Below is a slightly expanded version of my column on Fox.com on the hearing in Georgia over allegations of improper conduct by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. In her combative testimony, Willis looked strikingly like the man she is prosecuting.
Here is the column:
“It’s a lie! It’s a lie!” Those words from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis captured the bombastic testimony of the prosecutor accused of violating a host of ethical and local rules in the hiring of Nathan Wade, a former lover. The sudden appearance of Willis in the courtroom seemed like a Perry Mason remake as she stormed to the stand with a look of sheer lethality. She proceeded to denounce the media, prosecutors, and a former girlfriend for different levels of betrayal.
However, in the end, Willis looked strikingly like the man she is prosecuting: Donald Trump. Like Trump, she defied calls of the court to confine her answers and respond to the questions. She attacked her critics, including the media, in diatribes that virtually ignored the questions. Unlike Trump, however, she got away with it.
Willis was allowed to extemporize at length on the “collusion” of the lawyers plotting against her and how “these people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020.”
Judge Scott McAfee, who had been doing a fine job controlling the courtroom, seemed to surrender control to Willis as she rambled on about women dating, the value of hoarding cash, and negotiating with foreign cab drivers.
She is also accused of out-of-court statements that undermined the case. Sound familiar?
In Trump’s case, judges repeatedly hit him with contempt sanctions, struck his testimony, and barred his discussion of certain defenses. He was fined for his out-of-court statements.
With Willis, McAfee politely nudged her to confine her answers and cautioned her that the court might have to intervene. He never did. Willis seemed to control the tenor and testimony until a clearly exhausted McAfee called it a day.
Over at CNN, Jeff Toobin praised her performance:
“I think she was a good witness. I mean, I think if for the purposes that she was on the stand for actually, I thought demolished the case against her. You know, some people will simply not believe that some people don’t have that much cash around, but some people do. And other than that, I think she’s a good witness.”
Outside the court, some on the left celebrated her confrontational, combative style. Where Trump was unhinged, Willis was unbowed. Where Trump’s rage was threatening, Willis’s rage was righteous.
That is not the only time that Trump came to mind after Wade and Willis took the stand.
In the Georgia prosecution, Willis is relying a great deal on a recorded conversation of Trump with Georgia election officials as they discussed what Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger described as a settlement discussion of Trump’s election fraud claims. Trump wanted a recount and the officials insisted that it was not likely to produce enough votes to make a difference. Trump insisted that “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.”
Critics insist that Trump was clearly pushing the officials to simply invent the votes when he pushed them to “find” the votes. Trump maintains that he was saying that that was not many votes to find statewide to potentially change the outcome.
In the end, critics dismiss any other meaning of “find” as playing semantics.
Yet, both Wade and Willis had their own struggles over key words in the hearing on Thursday.
Wade was confronted by seemingly false sworn statements made to interrogatories related to his divorce case. For example, he was asked about his denial of “a sexual relationship during the time or his marriage and separation” as of May 30, 2023. That would seem clear. It is also now confirmed that he had a sexual relationship with Willis in 2022 at a minimum.
Wade, however, insisted that he read the question as being confined to sexual relations “in the course of my marriage.” The fact that the question clearly asked about any sexual relationship up to May 30, 2023 did not matter to the lead prosecutor in the Georgia election case.
Willis then offered her own semantic spins. She was asked about local rules barring paying or employing family or intimate friends. Willis declared that she viewed Wade not as an employee but a contractor or “agent.”
Willis added another semantic twist when confronted by another rule barring the receipt of the aggregate of more than $100 from an employee or contractor. Willis just said that, while she may have accepted more than $100 from Wade, it balanced out in the end because she bought things for him. Both, however, insisted that they dealt largely in cash with no receipts or records.
Those interpretations of key words are considered by Wade and Willis to be fair game. However, an alternative meaning of what was meant by the word “find” is clearly not only unreasonable but a basis for prosecution.
None of this is likely to end the Georgia case. Even if Wade and Willis were disqualified, it is likely that the court would allow the case to move forward under their subordinates. Moreover, Willis may have succeeded in giving McAfee enough to express condemnation with her conduct but to reject her disqualification.
If so, the court would ignore that fact that both Wade and Willis are accused of making false statements to courts not just in their testimony this week but prior filings. They would be allowed to prosecute defendants in the Georgia case charged with making such false statements in court filings.
In the end, Willis knew her audience. She knew that the judge would likely allow her to control her own testimony. She knew that many in the public would view her combative testimony as justified, even inspiring. The fact is that she is not Trump and, for many, that is enough.
I have such respect for you, you tell it like it is, not always what l want to hear but l trust you. It’s hard to find someone like you!
God bless you for protecting America ❤️🎉🙏
Trump hating GA Gov Brian Kemp will make sure Fani will not be removed from the case.
