Who Is Fani Willis Really? | Willis' Mask Slips in Extremely Disingenuous Testimony

Why did judge McAfee reprimand DA Fani Willis during her testimony? What's wrong with Willis' statements? Why do they seem unclear and stalling? To answer these questions, this in-depth language analysis looks at heated and revealing excerpts from Willis' testimony to the Fulton County court. In these excerpts, Willis is questioned about whether people in her office knew about her relationship with prosecutor Nathan Wade. The analysis uses concepts such as 'distancing language' and 'weak denials' to find out how Willis' word choice affects the reliability of her testimony. This video has an educational purpose. You can use many of the principles and concepts to decode interviews, speeches, and your own daily conversations. As an analysis, this video is carefully made according to the terms of 'fair use'.

Transcript

0:00
it is an inaccurate way to State the
0:02
question you don’t have a chance to
0:03
explain
0:05
yourself so that we’re clear just so
0:07
we’re clear I want to be
0:09
clear it’s either yes or no I never tell
0:12
people at work who I’m dating and please
0:15
do not yell at
0:16
me all I ask is who knew re ask the
0:19
question we’ll see where it takes us
0:21
okay how are the answers da Fon Willis
0:25
expose her diversion tactics and what do
0:27
these diversion tactics mean for the
0:29
truth value of these answers what is the
0:32
information that Willis doesn’t want to
0:34
disclose this video looks at the most
0:36
heated moments of the examination of
0:38
Willers hang on because things are about
0:41
to get spicy let’s go for it ask few
0:43
questions that you can actually answer
0:46
without having to explain okay yes sir
0:50
my comprehension skills are pretty good
0:52
so we should do all right we shall soon
0:54
see by emphasizing the entering part the
0:57
lawyer anticipates will as as many over
1:00
elaborate answers that I’ve pointed out
1:02
in previous videos this is a way of
1:05
putting pressure on Willis that if she
1:07
starts over explaining people are going
1:09
to
1:10
notice if I heard you correctly
1:14
you moved into what I will refer to as
1:17
the YY condo in either March or April of
1:21
2021 is that correct some time between
1:24
late February and April yes I don’t just
1:27
so we’re clear yes just so we’re clear I
1:30
think I’ve heard this before and let me
1:32
be clear it needs to be very clear let’s
1:34
be very clear in conversations and
1:36
especially in a situation like this
1:38
people are expected to be clear so why
1:41
say it saying it shows that the speaker
1:43
is highly self-aware it’s also a
1:46
possible indication that the speaker
1:48
knows that he or she isn’t or doesn’t
1:50
want to be clear for self-protective
1:52
reasons and you moved in there for
1:54
safety reasons this is a declarative
1:56
statement functioning as a yes no
1:58
question however ever does Willers give
2:01
a simple yes no answer no my father uh
2:07
yes I moved in there my we were
2:08
concerned my father was terribly
2:10
concerned about me continuing to live at
2:12
the house and it so they were clear
2:14
people came to my house at 5:00 in the
2:16
morning um about the Poli brutality
2:19
cases saying I was going to have a
2:20
wakeup call and there were concerns due
2:23
to the um that was at the very beginning
2:25
of this looking into that and so for all
2:27
of those reasons and what was happening
2:29
my father wanted me out the house and um
2:32
begrudgingly I left stalling is a
2:34
pattern in Willis’s answers as a DA
2:37
she’s fully aware of the difference
2:39
between answering and overe explaining
2:41
overe explaining leads to predictable
2:43
confrontations that buy her more time to
2:46
focus on whatever she feels like
2:47
focusing on her recurring claim to want
2:50
to be clear is designed to take the
2:52
focus away from this stalling stalling
2:55
is an act of linguistic self-defense and
2:58
unintentionally point to the possibility
3:00
of Willis having information that she
3:02
doesn’t want to disclose so in the long
3:05
run she isn’t doing herself any favors
3:08
even though in the moment she might
3:09
think she is okay so the answer to the
