Take A Load Off Fani

[icanhelp1]

Yes, he was convicted of a crime.

What you really should have asked is; Do you consider OJ to be a Murderer. See how that works, learn from it,and maybe you won't look so dumb.

Do you know the difference between a criminal trial and tort or civil suit?

He was found responsible in a civil suit for a wrongful death.

 

[Rotadom]

He attends the Academy for Faux Facts over at 1174 Zumi St.

Hot take from someone who has the most failed threads in history due to non-factual facts.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

He attends the Academy for Faux Facts over at 1174 Zumi St.

Hey, how's that Arizona recount thread of yours coming around?

Slam dunk, huh?

 

[Rotadom]

Hey, how's that Arizona recount thread of yours coming around?

Slam dunk, huh?

It's not like this thread worked out very well for him either.

 

[dmallord]

If you don't know what a word means, I suggest you use a dictionary FIRST before you open your mouth. That way you don't look like an ignorant asshole when you stuff it full of well used shoe leather.

Poor fellow. I double-checked my memory by looking up your 'allegory' statement BEFORE I posted. In your previous claim, you said you used an allegory; by its definition, your reference did not apply to anything you said.

What you have scribbled here is meaningless and pejorative. The longer you continue to belittle my corrections of your statements, the more it makes you look like the reference to an asshole.

 

[Lazaran]

Do you know the difference between a criminal trial and tort or civil suit?

He was found responsible in a civil suit for a wrongful death.

^
(Quoted for posterity and stupidity)

ineedhelp1 seems to think OJ never served time in prison for a criminal conviction.



ineedhelp1

 

[dmallord]

Do you know the difference between a criminal trial and tort or civil suit?

He was found responsible in a civil suit for a wrongful death.

OJ Simpson has nothing to do with this thread. Park the thought.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Do you know the difference between a criminal trial and tort or civil suit?

He was found responsible in a civil suit for a wrongful death.

Fuck you're an idiot, he was convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping and sentenced to 9 years for trying to steal back his items in Las Vegas...That is criminal you ignoramus.

Now you've fucked up two times, want to go for three???

 

[icanhelp1]

Fuck you're an idiot, he was convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping and sentenced to 9 years for trying to steal back his items in Las Vegas...That is criminal you ignoramus.

Now you've fucked up two times, want to go for three???

I was referring to the murder case where he was guilty as sin but was not convicted. You mentioned murder and I responded to that! I’m very well aware of OJ’s criminal history.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Are you all out of aces? Left with hyperbole and dumfuckedness as responses? Whatever do you mean by allegory? Calling someone a criminal and being questioned about your legal stance that no one is guilty until tried and convicted isn't in any way, shape, or form an 'allegory,' nor did Judge McAfee at any point call, name, label, or accuse or decide Willis was a criminal.

Own your statement, correct it, and acknowledge you misspoke. Otherwise, as @IrezumiKiss expressed it so succinctly:

Do you consider OJ a criminal?

Yes, he was convicted of a crime.

What you really should have asked is; Do you consider OJ to be a Murderer. See how that works, learn from it,and maybe you won't look so dumb.

Do you know the difference between a criminal trial and tort or civil suit?

He was found responsible in a civil suit for a wrongful death.

Fuck you're an idiot, he was convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping and sentenced to 9 years for trying to steal back his items in Las Vegas...That is criminal you ignoramus.

Now you've fucked up two times, want to go for three???

I was referring to the murder case where he was guilty as sin but was not convicted. You mentioned murder and I responded to that! I’m very well aware of OJ’s criminal history.

Where do you refer to OJ's murder trial, you ask dmallord if he considered OJ a criminal, period. Which he is, and I posted that. Which is why I pointed out you asked the wrong question. You should have asked if he considered OJ a murder, since he is a convicted felon, or in other words, a CRIMINAL.

Now do you see where and how you fucked up, three times and counting to be exact....Thanks for going for it!!

 

[HisArpy]

Poor fellow. I double-checked my memory by looking up your 'allegory' statement BEFORE I posted. In your previous claim, you said you used an allegory; by its definition, your reference did not apply to anything you said.

What you have scribbled here is meaningless and pejorative. The longer you continue to belittle my corrections of your statements, the more it makes you look like the reference to an asshole.

Good luck with that.

 

[HisArpy]

He attends the Academy for Faux Facts over at 1174 Zumi St.

