No need for evidence any longer, since we have their testimony, which supports impropriety..
A complete fucking disaster. Like shockingly bad judgment by Fani. What the fuck did she think was going to happen?
Yes there absolutely is a need for evidence, specifically under the applicable Georgia statues, as you'd already be aware if you'd bothered to read the article.
It’s worth repeating that the law in Georgia requires that an actual conflict of interest exist for disqualification of a prosecuting attorney. The conflict cannot be theoretical or speculative.
No such evidence of a conflict of interest was ever brought forward, only the testimony of one noncredible ex-employee.
I think there is a clear conflict of interest? she's supposed to be prosecuting one of the nations most important trials, and instead of erring on the side of professionalism, she hired her fucking boyfriend. I want to see trump in prison, and unprofessional dumbassery like this is what's going to let him off the hook.
All she had to do was not fuck her legal team.
She hired him before the relationship began, and the relationship ended before the trial began. The relationship she had with him is not an actual conflict of interest, there was no benefit at any point she gained by his position.
Robin Yeartie, a former friend and co-worker of Willis, testified earlier Thursday that she saw Willis and Wade hugging and kissing before he was hired as special prosecutor in November 2021. Wade and Willis both testified that they didn’t start dating until 2022, and that their relationship ended months ago.
During personal and uncomfortable testimony that spanned hours, Wade also admitted to having sex with Willis during his separation from his estranged wife, even though he had claimed in a divorce filing that wasn’t the case.
Here's the prosecutor, in her hands we've put the fate of American democracy. and she hires her ol' fuck buddy.
Her recusing herself, allowing for another professional to step up, will not lose the case.
But her grandstanding about her right to sleep with her legal team and face zero repercussions will absolutely lose this case.
Just like with Bill Clintons infamous blowjob, it wasn't the sexual act that everyone's mad about, it's the bullshitting about it afterwards.
If you read the article at all, you'd know that this person's unsubstantiated testimony is literally all that Trump's team has to support their contention. And this person is an ex-employee who only left because she was going to be fired for subpar performance. She has a grudge and zero credibility, and there is no evidence to support her claims.
Willis and Wade both testified under oath that their relationship did not start until well later, after he was hired, and other witnesses testified in support of this.
This is nothing more than a distraction and delaying tactic by Trump's team.
if you read the article at all
?
Did YOU read the article, or the quote I posted from that article? that Wade had to walk back his previous statement.
During personal and uncomfortable testimony that spanned hours, Wade also admitted to having sex with Willis during his separation from his estranged wife, even though he had claimed in a divorce filing that wasn’t the case.
The existence of Willis and Wade's relationship is not in question, both have stated they were in a relationship at one time. That relationship began after Willis hired Wade, and ended before the trial against Trump. It has no bearing on the case.
It is Trump's team who is alleging that the relationship began before Wade was hired, and alleging a conflict of interest. Their sole support is the unsubstantiated testimony of one discredited ex-employee with an axe to grind.
...and Wades own testimony.
you know, from the article you said i didn't read?
False, Wade also testified that their relationship began after he was hired, and ended before the trial began.
Robin Yeartie, a former friend and co-worker of Willis, testified earlier Thursday that she saw Willis and Wade hugging and kissing before he was hired as special prosecutor in November 2021. Wade and Willis both testified that they didn’t start dating until 2022, and that their relationship ended months ago.
During personal and uncomfortable testimony that spanned hours, Wade also admitted to having sex with Willis during his separation from his estranged wife, even though he had claimed in a divorce filing that wasn’t the case.
and around we go
My point exactly, Wade testified that their relationship began in 2022, after he was hired. This was during his separation from his estranged wife. Wade at no point testified or indicated any sort of relationship with Willis prior to 2022, a point at which he was already hired.
he admitted to lying on his divorce filing. about having an affair with his current boss. The current boss being the person we entrusted to put trump in prison. You cannot say that they didn't have a relationship prior to hiring, when they literally admitted under oath to having slept together previously.
I mean, what Georgia state law says is really secondary here.
What matters is what people perceive, and what Fani did was a shockingly stupid at multiple levels.
First off, Wade is not a RICO or constitutional law lawyer. He's a personal injury lawyer. He's completely unqualified to be lead on this case.
