OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is in a tough spot after cell phone data allegedly casts doubt on her sworn testimony.
New evidence alleges to show that Willis and prosecutor Nathan Wade engaged in a personal relationship before she hired him to join her team in the case against Trump, in contrast to testimony both she and Wade gave under oath.
The Guadian reported.
The documents, entered by attorneys for the former president, raise new questions about the timeline of the romantic relationship between the prosecutors, ties that defense lawyers claim create a conflict of interest that hangs over the entire case – as well as whether they were entirely truthful when testifying about their relationship while under oath.
Willis and Wade were questioned before a judge last week about their relationship, including whether several holidays and Caribbean cruises they took were paid for jointly, or by Wade alone after he had been hired by Willis, which could suggest a romance-incorporating kick-back scheme. Willis claims she repaid Wade in cash.
If defense lawyers can show that Willis and Wade were a couple before she hired him in November 2021 – they claim their relationship began in early 2022 – it may constitute a violation of state anti-nepotism rules and raise questions of whether they committed perjury during earlier testimony.
That could jeopardize the entire criminal case Willis is pursuing that accuses Trump and a number of codefendants of illegal election interference in Georgia’s 2020 elections. If Judge Scott McAfee, who is overseeing the case, decides that she and Wade should be removed, it would all but guarantee that the case will not go forward before the 2024 presidential election.
A plethora of legal experts and media personalities weighed in on the possible penalties Willis and Wade could face if the new information is proved to be correct.
Geraldo Rivera, a former friend of Trump who has become a staunch critic of the former president, said the evidence was an “earthquake.”
“This powerful evidence in the motion to disqualify her office in the Georgia election interference case suggests their relationship started well before her sworn testimony stated it did,” he said on X, formerly Twitter.
“”This is exactly why you don’t want your emotionally distraught client to take the witness stand under oath to defend their character,” Rivera, himself a former attorney, said. “Media experts who rushed to cheer her on, saying she did great on the witness stand, don’t know what they’re talking about.
“The focus of this case will continue to shift rapidly away from Trump and his co-defendants and hit squarely on the credibility and possible perjury of the prosecutor. This is more than a mere appearance of a conflict. This is an earthquake,” he said.
Another former attorney and television host, Megyn Kelly, said Willi’s being on the case is “done” and she may be tried for perjury.
Former Attorney Northern District of Georgia Francey Hakes spoke to Greta Van Sustren on News Nation on Friday and said “She should definitely be disqualified, there should be an ethics complaint, she committed, in my opinion, perjury on the witness stand as did Wade. They ought to be prosecuted and they probably face disbarment.”
“Stunning that Team Trump got their hands on this in the #FaniWillis case. More evidence that these two prosecutors lied, under oath. They’re looking at perjury charges and worse. Discipline from the Bar. And there is zero chance they can stay on this case. It’s DONE,” she said.
Keith Johnson, a Georgia defense attorney. told The New York Post that if the affidavit is correct it, “could lead to perjury charges.”
“The affidavit presented by the defense attorney in the case indicates there were several phone calls and text messages between the parties prior to the appointment of Mr. Wade as special prosecutor,” the attorney said.
“That directly contradicts the sworn testimony of both Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis who stated that they had a platonic relationship prior to him being appointed.
“Whenever there is a contradictory testimony under oath … you have to look at the intent of the parties and whether they knowingly made false statements,” he said.
