How Do They Get The Toothpaste Back In The Tube?

One of the additions to the language that came out of the Watergate scandal was the lament from Nixon's aides that "we can't get the toothpaste back in the tube". In other words, certain disclosures can't be un-disclosed after the fact. This actually strikes me as the futile goal of Fani Willis's February 2 filing with Judge McAfee:

Willis and Wade have been subpoenaed to testify in a Feb. 15 evidentiary hearing that the judge in the election interference case scheduled to examine the allegations against them, but the DA in her filing has asked the judge to deny the motions from the defendants and essentially cancel the hearing, claiming that "no further factual development is necessary."

However, even Newsweek is suggesting things have gone too far for that:

Legal analyst and former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman warned that there is "blood in the water" in the developing Fani Willis-Nathan Wade investigation, despite his belief that their relationship presents "no conflict" to Willis' case against Donald Trump.

. . . "It's 100 percent true under Georgia law, she needed to do it. The law of these kinds of scandals is to get it all out early," he explained. "The thing is, by now, there's sort of blood in the water. You have one of these phoney baloney special investigative commissions in Georgia, none other than [House Judiciary Chair] Jim Jordan subpoenaed her today. [Judge Scott] McAfee's going to have a hearing on the 15th and oddly, even before this, he styled it an 'evidentiary hearing.' So what sort of evidence is it going to take? It could be a bit of a circus."

However, Ashleigh Merchant, the attorney who originally brought the scandal to light, filed an almost immediate response to the court:

The filing spells out some of the probing questions Merchant would ask [Willis's lover Nathan] Wade at an evidentiary hearing about her charges against Willis, if a judge allows it to go forward in the explosive case.

Merchant's filing cites a 2019 judicial conference where according to the Willis filing Wade says he and Willis met and became friends. 'In Paragraph 17 of your affidavit, you swore that you met Ms. Willis in October of 2019 at a Municipal Court training. Isn’t it true that you began more than just a friendship at that conference?' Merchant asks, without revealing the source of her information.

Merchant's filing says 'witnesses will testify that you cohabitated with Ms. Willis at her home in South Fulton until her father moved in with her and you then began to cohabitate at the apartment of a friend of hers in East Point.'

. . . It said the pair had been seen together in public and said they are 'believed' to have cohabited – something Willis denies in her filing. Merchant's filing states that she 'knows the special prosecutor and has researched his litigation experience' – saying he has never tried a felony RICO case and has a 'lack of experience in this type of felony,' and raised doubts about his 'qualifications.'

Another link adds additional information from Merchant's filing:

“Let us be clear: if Mr. Roman [Merchant's client] had not uncovered the now-admitted personal relationship between Willis and Wade, no one may have ever known about it,” the filing says. “That raises the obvious and important question: If they had nothing to hide in the first place because they did nothing wrong, then why did they intentionally not tell anyone about it until they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar?”

The filing proceeds to dispute several statements made by Wade in his sworn affidavit.

“In Paragraph 31 of your affidavit, you swore that you have never cohabitated with Ms. Willis but the attached documents show you shared a king size bed with her in Aruba from November 1, 2022 until November 4, 2022,” the filing reads.

Since the February 15 appearance is characterized by the judge as an "evidentiary hearing", we may assume that Ms Merchant will be able to cross-examine Willis and Wade about their statements that they haven't cohabited, and they share expenses equally. If she can demonstrate that those claims are false, this could well affect the judge's decision on how to handle the defense's motion for dismissal or some lesser remedy.

But beyond that, Willis herself acknowledges that the allegations -- which she has effectively acknowledged are true -- are "salacious". Her only option is to find some way to bring public discussion and late-night TV jokes on the subject to a complete stop. One way to start would be to get the judge to cancel the February 15 hearing, but he has his own reputation to consider, and this is unlikely in my view.

But the toothpaste is out of the tube. The Nathan's Hot Dog meme is just too delicious.