Fani Willis Needs a Better Boyfriend
Her poison darts weren't just directed at the MAGA lawyers. A look at the personal sexual politics at play.
I can’t get Fani off my mind.
I know Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s recent testimony has been dissected to death. A lot of the analysis had to do with her defiant style on the stand. While some sisters cheered her on for socking it to the lawyers representing the MAGA contingent, others attacked her for being the embodiment of an angry Black woman.
But what I find fascinating is the undercurrent of personal sexual politics at play. I’m talking about the way Willis portrayed her relationship with her ex-boyfriend Nathan Wade, the outside counsel she picked to oversee the election interference racketeering case against Donald Trump and other defendants in Georgia. The hearing centered on whether Willis benefited financially from her relationship with Wade.
I don’t know if you noticed, but Willis was throwing a lot of tiny poison darts his way. Though both she and Wade insisted that they are now besties (“Probably closer than ever because of these attacks,” Wade said during the hearing), Willis clearly had some scores she wanted to settle with her ex.
Emasculation and sandwiches
On the pivotal question when their romantic relationship started, Willis indicated that she couldn’t have had an intimate relationship with Wade before his hiring, as defense lawyer Ashleigh Merchant had alleged. Wade, offered Willis, had “a form of cancer that makes your allegation somewhat ridiculous.” Then, she added, “I'm not going to emasculate a Black man.” Perhaps she didn’t “emasculate” Wade, but didn’t she put his manhood on the table with that detail?
Willis made abundantly clear that she had enough of his male ego at a certain point. “We would have brutal arguments about the fact that I am your equal,” she said in response to a question by Trump lawyer Steven Sadow about the timeline of their relationship. “The only thing a woman can do for him is make him a sandwich," summed up Willis about Wade’s attitude.
Willis also suggested that Wade was just another dude lacking emotional nuance. “He’s a man; he probably would say June or July,” Willis testified about when their relationship ended. “I would say we had a tough conversation in August. Men end relationships at the end of physical intimacy; women end relationships when that tough conversation takes place.”
“A man is not a plan.”
The ultimate point that Willis made was that she didn’t need Wade’s financial benefits—effectively thwarting opposing counsel’s contention that she gained monetarily from the relationship.
“I don’t need anything from a man; a man is not a plan, a man is a companion. There was tension always in our relationship, which is why I would give him his money back. I don’t need anybody to foot my bills.”
According to Willis, she not only paid Wade back for their vacations, she footed the bill for a trip to Belize for his 50th birthday. (Query: how do the two top lawyers working on one of the most-watched cases in the nation manage to take a half dozen vacations in the course of a year-and-a-half?) Meanwhile, Wade admitted on the stand, “I never purchased a gift for Ms. Willis.” (Lousy boyfriend!)
To be perfectly clear, Willis trotted out a lot of personal baggage that seemed extraneous. But it sure got our attention. In a messy way, she deployed those details deftly, leaving that phalanx of opposing counsel (all white, in case you didn’t notice) scrambling.
Willis’s testimony, however over the top at times, also spoke volumes about the frustrations that a high-profile woman faces in finding a male romantic partner who’s not threatened by her success. And the fact that Willis is a Black woman undoubtedly adds another layer of complication.
How frustrating—and, I think, insulting—for Willis that the man she hired couldn't accept the idea that she’s his equal—much less his superior.
Not to doubt his talents, which Willis, has touted (overly so, in my opinion), but Wade didn’t blow me away with his testimony. In stark contrast to Willis, he seemed timid and overly deferential to opposing counsel. I got the impression that Willis could run circles around him—just as she did with all the Trumpian lawyers she faced during the hearing.
How about lusting in one’s heart?
Which brings us back to the nagging question of why she hired this guy in the first place.
Did she really think Wade, who had zippo experience trying racketeering cases and scant prosecutorial background, was the best qualified lawyer for the job? I know she’s mentioned that her first choice was former Georgia Governor Roy Barnes who turned down the job. But come on, there must have been someone more qualified between the two.
I can only guess that some sort of favoritism was at play. The opposing counsel, however, failed miserably at establishing an amorous link between Wills and Wade prior to his hiring. The lawyers on the MAGA side seemed fixated on when the two started having sex. Are they not acquainted with the concept of a lustful heart?
So it looks like Willis risked her reputation and the most significant election fraud case against Donald Trump for a rather pedestrian male chauvinist. For such a smart woman, she did a very dumb thing.
What’s your view on l’affaire Willis/Wade?
Contact: chen.vivia@gmail.com
Twitter (X): ViviaChen
Did we watch the same Fani Willis? Actually, she helped the "white attorneys", as you describe them. She played right into their hands, with her unsuccessful evasive histrionics. She totally blew it, but if you ask her for a G, she's gonna give you a G. Chain, chain, chain, chain of fools.