She didn't. Just to clarify, I posted prior to the resumption of the hearing this morning and before it was announced that she wouldn't be testifying.
and you have to remember there are a LOT of powerful pub people in Georgia that are also part of this case that would stand to benefit if it all just went away
For two reasons. Primarily to corroborate her explanation for why she kept and carried relatively large sums of cash and secondarily to establish although by no means conclusively that she didn't have a relationship with Nathan Wade prior to 2023 (he testified that although he lived in her house he never met Wade prior to 2023 other than possibly one time incidentally.
So a man was asked the same questions? Funny you said that would never happen, seems like your bias is showing a bit here.
This. And then you add that it is the TRUMP CASE on top of it. The buffoonery must be salivating to Bidenites.
If there is an HR policy in the DA office about relationships with subordinates, etc, it's going to be more than ill-advised. She will undoubtedly be removed from the case. The only question is will she keep her job period.
I’m not so sure of that. To remove her from the case means her whole office gets removed - no other prosecutor in the office can take the case. That would be monumental. Apparently Ga law allows for even a husband and wife to oppose one another as attorneys without conflict of interest. It’s a bad look but I don’t think she gets removed- hopefully we will know soon.
We'll just disagree then. That is not how an attorney would typically testify to a judge who was serving as the trier of fact. All of the additional facts/circumstances/explanations she offered were meant for a different audience, she's bright and experienced enough to know the judge didn't need to hear those things.
I have certainly seen people get heavily disciplined for this kind of behavior, but I have also seen it allowed to slide if there was no harassment involved. Typically, these kinds of relationships are discouraged, but not outlawed. In any case, I think it should have been fully disclosed to HR, and if it wasn’t, that’s not a good thing.
She was being questioned by counsel for the defendants on direct, but representatives of her office had the right to cross-examine her. They opted not to.
Oh that’s good! Bring in the parent because every daughter lets them know every sexual encounter they have ever had and never once would the daughter try to hide it from her daddy. Brilliant to bring him in for that line of testimony! Do you really want to state again that you think that is anything more than worthless testimony? The brown goddess clearly gets around and knows how to hide it from daddy. Before you get triggered brown is a perceived tone reference exactly the same as orange is a perceived tone reference. It has nothing to do with anything else!
Horribly flawed analysis coupled with a ridiculous attempt to justify a racial comment. Otherwise, solid post.
You're confusing her with another even more prominent person of color, the orange guy who does present himself as a god.