Second, having personal relationship that could in-any way compromise what is likely the most important trial in US history, is like, so fucking stupid I can't even find words. Hiring your buddy that isn't even the right kind of lawyer is one thing, but because you are banging them? Bruh. This is the ONLY trial that Trump is involved in that literally can't find its way to a compromised supreme court. If Fani would have just played this straight down the middle, or hell, hired any of the RICO lawyers she's using on other cases, this would be a non-issue. SHe's got literally 3 other RICO cases going right now. Guess what? Specialized RICO firms in each one.
Third, Fani doesn't see this as an issue, when its so obviously a conflict of interest. As soon as this came out she should have stepped or brought someone in to resolve the conflict of interest.
Her actions are indefensible. Its a complete fucking disaster. Trump will skate because of all this.
No it is not secondary. In order for Willis to be disqualified, an actual conflict of interest needs to be proved. Trump's team is trying to remove her, alleging a conflict of interest. There is no evidence of any such conflict of interest.
Willis and Wade both testified under oath that their relationship began in Spring of 2022, and that she had not profited in any way from Wade's appointment or position. The only thing Trump's team have to contest this is the testimony of a single noncredible ex-employee. There is no evidence whatever to corroborate this, evidence which is required in order to achieve the outcome Trump's team is pushing for.
Your disagreement with the District Attorney's hiring standards, or those of her choice in relationship partners, have zero bearing on whether or not there is a case to disqualify her. There isn't. Evidence is needed to prove an actual conflict of interest exists, and no such evidence exists, period.
No it is not secondary. In order for Willis to be disqualified, an actual conflict of interest needs to be proved. Trump’s team is trying to remove her, alleging a conflict of interest. There is no evidence of any such conflict of interest.
Law is secondary to public perception. I'm sorry its the way it is, but I'm not going to deny the way things are.
If the public 'perceives' there to be a conflict of interest, thats what matters. The fact that its even gone this far is more than enough reason for Fani to have recused herself.
She's put the entirety of justice being served to the people of GA on the line so she could be buddy buddy with an attorney who was utterly unqualified for the position she handed him.
Its indefensible and the entirety of the rest of this process will be marred by the decisions Fani made.
No, law is not secondary to public perception in a motion in a court of law to disqualify the prosecuting attorney for a conflict of interest. That is purely a matter of law, and what the public thinks about it is utterly irrelevant. The outcome of the motion to disqualify her will be adjudicated on the evidentiary standards in the law, not on the feelings and perceptions of the public.
If you don't think this is trial is going to be impacted by what people think of it.. you have missed the past 40 years of high profile trials.
How it is conducted matters. You should write justice off in this case. Fani screwed the pooch.
Your hunch and feelings about Fani Willis are just as irrelevant. The law provides the answer for the standards which need to be met to disqualify her, and they weren't met. End of story.
You are living in a fantasy world if you think that that a public perception of a corrupt attorney general won't have a significant bearing on the ultimate outcome of this case.
Courts of law exist dont in a separate plane of reality. The politics around this case will inform its outcome. Appearances matter.
Your responses are bordering on the absurd, literally all that Trump's team has been able to provide to support their nonsense is a single disreputable ex-employee with a grudge. This from a team known to throw any kind of nonsense they can as a delaying tactic, all of which inevitably prove to be baseless.
This will have zero bearing on the case, your vague allusions to "public perception" are so ephemeral as to be non-existent. This is nothing more than another Hail Mary attempt by a desperate team with no substantive ground to stand on, and it will soon be ruled to be exactly that in court. Anyone dumb enough to still buy into Trump's teams claims afterwards is already beyond reasoning with and is already a diehard supporter of his.
Your responses are bordering on the absurd, literally all that Trump’s team has been able to provide to support their nonsense is a single disreputable ex-employee with a grudge. This from a team known to throw any kind of nonsense they can as a delaying tactic, all of which inevitably prove to be baseless.
You are aware there is a large body of scholarly work on the impact of public perception on high profile trials right?
This isn't just talking shit. 40 years of high profile trials shows that the OJ's are treated differently than the no-J's (to quote Johnnie Cochran). This has been studied since the 70s.
Public perceptions around a trial matter and impact the outcomes of the trial. Being an attorney in a modern high profile case is as much (probably more) about proving your case in the media as it is doing so at the bench.
Like, you don't meaningfully believe this isn't impacting the outcome of the trial do you?
The conflict of interest matters in as much as we are now having this conversation? Like if the conflict of interest didn't matter, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It doesn't matter what the court says at this point, cat escape bag. Here we are.
