Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure the defense attorneys actually understand what a conflict of interest is.

A conflict is when a member of the prosecution has a family member in the defense. Or if there is a financial relationship between the two parties.

Having people on the same side with a financial relationship or personal relationship is not a conflict.

This whole sideshow is a sham.

I am also confused on this. I asked a question 20 pages ago and no one answered. I saw a news commentator who said to prevail on removing her, they need to prove (1) she benefitted financially (which is an issue of fact to decide on credibility of witnesses, which she probably yes, received some benefit; but also (2) that unfairly prejudices the defendant. Even if (1) is a slam dunk, what evidence has there been on (2)? Was the commentator wrong on the elements to be proven? Because it anything, it helps the defendant because it seems that Wade isn't as experienced as other attorneys she could have gotten.

Watch the video at 17:53.
He lays out the conflict of interests in this case. There are several. He lists 6.

And absolutely none of those meet the legal threshold for a case like this.

+1 sound and fury signifying nothing

In other words, prosecutors and attorneys are not expected to act ethically and morally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure the defense attorneys actually understand what a conflict of interest is.

A conflict is when a member of the prosecution has a family member in the defense. Or if there is a financial relationship between the two parties.

Having people on the same side with a financial relationship or personal relationship is not a conflict.

This whole sideshow is a sham.

I am also confused on this. I asked a question 20 pages ago and no one answered. I saw a news commentator who said to prevail on removing her, they need to prove (1) she benefitted financially (which is an issue of fact to decide on credibility of witnesses, which she probably yes, received some benefit; but also (2) that unfairly prejudices the defendant. Even if (1) is a slam dunk, what evidence has there been on (2)? Was the commentator wrong on the elements to be proven? Because it anything, it helps the defendant because it seems that Wade isn't as experienced as other attorneys she could have gotten.

Watch the video at 17:53.
He lays out the conflict of interests in this case. There are several. He lists 6.

And absolutely none of those meet the legal threshold for a case like this.

+1 sound and fury signifying nothing

Anonymous wrote:How often does one reimburse a boyfriend for trips?

She said that she pays for her own way on all dates because she does not want to feel indebted or beholden to any man. I know a number of women who feel that way and do not accept gifts or treats from men that they are casually dating for that reason. Willis even said on the stand "A man is not a plan."

It's not about keeping cash. If her boyfriend took her on trips, and she hired him as a contractor, then that is illegal gifts. To avoid that, she made the dubious claim of I repaid him.
When asked for records of repayment, she said she paid in cash. When asked for bank records of these cash withdrawals, she said she regularly gets an extra $50 or so in cash back at Publix.

She also testified that she donated $50K of her own money to her last campaign. When there was leftover money, she collected the remaining (in cash) so she has a large stash of cash in her home. She augments and supplements that stash as she uses the money with the cash back that she gets at the supermarket.

Her father testified that he taught her not to be indebted to anyone and to pay back everyone in cash. He asserted that he taught her to keep a stash of cash at home. And there is the wine vendor from California who vouched for the fact that she paid for the $400 worth of wine that she bought in cash, so it appears she is in the habit of traveling with cash and paying for things with cash.

The hate for Black people in this thread is really telling.

Anonymous wrote:Paying in cash means you are hiding something

Ask MAGA hero Dave Ramsey about that! I have $2500 cash I'm going to spend tomorrow on materials at Home Depot. U.S. currency is still legal. I bet your credit cards are fully extended with your attitude.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure the defense attorneys actually understand what a conflict of interest is.

A conflict is when a member of the prosecution has a family member in the defense. Or if there is a financial relationship between the two parties.

Having people on the same side with a financial relationship or personal relationship is not a conflict.

This whole sideshow is a sham.

I am also confused on this. I asked a question 20 pages ago and no one answered. I saw a news commentator who said to prevail on removing her, they need to prove (1) she benefitted financially (which is an issue of fact to decide on credibility of witnesses, which she probably yes, received some benefit; but also (2) that unfairly prejudices the defendant. Even if (1) is a slam dunk, what evidence has there been on (2)? Was the commentator wrong on the elements to be proven? Because it anything, it helps the defendant because it seems that Wade isn't as experienced as other attorneys she could have gotten.

