Nathan Wade, the lead prosecutor in the Fulton County election interference case against Former President Trump and his co-defendants, has stepped down from his position as special prosecutor on Friday. This decision comes after a ruling by the judge presiding over the case.
Hours after Judge Scott McAfee denied the disqualification of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, Wade resigned from the case. McAfee ruled that either Willis or Wade had to step aside due to a “significant appearance of impropriety” caused by their romantic relationship.
According to the judge’s decision, Wade’s resignation will result in Willis and her team continuing to work on the case.
Wade, in his resignation letter to Willis, stated that he was stepping down “in the interest of democracy.”
In a letter, Wade expressed his decision to resign from his position, despite the court’s ruling that “the Defendants failed to meet their burden of proving that the District Attorney acquired an actual conflict of interest.” Wade stated that he is taking this step in order to prioritize democracy, serve the American public, and expedite the progress of the case.
Willis praised Wade for his professionalism and dignity demonstrated over the course of 865 days in a brief letter accepting his resignation.
“I will always remember and make sure everyone knows that you were courageous enough to step forward and undertake the investigation and prosecution of the allegations that the defendants in this case conspired to overturn Georgia’s 2020 Presidential Election,” expressed Willis.
In his ruling, Judge McAfee stated that dismissal of the indictment is not the appropriate remedy. However, he acknowledged that the established record reveals a significant appearance of impropriety within the current structure of the prosecution team.
According to McAfee, the defendants in the case have described a conflict that needs to be addressed by the State. McAfee stated that there are two options available to resolve this conflict.
According to McAfee, the District Attorney has the option to recuse herself and her entire office and transfer the case to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council for reassignment.
On the other hand, SADA Wade has the option to withdraw from the case. This would enable the District Attorney, the Defendants, and the public to proceed without his presence or remuneration causing any distractions or potentially compromising the integrity of the case.
McAfee justified his decision by stating that the defendants were unable to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the District Attorney had an actual conflict of interest. It seems that McAfee used this standard to determine his ruling.
In a statement, Steve Sadow, the lead attorney for Trump in the Georgia case, expressed his determination to utilize all available legal options in their ongoing battle to resolve the matter.
McAfee strongly disagreed with the defense’s argument, which centered around the idea that Willis intentionally dragged out the case in order to benefit financially from the hourly pay Wade was receiving.
The writer emphasized that there is no evidence suggesting that the District Attorney has any intention of postponing anything. On the contrary, the available information indicates the opposite.
According to McAfee, the District Attorney did not adhere to the theory that she orchestrated a financial scheme to benefit herself or gain favor with Wade by prolonging the prosecution or engaging in excessive litigation.
McAfee found Wade’s testimony during the hearing to investigate the allegations to be “patently unpersuasive.” According to McAfee, this suggests that Wade was willing to wrongly hide his relationship with the District Attorney.
John McAfee expressed concern that the District Attorney might not be able to exercise her independent professional judgment without any compromising influences. He further emphasized that as long as Wade remains on the case, this perception will continue to persist.
According to McAfee, Wade’s testimony has created a situation where the investigation is now burdened by a perception of wrongdoing.
The defense based its argument for disqualification largely on the timing of Wade and Willis’ relationship. According to the defense, if their relationship started before Wade was appointed as special counsel, it would indicate a significant financial conflict.
During the discussion, which was a focal point of Willis’ passionate testimony, McAfee noted that neither side could definitively prove, based on the available evidence, the exact point at which their relationship turned romantic.
The judge, in his written statement, emphasized that there is still a lingering scent of dishonesty.
The defense, including Sadow, further contended that Willis engaged in forensic misconduct by amplifying racial and religious biases against the defendants through a speech she delivered at a church after the accusations surfaced. In her address, she asserted that the allegations were driven by racial motivations.
According to McAfee, the speech in question does not appear to have violated any boundaries that would hinder the Defendants from receiving a fair trial or necessitate the disqualification of the District Attorney.
As McAfee pointed out, while it may not have “crossed the line,” it was still legally improper.
