CNN legal analyst Michael Moore is a former elected Democrat Georgia state senator, and later a US Attorney in Georgia appointed by Barack Obama.
So, appearing on CNN This Morning today, you might well have expected him to toe the Dem line in defending Fani Willis in her fight not to be removed as prosecutor in the election interference case she has brought against Donald Trump and 18 other defendants.
But Moore entirely upended any such expectations in his comments on Willis' testimony of yesterday, and on the broader issues surrounding the matter. Here were the highlights:
Moore called Willis' testimony "just not credible." Substitute host Erica Hill, hoping against hope, asked if Moore was perhaps referring to the questioning of Willis by Ashleigh Merchant, the attorney for Trump' co-defendant Michael Roman, who brought the motion to have Willis removed from the case. Nope. Moore made clear he was calling Willis' testimony itself "not credible."
Moore analogized Willis' surprise decision to testify to that of a criminal defendant who chooses to take the stand, despite not being required to do so. Said Moore: "It just becomes a train wreck. And so that's sort of how I felt about this, it just went off the tracks."
Willis and Nathan Wade have sworn that their relationship did not begin until after Willis hired Wade onto her prosecutorial staff for the case. Moore was clearly skeptical about that, saying, "he was going to her house or visiting her alone, some number of times years before she claims, or a year before they claim they were dating. That's strikes me as a little bit odd. I mean, not a big deal, but was she having other, entertaining other members of the prosecution team? No. It was just him." Yup, just "a little bit odd!"
Moore was also skeptical about Willis' claim that in reimbursing Wade for the vacation expenses he paid for the couple, she exclusively used cash, never a check or a cash-transfer app: "I have a hard time just thinking about a DA paying everything in cash. Nothing wrong with cash, but it's convenient right now."
Cue SNL's Dana Carvey character, the Church Lady: "Well isn't that con-veeen-ient!"
As for Fani's display of righteous indignation on the stand, Moore said: "I just didn't think it did her much good. Her indignation would have seemed a lot more sincere if she'd come out about two months ago. But remember, even as she is there saying, wanting to get to the truth, and she's shaking the documents and the court filings around in front of everybody, her office is fighting everything. They're fighting every witness subpoena. They don't want the records to come in. And she's refusing to let bank records and other things come in." Ouch!
Finally, Moore called for the release of texts between Roman's lawyer, Ashleigh Merchant, and Terrence Bradley, a friend, fraternity brother, and former law partner of Wade's. Merchant says those texts will demonstrate Bradley's knowledge of the existence of the Willis-Wade relationship pre-dating Wade's hiring by Willis.
All in all, Moore made a devastating case against Willis. He was followed by CNN commentator Errol Louis, a reliable liberal. But Louis declined to ride to Willis' defense. Louis said he wouldn't go down the "rabbit hole" of the plausibility of Willis' testimony!
My Two Cents: If the judge determines that Willis did indeed lie, it is hard to see how he would allow her to continue on the case. If he removes Willis, her entire team will also be removed, and it will be up to the ironically named Pete Skandalakis, executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, to appoint a new prosecutor. That would undoubtedly cause an extended delay of the case.
But imagine that Willis is somehow cleared of all the accusations against her, and remains in place as the prosecutor. The cloud of impropriety will hang over her and her prosecution. This could be a godsend for Trump in making the case that he is the victim of a rigged judicial system. Whatever legal risks Trump might face, it could well redound to his electoral benefit.
Here's the transcript.
CNN This Morning
2/16/24
6:09 am ETERICA HILL: Did you find the questions effective in terms of getting at evidence, if it is there, to support these allegations?
MICHAEL MOORE: Um, not really. I think there were things that they could have pushed a lot harder on, and maybe a little delved into specifics a little bit more, especially when we start talking about things as nebulous as cash payments, and there's no way to track it.
How much cash was paid? What, did you really just pay for the $150 to negotiate the taxi, or was there, what did you do with the $4,000 you took? I think they could have pushed that.
I also thought that it just was not credible. It reminded me of watching a criminal defendant take the stand. They don't have to do that. And you see it, and you can tell they, that the defendant thinks that they're smarter than every lawyer in the room. And it just becomes a trainwreck. And so that's sort of how I felt this, it just went off the tracks.
HILL: When you say it wasn't credible, are you referring to the testimony from --are you referring to the testimony from -- are you referring to testimony or to the line of questioning?
MOORE: To the testimony. I thought that there was things that, he was going to her house or visiting her alone, some number of times years before she claims, or a year before they claim they were dating. That's strikes me as a little bit odd. I mean, not a big deal, but was she having other, entertaining other members of the prosecution team? No. It was just him. Nobody was there to see it.
They want to talk about the credibility of the lady at the DA's office who testified. The witness that predates the relationship. You know, she had as much of an ax to grind as they do. And probably they have more at risk than she does. So when the judge weighs out credibility, who may have a reason to lie? Who has a reason to tell the truth? Which one seems to be more believable?
You know, I have a hard time just thinking about DA paying everything in cash. Nothing wrong with cash, but it's convenient right now. The trial in New York, I mean, it's a check were looking at. It wasn't cash shuttled around on the table. This is just cash money, somebody's claiming.
And then, the visits there, the, it's sort of the indignation. I just didn't think it did her much good. Her indignation would have seemed a lot more sincere if she'd come out about two months ago.
But remember, even as she is there saying, wanting to get to the truth, and she's shaking the documents and the court filings around in front of everybody, her office is fighting everything. They're fighting every witness subpoena. They don't want the records to come in. And she's refusing to let bank records and other things come in. They're hiding behind the privilege from his divorce lawyer who they're claiming was a friend. But maybe a divorce lawyer, so we really shouldn't have to say anything.
And we've still got this string of texts that Mr. Bradley had with one of the defense lawyers, Ms. Merchant. Let's see what those texts say. Because apparently, and she told the court, I've got information where he says this happened before. So if that's another witness, you know, let's see it. Let's let Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis let us see that.
ERROL LOUIS: I mean, it was compelling television. We had it on in our newsroom. And so you, you know, you couldn't get away from it. She had a certain command of the situation, and said a lot of things, some of which might or might be plausible. I chose not to go down the rabbit hole. In part because she's already got three guilty pleas from three of Trump's lawyers. In part because there's a lot at stake here. And I didn't think they did such a good job of trying to tie it back.
I understand that in sort of the dogfight of the moment, you're trying to get certain facts before the judge and try to nail her down on certain dates and certain amounts of money, and the cash makes it that much harder and so forth. But I kept, again, because I'm, I'm sort of like dipping in and out, and I'm thinking, it's like, what does this have to do with the guilt or innocence of the defendants in the case? If she got hit by a bus, if Nathan Wade was disqualified or went away, nothing really changes. You've still got the defendants.You've still got the evidence. You've still got prosecution. You've got guilty pleas, and three of Trump's former lawyers who are cooperating with the prosecutors.
