A Georgia appeals court should reject Donald Trump’s bid to remove Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from the election fraud case due to her past affair with former lead prosecutor Nathan Wade, according to new court filings. Trump and eight other defendants, accused of attempting to unlawfully overturn Georgia’s 2020 presidential election results, argue that Willis’s involvement constitutes a conflict of interest due to her romantic relationship with Wade.
Willis’s office, however, contended on Wednesday that the accusations of misconduct are moot since Wade stepped down as special prosecutor on March 15. This decision came after Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee ruled that only one of the former lovers could remain involved in the case to address the “significant appearance of impropriety.”
McAfee’s ruling, which was critical of Willis and Wade’s conduct, followed several days of hearings. During these hearings, both Willis and Wade testified that their romantic relationship began only after Wade had been working on the Trump probe for several months. They also refuted claims that Willis had financially benefited from the relationship, stating that they split travel costs and that Willis reimbursed Wade in cash for expenses charged to his credit card.
Willis’s office argued that any potential impropriety was resolved when Wade withdrew from the case. They dismissed the motion to disqualify her as unfounded, especially after Judge McAfee disregarded the testimony of Terrence Bradley, Wade’s former law partner and divorce attorney, due to credibility issues.
The defendants failed to demonstrate that Willis had an improper personal stake in the outcome of their prosecution, according to Willis’s office. They stated that without Bradley’s discredited testimony, the defendants’ theory of conflict becomes baseless.
Trump’s lawyer, Steve Sadow, called the motion a “last ditch effort to stop any appellate review of DA Willis’ misconduct,” noting that Judge McAfee’s ruling had mentioned an “odor of mendacity” from the testimonies of Willis and the State’s witnesses. Sadow also highlighted that the judge recognized “reasonable questions” about the truthfulness of Willis and Wade’s testimonies.
