First Clarence Thomas and now...
First Clarence Thomas and now...
...Fani Willis.
Turns out Fani Willis hired her boyfriend who is a private attorney who has no experience prosecuting a case like Trump's.
Paid him just under $700,000 and benefited personally from the arrangement.
I wonder how those who have crucified Thomas for much less will react to this. I also wonder how MSNBC and Thom Hartmann and the other democratic news outlets will ignore the case. I am guessing they will mention it once and move on.
https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-f ... titutional.
Turns out Fani Willis hired her boyfriend who is a private attorney who has no experience prosecuting a case like Trump's.
Paid him just under $700,000 and benefited personally from the arrangement.
I wonder how those who have crucified Thomas for much less will react to this. I also wonder how MSNBC and Thom Hartmann and the other democratic news outlets will ignore the case. I am guessing they will mention it once and move on.
https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-f ... titutional.
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
Re: First Clarence Thomas and now...
First, do you have any PROOF that this really happened? And the whole thing is a stretch.Glennfs wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 5:56 am ...Fani Willis.
Turns out Fani Willis hired her boyfriend who is a private attorney who has no experience prosecuting a case like Trump's.
Paid him just under $700,000 and benefited personally from the arrangement.
I wonder how those who have crucified Thomas for much less will react to this. I also wonder how MSNBC and Thom Hartmann and the other democratic news outlets will ignore the case. I am guessing they will mention it once and move on.
https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-f ... titutional.
Most people will probably ignore it since it's just another Trumpian attempt to muddy the waters, and you'll believe anything. You don't require any proof at all, do you? You're a dupe.
If this was actually true, there would have been evidence and witnesses introduced in the filing. There wasn't.
This is just one more of a long list of lies Trump has told about Willis - and you believe them all, you dupe.
Re: First Clarence Thomas and now...
So the Atlanta Journal Constitution isn't a credible source.
Do you realize how partisan you are? Mother Jones credible ACJ not credible.
You obviously did not read the article.
Do you realize how partisan you are? Mother Jones credible ACJ not credible.
You obviously did not read the article.
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
Re: First Clarence Thomas and now...
I do read it. It is a story about a filing. The filing has assertions but no proof. There are no witnesses or evidence in the filing, and normally there would be.
Re: First Clarence Thomas and now...
It is concerning if true, though it's a scenario unlikely to bring into question her prosecutorial decisions, and that's an important distinction, isn't it? If one would like to make a pitch to equate the two, by all means, make it. Which is more likely to influence a judgment? Gifts to the judge or hiring a possibly unqualified attorney? I mean, hell, Donald hires unqualified attorneys all the time, and they only manage to hurt him.
It does sound like it's just an accusation though, and little doubt that some would seek to target her and discredit her.
A DA hiring someone and then paying them $700,000 seems rather far-fetched.
Still, if we do not worry about a top judicial official's transgression, why should we worry about anyone else's? Everything should be fair game for anyone, shouldn't it?
It does sound like it's just an accusation though, and little doubt that some would seek to target her and discredit her.
A DA hiring someone and then paying them $700,000 seems rather far-fetched.
Still, if we do not worry about a top judicial official's transgression, why should we worry about anyone else's? Everything should be fair game for anyone, shouldn't it?
Re: First Clarence Thomas and now...
Paying her boyfriend or simply a friend close to 700k who had never prosected a felony case is something definitely that stinks of corruption.Toonces wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 6:25 pm It is concerning if true, though it's a scenario unlikely to bring into question her prosecutorial decisions, and that's an important distinction, isn't it? If one would like to make a pitch to equate the two, by all means, make it. Which is more likely to influence a judgment? Gifts to the judge or hiring a possibly unqualified attorney? I mean, hell, Donald hires unqualified attorneys all the time, and they only manage to hurt him.
It does sound like it's just an accusation though, and little doubt that some would seek to target her and discredit her.
A DA hiring someone and then paying them $700,000 seems rather far-fetched.
Still, if we do not worry about a top judicial official's transgression, why should we worry about anyone else's? Everything should be fair game for anyone, shouldn't it?
If it's a republican
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
Re: First Clarence Thomas and now...
Of course since it is a democrat especially a liberal African American female democrat never influenced your opinion.
If this were a republican you would be outraged
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
Re: First Clarence Thomas and now...
Well, you’ll be happy to know that Majorie Taylor Green has put in a felony criminal referral. She’s on YOUR side!
Trying to figure out exactly what the crime would be even if true. Adults having an affair. I mean, the lawyer is a professional getting paid for his work - who cares how he spends it?
I think you’re grasping for straws. It’ll likely be a nothing burger but you’ll act like they murdered someone.
Re: First Clarence Thomas and now...
So is the Atlanta Journal Constitution a credible source?gounion wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 6:48 pm Well, you’ll be happy to know that Majorie Taylor Green has put in a felony criminal referral. She’s on YOUR side!
