Fani Willis needs to step down

[AUFAN78 3,897]

 

[Leftfield 2,601]

6 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

You poor victim. SMDH

Looks like I was wrong....I_M has someone to share the burden with, after all!

[AUFAN78 3,897]

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

Looks like I was wrong....I_M has someone to share the burden with, after all!

I said you were a clown long ago. You keep proving my point. That's all. 

[Leftfield 2,601]

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

I said you were a clown long ago. You keep proving my point. That's all. 

By....being against bigoted humor?

 

[AUFAN78 3,897]

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

By....being against bigoted humor?

 

Good grief

[aubiefifty 16,791]

48 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Remember what I told you about my facepalm theory? 

no sir i forgot.....not a joke. my memory sux.

[AUFAN78 3,897]

3 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

no sir i forgot.....not a joke. my memory sux.

Eat a gummy .  I said a facepalm meant the post was so stupid it wasn't worthy of my time and frankly, it's easier than debating an idiotic statement. 

[aubiefifty 16,791]

2 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Eat a gummy .  I said a facepalm meant the post was so stupid it wasn't worthy of my time and frankly, it's easier than debating an idiotic statement. 

have you noticed i am being nicer? i miss arguing but i go too overboard so if i come at someone it is normally in a funny way.

[AUFAN78 3,897]

1 minute ago, aubiefifty said:

have you noticed i am being nicer? i miss arguing but i go too overboard so if i come at someone it is normally in a funny way.

I've always thought you to be a nice person. And if I'm honest, I don't come around often, so I have missed a few things.

[aubiefifty 16,791]

1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

I've always thought you to be a nice person. And if I'm honest, I don't come around often, so I have missed a few things.

i am a nice guy. it is the internet so i like to think i am a badass but i am a big ol softy. i would never hurt anyone..............

[AU9377 4,931]

2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

 

Chandelle Summer - "she (Willis) embarrassed Fulton County and the state of Georgia"  First time I have ever heard that used as a standard by which to decide anything.  She is right about one thing.... if this goes to Pete Skandalakis, it will die on the desk.  I know him personally and he is as MAGA as it gets.  The only way Pete doesn't let it die is if he is scared of being called out by people outside the State.  It is more likely that Pete figures out a way to use the power to parlay himself into a position should Trump win in November.

I still think it is premature to assume there will be a disqualification.  There are 4 guilty pleas already in the case.

[AUFAN78 3,897]

18 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

First time I have ever heard that used as a standard by which to decide anything. 

Lots of "first-time issues/rulings" happening in the courts recently. 

 

22 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I still think it is premature to assume there will be a disqualification. 

I agree, although the evidence is overwhelming she is corrupt and should be removed IMO. 

[AUFAN78 3,897]

 

[AUFAN78 3,897]

"the judge has been the star um he seems fair he seems like he's searching for the truth which um used to matter hopefully it does now"

 

[AU9377 4,931]

3 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

"the judge has been the star um he seems fair he seems like he's searching for the truth which um used to matter hopefully it does now"

 

When they started sleeping together shouldn't even be the most important testimony.  The hearing began with the claim that a conflict exists due to Willis benefiting from Wade's employment and prosecution of the case.  They abandoned that when it became obvious that it couldn't be proven.  Willis and Wade opened the door when they filed affidavits with a time frame of when the romantic relationship began.  That was just dumb, especially if there was any way that those dates could be challenged.

Nobody actually believes that this case was filed in order to make money for the appointed special prosecutors.  There were 3 appointed. 

[AUFAN78 3,897]

16 hours ago, AU9377 said:

When they started sleeping together shouldn't even be the most important testimony.  The hearing began with the claim that a conflict exists due to Willis benefiting from Wade's employment and prosecution of the case.  They abandoned that when it became obvious that it couldn't be proven.  Willis and Wade opened the door when they filed affidavits with a time frame of when the romantic relationship began.  That was just dumb, especially if there was any way that those dates could be challenged.

Nobody actually believes that this case was filed in order to make money for the appointed special prosecutors.  There were 3 appointed. 

As has been made quite clear in testimony:  a) she had a financial gain by hiring Wade. Obviously, he gained financially as well. b) she lied, Wade lied and the divorce atty lied under oath. (perjury)

What happens next won't surprise me one way or the other. 

[AU9377 4,931]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

As has been made quite clear in testimony:  a) she had a financial gain by hiring Wade. Obviously, he gained financially as well. b) she lied, Wade lied and the divorce atty lied under oath. (perjury)

What happens next won't surprise me one way or the other. 

Of course he had a financial gain.  Anyone that bills hours to the case gains financially.  There has been no evidence showing she gained financially in any real way.  A few trips is silly, considering that either of them could easily afford to travel without this case.  That is why they abandoned that line of questioning.

I'm no fan of hers, but the underlying case is very very real and should be prosecuted.  But for people with much more character than Donald Trump refusing to go along with his plan, the valid decision of voters would have meant nothing.