3:13
question was yes for safety reasons
3:15
correct those were all of the things
3:17
that caused the safety concerns I’m
3:19
sorry I’m not questioning whether they
3:21
are are not safety concerns I just asked
3:23
that you moved into this condo the RT
3:26
condo for safety reasons right yes okay
3:29
conversation analysis works with the
3:31
notion of the first pair part and a
3:33
second pair part a so-called adjacency
3:36
pair meaning that if we as the first PA
3:38
part speaker ask a question we expect
3:41
the second PA part speaker to answer
3:43
accordingly if the second PA part
3:45
speaker doesn’t give a proper response
3:47
to a yes no question like correct
3:50
correct argument ensues Willis’s
3:53
Defiance breaks conversational rules and
3:56
thus continues to distract from the
3:58
topic at hand which is the point at the
4:01
time that you moved into the condo be it
4:03
from February to April of 2021 was your
4:07
father still living in your house right
4:09
because my father that’s all I ask you
4:11
but I I get to explain the answer sir I
4:13
don’t know if there’s an explanation if
4:14
I ask you was your father still living
4:16
at your house the answer is either he
4:18
was or he wasn’t yes but you are going
4:21
to get to argue at the end of this as we
4:23
both know I’m argue anything aside from
4:25
extreme self-awareness this passage
4:27
exposes Willis’s need for control at
4:30
this point the lawyer is very far from
4:32
arguing anything these are preliminary
4:34
questions Willis’s objection here could
4:37
be used in all court cases so what is
4:39
she proposing that all people who take
4:41
the stand don’t conform to the lawyer’s
4:44
questioning because the lawyer will
4:46
argue their points Willis is a citizen
4:48
like everyone else but her behavior
4:51
indicates that she wants to be treated
4:52
as more than that next we see that she
4:55
gets what she wants even though it’s
4:57
actually counterproductive a point
4:59
confrontation which is the point I’m
5:02
going to ask to explain why yes because
5:06
my father is an older gentleman he was
5:08
worried about Co and he stayed Willis’s
5:11
intonation gives the false impression
5:13
that her answer is self-sacrificing and
5:16
that this is a turning point in the
5:17
examination when the truth is she was
5:19
asked a preliminary simple yes no
5:21
question but anything to act as if she’s
5:24
under attack I guess surely that’ll make
5:27
the lawyer tone it down right and
5:29
finally the judge decides to take action
5:32
bring out the
5:34
popcorn I’m going to have to say this
5:37
second time whenever we have to put a
5:39
pause we stop testifying okay you’ll
5:42
have a chance to explain yourself the
5:44
question was whether your father was not
5:47
staying there at the time and you’re
5:50
clarifying
5:53
that and your answer as well you can
5:57
have a brief clarification but it
6:00
shouldn’t be something that reaches well
6:02
beyond the question all right Mr s we
6:04
can re ask the question we’ll see where
6:05
it takes us okay thank you the real
6:08
question that the judge should ask
6:10
himself is why do I have to say this to
6:12
a DA who’s fully aware of the procedure
6:15
and who’s shown that she’s fully aware
6:17
of the procedure but you are going to
6:19
get to argue at the end of this as we
6:21
both know the answer to that question is
6:24
stalling I I know if I’m going to have
6:26
to say this the judge says qualifying
6:28
his objection which along with all the
6:30
other times he hasn’t objected suggests
6:33
reluctance is he always this reluctant
6:36
or is it only when he’s speaking to a DA
6:39
next it’s interesting to note how fast
6:41
Willis answers the question I guess
6:43
answering wasn’t so hard after
6:45
all was your father still living in your
6:49
house at the time you moved to what I
6:52
would refer to as a year condo yes sir
6:54
he was due to his concerns related to co
6:58
okay which is a reliable answer short
7:01
concise and relevant to the question
7:03
this shift from an intentionally over
7:05
elaborate answer to a short answer has
7:08
occurred more than once so um you and Mr
7:11
Wade met in October 2019 at a conference
7:14
that is correct and I think in one of
