Fani Willis served subpoena by the U.S. Marshals Service

a reply to: Vermilion

We have a SCOTUS who never actually practiced law, was never a judge, never tried a case and can only note a total of 3 cases ever even worked on by the time they were 48. It appears that experience does not mean you're not suitable for certain positions within the legal field.

a reply to: JinMI

There exists a video of her approaching the witness' box.

I saw that, but now I can't find it anymore. But the dress isn't on backwards. Frogs453 proved that.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It doesn't look they were able to prove that she and/or Wade financially profited from the case.




Wade (and firm) has been paid over $650,000.00 so far. Paid by Fulton County. Plenty of profit. 😃

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Vermilion

We have a SCOTUS who never actually practiced law, was never a judge, never tried a case and can only note a total of 3 cases ever even worked on by the time they were 48. It appears that experience does not mean you're not suitable for certain positions within the legal field.

What the Devil does that have to do with Fani, Wade, or even the Judge (who worked under Fani) in the conflict case? 😃

Have you thought about the actual facts of the Fani and Wade conflicts? 😃

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Vermilion

We have a SCOTUS who never actually practiced law, was never a judge, never tried a case and can only note a total of 3 cases ever even worked on by the time they were 48. It appears that experience does not mean you're not suitable for certain positions within the legal field.

Is that the one who can’t even tell us what a woman is?

a reply to: WingDingLuey

My reply was to the post of Vermillion. Regarding experience. I simply noted with that example as it appears experience is not necessary for positions within the legal field.

a reply to: Vermilion

Nah, she has tons of experience in court and was a judge.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Vermilion

Nah, she has tons of experience in court and was a judge.

So she was confirmed by the senate just like the rest of the justices?

Was Wade confirmed for the position by anybody but Fanny?
Was he supposed to be?

a reply to: WingDingLuey

Let me fix that. I should have posted;

It doesn't look they were able to prove that she and/or Wade illegally financially profited from the case.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: WingDingLuey

Let me fix that. I should have posted;

It doesn't look they were able to prove that she and/or Wade illegally financially profited from the case.

Well it’s illegal to lie in court and in court documents.
Ethical and financial misconduct may or may not be illegal but they will be kicked and an investigation will sort it out.

a reply to: Vermilion

We'll see. But my money is on Willis and Wade both staying on the case.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I think neither of them being able to account for the monies spent/paid back on those trips is gonna be crucial.

Not to mention their own witnesses simply do not look credible.


Guess it will fall upon the judge. And unfortunately, politics will likely play a part.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vermilion

We'll see. But my money is on Willis and Wade both staying on the case.

Anything’s possible these days considering the recent court clown shows.
This is just a sideshow anyway.
I doubt it will affect the Trump case.
All their lawyers stink so replacing them is a non issue.
Outing more corrupt Soros lawyers is always a good thing. Unless you’re a Soros cheerleader.

a reply to: JinMI

I think neither of them being able to account for the monies spent/paid back on those trips is gonna be crucial.

I would think so too, but the state doesn't seem to be pursuing it. I would think Willis' bank statements, showing ATM withdrawals, or some kind of accounting for where the cash on hand came from, would be required, but apparently nobody's asking for it.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I mean, anything. Even something resembling an accounting from Wade or Willis.


The bar for them is really low.

I am really surprised this conversation is still going on.
She is an obvious perjurer.

She has lied under oath on several occasions.

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: WingDingLuey

Let me fix that. I should have posted;

It doesn't look they were able to prove that she and/or Wade illegally financially profited from the case.

Well it’s illegal to lie in court and in court documents.
Ethical and financial misconduct may or may not be illegal but they will be kicked and an investigation will sort it out.

Indeed. Filing false documents in court is criminal, says: twitter.com...

a reply to: RazorV66

Just the FACT that She is being Investigated and Appearing in a Court Case should Disqualify Her from Mr. Trumps Case . She is Officially " Tainted " .

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I mean, anything. Even something resembling an accounting from Wade or Willis.


The bar for them is really low.

At this point is when all pro-Trump members of Congress should begin demanding that Willis/Wade be removed from the Trump case.

It's important to keep in mind that Wade and Willis can't simply be replaced, because they conspired (illegally?) with the BIDEN DOJ to fabricate charges against Donald Trump and his merry men/women.

I don't think there are many unethical anti-Trump prosecutors in Georgia who can fill in for these two criminals. GA is not as liberal as NY or DC.