More bad news for Fani Willis: Disqualification is back on the menu and state investigators are drilling deep



Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is not only running for re-election but ostensibly running away from accountability over her various alleged improprieties. If the last several days have provided any indication, then Willis may be headed for a stumble.

Friday

"This is really messing up my business," said Willis.

The Georgia Senate Special Committee that was approved in January to investigate allegations of misconduct on Willis' part began drilling deeper Friday into the Democrat's use of taxpayer funds. The Washington Examiner indicated that there were various signs in the over four-hour hearing that lawmakers are determined to fully understand the Fulton County District Attorney Office's expenditures and prosecution of Trump.

This penetrating scrutiny appears to have struck a nerve with Willis, who told local news, "Isn't it interesting when we got a bunch of African American DAs, now we need a daddy to tell us what to do?"

"This is really messing up my business," continued Willis. "They can look all they want."

The committee appears keen to shift from looking to listening.

Republican state Sen. Bill Cowswet told WSB-TV that the special committee will subpoena the Democratic DA should she fail to appear voluntarily and explain herself.

Monday

On Monday, Willis indicated that — just as she didn't bother to show up to debate her political opponent last month — she may similarly attempt to ghost the state Senate committee.

"First of all, I don't even think they have the authority to subpoena me," said Willis. "But they need to learn the law."

Willis added, "I will not appear to anything that is unlawful, and I have not broken the law in any way. I’ve said it, you know, I’ll say it amongst these leaders, I’m sorry folks get pissed off that everybody gets treated equally."

Wednesday

On Wednesday, the Court of Appeals for the State of Georgia put the possibility of Willis' disqualification from former President Donald Trump's election interference case back on the table.

Willis, who has described herself as the "face of the feminist movement," has been scrutinized for months over accusations of "systematic misconduct" and various other improprieties.

Blaze News previously reported that Ashleigh Merchant, an attorney for Trump co-defendant Michael Roman, filed a Jan. 8 motion to disqualify, claiming Willis was ethically compromised by her "improper, clandestine personal relationship" with Nathan Wade.

Willis hired Wade the day after he filed for divorce from his wife. Contrary to the DA's suggestion in court, their romantic relationship allegedly preceded the appointment by at least several months.

In the months that followed, Willis was targeted with additional disqualification motions accusing her of prejudicing potential jurors with racially charged commentary, conflict of interest, misusing public monies, coordinating with the Biden White House, giving Wade preferential treatment, and of possibly running afoul of the federal racketeering statute.

The effort to oust Willis from the case came to a head on March 15 when Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, also running for re-election, ruled that the Democrat could continue overseeing the case so long as Wade resigned his post as special prosecutor.

Wade bowed out, but the defense was not satisfied — particularly since the judge acknowledged Willis' "unprofessional manner" during the evidentiary hearing, her "bad choices," her "tremendous lapse in judgment," her "legally improper" remarks, and the prosecutions encumbrance "by an appearance of impropriety."

McAfee permitted Trump and several of his co-defendants to appeal his ruling, which they did in late March.

The appeals court granted Trump's application for interlocutory appeal this week, meaning it will take up McAfee's ruling — a move the Associated Press suggested will likely delay Trump's case beyond the November election. After all, whoever loses the case could ask the Georgia Supreme Court to decide Willis' fate.

Professor Ryan Goodman, former special counsel to the general counsel of the Pentagon, alternatively suggested that the revitalized disqualification battle "might not delay matters," citing McAfee's suggestion in his order granting the petition that the "Court intends to continue addressing the many other unrelated pending pretrial motions, regardless of whether the petition is granted."

Unless Trump requests and gets a stay, the Georgia appeals court considering his effort to disqualify DA Fani Willis might not delay matters.\n\nTrial Judge McAfee in his order granting petition to appeal: "The Court intends to continue addressing the many other unrelated pending\u2026
— (@)

Thursday

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee appears to also be closing in on Willis. Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) launched an inquiry into the alleged collusion between Willis and the Jan. 6 Committee in December 2023.

On Thursday, Jordan asked Nathan Wade to appear for an interview and to produce various documents pertaining to his former employment with the Fulton County District Attorney's Office.

"There are serious concerns about your role in the politically motivated prosecution initiated by Ms. Willis against President Donald J. Trump. You have reportedly 'profit[ed] significantly' from M. Willis's prosecution, with unsealed court filings alleging that you have been paid 'almost seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) [from the FCDAO] since May of 2022 alone,'" Jordan noted in his letter to Wade.

"The committee understands that Ms. Willis reportedly compensated you and financed her politically motivated prosecution using a mixture of taxpayer funds, possibly including part of the $14.6 million in federal grant funds that her office received from the Department of Justice between 2020 and 2023," added Jordan.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution indicated that Wade's attorney could not be reached for comment but that he previously claimed he had done nothing wrong.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'A bad look': Attorney accuses Fani Willis of committing a felony. Meanwhile, her lover may be held in contempt of court.



Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and her lover are in hot water once again.

Willis has been accused of illegally recording a phone conversation. Nathan Wade, who was up until last month the special prosecutor in former President Donald Trump's Georgia election interference case, faces contempt of court proceedings in his divorce case.

