New book reveals Fani Willis’ unlawful recording initiated Get-Trump investigation

Democrat Prosecutor’s Legal Troubles Could ⁣Unravel Trump ⁢Prosecution

Democrat Fani Willis’ ‍legal troubles extend beyond recent revelations that she deceptively⁤ hired ‍her otherwise under-qualified, secret, married lover to run ​the political prosecution of former President Donald Trump and ‍other Republicans in Georgia. ​A new book‍ from Mike Isikoff and​ Daniel Klaidman admits ⁣that a widely⁢ misunderstood ​phone call, on⁣ which Willis’ political prosecution rests,‍ was illegally recorded. That means the entire prosecution could crumble with​ defendants having a new ‍avenue ‌to⁤ challenge Democrat lawfare.

Find Me⁣ the Votes: A Hard-Charging Georgia Prosecutor,⁤ a Rogue President, and​ the⁢ Plot ⁣to Steal an American Election ⁢ is a fawning ‍political biography of Willis. For context on the bias of the ⁤authors, Isikoff was an original ⁣Russia-collusion hoaxer, and his articles to that end were used to secure⁤ warrants for the FBI to spy on innocent Republican ⁣presidential⁤ campaign advisers such as Carter Page.

For years, the media and other Democrats have held up Willis as a brilliant ‌and credible prosecutor of⁤ Republicans. The new book suffers from poor timing, ‍with ⁢Willis and her lover accused‌ of ⁤perjury, subornation⁣ of perjury, ⁤bribery, and kickbacks related to the prosecution. Willis could ⁤be removed ‍from ‍the prosecution as ​early as this week.

Willis’ Radical Roots

Nevertheless, the book shares interesting details about Willis’​ father, John ⁢C. Floyd, and his radical past. Described as a “onetime radical activist” who considered the police to be the “enemy” and an “occupying army,” Floyd founded the Black Panther Political⁣ Party of Los Angeles and said of it, “Our political philosophy is black nationalism.” He took former ⁢Communist ​Party vice presidential nominee Angela Davis as‍ a lover and lived with her prior to‍ her⁣ being placed on the FBI’s ‌Most ⁤Wanted ‌list ‍for purchasing the gun‍ used to murder a Marin County, California judge.

Willis, who was ⁢raised by her father, worked for Beverly Hills⁤ attorney Howard ​Schmuckler before ‍he was disbarred and ⁣also before​ he⁣ was imprisoned for running a⁣ fraudulent mortgage rescue company.​ She worked for another lawyer​ in Atlanta ​who was disbarred for tipping off ⁤a drug dealer to an impending ⁢DEA raid. At ​that firm,⁢ she represented ⁣a‍ crack dealer who “turned out to be‍ the male‌ stripper at her bachelorette ​party” and ⁢worked with Keisha Lance Bottoms, a former Atlanta mayor and now a top domestic policy adviser to President Joe Biden.

Isikoff provides these details to help readers “understand how Willis ⁢became ⁢the kind of law-and-order ​DA who would unflinchingly take on Donald Trump.”

Willis ran on pledges to restore professionalism and sexual ethics to the Fulton County district attorney’s office and to‍ begin to deal with a backlog of 11,000 unindicted homicides, assaults, shootings, and other crimes. Instead, the⁣ night before ⁢her official first day, word leaked of a recent phone call between Trump‍ and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. The phone call had ⁣been ‌ dishonestly portrayed by Trump ⁤opponents, and Willis hoped that Raffensperger had been ⁤in Fulton County for the call, ⁤so she could ‍prosecute Trump based on⁤ that false understanding of​ the call.

When she showed up for her first day of work, according to ⁤the book, “‘I just remember sitting down and looking ‌at the TV and thinking’ maybe he was‌ in ⁢Fulton County, she recalled. Her county.”

A Political Activist in Georgia’s Election Office

However, the‌ person who recorded the phone call wasn’t in Fulton County or even in Georgia. That’s a problem. Jordan Fuchs, a political activist who ⁤serves as Raffensperger’s chief of staff, was in Florida, where it is illegal to record a call without‌ all parties to the​ call consenting‌ to the recording. She neither asked for nor ⁢received consent to record.

Fuchs was one of ​the‌ main sources for Isikoff and ‍Klaidman’s book, ⁤they admit ⁢in their acknowledgments.​ While they reward her with effusive praise throughout, she comes off very poorly. For example, she​ offers‌ a frankly unhinged conspiracy theory that President Trump ​was planning to lose the 2020 election as early as May of 2020 and was therefore floating a plan‍ with⁣ Washington ⁤Post reporters to⁣ win the election in Georgia through⁢ the⁣ legislature. She describes how she “invented a new policy” to block public view of an election audit. She indicates such little‍ knowledge of‍ election ​laws and processes‍ that she seems to ‍think Georgia requires voters to‍ use Social Security numbers⁣ to vote.

Fuchs is instead described as a “street-smart deputy” of⁢ Raffensperger who is obsessed with personal slights, political ⁢payback,​ and her hatred ⁣of Trump, his supporters, and his team. Her previous dabbling in⁤ the occult is contextualized, along with her shocking lack of⁣ knowledge of election​ law and processes — which brings⁢ us to the‍ illegally taped phone call.

