Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. That pretty well sums up the mess Fani Willis is facing.
Her bogus indictments of President Trump has set off a chain of events that could see her get disbarred or in prison or both.
The indictment of Trump allowed her to hire her lover at an inflated rate of pay, especially since he does not have the experience i9n the field of RICO violations.
Then, she hired his law partner to do work her office prosecutors could easily do.
Now, a lot of people are asking a lot of questions about her relationship with Nathan Wade and how she profited from appointing him to her staff.
The latest comes from Fulton County auditors and it is now getting serious for her. It would be impossible for her to claim that she did not profit from the huge salary she bestowed on Wade since he used a good portion of that money to take her on romantic trips.
County commissioner and committee chair Bob Ellis sent a letter to Willis demanding to know if she benefited from the taxpayer funds she directed to Wade. Because if she did, well … that’s a big no bueno:
Fulton County Commissioner Bob Ellis, the chairman of the county’s audit committee, sent a letter to Willis Friday evening asking whether she engaged in a “romantic relationship” with special prosecutor Nathan Wade, “misused” county funds, and “accepted valuable gifts and personal benefits from a contractor/recipient of County funds.”
“These allegations involve your decision to appoint Nathan Wade to serve as a special prosecutor in the matter in which former President Trump is a co-defendant. Mr. Wade is alleged to (1) lack relevant prosecutorial experience in a case of this type and complexity, (2) have paid for your portion of multiple instances of joint leisure travel, and (3) be in a romantic relationship with you that was not disclosed to the court or to the parties in the case,” Ellis wrote.
To make matters worse, she has been subpoenaed to testify in the divorce case of Nathan and Jocelyn Wade. The odds are that she and Wade’s relationship started before there was talk of a divorce. Wade filed for divorce the day after he was hired by Willis. And the money he spent on Willis has been documented by bank records produced by Wade’s estranged wife. Willis told the court that the Wade’s marriage was over because Jocelyn had an affair with on of Nathan’s friends. Jocelyn denies the accusation.
By the way, Mrs. Wade disputed that accusation late yesterday in a response to the court in the divorce proceeding:
In the motion, Willis also said the Wades’ marriage had been irretrievably broken because Joycelyn Wade had an adulterous relationship with a longtime friend of Nathan Wade’s.
On Friday, Joycelyn Wade’s lawyers responded and said Willis “does, in fact, possess intimate information about the Wades’ marriage, albeit false and libelous misinformation.” The motion said Wade did not have an affair with that individual nor did she meet with him in person.
That brings us back to the subpoena and Willis’ strange and threatening reaction to it. CNN’s Elie Honig called Willis’ response to Mrs. Wade’s subpoena “very improper,” and wondered why Willis chose to inject the criminal case into the Wades’ divorce at all:
“I think the DA is far out of line here. She receives a subpoena in a divorce case. The subpoena is not an accusation. A subpoena means you’re a witness who has relevant information. Clearly, she has information about Mr. Wade, about his finances, about whatever his current relationships may be,” Honig said.
He added that he believes Willis’ response to the subpoena is “very improper,” adding that a district attorney should not use a criminal case as a shield.
“And the way the DA responded to that is she took the criminal case against Donald Trump and injected that into the divorce case, trying to use it as a shield from her having to testify. She clearly has relevant information. And I think it’s is very improper for her to say, well, you’re trying to interfere with this criminal case. That’s the DA who is using the criminal case as a shield, and I think she’s wrong there,” Honig said.