Fani Willis and Wade referred to Georgia State Bar for Misconduct

[para bellum]

When was the last time you took five vacations in a single year?

Haha, my last vacation was in 2000, a boat trip to the Bahamas.

I retired 2 years ago, but my last job was small business owner (17 years), and I didn't take vacations. I'd maybe take a few days for a bike ride, but nothing more than that.

I kept a cookie jar too, but I could always account for the money that was in it. I stopped doing that when civil forfeitures became so commonplace, it's just not worth the risk. I keep a little cash in a safe deposit box at by bank, but that's just for emergencies.

In my business I was scrupulous about my accounting, and not one penny went in or out without being properly accounted for. I retain every bank statement to this day, and I can pull up every transaction I ever made in my accounting software, and tell you exactly what it was for.

I was never audited, but I always operated with the expectation of being audited, so I was always prepared for one.

 

[Curried Goats]

…..and that money ended up being lost.


How did she take money out of her account she admits she lost, Dumbass?

Fuck, you're stupid.

She funded her own campaign and then she lost the campaign. How hard was that? You don't exactly need to be Sherlock Holmes to sus that one out.

 

[Dragonlady]

Her perjury has nothing to do with her?

What perjury????? There is absolutely no credible evidence that she committed perjury.

The ONLY suggestion that she's lying comes from the liars on the Trump campaign. The only person making such a claim is a woman who was fired by Ms. Willis.

Only a habitual liar like yourself always assumes everyone is lying. Only an idiot like Donald Trump lies in court. Why would a rich successful woman hire her similarly rich successful boyfriend and then tell an irrelevant lie, which she can easily be caught making, to destroy her career.

If they were dating before she hired him, it doesn't fucking matter. It really doesn't. Because it's easily proven they could BOTH afford their vacations together with or without the income they're both receiving from the state.

The whole basis of disqualifying Willis is the ridiculous claim that she was only prosecuting this case in order to financially gain from the prosecution. That's the burden of proof.

This whole notion that even the "appearance of impropriety" is enough to disqualify her from the case is assinine. Not even a "preponderance of the evidence" is required for a conviction of the prosecutor, much less guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, according to the hack team of Trump lawyers.

 

[Nostra]

Fuck, you're stupid.

She funded her own campaign and then she lost the campaign. How hard was that? You don't exactly need to be Sherlock Holmes to sus that one out.

Sh e clearly said that MONEY was lost, Simp.

Learn to read

 

[Nostra]

What perjury????? There is absolutely no credible evidence that she committed perjury.

The ONLY suggestion that she's lying comes from the liars on the Trump campaign. The only person making such a claim is a woman who was fired by Ms. Willis.

Only a habitual liar like yourself always assumes everyone is lying. Only an idiot like Donald Trump lies in court. Why would a rich successful woman hire her similarly rich successful boyfriend and then tell an irrelevant lie, which she can easily be caught making, to destroy her career.

If they were dating before she hired him, it doesn't fucking matter. It really doesn't. Because it's easily proven they could BOTH afford their vacations together with or without the income they're both receiving from the state.

The whole basis of disqualifying Willis is the ridiculous claim that she was only prosecuting this case in order to financially gain from the prosecution. That's the burden of proof.

This whole notion that even the "appearance of impropriety" is enough to disqualify her from the case is assinine. Not even a "preponderance of the evidence" is required for a conviction of the prosecutor, much less guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, according to the hack team of Trump lawyers.

Thousands of text messages between the two are being released, Simp.

She lied he extra wide ass off in the stand.

 

[Dragonlady]

Thousands of text messages between the two are being released, Simp.

She lied he extra wide ass off in the stand.

Get back to me when that happens FuckBoi. I suggest holding your breathe until it happens.

 

[WEATHER53]

Maricopa board of elections run out of their meeting by citizens

 

[para bellum]

Fuck, you're stupid.

She funded her own campaign and then she lost the campaign. How hard was that? You don't exactly need to be Sherlock Holmes to sus that one out.

Um, She said repeatedly that the $50K was lost....

------------------------------------------------------

"What I was talking about is I ran for judge. When I ran for judge, I took $50,000 of my personal money out of my retirement and that money ended up being lost. And I know when you bet on yourself, you're going to have to bet money on yourself. And so, what I was talking about was not wanting to go to the personal financial expense of running for office. By no means that I think that I was going to be financially in a bad position once I won. Let's talk about what I was up against because it's important to understand that comment.

I had a district attorney who had been here for 24 years. You put -- no, no, no, this is very relevant as to what my mindset was about this. So I'm trying to answer your question. So what I was saying is --

JUDGE: So it's a finance.

WILLIS: Right. But it is about my finances if I didn't -- nobody put me in this seat, so I had already run for office once. I had spit $50,000 of my own money running and it was then moot, nothing.

And so when I'm talking to those offers, I'm talking about the contemplation of the sacrifice of the run, not the sacrifice of once you become D.A. The odds were against me. I was likely going to lose the election based on who I was running against.

So that needs to be in the appropriate context.

MERCHANT: Isn't it true that the authors also wrote and you can dispute this if you'd like, that you were broke after that race?

WILLIS: The 2018 race.

MERCHANT: Yes.

WILLIS: Yeah, that was a hard race. I wasn't broke like I didn't have any broke is relative to depending where you are, but that hurt to lose that $50,000. So I'm sure my mental mindset was like I just gave 50,000 hours away.

MERCHANT: Right. So they characterized it from their conversations with you that you were broke, you had poured your own money into the campaign and you weren't able to pay your own bills because of your I'm sorry -- your clients couldn't pay their bills to you and you had a paltry array of family and asset forfeiture cases. It says you were trying to make it month to month.

Is that an accurate depiction of your financial situation that point?

WILLIS: I would want to read that, but I don't -- I don't remember clients not being able to pay their bills. So --

MERCHANT: That part, Judge?

JUDGE: You may.

WILLIS: I have not read this book.

So -- so like this fact here, her ex-husband Fred (INAUDIBLE) to a financial -- I have no information about that.

MERCHANT: I didn't ask you about that. I just asked about if you were -- what they represent from their interviews and then you had clients that want able to pay their bills.

WILLIS: Can you show me where that is? Because this is where you put the tabs. So that's what I read.

MERCHANT: Broke, but couldn't pay their bills.

WILLIS: Yeah, that that I'm sure I characterize myself. I was broke as leaving that $50,000. I don't know that I had-- her nascent law practice had paltry, I didn't have --

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIS: I attest -- I thought I had a law practice, so this is not correct. I'm sure just I didn't have any asset forfeiture cases. So I had one case where they had took one of my client's money at the airport.

[1602]

That's -- I don't know if that's what they're char -- I don't know. On paltry array, I did have family law cases. I guess that's what they're talking about, and clients who couldn't pay their bills and clients. So, no.

MERCHANT: So, my question was just if this was a fair and accurate representation where it says you are trying to make it month to month, that that --

WILLIS: No, I don't think that that is actually a fair and accurate representation, but I am certain that after the 2018 election I'm still not really happy about having given up that 50,000.

 

[EMH]

It is too bad that the late Sandra Day O'Connor did not get a chance to observe Fani Willis before disasterously siding with the left and supporting state sponsored DNA discrimination decades ago...

 

[Curried Goats]

Sh e clearly said that MONEY was lost, Simp.

Learn to read

Yes you moron. When you invest in yourself to fund your own campaign and you lose that money is lost. Jesus you're dumb.

 

[Curried Goats]

Um, She said repeatedly that the $50K was lost....

------------------------------------------------------

"What I was talking about is I ran for judge. When I ran for judge, I took $50,000 of my personal money out of my retirement and that money ended up being lost. And I know when you bet on yourself, you're going to have to bet money on yourself. And so, what I was talking about was not wanting to go to the personal financial expense of running for office. By no means that I think that I was going to be financially in a bad position once I won. Let's talk about what I was up against because it's important to understand that comment.

I had a district attorney who had been here for 24 years. You put -- no, no, no, this is very relevant as to what my mindset was about this. So I'm trying to answer your question. So what I was saying is --

JUDGE: So it's a finance.

WILLIS: Right. But it is about my finances if I didn't -- nobody put me in this seat, so I had already run for office once. I had spit $50,000 of my own money running and it was then moot, nothing.

And so when I'm talking to those offers, I'm talking about the contemplation of the sacrifice of the run, not the sacrifice of once you become D.A. The odds were against me. I was likely going to lose the election based on who I was running against.

So that needs to be in the appropriate context.

MERCHANT: Isn't it true that the authors also wrote and you can dispute this if you'd like, that you were broke after that race?

WILLIS: The 2018 race.

MERCHANT: Yes.

WILLIS: Yeah, that was a hard race. I wasn't broke like I didn't have any broke is relative to depending where you are, but that hurt to lose that $50,000. So I'm sure my mental mindset was like I just gave 50,000 hours away.

MERCHANT: Right. So they characterized it from their conversations with you that you were broke, you had poured your own money into the campaign and you weren't able to pay your own bills because of your I'm sorry -- your clients couldn't pay their bills to you and you had a paltry array of family and asset forfeiture cases. It says you were trying to make it month to month.

Is that an accurate depiction of your financial situation that point?

WILLIS: I would want to read that, but I don't -- I don't remember clients not being able to pay their bills. So --

MERCHANT: That part, Judge?

JUDGE: You may.

WILLIS: I have not read this book.

So -- so like this fact here, her ex-husband Fred (INAUDIBLE) to a financial -- I have no information about that.

MERCHANT: I didn't ask you about that. I just asked about if you were -- what they represent from their interviews and then you had clients that want able to pay their bills.

WILLIS: Can you show me where that is? Because this is where you put the tabs. So that's what I read.

MERCHANT: Broke, but couldn't pay their bills.