Quick recap

Willis, who recently described herself as the "face of the feminist movement," has been scrutinized for months over accusations of "systematic misconduct" and various other improprieties. The troubles effectively began for Willis when Ashleigh Merchant, an attorney for Trump codefendant Michael Roman, filed a Jan. 8 motion to disqualify claiming she was ethically compromised by her "improper, clandestine personal relationship" with Wade.

Willis hired Wade the day after he filed for divorce from his wife, Jocelyn Wade. Willis and Wade's relationship allegedly preceded the appointment by at least several months.

Subsequent motions to disqualify Willis accused her of prejudicing potential jurors with her racially charged commentary, misusing public monies, conflict of interest, coordinating with the Biden White House, giving Wade preferential treatment, and of possibly running afoul of the federal racketeering statute.

Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee ruled on March 15 that Willis could continue overseeing the prosecution of the case so long as Wade resigned his post as special prosecutor — which he ultimately did. McAfee did, however, blast Willis for the "unprofessional manner of [her] testimony during the evidentiary hearing," her "bad choices," her "tremendous lapse in judgment," and her "legally improper" remarks.

McAfee cleared Trump and several of his codefendants to appeal his ruling to the Georgia Court of Appeals. They formally did so last week. The court has fewer than 45 days to make up its mind.

While it's unclear whether disqualification is still on the table, it's clear Willis could still be held accountable for other alleged improprieties.

The phone call

Christopher Kachouroff, the attorney representing Trump codefendant Harrison Floyd in the Georgia case, accused Willis Tuesday of illegally recording a phone call with one of his Maryland-based colleagues.

Kachouroff told legal analyst Phil Holloway, "[Willis] did reach out to us, one of my colleagues in Maryland, and was rude, abrupt with him on the phone — and he was dealing with the Maryland case and I was dealing with the Georgia case — and she ended up recording him."

Kachouroff underscored that Maryland is a two-party consent state. Newsweek noted that Maryland is one of 11 states with a two-party consent requirement.

Under Maryland's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, it is a criminal offense to record a conversation without the consent of all involved parties. Any person who does so is "guilty of a felony and is subject to imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both."

"So are you saying that she illegally recorded a phone call?" asked Holloway.

"Oh yeah," replied Kachouroff. "It's a felony in Maryland."

Floyd shared the relevant excerpt of the interview to X, writing, "She is a DEI thug with a law license. Will anyone in GA stand up to her?"

— (@)

Floyd, a former Marine and martial arts instructor, was a senior staffer for Trump's 2020 campaign who ran Black Voices for Trump. He was indicted in Georgia on charges of racketeering, conspiracy to solicit false statements, and influencing witnesses. Floyd has pleaded not guilty.

In a subsequent post on X, Floyd shared a screenshot of an Aug. 29, 2023, article published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that referenced a phone call Willis had recorded.

"Willis' office provided the Atlanta Journal-Constitution with a recording of a phone call Willis made that same day to attorney Carlos J.R. Salvado, who is Floyd's attorney in an unrelated criminal case in federal court in Maryland," reported the Journal-Constitution. "In the call, she explained that she had sent a representative to meet with Floyd at the jail when he turned himself in. Willis told Salvado that Floyd was offered a consent bond at that time, but he refused it."

Floyd wrote in a Thursday post on X, "I don't want to put a black woman in Jail. But if [Fani Willis] does not recuse herself from this case by noon on Monday, I may have no other choice than to pursue all lawful remedies. Make Fulton Great Again."

Holloway responded, "I suspect Maryland law applies here. I know for a fact it's unusual and unprofessional for a lawyer to record a call with another lawyer. Whether or not it's a crime is for Maryland to decide but regardless it's a bad look."

Newsweek reached out to Willis' office for comment but appears not to have received a reply.

Possible contempt of court

Nathan Wade may have resigned from Trump's Georgia case, but he appears altogether unable to avoid controversy.

Jocelyn Wade, the former Trump prosecutor's ex-wife, filed contempt of court proceedings against Willis' lover with the Superior Court of Cobb County on Wednesday, reported WAGA-TV.

According to the court filing, the now-divorced couple agreed earlier this year that Nathan Wade would pay for his estranged wife's medical expenses until further order of the court.

Jocelyn Wade is now apparently in urgent need of medical procedures, "namely an endoscopy, colonoscopy, and ultrasound, due to severe physical symptoms she has been enduring," which "have significantly impacted her ability to consume most foods, leading to a substantial weight loss."

The filing claims Jocelyn Wade has notified the former Trump prosecutor of her desperate need for these procedures as well as the need for prepayment in the amount of $4,400. The trouble is that Nathan Wade has allegedly "failed and neglected to fulfill his obligation under the Temporary Order to cover these necessary healthcare costs."

The filing further suggests that Jocelyn Wade has been unable to front the cash for the procedure because she has been helping pay for her daughter's living expenses, whom Nathan Wade allegedly cut off on the day her rent came due.

Regarding their respective expenses, Nathan Wade allegedly told both his son and his daughter to "get the money from your mother."

