Legal Experts say Fani has ruined her case against Trump!

[Lisa558]

So, she can only hire her lover when prosecuting Trump? She can't do so prosecuting a less high-profile case. A case that doesn't cause her to need to abandon her home and exposes her to this kind of scrutiny.

I appreciate the answer. Does it make logical sense though?

She cannot hire her lover, period, and then use the taxpayer money she funneled to him to enjoy vacations in Napa, Belize, and on cruises.

 

[forkup]

She cannot hire her lover, period, and the use the taxpayer money she funneled to him to enjoy vacations in Napa, Belize, and on cruises.

Sure, she can. It's unethical probably but not illegal.

The problem here is that you can't even prove he was her lover prior hiring him and you can't tell me why it invalidates the indictments.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Greedy sex-starved Fani Willis likely ruined her case with Trump, experts say.

CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig said Tuesday that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis may have destroyed her election interference case against former President Donald Trump.

Willis appointed her romantic partner Nathan Wade as special prosecutor in the case, which a Trump co-defendant alleges is a conflict of interest because of benefits she received based on their relationship. Judge Scott McAfee will consider a motion Thursday to disqualify Willis based on the allegations.

​

I think her problems continue to multiply,” Honig asserted. “So the allegation that several defendants, including Donald Trump, have made is that there‘s a conflict of interest, that she has been in this personal romantic relationship with one of the outside people brought in to prosecute this case. She has since admitted that that‘s true, and that there was an intermingling of finances that creates a conflict of interest.”

Wade purchased airline tickets to Miami and San Francisco in Willis’ name, according to bank statements contained in a filing in his divorce case.

“Yesterday, there was a hearing, a zoom hearing that we were able to see where the DA‘s office said, ‘Judge, you should just throw this out. There‘s not even a need to hold a hearing.’ Well, the judge said, ‘I disagree. There‘s some serious disputed facts here. Therefore, we‘re going to have a hearing on Thursday.’ That‘s going to be really interesting to watch, but that is going to be a really problematic proceeding for the DA,” Honig said.

‘Her Problems Continue To Multiply’: CNN Legal Analyst Says Fani Willis May Have Ruined Trump Case

CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig said Tuesday that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis may have destroyed her case against Trump.

dailycaller.com

You can't be a corrupt da and not expect your evidence you collect not to be corrupt.

 

[Lisa558]

Sure, she can. It's unethical probably but not illegal.

The problem here is that you can't even prove he was her lover prior hiring him and you can't tell me why it invalidates the indictments.

There’s evidence that he was. The former friend’s testimony.

 

[Rawley]

I stated case law.

Nah. You cited cases fed to you by some MSNBC loons which support their partisan opinion. I think the Judge knows the statutory and case law in Georgia better than they do.

 

[Robert W]

Her testimony today was pretty bad for someone in her position.

There will be a new team assigned.

She did not talk like a decent lawyer. She has handedly ruined her own case.

 

[Lisa558]

She did not talk like a decent lawyer. She has handedly ruined her own case.

She sounded like a high school grad in a lower-class family who put on her nice church dress for her court appearance. Her grammar alone was atrocious.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What corruption is that? Rumor & innuendo? Willis testified for hours & she took every one of those hacks & handed their asses back to them.

They have NOTHING.

No such thing there are receipts and her best friend say she was dating him in 2019

 

[bigrebnc1775]

She did not talk like a decent lawyer. She has handedly ruined her own case.

When a prosecutor has been caught in misconduct, they can be disciplined and the defendant can be afforded relief.

 

[Robert W]

I'm telling you that the 2 woman, plus Caroll's testimony, plus the 2 other women testifying to similar behavior, plus the store clerks, plus her family members, plus an expert witness, plus the Billy Bush tapes, plus the deposition where he was asked about the Billy Bush tapes, while no contrary evidence was provided is enough to determine guilt by a preponderance of the evidence.

This is what you did then and now. Try to remove the scope of the evidence provided and limit it to at most a few elements and pretend they exist in a vacuum.

What you're doing here is the opposite, focus on what you consider an inculpatory piece of evidence and pretend nothing exculpatory exists.

If I was doing what you allege, I would of course talk entirely different.

Here is how the law works. Each case is tried on it's own merits. You do not get to try a killer in a current case making claims he killed earlier in life. Trump did not rape the woman. The Jury tried the facts and refused to say he raped her. They checked the no box.

