From Ace of Spades:
"Drillable Hours:" Some Thoughts on the Sweetick/Fani Gangbang of Lies
One thing I'm thinking with the hearing is this:
They are trotting out a lot of claims with no evidence -- "Fani paid me back for all of these trips, but only in cash, and no, I have no deposit slips for when I deposited this cash into my account, you'll just have to take my word for it as a He-Wore selling his man-pussy" -- and Fani's claim that of course she keeps thousands of dollars in cash in her apartment to pay for trips "because my daddy told me a woman should always have six months of cash lying around."
She is using this lie to explain why there are no bank records showing her withdrawing money to repay Sweetdick.
He has no records of ever depositing the cash; she has no records of every withdrawing it.
Because Her Pappy told her to always have $30,000 in cash (or whatever the figure is) on hand, squirreled away in a hidey-hole in her dirty Fuck Shack.
Sweetdick was asked to provide bank records so he could prove his claims. He refused. He's offering his lies as a defense, and when someone asks him to prove it, he says "No thanks."
Similarly, he refuses to release his lawyer from privilege so he can say what he observed as far as the start of the affair. Sweetdick says it began in 2022; his lawyer... says he will not answer due to client-lawyer privilege. When Ashleigh Merchant asks him if he will release his lawyer from privilege to answer this one question, he says "No thanks."
This is how criminals at a criminal trial behave -- but these are public officials and officers of the court at a disqualification hearing. And they're lying and evading like common fucking streetrat hoods.
So they can claim these things, offering bizarre family lore about a woman needing to have six months salary on hand in cash to explain away the lack of bank withdrawals, but... does anyone believe them?
What I'm thinking is that they are preparing for their perjury trial. These lies are are defense for perjury charges. You can't prove they're lies, so they might get by with reasonable doubt.
But these obvious self-serving lies are NOT fit to fight a disqualification hearing. In a criminal trial you can just lie and say "Now you prove I'm lying, and if you can't, that's reasonable doubt."
3 comments:
How amusing. The corrupt prosecuting a corruption case.
Didn't she hire him, hence became a Sugar Momma, in her own right? Her former best friend states the relationship began in 2019.
No different than Cory Bush marrying her bodyguard and ensuring he has a salary so they can double dip from the same pot.
And then we have AOC who lists her boyfriend as her "spouse" and... ahem... wasn't he married when she landed him? That information seems scrubbed from the web. But didn't she also funnel income to his company?
Allowable corruption seems the game in Washington, for the few, but not for all. It is an exclusive club, and if you join it you are protected.
Fani-pack of lies is just that - corrupt sociopath presenting as righteous crusader against corruption.
Here is an amusing take from Jim Kunstler's blog (minor edits):
"The reason the lovebirds could take so much time cavorting across the Caribbean and California — vineyard tours featuring “pairings of champagne, chocolate, and caviar,” Ms. Willis testified — is because their Fulton County case was entirely prepped for them out of DC by Mary McCord, the veteran lawyer active in every Get-Trump hoax cooked up since 2016. (And I’d bet cash-money that she had plenty of assistance from Lawfare specialists Norm Eisen and Andrew Weissmann.) The complex particulars of the case were all teed up, ready to go. All Ms. Willis and her lead prosecutor, Mr. Wade, had to do was get the trial date set, raise the curtain, and follow the script.
"Alas, the couple got carried away in the raptures of amour and, all of a sudden, we’re in something like The Real Housewives of Atlanta. And then they lied about the details under oath, especially around the money involved. If they are not disqualified from participating in the Trump “racketeering” case — in which their own behavior would be centerpiece evidence of an ineptly tainted and malicious prosecution — and/or if the case is not tossed summarily, then it will have to be removed to another county and most likely delayed until after the 2024 elections. Nice work, Party of Chaos!"
IOW, the Feds at DOJ cooked up the case but - since they didn't have jurisdiction - they passed it off to a couple of local diversity incompetents who proceeded to blow everything wide open. LOL.
Thanks for that, Anonymous.
Post a Comment