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. This decision comes after a ruling made by the judge overseeing the case.
Hours after Judge Scott McAfee’s ruling, Wade made the decision to resign from his position. The judge did not disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, but emphasized the presence of a “significant appearance of impropriety” due to the romantic relationship between Wade and Willis. As a result, either Willis or Wade had to step aside from the case.
According to the judge’s ruling, Wade’s resignation implies that Willis and her team will continue to handle the case.
In his letter of resignation, Wade addressed Willis and expressed his decision to step down, stating that he was doing so “in the interest of democracy.”
Wade stated that he is resigning, despite the court’s conclusion that the Defendants were unable to prove the District Attorney’s conflict of interest. He believes that this decision is necessary to uphold democracy, serve the American public, and expedite the progress of the case.
Willis praised Wade for his professionalism and dignity throughout his tenure, expressing his gratitude in a concise letter accepting his resignation.
“I will never forget, and I want everyone to remember, that you displayed immense bravery by stepping up to investigate and prosecute the allegations against the defendants in this case. They were accused of conspiring to overturn Georgia’s 2020 Presidential Election,” expressed Willis.
In his ruling spanning 23 pages, Judge McAfee acknowledged that dismissing the indictment was not the appropriate course of action. However, he emphasized that the existing record brings to light a notable appearance of impropriety that taints the current composition of the prosecution team.
McAfee determined that the conflict presented by the defendants in the case creates an impression that needs to be resolved by the state choosing one of two options.
McAfee stated that the District Attorney has the option to recuse herself and her entire office and hand over the prosecution to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council for reassignment.
Instead, SADA Wade has the option to withdraw, which would allow the District Attorney, the Defendants, and the public to proceed without his presence or compensation causing any distractions or potentially undermining the integrity of this case.
McAfee justified his decision by stating that the defendants had not proven that the District Attorney acquired an actual conflict of interest. This was the standard by which McAfee evaluated his ruling.
In a statement, Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead attorney in the Georgia case, emphasized their determination to exhaust all available legal options in their ongoing fight to bring the case to a close.
The defense’s case hinged on the claim that Willis intentionally prolonged the proceedings to benefit Wade financially. McAfee strongly disagreed with this argument, asserting that it was completely unfounded.
He wrote that there is no indication of the District Attorney being interested in delaying anything. In fact, the record shows quite 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 unnecessary legal battles.
McAfee found Wade’s testimony to be “patently unpersuasive” during a hearing investigating the allegations. This, according to McAfee, suggests that Wade is willing to wrongly hide his connection with the District Attorney.
According to McAfee, it is possible for an outsider to believe that the District Attorney is not completely independent in her decision-making process. McAfee suggests that as long as Wade continues to be involved in the case, this perception will continue to exist unnecessarily.
According to McAfee, Wade’s testimony created a perception of impropriety, which hindered the investigation.
The defense argued that the timing of Wade and Willis’ relationship was crucial in their case for disqualification. They contended that if the relationship started before Wade’s appointment as special counsel, it would present a significant financial conflict.
During the debate, which ended up being a focal point of Willis’ heartfelt testimony, McAfee noted that neither side could definitively prove, based on the available evidence, when exactly the relationship transitioned into a romantic one.
However, according to the judge, there is still a lingering scent of deceit.
The defense, led by Sadow, further contended that Willis engaged in forensic misconduct by fueling racial and religious biases against the defendants. They pointed to a speech she delivered at a church after the allegations were made, where she asserted that the accusations stemmed from racial motivations.
According to McAfee, he could not find any evidence suggesting that this speech had crossed any boundaries to the extent that the defendants were deprived of a fair trial or that it necessitated the disqualification of the District Attorney.
While McAfee stated that the action did not technically “cross the line,” he acknowledged that it was still legally inappropriate.