I will state my own facts again. It seems you did not know them.
Say I took you to court over how you talk to me. And I alleged witnesses saw you pull your shit on me. At least here, there is current proof.

In the case of Carroll her case is like around 30 years or more old. She waited too long. She claims she has 2 women who tell her same story. This would have been a good story 30 years ago. She makes excuses for not going to court a long time back. But the way law works, she simply was not too upset since she is only lately talking about this event.
In the case of Fanni Willis, she is pissing off the Judge. She has a big mouth. In her case the Judge might simply remove her from this case.

 

[Care4all]

Do you really not see the conflict?

I see a possible ethics situation yes! If she lied under oath or supported a lie that was under oath, as the claim that Wade lied about when their Romance began in an affidavit that he filed from her office. If that is proven...

But it still doesn't make Trump's charges, with the evidence the grand jury had to make the criminal charges, any less criminal.... The romance doesn't change that ...... with regard to the evidence presented, and the grand jury charges imo.

This is Trump using his own form of Lawfare to continually escape his comeuppance due, with the Law... for his own malfeasance and yes, crimes....is how it honestly looks to me....

Trump wins all the time by this kind of delay and shenanigans.... But not ever by facing his charges in a trial and a jury finding him not guilty, like every other citizen has to face.... again,in my view

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I see a possible ethics situation yes! If she lied under oath or supported a lie that was under oath, as the claim that Wade lied about when their Romance began in an affidavit that he filed from her office. If that is proven...

But it still doesn't make Trump's charges, with the evidence the grand jury had to make the criminal charges, any less criminal.... The romance doesn't change that ...... with regard to the evidence presented, and the grand jury charges imo.

This is Trump using his own form of Lawfare to continually escape his comeuppance due, with the Law... for his own malfeasance and yes, crimes....is how it honestly looks to me....

Trump wins all the time by this kind of delay and shenanigans.... But not ever by facing his charges in a trial and a jury finding him not guilty, like every other citizen has to face.... again,in my view

Yes it makes a difference defendants are offered relief when there is prosecutors misconduct. And lying under oath is prosecutor misconduct

 

[Rawley]

I see a possible ethics situation yes! If she lied under oath or supported a lie that was under oath, as the claim that Wade lied about when their Romance began in an affidavit that he filed from her office. If that is proven...

But it still doesn't make Trump's charges, with the evidence the grand jury had to make the criminal charges, any less criminal.... The romance doesn't change that ...... with regard to the evidence presented, and the grand jury charges imo.

This is Trump using his own form of Lawfare to continually escape his comeuppance due, with the Law... for his own malfeasance and yes, crimes....is how it honestly looks to me....

Trump wins all the time by this kind of delay and shenanigans.... But not ever by facing his charges in a trial and a jury finding him not guilty, like every other citizen has to face.... again,in my view

You seem to missing these are simply charges, not crimes, brought by an unquestionably partisan DA, and now, it seems, ethically challenged.

 

[Robert W]

I see a possible ethics situation yes! If she lied under oath or supported a lie that was under oath, as the claim that Wade lied about when their Romance began in an affidavit that he filed from her office. If that is proven...

But it still doesn't make Trump's charges, with the evidence the grand jury had to make the criminal charges, any less criminal.... The romance doesn't change that ...... with regard to the evidence presented, and the grand jury charges imo.

This is Trump using his own form of Lawfare to continually escape his comeuppance due, with the Law... for his own malfeasance and yes, crimes....is how it honestly looks to me....

Trump wins all the time by this kind of delay and shenanigans.... But not ever by facing his charges in a trial and a jury finding him not guilty, like every other citizen has to face.... again,in my view

Trump is being charged for a crime he did not do.

 

[toobfreak]

What corruption is that? Rumor & innuendo? Willis testified for hours & she took every one of those hacks & handed their asses back to them.

Try again. I have a little legal background and can read body language. I turned on Willis a few hours ago and she was visably SCARED. She was argumentative and combative. If she wasn't the DA there in Fulton and was just like you or I, she would have been slapped down hard and threatyened with contempt for some of the comments she made calling the prosecutor a liar, etc.,, and repeatedly evading answers. Her every answer was evasive, an old court trick where you try to appear to be cooperative by giving far more answer than was asked for all the while never actually answering the question and rambling on incessantly hoping that they never notice it. At one point, the judge took a recess to caution her attorneys that she better settle down and stop the antics or risk censure.

