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
Hearing concludes, judge says ruling expected within 2 weeks
DA Fani Willis and members of her team stood up and left as prosecutor Adam Abbate concluded his argument on behalf of the state.
Willis looked stern and made no comment as she left the courtroom.
The defense then presented its rebuttal, led by Trump attorney Steve Sadow.
Judge Scott McAfee then concluded the hearing, saying he hopes to have a ruling on Willis' disqualification within the next two weeks.
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.
State attorney says arguments don't prove 'actual conflict'
Adam Abbate, an attorney with the district attorney's office, argued that defendants had failed to meet the "high standard of proof" for disqualification -- calling the narrative they spun about Willis and Wade's relationship "absolutely absurd."
"It doesn't make any sense," Abbate said. "The motions to disqualify should be denied, and Miss Willis as district attorney of Fulton County, and Mr. Wade, as the special prosecutor assigned to this case, should be allowed to remain on this case and continue to prosecute the case."
Contrary to what defense attorneys argued, Abbate argued that they must prove an "actual conflict" of interest to secure a disqualification -- not just the "appearance of impropriety."
"The defense has to show an actual conflict, and in this instance, they have to show in the actual conflict would be that Miss Willis received a financial benefit or gain -- and got it based upon the outcome of the case," Abbate said.
"We have absolutely no evidence that Miss Willis received any financial gain or benefit," he argued. "The testimony was that Miss Willis paid all of the money back in cash as related to the trips."
Judge McAfee seemed skeptical of that argument, citing language that allows for removal based on the "appearance of impropriety" and referencing examples of past misconduct raised by the defendants.
Abbate pushed back, arguing that in each of those cases, the "appearance of impropriety ... arose from the fact that the court found an actual conflict in each of those cases."
Abbate also called into question the credibility of defendants' key witnesses in the disqualification hearings, calling the testimony of Robin Yeartie, ex-friend of Willis, "at best inconsistent."
State presenting closing arguments
The hearing has resumed after a short break, with state attorneys now presenting their closing arguments.
DA Fani Willis is seated at the prosecution table, along with other prosecutors including Nathan Wade.
Trump attorney presses Bradley on dates of relationship
Prosecutor Nathan Wade's former attorney Terrence Bradley described his past statements as "speculation" when Donald Trump's attorney Steve Sadow confronted him with past text messages Bradley exchanged with another defense attorney that appeared inconsistent with his current testimony.
"That's speculation on my part," Bradley said. "I stated that I was speculating."
Sadow showed him past text messages where Bradley said Wade and DA Fani Willis "absolutely" began their relationship before Wade was hired by Willis.
"It started when she left the DAs office and was [a] judge in South Fulton. They met at the Municipal Court CLE conference," Bradley said in a text message that was entered into evidence.
Claiming he was speculating in that text, Bradley reiterated that he does not have direct information about when the relationship began. He said that between 2018 and 2022, he only spoke with Wade about the relationship once.
"I do not know when the relationship started between Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis. I cannot recall that," Bradley said.
"Is it your testimony that you don't know, under oath, whether or not there was a relationship between Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis, before the contract?" Sadow asked, referring to Wade's November 2021 contract with the DA.
"I do not recall any dates of when the relationship started," Bradley responded.
Sadow, however, appeared incredulous of Bradley and hammered at his claim.
"That's the true explanation because you don't want to admit it in court, correct?" Sadow said.
Bradley did not change his account of the relationship, despite Sadow's repeated questions.
Sadow ultimately concluded his questions by reminding Bradley about the stakes of his testimony.
"You realize that if you were to testify under oath that you knew from Mr. Wade that the relationship between him and Miss Willis existed before the contract on November 1 of 2021 ... that would show that both Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade had lied under oath. You know that don't you?" Sadow said, prompting a sustained objection.