Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Still not seeing conflict of interest .
They both represent the state.
You are defining conflict of interest as the first definition below.
It is the 2nd definition.
If she was having an affair with him prior to hiring him, and then benefited from the payment he received (and she approved), then definition #2 applies.
One could argue HE also benefited simply by getting the job as special prosecutor, despite having no experience in the type of trial he was hired to prosecute.
Conflict of Interest:
1. a situation in which the concerns or aims of two different parties are incompatible.
"the conflict of interest between elected officials and corporate lobbyists"
2. a situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity.
"Watson quit his job after questions about a possible conflict of interest"
Anonymous wrote:
🚨Attorney for President Trump, Steve Sadow, specifically asked Nathan Wade under oath how many times he'd visited Fani Willis's residence in 2021:
SADOW: So if phone records were to reflect that you were making phone calls from the same location as [Willis'] condo before November 1, 2021 and it was on multiple occasions, the phone records would be wrong?
WADE: If the phone records reflected that, yessir.
They set the perjury trap and Wade walked right into it.
Anonymous wrote:Still not seeing conflict of interest .
They both represent the state.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Cellphone records show Wade visited Fani at her home at least 35 times before being appointed as the Special Prosecutor in November of 2021.
The cellphone records show both Fani and Wade testified falsely under oath and would face perjury and fraud on the court charges.
Attorneys can’t introduce evidence. Only witnesses can do that. How are they going to get that into the hearing?
Seems like the private investigator would be the witness to introduce the evidence. He/she collected it.
I still don’t see how this is admissible.
This is not a trial of Willis.
This is a hearing to determine whether Fani and her lover can remain on the case. Not a trial. A hearing.
And, why wouldn't the evidence of a PI who collected geolocation evidence not be admissible if he/she can prove that the methods used were acceptable?
Anonymous wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, when this woman retires in a couple of years (in her mid to late 50s), she's going to get a nearly $100k pension and taxpayer funded healthcare for the rest of her life?
Anonymous wrote:Cellphone records show Wade visited Fani at her home at least 35 times before being appointed as the Special Prosecutor in November of 2021.
The cellphone records show both Fani and Wade testified falsely under oath and would face perjury and fraud on the court charges.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Cellphone records show Wade visited Fani at her home at least 35 times before being appointed as the Special Prosecutor in November of 2021.
The cellphone records show both Fani and Wade testified falsely under oath and would face perjury and fraud on the court charges.
Attorneys can’t introduce evidence. Only witnesses can do that. How are they going to get that into the hearing?
Seems like the private investigator would be the witness to introduce the evidence. He/she collected it.
I still don’t see how this is admissible.
This is not a trial of Willis.