Video News Clips: In Their Own Words

Jonathan Turley Breaks Down Most ‘Damaging Aspect’ Of Fani Willis’ Contradictory Testimony

Screenshot/Rumble/Atlanta Berean Church

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley explained on Monday the most harmful part of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ recent testimony that allegedly contained contradictions.

A judge held a hearing on Feb. 15 to determine whether Willis should be disqualified from her election interference case against former President Donald Trump over allegations she financially benefited by appointing her romantic partner Nathan Wade as special prosecutor. Both Willis and Wade testified that he never spent the night at her condo, however phone records referenced in a Friday court filing appear to show he visited her neighborhood at least 35 times in 2021, which Turley called contradictory.

“They said they had very limited contact, certainly no stay-overs at the home,” Turley said on Fox News’ “America Reports.” “The most, I think, damaging aspect of this testimony is really the number of calls. You’re talking about 2,000 potential calls here, but also the cell phone data suggests that they’re getting pings in the area near Willis’ home. That doesn’t prove he was at Willis’ home, but as part of the overall picture, it does not look good. There’s a great deal of contradiction in this testimony.”

WATCH:

Trump’s attorney obtained the data consisting of voice and text history and location information for Wade’s phone, according to the Friday court filing. There were “over 2000 voice calls and just under 12,000 interactions” exchanged between Willis and Wade over the course of 2021, which included a “prevalence of calls made in the evening hours,” according to the affidavit of a criminal defense investigator who evaluated the records.

“The problem is the level of contradiction,” Turley added. “It is very hard to square with Nathan Wade’s testimony, with his sworn testimony earlier in his divorce case. He tried to do that, and it wasn’t very convincing. So my view of both of these prosecutors has hardened over time. I think there’s no question that they’re putting their personal interests ahead of the interests of the case and the public.”