According to the filing, Nathan Wade's "multiple, willful failures to comply with the terms of the Temporary Order and Agreement constitutes contempt of court."

Newsweek, which pressed Wade for comment, indicated the prospect Wade may be slapped with a contempt of court charge may also blow back on Willis.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Court: Trump, GOP Co-Defendants Can Appeal Judge’s Retention Of Fani Willis

Judge Scott McAfee ruled Wednesday that Donald Trump and eight GOP co-defendants may appeal his decision to not disqualify Fani Willis.

Fani Willis isn't out of the woods yet: Trump's attorney seeks to appeal judge's disqualification ruling



Judge Scott McAfee decided against disqualifying Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis last week from former President Donald Trump's election interference case in Georgia. Instead, he required that either the Democrat or her lover, special prosecutor Nathan Wade, step down.

Wade ultimately fell on his sword, resigning just hours after the Fulton County Superior Court judge's decision. This may have satisfied the judge, but the defense figured Willis still deserved the boot.

Signaling a potential continuation of Willis' disqualification saga, Steve Sadow filed a motion on behalf of Trump and his codefendants Monday, requesting that McAfee grant a certificate of immediate review of the court's March 15 order to the Georgia Court of Appeals.

Background

Blaze News previously reported that while McAfee did not ultimately disqualify Willis on March 15, he did suggest that when confronted with the details of her affair with Wade, as alleged by the defendants, "a prima facie argument arises of financial enrichment and improper motivations which inevitably and unsurprisingly invites a motion such as this."

McAfee ultimately found that there was insufficient evidence that Willis "acquired a personal stake in the prosecution, or that her financial arrangements had any impact on the case."

He did, however, suggest that the lack of a "confirmed financial split [between Willis and Wade] creates the possibility and appearance that the District Attorney benefited — albeit non-materially — from a contract whose award lay solely within her purview and policing."

McAfee also blasted Willis for her "tremendous lapse in judgment," the "unprofessional manner of [her] testimony during the evidentiary hearing," her "bad choices," and her "legally improper" remarks at an Atlanta-area church in January.

Motion to appeal

Sadow, lead counsel for Trump, noted Monday, in the joint motion requesting the Fulton County Superior Court to grant a certificate of immediate review of its order, that the disqualification ruling "is of exceptionally great importance to this case, substantially impacting Defendants' rights to due process."

"Additionally, given the lack of guidance from the appellate courts on key issues, and the fact that any errors in the March 15 Order could be structural errors that would necessitate retrial(s), the grant of a certificate of immediate review is both prudent and warranted," added Sadow.

Sadow highlighted McAfee's stated sense that Willis' action "had created an appearance of impropriety and an 'odor of mendacity' that lingers in this case, as well as the continuing possibility that 'an outsider could reasonably think that District Attorney Willis is not exercising her independent professional judgment totally free of any compromising influences.'"

Sadow also seized upon McAfee's claim that Willis' racially charged Jan. 14 speech was "legally improper," noting that the Georgia appellate courts would likely go so far as to recognize it as a contributing instance of forensic misconduct requiring the Democrat's disqualification.

The defense attorney noted the "resignation of Mr. Wade is insufficient to cure the appearance of impropriety the Court has determined exists." According to Sadow, relevant case law would dictate the case be altogether dismissed but that Willis should at the very least be disqualified.

Sadow wrote that it is important to have the appellate courts weigh in on the matter prior to the trials, stressing there is precedent for doing so and a risk of otherwise spiking the trial's results in a manner requiring retrials.

— (@)

NBC News noted that there is not an automatic right to appeal at this stage and that McAfee would have to grant permission to do so within 10 days of his March 15 ruling. Furthermore, the Georgia appeals court would have to agree to hear the case.

If, however, the stars align and the defendants are able to appeal the ruling, then the already unscheduled trial will likely be kicked back a great deal further. Even without the appeal, it is highly unlikely the trial will occur prior to the 2024 election, and if Trump is re-elected, then he could request that the U.S. Supreme Court have the case delayed until he leaves office.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Judge McAfee: Fani Willis not disqualified, but she or her lover have to walk away from Trump's Georgia case



Judge Scott McAfee has chosen not to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from former President Donald Trump's election interference case in Georgia. However, she and her lover, special prosecutor Nathan Wade, will not be permitted to remain on the case together.

While not the decision attorneys for Trump and his co-defendants ostensibly wanted, the unsuccessful effort to oust Willis has nevertheless exposed her to scrutiny outside the court, illuminated a history of "bad choices," and reinforced her characterization on the the right as a partisan antagonist in Trump's Georgia saga.

McAfee's decision may also benefit him in his upcoming re-election campaign.

Leftist attorney and talk-show host Robert Patillo is challenging McAfee for his seat. Not booting Willis may provide Patillo with one fewer critique to level at the Kemp appointee in the heavily Democratic county.

Despite this turn of events, it remains highly unlikely that the trial will take place before the November presidential election.

Trump pleaded not guilty to all 13 charges against him, including the three quashed this week. If re-elected president, then Trump could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to have the case delayed until he leaves office.