A must listen, right here —>
*NOTE: ‘All told, embattled D.A. Fani Willis gave her lover Nathan Wade’s law firm five (5) Fulton County contracts totaling almost $1 million. Willis is under a state misconduct probe for personally benefiting from these contracts thru lavish vacations, gifts paid for by Wade’ @paulsperry
‘Just to see what happens, I so want Trump to be on the stand and pull a Fani and tell the opposing counsel:
“Don’t get cute with me”
“You’re a liar”
“That’s a lie” (when the person isn’t making a statement, but is asking a question)
“Stop shouting at me” (when the person isn’t shouting)
and
Address the judge when not invited to
Avoid answers
Filibuster and meander
Make long statements of his choosing on the stand
Enter the court and approach the stand when not invited
Demand documents on the stand before he’s sworn in or testifies’
@SharylAttkisson
Amazingly, virtually all of the media are ignoring the fact that Scott McAfee, the “judge” assigned to this case, once worked for Fani Willis! That’s right, Fani Wallis was once Scott McAfee’s boss!
(My source is the New York Times. See link at the end of this post. Now, the New York Times consists of professional liars, but they wouldn’t lie about this particular fact because it doesn’t help their case against Trump, yet they revealed it anyway.)
Now, any ethical judge in such a case would immediately recuse himself, for obvious reasons.
So, in case you were wondering why Scott McAfee was constantly and excesively reigning in attorneys that were questioning Fani Willis about her fraudulent conduct, but was constantly giving Fani Willis free reign to do whatever she wanted on the stand, wonder no more.
McAfee was essentially genuflecting before his former boss Willis, since Willis trained McAfee to be subservient and to effectively say to her, “Yezz, Master, just tell me what to do and I’ll do it.” https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/15/us/elections/scott-mcafee-trump-judge.html
You don’t need the New York Times to tell you that Judge McAfee once worked under Fani Willis. I learned that reading my lowly little Statesman Journal here in Salem Oregon some time ago. I agree that it seems likely that the good judge is still intimidated by the overbearing and, in my opinion, obnoxious Fani. That is truly a shame. She seems to me to be more of a threat to the case than Nathan Wade ever was.
The appalling two day spectacle in GA was a peek into the low-life third world mentality that is trying to take over this country. Lately, one could say they are succeeding.
You are 100% correct!
And in no reality did Trump ever behave like that unhinged bimbo on the stand.
Mr. Turley, they STOLE THE ELECTION, You know it and are too big coward to tell the truth. Watch Tucker Carlson’s interview with Mr. Benz, he tells who the CIA and such have been stealing foreign elections for years, and then brought it in house. It was done with propaganda up until Brexit, then they realized they could not control the narrative to the masses with the advent of Facebook, Twitter so they had to change the plans, and thus they started to threaten them with fines in order to get CENSORSHIP. Sound familiar? And with Trump its been censorship 24/7/365.
And yes, I have no doubt they stole the election with BS ballots you know it also. Be a man an d tell the damned truth.
Her clearly unethical actions (relations with a subordinate, accepting gifts and lying) give the Judge no recourse other than removal.
Trump can say anything he wants fatty Fritos eating fat Albert Willis hey hey hey has to act professional and to higher standard and she failed miserably at it and she must be prosecuted for lying cover up Rico violations and so much more. Least she be disbarred worst 350 million fine like trump and also not allowed to eat anymore anything disgusting looking animal
Hard to believe that the citizens of New York tolerate an attorney general and judge who would engage in lawfare against a political opponent using such absurd grounds, no victims and no losses, to obtain such an insane judgment against President Trump. This will cost the entire country dear.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/02/it-cant-happen-here.php
Perhaps you don’t understand that if you steal $100 from your employer, bet it at the races and make $200, and then replace the $100 you stole, you’ve still committed a crime.
Because theft is a clearly defined crime, while asset valuations are nothing more than an opinion
Steve, absolutely correct. Moreover, I would be interested to know how many persons inflate asset value (intentionally or unintentionally) on loan applications or elsewhere (especially those on the top or bottom of the income spectrum–the ones in the middle probably shouldering most of taxation) so I am always amused that Trump was singled out. I suspect many reading our comments have done the same….
As you or someone stated earlier, it was up to the loaners to vet the info, but of course, if they stood to profit from the loan….
Bankers always do their own due diligence on collateral property valuations, especially in the case of extremely large loans such as this one. Also, there are regulations regarding bank’s appraisal processes for commercial and residential collateral. This case is BS and in part, relies on the public’s lack of knowledge on banking practices. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what a borrower thinks his property is worth. The bank is going to make an independent decision as to that and the creditworthiness of the client. I hope in the end, these prosecutors wind up being the ones on the receiving end of the penalties..
Nothing. Stolen!
Such a flawed and dishonest analogy.
So……..who did Trump steal money from????
Except that Trump did not steal the $100 and the prosecutor is the one trying to steal the $100 plus $200 … the conspirators are people like you
but what if you borrowed it?
Yes, but what has that to do with anything. You love false narratives, don’t you? That’s because they’re easy to do.
It will cost the country, but it will cost New York first, as large employers see the benefits of leaving the state and its capricious court system.