Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis recently took to the stand where she spoke to the character of special prosecutor Nathan Wade. Willis’ relationship with Wade has come under increased scrutiny amid allegations of financiaI misconduct. Many have alleged the controversial relationship between Willis and Wade poses a massive conflict of interest.
According to Willis, her conversations with Wade were argumentative by nature, pertaining to the special prosecutor’s view of women. This district attorney claimed that Wade only sees value in women insofar as they will “make him a sandwich.” Willis explained how this dynamic was a source of tension in her relationship with Wade, noting how she gave “him his money back.”
“Mister, let’s go on and have the conversation,” Willis said. “Had absolutely nothing to do with this. It’s interesting that we’re here about this money. Mr. Wade is used to women that, as he told me one time, only thing a woman can do for him is make him a sandwich. We would have brutaI arguments about the fact that I am your equal. I don’t need anything from a man a man is not a plan. A man is a companion. And so there was tension always in our relationship, which is why I was give him his money back. I don’t need anybody to foot my bills, the only man who’s ever put my bills completely is my daddy.”
Following her monologue, Willis was asked, “Is there anything else you’d like to add to that?” She responded, “No. I’m sure we’ll talk about it further.” Willis’ comments about Wade have quickly made the rounds on social media.
Conservative Brief shared footage of Willis’ testimony on X, with the caption, “The Character Assassination Continues! On the stand, Fulton County DA Fani Willis continues to paint her lover Nathan Wade in a terrible light: “Mr. Wade is used to women that— as he told me one time— the only thing a woman can do for him is make a sandwich.””
The American Tribune recently reported on comments from Nathan Wade’s testimony about his extravagant trips with Fani Willi. Many have alleged the trips have been prime exampIes of Willis abusing her position of power to misuse government funds.
A Fulton County Judge recently ruled that Willis and Wade would be forced to testify on these allegations of financial misconduct. Judge McAfee ruled, “I think the issues at point here are whether a relationship existed, whether that relationship was romantic or non-romantic in nature, when it formed, and whether it continues. And that’s only relevant because it’s in combination with the question of the existence and extent of any personal benefit conveyed as a result of their relationship.”
Judge McAfee continued in his ruling, “And so because I think its possibIe that the facts alleged by the defendant could result in disqualification, I think an evidentiary hearing must occur to establish the record on those core allegations.”
See footage of Fani Willis’ testimony below:
A Fulton County Judge recently ruled that Willis and Wade would be forced to testify on these allegations of financial misconduct. Judge McAfee ruled, “I think the issues at point here are whether a relationship existed, whether that relationship was romantic or non-romantic in nature, when it formed, and whether it continues. And that’s only relevant because it’s in combination with the question of the existence and extent of any personal benefit conveyed as a result of their relationship.”
Heavily-Tattooed Woman Says It’s “Not Fair” That She Can’t Get A Job
Following a woman’s accusation that TJ Maxx was discriminating against her due to her appearance, a subsequent instance involving a job rejection at the store has generated controversy. 23-year-old Ash Putnam, who goes by @ashxobrien on TikTok, talked about how she was turned down for a part-time job at the store because of her body piercings and tattoos.
Putnam claims that after applying for the job, she got an email a few weeks later rejecting her application. Disappointed by the information, she vented her annoyance on TikTok and sparked a discussion on discrimination in employment.
Putnam’s initial grievance was with the impersonality of getting an email rejection instead of a call. Even though this is standard procedure for big businesses, she thought it was disrespectful considering how hard she worked to apply for the position.
When Putnam went to her neighborhood TJ Maxx to personally find out why she was rejected, a staff member informed her that she didn’t have enough experience for the role. Despite the employee’s insistence to the contrary, she suspected that her tattoos had a big influence on the choice.
Putnam stressed that, despite her unhappiness, she wasn’t necessarily in need of the work and was just looking for extra money to help her pay off debt faster. She thought it was unjust, though, that her tattoos appeared to be a deciding factor in her employability.
Putnam has obvious tattoos of images associated with Satanism, including a Leviathan Cross and a goat that symbolizes the god Baphomet. Thousands of TikTok users commented on her post, implying that her tattoos probably affected the decision, even though it’s unclear whether hiring supervisors noticed them when she applied.
Visible tattoos, according to some reviewers, may be viewed as unprofessional, particularly in jobs where employees interact with customers like those at TJ Maxx. Others brought out the difficulty of finding a job for young folks without any prior work experience if employers value experience over potential.
The event brought up more general concerns about how society views physical alterations and employment procedures. Putnam questioned why having a tattoo should prevent someone from getting a job, given that many tattoo bearers are quite skilled workers.
Putnam’s tattoos may not have had a direct impact on her rejection, but the event brings attention to the ongoing discussion over appearance-based discrimination in the workplace. It’s critical to think about how hiring procedures may be more inclusive and equal for all candidates, regardless of appearance, as the conversation continues.
Leave a Reply