He, like the rest of the usual suspects, is the epitome of loozer. Seriously, he comes here and brags about his net worth but can't understand the simplest financial things. He doesn't understand social dynamics either. Or politics.

 

[Rightguide]

Trumpies fail to recognize that the trial will move ahead regardless of whether Willis is recused.or not.

If you read the Judges ruling you'll see that he impeached himself. He ruled that Fani had lied under oath, He found that Fani had cast “racial aspersions” on a defendant, she had “tremendous lapse in judgement,” that would disappear if she fired Wade. How friggin' ridiculous can it get? He ruled that Fan's “reimbursement practice” involving cold, hard cash on hand at all times, “may be unusual and the lack of any documentary corroboration understandably concerning.” The judge, having once held a fundraiser for Fani ruled the “prosecution is encumbered by an appearance of impropriety,” saying as well, “As long as Wade remains on the case, this unnecessary perception will persist,” as if Fani wasn't as tainted as Wade. The Judge further found, "She further allowed the regular and loose exchange of money between them without any exact or verifiable measure of reconciliation. This lack of a confirmed financial split creates the possibility and appearance that the District Attorney benefited - albeit non-materially - from a contract whose award lay solely within her purview and policing." The Judge continues, "reasonable members of the public could easily be left to wonder whether the financial exchanges have continued resulting in some form of benefit to the District Attorney, or even whether the romantic relationship has resumed." McAfee rules, "an odor of mendacity remains' but the court was not 'under an obligation to ferret out every instance of potential dishonesty from each witness."

So the question remains, how can the judge given the above allow a trial that is "encumbered by an appearance of of impropriety" and an "odor of mendacity" to continue?

 

[Chobham]

I love the "odor of mendacity" quip. An elegant way of calling her a stinking liar.

 

[Rightguide]

I love the "odor of mendacity" quip. An elegant way of calling her a stinking liar.

Yet he allows the trial to continue polluted with such. I hope this can be appealed. The ruling is clearly political. We still have to sort out the fact that fundamental evidence in the case was based on an illegal tape recording, that was illegal in the state of Florida where it originated. Which of course is "fruit of the poisonous tree" and thus inadmissible under the Exclusionary Rule.

 

[ll74]

If you read the Judges ruling you'll see that he impeached himself. He ruled that Fani had lied under oath, He found that Fani had cast “racial aspersions” on a defendant, she had “tremendous lapse in judgement,” that would disappear if she fired Wade. How friggin' ridiculous can it get? He ruled that Fan's “reimbursement practice” involving cold, hard cash on hand at all times, “may be unusual and the lack of any documentary corroboration understandably concerning.” The judge, having once held a fundraiser for Fani ruled the “prosecution is encumbered by an appearance of impropriety,” saying as well, “As long as Wade remains on the case, this unnecessary perception will persist,” as if Fani wasn't as tainted as Wade. The Judge further found, "She further allowed the regular and loose exchange of money between them without any exact or verifiable measure of reconciliation. This lack of a confirmed financial split creates the possibility and appearance that the District Attorney benefited - albeit non-materially - from a contract whose award lay solely within her purview and policing." The Judge continues, "reasonable members of the public could easily be left to wonder whether the financial exchanges have continued resulting in some form of benefit to the District Attorney, or even whether the romantic relationship has resumed." McAfee rules, "an odor of mendacity remains' but the court was not 'under an obligation to ferret out every instance of potential dishonesty from each witness."

So the question remains, how can the judge given the above allow a trial that is "encumbered by an appearance of of impropriety" and an "odor of mendacity" to continue?

Yes, you think that he ruled the wrong way and you think he's incompetent for doing so.

He's a judge and you're not. Maybe you can run for office and change things for the better.

 

[Rightguide]

Yes, you think that he ruled the wrong way and you think he's incompetent for doing so.

He's a judge and you're not. Maybe you can run for office and change things for the better.

He's 34 years old and it's obvious he's politically compromised. Any fair-minded person can see the contradictions in his rulings. You just testified to your lack thereof.

 

[ll74]

He's 34 years old and it's obvious he's politically compromised. Any fair-minded person can see the contradictions in his rulings. You just testified to your lack thereof.

He's not. Any fair minded person can see that his ruling was fair and objective... Any biased person blames the judge.

When it comes down to it, the real goal was to get the case thrown out, which was never part of the case against Willis and never would've happened regardless.

