Let’s assess the best case scenario for what went down after Georgia district attorney Fani Willis brought “wide-ranging” (and undoubtedly true) charges of criminally corrupt electoral misbehavior in the 2020 presidential election on the part of then President Donald Trump and a host of other political pluguglies:
- Immediately after bringing indictments for one of the most important criminal cases in American history, district attorney Willis hires Nathan Wade, a completely unqualified individual as lead prosecutor, purely on the basis of political friendship, paying his law firm over $650,000 over the past two years “to lead”, the Washington Post says, “a criminal investigation typically managed by civil servants.”
- Although “just friends” at the time, Willis and Wade later become lovers and go on vacations together. Unsurprisingly, they keep all of this secret.
- According to financial records, Wade paid for everything on these trips. However, Willis repaid him for all her expenses, totaling tens of thousands of dollars in cash, although there are no financial records—bank withdrawals or deposits, for example—documenting such large cash transfers.
Yeah, nothing to see here, is there? Who could object, other than a grouchy black man like New York Times columnist Charles Blow, who covered a hearing held in Georgia to consider whether Willis and Wade should be removed from the case. Blow tiptoes around the actual “facts” of the case but uncomfortably sums up the “big picture” like this:
But whether or not Willis and Wade are allowed to stay on the case, the first day of the hearing was a political disaster. The greater damage is not to the prosecution of Trump but to the national Democratic Party’s inroads in Georgia.
It was a disaster because Willis is a disaster, patently self-indulgent and self-righteous, insisting that her office gives her the “right” to do whatever she pleases, with no oversight from anyone, defiantly giving non answers to questions she doesn’t want to answer, constantly talking off point, “rebutting” accusations by simply calling them “lies”, and constantly insisting she’s being persecuted because of her race and sex, and rather resembling a Donald Trump in blackface and drag—though, I admit, that’s more than a little “over the top”.
The NYTimes’ “straight coverage”, does some even fancier footwork than its columnist, beginning with its “head” and subhead, to wit: “With Everything on the Line, Fani Willis Delivered Raw Testimony Ms. Willis, the district attorney overseeing the Georgia prosecution of Donald J. Trump, searingly refuted allegations that she had a disqualifying conflict of interest.”
“Raw testimony”, rather than, you know, “clear and convincing”. And “searingly refuted”? Not quite le mot juste, perhaps. How about “belligerently evaded”? Here is NYT reporter Richard Fausset setting the scene for us:
In a raw performance, Ms. Willis, 52, presented herself as a woman in full — by turns combative and serene, focused and discursive (at one point she declared her preference for Grey Goose vodka over wine). Her language toggled between casual (a thousand dollars was “a G”) and precise: On numerous occasions, she prefaced her statements with variations on the phrase, “I want to be very clear.”
Uh, so what? What does this have anything to do with the facts of the case? None at all, other than, perhaps, that Willis might be a bit of a drunk and a status seeker. (Grey Goose, for those not familiar with the stuff, is a ludicrously overpriced vodka.) Also, Mr. Fausset, there’s a difference between saying you want to be “very clear” and actually being very clear. And there can also very easily be a difference between being “very clear” and being, you know. “honest” and, you know, “accurate”—something that Mr. Fausset himself seems to be struggling with just a bit, because he seems a lot more comfortable speaking off point than on. Over at the Washington Post, Holly Bailey and Amy Gardner have the same problem in their piece, Fani Willis accuses defense of lying in fiery testimony at Georgia hearing. (Grey Goose also comes up in the Post piece, as though this were somehow “important”.)
As a counter to all this mainstream media “misinformation” (to coin a phrase) I suggest a dose of black conservative Kira Davis, author of Drawing Lines: Why Conservatives Must Begin to Battle Fiercely in the Arena of Ideas, writing in Newsweek: Fani Willis Is an Embarrassment to Black People. She's the Proof That DEI Only Hurts Us. Now, Kira, I must say, is not my favorite truth-talking black conservative. I recommend you not buy her book, because it looks pretty terrible, an exercise in right-wing boilerplate—though proving, I guess, that there’s more than one way for a bad-ass black woman to play the race card. But the simple fact is that Fani Willis is an embarrassment to black people, and to us folks in the Democratic Party, and I also agree that Fani Willis got where she is—got her establishment credentials and her assumption that as a bad-ass black woman she had the right to do any damn thing she pleased—thanks to DEI/CRT. So that, on this one, at least, Kira has the guts to go where the NYT and the WashPost won’t.
Afterwords
More thoughts—a lot more—on CRT here.