Illegal Phone Call Recording

“Unlike ‍many of her ‍fellow Republican consultants with ​whom ​she had ⁢worked, Fuchs had a friendly working relationship​ with ‌members of the Fourth ‌Estate,” Isikoff and Klaidman write before describing Fuchs’ regular leaks to The Washington Post, ‍which conservatives despise for its left-wing propaganda, hoaxes‌ such as ‍the Russia-collusion lie, and smears ‌of‌ conservatives such as⁣ Justice‌ Brett Kavanaugh.

Fuchs first gave The Washington Post fabricated quotes they later had to retract about a ⁤phone call President Trump⁤ had⁤ with someone in the elections office. Though Fuchs ⁤was not busted ⁢for her lie‌ until March 2021, months after the fabricated quotes ‍were used to‍ impeach President Trump, the authors of the book say the embarrassment of⁣ being found​ out taught her‌ the importance of recording phone calls such as the early January 2021 phone call that forms the​ basis of Willis’ investigation. They​ do not explain how this lesson worked ⁣in terms of the space-time continuum.

In‍ any case, Fuchs recorded a phone call between​ Trump, Raffensperger, and their associates. Fuchs ended the call by saying they⁤ should get off the phone and work to “preserve the relationship” between‌ the​ two ‍offices. Instead, she immediately leaked ⁢the phone call to The Washington Post,‌ which published it ⁢hours later.

Covering ⁢up the Crime

This is⁣ where the authors of the book admit that the⁣ very recording of the​ call was a crime:

Fuchs has never talked ​publicly about⁣ her taping of ‍the phone call; she learned, after the fact, that Florida where she was at the⁣ time is one⁣ of fifteen states⁤ that‌ requires⁣ two-party consent for the taping of phone calls. A‌ lawyer for Raffensperger’s ‍office asked the January 6 ⁤committee not to call her as a witness for reasons the committee’s lawyers assumed were due to her potential⁤ legal exposure. The committee agreed.⁤ But when she ⁣was called⁤ before a Fulton County special grand ⁢jury convened by Fani Willis, she was granted immunity and confirmed the taping, according‍ to three sources with direct knowledge of her testimony.

Republicans had long suspected Fuchs was the source of​ the audiotaped ⁢call and, further, ⁣that she had illegally recorded it in Florida. Fuchs had noted in ​a Facebook post that ‌she was in Florida visiting​ family around the time ⁢of the call. ⁢The book describes the close working relationship and “secret collaboration” of the Liz Cheney-led Jan. ⁣6 committee​ and Fani ⁣Willis’⁤ prosecutorial team. Fuchs should‍ have been⁤ a major⁢ part of the⁤ televised show trial Cheney put ⁣on, further convincing Republicans that Fuchs had illegally taped the call and Cheney was helping cover that up. ⁢(Incidentally, the book portrays Cheney as⁣ the real leader of the Jan. ​6 ⁢committee,‌ that she viewed⁤ it as a “platform for her to resuscitate her⁤ political career” and would “provide ⁢a springboard for a Cheney ‌presidential run.”)

The authors go on to say Fuchs would⁢ attempt to escape prosecution for the call if a‍ Florida official brought charges by claiming she taped and immediately leaked the call to ​The Washington Post for ⁣“law enforcement ​purposes.”⁣ The authors somewhat hilariously ⁤describe this claim as an “effective defense.”

Fruit of the ⁤Poisonous Tree

The ‌problem ​for Fani ⁢Willis’ political prosecution is‌ that the book convincingly shows the⁢ entire prosecution rests on a piece of evidence that everyone​ now knows‌ was illegally obtained —‌ never mind that the evidence has also been completely misinterpreted.

“And ⁣Fuchs did what was arguably ⁤the single gutsiest and most consequential act of‌ the entire ‌post-election battle,” the authors write. “Without telling Raffensperger or Meadows, she taped ⁣the call.”

“It⁢ was all​ the evidence Fani Willis ⁣needed to get started,” they write of the leaked recording, adding, “The​ recording was the single piece of damning ⁤evidence that had launched the ‍investigation.”

With this evidence provided in the hagiography of Willis, those persecuted by her political⁢ prosecution could argue the entire investigation is corrupted by the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.

“Fruit of the poisonous trees⁢ is⁣ a doctrine that extends the exclusionary rule to⁣ make evidence inadmissible ‍in court if it was ‌derived from evidence that was illegally⁤ obtained,” according to Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. “As ‌the ‌metaphor suggests, if the evidential ‘tree’⁤ is tainted,​ so is‌ its ‘fruit.’ ⁣The⁣ doctrine was established in 1920 by the decision in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, and the phrase ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ was coined by Justice Frankfurter in his 1939 opinion‌ in Nardone v. United States. The rule typically bars even testimonial evidence resulting from‍ excludable evidence, ​such as a ‍confession.”

With Fani Willis repeatedly saying the entire investigation into ‍Republicans was the ⁣result of a phone call ⁢that was illegally recorded, ⁢defendants might pursue legal recourse. ‍It’s the latest challenge⁣ for Willis, even if the political ally judge reviewing whether she can continue prosecuting Georgia Republicans rules in her favor.