Fani Willis accusing others of lying and inappropriate behavior is ironic

When Fani Willis ran against her former boss Paul Howard in 2020, she highlighted the experience that she would bring to the position.

Howard was embroiled in a sexual harassment scandal involving his relationship with women in his office.

Willis offered both experience and ethical leadership, including pledging repeatedly that “I will certainly not be choosing to date people that work under me.” 

Willis is now accused of the wrong type of relevant experience.

She and her lead prosecutor are not just accused of having an intimate relationship, but they are accused of some of the same underlying conduct that they are prosecuting in the election interference case against former President Donald Trump and other defendants.

That now includes allegations of filing false statements with courts and even influencing witnesses.

This week, another witness came forward with an explosive new allegation against Willis.

In the prior hearings in Atlanta, Nathan Wade was confronted with what appears to be false statements made to the court in his divorce case, false statements that he repeated under oath in disqualification testimony. 

For example, Wade was asked about his denial of “a sexual relationship during the time of his marriage and separation” up to and including May 30, 2023.

That would obviously include the sexual relationship with Willis in 2022 and possibly earlier. Wade, however, denied any such sexual relationship and said he confined the question to sexual relations meaning an affair “in the course of my marriage.”

Of course, his marriage was ongoing even during the divorce and the question asked about any relationship up to May 2023. 

Wade and Willis have also been contradicted in their testimony by various witnesses who said they lied about their intimate relationship starting after he was hired in 2022.

That includes prior text messages in which Wade’s former partner and lawyer Terrence Bradley repeatedly told opposing counsel that he was “absolutely” sure that the relationship began much earlier.

A former close friend of Willis also said they were lying.

This is notable because Wade and Willis brought 19 individual counts of false statements, false filings, or perjury against the defendants in their case.

There are now substantial allegations that they may have committed the very same criminal conduct.

Now another prosecutor has come forward to say that Bradley also told her repeatedly and with complete clarity and certainty that Wade and Willis were involved long before his hiring.

Those conversations allegedly occurred as late as January 2024 with Cindi Lee Yeager, a co-chief deputy district attorney for Cobb County.

What is even more alarming is Yeager’s account that she overheard Willis tell Bradley on the telephone that “they are coming after us. You don’t need to talk to them about anything about us.”

If true, that call could raise questions of influencing potential witnesses.

Willis can legitimately point out that the calls was allegedly in September 2023, before Bradley was called as a witness and the current proceedings had started. 

However, it would indicate that Willis was aware that Bradley would be asked questions about past payments and relationships with him and his partner Wade.

If that seems loose, you should take a look at the case Willis brought against these defendants. Many of us have been critical of the overarching racketeering conspiracy alleged by Willis among the 18 defendants.

The false statement charges often dismiss plausible alternative interpretations or the paucity of evidence of intent.

They are also prosecuting the attempt to influence witnesses.

The question is whether Willis or Wade had other communications indirectly or directly with Bradley. 

His testimony was widely panned and he showed all of the spontaneity and comfort of a hostage video.

Willis is a powerful political figure in Atlanta and Bradley did everything short of faking his death to avoid assisting in her disqualification.

The odds are that Judge Scott McAfee is not inclined to hold additional hearings.

He is ready to rule.

It is hard to imagine these two prosecutors continuing with so many allegations hanging over the case.

They have placed their personal interests before their office and their case.

However, the standard for disqualification is murky.

For Willis, the case has become a modern political tragedy a la movie classic “All the King’s Men,” about a reformer who became everything that he once denounced in the corruption of powerful figures.

Willis ran against a district attorney accused of using his office to pursue sexual affairs and continues to claim that she “restored integrity” to her office through ethical leadership.

In her combative testimony, Willis attacked the media, opposing counsel and the public for questioning her actions.

She declared, “You’re confused. You think I’m on trial. These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020. I’m not on trial, no matter how hard you put me on trial.”

The question is whether the courts, prosecutors or bar officials will show the same vigor in pursuing these allegations against Wade and Willis that they have shown against their own defendants.

If so, she could well find herself “on trial” as the allegations mount against her and her lead prosecutor.

Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.