• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

About the GA and Fani

Robin Yeartie testified she first met Willis in college in 1990 or 1991, but their friendship soured after she left the DA's office.

She admitted to leaving the DA's office under unfavorable circumstances, ending their friendship on a bad note.
She was offered the option of resigning or being fired. However I think that is according to County HR records, not testimony.
 
What conflict? Conflict with whom? No one will answer this very basic question, at least as to Trump's motion.
And "stupid shit" may be the basis to be fired by your employer. It is not the basis for the other side to seek disqualification.
Committing perjury is a disqualifer. Willis is a dumb person.
 
Willis former friend, disgruntled ex employee with not near at stake what an attorney committing perjury has at stake.
You think she wanted to testify? Committing perjury is a big deal.
 
You think she wanted to testify? Committing perjury is a big deal.
She was subpoenaed. However if we are talking perjury and we are, I would judge a disgruntled ex-employee with no specifics as more capable of it than two attorneys for whom perjury costs them their law licenses.

The ex-employee, ex-friend might be just that kind. Her testimony was so lacking in specifics that she can walk out of a perjury charge pretty easily

Again, neither the defense team that called her or the state team held her to the normal standard of specifics that quality attorneys would have and should have demanded.
 
She was subpoenaed. However if we are talking perjury and we are, I would judge a disgruntled ex-employee with no specifics as more capable of it than two attorneys for whom perjury costs them their law licenses.
Have you watched this at all? They are desperate and can’t provide anything of substance to refute what they did. It is so dumb.
 
Have you watched this at all? They are desperate and can’t provide anything of substance to refute what they did. It is so dumb.
I have watched all of it. Again I will remind you as I have reminded others that the burden of proof is on the Trump defense team. It is not on Willis or Wade. So the Trump defense team is going to have to provide some indisputable evidence that a conflict of interest existed and they have not gotten anywhere near that yet.

Suspicion won't do it. Speculation won't do it. Conjecture won't do it. Indisputable evidence is the only thing that will do it in the state of Georgia.

May I also remind all of us that this is not a trial. Neither Willis nor Wade are on trial.
 
Last edited:
One thing is crystal clear: Willis is clean as a whistle and is an exemplary democrat. In fact, the untarnished record of democrats remains and no one can ever provide any proof that any democrat ever did anything illegal. Bravo democrats!
 
One thing is crystal clear: Willis is clean as a whistle and is an exemplary democrat. In fact, the untarnished record of democrats remains and no one can ever provide any proof that any democrat ever did anything illegal. Bravo democrats!
Cute but not more than cute.
 
I have watched all of it. Again I will remind you as I have reminded others that the burden of proof is on the Trump defense team. It is not on Willis or Wade. So the Trump defense team is going to have to provide some indisputable evidence that a conflict of interest existed and they have not gotten anywhere near that yet.

Suspicion won't do it. Speculation won't do it. Conjecture won't do it. Indisputable evidence is the only thing that will do it in the state of Georgia.

May I also remind all of us that this is not a trial. Neither Willis nor Wade are on trial.
Explain why Willis would take the steps to pay her share for the vacation expenses but didn’t document them? She is dumb
 
Explain why Willis would take the steps to pay her share for the vacation expenses but didn’t document them? She is dumb

Is she legally required to document them?

Being dumb isn't a crime.
 
Is she legally required to document them?

Being dumb isn't a crime.
If she swore to it in an affidavit, yes, but answer the question if one wants to pay to make sure it is legit, why would one not document it?
 
Is she legally required to document them?

Being dumb isn't a crime.
Particularly with regard to personal relationships and if you don't think personal relationships across the legal community are common.....think again.

They often occur even where a clear conflict of interest might result, such as defense attorneys and prosecutors.

People are people. Why we expect them to be something other than people is beyond me.
 
If she swore to it in an affidavit, yes, but answer the question if one wants to pay to make sure it is legit, why would one not document it?