In one 5 minute period, she contradicted herself when asked about her romance with this prosecutor boyfriend: first she said the romance ended earlier this year then contradicted herself saying it ended last summer. She repeatedly feigned not knowing answers to common questions that anyone would remember in a romantic relationship, much less someone in her position.

During one pause, they brought on a legal expert who said that she had already dug her own grave.

Another part I liked is where she admitted to always paying her boyfriend THOUSANDS in CASH (so she had no record of anything) yet not conducting transactions that way with anyone else! Then she admitted that after she got hot and heavy with this guy, that despite the fact that he was a key person on her team that she kept the relationship secret with everyone else involved. The very first rule of law is that you don't do anything that even has the POSSIBLY of appearing improper!

Even funnier was when asked about her vacations with the guy, she could not say what continent Belize or the Bahamas was on. Seriously? How does one get out of high school without knowing basic geography? This woman is a DISTRICT ATTORNEY?

Fool, she (and her boyfriend) have already ADMITTED enough to likely get disbarred and possibly far worse. Rumor and innuendo? Please, go stroke yourself but don't waste my time.

 

[Clipper]

Try again. I have a little legal background and can read body language. I turned on Willis a few hours ago and she was visably SCARED. She was argumentative and combative. If she wasn't the DA there in Fulton and was just like you or I, she would have been slapped down hard and threatyened with contempt for some of the comments she made calling the prosecutor a liar, etc.,, and repeatedly evading answers. Her every answer was evasive, an old court trick where you try to appear to be cooperative by giving far more answer than was asked for all the while never actually answering the question and rambling on incessantly hoping that they never notice it. At one point, the judge took a recess to caution her attorneys that she better settle down and stop the antics or risk censure.

In one 5 minute period, she contradicted herself when asked about her romance with this prosecutor boyfriend: first she said the romance ended earlier this year then contradicted herself saying it ended last summer. She repeatedly feigned not knowing answers to common questions that anyone would remember in a romantic relationship, much less someone in her position.

During one pause, they brought on a legal expert who said that she had already dug her own grave.

Another part I liked is where she admitted to always paying her boyfriend THOUSANDS in CASH (so she had no record of anything) yet not conducting transactions that way with anyone else! Then she admitted that after she got hot and heavy with this guy, that despite the fact that he was a key person on her team that she kept the relationship secret with everyone else involved. The very first rule of law is that you don't do anything that even has the POSSIBLY of appearing improper!

Even funnier was when asked about her vacations with the guy, she could not say what continent Belize or the Bahamas was on. Seriously? How does one get out of high school without knowing basic geography? This woman is a DISTRICT ATTORNEY?

Fool, she (and her boyfriend) have already ADMITTED enough to likely get disbarred and possibly far worse. Rumor and innuendo? Please, go stroke yourself but don't waste my time.

Their one witness was a former employee in the DA's office who resigned rather then be fired for incompetence. Her testimony was a joke because she's a fool. Her testimony will be tossed. The rest of their case rests on innuendo & rumors with no facts to back up any of it. The entire exercise is a sideshow dreamed up by Trump's lackey of a defendant to have the entire case thrown out. And of course, being the MAGA fool that you are, you're swallowing the whole thing, whole.

When you said you had "little legal background", you were right. From where, YouTube?

Now go have another shit sandwich. You earned it.

 

[toobfreak]

Now go have another shit sandwich. You earned it.

No, you first. You own the shit store.

 

[Clipper]

No, you first. You own the shit store.

One witness who provided no details, evidence, diddly squat. Rumors, innuendos & heresay are not evidence in a court of law. That's all ya got, pal.

But you do have-

 

[toobfreak]

One witness who provided no details

Poor Fanni is her own evidence. It would be a huge stain on the courts of Georgia now if this
criminal hackneyed affirmative action dime store slut were allowed to proceed with the case unfettered.

Another Trump "GOTCHA" in shambles.

 

[Clipper]

Poor Fanni is her own evidence. It would be a huge stain on the courts of Georgia now if this
criminal hackneyed affirmative action dime store slut were allowed to proceed with the case unfettered.

Another Trump "GOTCHA" in shambles.

Willis is doing something right as evidenced by your rants as you launch into orbit.

THEY HAVE NOTHING.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!