What's the background?

Willis has been the subject of intense scrutiny ever since Ashleigh Merchant, attorney for Trump co-defendant Michael Roman, filed a 127-page court motion on Jan. 8 accusing the Democratic DA of being embroiled in "an improper, clandestine personal relationship" with Nathan Wade, the then-married private attorney whom she ultimately hired to lead Trump's prosecution.

The original filing stated that Willis and Wade "have violated laws regulating the use of public monies, suffer from irreparable conflicts of interest, and have violated their oaths of office under the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct and should be disqualified from prosecuting this matter."

Defense attorneys representing Trump and his co-defendants have since filed additional motions to disqualify Willis, accusing her of tainting the case by fomenting "racial animus and prejudice against the defendants"; coordinating with elements of the Biden White House and Jan. 6 committee in a politically motivated effort to kneecap the Republican front-runner; giving Wade preferential treatment; and possibly running afoul of the federal racketeering statute.

While Willis ultimately admitted to the affair, her defense suggested it "does not amount to a disqualifying conflict of interest." She denied or brushed off the other allegations both in court filings and personally in court.

Misconduct hearings

Defense attorneys reiterated during Willis' ethics hearing in the Fulton County Superior Court that she had prejudiced potential jurors against the defendants and perpetrated a "fraud on this court."

One key witness cast significant doubt on whether the DA and her lover had been honest with the court about the time frame of their affair.

Willis' old friend and employee, Robin Yeartie, suggested that contrary to claims made in court by Willis and Wade, the lovers' affair had indeed predated Wade's November 2021 appointment as special prosecutor by roughly two years.

While Wade's former law partner and defense attorney Terrence Bradley had similarly suggested to Merchant in text messages that the lovers' affair predated November 2021, he appeared to develop selective amnesia on the stand, suggesting he had only been speculating about the actual timeline.

Merchant noted that even the appearance of a conflict of interest was grounds for Willis' removal, as it would, at the very least, undermine public confidence in the prosecution.

McAfee signaled agreement, noting that Willis could be disqualified if evidence demonstrated an "actual conflict of interest or the appearance of one," reported The Hill.

At one point, Willis told Merchant, "I'm not on trial, no matter how hard you try to put me on trial."

Blaze News previously reported that Craig Gillen, a defense attorney for David Shafer, accused Willis and Wade of "systematic misconduct," stressing that "they need to go."

Defense attorneys also suggested that Wade and Willis had perjured themselves by misleading the court about their affair and when it started.

The ruling

Judge McAfee suggested in highly anticipated Friday ruling that as far as a possible conflict of interest is concerned, Wade's "manner of payment is not actionable on its own."

"A SADA’s oath of office, in combination with the supervision theoretically provided by a neutral and detached District Attorney, should generally be sufficient to dispel the appearance of that improper incentive. Nor would a romantic relationship between prosecutors, standing alone, typically implicate disqualification, assuming neither prosecutor had the ability to pay the other as long as the relationship persisted," wrote McAfee.

However, the judge noted that "in combination, as is alleged here by the Defendants, a prima facie argument arises of financial enrichment and improper motivations which inevitably and unsurprisingly invites a motion such as this."

McAfee indicated that despite the luxurious trips Wade and Willis went on, and the appearance that the special prosecutor may have paid Willis' way, the "Court finds that the evidence did not establish the District Attorney's receipt of a material financial benefit as a result of her decision to hire and engage in a romantic relationship with Wade."

McAfee also determined that "financial gain flowing from her relationship with Wade does not appear to have been a motivating factor" on Willis' part to indict and prosecute the case.

"Without sufficient evidence that the District Attorney acquired a personal stake in the prosecution, or that her financial arrangements had any impact on the case, the Defendants' claims of an actual conflict must be denied," wrote McAfee.

McAfee noted that there remains, however, the appearance of impropriety on Willis' part "because of specific conduct, and impacts more than a mere 'nebulous' public interest."

The lack of a "confirmed financial split [between Willis and Wade] creates the possibility and appearance that the District Attorney benefited — albeit non-materially — from a contract whose award lay solely within her purview and policing," wrote the judge.

McAfee presented the state with two options. Either Willis can step aside along with her whole office and refer the prosecution to the Prosecuting Attorneys' Council for reassignment, or Wade can withdraw.

While the judge refused to disqualify Willis and did not find that she had prejudiced potential jurors against the defendants, he did blast her "tremendous lapse in judgment," the "unprofessional manner of the District Attorney's testimony during the evidentiary hearing," and Willis' "bad choices."

Further, he indicated that the General Assembly, the Georgia State Ethics Commission, the State Bar of Georgia, the Fulton County Board of Commissioners, and voters in the county may "offer feedback on any unanswered questions that linger."

Still in the game

Permitted to remain on the case, Willis is expected to amend and refile the three charges McAfee quashed on Wednesday.

