Liberty Nation’s legal affairs editor, Scott D. Cosenza, Esq. breaks down the Fani Willis hearings. What did she and her erstwhile paramour, Nathan Wade, do wrong, if anything, and what could be the potential consequences? Most importantly, how it all might affect Donald Trump’s Georgia indictment?
Graham J. Noble: Fulton County, GA, District Attorney Fani Willis, who is leading the prosecution of former President Donald Trump for alleged election interference, recently testified in court over her romantic entanglement with the man she hired as a special prosecutor in the Trump case. Scott, there appear to be two issues here. First, there’s the matter of when the two, Willis and Nathan Wade, began their relationship. How is that relevant?
Scott D. Cosenza: The timing of their relationship start is essential for two reasons. Initially, I think the defense counsel thought they could impute an improper basis for Mr. Wade’s appointment as prosecutor – if Ms. Willis appointed her boyfriend to the job, that is. It would be different if Willis appointed someone with whom she later became romantically engaged. The second is now perhaps eclipsing the first in importance. Mr. Wade lied – perjuring himself – on a disclosure filed in court regarding the dissolution of his marriage.
Fani Willis and Financial Shenanigans
Graham: The other matter is that Willis may have benefited financially from that relationship – in terms of meals and vacations the two took together. In your most recent article for Liberty Nation, you reported that the DA paid her prosecutor more than $650,000 and that, allegedly, Wade used some of that money to take her on fancy trips abroad. If it’s true, is there a specific crime or breach of legal ethics here – or is it just good old-fashioned corruption?
Scott: If Willis paid Wade extravagantly with the understanding – even tacitly – that she would benefit from trips, that could be a crime. We know that Mr. Wade spent thousands of dollars on vacations benefiting Ms. Willis, and she claimed to have reimbursed him several times – but only in cash, never in a traceable form.
A Range of Possible Outcomes
Graham: The whole reason for Wade and Willis testifying is that they are rebuffing an attempt by an attorney for a Trump co-defendant, Mike Roman, to have the indictments thrown out. What happens next?
Scott: Two days of testimony were not enough. The judge still needs to conduct what’s called an in-camera session, where certain evidence that may be privileged will be disclosed only to his honor. Judge McAfee will then have to make a ruling after examining and weighing all the evidence and the law.
The possible range of responses is quite broad. He could do absolutely nothing – denying Mr. Roman’s motion, allowing Ms. Willis and her appointee and former boyfriend, Mr. Wade, to continue their prosecution. Or, at the total opposite end of the spectrum, he could dismiss the indictments with prejudice, meaning they cannot be refiled. A middle ground would be to remove Ms. Willis and her office and deputies from the case. If that happens, a Georgia prosecutor’s association will assign the case to a new prosecutor, who may decide whether to continue with the charges or not.
Graham: Lastly, what is the possible fallout for Willis or Wade?
Scott: The fallout for Mr. Wade may be the most severe – disbarment. That’s a scary word for anybody who has spent time and effort earning a law degree and passing the bar.
For Ms. Willis, that depends on her ability to sell herself to voters. After all, she’s a politician now, not really a lawyer. A cynic might say that hypocrisy, self-dealing, and refusal to take accountability are seldom punished severely by the voting public, so her future remains bright.