 

[Chobham]

Yet he allows the trial to continue polluted with such. I hope this can be appealed. The ruling is clearly political. We still have to sort out the fact that fundamental evidence in the case was based on an illegal tape recording, that was illegal in the state of Florida where it originated. Which of course is "fruit of the poisonous tree" and thus inadmissible under the Exclusionary Rule.

While not happy with his ruling, I'm not particularly disappointed either.

Up until 1943 the Allies were plotting the means to eliminate Hitler. They realized by that time that he was an incompetent war leader and ceased all efforts to remove him. Point being that when faced with an incompetent adversary it's sometimes best not to seek a change.

 

[Rightguide]

He's not. Any fair minded person can see that his ruling was fair and objective... Any biased person blames the judge.

When it comes down to it, the real goal was to get the case thrown out, which was never part of the case against Willis and never would've happened regardless.

The fact is she fucked the case up from the beginning with her incompetence and illegality and it should be tossed. If this case goes to appeal it will likely meet such a demise.

 

[ll74]

The fact is she fucked the case up from the beginning with her incompetence and illegality and it should be tossed. If this case goes to appeal it will likely meet such a demise.

Like I said, it was never about her. You just want 45 to escape prosecution when he attempted to get a secretary of state to "find votes" that would let him win.

 

[Chobham]

The fact is she fucked the case up from the beginning with her incompetence and illegality and it should be tossed. If this case goes to appeal it will likely meet such a demise.

She has exposed herself to the extent that she may not be around to even start the trial.

 

[Rightguide]

She has exposed herself to the extent that she may not be around to even start the trial.

How Many Ethical Rules Did Fani Willis Break and Still Keep Her Job? The List Is Long​

VICTORIA TAFT | 12:47 PM ON MARCH 16, 2024

And so, in no particular order, here's a bill of particulars by the defense against Fani Willis and her now former very special prosecutor, Nathan Wade. Tell me if you don't think this reads like a "your DA so crooked" version of The Dozens:

• Fani Willis is so crooked she ignored her prosecutor's oath to act impartially out of "political ambition"
• Fani Willis is so crooked she broke her oath not take any money beyond her salary
• Fani Willis is so crooked her affair with her very special prosecutor is a conflict of interest
• Starting her affair was the "original sin" leading them to "perpetuate and conceal" their relationship
• Fani Willis is so crooked she got her office to lie for her about her affair
• Fani Willis's Church Speech was meant to inject alleged racism "to deflect against her own misconduct"
• Fani's very special prosecutor lied in his divorce documents and to the court about the nature of their relationship
• Fani and her very special prosecutor's Biden White House meetings and communications are believed to be legal strategy sessions in coordination and haven't been fully explained
• Fani is so crooked she filed a protective order against the very special prosecutor's wife in his divorce case
• Fani is so crooked her office put people on the stand they knew would lie
• Fani is so crooked she broke the local ordinance about receiving gifts from contractors
• She broke the federal bribery statute by receiving gifts of more than $5,000
• Fani's office is so crooked they never provided evidence to the contrary about the boss's "invisible magic cash balancing" theory
• Fani wrote a book using secret grand jury testimony, documents, and recordings upon which she based her book, but denied a defense motion to see them
• Fani failed to disclose the gifts from her very special prosecutor as the law requires
• Fani lied on her disclosure forms to the county and state to evade detection of her affair
• Fani never got required county approval to name her boyfriend to the case
• Fani's very special prosecutor "got on the stand and lied about lying in his interrogatories" about his divorce
• Fani and her office "did nothing to correct obviously perjured testimony"
• Fani violated her obligation as a prosecutor to serve her personal interests
• Fani violated rules of professional conduct when she threatened to criminally charge her very special prosecutor's wife "to gain advantage in a civil case" (his divorce proceedings)
• Fani's prosecutors were directed to hide the affair during the hearing by objecting on attorney-client privilege grounds on behalf of very special prosecutor Nathan Wade when they weren't their rights to assert

https://pjmedia.com/victoria-taft/2...-had-to-blow-off-to-save-fani-willis-n4927365

As the article claims the case against Fani is greater than her case against Trump.

 

[Rightguide]

Like I said, it was never about her. You just want 45 to escape prosecution when he attempted to get a secretary of state to "find votes" that would let him win.

That is not true. If in fact, Trump committed crimes he should be prosecuted, but they shouldn't be made-up crimes nobody in history has ever been prosecuted for.

 

[ll74]

That is not true. If in fact, Trump committed crimes he should be prosecuted, but they shouldn't be made-up crimes nobody in history has ever been prosecuted for.

Lol, of course it isn't.