Georgia State Judge Hears Closing Arguments in Alleged Financial Benefit Affair Case Involving Fulton County DA
A Georgia state judge heard closing arguments on Friday in a case involving Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. The allegations against Willis claim that her affair with special prosecutor Nathan Wade benefited her financially and should disqualify her from the case against former President Donald Trump. Willis and her office are leading the racketeering cases against Trump and 18 co-defendants.
Accusations were made earlier this year by several co-defendants, including Michael Roman, that Willis hired Wade while they were romantically involved and that she benefited from his government salary through lavish vacations they took together. Both Willis and Wade have denied these allegations, stating that their romantic involvement began after Wade was hired in 2021. Willis claimed in court testimony that she would always reimburse Wade for her portion of their shared travels in cash. However, there are no receipts for those reimbursements, and one witness claimed that their relationship started as early as 2019.
During the closing arguments, John Merchant, attorney for Roman, argued that Georgia law is clear in disqualifying Willis if there is an “appearance” of conflict. He claimed that Wade was “part of the scheme she created intentionally in order to give benefits to her boyfriend.” On the other hand, attorney Adam Abbate argued that the legal standard for disqualification is an actual conflict and not just an appearance. Abbate also argued against the accusation that Willis hired Wade for financial benefit, pointing out that she had requested an expedited trial, which means she would have less time to reap financial benefits.
Steve Sadow, attorney for Trump, criticized Willis for insinuating in a church speech that the affair allegations were race-based. Sadow argued that her remarks were calculated to prejudice the defendants and their counsel.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Scott McAfee stated that he would consider all the arguments and issue a decision within the next two weeks. However, Harry Macdouagled, attorney for co-defendant Jeffrey Clark, expressed concern about the impact of the Willis controversy on the case. He argued that if Willis is not disqualified, it would send a message that such behavior is tolerated and could lead to more misconduct. Macdouagled stated that the office is already a global laughingstock due to their conduct and that the case should be dismissed.
Prior to the closing arguments, Judge McAfee considered whether newly revealed text message data showing that Wade visited Willis’ private home at least 35 times before being hired should be admissible as evidence. Wade previously testified that he did not visit Willis’ condo more than 10 times before being hired. The defense is trying to prove the existence and extent of any financial benefit to Willis from her relationship with Wade as part of their argument for disqualification.
Earlier in the week, Terrence Bradley, a former law firm partner and divorce attorney, testified about what he knew regarding Willis and Wade’s personal relationship. Bradley stated that he could not recall several details and timelines about conversations he had with Wade about the relationship. He also said he had only discussed Wade’s relationship with Willis once. Willis’ father, John C. Floyd III, also took the stand and confirmed her testimony that she kept large amounts of cash on hand at all times. Floyd stated that she used these funds to reimburse Wade for luxury trips.
The defense has been trying to prove that Willis and Wade were romantically involved prior to Wade’s employment in the DA’s office. Robin Yeartie, a former friend of Willis and past employee at the DA’s office, testified that she believed their relationship started in 2019 after they met at a conference. Willis dismissed Yeartie’s testimony and stated that she no longer considers her a friend.
The highlight of the proceedings was Willis’ unexpected testimony, which was described as “belligerent” by one expert. She engaged in verbal sparring with lawyers for hours and even prompted the judge to threaten to strike her testimony. Willis also raised eyebrows by appearing to wear her dress backward.
Judge McAfee stated at the start of the proceedings that disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one.
In the next two weeks, Judge McAfee will make a decision regarding the case, considering all the arguments presented. The outcome will determine whether Willis will be disqualified from the case against former President Donald Trump.
Note: The article provided does not contain information about specific locations or people involved, other than those listed in the quotes.
