Good morning, and welcome to the Epoch Times News Brief for Saturday, March 16, 2024. I’m Bill Thomas.
Judge Targets Fani Willis for ‘Legally Improper’ Comments
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee criticizes District Attorney Fani Willis for making a racially charged speech, but allows her to remain on former President Donald Trump’s case.Ms. Willis, who is black, appeared to suggest that court motions against her were racially motivated, while providing no evidence. In her Jan. 14 speech, Ms. Willis said that she had three outside lawyers working as special prosecutors in the election case—a white man, a white woman, and a black man. She noted that people have only questioned the qualifications of Mr. Wade, the black man.
The speech was given by Ms. Willis just days after allegations surfaced that she engaged in an improper relationship with her special counsel at an Atlanta church.
Attorneys for President Trump filed a motion that accused her of making improper comments at the church, claiming that her remarks “engender a great likelihood of substantial prejudice towards the defendants in the eyes of the public in general, and prospective jurors in Fulton County in particular,” and that her “self-serving comments came with the added, sought after, benefit of garnering racially based sympathy for her self-inflicted quagmire.” They argued that she should be disqualified for her remarks, but Judge McAfee ruled in favor of her staying.
Judge McAfee stated that Ms. Willis’s speech cast racial aspersions at an indicted defendant but did not specifically address the allegations against President Trump or other co-defendants. The judge found that the defendants still had the opportunity for a fair trial and imposed no penalties on Ms. Willis for her comments.
Judge McAfee on Friday wrote that either Ms. Willis has to step down, or she must terminate Mr. Wade’s employment in the Trump case, saying he did not find that her relationship with Mr. Wade amounted to a conflict of interest that should force her off the most sprawling of the four criminal cases against the former president. He criticized her lapse in judgment and raised concerns about the truthfulness of their testimony regarding their relationship.
Later in the day, Mr. Wade resigned from the case.
Trump Lawyer Responds to Fani Willis Disqualification Ruling
President Trump’s lawyer, Steve Sadow, responded to the Georgia judge’s ruling stating that either Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis or special prosecutor Nathan Wade must exit the case against President Trump and others. Mr. Sadow said that he respects Judge McAfee’s decision but thinks the judge did not fully take into account all the details in the case.“We believe that the court did not afford appropriate significance to the prosecutorial misconduct of Willis and Wade, including the financial benefits, testifying untruthfully about when their personal relationship began, as well as Willis’ extrajudicial MLK ‘church speech,’ where she played the race card and falsely accused the defendants and their counsel of racism,” Mr. Sadow said.
Mr. Sadow said that they will explore all legal options to end the case, which “should never have been brought in the first place.”
A number of other people also reacted negatively to the ruling, with legal experts and politicians criticizing the decision.
Alan Dershowitz, a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, said that there is a conflict of interest, as Ms. Willis made money from the case. He added later that the judge “just didn’t have the courage to do the right thing. And judges often don’t, and they will find a way out. And this is a weaselly way out.”
Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, called the ruling incorrect. “It’s like finding two people in a bank vault and taking one off to jail,” he said on Fox News.
Andrew Weissman, a former U.S. Department of Justice official, said on X that Ms. Willis should step down.
Dave Aronberg, state attorney for Palm Beach County, said on MSNBC that Ms. Willis should stay on the case. “She should just go ahead with the evidence and the law, remove Nathan Wade. She has two other prosecutors, so it should not affect the case,” he said. “All in all, this is a win for Fani Willis. She needs to move on from the criticisms of her and her behavior that’s in the past and just keep looking forward.”
State officials are also investigating Ms. Willis for corruption, and numerous issues have been raised regarding Mr. Wade’s conduct, including how he did not file an oath when he took the job and that he submitted unusual invoices.
Jack Smith Gets ‘Worst Possible Outcome’ After Recent Ruling: Former Official
Special counsel Jack Smith is facing challenges in his classified documents case against President Trump.This week, Judge Aileen Cannon issued an order that denied President Trump’s motion to dismiss the case on grounds of “unconstitutional vagueness.” While she noted his attorneys raised questions that warrant consideration, she said that their arguments relating to the Espionage Act should be made in “connection with jury-instruction briefing.”
Andrew Weissmann, a former U.S. attorney who worked on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, said on MSNBC that the judge’s ruling not to dismiss the case was the “worst possible outcome for the government” and Mr. Smith. If the judge had agreed to dismiss the case, Mr. Weissmann argued, it could “have been appealed” to an appeals court in the meantime.
After leaving Mr. Mueller’s team, Mr. Weissmann has become an anti-Trump commentator who appears on MSNBC and other television news outlets to give his opinions on legal matters—often relating to the former president.
According to Mr. Weissmann, the appeals court could have delivered a swift ruling that rebuked Judge Cannon’s decision. He also noted that she asked the special counsel’s team to raise the issue later. “She has not given the government what they clearly” want, he added.
He was referring to Judge Cannon’s move not to rule on another motion filed by the former president’s lawyers arguing that the Presidential Records Act allowed him to designate the documents in the case as his personal property. She said it would be difficult to throw out the case before it went to a jury over the argument.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal has expressed concerns about the judge’s decisions, suggesting that she may be trying to help the former president derail the trial.
The judge’s recent rulings include granting President Trump a 10-day extension to file replies to pretrial motions and allowing two amicus briefs to be submitted in the case, which could benefit the defense’s arguments.