What I'm aware of is that the specious, unsubstantiated charge of conflict of interest by Trump's team lacks any evidence supporting it whatever, and that the court is likely to rule as such accordingly. "Public perception" is not dictated by whatever nonsense one party throws out, regardless of substance. There is no conflict of interest, and no evidence at all has been presented that there is one. Any members of the nebulous "public" you're so worried about who nevertheless believe there is a conflict of interest are believing it based solely on the Trump team's assertions alone, and those people were already on board with whatever nonsense Trump claims.
So no, this manuver by Trump's team will have no bearing whatsoever on the case.
can you at least admit that it's a real bad look?
and part of being a real bad look, is that trump supporters will use this to dismiss the trials outcome?
And further introducing doubt into the impartiality of the judicial process at this point is NOT a good thing?
No need for evidence any longer, since we have their testimony, which supports impropriety..
A complete fucking disaster. Like shockingly bad judgment by Fani. What the fuck did she think was going to happen?
Yes there absolutely is a need for evidence, specifically under the applicable Georgia statues, as you'd already be aware if you'd bothered to read the article.
No such evidence of a conflict of interest was ever brought forward, only the testimony of one noncredible ex-employee.
I think there is a clear conflict of interest? she's supposed to be prosecuting one of the nations most important trials, and instead of erring on the side of professionalism, she hired her fucking boyfriend. I want to see trump in prison, and unprofessional dumbassery like this is what's going to let him off the hook.
All she had to do was not fuck her legal team.
She hired him before the relationship began, and the relationship ended before the trial began. The relationship she had with him is not an actual conflict of interest, there was no benefit at any point she gained by his position.
from the AP
Here's the prosecutor, in her hands we've put the fate of American democracy. and she hires her ol' fuck buddy.
Her recusing herself, allowing for another professional to step up, will not lose the case.
But her grandstanding about her right to sleep with her legal team and face zero repercussions will absolutely lose this case.
Just like with Bill Clintons infamous blowjob, it wasn't the sexual act that everyone's mad about, it's the bullshitting about it afterwards.
If you read the article at all, you'd know that this person's unsubstantiated testimony is literally all that Trump's team has to support their contention. And this person is an ex-employee who only left because she was going to be fired for subpar performance. She has a grudge and zero credibility, and there is no evidence to support her claims.
Willis and Wade both testified under oath that their relationship did not start until well later, after he was hired, and other witnesses testified in support of this.
This is nothing more than a distraction and delaying tactic by Trump's team.
?
Did YOU read the article, or the quote I posted from that article? that Wade had to walk back his previous statement.
The existence of Willis and Wade's relationship is not in question, both have stated they were in a relationship at one time. That relationship began after Willis hired Wade, and ended before the trial against Trump. It has no bearing on the case.
It is Trump's team who is alleging that the relationship began before Wade was hired, and alleging a conflict of interest. Their sole support is the unsubstantiated testimony of one discredited ex-employee with an axe to grind.
...and Wades own testimony.
you know, from the article you said i didn't read?
False, Wade also testified that their relationship began after he was hired, and ended before the trial began.
from the AP
and around we go
My point exactly, Wade testified that their relationship began in 2022, after he was hired. This was during his separation from his estranged wife. Wade at no point testified or indicated any sort of relationship with Willis prior to 2022, a point at which he was already hired.
he admitted to lying on his divorce filing. about having an affair with his current boss. The current boss being the person we entrusted to put trump in prison. You cannot say that they didn't have a relationship prior to hiring, when they literally admitted under oath to having slept together previously.
I mean, what Georgia state law says is really secondary here.
What matters is what people perceive, and what Fani did was a shockingly stupid at multiple levels.
First off, Wade is not a RICO or constitutional law lawyer. He's a personal injury lawyer. He's completely unqualified to be lead on this case.
Second, having personal relationship that could in-any way compromise what is likely the most important trial in US history, is like, so fucking stupid I can't even find words. Hiring your buddy that isn't even the right kind of lawyer is one thing, but because you are banging them? Bruh. This is the ONLY trial that Trump is involved in that literally can't find its way to a compromised supreme court. If Fani would have just played this straight down the middle, or hell, hired any of the RICO lawyers she's using on other cases, this would be a non-issue. SHe's got literally 3 other RICO cases going right now. Guess what? Specialized RICO firms in each one.
Third, Fani doesn't see this as an issue, when its so obviously a conflict of interest. As soon as this came out she should have stepped or brought someone in to resolve the conflict of interest.
