Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's a big deal to Willis, because she tried to hide the affair and then lied about it.Speculation based on an unproven claim.
No, your speculation is not a big deal to me.
I'm sure it's a big deal to you though.
Again, your speculation based on unproven claims is not a big deal.It's a big deal to Willis, because she tried to hide the affair and then lied about it.
It's been proven that Wade and Willis had an affair.Again, your speculation based on unproven claims is not a big deal.
If it was the standard, all cases would meet that criteria.
It's been proven that Wade and Willis had an affair.
It's been proven that they tried to hide it.
It's been proven they lied about the circumstances, under oath.
As you've stated.The disqualification hearing isn't a criminal case. It doesn't require "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".
So?
So?
Link please.
As you've stated.
And as I have stated, your speculation based on an unproven contention doesn't cut it or it would apply to any "disqualification" hearing.
His claim isn't proof.![]()
‘Fraud on this court:’ Defense says Wade and Willis lied
Repeated assertions from Fani Willis and Nathan Wade that their romantic relationship began in early 2022 — after she hired him to work on the election case — are a “fraud on this court,” defense attorney Craig Gillen said.www.ajc.com
Preponderance of evidenceHis claim isn't proof.
Your statements are not proof.Preponderance of evidence
I have very strong evidence and that's all that is required.Your statements are not proof.
You have no legitimate proof then?
I have very strong evidence and that's all that is required.
You want me to prove a negative?Feel free to provide evidence, any evidence, that Wade and Willis aren't lying their asses off.
It's not strong evidence and the prosecutors say you are incorrect.
You want me to prove a negative?
No thanks. That's a silly game.
What prosecutors?
They have over 13,000 text messages and emails between them. That is PROVEN.
They have cell phone tracking data, he went to her house many times before he was hired, late at night, 11pm to 5am. PROVEN. Fani is fucked.
It's possible but I disagree.And by more than her prosecutor.
So?
That tracking data does not show he went to her house for relationship reasons. It shows he was in the area.
They already testified he was there multiple times for business reasons.
The phone data shows no communications so you have no context.
It's possible but I disagree.
Proof that phone calls were made in the general area is not proof or even strong evidence of a relationship
What the hell did he go there for at 11pm to 5am? To preen her perennials?
The fact is she had an affair,
lied about it,
and got caught.
She's done.
You have no proof she lied under oath.Nobody gives a fuck that she was fucking him, we care THAT SHE LIED ABOUT IT when asked UNDER OATH by the court.
Not sure. Where did he say he went?
That isn't illegal.
Not under oath as it hasn't been proven.
Getting caught having an affair isn't illegal.
That is up to the judge.
I will accept their decision.
You have no proof she lied under oath.
It's not strong evidence and the prosecutors say you are incorrect.
Then accept the evidence that you've been presented with.You want me to prove a negative?
No thanks. That's a silly game.
Fanny believed the affair was a problem. Why else would she try to cover it up?Nobody said the affair was illegal. IT WAS ILLEGAL TO LIE ABOUT IT. WHY THE FUCK can't you stupid fucking liberals understand that? Just like the Clinton blow job. Nobody cares about him cheating on his wife, but when he was asked under oath, he lied about it. Thus was impeached.
If a fucking judge asks you under oath if you had an affair with the spec pros and you say no and it can be proven you are lying, YOU HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME, PERJURY. You cannot be trusted any longer with cases in that court. YOU ARE DONE.
Again, your speculation based on unproven claims is not a big deal.
The evidence says otherwise.You have no proof she lied under oath.