Trying to figure out exactly what the crime would be even if true. Adults having an affair. I mean, the lawyer is a professional getting paid for his work - who cares how he spends it?
I think you’re grasping for straws. It’ll likely be a nothing burger but you’ll act like they murdered someone.
Hey gou is the Atlanta Journal Constitution a credible source
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
Re: First Clarence Thomas and now...
Hey GoU is the Atlanta Journal Constitution a credible source.
Come on big guy answer the question or never ask another one
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
Re: First Clarence Thomas and now...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton ... ging-trump
This is what happens when a county prosecutor steps out of their lane.
Willis is only prosecuting Trump for personal gain. No I didn't say Trump is innocent GoU.
She has hired a personal friend. Paid him close to a million of tax payers money. Benefited personally from the money. Now we learn that the Biden WH is involved.
All for a prosecution that was and is unnecessary because the federal government is investigating Trump as they should.
This is what happens when a county prosecutor steps out of their lane.
Willis is only prosecuting Trump for personal gain. No I didn't say Trump is innocent GoU.
She has hired a personal friend. Paid him close to a million of tax payers money. Benefited personally from the money. Now we learn that the Biden WH is involved.
All for a prosecution that was and is unnecessary because the federal government is investigating Trump as they should.
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
Re: First Clarence Thomas and now...
If you hired a friend to do some work on your truck, and paid him a bunch of money, then he took you out to eat, is that illegal?Glennfs wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 6:36 pm https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton ... ging-trump
This is what happens when a county prosecutor steps out of their lane.
Willis is only prosecuting Trump for personal gain. No I didn't say Trump is innocent GoU.
She has hired a personal friend. Paid him close to a million of tax payers money. Benefited personally from the money. Now we learn that the Biden WH is involved.
All for a prosecution that was and is unnecessary because the federal government is investigating Trump as they should.
I’m trying to figure out, even if this is true, what LAW is broken.
And Trump and gang broke Georgia law. It’s her JOB to go after lawbreakers. Look what Trump and Rudy did to the two poll workers.
Re: First Clarence Thomas and now...
Sure that is exactly the same.gounion wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 9:33 am If you hired a friend to do some work on your truck, and paid him a bunch of money, then he took you out to eat, is that illegal?
I’m trying to figure out, even if this is true, what LAW is broken.
And Trump and gang broke Georgia law. It’s her JOB to go after lawbreakers. Look what Trump and Rudy did to the two poll workers.
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
Re: First Clarence Thomas and now...
Of course you are no matter who is reporting you will never believe it because it is about
Liberal
Democrats
Females
Minorities
Making you scared shitless to answer. We do know that Fani hired a lawyer with no experience that alone is sketchy.
We now know that the unqualified lawyer she hired had two meetings with the Biden Whitehouse about the case. That might be sketchy.
We also know that Fani and the unqualified lawyer were close personal friends and that Fani personally benefited from the 675 000+ she paid him in taxpayer funds. Which you are claiming isn't yet proven because it is about Democrats.
I would think you would have learned your lesson from the laptop you claimed was a Russian plant.
But then you never believe anything about Democrats especially liberals.
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
Re: First Clarence Thomas and now...
No, we don’t know ANYTHING. These are all allegations with NO evidence provided. Just like the pizza place basement.Glennfs wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 6:57 pm Of course you are no matter who is reporting you will never believe it because it is about
Liberal
Democrats
Females
Minorities
Making you scared shitless to answer. We do know that Fani hired a lawyer with no experience that alone is sketchy.
We now know that the unqualified lawyer she hired had two meetings with the Biden Whitehouse about the case. That might be sketchy.
We also know that Fani and the unqualified lawyer were close personal friends and that Fani personally benefited from the 675 000+ she paid him in taxpayer funds. Which you are claiming isn't yet proven because it is about Democrats.
I would think you would have learned your lesson from the laptop you claimed was a Russian plant.
But then you never believe anything about Democrats especially liberals.
I’ll wait to see if there’s any evidence at all.
But this is the MAGA Trumpers who have lied over and over and over in filings.
But then, you always believe whatever Trump says, don’t you?
Re: First Clarence Thomas and now...
Bullshit you are scared shitlessgounion wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 6:59 pm No, we don’t know ANYTHING. These are all allegations with NO evidence provided. Just like the pizza place basement.
I’ll wait to see if there’s any evidence at all.
But this is the MAGA Trumpers who have lied over and over and over in filings.
But then, you always believe whatever Trump says, don’t you?
We do know Fani hired an unqualified lawyer
We do know heceas paid 675,000 in taxpayer funds
We do know he met twice with the Biden Whitehouse about the case.we do know you are scared shitless to give an opinion. Just like you won't give an answer on state income tax rates
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
Re: First Clarence Thomas and now...
