Trump (and others) indicted in GA

[IsntLifeFunny]

11 minutes ago, reo said:

 

The anti-nepotism rules in GA wouldn't prohibit her from hiring him. 

 

Not to mention the data doesn't prove what they say it proves:

 

It does not show definitively that Wade visited Willis at her Hapeville condo — at best, the evidence appears to show Wade was in a 9-square-mile area that includes Willis’ condo, Steffes said.

The data also does not prove that Wade stayed in one place – he could have been driving around the area, he added. “This sounds to me like these folks are not experienced and they don’t understand the limits of either the data or the tool they’re using.

Willis echoed Steffes’ critique in her response late Friday.

“The records do not prove, in any way, the content of the communications between Special Prosecutor Wade and District Attorney Willis; they do not prove that Special Prosecutor Wade was ever at any particular location or address; they do not prove that Special Prosecutor Wade and District Attorney Willis were ever in the same place during any of the times listed [in the exhibit],” Willis’ motion said.

In fact, the motion said on multiple dates and times cited in the defense analysis, Willis was not at home. She provided copies of calendar entries to support that contention - including entries she said show she was at the office or at murder crime scenes.

 

https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-cellphone-data-raise-questions-about-start-of-willis-wade-relationship/SFVMYPTD2RD3HMZYOH3377CNNE/

 

Included in that 9mi area are multiple hotels and the airport.

 

This stuff doesn't matter.

Giving evidence that she's telling the truth has no bearing on the fact we've arrived at this place because of her poor choices. I'm not sure why that's a tough concept to understand. 

[reo]

Just now, IsntLifeFunny said:

Giving evidence that she's telling the truth has no bearing on the fact we've arrived at this place because of her poor choices. I'm not sure why that's a tough concept to understand. 

 

What poor choices? There's nothing illegal or unethical about having a relationship w/ a coworker especially in GA. She followed the law and there's nothing here that proves otherwise. You're falling victim to bullshit spin that Trump's team is attempting to use to deflect from the case. 

[Justafan]

1 hour ago, OILERMAN said:

 

Who does "all" include besides Trump. Willis would be removed for a conflict of interest but was a crime committed?

Relax. I was being 20% serious. 

[IsntLifeFunny]

1 minute ago, reo said:

 

What poor choices? There's nothing illegal or unethical about having a relationship w/ a coworker especially in GA. She followed the law and there's nothing here that proves otherwise. You're falling victim to bullshit spin that Trump's team is attempting to use to deflect from the case. 

Sure. 

[reo]

1 minute ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

Sure. 

 

Good talk.

[IsntLifeFunny]

Just now, reo said:

 

Good talk.

Yep. 

 

I'll end by repeating that I don't care about it that much and agree most of the discussion outside TR is nothing more than attempting to show Trump is somehow a victim. 

 

That doesn't take away from my initial thoughts on this that it was reckless of her to do this and then put her lover on the case. Put someone else on it for the sake of ethics and exactly so this type of thing wouldn't happen in the first place. Simple concept and she's shown herself as a fool. 

[reo]

1 minute ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

Yep. 

 

I'll end by repeating that I don't care about it that much and agree most of the discussion outside TR is nothing more than attempting to show Trump is somehow a victim. 

 

It's just an attempt by the Trump team to muddy the waters and make it a sideshow to distract from the case, i agree.

 

1 minute ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

That doesn't take away from my initial thoughts on this that it was reckless of her to do this and then put her lover on the case. Put someone else on it for the sake of ethics and exactly so this type of thing wouldn't happen in the first place. Simple concept and she's shown herself as a fool. 

 

If they had a prior relationship, which is far from proven, then it's not a great look but it's not unethical or illegal by GA law. If they didn't have a relationship prior then it's not even that. As of now, it's not even that. It's meaningless and a sideshow.

[IsntLifeFunny]

Just now, reo said:

 

It's just an attempt by the Trump team to muddy the waters and make it a sideshow to distract from the case, i agree.

 

 

If they had a prior relationship, which is far from proven, then it's not a great look but it's not unethical or illegal by GA law. If they didn't have a relationship prior then it's not even that. As of now, it's not even that. It's meaningless and a sideshow.

I'm sure you believe this. We can end the tea party. Neither of us are budging even though we both agree most of it is obviously diversionary. Acring as if she isn't culpable for this mess is hilarious. 