Anthony Michael Kreis, a professor at the Georgia State College of Law, noted earlier this week, "Fani Willis has a habit of swinging back hard. To be clear, that doesn't always serve her perfectly well. ... I have a hard time believing she won't be back with perfected indictments just to prove a point."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Colorado secretary of state and other leftists are glum over SCOTUS ballot decision: 'It will be up to the American voters'



President Joe Biden's top political rival will appear on the ballot in the Centennial State, to the chagrin of Democrats and other leftists who routinely express concerns about threats to democracy.

The Democrat-appointed justices on the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in December that former President Donald Trump could not appear on the ballot in the state. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed that decision Monday, underscoring that Congress, not the states, is "responsible for enforcing Section 3 [of the 14th Amendment] against federal officeholders and candidates."

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold made her disappointment known in liberal circles while her defeated equivalent in Maine walked back a similar effort to disenfranchise voters.

Griswold, a Democrat, told Scripps News last year that she believed the Colorado "court's decision was right."

"I believe that Jan. 6 was an insurrection, and I'll go even further in saying that Trump incited it," said Griswold. "So the wording of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is clear: It says that any person that swears to uphold the Constitution, and then engages in insurrection or rebellion, subsequently cannot hold office."

After her understanding of the Constitution was found wanting by the U.S. Supreme Court Monday, Griswold told Politico, "It's concerning that federal candidates, at this point, can engage in insurrection and then face no accountability for ballot access."

"This decision did not surprise me, given the oral arguments," said Griswold. "I'm disappointed; I think states under federalism should be able to enforce the clear words [of Section 3]."

Griswold added that "it's up to the American people to save democracy in November," echoing Biden's go-to insinuation that democracy is reliant upon the empowerment of a single political party.

The Colorado secretary recycled these remarks on MSNBC, again underscoring her disappointment over the high court's ruling in Anderson v. Griswold ruling. However, Griswold went on to denigrate the one political body constitutionally permitted to take that action she previously figured executable by a partisan state court.

"Ultimately this decision ... leaves open the door for Congress to act, to pass authorizing legislation," said Griswold. "But we know that Congress is a nearly non-functioning body."

Since neither Democrat-appointed justices in Colorado nor lawmakers in the nation's capital will be able to prevent voters from casting ballots for Trump, Griswold reiterated that the fate of the nation "will be up to the American voters."

Democrat Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold says her reaction to the Supreme Court's unanimous decision is "disappointment."\n\n"It will be up to the American voters to save our democracy in November."
— (@)

Griswold was evidently not the only liberal upset over the high court's ruling.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the liberal activist group that represented the petitioners in the Colorado case, similarly did not take the loss well.

CREW president Noah Bookbinder, up until recently a member of the Biden Department of Homeland Security's Homeland Security Advisory Council, said, "The Supreme Court removed an enforcement mechanism, and in letting Trump back on the ballot, they failed to meet the moment."

Like Griswold, Bookbinder suggested it is once again "up to the American people to ensure accountability."

While Bookbinder stressed that "this was in no way a win for Trump," he will be on the ballots today in two other states that disqualified the Republican front-runner.

Maine Democratic Secretary of State Shenna Bellows issued a modified ruling Monday walking back her Dec. 28 disqualification of Trump, wherein she stressed, "Democracy is sacred."

"I have reviewed the Anderson decision carefully. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that individual states lack authority to enforce Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment with respect to federal offices," wrote Bellows. "Consistent with my oath and obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and pursuant to the Anderson decision, I hereby withdraw my determination that Mr. Trump's primary petition is invalid."

Votes cast for Trump in Tuesday's primary will, as a result, be counted.

It's also game over for the Section 3-based disqualification in Illinois, where a Democratic judge heavily based her removal ruling on the Colorado Supreme Court's arguments.Consequently, Trump will be on the primary ballot on March 19 in the Prairie State.

Free Speech for People, the leftist advocacy group that represented the five men who petitioned to have Trump removed from the ballot in Illinois, said in a statement following the Anderson ruling, "The U.S. Supreme Court today has made a mockery of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

The group suggested further that the ruling was "dangerous."

"This decision is disgraceful," said Rob Fein, the legal director of the leftist outfit. "The Supreme Court couldn't exonerate Trump because the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming, so instead the Justices neutered our Constitution’s built-in defense against insurrectionists and said the facts don't matter."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Systematic misconduct': Defense torches Democrat DA in closing arguments of Fani Willis' ethics hearing



Defense attorneys for former President Donald Trump and his co-defendants in the Georgia election interference case pulled out all the stops during closing arguments Friday in Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' ethics hearing, torching the Black Panther's daughter for her various alleged improprieties, abuses of power, and case-compromising public remarks.

Revisiting the chief claims raised in their previous motions to disqualify, defense attorneys stressed that Willis personally benefited from her clandestine romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, the man she ultimately appointed special prosecutor and whose fat checks she ultimately approved. They argued further that she prejudiced potential jurors against the defendants and perpetrated a "fraud on this court."

Craig Gillen, a defense attorney for Trump co-defendant David Shafer, echoed Trump lawyer Steve Sadow's suggestion that Willis injected race into the case through her remarks at the Bethel AME Church in Atlanta. Gillen also accused Willis and Wade of "systematic misconduct," stressing "they need to go."

