‘We Had Brutal Arguments!’ Trump Election Crimes DA Fani Willis Rips Claims Against Her With Stunning Outburst

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis summed up frustration with the attempt to derail her case against former President Donald Trump in a riveting and personal outburst under questioning by a Trump lawyer.

On Thursday, DA Willis took the witness stand in a hearing over a challenge brought by one of Trump’s 18 co-defendants in the Georgia election crimes case that seeks to have Willis removed for an alleged conflict of interests.

In a dramatic day of testimony, a former Willis friend contradicted under-oath statements from Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade about their “romantic relationship,” Wade pushed back on the allegations against him, and then it was Willis’s turn.

Over the course of several hours, the prosecutor-turned-witness did battle with a round-robin of Team Trump attorneys: Trump attorney Steven Sadow; Ashleigh Merchant, an attorney for Trump co-defendant Michael Roman; William Cromwell, who represents Trump co-defendant Cathy Latham; and Harry MacDougald, attorney for Trump co-defendant Jeffrey Clark.

Taking defiant offense at lines of questioning, peppering her testimony with colorful and, at times, riveting details, and pressing the point that her adversaries had “lied” in court filings about her relationship with Wade.

But one stunning exchange symbolized the frustrations that were evident throughout the hearing as both Willis and Wade bristled at certain lines of questioning, the dissection of their private lives and finances, and the overall premise of the allegations as they saw them.

Sadow reopened questioning about the end of the “romantic” relationship, which Willis distinguished as one date for the end of their physical intimacy and a later date for the “hard conversation.”

The judge asked Sadow to move on from dissecting the “conversation,” but when he did, the dam broke, and Willis described it anyway to illustrate her indignation at the idea that money or “romance” influenced her actions:

SADOW: Okay. You indicated your best recollection was that you relationship with Mr. Wade, a romantic relationship, ended — you will have to get — August of 2023. That sound right?

WILLIS: That’s the hard conversation. That’s not the —

JUDGE: We’ve covered this. Next question.

SADOW: And you characterize it as a tough conversation? Correct?

WILLIS: Yes.

SADOW: Okay. I’m not going to get into the conversation per se.

WILLIS: You should.

JUDGE: Well, if he doesn’t want to, we won’t go there.

So, Mr. Sadow, next question.

SADOW: It’s kind of hard to say no when you’ve got that opportunity. But I’m going to say is, was it pre-indictment in this case?

WILLIS: So —

JUDGE: We know the timeline that the indictment was delivered.

WILLIS: And so that we’re clear, the physical relationship ended pre- indictment.

SADOW: And is that when you were talking about the tough conversation?

WILLIS: But the phy — I’m not sure that the tough conversation didn’t happen until after, but the physical relationships, so I’m sure if you ask Mr. Wade because he’s a male, he would say we ended June or July because physical contact ended then.

Just in my mind, being a woman, it’s over when you have that like hard conversation. That’s — I just think women and men think differently.

JUDGE: And I think the answer Mr. Sadow, out of your question was she’s not sure whether it was before or after the indictment.

SADOW: I’m not — I’m not sure that that was her answer, but let’s see if I can get specific.

WILLIS: That is what I said. That’s what I said.

JUDGE: I let you. Next question, Mr. Sadow, if you need to clarify.

SADOW: I want to say one more. The romantic relationship ended before the indictment was returned? Yes or no?

WILLIS: To a man, yes.

SADOW: To a man, yes. To you, no?

JUDGE: She’s explained this, Mr. Sadow. She’s explained.

SADOW: And the — did the forthcoming indictment have anything to do with that? Or was it just a coincidence.

WILLIS: Mister — let’s go on and have the conversation.

SADOW: I’ve just asked you whether or not it was a coincidence.

WILLIS: Had absolutely nothing to do with this. It’s interesting that we’re here about this money Mr. Wade is used to women that — as he told me one time, the only thing a woman can do for him is make him a sandwich.

We would have brutal arguments about the fact that I am your equal. I don’t need anything from a man. A man is not a plan. A man is a companion.

And so there was tension always in our relationship, which is why I always give him his money back. I don’t need anybody to foot my bills. The only man who’s ever put my bills completely is my daddy.

SADOW: Is there anything else you’d like to add to that?

WILLIS: No.

The hearing continues Friday morning.

Watch above via pool.