7:16
your motions you tried to implicate I
7:17
slept with him at that conference which
7:19
I find to be extremely offensive M
7:22
Willis I’ll ask you just listen to the
7:23
answer or excuse me the question and
7:26
keep the answers confined to the
7:27
questions um so again my question was
7:29
you all met at that conference right we
7:31
did the me he as I stated he taught the
7:34
class this shows that Willis understands
7:36
the questions and more importantly
7:39
understands how she should answer them
7:41
so why all the drama because the drama
7:43
has to be there it’s part of the
7:45
linguistic self-defense part of the
7:47
stalling Willis gets even more defensive
7:50
when she’s asked about her relationship
7:52
with Nathan Wade the prosecutor she
7:54
hired to help in the prosecution of
7:56
trump who in the prosecution team knew
7:59
of your personal relationship and now
8:02
I’m talking romantic with Mr Wade
8:05
questions don’t get clearer than this
8:07
that’s how we can be sure that we’re not
8:09
about to get a clear answer so
8:12
sir I am extremely private all I ask is
8:16
who knew it’s not if the answer is no
8:18
one knew that’s fine I am extremely
8:23
private this is Focus Shift a classic
8:25
devotion tactic this particular Focus
8:28
Shift is an appeal to to Virtue being a
8:30
decent person who doesn’t let people in
8:32
on her private life this particular
8:35
Focus Shift is Willis’s way of acting
8:37
offended and interestingly presupposing
8:39
that the lawyer should have known better
8:41
than to ask as if he’s aware of a virtue
8:44
just imagine if other people thought
8:46
they could get away with this kind of
8:48
Defense so much diversion so little time
8:51
no I ask you who knew answer answer and
8:55
then explain this well I am very private
8:58
when I supervise Mr body of Mr McAfee
9:00
they didn’t know who I was dating but I
9:01
can assure you I was dating somebody so
9:03
that I kept something private that’s my
9:05
private life is not any mystery to
9:09
anyone no one said it was a mystery
9:11
she’s the one bringing it up Willis
9:13
response as if she’s already given a
9:15
clear answer and is now annoyed that she
9:17
has to clarify it she uses outrage or
9:20
indignation as a tactic unintentionally
9:23
showing her need for control controlling
9:26
what the lawyer asks her this level of
9:28
ant ISM presupposing what the lawyer
9:31
will use against her is indicative of
9:33
someone who has information they don’t
9:35
want to disclose which is consistent
9:37
with the observation that she evades the
9:39
specific question about Wade they didn’t
9:41
know who I was dating but I can assure
9:43
you I was dating somebody somebody is
9:45
distancing language time and time again
9:47
Willis shows that she’s unwilling to
9:50
conform to the rules of an examination
9:52
which is Unbecoming of a DA if she feels
9:55
that the rules don’t apply to her how
9:58
can she fall Criminal are feeling the
10:00
same Willis isn’t done with the outrage
10:02
or indignation devotion
10:04
tactic it’s it’s it’s like a a woman
10:07
doesn’t have the right to keep her
10:08
private life private and I’m speaking on
10:11
this because there have been all these
10:12
in intimations and the reason for these
10:15
intimations is that Willis doesn’t give
10:18
clear and unambiguous answers if she did
10:20
they wouldn’t be there so the real
10:23
reason why she’s speaking on this is to
10:25
postpone relevant answers she refers to
10:28
her gender and uses the expression
10:30
speaking on this as if she’s a brave
10:33
spokesperson for a general problem this
10:36
way she plays on the indignation of this
10:38
demographic and makes herself look like
10:40
a victim in comparison to the rude male
10:43
lawyer politicians and celebrities often
10:46
play on the indignation of the same
10:48
demographics for votes and sympathy
10:51
ultimately it’s about control
10:53
controlling the agenda just hav answer
10:55
the question as well as I’m sorry what
10:57
was the question in your honor is there
10:58
anyone else who knew about it and then
10:59
you can
11:00
explain I I don’t know I don’t think so
11:04
I certainly didn’t um go out telling my
11:06
