Trump Lawyers Request To Call New Witnesses In Fani Willis Misconduct Investigation

Donald Trump’s co-defendants in the Georgia election interference case are looking to bring forth additional witnesses in the ongoing investigation of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

Attorneys representing David Shafer stated in a recent filing that they have engaged in discussions with Cindi Lee Yeager, a co-chief deputy district attorney for Cobb County. These conversations centered around the interactions between Yeager and Terrence Bradley, the former law partner and divorce attorney for Nathan Wade. Wade was involved in a romantic relationship with Ms. Willis.

Attorneys representing Cathy Latham, a co-defendant of the former president, have filed a request with Judge Scott McAfee to consider additional testimony from Manny Arora. Arora served as the lawyer for Kenneth Chesebro, another co-defendant who has already pleaded guilty in the case. This new testimony could potentially provide further insight and evidence relevant to the ongoing legal proceedings.

The defence is currently seeking court approval to subpoena both Ms. Yeager and Mr. Arora regarding this newly discovered evidence.

Mr. Trump’s defense team is currently attempting to disqualify Ms. Willis from his Georgia RICO case. They allege that she misused her position by hiring her romantic partner, thereby benefiting financially from the case.


Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade’s relationship timeline has been a key focus of the investigation. They have both confirmed that their relationship began in the spring of 2022, which is several months after Mr. Wade was hired for the case in November 2021.

The defence team has maintained that the former couple’s relationship started in 2019. According to a former friend of Ms. Willis, their relationship began shortly after they met at a municipal judges conference in October 2019.

According to the filing submitted by Mr. Shafer’s legal team, Mr. Bradley allegedly informed Ms. Yeager that their relationship started during the Municipal Court Continuing Legal Education Conference in 2019. The filing further states that they had unequivocally entered into a romantic relationship while Ms. Willis was campaigning for district attorney between 2019 and 2020.

According to the claim, Ms. Yeager allegedly overheard Ms. Willis saying to Mr. Bradley, “They are coming after us. You don’t have to discuss anything about us with them.”

Ms. Latham’s attorneys state in their filing that they indeed entered into a romantic relationship with Ms. Willis while she was running for DA.

According to the claim, Mr. Bradley informed Mr. Arora that Ms. Willis had hired Mr. Wade to oversee the transition, which included the responsibility of hiring candidates following interviews. Additionally, Mr. Bradley allegedly stated that he had personal knowledge of their relationship, including specific details such as their utilization of Ms. Willis’ former friend, Robin Bryant-Yeartie’s apartment, and Mr. Wade’s possession of a garage opener for entry into the residence.

During a hearing in the probe, Mr. Bradley testified and was questioned about the start date of their relationship. In response, he stated, “I do not have any personal knowledge.” Initially, text messages exchanged between Mr. Bradley and defense lawyer Ashleigh Merchant seemed to support Ms. Yeartie’s account of events. However, later on, Mr. Bradley retracted his statements, referring to them as mere speculation.

After watching Mr. Bradley’s testimony, Ms. Yeager became concerned and decided to come forward. According to the defense attorneys, she found his testimony to be directly contradictory to what he had personally told her.

The newly proposed witnesses, however, have not provided a sworn affidavit in the new filings.

The judge’s response to the filings remains uncertain. Closing arguments in the misconduct probe were already presented by both sides on 1 March.

During the defense’s closing arguments, the lawyers accused Mr. Bradley of deliberately telling blatant falsehoods and employing evasive tactics to avoid answering questions.

In response, Ms Willis’ legal team characterized the attempt to disqualify her as a “desperate move” aimed at removing a prosecutor from Mr. Trump’s case. They further stated that the defense’s line of questioning was intended to “embarrass and harass” Ms. Willis and tarnish her reputation.

Reference Article

Articles: 2833

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *