Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It's your lack of understanding of the criminal justice system that is the problem. Someone in that field pursues the area of legal interest they want to go into. That is how complex and diverse the law is. It is part of the legal requirements of becoming a lawyer.Why are you having such are hard time answering this simple question?
Everything. I'd suppose you'd bet your life on a guy who never defended a criminal before.What the fuck does this have to do with what the legal qualifications are?
If you know what the legal requirements are why are you have such a hard time actually articulating them?It's your lack of understanding of the criminal justice system that is the problem. Someone in that field pursues the area of legal interest they want to go into. That is how complex and diverse the law is. It is part of the legal requirements of becoming a lawyer.
Why do you care who the prosecution is betting on? Do you have any evidence their work has been subpar? After all they got two separate indictments, first in a special grand jury and then a grand jury for a former President and 19 co-defendants including the former Mayor of New York. That's one hell of an unprecedented job. No other lawyers in history can say they successfully indicted a former President on felony rico charges.Everything. I'd suppose you'd bet your life on a guy who never defended a criminal before.
It appears you are the one here without knowledge of the legal requirements. You've been parroting there are no legal requirements, in defense of Willis putting her ambulance chasing lover in a job as special prosecutor with no experience in criminal law, looks like you were very, very wrong.If you know what the legal requirements are why are you have such a hard time actually articulating them?
Indictments no count......it's convictions that do.No other lawyers in history can say they successfully indicted a former President on felony rico charges.
No. I'm stating the legal requirement is him being a lawyer in good standing the the bar association of Georgia. He is in fact a lawyer in good standing with the bar in Georgia. You're alleging some other legal requirement but seem to be having a difficult time articulating what that legal requirement is.It appears you are the one here without knowledge of the legal requirements. You've been parroting there are no legal requirements, in defense of Willis putting her ambulance chasing lover in a job as special prosecutor with no experience in criminal law, looks like you were very, very wrong.
Indictments no count......it's convictions that do.
I believe you are now backpedaling.No. I'm stating the legal requirement is him being a lawyer in good standing the the bar association of Georgia. He is in fact a lawyer in good standing with the bar in Georgia.
Made it very obvious. Have you considered one of those refresher courses for people who've been out of high school for a century or more?You're alleging some other legal requirement but seem to be having a difficult time articulating what that legal requirement is.
Is that why this post says absolutely nothing at all? It's very simple. My claim is that he is qualified because the only qualification is him being a lawyer in good standing. I made that point like 15 posts ago and another MAGAt already conceded the point. You wanted to be a thick Bingo though.I believe you are now backpedaling.
Made it very obvious. Have you considered one of those refresher courses for people who've been out of high school for a century or more?
They broke laws. Willis has already been DQ'ed from one case because of a conflict of interest. Those events bring everything they've done into question.Why do you care who the prosecution is betting on? Do you have any evidence their work has been subpar?
Still backpedaling, I see. Lawyer with out any criminal prosecution experience.My claim is that he is qualified because the only qualification is him being a lawyer in good standing.
Do I have to drag you by the nose?You claim is that Nathan Wade is unqualified. Where's your evidence you coward?
Trump broke laws that why he's the criminal defendant.They broke laws. Willis has already been DQ'ed from one case because of a conflict of interest. Those events bring everything they've done into question.
That's not a backpedal. That's post #186 Cellblock2429 already conceded this point to me on post #177.Still backpedaling, I see. Lawyer with out any criminal prosecution experience.
You can keep being a bitch for as long as you like. I have all the time in the world to laugh at you for being unable to articulate what legal qualifications Wade doesn't meet.Do I have to drag you by the nose?
Fatty Willis broke laws. That's why she will be DQ'ed from prosecuting the case, along with Wade and the rest of her office.Trump broke laws that why he's the criminal defendant.
Nope failWhat's been reported is a lot of crying and also that she isn't being investigated by the G.B.I.
The only people threatening her are Republican politicians who better be careful they don't find themselves catching an obstruction of justice charge or maybe even joining this rico prosecution. She basically said as much to that pussy Jim Jordan.
You might want to beef up on Fulton county ethics violation. 25 pagesThat's not an ethics code violation. There's nothing improper about colleagues working and congregating with one another. A lot of people meet their spouses at the office.
You might want to try producing the bit of evidence that supports your claim.You might want to beef up on Fulton county ethics violation. 25 pages
Code of Ethics
www.fultoncountyga.gov
Code of ethic read up or shut the fuck upYou might want to try producing the bit of evidence that supports your claim.
Did you read it? Because I did. It was only 25 pages after all. Which one of them do you imagine supports your argument?Code of ethic read up or shut the fuck up
You haven't the only reason you know it's 25 pages is because I told you.Did you read it? Because I did. It was only 25 pages after all. Which one of them do you imagine supports your argument?
I don't actually have any problem reading sources because I get immense enjoyment out of proving you Bingos wrong. Even if you never admit it. You know.You haven't the only reason you know it's 25 pages is because I told you.
Well stop bitching about the source and learn samboI don't actually have any problem reading sources because I get immense enjoyment out of proving you Bingos wrong. I'll give you some help. Section 2-79 deals with financial disclosures. It's on page 15. You can start looking there.
I'm waiting for you to educate me on which part you think supports your argument. How am I supposed to know what you imagine supports your argument before you enlighten me?Well stop bitching about the source and learn