business to the world will is sure is
11:08
quick to answer once the judge gets
11:10
involved it’s almost as if she
11:12
understood and was able to answer the
11:13
lawyer’s question 40 seconds ago wait
11:18
will is forgetting the question
11:19
demonstrates the degree to which she’s
11:21
caught up in her own tactics she’s so
11:23
self-aware aware of not disclosing
11:26
certain information that she’s not
11:28
involved in the lawyer’s questioning
11:30
she’s present but not involved like many
11:32
students in college by the way but you
11:35
didn’t hear that from me I certainly
11:37
didn’t um go out telling my business to
11:40
the world this is a weak denial it’s
11:42
weak because it isn’t specific to the
11:44
toic at hand they’re specifically
11:46
talking about Wade but she doesn’t say
11:49
she didn’t tell anyone about him also
11:51
the adverb certainly points to
11:53
reservations indicating that there could
11:55
be more to this than she’s letting on
11:58
and next things are about to get heated
12:00
so the best of your recollection you
12:03
didn’t inform anyone on the prosecution
12:05
team that the individual that you had
12:08
chosen to lead the prosecution team had
12:12
a personal relationship with you is that
12:14
correct that’s inaccurate your question
12:16
is
12:17
inaccurate what cuz you you stated that
12:20
the person I chose we had a personal
12:22
relationship so we had a friendship we
12:25
have to we have all these distinguishing
12:27
factors Remember When when I chose him
12:29
in November of 21 first of all let’s get
12:32
this straight Mr Wade was not actually
12:34
my first choice that’s no insult to him
12:37
no it is you because of the way you
12:38
phrased the question you said when I
12:40
chose him I didn’t inform people of a
12:43
personal relationship we have defined
12:45
personal as romantic it is an inaccurate
12:48
way to State the question remember first
12:51
of all let’s get this straight Willis
12:53
uses authoritative language suggesting
12:55
that she has an overview unlike the
12:57
lawyer so does Willis have good reason
13:00
to sound authoritative yes and no from
13:03
her perspective she’s right in asking
13:05
for the question to be restated but what
13:07
she doesn’t mention is that she herself
13:09
has used the term personal relationship
13:12
incorrectly on law Insider’s website
13:15
personal relationship is defined as an
13:17
ongoing romantic or intimate personal
13:20
relationship that can include dating
13:23
living together or being a partner or
13:25
significant other however in the
13:27
following will is refers to a bunch of
13:29
people that she supposedly has a
13:32
personal relationship with but she
13:34
doesn’t ask herself to restate it so
13:37
let’s be let’s be very clear so that we
13:38
don’t mix words I I don’t want to mix
13:40
words in here so if you ask about a
13:43
personal
13:45
relationship I consider myself to have a
13:47
personal relationship right now Mr Wade
13:49
I consider myself to have a personal
13:50
relationship with Anna cross I consider
13:52
myself to have a personal relationship
13:54
with Mr AB body I consider myself to
13:56
have a personal relationship with Andrew
13:59
Evans let me I have a personal
14:02
relationship with him as we speak right
14:04
now I don’t think that’s what you’re
14:06
asking I think so if she doesn’t think
14:09
that that’s what the lawyer is asking
14:11
why does she give this long stalling
14:13
answer because stalling is the point the
14:16
reason for the diversion tactics
14:18
stalling allows her to postpone the real
14:20
answer and detail whatever she’s
14:23
comfortable detailing next Willis goes
14:25
back to the indignation devotion tactic
14:28
then I will certainly restated so it is
14:30
very accurate okay and please do not
14:32
yell at
14:35
me she does everything she can to tame
14:38
the lawyer surely that’ll stop him from
14:41
asking inconvenient questions right it
14:44
can be dating it can be holding hands it
14:46
can be any of those things that one
14:49
might call romantic I’m asking you
14:53
whether or not prior to November 1st of
14:56
2021 there was a Roman IC relationship
15:00
with Mr Wade that’s very simple it’s
15:02
