Judge says either DA Willis or prosecutor Wade must step aside

[aubiefifty 16,887]

Judge says either DA Willis or prosecutor Wade must step aside in Georgia election case

OLIVIA RUBIN

Fri, March 15, 2024 at 8:08 AM CDT·3 min read

412

Scroll back up to restore default view.

The judge overseeing the Georgia election interference case against Donald Trump has declined to outright disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, but ruled that either she or prosecutor Nathan Wade must step aside from the case.

The highly anticipated ruling follows a contentious, monthslong disqualification effort spearheaded by Trump and his co-defendants over allegations of misconduct against Willis, which she has fiercely denied.

Trump co-defendant Michael Roman and several other defendants first sought Willis' disqualification from the election case over allegations that she benefited financially from her romantic relationship with prosecutor Nathan Wade, who she hired for the case, through vacations they took that were often booked on his credit card.

MORE: Attorney leading effort to disqualify DA Fani Willis tells legislators how she uncovered allegations of misconduct

Willis and Wade admitted to the relationship, but said it "does not amount to a disqualifying conflict of interest" and that the relationship "has never involved direct or indirect financial benefit to District Attorney Willis." The DA testified that she often paid Wade back in cash for trips they took.

Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee held several days of hearings to probe the allegations, during which both Willis and Wade took the stand to deliver emotional testimony.

"You're confused. You think I'm on trial," Willis said to Ashleigh Merchant, the defense attorney questioning her. "These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020."

"I'm not on trial, no matter how hard you try to put me on trial," Willis said.

PHOTO: Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis looks on during a hearing on the Georgia election interference case, March, 1, 2024, in Atlanta. (Alex Slitz/AP, FILE)

Outside of allegations of financial misconduct, a debate later emerged over the exact timeline of their romantic relationship. Trump's attorney said both Willis and Wade were "not truthful" when they testified that the relationship began in 2022, after Wade was hired in 2021, urging the judge to disqualify them based on that testimony alone.

"Now, do you have to find that Wade and Willis lied? No," said Trump's attorney, Steve Sadow, during his closing argument in the evidentiary hearing. "What you need to be able to find is that that is a concern, a legitimate concern, based on the evidence in this case about their truthfulness."

"A legitimate concern about the truthfulness, which equates to an appearance of impropriety," Sadow said.

Multiple defendants have alleged the relationship began before Wade was hired, including a former employee in the DA's office, Robin Yeartie.

Trump also accused Willis of committing forensic misconduct by "testifying falsely," and through statements she made at a church responding to the allegations. During those live-streamed remarks, Willis suggested the allegations were motivated by race.

Willis' office dismissed the defendants' overall disqualification efforts as "absurd" and said there was "absolutely no evidence that [Willis] received any financial gain or benefit." They insisted that in order to disqualify her, the law requires the judge to find evidence of a conflict of interest or forensic misconduct.

"No prosecutor in this state has ever been disqualified on the appearance of a conflict," a filing from her office after the hearings stated.

The defendants had argued differently, saying Willis could be dismissed based solely on the appearance of a conflict of interest.

"While the State claims that no prosecutor has ever been disqualified in Georgia for forensic misconduct, no prosecutor in Georgia, elected or otherwise, has engaged in misconduct like Willis and Wade have here," Sadow said in a filing.

"I want to make clear to the court that the law in Georgia suggests and is very clear that we can demonstrate an appearance of a conflict of interest and that is sufficient," said defense attorney John Merchant, who represents Roman.

Trump and 18 others pleaded not guilty last August to all charges in a sweeping racketeering indictment for alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in the state of Georgia.

Defendants Kenneth Chesebro, Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis and Scott Hall subsequently took plea deals in exchange for agreeing to testify against other defendants.

The former president has dismissed the district attorney's investigation as being politically motivated.

Judge says either DA Willis or prosecutor Wade must step aside in Georgia election case originally appeared on abcnews.go.com

Edited March 15 by aubiefifty

[AU9377 5,024]

As I have posted several times, there was no evidence of an actual conflict.  I also mentioned a couple days ago that the first thing the DA's office should have done was to offer the resignation of NW.  At the end of the day, this judge has to run for re-election and splitting the baby keeps him slightly above the fray.

[CoffeeTiger 5,165]

36 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

As I have posted several times, there was no evidence of an actual conflict.  I also mentioned a couple days ago that the first thing the DA's office should have done was to offer the resignation of NW.  At the end of the day, this judge has to run for re-election and splitting the baby keeps him slightly above the fray.

I personally think the judge made the right decision. 

The Defense never had any proof that FW or NW were benefiting inappropriately or illegally in any way, however the situation was messy enough that you couldn't have both attorney's continuing to work on the same case together moving forward without questions about the integrity of the investigation from some people.

 

[aubiefifty 16,887]

4 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I personally think the judge made the right decision. 

The Defense never had any proof that FW or NW were benefiting inappropriately or illegally in any way, however the situation was messy enough that you couldn't have both attorney's continuing to work on the same case together moving forward without questions about the integrity of the investigation from some people.

 

i agree. i want no excuses when the big dummy gets convicted.

[AU9377 5,024]

9 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I personally think the judge made the right decision. 

The Defense never had any proof that FW or NW were benefiting inappropriately or illegally in any way, however the situation was messy enough that you couldn't have both attorney's continuing to work on the same case together moving forward without questions about the integrity of the investigation from some people.

 

I agree.  He is one of the more capable judges in that court house, even though he has been on the bench for less than a year.

[I_M4_AU 7,953]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

As I have posted several times, there was no evidence of an actual conflict.  I also mentioned a couple days ago that the first thing the DA's office should have done was to offer the resignation of NW.  At the end of the day, this judge has to run for re-election and splitting the baby keeps him slightly above the fray.

How much of a delay are we talking about?  

[Cardin Drake 1,853]

 

[AU9377 5,024]

43 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

 

The answer is in the ruling.  There is no actual conflict, therefore, removing the possibility of there being a perception of one satisfies the legal requirements.  The defendants in the case can now actually attempt to defend their actions instead of looking for a way to get away with their conduct.

[AU9377 5,024]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

How much of a delay are we talking about?  

He hasn't ruled yet on whether he will allow an appeal of this decision immediately.  In general, this type of appeal isn't allowed until the case has a final resolution.  The appeals court won't look at the evidence again.  They will accept the trial judge's findings and apply the law. 

As for timeline... There has to be a motion to file an appeal, which he can either grant or deny.  A denial just moves the issue to the end of the case post conviction or acquittal.  My guess would be that the earliest point for jury selection would be August/Sept.  That said, there is no telling how many motions requiring hearings that all those defense attorneys will file.