Their story is beyond ludicrous, totally implausible, and you’re the only person who seems to be buying it.
Nah, this is a Trump move - "I don't have any doubt about it, and neither do you" is not a valid argument. They had a relationship. The dispute is when it became romantic. Provide proof for your accusation. You know another accusation I could make? That Mike Roman's lawyers should resign from the case and drop their client, because they're engaged in obstruction and defamation. I can say that, and the prosecution could allege that - guess what? They'll have to prove it.
There's no proof of a romantic relationship outside of circumstantial evidence, which they've testified about. So prove your case, prove they're lying.
Nevermind the fact they haven't proven how this prejudices the case.
And while I'm privy to using the "nobody is buying it" argument from time to time myself, how many people believe something is no measurement of its validity.
There’s a number of people who claim the relationship started well before they claimed now. The fact Wades friend/lawyer/ex-biz partner seemed more than happy to confirm this fact in text messages but developed amnesia as soon as he hit the stand after a momentous effort to declare everything he’s ever known about Wade as attorney client privilege. It’s incredibly obvious what they are trying to do, which is be deceptive.
Again, the standard in play is not beyond a reasonable doubt, its preponderance of the evidence. And I have yet to see these two provide anything to support the outlandish tales they’ve spun. How likely is it that someone stockpiles cash but can’t present a banking statement, ATM receipt, bill of sale- anything?
We've already addressed this. The bar is not "beyond a reasonable doubt", but it's also not as low as you think it is, which is circumstantial evidence that proves nothing adequately. The bar is not "this could possibly be true, so therefore we must take action".
As I said before, the fact these two had a relationship has little material impact on the Trump cases. Had they just admitted they had been dating, Wade might have been booted, Willis reprimanded, and that in would be the end of it.
They did admit they had a relationship, first platonic and then romantic. They didn't admit to this defendant's story, two different things.
If the defense can't prove their accusations, this will have no material impact on the cases AND Wade won't be booted AND Willis won't be reprimanded. Then what? The case can move forward and the Trumpers can say this is all political and the case is in question, as if that won't be the exact same argument made in every case anyways. Which of Trump's cases and trials will they say "Yeah, that was fair, I was wrong, he deserved to be prosecuted"?
The problem is by fighting likely reality tooth and nail for a reason do not understand is that it has brought so much attention to themselves and highlighted what could be considered criminal actions (perjury, lying and on a court. What was originally one lie has now created many more.
More fan fiction. You really are running with this narrative as if its already proven fact.
Hiring your significant other for a sweet gig he/she has no experience in (Wade has no experience with RICO cases), paying them well above their actually qualified co-workers in the context of a government agency is a quintessential example of corruption.
If we ignore that, Given Willis is an officer of a court and Wade is a contractor for the court, Willis is mandated to account for any gifts valued over $100. Willis is a DA, she knows this. Willis and Wade can produce zero evidence she ever repaid Wade for these vacations. Therefore what are we to assume other than Willis did not repay the money. That is a form of corruption itself and not reporting these transactions is illegal.
I doesn’t matter that you believe their story based on what seems to be implicit trust. What matters is that the public overwhelming now sees the prosecution as unethical. I don’t know anyone IRL who doesn’t think Willis and Wade’s performance has been anything less than a laughing stock.
"MAGA World" is
part of the public, not "the public". Many in the public also think this is the same old BS stalling tactics by a bunch of corrupt white collar criminals who are being treated with kid gloves by the courts, even as others indirectly affiliated with these charges get arrested, go to jail, stand trial, get convicted, serve sentences and in some cases are already out. Meanwhile, we're still hand-wringing on whether or not there is a prosecutor or judge on this great earth with the untarnished reputation required to put the great messiah Trump on trial.
It’s the optics that’s the problem. Frankly, the bad optics is no different than the two being found 100% guilty. You can be sure Trumps defense will then take every single opportunity to call into question the character and ethics of the prosecutor and potentially concoct a narrative that creates pandemonium. J6 is a similar story except it was the integrity of the voting system that was questioned and exploited.
I do agree though the defense team seems to have bumbled their way through this. The financial scheme of Willis overpaying Wade just to buy vacations is convoluted and likely not legitimate. The fact she hired him presumably as a lover despite lacking the professional expertise and overpaying him speaks for itself. As does the appearance of accepting high value gifts from a contractor- even if he is your lover. There’s no need to connect these two facets into a convoluted financial fraud scheme.
The ship has sailed with these two being seen as being credible representatives of the legal system. Trump should be prosecuted here, but we can’t have people doing it who have accumulated such baggage.
Even if the Judge at a minimum keeps Willis on the case, this is far from over. There’s all sorts of investigations known and likely happening given what has been uncovered. This will only distract from Trump’s case and could even derail it further.
Eh, I don't care what Trumpers think of these two. If Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley were trying Trump, you'd be on here making the same arguments based on some other non-scandal.
This is a guy who was hired as part of a team, it's not like she needed a doctor and hired a janitor. Maybe he brings a skill she needs to the team, as she mentioned, he wasn't even her first choice. She discussed how she got around to hiring him. Did you listen to the testimony, or are you reading Fox excerpts? I actually watched the hearings. I'll grant you its suspect, but there's no evidence they're lying - it's not an unfathomable story that two professional adults have a relationship before it becomes romantic. Did they meet and start sleeping together - which Willis objected to - or were they friends and colleagues, got on the case together and then it went further? If they're lying and risking everything over non-criminal behavior, then prove it.
Your claims of corruption should be even easier to prove.
My friend, this attitude is part of the reason Trump keeps evading accountability. If you didn't have a problem with Willis and Wade, we'd go down the line until we ended up finding out the building's plumber once donated to a democrat mayor, and thus the entire integrity of the court is in question. When does this horeshit end?
www.businessinsider.com