Willis arrived in time to watch Adam Abbate, an attorney for the DA's office, downplay her racially-charged attacks and argue that disqualification requires proof of a conflict of interest, not just the appearance of a conflict of interest.

On the conflict of interest theme, John Merchant, defense attorney for Michael Roman, indicated Friday that $9,247 ultimately could not be accounted for in Willis and Wade's testimonies, suggesting that amounted to a personal benefit the Fulton County DA received while prosecuting the case.

Merchant argued that even the appearance of a conflict of interest justified Willis' removal as, at the very least, it undermined public confidence in the prosecution.

"They did this, they knew it was wrong, and they hid it," said Merchant.

Sadow stressed the lovers concealed their relationship from everyone. "Even daddy didn't know," he said, referencing Willis' father, who apparently had been left in the dark.

Trump's lawyer suggested that this secrecy is what prompted the lovers to go to the condo belonging to Willis' old friend and employee, Robin Yeartie, in the lead-up to Wade's appointment.

Abbate tried to cast doubt on the credibility of Yeartie's testimony. Yeartie previously told the court that it was her understanding that Wade and Willis were romantically involved as early as 2019. This claim contradicted the timeline advanced by Willis and Wade whereby the affair did not start until after Wade's appointment in November 2021.

The defense sought to enter into evidence data collected from Wade's cellphone, which reportedly reveals Wade visited Willis' residence between January and November 2021 at least 35 times, usually in the evening for "an extended period of time."

Blaze News previously reported that the data appears to indicate Wade and Willis also exchanged over 2,000 phone calls and roughly 10,000 text messages in 2021 prior to his appointment.

While Abbate argued that the phone data was inadmissible on account of foundational concerns, he suggested the records confirm that Wade never visited what was technically Willis' home prior to April 2021. The state also suggested the number of phone communications "has no validity as to it relates them being in a relationship" and may be a miscount to begin with.

McAfee said he would give the matter the consideration it deserves and provide an answer on Willis' fate sometime in the next two weeks.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Nathan Wade's divorce attorney provides Trump attorneys with little extra to damn Fani Willis in ethics hearing



Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis faces the possibility of disqualification from former President Donald Trump's Georgia election interference case over misconduct allegations. If Willis' preferred narrative and the timeline it hinges on fail to hold up in court, then the consequences could be more dire than a simple ouster.

Attorneys for Trump and those of his co-defendants pinned their hopes on additional testimony from Terrence Bradley, the former partner of and divorce attorney for Nathan Wade. After all, Bradley previously indicated to Ashleigh Merchant, an attorney for Trump co-defendant Michael Roman, that Willis began her affair with Wade prior to appointing him top prosecutor in the Georgia case.

However, during his testimony Tuesday, Bradley provided the defense with little more with which to professionally damn Willis.

Bradley — alleged by an attorney for Trump co-defendant Michael Roman to have "non-privileged, personal knowledge that the romantic relationship between Wade and Willis began prior to Willis being sworn as the district attorney for Fulton County, Georgia in January 2021" — took the stand in Willis' misconduct hearing earlier this month. When pressed for details about the affair he may have gleaned from conversations with Wade, Bradley repeatedly cited attorney-client privilege.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee determined Monday after a closed-door meeting with Bradley that the divorce attorney must testify again, but this time without being able to withhold potentially damning revelations that may have cropped up in his communications with Willis' lover on the basis of attorney-client privilege.

McAfee said in an email obtained by CNN, "Based on the in camera hearing with Bradley, the Court believes that the interested parties did not meet their burden of establishing that the communication(s) are covered by attorney-client privilege and therefore the hearing can resume as to Mr. Bradley's examination."

Of particular interest to the defense is the timeline for the affair. A relationship pre-dating Wade's appointment could be seized upon to suggest conflict of interest and more.

Shortly after taking the stand Tuesday afternoon, Bradley acknowledged he had previously asserted in a text message to Ashleigh Merchant, Roman's attorney, that Willis and Wade started their affair prior to November 2021. However, Bradley told the court that he had been "speculating" when confidently making assertions about Willis and Wade's relationship.

Defense attorney Richard Rice suggested to Bradley that "'speculation' is a kind of weaselly lawyer word."

Bradley ostensibly developed selective amnesia during the hearing, indicating he was unable to recall roughly when Willis and Wade starting seeing one another.

"I do not have knowledge of it starting or when it started," said Bradley.

Throughout Tuesday's hearing, CNN indicated Judge McAfee was taking note of when Bradley indicated he could not remember or could not recall information.

Defense attorneys also pressed Bradley Tuesday about responding "looks good" to Merchant's January motion to disqualify Willis — a motion that made note of Bradley's insights into the affair. Bradley suggested his response was in reference to a section in the filing concerning money related to his law firm.

"I think I remember there was a line of, about the accuracy of how much money that my office … had received and whether or not that was going to be in the motion or not," said Bradley.

Defense attorneys underscored that Bradley also failed to flag what he now regards as speculation in the motion as such ahead of its filing.

Hours of questioning Tuesday ostensibly yielded no substantial new insights. However, the defense may already have enough to cast doubt on Willis' preferred timeline.

