A prominent law professor warned that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ case against former President Donald Trump appears to be “unraveling” amid questions over her relationship with Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade.
Over the past several days, attorneys for President Trump have filed new court documents in Georgia, suggesting that Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade may have been in a relationship for much longer than they admitted in court, following an analysis of Mr. Wade’s cellphone data. A co-defendant in January accused the pair of being in a secret relationship from which Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade allegedly profited.
In court this month, both Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis made contradictory statements, which George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley said could imperil their case.
Their testimony contained a “great deal of contradiction, particularly for Mr. Wade. Some of his earlier sworn statements appear to be irreconcilable with the facts that he later testified to,” Mr. Turley said. “That’s a nice way of saying that people believe he may have lied under the earlier sworn statement. That’s pretty serious because these two are prosecuting people for making false statements and filing false papers with courts,” he added.
Mr. Turley suggested that the judge in the case, Scott McAfee, could charge her with perjury for her statements. That’s if the allegations are confirmed to be true, he said, adding they could also be “referred to the bar” in Georgia.
Over the weekend, Ms. Willis’s office disputed in a court filing a previous Trump submission that used a private investigator’s analysis of Mr. Wade’s phone records to suggest that he visited her condo far more times than what he claimed in a recent court hearing.
Recent allegations from President Trump’s co-defendant in his racketeering and election case stated that Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade were engaged in a clandestine relationship and that she financially benefitted from the arrangement, which the two later confirmed.
“The records do not prove, in any way, the content of the communications between Special Prosecutor Wade and District Attorney Willis; they do not prove that Special Prosecutor Wade was ever at any particular location or address; they do not prove that Special Prosecutor Wade and District Attorney Willis were ever in the same place during any of the times listed,” Ms. Willis’s office wrote in the filing.
It came after the Trump team submitted an affidavit from investigator Charles Mittelstadt, who wrote that the two had made more than 2,000 calls and exchanged 12,000 text messages in 2021, months before they said the relationship had started and before Mr. Wade was hired for the case. Both Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade claimed their relationship began in 2022 after he was hired by her office.
The new filing raises fresh questions about the timeline of the relationship between the district attorney and Mr. Wade. President Trump and other defendants, accused of illegally trying to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia, argue that this romantic relationship creates a conflict of interest. They argue both prosecutors should be removed from the case.
Mr. Wade testified earlier in February that he had never spent the night at the condo where Ms. Willis was living, which she confirmed. The investigator’s statement indicates that on two occasions, one in mid-September 2021 and one in late November 2021, data showed that his phone appeared to have arrived late at night in the area where Ms. Willis lived and remained there until early morning.
In January, a motion filed by Trump co-defendant Michael Roman alleged that Ms. Willis paid Mr. Wade large sums of money for his work and then benefited personally when he used some of that money to pay for vacations. During a hearing last week, a former friend of the district attorney testified that she saw the two kissing and hugging before Mr. Wade’s hiring.
Judge McAfee held a two-day evidentiary hearing last week on motions by Mr. Roman and others to disqualify Ms. Willis and her office from the case. He has scheduled arguments on the matter for March 1.
