James Woods

Fani Willis Just Admitted to Huge Campaign Violation

Published by Papa Giorgio

Under oath, on the stand. A few moments later I think she realized her mistake and tried to tie the money to here divorce. Remember, her lawyers counseled her not to come in and testify… she barged in and demanded. Lol.

FANI WILLIS

Here is the short version via RIGHT SCOOP:

When Fani Willis was defending her carrying of cash around and paying Nathan Wade with said cash, the question came up about the source of that cash.

In answering how cash is fungible and there’s no way to be sure, she made this shocking statement: “When I took out a large amount of money on my first campaign, I kept some of the cash from that…”

That sounds like a huge campaign violation, to literally steal money from your campaign.

I’m sure she’ll try and explain it away, assuming she’s held to account for it, but I don’t see how that can be understood in any other context given that she was talking about hoarding money at home.

JAMES WOODS

NATHAN WADE

Nathan Wade testifies that he paid for all the vacations he took with Fani Willis with his business credit card. And that she then reimbursed him in CASH.

History Is A Bitch! (Yellow Buttons for Vaccinated?)

Published by Papa Giorgio

This story about vaccinations and the Germans choosing yellow buttons to show they are vaccinated.

My youngest son asked why they would do that — after I noted the use of the yellow star for Jews during the Third Reich…

This brought me to an idea from David Mamet that answered my queries about similar subjects years ago.

One might say that the politician, the doctor, and the dramatist make their living from human misery; the doctor in attempting to alleviate it, the politician to capitalize on it, and the dramatist, to describe it.

But perhaps that is too epigrammatic.

When I was young, there was a period in American drama in which the writers strove to free themselves of the question of character.

Protagonists of their worthy plays had made no choices, but were afflicted by a condition not of their making; and this condition, homosexuality, illness, being a woman, etc., was the center of the play. As these protagonists had made no choices, they were in a state of innocence. They had not acted, so they could not have sinned.

A play is basically an exercise in the raising, lowering, and altering of expectations (such known, collectively, as the Plot); but these plays dealt not with expectations (how could they, for the state of the protagonist was not going to change?) but with sympathy.

What these audiences were witnessing was not a drama, but a troublesome human condition displayed as an attraction. This was, formerly, known as a freak show.

The subjects of these dramas were bearing burdens not of their choosing, as do we all. But misfortune, in life, we know, deserves forbearance on the part of the unafflicted. For though the display of courage in the face of adversity is worthy of all respect, the display of that respect by the unaffected is presumptuous and patronizing.

One does not gain merit from congratulating an afflicted person for his courage. One only gains entertainment.

Further, endorsement of the courage of the affliction play’s hero was not merely impertinent, but, more basically, spurious, as applause was vouchsafed not to a worthy stoic, but to an actor portraying him.

These plays were an (unfortunate) by-product of the contemporary love-of-the-victim. For a victim, as above, is pure, and cannot have sinned; and one, by endorsing him, may perhaps gain, by magic, part of his incontrovertible status.

  • David Mamet, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture (New York, NY: Sentinel Publishing, 2011), 134-135.

I think these people think they are righting a historic wrong by choosing for themselves something meant to demean, now they have transformed it to mean good. They are doing “good works” to “save” those afflicted.