is irrelevant since the contract was renewed after the point where Willis says the relationship started.

In a criminal trial the prosecution might have to provide evidence her story is false, but that is not needed here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Confirming Fanni pays in cash.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/20/politics/willis-wade-cash-payment-napa-valley-winery/index.html

This hardly proves that she repaid Wade in cash.

Do you see any receipts that he was paid back via check or app? Her testimony, and his, was that she paid her way in cash.

Unless you have proof that disproves that, then you have nothing. IOW, the defendants who caused this side-show, have nothing.

Let's move on to the actual case, please.

That's the thing. There are no receipts.
Do her bank statements show withdrawals that would show she is stashing cash? Probably not. Because, her story is BS.
His bank statements don't show that cash was deposited. Curious, huh?

It’s not her job to provide proof. It’s on the defense to prove she didn’t pay him back.

And, it's up to the judge to determine whether he believes she is telling the truth since she has zero evidence to back up her claims.

She doesn’t need to provide any evidence to back up her claims. The burden to provide evidence lies with the accuser.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Confirming Fanni pays in cash.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/20/politics/willis-wade-cash-payment-napa-valley-winery/index.html

This hardly proves that she repaid Wade in cash.

Do you see any receipts that he was paid back via check or app? Her testimony, and his, was that she paid her way in cash.

Unless you have proof that disproves that, then you have nothing. IOW, the defendants who caused this side-show, have nothing.

Let's move on to the actual case, please.

That's the thing. There are no receipts.
Do her bank statements show withdrawals that would show she is stashing cash? Probably not. Because, her story is BS.
His bank statements don't show that cash was deposited. Curious, huh?

It’s not her job to provide proof. It’s on the defense to prove she didn’t pay him back.

And, it's up to the judge to determine whether he believes she is telling the truth since she has zero evidence to back up her claims.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Confirming Fanni pays in cash.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/20/politics/willis-wade-cash-payment-napa-valley-winery/index.html

This hardly proves that she repaid Wade in cash.

Do you see any receipts that he was paid back via check or app? Her testimony, and his, was that she paid her way in cash.

Unless you have proof that disproves that, then you have nothing. IOW, the defendants who caused this side-show, have nothing.

Let's move on to the actual case, please.

That's the thing. There are no receipts.
Do her bank statements show withdrawals that would show she is stashing cash? Probably not. Because, her story is BS.
His bank statements don't show that cash was deposited. Curious, huh?

It’s not her job to provide proof. It’s on the defense to prove she didn’t pay him back.

And, it's up to the judge to determine whether he believes she is telling the truth since she has zero evidence to back up her claims.