Politics
Video: Fani Willis Defends Failed Election Interference Case in Heated Hearing
new video loaded: Fani Willis Defends Failed Election Interference Case in Heated Hearing
transcript
transcript
Fani Willis Defends Failed Election Interference Case in Heated Hearing
The Atlanta-area district attorney called President Trump and his allies “criminals” while being questioned by a Georgia Senate committee on Wednesday.
-
“Are you ready to tell them what they want to hear?” “Is it true that part of your transition team was involved in the pr ocess of interviewing people before you entered office to lead the investigation into the 2020 presidential election?” “If you recall the facts, I was already district attorney when this all came to light. I interviewed everybody at the D.A.’s office. And I interviewed other people to come and work at the district attorney’s office. And as I told you, I did that on my free time before I became D.A., but I had no way of knowing that these criminals were going to commit a crime. You all want to intimidate people from doing the right thing, and you think that you’re going to intimidate me. But you see, I’m not Marjorie Taylor Greene. I ain’t going to quit in a month because somebody threatens me.” “Mr. Peter Skandalakis, as head of PAC, continued the investigation after you were disqualified. He concluded the investigation did not further warrant further action.” “Mr. Skandalakis has never read our entire file when he just dismissed this case. There is no way that he read the entire file. You want something to investigate as a legislature? Investigate how many times they’ve called me the N-word. Why don’t you investigate that? Why don’t you investigate them writing on my house? Why don’t you investigate the fact that my house has been SWATted? If you want something to do with your time that makes sense. And you can use all this in your campaign ad — you attacked Fani Willis. What have you done, sir? Nothing.” “Based on the indictment, that the goal was — the ultimate goal was to overthrow the 2020 election.” “That was the ultimate goal. And we’ve had people that are supposed to be leaders that instead of being leaders, are just cowering down. This country needs leaders, not cowards.”
By Meg Felling
December 17, 2025
WASHINGTON — For much of Donald Trump’s second term, Republican senators have largely stayed in line, wary of defying a president with a history of targeting those who cross him. This week, that dynamic noticeably shifted.
Senate Republicans blocked two of Trump’s legislative priorities, angered by the push to create a $1.8-billion federal fund to compensate people who claim to have been politically persecuted, including rioters who assaulted the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The revolt forced Republican leaders to pull a planned vote on legislation to fund the president’s immigration crackdown and security features for his White House ballroom project.
In response, the president defended the fund and lashed out at its critics.
“I gave up a lot of money in allowing the just announced Anti-Weaponization Fund to go forward,” Trump wrote in a post on his social media website. “Instead, I am helping others, who were so badly abused by an evil, corrupt and weaponized Biden Administration, receive, at long last, JUSTICE”!
The president also called Republican senators who broke with him quitters who are “screwing the Republican Party.”
The friction, which has been building for weeks, is being watched as a potential test of the limits to Trump’s grip on his party amid an already tense political environment heading into the midterm elections.
“This is kind of a perfect storm,” former Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “It may be that this time you can point to it and say this is when the great migration begins, away from some of the president’s policies and away from the fear that the president can target you.”
Whether this week marks the beginning of that moment — or simply another episode of political turbulence that fades — is the central question now hanging over Trump’s second term.
Not the first break — but an escalation
This is not the first time Republicans have broken with the president. In November, Congress overwhelmingly voted to force the Justice Department to release the Jeffrey Epstein files, an effort that Trump unsuccessfully tried to thwart for months.
The Epstein vote showed that on the right issue, under the right circumstances, Republicans could be moved to defy Trump. This week, the creation of the fund changed the circumstances again, and the number of Republican senators willing to act quickly grew.
This moment comes after months of rising costs during the war in Iran, efforts by the president to oust members of his own party and now a set of proposals that are proving hard to defend in an election year.
“What you have is basically a bunch of people who feel a bit under siege,” said Bob Olinsky, the senior vice president of Structural Reform and Governance at the Center for American Progress. “At the same time, they know that most of what the president is doing is unpopular, and they’re the ones who are going to be standing for reelection in November.”
Republicans push back
Senate Republicans leaders are now asking the Department of Justice to reconsider the terms of the fund, underscoring just how politically toxic the idea has become within the president’s party.
Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) told reporters that politically speaking, the fund is “unexplainable.” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told the New York Times that the fund should be in real trouble. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called the fund “utterly stupid” and “morally wrong.”
Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican whom Trump has singled out for going against him, was equally unsparing, saying he opposed “using billions of taxpayer dollars to compensate convicted felons and thugs who attacked police.” He also criticized the administration for pushing domestic and foreign policy issues that he says are bad for housing and the military.
“If opposing these things makes me a RINO [Republican in Name Only], then I gladly accept that nickname,” Tillis wrote on X. “We need Republicans to do well in November, but the stupid stuff is killing our chances!”
The GOP pushback comes at a time when concern about self-dealing runs deep across the electorate.
A recent Economist/YouGov poll found that 59% of Americans believe Trump is using his office for personal gain, though that belief is sharply divided along partisan lines. A CNN poll found that 37% of Americans say Trump puts the good of the country above his personal gain, while 32% say he is in touch with the problems of ordinary Americans.
Asked whether the political environment influenced the actions this week, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters that there is a “political component to everything we do around here.”
Funds and tax immunity clauses
Senate Democrats are wondering whether the fund will mark a watershed moment for Republicans.
“Have Republicans finally found a bridge too far?” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said to reporters after Republicans left Washington without funding Trump’s priorities.
Democrats have called the fund an illegal abuse of power designed to line the pockets of Trump’s allies with taxpayer dollars. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) called it a “pure theft of public funds.”
The fund was created as part of a settlement resolving a $10-billion lawsuit Trump brought against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Alongside it, the deal says the IRS is “forever barred and precluded” from pursuing any tax claims against Trump and his businesses that were filed before May 19.
Under the tax immunity clause, Trump and his family could save more than $600 million, according to an analysis by Forbes.
The fund, however, has been the target of most of the bipartisan ire. Mostly because Trump and administration officials have not ruled out that it could stand to benefit people who carried out violence during the Jan. 6 riot.
The public funds, if disbursed, would come from the federal judgment fund, which is a Congress-approved ongoing appropriation that allows the Justice Department to settle cases and make payouts. In the past, Republicans have taken issue with the fund. The GOP-controlled House Judiciary Committee characterized it an abuse in 2017.
Several of the president’s allies have already talked about tapping into the fund.
Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney who served prison time in relation to campaign finance violations, said he plans to apply for compensation.
Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, who was convicted of seditious conspiracy and later pardoned by Trump, told CBS News that he would seek a payout from the fund.
“I was targeted,” Tarrio said. “And I do believe that this fund does apply to me.”
Ever since Kamala Harris’s defeat in 2024, Democratic politicians, activists and policy wonks have argued about whether the party should move toward the left or the center.
But in this week’s New York Times/Siena poll, there’s a lot more common ground than one might expect within the Democratic coalition — a group defined here as Democrats, Democratic-leaning independents and independents who voted for Ms. Harris.
A surprisingly clear majority of the Democratic coalition is mostly fine with where the party stands on the issues overall. Only 20 percent say it’s “too far” to the left; only 17 percent say it’s “too far” to the right. The dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party seems less about its ideology and more about its failures to stop President Trump — whether in the last election or once in government.
With Democrats generally satisfied with the party’s ideological position, the poll arguably contains the outlines of a potential path forward for the party. Respondents offered relatively clear answers on three basic questions that have divided the party since the last election: They say Democrats should embrace economic populism, oppose aid to Israel and find modest ways to shift toward the center on the cultural issues thought to have contributed to President Trump’s victory in 2024.
This path happens to have a lot in common with the Democratic politicians who have seemed to resonate across the party’s ideological spectrum this cycle, like Graham Platner in Maine or Senator Jon Ossoff in Georgia. While Mr. Platner is more progressive and Mr. Ossoff more moderate, they’ve both earned a reputation for attacking corruption and corporate power, they’ve supported restrictions on offensive military aid to Israel, and they’ve de-emphasized the culture wars.
But the debate within the party hasn’t been about whether to embrace this specific mix of populist economics, moderation in the culture wars and the progressive view on Israel. Instead, the biggest argument is whether the party as a whole should move toward its left or center flanks. On that question, voters in our poll appear more divided.
