Did Fani Willis Lie? Judicial Watch SUES! | Judicial Watch
Summary
Transcript
The House recently just released a letter that Fanny Willis had written to Benny Thompson, who was the then chair of the Pelosi Rump committee, as I call it, that was investigating or pretending to investigate January 6. It was all just a get Trump scheme. Now, we know from judicial litigation that we just highlighted, or we just filed, that Fanny’s office, and maybe Fanny herself, has been caught in a falsehood.
We just filed a lawsuit for records that Fanny Willis has about communications with the January 6 committee. And Jack Smith and I talk about this key issue in this brief clip here. Hey, everyone. Did Fanny Willis’s office lie about records? That’s why Judicial watch just sued Fanny Willis and Fulton county for records of communications they had with the January 6 committee and the Jack Smith operation being run by the Biden Justice Department.
They told us Fanny Willis’s people did, that they had no records of communications with the January 6 committee or Jack Smith. But Congress just released a letter signed by Fanny Willis to the head of the January 6 committee. So what’s up with that now? Why did they give us what looks to be false information? Did they miss the record? Are there other records they’re hiding? But all of this really highlights the corrupt, compromised, and politicized operations against Trump being run out of Fulton county that were run by the January 6 committee and that are currently being run also by Jack Smith and the Biden gang.
Sorry about that video. It looks like I got up in the middle of the night and recorded it, doesn’t it? But I made the point that there’s this new scandal that has caused judicial watch to pursue a state open records claim against Fannie Willis. We filed in Fulton County, Georgia, in the Superior court a new lawsuit under the Georgia Open Records act. So it’s not called FOIA, it’s the open records act in Georgia.
For the following records lawsuit. For the following records, all documents and communications sent to, received from, or relating to special counsel Jack Smith or any employees in his office. All documents and communications sent to or received from the United States House January 6 committee or any of its employees. Now, we had asked for these documents. When did we ask for them? Oh, we asked for them in August of 2023.
So we asked for them back in August, and they came back, as I say in the clip, and they told us they didn’t have any records, which suggest, right strongly, that there were no communications. Well, turns out that evidently is not true in the sense that the House recently just released a letter that Fanny Willis had written to Benny Thompson, who was the then chair of the Pelosi Rump committee, as I call it, that was investigating or pretending to investigate.
January 6. It was all just a get Trump scheme, as we highlight in our lawsuit Willis’s and the county’s representation about not having records responsive to the request, likely false. There was a December 5, 2023 letter from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan to Willis that cites a December 2020, December 2021 letter from Willis to then house January 6 committee chairman Benny Thompson. In that letter, Willis requested assistance from the committee and offered to travel to DC.
And Jim Jordan notes, specifically, you asked Thompson for access to records, including but not limited to, recordings and transcripts of witness interviews and depositions, electronic and print records of communications and records of travel. You even offered that you and your staff were eager to travel to DC to meet with investigators in person, and they received these records anytime in January and February of 2022. Willis’s letter, as we say in the lawsuit, is plainly responsive to the request.
Yet it was neither produced in response to our request nor claimed to be subject to exemption. Now, just because we ask, and as the lawsuit points out, the law allows the agency that gets the request sometimes to withhold information. So what does that mean? They can claim an exemption, meaning it’s confidential, based on an exemption that we are follow, that is granted to us under law. There’s a good reason under law for us to withhold the letter.
But you typically have to tell the requester, well, we searched. We have certain records. Here are the ones that are releasable to you in whole or in part, others. These are the reasons we’re not giving them to you, because there are certain privileges or exemptions that apply. They told us they didn’t have any records at all. Does that sound true to you? Do you think they missed it? I don’t think they missed it.
There were news reports and other records that we cite in the lawsuit which indicate that representatives of Willis’s office traveled to DC and met with the January 6 committee in April, May, and November of 2022. So they followed up as she proposed. There were no communications setting up those meetings. Of course there were, and they should have been disclosed to us. And if they didn’t want to turn them over to us, they should have said, we’ve got records, but we can’t give them to you.
So you have here a situation because the lawsuit is against Fanny Willis and Fulton county, so we’re named her directly. Both of them seem to have provided false information about having no records of communications with Jack Smith and the Pelosi January 6 committee. And then, of course, there were other issues related to their communications with Jack Smith. We already have a lawsuit over the hiring of Nathan Wade.
Now he’s no longer there. I guess it should be easy for them to give us all the records now, right? We’ll see what happens there. But this is the sort of work that needs to be miss the district attorney, a democratic politician who’s, you know what, she’s up for office again this year. I didn’t realize that she’s running literally to stay in office as she’s trying to prosecute Trump to what I would argue is a transparent attempt to keep him out of office.
One candidate prosecuting another. Banana republic stuff. So here we have a court essentially saying Fanny has a conflict of interest, or the appearance of a conflict of interest gave her a pass on the actual conflict of interest in a way that I found completely unpersuasive and incomprehensible. And then we have other information that she lied to judicial watch or gave us false information, she and her people, about documents they had.
Now, the interesting thing about FOIA in Georgia is that the law requires that you comply with FOIA. And if you don’t comply with FOIA or the open records law in a good faith manner, you can be prosecuted, you can be charged with a crime. I think it’s a misdemeanor. You can also face a civil fine. So it’s going to be interesting to see how this turns out. Now, I don’t know what’s happening with the whole mess down there with Fannie Willis and her boyfriend and how or if the Trump and other defendants are going to appeal the judge’s ruling to let her continue to abuse Trump and others despite this evident corruption.
So I don’t know if they’re going to continue that in terms of the appeal and what the timing of that will be, but the Fulton county issue is a mess. It was corrupt from the get go. We had further evidence, in addition to the political and abuse of power corruption targeting Trump because of his politics, not because he did anything wrong, we have now this underlying corruption in terms of just the petty personal corruption of Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade and who knows who else in the office of the district attorney there in Fulton county.
So this isn’t over by long shot, that’s for sure. Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below. .
See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.
