Willis earns over 200K a year. I'm sure she can afford things. Would this be the same accusation if the genders were reversed? Of course, it wouldn't. And not just here.
Wade wasn't hired to be a RICO expert, they have a RICO expert for that. He is coordinating the case. or administrating it if you will. If you want to argue that he is unqualified to do that, have at it, but you'll need receipts. He was the third individual Willis approached about the case, the first two turned it down.
The relationship between Willis and Wade does not unduly influence the case, as they both have the same objective and a Grand Jury concluded that crimes were committed.
I don't know what it is about this case that has some people worked up about it. They attempted to defraud millions of voters. If "election integrity" has any meaning, you should be supporting this case to go forward. I mean, there has been the argument that removing the Electoral College would give people in "those" states oversized influence over elections (it wouldn't, states don't vote, people do). Yet argue AGAINST Georgia voters having ANY say.
It's just weird. Can someone make it make sense? Cuz if, like, Wyoming deserves to be "heard" why shouldn't voters in Georgia have that same right? If voters in Colorado deserve to be able to select who they want for president, why shouldn't voters in Georgia have that same right? And to be sure, they were trying to take that right away from Georgia.
If we try someone for multiple murders, why shouldn't they have to answer for each person? If they're going to spend the rest of their life in jail, do we say to the families of the other victims "You know, he's already in jail, we're just going to let this one go".
I mean, this assumes that Donald will be convicted in the other cases. We don't know that. We can't assume that. That's not how the justice system works, is it? We charge people when they commit crimes. Should we be letting them go because they might be convicted elsewhere of a different crime?
I mean, if this was <your state>, would you not be upset if they tried to simply cancel your vote? Would it be any different than saying "You can't vote. We're not allowing you to vote. Only people voting for X are allowed to vote" when you went to a poll? Who here is going to say "OK, seems fair"? I know I wouldn't be happy with that. Convince me that you'd accept that and go home. Even if they might convict him elsewhere.
[END BABBLE]