In a recent statement, McAfee expressed concerns about the District Attorney’s public comments, stating that it puts them in a precarious position. McAfee believes that it may be necessary to seek a court order to prevent the State from discussing the case in any public forum to avoid prejudicing the trial. However, McAfee clarifies that this specific motion is not currently before the Court.
According to McAfee, it is the belief of the undersigned that Georgia law does not allow for the identification of a true conflict solely based on making poor choices, regardless of how many times those choices were made. The trial court has a responsibility to focus on the relevant matters and adhere to the appropriate laws that have been presented to it.
In response to the ruling, the attorney representing Michael Roman, a co-defendant of Trump, expressed disagreement but also acknowledged it as a validation of the truth, accuracy, and relevance of the evidence they presented.
Attorney Ashleigh Merchant expressed her belief that the judge concurred with the defense’s argument that Willis’ actions were a result of her poor judgment. The defense further emphasized that there is a potential risk to the future of the case if Willis does not promptly take steps to resolve her conflict. Although the defense did not fully agree with the court’s proposed solution, they eagerly await the district attorney’s response to the court’s demands, particularly in light of the district attorney’s egregious conduct.
The ruling that everyone has been eagerly waiting for has finally arrived. It comes after a long and contentious disqualification effort, led by Trump and his co-defendants. They have made allegations of misconduct against Willis, which she has vehemently denied.
Roman and several other Trump co-defendants initially attempted to disqualify Willis from the election case. They alleged that she had financial benefits from her romantic relationship with prosecutor Nathan Wade, whom she hired for the case. These benefits included vacations that were frequently booked on his credit card.
Willis and Wade acknowledged their relationship but stressed that it is not a disqualifying conflict of interest. They emphasized that the relationship has never resulted in any financial gain for District Attorney Willis. During her testimony, the DA clarified that she frequently reimbursed Wade in cash for the trips they went on.
McAfee conducted a series of hearings to listen to arguments regarding the allegations. During these hearings, both Willis and Wade took the stand and shared their emotional testimonies.
“I am not the one on trial, you’re mistaken,” Willis retorted to Ashleigh Merchant, the defense attorney who was questioning her. “These individuals are the ones being tried for their attempts to steal the 2020 election.”
“I refuse to be put on trial, no matter how persistently you attempt to do so,” declared Willis confidently.
According to Trump’s attorney, there has been a debate regarding the timeline of their romantic relationship, in addition to the allegations of financial misconduct. The attorney claimed that both Willis and Wade were “not truthful” in their testimony, stating that the relationship began in 2022, after Wade was hired in 2021. Based on this testimony alone, the attorney urged the judge to disqualify them.
During the closing argument in the evidentiary hearing, Trump’s attorney, Steve Sadow, emphasized that there was no requirement to prove that Wade and Willis lied. Instead, he highlighted the importance of establishing a legitimate concern about their truthfulness based on the evidence presented in the case.
Sadow expressed a valid concern about the truthfulness, which creates the perception of impropriety.
According to Robin Yeartie, a former employee in the DA’s office, there are claims that the relationship between the multiple defendants and Wade had started even before Wade was hired.
Willis’ office responded to the defendants’ attempts to disqualify her, labeling them as “absurd” and stating that there was no evidence of any financial gain or benefit received by Willis. They argued that, according to the law, the judge can only be disqualified if there is proof of a conflict of interest or forensic misconduct.
According to a filing from her office after the hearings, it has been stated that no prosecutor in this state has ever been disqualified on the appearance of a conflict.
The defendants had a different argument, stating that Willis could be dismissed solely based on the appearance of a conflict of interest.
According to Sadow, the State of Georgia has never disqualified a prosecutor for forensic misconduct. However, he argues that the misconduct displayed by Willis and Wade in this case is unprecedented.
Trump, along with 18 others, entered a plea of not guilty in August of last year to all charges brought against them in a comprehensive racketeering indictment. The indictment alleges that they were involved in attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in the state of Georgia.
Kenneth Chesebro, Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, and Scott Hall later reached plea deals after agreeing to provide testimony against other defendants.
The former president has brushed off the district attorney’s investigation, claiming it to be driven by political motives.