While Willis confirmed the affair in a Feb. 2 court filing, the filing suggested the "personal relationship between Special Prosecutor Wade and District Attorney Willis has never involved direct or indirect financial benefit to District Attorney Willis" and that "Willis has no personal conflict of interest that justifies her disqualification personally or that of the Fulton County District Attorney' Office."

Included in the Feb. 2 filing was an affidavit from Wade stating the affair did not begin until after his Nov. 1 appointment as special counsel and that they did not begin dating until November 2022. When testifying in court earlier this month, the lovers suggested that their romantic relationship lasted from spring 2022 until summer 2023.

There are some indications, however, that the Democratic DA and the Trump prosecutor may have misled the court.

Blaze News previously reported that Robin Yeartie, a former "good friend" of Willis and Fulton County DA employee, told the court that it was her understanding that Wade and Willis were romantically involved as early as 2019.

When asked whether the relationship was in fact romantic, Yeartie told Trump's attorney Steve Sadow that she observed them "hugging" and "kissing" long before Wade's 2021 appointment.

Beside Yeartie's testimony, there is also apparently a mountain of phone records suggesting Willis and Wade had a closer relationship outside their timeline than they first let on.

Citing data collected from Wade's cellphone, an affidavit submitted Friday by Trump's legal team claimed that Wade visited Willis' home between January and November 2021 at least 35 times, usually in the evening for "an extended period of time." On at least two occasions, Wade allegedly came over to the DA's Hapeville residence late at night then left early in the morning.

Data collected from Wade's cellphone also indicated that he and Willis exchanged over 2,000 phone calls and roughly 10,000 text messages in 2021 prior to his appointment.

Judge McAfee indicated that he will hear arguments Friday and determine whether to reopen evidence and explore the findings concerning the cellphone data.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Judge overseeing Fani Willis' misconduct hearing says her disqualification is 'possible'



Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis may soon rue the day she appointed her married lover as top prosecutor on former President Donald Trump's Georgia election interference case.

This week, the Fulton County Superior Court will take up misconduct allegations, including the claim that Willis financially benefited from hiring her ostensibly underqualified lover, Nathan Wade. Despite her best efforts, Willis may even have to testify under oath with Trump in the room watching.

The judge overseeing the case has made clear that the Democratic DA could ultimately be disqualified, although that may be the least of Willis' concerns. After all, if it is found that Willis and her lover misled the court in their Feb. 2 court filing, which suggested their affair did not begin until after Wade's appointment, then the Fulton County DA could possibly face legal ramifications.

Even if the Black Panther's daughter enjoys a good day in court on Feb. 15, that may not ultimately spare her from consequence, as House Republicans are looking into whether Willis' office misused federal funds; the Georgia Senate is investigating possible wrongdoing on her part; Fulton County Commissioner Bob Ellis is pressing Willis for information concerning her office's financials and prosecutors; and she is being sued for allegedly failing to turn over records in compliance with the Georgia Open Records Act.

The accusations

The walls began to close in on Willis on Jan. 8 when Georgia lawyer Ashleigh Merchant filed a 127-page court motion on behalf of Trump co-defendant Michael Roman requesting that Willis be disqualified and the charges against Roman be dismissed "on the grounds that the entire prosecution is invalid and unconstitutional."

"The district attorney and the special prosecutor have violated laws regulating the use of public monies, suffer from irreparable conflicts of interest, and have violated their oaths of office under the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct and should be disqualified from prosecuting this matter," said the filing.

In addition to suggesting Willis and Wade were involved in a relationship prior to his 2021 appointment, the filing intimated that Wade received preferential treatment from the DA's office and was underqualified.

In the weeks since, additional motions have been filed or adopted — on behalf of Trump, Bob Cheeley, former Georgia GOP Chair David Shafer, and ex-Coffee County GOP Chairwoman Cathy Latham.

While recent motions to disqualify Willis largely conform to the outlines of the Jan. 8 filing, they have also suggested that the DA tainted the case against Trump and his co-defendants by fomenting "racial animus and prejudice against the defendants."

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee has indicated that the Feb. 15 hearing will largely focus on whether Willis materially benefited from hiring Wade and the timeline of their romantic involvement, reported the ABC News.

The Washington Post noted, however, that McAfee will not hear testimony concerning Wade's alleged lack of qualifications, as Willis was within her rights to hire anyone with "a heartbeat and a bar card."

The stakes

Judge McAfee said during a hearing Monday, "I think it's clear that disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one."

"The state has admitted a relationship existed. And so what remains to be proven is the existence and extent of any financial benefit, again if there was one," continued McAfee.

Willis admitted earlier this month in a 176-page court filing that she was romantically involved with Wade but claimed there "was no personal relationship between them in November 2021 at the time of Special Prosecutor Wade's appointment."

The filing submitted by Willis' legal team claimed further that the "personal relationship between Special Prosecutor Wade and District Attorney Willis has never involved direct or indirect financial benefit to District Attorney Willis" and that "Willis has no personal conflict of interest that justifies her disqualification personally or that of the Fulton County District Attorney' Office."