So, the answer is actually "no". GA law doesn't require her to document the payments in your scenario.

I would have documented it. I won't guess as to what other people might do or why they might do those things.
 
If she swore to it in an affidavit, yes, but answer the question if one wants to pay to make sure it is legit, why would one not document it?
What??? Are you thinking that people are considering that they should cover that base on their way to holiday??? Not the people I know.

As I offered earlier, show me the financial statement form that has a line in it "Holiday expenses or vacation expenses".
 
Particularly with regard to personal relationships and if you don't think personal relationships across the legal community are common.....think again.

They often occur even where a clear conflict of interest might result, such as defense attorneys and prosecutors.

People are people. Why we expect better to be something other than people is beyond me.


Exactly. Romantic relationships within government offices, federal, state and local, are exceedingly common.
 
The defense team is all over the map.

Have you guys got a direct indisputable conflict of interest to show us or do you not?
 
So, the answer is actually "no". GA law doesn't require her to document the payments in your scenario.

I would have documented it. I won't guess as to what other people might do or why they might do those things.
She is required to disclose gifts which exceed an aggregate amount of $100 or more. Her excuse for not disclosing at least $10,000 in gifts from Wade is that she reimbursed him in cash. If she can’t prove that - and both she and Wade testified they couldn’t - then she’s toast.
 
She is required to disclose gifts which exceed an aggregate amount of $100 or more. Her excuse for not disclosing at least $10,000 in gifts from Wade is that she reimbursed him in cash. If she can’t prove that - and both she and Wade testified they couldn’t - then she’s toast.


We'll see.
 
Committing perjury is a disqualifer. Willis is a dumb person.
Disqualifier for what?
I've yet to understand upon what basis Trump's team can seek to have her disqualified.

Now, if the citizens of Georgia, or her own department moved to disqualify her, I would understand. They have a dog in the fight and if her ability to prosecute Trump was hindered due to her relationship, I get it.

But this is team Trump. The very person she is prosecuting. He, in theory, would be giddy if her ability to prosecute was hindered.
 
She is required to disclose gifts which exceed an aggregate amount of $100 or more. Her excuse for not disclosing at least $10,000 in gifts from Wade is that she reimbursed him in cash. If she can’t prove that - and both she and Wade testified they couldn’t - then she’s toast.
Sorry....the Trump defense team has to prove/disprove it. Willis only has to claim it.
 
Sorry....the Trump defense team has to prove/disprove it. Willis only has to claim it.
Wrong. That’s what Willis has to prove to the county now that everyone knows she accepted at least $10,000 in gifts and didn’t disclose it.
 
Wrong. That’s what Willis has to prove to the county now that everyone knows she accepted at least $10,000 in gifts and didn’t disclose it.
No she doesn't. Don't you get it. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE TRUMP DEFENSE TEAM.

Also DA's are elected in Georgia. The State may decide to open a separate investigation after this hearing and it may not and the result of that might boost her out of her job.....like two years from now, if at all.

So far, no indisputable evidence has been offered regarding a conflict of interest.

I would also note that the judge is getting more and more impatient with the Trump defense team because they are about 12 hours in now and have not gotten anywhere near the evidence needed to bounce Willis out of this case.
 
No she doesn't. Don't you get it. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE TRUMP DEFENSE TEAM.

Also DA's are elected in Georgia. The State may decide to open a separate investigation after this hearing and it may not and the result of that might boost her out of her job.....like two years from now, if at all.

A state-level investigation was the correct venue for this claim in the first place.
 
No she doesn't. Don't you get it. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE TRUMP DEFENSE TEAM.

Also DA's are elected in Georgia. The State may decide to open a separate investigation after this hearing and it may not and the result of that might boost her out of her job.....like two years from now, if at all.
She's on Team Establishment and doesn't have a damned thing to worry about. She's going to get very rich from all this and in short time will be appointed to the Supreme Court.
 
Back
Top Bottom