A judge in Georgia has ruled that the district attorney Fani Willis can continue to head the prosecution of Donald Trump for trying to undermine the 2020 presidential election in the state, as long as a top deputy agreed to step down.
The deputy, special prosecutor Nathan Wade, with whom Willis had a romantic relationship, resigned on Friday, clearing the way for Willis to continue.
The ruling came after hearings that offered a dramatic deviation from the racketeering case against Trump and 14 remaining co-defendants as it investigated Willis’s relationship with Wade.
Judge Scott McAfee, the judge overseeing the case, wrote on Friday: “The court therefore concludes that the prosecution of this case cannot proceed until the state selects one of two options.
“The district attorney may choose to step aside, along with the whole of her office, and refer the prosecution to the prosecuting attorneys’ council for reassignment.”
He added that alternatively Wade could withdraw, “allowing the district attorney, the defendants, and the public to move forward without his presence or remuneration distracting from and potentially compromising the merits of this case”.
Willis accepted Wade’s resignation effective immediately on Friday.
Wade wrote in his resignation letter: “I am offering my resignation in the interest of democracy, in dedication to the American public, and to move this case forward as quickly as possible.”
In her own letter, Willis thanked Wade for his service and praised his work on the case.
She wrote: “I will always remember – and will remind everyone – that you were brave enough to step forward and take on the investigation and prosecution of the allegations that the defendants in this case engaged in a conspiracy to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election.
“Others who were considered were understandably concerned for the safety of themselves and their families that would arise from the acceptance of this role, even if you did not seek it.”
The decision avoids catastrophe for Willis. An order removing her and her office from the case would have meant it would have delayed the prosecution significantly while being reassigned to another prosecutor in Georgia.
Yet it still significantly harms her credibility, offering a harsh analysis of her conduct and underscoring questions about her judgment that were exposed during a multi-day hearing.
A Willis spokesman did not immediately return a request for comment.
The question at the heart of the matter was whether Willis had a conflict of interest in the case because of her relationship with Wade. Michael Roman, one of the 14 remaining defendants in the case, filed a motion in January saying Willis should be disqualified from handling the case because of her romantic relationship with Wade, which was not publicly known at the time.
The two eventually disclosed their relationship, but said it did not begin until 2022, after Wade was hired to work on the Trump case. Wade acknowledged that he paid for vacations for the two of them to places such as Napa in California and Aruba, but he and Willis both said she paid him back in cash.
McAfee was unsparing in his analysis of Willis’s conduct. He said the arrangement did not amount to an actual conflict of interest but presented the appearance of one, which was enough to warrant at least Wade’s removal.
Even if the relationship did not begin until after Wade was hired, he wrote, Willis allowed “the regular and loose exchange of money between them without any exact or verifiable measure of reconciliation”.
“This lack of a confirmed financial split 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,” he wrote on Friday. “As the case moves forward, reasonable members of the public could easily be left to wonder whether the financial exchanges have continued resulting in some form of benefit to the district attorney, or even whether the romantic relationship has resumed”.
He addedL “Put differently, an outsider could reasonably think that the district attorney is not exercising her independent professional judgment totally free of any compromising influences. As long as Wade remains on the case, this unnecessary perception will persist.”
Although he found no evidence Willis personally benefited from the arrangement, McAfee sharply criticized her conduct.
“This finding is by no means an indication that the court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment or the unprofessional manner of the district attorney’s testimony during the evidentiary hearing,” he wrote.
“Georgia law does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices – even repeatedly.”
He added there were other bodies, including the Georgia legislature, the state bar, and even voters in Fulton county who could address her conduct. Willis is running for re-election this year.
McAfee rejected a request to disqualify Willis because of a speech she gave at a historically Black church in January. The district attorney suggested in the speech that the push to disqualify Wade, who is also Black, was racially motivated.
Steve Sadow, an attorney for Trump, said he disagreed with the ruling.
“We will use all legal options available as we continue to fight to end this case, which should never have been brought in the first place,” he said.
McAfee also suggested Willis and Wade had been less than truthful when they testified – a dent in the district attorney’s credibility that Trump and allies are likely to seize on.
“An odor of mendacity remains,” he wrote. “Reasonable questions about whether the district attorney and her hand-selected lead testified untruthfully about the timing of their relationship further underpin the finding of an appearance of impropriety and the need to make proportional efforts to cure it.”
The strongest testimony for defense lawyers came from Robin Bryant-Yeartie, a former friend of Willis’s who said the relationship between Wade and Willis began before Wade was hired. No other witness corroborated her testimony.
The star witness for the defense was supposed to be Terrence Bradley, a former law partner of Wade’s. Bradley had told Roman’s lawyer that he knew the relationship began before Wade was hired, but when hetook the witness stand he said he was only speculating.
McAfee said he was unable to “place any stock” in Bradley’s testimony.
