By: Victory Davis Hanson
No Law Left in America—From Willis to Hur
From the testimonies of at least two associates of Fani Willis and Nathan Wade, from the inconsistent and self-contradictory statements of Willis and Wade themselves especially about large “cash” remittances, without any supporting proof, to Wade from Willis, from text messages from their associate Terrence Bradley, from phone records pinpointing their locations, from the preposterous nature of Willis’s use of the race card in both her testimony and her church appearance, Judge Scott McAfee surely knew—well aside from the bizarre contortions of using a racketeering charge to get Trump, whom she had demonized in her campaign for office and fund-raising efforts—that Willis herself was guilty of a number of felonies.
Namely that she was lying under oath; that she was lying about her cash transfers, and that she was pursuing a political vendetta against the current leading candidate for president.
Yet McAfee allowed her to stay on the case after dismissing Wade (which was a gift to the prosecution, given his incompetence and his apparent unlawful behavior by charging the state of Georgia for 24 straight hours of legal work.)
So the question arises, what would a Georgia prosecutor have to do to be disqualified from a case by Judge McAfee?
Lie even more under oath?
-
Have three, not just two, witnesses contradict her sworn testimony?
-
Have thirty or forty more telephone pings belie her testimony of her whereabouts?
-
Have, say, emails in addition to the current texts, of an associate contradicting almost everything she said?
In other words, McAfee nullified the evidence before him and removed the less culpable of the two guilty parties, given all these illegalities originated with Willis himself.
Is there still a law against perjury and fraud—or does ideology and race now determine guilt or innocence in America?
In his recent congressional testimony, the Democrats cleverly pivoted to hammer Hur on his correct characterization of Biden as essentially demented.
That melodrama was in their interest, given that Hur’s lengthy report otherwise revealed no real reason not to indict Biden.
His guilt was overwhelming.
Not under dispute according to Hur were the facts that Biden:
-
1) had unlawfully and knowingly removed and retained classified files since his senate days, possibly since 1973, or over a half-century;
-
2) removed the files to a possible 9 different locations, few of them secure, as evidenced by the sloppy mess and dilapidated boxes of files in the Biden garage;
-
3) that Biden removed them not inadvertently but did so to further his political career and to profit by providing a ghostwriter with classified material to enhance his memoirs—that had garnered a $8 million advance in a book deal;
-
4) That Biden had no statuary authority, before his presidency, to declassify any of these classified files;
-
5) that Biden knowingly disclosed the files’ presence and contents to his ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer, who had no security clearance;
-
6) that Biden is on tape at least as early as 2017 admitting that he was in violation of the law, and yet did not come forward for nearly six years, and then only in fear that his own DOJ’s special counsel was soon to indict Trump for the very same exposure—willfully retaining files at his home that he knew were classified;
-
7) that ghostwriter Zwonitzer willfully destroyed state’s evidence when he erased his incriminating tapes (recovered by Hur’s forensics team) and yet was never prosecuted for obstruction of justice or destroying requested materials.
So as in the Willis case, what would Biden have to do to become indicted? Removed files for 60 years? Remove them to 10 different locations and throw the contents on the floor? Remove them for a $10 million book deal?
Be on tape since 2010 that he knew he was in violation of the law and did nothing to rectify that for 12 rather than 6 years?
Have his ghostwriter go full Hillary and destroy with sledgehammers the taped evidence of his illegality?
Was not the now exempt Zwonitzer’s deliberate destruction of incriminating and requested evidence far more serious than the various Trump aides facing felony convictions for allegedly moving classified files around on Trump’s orders?
So what happened?
Likely the following:
Hur was shocked after he completed his investigation over just how guilty Biden was, and just how asymmetrical that fact would become given the simultaneous indictments of Trump for less criminal exposure.
Yet he was not about to take out the likely Democratic presidential nominee and current president, in the fashion his special prosecutor twin Jack Smith had been tasked to do just that by Merrick Garland.
So Hur squared the circle by using the Comey jury ruse: Biden was guilty of violating the law, but he was so enfeebled that no jury would convict him. Hur feared the consequences of indicting Biden far more than he did the pushback about his accurate characterization of his dementia.
So what?
There is really no legal system left as we once knew it.
We have a prosecutor who has likely violated more laws than her target and yet the law was warped to excuse her in the same degree it was contorted to ensure that Trump was indicted.
We have one special prosecutor who found overwhelming evidence that a president was guilty of removing classified files; guilty of disclosing their contents to a contractor working for him; and guilty of keeping these facts hidden until forced to reveal him by the asymmetrical investigation of his political rival who was indicted by his own department of justice for the virtual same crimes that were dropped for Biden.
Finally, since when are any Americans able to plead either racial considerations or cognitive challenges to nullify legal consequences for their criminal activity?