Overall, 47 percent of the Democratic coalition said they would like to see the party move toward the center, while 28 percent said the party should move to the left, and 19 percent said the party shouldn’t move at all.
A slightly higher proportion — 52 percent — said the party needs to move to the center to win the next presidential election, compared with 25 percent who say it needs to move left and 18 percent who say it doesn’t need to move in either direction to win.
In each case, the centrist position may not be quite as far in the lead as it looks. If “move to the left” and “do nothing” are combined, the party is split 47-47 on whether to move to the center. When the question shifts to “in order to win” the 2028 election, moving to the center is ahead by a modest margin of 52 percent to 43 percent.
The appetite for a shift to the center also looks weaker when voters are asked about specific issues, including those often blamed for Ms. Harris’s defeat, like immigration or transgender rights. On immigration, just 46 percent said the party needed to move to the center to win, while only 38 percent said the same about transgender issues (though in each case, voters may feel that Democrats have already made some movement toward the center).
Perhaps even more important, the preference for shifting toward the center vanishes altogether when voters are asked about bread-and-butter issues, like the economy and health care. Most strikingly, half of the Democratic coalition wanted to see the party move toward the left on health care, compared with only 25 percent who wanted to see it move toward the center. Democratic supporters split roughly evenly on whether the party should move to the center or the left on economics, with 38 percent saying the party should move to the center and 37 percent calling for a move toward the left.
The poll found very little awareness of the so-called “abundance” movement, which calls for making it easier for the government and the private sector to build more housing and energy. More than 90 percent of the Democratic coalition said they had never heard of it. When asked whether they preferred a candidate who would pursue those goals or one who would try to lower prices by going after corporate monopolies, Democratic supporters preferred the populist by a two-to-one margin.
The party’s preference for a candidate who goes after the nation’s largest corporations — and presumably issues like wealth inequality and corruption — is underpinned by broad and deep dissatisfaction with the nation’s economic system. Overall, 88 percent of the Democratic coalition said the economic system was generally unfair to most Americans. A similarly large 83 percent said the political and economic system in America needs at least “major changes.”
And while the war in Gaza divided progressives from the party’s establishment during the Biden years, the progressive view on Israel is more like a point of consensus today. Only 15 percent of the Democratic coalition says it sympathizes with Israel more than with Palestinians, while 74 percent opposes additional military and economic support for Israel.
These examples of relatively populist and progressive policy preferences don’t necessarily mean that Democrats are always opposed to moving to the center. Two-thirds of the Democratic coalition does want to move to the center on at least one of immigration, transgender issues or crime, and nearly 70 percent say doing so is necessary to win in 2028, even if there is not a consensus on exactly which issue it should be. Of all the issues tested, “crime” is the one where Democrats are the likeliest to say the party should move to the center.
It’s also worth noting that respondents may want the party to move to the center in ways that do not necessitate shifting on policy. Although this was not asked in the poll, the backlash against “woke” was often less about the Democratic Party’s policy platform and more about a kind of righteous and identity-centric politics that had spread into everyday life.
Deliberately or not, the Democratic Party’s politicians have been inching toward the consensus positions found in the poll. In their own ways, many of this cycle’s most successful Democrats, like Mr. Ossoff, Mr. Platner and even Zohran Mamdani, could be said to fit the description across all three areas of consensus, even though they hail from very different parts of the ideological spectrum.
Whether this emerging solution to the party’s internal divisions would address the party’s other problems is another matter. The poll doesn’t offer insight into whether this kind of candidate would stand a much better chance of winning the general election in 2028, let alone winning by the decisive margin that Mr. Trump’s growing unpopularity could potentially allow. It also can’t foretell whether the party would succeed once in government if it enacted such an agenda. And of course, it was the party’s perceived failures in elections and governance that left Democratic voters dissatisfied and its elites searching for a new direction in the first place.
There’s no reason to assume that the preferences of the Democratic coalition offer a solution to those bigger challenges.
The detailed polling cross-tabs are available here.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A top Senate Republican is publicly pressuring President Donald Trump against pursuing what he described as a weak Iran deal as administration officials signal negotiations with Tehran are making progress.
Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, issued a sharply worded warning Thursday urging Trump not to abandon military pressure on the Iranian regime in favor of diplomacy.
