This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A constitutional expert is noting that it's unlikely that Fulton County, Georgia, prosecutor Fani Willis can win her latest argument in her campaign to get President Donald Trump.

Because she's fighting her own statements.

Willis hired a paramour, Nathan Wade, and paid him nearly $700,000 to assemble an organized crime case against Trump over comments following that 2020 election.

Then she essentially was put on trial over allegations her misbehavior included conflicts of interest because of her relationship with Wade while the case was being assembled.

Cell phone records show him traveling to her neighborhood late at night multiple times, and then leaving early in the morning.

A judge ruled that, despite his finding there was the appearance of a conflict, she could stay on the case if she fired Wade, so he submitted a resignation letter immediately.

Now it is George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who not only has testified before Congress as a constitutional expert but has represented members in court, who pointed out Willis' obstacle.

He cited her claims over the weekend to CNN that a "train is coming" for Trump.

"On this occasion, CNND can be excused for not having an opposing view. Willis circa 2020 denounced Willis circa 2024," he explained.

Willis claimed, "I don’t feel like my reputation needs to be reclaimed. I guess my greatest crime is I had a relationship with a man, that’s not something I find embarrassing in any way. And I know that I have not done anything that’s illegal."

But it was Willis herself who "repeatedly declared that she would not have any romantic relationship with those in her office," Turley wrote.

"Willis ran against her former boss Paul Howard, who was embroiled in a sexual harassment scandal involving his relationship with women in his office. Willis offered both experience and ethical leadership, including pledging repeatedly that 'I will certainly not be choosing to date people that work under me.'"

She explained her exception for Wade, however, saying that Wade was "special" because even though she hired, supervised and controlled his work, he was "not really part of the office," Turley wrote.

And while she claimed to have done nothing "illegal," Turley noted, she failed to comment on the questionable ethics she used.

"Moreover, it may be too early to tell if she is entirely free of criminal allegations. Many believe that both she and Wade gave knowingly false or misleading testimony. That is a problem not just for them as individuals but for the office in this case," Turley noted.

The irony, he noted, is that, "Willis and Wade were both prosecuting people for the very same conduct of filing false statements with courts and making false statements."

Turley noted that there may be "another train" that is coming "for Willis."

WND has reported Alan Dershowitz, the Felix Frankfurter professor-emeritus at Harvard, has written at the Gatestone Institute that Judge Scott McAfee's "split-the-difference opinion makes absolutely no sense legally or factually."

His ruling was that which ordered either Willis or Wade off the case.

"It is obvious that Judge McAfee started his decision-making process by deciding the result he wanted: disqualifying special prosecutor Nathan Wade, but retaining Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and her entire office. In order to reach that bizarre result, he had to rely on the testimony of Willis, which he knew was totally untruthful," Dershowitz wrote.

"Yes, he made an express finding that there are 'reasonable questions' about whether the district attorney and her hand-selected lead special assistant district attorney testified untruthfully about the timing of their relationship. In general, he found that 'an odor of mendacity remains.' Yet, after making those devastating findings about the dishonesty of Willis, he said he believed her testimony rejecting financial gain. He found that it was 'not so incredible as to be inherently unbelievable.'"

But the famed lawyer pointed out, "Any reasonable person, however, watching her contrived testimony along with that of her former lover, could not reasonably conclude that they were telling the truth. It seems completely clear that she benefited financially from appointing Wade and then going on numerous trips, which records prove he paid for. Her testimony that she paid him back in cash was 'unbelievable' to any objective viewer."

The lawyer noted Georgia rules ban a district attorney from accepting any "financial benefits from anybody she hires. She knew that, and she also knew that someday she might be asked to prove that she paid her former lover back, yet she maintained no records of her alleged payments: no bank withdrawals, no photographs of the money she allegedly paid, not even notations in her calendar. No jury would believe that Willis in fact paid him back."

And, he noted, no reasonable jury would believe Willis "did not commit perjury when she swore that her sexual relationship with Wade began after she hired him rather than before."

He said evidence discounted that possibility.

And, he wondered, why has no criminal perjury investigation been opened.

"Judge McAfee expressly found that there was an appearance of conflict. There is also an obvious appearance of impropriety and injustice. That should be enough to disqualify a prosecutor. He also found that he had the power under Georgia law to disqualify Willis based on this appearance."