either yes or no I don’t consider my
15:05
relationship with him to be romantic
15:07
before that I’m not a handh holder so no
15:10
that’s fine now I’m not a handh holder
15:13
will ass say this is a partial denial
15:16
and thus another weak denial this
15:18
partial denial doesn’t rule out that you
15:20
could have had a romantic relationship
15:22
in other ways than holding hands it’s a
15:25
sarcastic play on the lawyer’s words
15:28
this way if it’s found out that their
15:30
romantic relationship started before
15:32
they said it did she can blame the
15:34
lawyer for not listing proper romantic
15:36
actions or something like that now I’m
15:39
asking you about that time period when
15:41
it became romantic okay thank you
15:46
okay after what we’ve seen I’m totally
15:48
convinced that Willis’s sudden
15:50
politeness is
15:52
sincere you didn’t see the need if I
15:55
understand to tell any of the people on
15:57
the prosecution team
15:59
when you had established a romantic
16:01
relationship with Mr Wade that the lead
16:04
prosecutor that is the people the man
16:07
that was basically giving orders to
16:10
others was dating or having a romantic
16:12
relationship with you correct I’m going
16:14
to object to relevance at this point
16:16
roner relevance it just to
16:20
prove we’re attempting to show that
16:23
there is an issue on credibility about
16:25
the relationship the failure to have
16:27
informed anyone anyone on her team that
16:31
she was having a romantic relationship
16:34
with the lead prosecutor I suggest gives
16:38
rise to that inference That’s The Rance
16:41
the inference that the inference
16:45
that that they were concealing this
16:48
because it was not as it’s been
16:50
characterized to the court and that it
16:52
in fact had started earlier than what
16:54
they say all right over let’s say down I
16:58
find find it strange that the judge
16:59
doesn’t immediately overrule this
17:01
objection what Willis’s attorney is
17:04
objecting to is the very foundation of
17:06
the disqualification case thus no matter
17:09
if people think that Willis should be
17:10
disqualified or not the relevance of the
17:13
question is quite obvious I just want to
17:15
make sure they were clear no doubt that
17:18
must be why he’s been nothing but clear
17:20
and hasn’t tried to dodge any questions
17:22
and no doubt she means it as a
17:24
collaborative effort using the pronoun
17:26
we because as we’ve seen she’s been
17:29
nothing but
17:33
Cooperative from at least 2020 me and Mr
17:37
Wen friends at least that time period
17:40
okay I’m not talking about so no no no I
17:41
just I want to be clear because my
17:43
credibility is being evaluated here
17:45
right right and repeating that you want
17:47
to be clear while taking a different
17:49
starting point than the question called
17:50
for isn’t exactly the best way to prove
17:53
that you’re credible in November of 2021
17:57
I hired him I do not consider our
17:59
relationship to have become romantic
18:02
until early of 2022 with I do not
18:05
consider our will is once again makes a
18:07
partial denial allowing for other
18:09
interpretations than hers and also
18:11
indicating the possibility that she has
18:14
another interpretation in mind than the
18:16
one she’s telling I hope that answered
18:18
your question she hopes that answered
18:20
his question or she hopes that he won’t
18:22
ask more questions all right so you’ve
18:24
established the timeline as you put it
18:26
the question originally was uh at the
18:29
time at that time did you tell any other
18:32
prosecutors on the prosecution I never
18:34
tell people at work who I’m dating all
18:36
right Mr s okay but you wasn’t so quick
18:38
to answer when the lawyer asked her it
18:41
couldn’t be because she was stalling
18:42
could it also this is distancing
18:45
language saying that she never tells
18:47
people who she’s stating isn’t the same
18:49
as saying that she didn’t tell anyone
18:51
about weight specifically what do you
18:54
think about this case let us know in the
18:56
comments and if you like the video you
18:58
can click the like button and subscribe
18:59
for more clear
19:16
videos

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.