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
Witness 'sure' Wade told him about earlier 'socializing' with Willis
Terrence Bradley testified that he is “sure” prosecutor Nathan Wade told Bradley about “socializing” with DA Fani Willis prior to November 2021.
“Did Mr. Wade ever tell you prior to November 1 of 2021 that he had socialized or gone out to eat with Miss Willis in anything other than a professional setting?” asked Donald Trump’s attorney Steve Sadow.
“I'm sure he did,” Bradley replied.
Before that, Bradley also testified that he couldn't recall if Wade and Willis met privately in Wade's office.
"Did Miss Willis meet privately with Mr. Wade in his office that you observed?" Sadow asked.
"I can't recall," Bradley replied.
Judge says he will review text messages after hearing
Judge McAfee said Friday he would review Terrence Bradley’s text messages with prosecutor Nathan Wade after the hearing.
McAfee indicated the review would happen on-camera but remain sealed unless he’s “ever directed otherwise.”
“In order to preserve the record, at the conclusion of the hearing, I think I can go on camera with Mr. Chopra and Mr. Bradley and we can put in a sealed filing exactly what the extent of those communications were,” he said.
“Those [would] remain sealed until sometime if we’re ever directed otherwise,” the judge said.
Trump attorney accuses Nathan Wade of perjury
Trump attorney Steve Sadow accused prosecutor Nathan Wade of perjury on the witness stand, related to when his relationship began with DA Fani Willis.
"Mr. Wade committed perjury on the witness stand," Sadow said standing in court, continuing his argument for why Terrence Bradley's testimony regarding his texts and knowledge of Wade and Fani Willis' relationship.
Bradley has testified that he did not have personal knowledge of the relationship between Wade and Willis. But the defense is arguing the texts would show otherwise.
"A lawyer shall not knowingly failed to disclose and material fact to a tribunal. When disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act," Sadow said.
Judge rules that witness' texts do not need to be disclosed
Judge Scott McAfee rejected the defense’s insistence that Terrence Bradley be forced to testify about communications he had with Nathan Wade.
“I don’t think the crime fraud exception covers this,” he said, referring to the legal statute defense lawyers were pushing to force Bradley to disclose his conversations with Wade.
“It does not appear that there’s any evidence that the client ever waived [his attorney-client privilege] and allowed that information to be conveyed to you,” he added later, addressing Mike Roman’s lawyer Ashleigh Merchant.
Nathan Wade takes the stand
Special prosecutor Nathan Wade is now on the stand.
Fulton County prosecutors made a motion to quash the subpoena for Wade to testify, but Judge Scott McAfee rejected the motion, saying the "evidence in front of the court at the moment" is that a witness testified that the relationship predated his hiring, which contradicts their court filing.
"I don't see a way around the relevance of his testimony," said the judge.