“We are at a moment that will define President Trump’s legacy,” Wicker said in a statement. “His instincts have been to finish the job he started in Iran, but he is being ill advised to pursue a deal that would not be worth the paper it is written on.”
REPUBLICANS URGE TRUMP TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON HIS PLAN TO DISMANTLE IRAN’S NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES
“Our commander-in-chief needs to allow America’s skilled armed forces to finish the destruction of Iran’s conventional military capabilities and reopen the strait,” Wicker went on. “Further pursuit of an agreement with Iran’s Islamist regime risks a perception of weakness. We must finish what we started. It is past time for action.”
The remarks expose growing tension inside Republican national security circles as the Trump administration weighs whether to pursue a negotiated agreement with Iran or continue its military campaign against the Iranian regime and its nuclear capabilities.
Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, issued a sharply worded warning Thursday urging Trump not to abandon military pressure on the Iranian regime in favor of diplomacy. (Anna Rose Layden/Getty Images)
The White House could not immediately be reached for comment.
Wicker’s comments came just hours after Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged there had been “some progress” in ongoing negotiations with Iran, while cautioning that no agreement had been reached.
“There’s been some progress,” Rubio said Thursday. “I wouldn’t exaggerate it. I wouldn’t diminish it.”
Wicker’s comments came just hours after Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged there had been “some progress” in ongoing negotiations with Iran. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
“We’re not there yet,” Rubio added. “I hope we get there.”
Rubio said key issues remain unresolved, including Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium and whether Tehran would be permitted any future uranium enrichment capability under a potential agreement.
“The issue of highly enriched uranium has to be discussed. Its disposition has to be dealt with. And of course, the issue of future enrichment has to be dealt with as well,” Rubio said.
He also indicated discussions involving the Strait of Hormuz remain part of broader negotiations.
The comments marked one of the clearest public signs yet that active diplomacy between Washington and Iran remains underway despite recent military escalation and fears of a wider regional conflict.
Trump himself recently signaled he remains open to giving diplomacy additional time before considering further military action.
Ships are anchored in the Strait of Hormuz off Bandar Abbas in southern Iran on May 4. A report on May 15 said a ship was seized off the coast of the United Arab Emirates and is being brought toward Iranian waters. (Amirhossein Khorgooei/ISNA/AFP via Getty Images)
“If I can save war by waiting a couple of days, if I can save people being killed by waiting a couple of days, I think it’s a great thing to do,” Trump said in recent days.
PAKISTAN’S AMBASSADOR WARNS IRAN TOO ‘WAR-TORN’ TO RESPOND QUICKLY AS TRUMP EXTENDS STRIKE DEADLINE
The administration’s diplomatic push has coincided with intensified regional mediation efforts, including a high-profile visit by Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, to Iran — a trip widely viewed as part of broader backchannel efforts aimed at reducing tensions between Washington and Iran.
The visit fueled further speculation that Pakistan is playing a quiet intermediary role as negotiators explore possible frameworks to avoid additional military escalation.
Still, Rubio repeatedly emphasized Thursday that negotiations remain fragile and could ultimately collapse.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“We’re dealing with a very difficult group of people,” Rubio said. “It may not” happen
He added that Trump “has other options” if diplomacy fails, while stressing the president still prefers “the negotiated option and having a good deal.”
-
Entertainment27 seconds ago‘Housewives’ star Erika Girardi settles $25-million lawsuit over money from husband’s firm
-
Lifestyle6 minutes agoThe BoF Podcast | Leena Nair and Matthieu Blazy on Creativity and the Power of the Human Hand
-
Politics12 minutes ago
‘A bridge too far?’: As GOP senators revolt, Trump defends fund and attacks defectors
-
Science18 minutes agoCaltech could lose control of JPL for the first time
-
Sports24 minutes agoCity Section baseball finals: Friday scores, Saturday schedule
-
World36 minutes ago
China ‘won’t win anything’ if it ‘destroys’ Europe’s industry, French minister tells Euronews
-
News1 hour agoGarden Grove gas leak: Live evacuation maps, closures and updates
-
Los Angeles, Ca3 hours agoFirefighters make progress on wildfires burning across Southern California
