"From the testimonies of at least two associates of Fani Willis and Nathan Wade, from the inconsistent and self-contradictory statements of Willis and Wade themselves especially about large “cash” remittances, without any supporting proof, to Wade from Willis, from text messages from their associate Terrence Bradley, from phone records pinpointing their locations, from the preposterous nature of Willis’s use of the race card in both her testimony and her church appearance, Judge Scott McAfee surely knew—well aside from the bizarre contortions of using a racketeering charge to get Trump, whom she had demonized in her campaign for office and fund-raising efforts—that Willis herself was guilty of a number of felonies.
Namely that she was lying under oath; that she was lying about her cash transfers, and that she was pursuing a political vendetta against the current leading candidate for president.
Yet McAfee allowed her to stay on the case after dismissing Wade (which was a gift to the prosecution, given his incompetence and his apparent unlawful behavior by charging the state of Georgia for 24 straight hours of legal work.)
So the question arises, what would a Georgia prosecutor have to do to be disqualified from a case by Judge McAfee?
Lie even more under oath?
Have three, not just two, witnesses contradict her sworn testimony?
Have thirty or forty more telephone pings belie her testimony of her whereabouts?
Have, say, emails in addition to the current texts, of an associate contradicting almost everything she said?
In other words, McAfee nullified the evidence before him and removed the less culpable of the two guilty parties, given all these illegalities originated with Willis himself.
Is there still a law against perjury and fraud—or does ideology and race now determine guilt or innocence in America?"
