Teflon Don Slips Away Again

I watched a little bit of Fani Willis’s hysterical, implausible testimony today, at an evidentiary hearing to determine whether she should be removed from Donald Trump’s Georgia election case due to a conflict of interest. The hearing will continue tomorrow.

Let me save you some time. She will be forced off the case. She is likely to have serious problems with the Georgia Bar. She could also be tried for perjury.

I would say that she won’t be disqualified because she’s a leftist, but the judge hearing the evidence was the vice president of his law school’s chapter of the Federalist Society, so it’s not like one lawyer with an entitled ghetto mindset is looking after another.

Fani Willis did not grow up in a ghetto. Her dad was an attorney. But she has the entitled, emotionalist, race-card-playing ghetto outlook just the same. She has an ego the size of Ayers Rock, and she flies off the handle when challenged.

You don’t have to prove a prosecutor is an ax murderer to get him booted off a case. You just have to show an actual conflict of interest exists. Willis has one.

Willis has a sexual relationship with lawyer Nathan Wade. She paid him a lot of money to work on the Trump case, even though he’s not a prosecutor. He’s a tort lawyer. Wade took her on expensive vacations, for which he paid. Money in, vacations out. Conflict of interest.

Has this all been proven? No, but her defenses are ridiculous.

She admits she had a sexual relationship with Wade, but she claims it started in 2022, after he started working with her. Sadly for her, a friend of hers swears she saw them kissing and hugging in 2019. Whom will the judge believe? A combative, arrogant prosecutor who has to be admonished on the stand repeatedly about professionalism, or a disinterested party?

Sorry if I’m harsh, but Willis is a fat, ugly older woman with a nasty personality, and Wade is the most desirable type of male in America: a tall, straight, reasonably good-looking black man in a profession. It makes sense that she would demand that he escort her on trips as payback for improper and excessive fees for services he was not well-equipped to provide. It would be odd for what is now known as a “high-value man” to run off to exotic locations with an old woman who is unattractive and incapable of having children. Nathan Wade can crook his finger and have all sorts of beautiful, compliant young black women trample each other to be with him. Black women compete furiously for males who have money, degrees, and clean rap sheets.

Willis and Wade claim she repaid him for the vacations in cash. No adult who isn’t on drugs will buy that, and the judge isn’t on drugs. She claims she keeps up to $15000 in cash in her house. Very few people do things that stupid, and a single woman who has put a lot of vicious criminals in jail would be the last person to do it. It has to be a lie. Her denials may force the involvement of a forensic accountant, and then she and Wade may find out that lying about large financial transactions is not as simple as they thought. If you say your dog ate your homework, a forensic accountant will stick his finger down the dog’s throat.

You can say you paid cash, but you eventually have to show where it came from in a case like this. An accountant can look at all your accounts and recorded transactions. He can look at your financial past. If Willis was making big cash withdrawals, it will show. If not, where did the money come from? If Wade doesn’t have big deposits to show, why not? They’ll have to explain or take the Fifth. If they take the Fifth, they’ll be abandoning their defense to a large degree, and it will also draw the interest of the bar, possibly spurring criminal investigations.

In a criminal context, a finder of fact is not allowed to infer anything when a witness invokes the Fifth Amendment. In a civil context, at least in federal court, an inference may be drawn if there is other evidence of criminality. I don’t know if that applies here. I don’t know if this hearing, though contained within a criminal trial, is a civil matter. I assume it is, since Willis and Wade are not defendants. Anyway, in any context, invoking the Fifth can spur the bar or law enforcement to follow up and investigate. They are not finders of fact.

Women are afraid of being robbed. They are afraid of making big withdrawals. Many women will not use an ATM card because they don’t like to carry cash. It’s common for women to delay other customers in checkout lines by writing checks for things like one tube of toothpaste. A female prosecutor would be more wary than most. Not less.

Maybe Trump can’t prove Willis didn’t pay Wade in cash, but there is zero evidence she paid, and I guarantee you, the evidence will be consistent with her not paying. The judge can take notice of that.

The standard of proof in Trump’s trial is reasonable doubt, and that’s a tough standard to meet. The evidentiary hearing is not a criminal trial, however. As far as I can tell by Googling, the standard is somewhat lower. I think Wade and Willis are lying, because the alternative is absurd, and I think Judge McAfee knows it and may be willing to allow further investigation to expose their dishonesty.

As for trouble with the bar, a lawyer can’t lie to a tribunal. In Georgia, you can be suspended or disbarred for this. The Trump case has an extremely high profile, and bar associations are all about public relations. They are all about convincing the public lawyers can be relied upon to police themselves. They struggle to make us look honest. I think Willis will get a suspension at the very least, and if that happens, she can forget about working as a public-sector attorney. This may not happen, though, if the bar is sufficiently packed with DEI hires and appointees. That race card is some card.

As for perjury, I looked at the Georgia law, and it appears Willis and Wade are guilty. Here are the elements:

1. Knowingly and willfully making a false statement,
2. Material to the issue or point in question,
3. While under oath in a judicial proceeding.

An evidentiary hearing is a judicial proceeding. Lies about reimbursement and the timing of the relationship are material to the issue of conflict. Willis and Wade swore under oath, and they certainly knew what was true and what was not.

I say she will be forced off the case, but I admit, that depends on the judge and Trump’s lawyers. If he is not determined to learn the facts, the judge will wrap the hearing up and say, “He said, she said,” and give up. If he takes the conflict and dishonesty issues seriously, he will let things continue until the truth is known.

Trump has a history of hiring stupid, crooked, and/or senile lawyers, so I don’t know if his current representation is smart enough to investigate Willis and Wade correctly.

I assume the burden of investigation is on Trump, since the court itself is not after Willis and Wade, the bar is not involved, and Willis and Wade are not being prosecuted yet.

My strong bet: Willis will be out on Monday. If the judge thinks either of these characters lied to him under oath, he will refer them to the Georgia Bar and possibly the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.

I have read that if she is disqualified, her whole office is disqualified. If that’s so, who continues the case? Maybe someone who is less deranged and determined. Someone who didn’t campaign using an unethical promise to destroy one private citizen, before she had any evidence of wrongdoing. Good news for Trump.

This is my semi-baked, one-hour analysis, which is all you get unless you pay me. Let’s see what happens.