A lawyer for Trump's co-defendant Michael Roman filed a new complaint Friday casting doubt on whether the lovers were honest with the court about the timeline of their relationship.

The filing notes that attorney Terrence Bradley, a former friend and business associate of Wade's, has "non-privileged, personal knowledge that the romantic relationship between Wade and Willis began prior to Willis being sworn as the district attorney for Fulton County, Georgia in January 2021."

"Thus, Bradley can confirm that Willis contracted with Wade after Wade and Willis began a romantic relationship, thus rebutting Wade's claim in his affidavit that they did not start dating until 2022," continues the filing.

Bradley will apparently confirm that Willis and Wade occasionally lived together in a residence previously occupied in part by Robin Yeartie, a former employee of the Fulton County District Attorney's Office and a friend of Willis.

"I think the issues at point here are whether a relationship existed, whether that relationship was romantic or non-romantic in nature, when it formed, and whether it continues," McAfee said Monday. "And that's only relevant because it's in combination with the question of the existence and extent of any personal benefit conveyed as a result of their relationship."

Wade and Willis have desperately attempted to have the Thursday hearing canceled, but it appears their protest has fallen on deaf ears.

McAfee said the defense successfully established a "good faith basis for relevance" for the Democratic DA's testimony and that of her lover.

Anna Cross, a lawyer for the DA's office, nevertheless argued that the "defense is not bringing you facts, the defense is not bringing you law, the defense is bringing you gossip, and the court should not condone that practice."

Trump apparently intends to show up in hopes of seeing Willis raked over the coals.

Citing indications from anonymous individuals "with knowledge of the possible trip," the Washington Post reported that Trump may join David Shafer in attending the misconduct hearing, which would draw more attention to the case and to the claims made therein about Willis.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Justice Alito contemplates in thinly veiled hypothetical whether Biden could be taken off ballots for aiding Iran



Justice Samuel Alito hinted Thursday that former President Donald Trump's removal from the ballot in Colorado could spell trouble for President Joe Biden.

Jason Murray, the lawyer for the six voters seeking to preclude their fellow Americans from voting for Trump in the Centennial State, attempted to make the disqualification case Thursday to the U.S. Supreme Court. It did not go well.

Conservative and leftist justices alike poked holes in Murray's arguments concerning the alleged application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to presidents and Trump's corresponding disqualification.

In addition to demonstrating that Murray's arguments were wanting — arguments endorsed in December by the Democratic appointees on the Colorado Supreme Court — the U.S. Supreme Court highlighted significant implications of a Trump disqualification that may come back to bite Democrats and further destabilize the Union.

Justice Samuel Alito contemplated whether the application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to presidents might pave the way for states to remove a president such as Joe Biden if accused of giving "aid or comfort to the enemies" of the United States.

"Suppose there is a country that proclaims again and again and again that the United States is its biggest enemy," said Alito. "And suppose that the president of the United Sates, for diplomatic reasons, thinks that it is in the best interest of the United States to provide funds or release funds so that they can be used by that country."

"Could a state determine that that person has given aid and comfort to the enemy and therefore keep that person off of the ballot?" asked Alito.

Iran routinely threatens the United States.

The regime's minister of defense said in November that if the U.S. did not implement a ceasefire in Gaza, it would "be hit hard," reported Reuters.

Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi vowed in September to take revenge on the Americans who ordered and engaged in the assassination of Iranian terrorist Qassim Suleimani.

Despite such threats, indications that Iran was involved in the Oct. 7 terror attacks on Israel, and warnings from Republicans that the Iranian regime could use the money to increase its funding of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthi terrorists, the Biden administration released $6 billion in frozen assets to Iran.

Murray answered Alito in the negative, saying, "This court has never interpreted the aid-and-comfort language, which also is present in the Treason Clause. But commentators have suggested — it's been rarely applied because treason prosecutions are so rare — but commentators have suggested that, first of all, that aid and comfort really only applies in the context of a declared war or at least an adversarial relationship where there is in fact a war."

The U.S. executed scores of airstrikes earlier this month on Iran-backed terrorist groups, which might also indicate an adversarial relationship.

Conservative commentator Larry Kudlow argued last week that by sponsoring 166 attacks against U.S. military assets, the regime has effectively declared war against the U.S. 166 times.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito smacks Joe Biden during Donald Trump's 14th Amendment Case before SCOTUS.\n\n"Suppose there is a country that proclaims again and again and again that the United States is its biggest enemy, and suppose that the president of the United States for\u2026
— (@)

Alito was not the only Supreme Court justice who contemplated the ramifications of Trump's disqualification and the potential for Section 3 weaponization by partisans.

Roberts suggested that if Colorado's position is upheld, "surely there will be disqualification proceedings on the other side, and some of those will succeed."

"Some of them will have different standards of proof. Some of them will have different rules about evidence," continued Roberts. "In very quick order, I would expect, although my predictions have never been correct, I would expect that a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is, you're off the ballot, and others for the Republican candidate, you're off the ballot."

"It'll come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election," said Chief Justice John Roberts. "That's a pretty daunting consequence."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!