[AUFAN78 3,897]

49 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Of course he had a financial gain.  Anyone that bills hours to the case gains financially.  There has been no evidence showing she gained financially in any real way.  A few trips is silly, considering that either of them could easily afford to travel without this case.  That is why they abandoned that line of questioning.

Many experts in the legal field have weighed in that both Willis and Wade benefitted financially from the arrangement to hire her boyfriend. 

 

51 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I'm no fan of hers, but the underlying case is very very real and should be prosecuted. 

 You keep reiterating a point no one is making. 

[AU9377 4,931]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

Many experts in the legal field have weighed in that both Willis and Wade benefitted financially from the arrangement to hire her boyfriend. 

 

 You keep reiterating a point no one is making. 

To make that argument, there would have been evidence presented detailing those benefits.  The only monetary questions that were explored had to do with taking trips.  Wade isn't the only Special Prosecutor.  There are two others.  Other than taking a couple trips, they benefited as well.  That argument was never a good one.

The better argument became apparent by where the questioning centered.  That questioning moved very quickly to a sole focus on when the romantic relationship began. 

I keep making that point, because if this case is sent to the committee that is charged with re-assigning these type cases, it will die there. That committee is controlled by people that will trade their ability to kill this case for whatever they can get.

[AUFAN78 3,897]

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

To make that argument, there would have been evidence presented detailing those benefits.  The only monetary questions that were explored had to do with taking trips.  Wade isn't the only Special Prosecutor.  There are two others.  Other than taking a couple trips, they benefited as well.  That argument was never a good one.

It was more than a couple of trips. It's as if you haven't watched the testimony. But we agree it would be hard to prove as Fani supposedly repaid Wade in cash. To say it was shady would be an understatement.

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

The better argument became apparent by where the questioning centered.  That questioning moved very quickly to a sole focus on when the romantic relationship began. 

Yeah well, lying under oath used to have consequences. We shall see if that holds.

 

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I keep making that point, because if this case is sent to the committee that is charged with re-assigning these type cases, it will die there. That committee is controlled by people that will trade their ability to kill this case for whatever they can get.

Again, no one here is making that argument. 

[DKW 86 7,424]

On 2/28/2024 at 5:20 PM, AU9377 said:

When they started sleeping together shouldn't even be the most important testimony.  The hearing began with the claim that a conflict exists due to Willis benefiting from Wade's employment and prosecution of the case.  They abandoned that when it became obvious that it couldn't be proven.  Willis and Wade opened the door when they filed affidavits with a time frame of when the romantic relationship began.  That was just dumb, especially if there was any way that those dates could be challenged.

Nobody actually believes that this case was filed in order to make money for the appointed special prosecutors.  There were 3 appointed. 

I dont think Wade would have made the Top 50 otherwise. He has extremely modest if any, real experience with these cases.

[AU9377 4,931]

6 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I dont think Wade would have made the Top 50 otherwise. He has extremely modest if any, real experience with these cases.

No doubt.  Unfortunately, that is how it usually works. Superior Court judges are seldom appointed based on merit either.  It is usually whoever has a connection with the governor's office.   In this particular situation, it appears that she brought him and two others in to recommend who to hire.  When the first two choices declined the position, she simply offered it to the three that had been advising her.  She should have simply had better judgment than to be as public as she was by taking all those trips.   Most didn't want to take it on due to all of the side circus that came with.  For example, she has a 24 hour security detail that she otherwise wouldn't need. It comes with death threats and rednecks protesting outside anywhere they discover that she is living.

The judge hearing the case has been on the bench for less than a year.  He has never tried or presided over a case like this.  He was appointed by the governor after they got to know each other when he was appointed as Inspector General in the state office.  He is doing a great job, but that is how appointments get made.

Edited March 1 by AU9377

[AU9377 4,931]

After having had a chance to watch today's closing arguments and listen to the judge's questions, I would give a slight edge to the defendants that have motioned for her removal. 

I don't believe that he will conclude that there is an actual conflict, but he very well may conclude that there is the appearance of a conflict.  Add to that the downright poor presentation of a rebuttal by the DA's office plus the fact that she has been shady with the facts herself, and there ya have it.  He is clearly pissed to be put in this position.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

Listening to this do you still give a *slight* edge to the defendants?

 

He sure did lay it out and the rebuttal from the DA’s office was not as organized.

 

 

[AU9377 4,931]

11 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Listening to this do you still give a *slight* edge to the defendants?

 

He sure did lay it out and the rebuttal from the DA’s office was not as organized.

 

 

If there were "6 conflicts of interest", there would have been a ruling from the bench.  Those are monumental stretches.  In fact, there hasn't been 1 actual conflict uncovered.  That doesn't mean that there isn't an appearance of a conflict to the degree that she may be removed.  That is possible.

When I said defendants, I was referring to the defendants in the underlying case.  The prosecutor isn't charged with a crime and isn't the defendant.  Her office is the respondent to the motion to recuse.  The defendants are still Trump etc.

Edited March 3 by AU9377