John McAfee expressed concerns about the potential consequences of allowing public comments on the case. In his statement, he emphasized the need for caution, stating, “Providing this type of public comment creates dangerous waters for the District Attorney to wade further into.” He also suggested that it may be necessary to seek an order preventing the State from discussing the case in any public forum to avoid prejudicial pretrial publicity. However, he clarified that such a motion was not currently before the Court.
According to McAfee, it is his belief that Georgia law does not allow for the discovery of a true conflict solely based on making poor choices, even if they are made repeatedly. He emphasizes that the trial court should focus on the relevant matters and adhere to the appropriate laws that have been presented to it.
The attorney representing Michael Roman, a co-defendant of Trump, expressed disagreement with the court’s ruling in a statement. However, they also viewed it as a validation of the truth, accuracy, and relevance of the evidence they presented.
Attorney Ashleigh Merchant expressed her belief that the judge recognized the defense’s argument regarding Willis’ poor judgment and the potential risk it poses to the future of the case. However, she disagreed with the court’s proposed solution, deeming it insufficient in addressing the district attorney’s severe misconduct. Merchant eagerly awaits the district attorney’s response to the court’s demands.
After months of intense disqualification efforts led by Trump and his co-defendants, a long-awaited ruling has finally been made. The ruling comes in response to allegations of misconduct against Willis, which she vehemently denies.
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 involvement with prosecutor Nathan Wade, whom she hired for the case. These benefits included vacations that they frequently took, which were often booked on Wade’s credit card.
Willis and Wade acknowledged their relationship but stated that it does not constitute a conflict of interest that would disqualify them. They also made it clear that their relationship has never resulted in any financial gain for District Attorney Willis, either directly or indirectly. During the testimony, the DA mentioned that she frequently reimbursed Wade in cash for the expenses incurred during their trips.
During the hearings held by McAfee, arguments were presented regarding the allegations. Both Willis and Wade took the stand and delivered powerful and emotional testimony.
“You’re mistaken,” Willis retorted to Ashleigh Merchant, the defense attorney interrogating her. “These individuals are the ones facing trial for their attempted election theft in 2020.”
Willis confidently asserted, “You can try as hard as you want, but I’m not the one on trial here.”
There was later a debate about the timeline of their romantic relationship, alongside the allegations of financial misconduct. Trump’s attorney claimed that both Willis and Wade were not being truthful when they stated that their relationship started in 2022, after Wade was hired in 2021. The attorney urged the judge to disqualify them solely based on this testimony.
According to Steve Sadow, Trump’s attorney, it is not necessary to prove that Wade and Willis lied. The key is to establish that there is a valid concern about their truthfulness, based on the evidence presented in this case.
According to Sadow, there is a valid concern regarding the credibility of the information, as it gives the impression of wrongdoing.
According to multiple defendants, including Robin Yeartie, a former employee in the DA’s office, it is alleged that the relationship between Wade and the individual in question started before Wade was hired.
According to Willis’ office, the defendants’ attempts to disqualify her are deemed “absurd” and lacking any evidence of financial gain or benefit on her part. They argue that for her disqualification to be justified, there must be proof of a conflict of interest or forensic misconduct.
According to a filing from her office after the hearings, it has never happened in this state that a prosecutor has been disqualified based on the appearance of a conflict.
The defendants presented a contrasting perspective, asserting that Willis’s dismissal could be justified solely on the grounds of a potential conflict of interest.
According to a filing made by Sadow, it is claimed that no prosecutor in Georgia has ever been disqualified for forensic misconduct. However, Sadow argues that Willis and Wade have engaged in misconduct unlike any other prosecutor in the state.
Defense attorney John Merchant, who represents Roman, emphasized the clarity of Georgia’s law and its ability to establish an appearance of conflict of interest, as he addressed the court.
Trump and 18 other individuals maintained their innocence in August of last year when they pleaded not guilty to a comprehensive racketeering indictment. The charges stemmed from their alleged attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.
Kenneth Chesebro, Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, and Scott Hall later entered into plea agreements, wherein they agreed to testify against other defendants.
The district attorney’s investigation has been dismissed by the former president as politically motivated.