Watch the video at 17:53.
He lays out the conflict of interests in this case. There are several. He lists 6.

And absolutely none of those meet the legal threshold for a case like this.

Anonymous wrote:Paying in cash means you are hiding something

Said someone who hasn't lived in people like Fanni Willis's shoes.

There are a lot of us who were raised the same way where cash money is concerned.

Paying in cash means you are hiding something

She's done , they should find someone else ASAP

Anonymous wrote:The DA attorney is as green as they come and yet his arguments and facts are a thousand percent better than the defense.

LOL.
Sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are struggling. When you hand over money to your relatives to cover your share of the family picnic you don't write or receive a receipt. You don't know anyone who does. You understand there was no gift received. You also understand that if someone actually did hand write receipts it would look differently. Classic damned if you do, dammed if you don't. You are trying to frame the narrative so that they are in the wrong no matter how they conducted themselves.

How often does one reimburse a boyfriend for trips?

My married parents who are in their 80s have always kept separate accounts and settled up "debts" monthly. For what it is worth they grew up in Jim Crow Georgia. Could just be a survival tactic they learned growing up???

Well, let me add that when I was a kid I went digging around their dresser and found a wooden cigar box with a few thousand dollars and a loaded .38 inside. Dad was career Army and Mom was a school teacher. There are a lot of regular ordinary people who keep cash and protection at home. At least down south where my family is from

It's not about keeping cash. If her boyfriend took her on trips, and she hired him as a contractor, then that is illegal gifts. To avoid that, she made the dubious claim of I repaid him.
When asked for records of repayment, she said she paid in cash. When asked for bank records of these cash withdrawals, she said she regularly gets an extra $50 or so in cash back at Publix.

The star witness for the defense torpedoed the defense.

It was over a week ago.

I did the homework.
Where is it?
The dog ate my homework.

The defense failed to prove their case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure the defense attorneys actually understand what a conflict of interest is.

A conflict is when a member of the prosecution has a family member in the defense. Or if there is a financial relationship between the two parties.

Having people on the same side with a financial relationship or personal relationship is not a conflict.

This whole sideshow is a sham.

According to Georgia Code, this defines conflict of interest:

Conflict of interest” means an individual has multiple interests and uses his or her official position to exploit, in some way, his or her position for his or her own direct, unique, pecuniary, and personal benefit.

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2022/title-45/chapter-10/article-2/part-6/section-45-10-90/#:~:text=“Conflict%20of%20interest”%20means%20an,legislative%20branch%20of%20state%20government.

And, the first attorney up - John Merchant pointed out that Fani Willis, as a public employee, is expected to maintain records as to gifts, etc.
She did not do that. She said she paid cash, but has no record of it.

She didn't benefit in any way if, as her testimony suggests, she paid her own way. Hence no need for a record because there was no gift.

Right now, the receipts and evidence show that Wade paid for trips and outings for Fani that total over $15,000.
She claims to have paid Wade back - in cash.
As a public employee, especially a person in her position - she should have a record of such a repayment. She doesn't. He doesn't.

How do you feel about Clarence Thomas? Because there is a lot more evidence about HIS improprieties and actual conflicts of interest.

+1

Amen

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure the defense attorneys actually understand what a conflict of interest is.

A conflict is when a member of the prosecution has a family member in the defense. Or if there is a financial relationship between the two parties.

Having people on the same side with a financial relationship or personal relationship is not a conflict.

This whole sideshow is a sham.

I am also confused on this. I asked a question 20 pages ago and no one answered. I saw a news commentator who said to prevail on removing her, they need to prove (1) she benefitted financially (which is an issue of fact to decide on credibility of witnesses, which she probably yes, received some benefit; but also (2) that unfairly prejudices the defendant. Even if (1) is a slam dunk, what evidence has there been on (2)? Was the commentator wrong on the elements to be proven? Because it anything, it helps the defendant because it seems that Wade isn't as experienced as other attorneys she could have gotten.

Watch the video at 17:53.
He lays out the conflict of interests in this case. There are several. He lists 6.