The judge is also expected to push back the trial date, which was initially set for May 20. During a March 1 court hearing, she signaled to Mr. Smith’s teams that their proposed date for July 8 was “unrealistic” but has not indicated when the trial would start.
President Trump’s attorneys wrote that both they and President Trump are currently preparing for a trial in New York that is scheduled to begin on March 25, “and the need to simultaneously devote attention to that case and this matter has been necessitated in part by the discovery violations and strategic scheduling demands of the Special Counsel’s Office that have prejudiced President Trump in multiple respects,” they added.
President Trump is facing 40 federal charges for the alleged mishandling of sensitive and classified materials that were obtained from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida after he left the White House in 2021 and for allegedly obstructing efforts to retrieve them.
The former president has pleaded not guilty to the charges, saying they are an attempt to interfere in the 2024 election while he is the leading Republican presidential candidate. He also faces charges in New York City, Washington, and Georgia and has pleaded not guilty in those cases.
Additionally, he is soon scheduled to go to trial in New York over claims that he falsified business records to provide adult film actress Stormy Daniels with “hush money” payments, which President Trump has denied. He also denied having an alleged affair with Ms. Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.
Pentagon Commander Reveals ‘Alarming’ Number of Drone Incursions at US–Mexico Border
Drone incursions at the U.S.–Mexico border have increased significantly, according to a Department of Defense official. Air Force Gen. Gregory Guillot stated during a Senate hearing that the exact number of incursions is unknown but is believed to be in the thousands. He later revealed that more than 1,000 incursions occur each month.Gen. Guillot recently spoke with Customs and Border Protection and Department of Justice officials who expressed concern about the high number of incursions. While he stated that these incursions have not posed a threat to national defense, he emphasized that the potential danger is growing. The hearing also discussed the need for standardized operating procedures to address the unmanned aircraft threat.
Gen. Guillot said at the hearing that military base commanders were equipped with standard operating procedures in dealing with unmanned aircraft, adding that “work remains to be done to be able to use especially the non-kinetic capabilities that can bring down those systems safely, without interfering with our airspace structure.”
During the hearing, Gen. Guillot also raised concerns about the influx of Chinese nationals crossing the border and mentioned that Russia flew bombers near U.S. and Canadian airspace earlier in March. In addition, he said that the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) has improved its radars to enhance domain awareness.
Gen. Guillot became commander of U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and NORAD in February.
NORAD is a United States and Canadian organization whose work includes “the detection, validation, and warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles, through mutual support arrangements with other commands.” NORTHCOM leads the military’s homeland defense efforts.
Gen. Guillot said he was planning to recommend to the Pentagon and Congress ways NORAD can help develop those procedures after a 90-day assessment of NORAD and NORTHCOM is finished.
Harvard Medical School Professor Was Fired Over Not Getting COVID Vaccine
A Harvard Medical School professor, Martin Kulldorff, has been terminated for refusing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.Mr. Kulldorff, an epidemiologist, was fired by Mass General Brigham in November 2021 over noncompliance with the hospital’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate after his requests for exemptions from the mandate were denied, according to a document. Mr. Kulldorff was also placed on leave by Harvard Medical School (HMS) because his appointment as professor of medicine there “depends upon” holding a position at the hospital, another document stated.
Despite attempting to return to his position, Mr. Kulldorff was informed that his employment agreement had been terminated due to the lack of an eligible appointment.
“You would need to hold an eligible appointment with a Harvard-affiliated institution for your HMS academic appointment to continue,” Dr. Grace Huang, dean for faculty affairs, told the epidemiologist and biostatistician.
She said the lack of an appointment, combined with college rules that cap leaves of absence at two years, meant he was being terminated.
Mr. Kulldorff disclosed the firing for the first time this month.
Mass General Brigham granted only 234 exemption requests out of 2,402 received.
Before the COVID-19 vaccines became available, Mr. Kulldorff contracted COVID-19. He was hospitalized but eventually recovered. That gave him a form of protection known as natural immunity.
According to a number of studies, including papers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, natural immunity is better than the protection bestowed by vaccines.
Both his medical and religious exemption requests were denied.
Mr. Kulldorff is still unvaccinated. He has been a prominent dissenting voice during the pandemic, countering messaging from the government and many doctors that the COVID-19 vaccines were needed, regardless of prior infection.
His firing has drawn criticism of Harvard and support for his cause.
The termination “is a massive and incomprehensible injustice,” Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, an ethics expert who was fired from the University of California–Irvine School of Medicine for not getting a COVID-19 vaccine because he had natural immunity, said on X.
Dr. Vinay Prasad, an epidemiologist at the University of California–San Francisco, wrote in a blog post, criticizing Harvard for firing Mr. Kulldorff: “It looks like Harvard has weaponized its policies and selectively enforces them.”
A petition to reinstate Mr. Kulldorff has gained significant support with over 1,800 signatures.
Before we sign off, some notable events took place on this date in history:
In 1802, President Thomas Jefferson signed a measure authorizing the establishment of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York.
In 1968, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy of New York announced his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination, and now, his son Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is running for president as an Independent.
And finally, in 2020, amid coronavirus concerns, global stocks plunged again with Wall Street seeing a 12 percent decline, its worst decline in more than 30 years.
That wraps up today’s episode of the Epoch Times News Brief. I’m Bill Thomas, and it’s been a pleasure bringing you the news and insights that matter most.
Stay safe, stay informed, and have a great day!
