Bill Barr Teamed With DA Fani Willis On Trump-RICO Case: Report
William Barr, a former U.S. Attorney General during President Donald Trump’s first term, reportedly teamed up with Fani Willis, the Democratic Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney who filed 2020 election-related RICO charges against Trump several others, in an attempt to convict his one-time boss.
According to whistleblower Patrícia Lélis, Barr conspired with Willis to prevent Trump’s return to the White House by orchestrating her prosecution, which led to charges against Trump and 18 co-defendants for allegedly attempting to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results.
Lélis alleges that Barr participated in secret meetings in Washington, D.C., alongside Willis and others—including media personality Armstrong Williams—to hatch the plan.
Lélis, who was employed by Williams’s public relations firm in 2021, claimed to have attended “dozens” of meetings where Barr and Willis discussed various legal strategies aimed at obstructing Trump ahead of the 2024 election.
She provided Project Veritas with boxes of handwritten notes she took during these meetings, which took place between 2021 and 2023.
One meeting on September 6, 2021, included Barr and CNN commentator Shermichael Singleton, during which the group developed a media strategy to complement Congress’ January 6 investigation.
“The investigation will be focused on people close to Trump and make efforts to formally prosecute these people,” Lélis wrote, according to her interview with Project Veritas.
According to her notes, Barr identified additional targets of the investigation, including Steve Bannon, Rudy Giuliani, Stewart Rhodes, Enrique Tarrio, Jeffrey Clark, the Oath Keepers, and the Proud Boys. In the months that followed, most of these individuals received subpoenas to testify before the January 6 committee, highlighting the influence Barr apparently wielded after publicly breaking with Trump.
Photos from March 15, 2022, show Barr entering Sinclair Broadcast Group, where he met with Willis and federal prosecutor Jack Smith to discuss the impending charges Smith planned to file against Trump in Florida. Smith’s case focused on Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents that he refused to return to the National Archives.
Lélis recorded Barr predicting at the meeting that an FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago would happen “soon.” Five months later, agents raided Trump’s residence, searching for documents and security footage.
Meeting notes from January 19, 2023, indicate that Barr and Willis planned to meet again, with notes from February 27, 2023, confirming the meeting occurred. It was reportedly during this meeting that Barr advised Willis to pursue RICO charges against Trump.
“Bill Barr was like, we should bring RICO because it’s a very difficult type of charge to defend,” Lélis told Project Veritas, adding that Trump’s former attorney general then described racketeering charges as complicated and difficult to challenge under U.S. law.
Several of Trump’s co-defendants ultimately pleaded guilty in exchange for agreeing to testify against him and other alleged co-conspirators—an indication of the growing desperation within their ranks as Willis neared a potential victory.
According to Lélis, the primary objective of these meetings was to prevent Trump from returning to the presidency.
WATCH:
“One thing that I understood very well is like Bill Barr and Armstrong and all the politicians too, they’re very focused like in how they go to stop Trump,” she said.
However, those efforts extended beyond the courtroom. According to Lélis, Willis reportedly collaborated with a social media team to create “anti-Trump” posts and other content aimed at bolstering the prosecution.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