[Starkiller]

26 minutes ago, reo said:

 

What poor choices? There's nothing illegal or unethical about having a relationship w/ a coworker especially in GA. She followed the law and there's nothing here that proves otherwise. You're falling victim to bullshit spin that Trump's team is attempting to use to deflect from the case. 

Simply the “appearance of impropriety” is enough to get her thrown off the case. And if she is thrown off the case then it would effectively be dead, with no chance to hear it before the election.

[IsntLifeFunny]

19 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

Simply the “appearance of impropriety” is enough to get her thrown off the case. And if she is thrown off the case then it would effectively be dead, with no chance to hear it before the election.

Nah bro doesn't matter at all. 

[reo]

1 hour ago, Starkiller said:

Simply the “appearance of impropriety” is enough to get her thrown off the case. And if she is thrown off the case then it would effectively be dead, with no chance to hear it before the election.

 

Which nothing here should meet.

[Starkiller]

1 minute ago, reo said:

Which nothing here should meet.

If they lied under oath about when they began their relationship it does. There’s a big difference between starting up a relationship after he was already on the case vs she hired her boyfriend and got him a high paid gig.

[reo]

16 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

If they lied under oath about when they began their relationship it does.

 

There's nothing here proving that they did.

 

Saying he was within a 9 sqmi area is basically saying she lives in Murfreesboro and he was in Murfreesboro multiple times so he had to have been there seeing her.

 

16 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

There’s a big difference between starting up a relationship after he was already on the case vs she hired her boyfriend and got him a high paid gig.

 

Which wouldn't be illegal, unethical or improper by Georgia law. There's a reason why the Trump team tried to make it seem like Wade was paying for trips w/ her w/ the money he was getting paid w/ so it seemed like she was profiting off it instead of focusing on her hiring him at all b/c that part doesn't matter. And they couldn't prove that he was using that money to pay for trips much less prove that she didn't pay him back.

 

So again... there's nothing here.

Edited February 24, 2024 by reo

[Starkiller]

32 minutes ago, reo said:

 

There's nothing here proving that they did.

 

Saying he was within a 9 sqmi area is basically saying she lives in Murfreesboro and he was in Murfreesboro multiple times so he had to have been there seeing her.

Remains to be seen, so we'll see how that info turns out.

 

32 minutes ago, reo said:

Which wouldn't be illegal, unethical or improper by Georgia law. There's a reason why the Trump team tried to make it seem like Wade was paying for trips w/ her w/ the money he was getting paid w/ so it seemed like she was profiting off it instead of focusing on her hiring him at all b/c that part doesn't matter. And they couldn't prove that he was using that money to pay for trips much less prove that she didn't pay him back.

 

So again... there's nothing here.

The argument is that by giving a good paying job to her boyfriend it also financially benefits herself.

 

In the end, they don’t have to prove that she did anything illegal. They just have to create the “appearance of impropriety”. And for what it’s worth, that has already played a role in this case. Willis was barred prom prosecuting one potential defendant, Georgia Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones, because she had hosted a fundraiser for his political opponent during the investigation. 
 

So yes, even just the potential that she could have done something unethical with this case is enough to get her removed from it and the case itself sent to legal purgatory.

[reo]

11 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

Remains to be seen, so we'll see how that info turns out.

 

It has not been proven.

 

11 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

The argument is that by giving a good paying job to her boyfriend it also financially benefits herself.

 

This was litigated at the hearing and was not proven that she benefited in any way. It's a reach b/c they know the relationship itself isn't improper in GA.

 

11 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

In the end, they don’t have to prove that she did anything illegal. They just have to create the “appearance of impropriety”. And for what it’s worth, that has already played a role in this case.

 

 

What impropriety? 

 

11 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

Willis was barred prom prosecuting one potential defendant, Georgia Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones, because she had hosted a fundraiser for his political opponent during the investigation. 

 

 

I'm fully aware. It was a completely different scenario. Hosting a fundraiser for the political opponent of someone you're investigating is completely different from anything alleged here. That was the potential for bias. Completely different.

 

You can't just go up to a judge and make up a scenario that you can't prove and get the prosecutor kicked off the case. "hey look. the 2 prosecutors on my case are dating. kick them both off." There's nothing improper there.

Edited February 24, 2024 by reo