Senate Passed Its Reconciliation Package, but Failed to Add Save America Act Provisions....
We Have Another Dem Scandal
The Real Story Behind Ruben Gallego's Trip to Colombia
Consultant Sentenced After Convicted of Bribery Scheme
The SPLC Indictments Dealt a Blow to the Dems' Weaponization Plans
While the VA Redistricting Referendum Goes to Court, There's Another Option to Counter...
Wisconsin's Lt. Governor Vows to Craft State Budgets in Secret If She Succeeds...
Audit Shows Seattle Followed the California Model of Dealing With Homelessness
SPLC, Swalwell, and the War for America's Minds
The SPLC's Indictment Raises a Larger Question: Could the Left be Funding Right-Wing...
Watch Tim Walz Brush Off the Massive Fraud Scandal Uncovered in Minnesota With...
See the Grades CA Gubernatorial Candidates Gave Newsom on His Handling of the...
At Least 10 Injured After Shooting at Mall of Louisiana Food Court
Atlanta Podcaster Sentenced to 7 Years for Stealing $3.8M in Pandemic Unemployment Benefit...
Trump Announces Three-Week Extension of Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire After White House Meeting
Tipsheet

New 'Bombshell' Filing Does Not Look Good for Fulton County DA Fani Willis

New 'Bombshell' Filing Does Not Look Good for Fulton County DA Fani Willis
AP Photo/John Bazemore, File

A new legal filing in Georgia alleges that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis picked a "romantic partner" to lead her office's prosecution of former President Donald Trump for his actions following the 2020 presidential election, a development being called a "bombshell" by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Advertisement

At issue is private attorney-turned-special prosecutor Nathan Wade, who is alleged to have "paid for lavish vacations he took with Willis using the Fulton County funds his law firm received" for his work on the Trump case, according to the Journal-Constitution. "County records show that Wade, who has played a prominent role in the election interference case, has been paid nearly $654,000 in legal fees since January 2022," some significant compensation which was authorized by Willis.

The filing claimed that the DA and her special prosecutor were "involved in a romantic relationship that began before Wade was appointed special prosecutor" and "traveled together to Napa Valley and Florida" in addition to a cruise in the Caribbean, per AJC's report. The alleged behavior "could amount to honest services fraud, a federal crime in which a vendor gives kickbacks to an employer" and it's "also possible this could be prosecuted under the federal racketeering statute," according to the motion

Advertisement

Related:

DONALD TRUMP

Could be racketeering, you say? What a coincidence. 

More from AJC's report:

The motion, filed on behalf of defendant Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign official, seeks to have the charges against Roman dismissed and for Willis, Wade and the entire DA’s office to be disqualified from further prosecution of the case.

Pallavi Bailey, a Willis spokeswoman, said the DA’s office will respond to Roman’s allegations “through appropriate court filings.” Wade did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The document offers no concrete proof of the romantic ties between Willis and Wade, but says “sources close to both the special prosecutor and the district attorney have confirmed they had an ongoing, personal relationship.”

While the Atlanta Journal-Constitution offered some deference to Willis and the Fulton County DA's office by saying it's "unclear if the explosive issues raised in the filing undermine the validity of the indictment against Trump and the remaining 14 co-defendants or simply muddy the waters by questioning Willis’ professional ethics."

Their report, however, did quote an "ethics expert" from New York University Law School who said that — if the allegations in the filing are true — then "Willis was conflicted in the investigation and prosecution of this case" and couldn't have provided "independent professional judgment." Still, the expert noted that validation of the accusations "does not mean that her decisions were in fact improperly motivated" but added it would "mean that the public and the state, as her client, could not have the confidence in the independent judgment that her position required her to exercise."

Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement