XPost: alt.sodomites.barack-obama, talk.politics.misc, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh XPost: talk.politics.guns
If Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis were prosecuting citizen
Fani Willis and her former boyfriend Nathan Wade for perjury, conspiracy
and obstruction of justice, she would have an extremely strong case.
Based on this and other incriminating evidence, the real issue is not
whether this pair should be allowed to continue to prosecute the case
against Trump, but instead whether this pair should be investigated,
indicted and convicted of serious crimes.
The presiding judge in the case has no power to commence a criminal investigation or prosecution. But other law enforcement authorities do. If
they fail, they will be damaging the rule of law, the integrity of the US
legal system and the waning trust that many Americans already have in
equal justice.
If Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis were prosecuting citizen
Fani Willis and her former boyfriend Nathan Wade for perjury, conspiracy
and obstruction of justice, she would have an extremely strong case. The evidence of perjury is overwhelming; many individuals have been convicted
on far less evidence.
Recall that Willis and Wade testified under oath to the material fact that Willis did not hire Wade as special prosecutor while they were having a romantic relationship. They both testified that the romantic relationship
began after the hiring decision was made. If that was a deliberate lie, it satisfies all the elements of perjury.
Let us look at the evidence. First, there is the testimony of two
witnesses, both of whom have provided evidence that the relationship began before Wade's appointment as special prosecutor. As Willis herself
reminded us when she was challenged about having no corroboration that she
paid Wade back in cash, the testimony of one witness is evidence – meaning
her own self-serving testimony – certainly, the testimony of two witnesses
is even better evidence. In addition, there is the text by another witness confirming that the relationship began earlier than testified to.
All of this eye and ear testimony is corroborated by indisputable
scientific evidence through cell phone records showing that Wade was in
the area of Willis' apartment in the middle of the night. The cell phone
pings placed Wade traveling from his home in the direction of Willis' home
in late evening, then making a phone call to Willis. Then the pinging
stops for several hours and resumes early in the morning. This and other
cell phone documentation constitutes strong circumstantial evidence
proving that Wade was in Willis' apartment before he was hired – at a time
of night when sex is more likely than Scrabble.
A client of mine is currently in prison for murder on far less compelling circumstantial evidence; Willis has no doubt successfully prosecuted many defendants on far less compelling evidence.
Then there is their testimony that, although Wade paid for numerous
vacations by credit card, Willis paid every penny back in cash. No
reasonable jury would believe such testimony about cash payments allegedly
made by a lawyer who was under a legal obligation to report any gifts
given to her. She knew that she might someday have to prove that she made
these cash payments in order to establish that she did not violate the
rule. Yet she claimed she kept no records relating to these cash payments
– no bank withdrawals or deposits, no photographs of her paying the money,
not even a notation in a diary. Her only evidence is testimony that she
once paid cash at a California wine-tasting.
All in all, the far more likely scenario is that Willis and Wade began
their sexual relationship well before she hired him, that she received thousands of dollars of vacation benefits from Wade which she did not pay
back, and that the two of them conspired together to come up with a cock- and-bull story that would allow them to continue to prosecute former
President Donald Trump. Her basic defense seems to come right out of a
Marx Brothers movie: "Who are you going to believe: me or your own eyes?"
Based on this and other incriminating evidence, the real issue is not
whether this pair should be allowed to continue to prosecute the case
against Trump, but instead whether this pair should be investigated,
indicted and convicted of serious crimes.
Who will guard the guardians? More specifically, who will prosecute the prosecutors? The facts of this case demand criminal investigation. This is especially true since so many Americans were able to see and hear the compelling evidence on television and other media. I doubt that very many viewers believed the self-serving testimony of Willis and Wade.
The presiding judge in the case has no power to commence a criminal investigation or prosecution. But other law enforcement authorities do. If
they fail, they will be damaging the rule of law, the integrity of the US
legal system and the waning trust that many Americans already have in
equal justice.
Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus at Harvard Law School, and the author most recently of War Against the Jews:
How to End Hamas Barbarism. He is the Jack Roth Charitable Foundation
Fellow at Gatestone Institute, and is also the host of "The Dershow"
podcast.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20468/fani-willis-perjury
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)