Fulton County hearing: Trump case hangs in balance as judge mulls DA Willis' disqualification
The defense wants to disqualify DA Fani Willis in Trump's Georgia election case.
Following three days of testimony plus closing arguments, Scott McAfee, the judge overseeing former President Donald Trump's Georgia election interference case, is weighing motions to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, primarily over accusations from Trump co-defendant Michael Roman that she benefited financially from a "personal, romantic relationship" with prosecutor Nathan Wade, who she hired for the case.
Willis and Wade, in a court filing, 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."
Top headlines:
- Defense says Willis committed 'unforgivable' misconduct
- Hearing concludes, judge says ruling expected within 2 weeks
- Judge presses DA's office: 'Money has changed hands'
- Bradley says he does 'not have the date' when relationship started
- Trump attorney accuses Nathan Wade of perjury
- Willis says she didn't consider relationship romantic before hiring
Trump attorney says Willis' speech prejudiced defendants
Former President Trump's attorney Steve Sadow, in the first portion of his closing argument, focusing on the speech DA Fani Willis gave at Big Bethel AME Church in January, which he claimed was "a calculated determination by Ms. Willis to prejudice" a prospective jury against the defendants.
"I appointed three special counselors," Willis said in her speech, noting that Wade was the only Black one. "Isn't it them playing the race card when they only question one?"
"Willis took it upon herself to go to to a historic black church in Atlanta, having not responded at all, to the motion of Miss Merchant's client Roman ... it was a calculated determination by Miss Willis to prejudice the defendants and their counsel," Sadow argued to the court.
Sadow argued that the speech represented an "ethical violation," saying that Willis' comments invoking "race and religion" significantly heightened public condemnation of the defendant.
"Can you think of anything more that would heighten public condemnation of the defendant than alleging that defense counsel and the defendants were making their motion based on race and religion? That's just as bad as it gets in Fulton County," Sadow said.
"She could have said the facts of the matter. Instead, she misstated what the situation was took advantage of the opportunity," he argued.
'They knew it was wrong,' attorney says of Willis, Wade
Defense attorney John Merchant made a lengthy case for Fani Willis' disqualification under the law -- and also laid out how even the appearance of conflict could undermine the public's confidence in their prosecution and justify her removal.
"You know it when you see it," Merchant said. "They did this, they knew it was wrong, and they hid it."
Merchant laid out the case for dismissal in plain terms, as he and the other defendants see it: Willis and Wade conspired to bring this case to enrich themselves with public money, then "used that money to go on personal vacations and trips."
"We frankly couldn't care less if they had a relationship outside of work," Merchant said. But "if the court allows this kind of behavior ... the entire public confidence in the system will be shot and the integrity of the system will be undermined."
"[Willis] put her boyfriend in the spot, paid him, and then reaped the benefits," Merchant said.
Judge McAfee pressed Merchant about whether the amount of money Wade spend on vacations for himself and Willis -- which she said she paid him back in cash but has no record for -- was a relevant factor. Merchant calculated the amount to be more than $9,200, and the judge asked whether a subordinate buying their boss a stick of gum, for example, would merit disqualification.
"I don't know if $100 would be enough, $200 be enough -- I think you have to look at it globally" and in context, Merchant said.
Attorney for co-defendant Michael Roman presents arguments
John Merchant, co-counsel for Trump co-defendant Michael Roman and the husband of co-counsel Ashleigh Merchant, who initially brought the motion to disqualify DA Fani Willis, is presenting arguments for the defense.
Judge McAfee noted at the top of the hearing and before arguments began that the defense would have an hour and a half for arguments today.
The judge said that time will be divided up between each defendant.
Wade is in the courtroom as proceedings begin
Prosecutor Nathan Wade is in the courtroom as today's hearing gets underway, but so far DA Fani Willis is not.
Judge Scott McAfee previously told the multiple defense attorneys he would give them one "time block" today for their closing arguments, and that they could "use the time how you think is effective."
The state will also make a closing argument.
Judge presses DA's office: 'Money has changed hands'
State attorney Adam Abbate said that allegations that DA Fani Willis financially benefited from her relationship with prosecutor Nathan Wade were "all speculation and conjecture" lodged in order to "harrass and honestly embarrass" her.
Abbate said Willis was subjected to irrelevant questioning on the witness stand that was intended "to again embarrass and harass the district attorney in a way that was very public, in a way that was to impugn her character as it relates to that line of questioning in front of the court, in front of anyone watching the proceedings."
But Judge Scott McAfee pressed the DA's office after they suggested Willis' alleged conflict was theoretical or speculative.
"Aren't we past the speculation and conjecture aspect of this, though?" McAfee asked, saying that "the core of the financial allegation was that there is a relationship, and that money has changed hands."
"I think it was conceded that that balance could run in the district attorney's favor -- is that contested?" the judge asked.
The DA's office responded that they did contest that, saying the costs paid by each party were "equal."
But the judge pushed back again, saying the bottom line remained: "It's no longer just a theory that money changed hands."
"It's no longer speculation or conjecture," the judge said.
Willis, seated at the prosecution table, appeared alert and highly engaged during Abbate's arguments, visibly nodding or shaking her head at points.
She at one point scribbled down a note and passed it to Abbate, during his presentation of arguments on behalf of the DA's office.
At the end of his arguments, Abbate mounted an impassioned plea for the judge to dismiss the defendants' claim that Willis sought to live a lavish lifestyle on the taxpayer dime -- citing her relatively humble accommodations during a visit to Napa Valley: a DoubleTree Hotel.
"Most people, when they go to Napa -- if they want to lavishly experience Napa -- stay at the Ritz Carlton, the Four Seasons, things of that nature -- not a DoubleTree. So the allegations and assertions that Miss Willis was living the lifestyle of the rich and the famous is a joke," he said. "An absolute joke."
Abbate added there was "no validity" to arguments that the speech Willis made at the church would prejudice a jury.
"For all the reasons before Your Honor, this motion should be denied because the legal requirements by that are required in order for the district attorney to be disqualified have not been satisfied," Abbate concluded.