CV NEWS FEED // The judge presiding over the “election interference” case against former President Donald Trump ruled Friday that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis must either “step aside” or dismiss Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade, with whom Willis had an affair. In response, Wade resigned from the case.
Willis’ office announced Wade’s resignation just hours after the ruling. The controversial district attorney will be allowed to stay on the case for the time being thanks to the move.
“[T]he prosecution of this case cannot proceed until the State selects one of two options,” Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee wrote in his Friday ruling:
[Willis] may choose to step aside, along with the whole of her office, and refer the prosecution to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council for reassignment.
Alternatively, [Wade] can withdraw, allowing [Willis], the Defendants, and the public to move forward without his presence or remuneration distracting from and potentially compromising the merits of this case.
NBC News reported that the “choice was likely an easy one” for the prosecutors. “If Willis were to remove herself, the case would come to a halt, but having Wade leave will ensure the case continues without further delay.”
The Daily Wire outlined that McAfee’s “decision came after Willis was accused by [Trump’s] co-defendant Mike Roman of being romantically involved with Wade at the time she hired him for the Trump case.”
“A witness testified last month that the romantic relationship between Willis and Wade began before the case started,” added The Daily Wire.
Willis and Wade both admitted that they had been in a now-ended romantic relationship with each other. They claimed the affair began after Wade joined the case, contrary to Roman’s accusation.
Wade filed for a divorce from his wife of 24 years the day after Willis hired him to lead the case in November 2021.
>> GEORGIA JUDGE NIXES SIX ELECTION CHARGES AGAINST TRUMP AND CO-DEFENDANTS <<
McAfee’s ruling also noted that in January, Roman “filed a motion to dismiss the indictment and disqualify” Willis’ office.
“Eight co-defendants later joined and supplemented the motion, raising additional grounds for disqualification,” the judge wrote:
Among other allegations of disqualifying conduct, the Defendants contend that the District Attorney obtained a personal stake in the prosecution of this case by financially benefitting [sic] from her romantic relationship with [Wade], whom she personally hired to lead the State’s prosecution team.
McAfee pointed out that Roman also alleged that while both were serving on the case, Willis and Wade “traveled together on multiple vacations with Wade covering many of the associated expenses.”
The judge acknowledged that “Roman later supplemented his motion with receipts from some of these travels.”
McAfee went on:
The State responded with an affidavit, arguing that the District Attorney had not received any financial benefit through her relationship with Wade, and that their personal travel expenses were “roughly divided equally.”
As alleged, the claims presented a possible financial conflict of interest for the District Attorney. More importantly, the defense motions and the State’s response created a conflict in the evidence that could only be resolved through an evidentiary hearing, and one that could not simply be ignored without endangering a criminally accused’s constitutional right to procedural due process.
The Washington Post senior political reporter Aaron Blake summarized the judge’s ruling: “McAfee wrote that while the conflict of interest wasn’t proved, ‘an odor of mendacity remains.’”
“While McAfee’s decision is, in its broad strokes, a win for Willis, it comes with all kinds of tough language about her conduct,” Blake wrote in his analysis. Blake’s piece was titled “A significant setback for Fani Willis.”
Blake added that the ruling “also raises questions about how the matter might linger in the months to come and color views of the prosecution.”
Defense attorney Steve Sadow expressed disappointment over McAfee’s ruling. Sadow is serving as Trump’s lead counsel in the case.
Sadow wrote in a statement posted to X (formerly Twitter):
While respecting the Court’s decision, we believe that the Court did not afford appropriate significance to the prosecutorial misconduct of Willis and Wade, including the financial benefits, testifying untruthfully about when their personal relationship began, as well as Willis’ extrajudicial MLK “church speech,” where she played the race card and falsely accused the defendants and their counsel of racism.
Sadow added that he and the rest of the defense team will “use legal options available as we continue to fight to end this case, which should never have been brought in the first place.”
FOX News hostess Harris Faulkner noted that Republican Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp or Republican Georgia Attorney General Christopher M. Carr “could appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and possibly disqualify Willis depending on [his or her] findings.”
In an interview with Faulkner, legal scholar Jonathan Turley slammed the embattled district attorney.
“From the very beginning of this controversy, Willis has put her interests and those of Mr. Wade ahead of her case, ahead of the interests of the people of Fulton County and ahead of her office,” Turley said. “That’s one of the things that is most shocking about this. [Willis] should have recused herself [from the case] weeks ago.”
Turley added that there was a “disconnect” in McAfee’s ruling.
“[McAfee has] been fair, he’s tried to get it right,” Turley went on,
and I get it when he says, “I can’t say this relationship is the reason that she brought this case.”
That’s true. Unfortunately, the case was not brought for personal reasons. It was brought for political reasons. This is a very politically motivated case.
McAfee dismissed six of the 41 total charges against Trump and his co-defendants the day before his Friday ruling, including three of the former president’s 13 charges.
The judge wrote in his ruling that the counts “contain all the essential elements of the crimes but fail to allege sufficient detail regarding the nature of their commission.”