WILLIS: Yeah, that that I'm sure I characterize myself. I was broke as leaving that $50,000. I don't know that I had-- her nascent law practice had paltry, I didn't have --

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIS: I attest -- I thought I had a law practice, so this is not correct. I'm sure just I didn't have any asset forfeiture cases. So I had one case where they had took one of my client's money at the airport.

[1602]

That's -- I don't know if that's what they're char -- I don't know. On paltry array, I did have family law cases. I guess that's what they're talking about, and clients who couldn't pay their bills and clients. So, no.

MERCHANT: So, my question was just if this was a fair and accurate representation where it says you are trying to make it month to month, that that --

WILLIS: No, I don't think that that is actually a fair and accurate representation, but I am certain that after the 2018 election I'm still not really happy about having given up that 50,000.

You guys really aren't that bright are you? What happens when you run in a campaign and don't win? What's the opposite of winning Dumb Dumb?

 

[Nostra]

Yes you moron. When you invest in yourself to fund your own campaign and you lose that money is lost. Jesus you're dumb.

Ok, so how did she take it out of the bank to pay back Loverboy for their 5 vacations, Moron?

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

Fani was so eager to RIP Trump a new hole, she never bothered to cover her tracks when she spread her legs for Wade.

 

[Curried Goats]

Ok, so how did she take it out of the bank to pay back Loverboy for their 5 vacations, Moron?

Who said she did you idiot?

 

[para bellum]

You guys really aren't that bright are you? What happens when you run in a campaign and don't win? What's the opposite of winning Dumb Dumb?

Are you really this stupid or are you just pretending? It's Willis who is claiming the money was lost and Willis who said she kept money from her first campaign.

"When I took out a large amount of money on my first campaign, I kept some of the cash of that."

"I took $50,000 of my personal money out of my retirement and that money ended up being lost."

The question was never about the fact that she was defeated in her 2018 campaign for the Superior Court judge position. No one disputes that she lost that race.

You are attempting to reconcile her conflicting statements by pretending she is talking about something else.

It's not working.

 

[WEATHER53]

AA hoochie

 

[para bellum]

This whole notion that even the "appearance of impropriety" is enough to disqualify her from the case is assinine.

Not in the realm of public corruption cases, and it depends on the language of the particular ethics rule- words to the effect of "corruption or the appearance of corruption" are not unusual.

In fact, she was thrown off another case just because she headlined a fundraiser for the political opponent of the guy she was charging with a crime.

<snip>
...
McAfee pushed back on the state’s contention that an actual conflict must be proven, indicating the judge may be looking at a broader method to examine the evidence for disqualifying Willis and her office.

“There are a number of these cases that seem to exclusively rely on the appearance of impropriety,” the judge said.

Fani Willis decision in Georgia judge’s hands after final hearing

The fate of former President Trump’s 2020 election interference case in Georgia now rests with a state judge tasked with determining whether to disqualify Fulton County’s district attorney’s o…

thehill.com

 

[BS Filter]

In your dreams Fuck Boi. I seriously expect some of these lawyers to be facing disciplinary hearings before the Bar Association for flat out accusing the Attorney General of perjury - ON NO EVIDENCE.

The whole notion that this wealthy black woman would hire somebody just so she could get $15,000 in free vacations is laughable. The only people committing perjury in this Hearing are the Defendants' lawyers who concocted this whole lie in order to publically smear Ms. Willis.

Throughout this whole Hearing was the whole notion that as low paid civil servants, they would be willing to corrupt themselves for peanuts. Posters here have called them AA prosecutors. Willis had a successful private practice for years before running for AG.

Fani paid the top RICO lawyer in the state $100/hr less than her boyfriend who has zero experience in RICO law. That stinks almost as much as her asdhole.

 

[Curried Goats]

Are you really this stupid or are you just pretending? It's Willis who is claiming the money was lost and Willis who said she kept money from her first campaign.

"When I took out a large amount of money on my first campaign, I kept some of the cash of that."

"I took $50,000 of my personal money out of my retirement and that money ended up being lost."

The question was never about the fact that she was defeated in her 2018 campaign for the Superior Court judge position. No one disputes that she lost that race.

You are attempting to reconcile her conflicting statements by pretending she is talking about something else.

It's not working.

What conflicting statements? She took out $50,000 for her own campaign, kept a little of that money as cash as she testified she often did with her transactions, and then lost the bulk of it when she lost her campaign. How are you still confused you Bingo?

 

[para bellum]

What conflicting statements? She took out $50,000 for her own campaign, kept a little of that money as cash as she testified she often did with her transactions, and then lost the bulk of it when she lost her campaign. How are you still confused you Bingo?

We are not interested in your "reading between the lines". She did not make the statements you are claiming. She didn't say "she often did" this or that with her transactions, or kept a lot or a little, she did not speak about "the bulk" of anything.

She dissembled, rambled, was evasive and combative, and unresponsive to the questions, and it was not lost on the judge.

The statements I quoted are her words, and they conflict. You can lose all of the money or you can keep some of the money, but you can't do both. She said several times that she lost all the money from her campaign. You are trying to twist that into her losing the campaign, which is just not what the line of questioning was about.

Try harder.