No. First, I’m not scared at all.Glennfs wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 7:10 pm Bullshit you are scared shitless
We do know Fani hired an unqualified lawyer
We do know heceas paid 675,000 in taxpayer funds
We do know he met twice with the Biden Whitehouse about the case.we do know you are scared shitless to give an opinion. Just like you won't give an answer on state income tax rates
Second, we don’t know ANY of the things you’ve outlined. These are in a Trump associate indicted in the same case as Trump in Georgia. The filing is full of allegations, but doesn’t offer one scintilla of evidence.
But you don’t care, she’s black and she is against Dear Leader, so there’s NOTHING about her that you won’t believe.
Re: First Clarence Thomas and now...
No you don't have the balls to give a straight answer what a punk.gounion wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 7:23 pm No. First, I’m not scared at all.
Second, we don’t know ANY of the things you’ve outlined. These are in a Trump associate indicted in the same case as Trump in Georgia. The filing is full of allegations, but doesn’t offer one scintilla of evidence.
But you don’t care, she’s black and she is against Dear Leader, so there’s NOTHING about her that you won’t believe.
I hope you no longer are going to ask anyone to answer anymore questions from you.
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
Re: First Clarence Thomas and now...
I listed the known facts and you ignored them because they expose a corrupt democrat
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
Re: First Clarence Thomas and now...
No, those ARE NOT FACTS. They are assertions, as no evidence at all has been presented. All this is coming from the Trump camp, but then, you always believe Dear Leader, don't you?
We'll see what the facts turn out to be.
Re: First Clarence Thomas and now...
No evidence has been presented and these are accusations made by someone with a vested interest in trying to discredit Willis. Instead of defending their actions, they're trying to get the case thrown out.
If it were true, I don't see any reason for the case to be thrown out anyway. If someone wants to make the case that this, somehow, gave the prosecution an unfair and illegal advantage then, by all means, make it. My thought would be that having someone "unqualified" on the prosecution would be detrimental to the prosecution. I mean, what purpose would there be in bribing someone who's supposed to be biased?
Make the case that the only reason Willis brought the case is so she could pay this guy lots of money? That's just dumb. Perhaps she paid the grand jury for their verdict too? As Joe Biden would say, "C'mon, man".
If it were true, I don't see any reason for the case to be thrown out anyway. If someone wants to make the case that this, somehow, gave the prosecution an unfair and illegal advantage then, by all means, make it. My thought would be that having someone "unqualified" on the prosecution would be detrimental to the prosecution. I mean, what purpose would there be in bribing someone who's supposed to be biased?
Make the case that the only reason Willis brought the case is so she could pay this guy lots of money? That's just dumb. Perhaps she paid the grand jury for their verdict too? As Joe Biden would say, "C'mon, man".
Re: First Clarence Thomas and now...
Toonces wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 9:32 am No evidence has been presented and these are accusations made by someone with a vested interest in trying to discredit Willis. Instead of defending their actions, they're trying to get the case thrown out.
If it were true, I don't see any reason for the case to be thrown out anyway. If someone wants to make the case that this, somehow, gave the prosecution an unfair and illegal advantage then, by all means, make it. My thought would be that having someone "unqualified" on the prosecution would be detrimental to the prosecution. I mean, what purpose would there be in bribing someone who's supposed to be biased?
Make the case that the only reason Willis brought the case is so she could pay this guy lots of money? That's just dumb. Perhaps she paid the grand jury for their verdict too? As Joe Biden would say, "C'mon, man".
If Willis hired and paid her boyfriend who was not qualified 674,000 and then personally benefited from that hiring she would certainly be guilty of corruption.
I don't know if he consulting with the Biden WH about the case is proper or not. But, we do know he did so at least twice.
I personally believe three things
First this is what happens when a county prosecutor steps out of their lane and prosecutes a case that they didn't need to and aren't qualified to prosecute Because the federal government is going after Trump for federal crimes.
Second this exposes Fani Willis as being corrupt and as I have said all along only going after Trump for personal gain.
Three if it were a republican prosecutor doing the same thing you, GoU and ever liberal in the USA would have a much different opinion.
Sidebar No GoU this is not a defense of Trump or a claim he is innocent.
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
Re: First Clarence Thomas and now...
It's ALWAYS a defense of Trump. You say he shouldn't be prosecuted for crimes he committed in Georgia. You don't care what he did to Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, do you?
And the lawyer that was hired WAS a lawyer. So how can he not be qualified?
Again, this is all assertions with zero evidence. It's what Trump does. But you always believe him, don't you?
We'll see what actual proof there is.
And the lawyer that was hired WAS a lawyer. So how can he not be qualified?
Again, this is all assertions with zero evidence. It's what Trump does. But you always believe him, don't you?
We'll see what actual proof there is.