Her actions are indefensible. Its a complete fucking disaster. Trump will skate because of all this.
No it is not secondary. In order for Willis to be disqualified, an actual conflict of interest needs to be proved. Trump's team is trying to remove her, alleging a conflict of interest. There is no evidence of any such conflict of interest.
Willis and Wade both testified under oath that their relationship began in Spring of 2022, and that she had not profited in any way from Wade's appointment or position. The only thing Trump's team have to contest this is the testimony of a single noncredible ex-employee. There is no evidence whatever to corroborate this, evidence which is required in order to achieve the outcome Trump's team is pushing for.
Your disagreement with the District Attorney's hiring standards, or those of her choice in relationship partners, have zero bearing on whether or not there is a case to disqualify her. There isn't. Evidence is needed to prove an actual conflict of interest exists, and no such evidence exists, period.
Law is secondary to public perception. I'm sorry its the way it is, but I'm not going to deny the way things are.
If the public 'perceives' there to be a conflict of interest, thats what matters. The fact that its even gone this far is more than enough reason for Fani to have recused herself.
She's put the entirety of justice being served to the people of GA on the line so she could be buddy buddy with an attorney who was utterly unqualified for the position she handed him.
Its indefensible and the entirety of the rest of this process will be marred by the decisions Fani made.
No, law is not secondary to public perception in a motion in a court of law to disqualify the prosecuting attorney for a conflict of interest. That is purely a matter of law, and what the public thinks about it is utterly irrelevant. The outcome of the motion to disqualify her will be adjudicated on the evidentiary standards in the law, not on the feelings and perceptions of the public.
If you don't think this is trial is going to be impacted by what people think of it.. you have missed the past 40 years of high profile trials.
How it is conducted matters. You should write justice off in this case. Fani screwed the pooch.
Your hunch and feelings about Fani Willis are just as irrelevant. The law provides the answer for the standards which need to be met to disqualify her, and they weren't met. End of story.
You are living in a fantasy world if you think that that a public perception of a corrupt attorney general won't have a significant bearing on the ultimate outcome of this case.
Courts of law exist dont in a separate plane of reality. The politics around this case will inform its outcome. Appearances matter.
Your responses are bordering on the absurd, literally all that Trump's team has been able to provide to support their nonsense is a single disreputable ex-employee with a grudge. This from a team known to throw any kind of nonsense they can as a delaying tactic, all of which inevitably prove to be baseless.
This will have zero bearing on the case, your vague allusions to "public perception" are so ephemeral as to be non-existent. This is nothing more than another Hail Mary attempt by a desperate team with no substantive ground to stand on, and it will soon be ruled to be exactly that in court. Anyone dumb enough to still buy into Trump's teams claims afterwards is already beyond reasoning with and is already a diehard supporter of his.
You are aware there is a large body of scholarly work on the impact of public perception on high profile trials right?
This isn't just talking shit. 40 years of high profile trials shows that the OJ's are treated differently than the no-J's (to quote Johnnie Cochran). This has been studied since the 70s.
Here is a 2021 article for you.
The takeaway from these 50+ years of research?
Public perceptions around a trial matter and impact the outcomes of the trial. Being an attorney in a modern high profile case is as much (probably more) about proving your case in the media as it is doing so at the bench.
Like, you don't meaningfully believe this isn't impacting the outcome of the trial do you?
The conflict of interest matters in as much as we are now having this conversation? Like if the conflict of interest didn't matter, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It doesn't matter what the court says at this point, cat escape bag. Here we are.
What I'm aware of is that the specious, unsubstantiated charge of conflict of interest by Trump's team lacks any evidence supporting it whatever, and that the court is likely to rule as such accordingly. "Public perception" is not dictated by whatever nonsense one party throws out, regardless of substance. There is no conflict of interest, and no evidence at all has been presented that there is one. Any members of the nebulous "public" you're so worried about who nevertheless believe there is a conflict of interest are believing it based solely on the Trump team's assertions alone, and those people were already on board with whatever nonsense Trump claims.
So no, this manuver by Trump's team will have no bearing whatsoever on the case.
can you at least admit that it's a real bad look?
and part of being a real bad look, is that trump supporters will use this to dismiss the trials outcome?
And further introducing doubt into the impartiality of the judicial process at this point is NOT a good thing?
It already has. We're having this conversation.
Go back to Reddit, Russian agent #7832.
Lol!
Lol!