What Trump prosecutor Fani Willis's bombastic testimony reveals about who really controls the courtroom

 "It's a lie! It's a lie!" Those words from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis captured the powerful testimony of the prosecutor who was accused of violating multiple ethics and local rules in her hiring of Nathan Wade, a former boyfriend. Willis's sudden appearance in the courtroom looked like a remake of Perry Mason as she approached the stand with an extremely deadly expression. She went on to condemn the media, prosecutors, and a former girlfriend for various levels of betrayal.

However, at some points, Willis sounded a lot like the man she's suing: Donald Trump. Like Trump, she ignored the court's calls to limit her answers and answer questions. He attacked his critics in diatribes, including the media, who virtually ignored questions. However, unlike Trump, she got away with it.

Willis was allowed to elaborate on the "collusion" of lawyers plotting against her and how "these people are being prosecuted for trying to steal the election in 2020."

Judge Scott McAfee, who was doing a good job of controlling the courtroom, appeared to cede control to Willis as he talked about dating women, the value of storing cash and interacting with foreign cab drivers.

He is also accused of giving statements outside the court which weakened the case. Sound familiar?

In Trump's case, judges repeatedly imposed contempt sanctions on him, barring his testimony and barring his discussion of certain defenses. He was fined for statements made outside the court.

With Willis, McAfee politely asked her to limit her answers and cautioned her that the court might have to intervene. He never did. Willis controlled the tenure and testimony until an apparently exhausted McAfee ended it.

Outside the courtroom, many on the left celebrated his confrontational, combative style. Where Trump was adamant, Willis was adamant. Where Trump's anger was dangerous, Willis's anger was justified.

This isn't the only time Wade and Willis' stance has come to Trump's mind.

Placeholder judge intervenes as Georgia DA gives combative testimony about relationship with Trump prosecutor

In the Georgia prosecution, Willis is relying largely on Trump's recorded conversations with Georgia election officials as they discussed what Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger called a settlement discussion of Trump's election fraud claims. Was described as. Trump wanted a recount and officials insisted it was unlikely to yield enough votes to make a difference. "I just want to get 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state," Trump insisted.

Critics emphasize that Trump was clearly pressuring officials to simply inventorize votes when he pressured them to "find" the votes. Trump says he was saying it wouldn't take many votes statewide to potentially change the outcome.

Finally, critics dismiss any other meaning of "discovery" as a game of semantics.

Still, both Wade and Willis faced their own struggles with key words at Thursday's hearing.

Wade faced trial for false statements he made during interrogation in connection with his divorce case. For example, they were asked about their refusal "to have sexual relations during that time or their marriage and separation" until May 30, 2023. This would seem obvious. It has also now been confirmed that he had sexual relations with Willis at least in 2022.

However, Wade insisted that he considered the issue limited to sexual relations "during my marriage." The fact that the question explicitly asked about any sexual relationship until May 30, 2023 did not matter to the lead prosecutor in the Georgia election case.

Willis then offered his own semantic aspects. They were asked about local rules prohibiting paying or employing family or close friends. Willis declared that she did not view Wade as an employee but as a contractor or "agent".

Faced with another rule prohibiting gross receipts of more than $100 from an employee or contractor, Willis added another meaningful twist. Willis simply said that, even though she accepted more than $100 from Wade, it was balanced out in the end because he bought things for her. However, both of them insisted that they carried out large scale cash transactions without any receipts or records.

Wade and Willis consider those interpretations of key words to be fair game. However, an alternative meaning of the word "search" is clearly not only inappropriate but also grounds for prosecution.

None of this is likely to be the end of the Georgia case. Even if Wade and Willis are disqualified, it is likely that the court will allow the case to proceed under their subpoenas. Furthermore, Willis may succeed in giving McAfee the opportunity to condemn his conduct as well as reject his incompetence.

If so, the court would ignore the fact that both Wade and Willis are accused of making false statements not only in their testimony this week, but in prior filings as well. They would be allowed to prosecute defendants in the Georgia case on charges of making such false statements in filings in other cases.