Defense lawyers in the Georgia election-fraud case on Friday accused Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade of conduct that “put an irreparable stain on the case” and that has turned Willis’s office into a “global laughingstock.”
During closing arguments in a motion to have Willis and Wade disqualified from the case against former president Donald Trump and more than a dozen co-defendants, five defense lawyers took turns contending that Willis’s and Wade’s romantic relationship created a disqualifying conflict of interest and that they both lied when they said in court filings and testimony that the romance only began after Willis hired Wade.
The defense lawyers also said that Willis engaged in “reprehensible” behavior when she spoke about the case in church and to the authors of a book about the 2020 presidential election.
A lawyer for the prosecution responded by accusing the defense lawyers of making “material misrepresentations,” saying that defense witnesses gave “inconsistent” testimony, and contending that defense lawyers provided no evidence that their clients’ due process rights have been “harmed in absolutely any way.”
“Ms. Willis as the 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 until the end,” Adam Abbate, Fulton County’s chief deputy district attorney said.
Fulton County Superior Court judge Scott McAfee held three days of hearings on the disqualification motion in February. A ruling from McAfee disqualifying Willis and Wade would likely upend the election-fraud case and would at the very least slow it down considerably.
During the afternoon hearing, McAfee questioned lawyers on both sides about what they believed would constitute a disqualifying conflict. McAfee said he intended to have an answer on the disqualification motion in about two weeks.
Abbate argued that the court would need to find an actual conflict that could influence the outcome of the case. He argued that Willis and Wade do not have divided loyalties in the case, no personal or financial interest in the prosecution, no prior relationships with the defendants, and that there is no reason to believe the defendants could not get a fair trial.
“There is zero evidence, not a single shred of evidence was produced through any of the exhibits or the witness testimony showing how their constitutional rights, their due process rights, were at all affected by the relationship that began in March of 2022,” Abbate said.
But defense lawyer John Merchant argued that Willis had a financial interest in the case through a “scheme that she set up,” that Wade took her on several vacations and cruises worth thousands of dollars and, to defend themselves, Willis and Wade developed a “cash theory” — Willis claimed on the stand that she paid Wade back for costs of the trips they took together in cash.
Merchant said Willis is not a “disinterested person when it comes to the prosecution” and that when it comes to conflicts of interests, “I think you know it when you see it.”
Defense lawyer Richard Rice said Wade spent “lavishly” on Willis and that she lived a “lifestyle of the rich and famous” “funded by the taxpayers of Fulton County and the state of Georgia.”
Steve Sadow, a lawyer for Trump, told McAfee that he didn’t have to make a finding of fact about whether Willis and Wade lied about the timing of the relationship and that he only needed a “genuine legitimate concern about their credibility, about their truthfulness.”
Both Willis and Wade insisted on the witness stand that their romance didn’t start until early 2022, months after Willis hired Wade to lead the election fraud case in November 2021. But Willis’s former friend, Robin Bryant-Yeartie, provided a different timeline, testifying that the two began a relationship, including “hugging, kissing,” soon after they met in late 2019.
Defense lawyers also questioned Wade’s former law partner and divorce attorney, Terrence Bradley, who sent a series of text messages to defense lawyer Ashleigh Merchant last year and earlier this year indicating that Willis’s and Wade’s relationship “absolutely” started before they say. The defense lawyers touted Bradley as a “star witness,” but Bradley appeared evasive on the stand on Monday, saying he had no knowledge of when the romance started and that he was only “speculating” in his communications with Merchant.
Sadow accused Bradley of lying on the stand and doing “everything he could to evade answering questions.” When Bradley used the word “absolutely” in the texts, that “is not a speculative word,” Sadow said. “That’s a definitive statement.”
Abbate said the text Bradley was replying to — “Do you think [the relationship] started before she hired him?” — by its nature called for speculation. He also questioned Bradley’s credibility.
Defense lawyers also argued that a January speech that Willis made in church was disqualifying. In the speech, Willis defended Wade as a “superstar” and accused her critics of “playing the race card” because she and Wade are both black.
Sadow said that Willis leaned on race and religion in an effort to gain “public sympathy,” a clear ethical violation. “That’s as bad as it gets in Fulton County, with all due respect,” he said.
Defense lawyers have also asked McAfee to admit Wade’s cellphone records into evidence. An analysis of the data by an investigator hired by Trump’s attorneys found that Wade and Willis had thousands of phone calls and text exchanges in 2021, and that Wade may have spent the night at or near Willis’s condo months before they say their romantic relationship began.
Abbate said the records were analyzed by a “non-expert” and weren’t “properly peer-reviewed.”
Defense lawyer Harry MacDougald said that Willis also did not have proper permission from Fulton County leaders to hire Wade, that she did not properly disclose benefits she received from him, and that she abused her power and her position.
“It’s put an irreparable stain on the case,” he said. “This office is a global laughingstock because of their conduct.”