I was going to make a thread about Fani's response to the allegations, but I dropped the ball mainly because it was a long filing, and it was already being discussed in numerous threads. But there's now a response to her that was filed with the court, so it makes sense to bring it all together. Fani's response on Friday was long, but her substantive reply was relatively short, and I was in the weeds when I started writing my initial thread. But we can ignore most of the filing because it was just a lot of attachments. It was also horribly written with typos, grammar mistakes, etc. I have no idea how this got filed in its current form, given all the issues with the writing and the amount of time they had to respond. A summary of her response is as follows: Fani to the court: 1. The financial conflict of interest Fani has with Wade does not reach the level to be grounds for disqualification from the case. She effectively admitted there may be a conflict here. 2. The personal conflict of interest Fani has with Wade does not reach the level to be grounds for disqualification from the case. She does not deny they currently have a personal relationship. 3. The personal relationship started AFTER she hired Wade. They met for the first time in 2019 at a training. And did not get personal until after he was hired for this case. 4. Wade is super highly qualified; in fact, Roman's attorney even supported his election to become a municipal court judge. 5. Wade claims to have significant trial experience, including murder, rape, etc. 6. Fani paid some of their travel costs, and they claim their out-of-pocket expenses were roughly equal. 7. They claim to have never cohabitated. 8. Wade attached an affidavit to the filing where he swears to all of this. 9. They asked for the evidentiary hearing to be canceled because they have been entirely candid and transparent. Roman's response to the court: They say this is only meant to address factually inaccurate statements, and they have plenty of evidence they would like to bring into the evidentiary hearing. They also have subpoenaed witnesses they would like to testify. A summary of his response via his attorney, Ashley Merchant, is as follows: 1. If Fani and Wade believed they were doing nothing wrong, why were they hiding their relationship? 2. Wade's affidavit violates the Confrontation Clauses of both the US and Georgia Constitutions and should be inadmissible because they do not have the right to cross-examine an affidavit. They then gave examples of questions they would like to ask. 3. Fani/Wade swore they only had a professional relationship when meeting in 2019 at the training. The defense has witnesses who will testify that they began a personal relationship at that training. 4. Fani/Wade swore they never cohabitated. The defense has witnesses who will testify that they cohabitated numerous times. They shared hotel rooms, but more than that, Wade moved in with Fani in her home until Fani's father had to move in with her. At that point, Wade moved in with Fani's friend. The two then rented an AirBnB together to use as a "safe house" in Hapeville, and they claim this was paid for out of taxpayer funds. 5. The defense says they do not believe Wade has the trial experience he claims. 6. The defense says Fani's office refused to turn over records via Open Records requests in regard to how much Wade was being paid despite the information being requested numerous times in the past. They deny they have been transparent and claim further proof is that Fani attached some records to her filing that they had previously refused to give to the defense despite being entitled to them. 7. Merchant supported Wade's election because the existing judge was corrupt, and there were no other valid options. But since then, he has been held in "willful contempt" of court, and would no longer support him in further campaigns given his unethical actions. 8. They request to keep the evidentiary hearing scheduled. Conclusions: Fani and Wade made a lot of claims to the court that the defense seems to have evidence and witnesses who will rebut said claims. It's a he-said-she-said situation at the moment, but it seems the defense has more information than Fani and Wade thought they did. If this goes to an evidentiary hearing, it will likely be found that Fani and Wade blatantly lied to the court. I suspect they'll say that Wade continued paying for the mortgage on his home with his wife while living with Fani and then her friends and claim that was his primary residence despite not actually living there. But the judge is likely to see through that. If the relationship alone wasn't enough to get them disqualified, this adds more fuel to the fire. If the defense can prove their allegations against Wade/Fani's sworn statements, it seems to be a clear case of misconduct. Whether that meets the burden of disqualification will be hotly debated.
Trump has now also responded to Fani's filing. Trump previously filed a motion where he asked to disqualify Fani based on her extrajudicial comments where she called everyone racist for having a problem with Wade's appointment and her relationship with him. He claims Fani calling everyone racist is against legal/ethical rules and guidelines. In Fani's response, she claims her comments didn't reference this case or its defendants. This is obviously a lie. Nobody can listen to her prepared remarks in the aftermath of the initial Roman filing and believe she wasn't talking about this case. So Trump is going to hit her on that point to pile on to Roman's response that called out a few other alleged lies in her filing. From Fani's filing: Defendant Trump’s motion raising public comments made by District Attorney Willis that neither reference this case nor these defendants as a basis for disqualification is transparently meritless. The motion makes no serious legal argument, establishes no violation of any ethical rule, and makes no real effort to link the public statements to the legal standard for disqualification. The motion makes no serious legal argument, establishes no violation of any ethical rule, and makes no real effort to link the public statements to the legal standard for disqualification. Raising vague and plaintive cries of “Due Process” does not supplant actual governing legal standards. Trump cites a portion of her prepared remarks: Why does [Fulton County] Commissioner [Bridget] Thorne, and so many others, question my decision in special counsel? Lord, your flawed, hard-headed and imperfect child--I’m a little … confused. I appointed three special counsel, as is my right to do. Paid them all the same hourly rate. They only attack one. I hired one white woman, a good personal friend and great lawyer. A superstar, I tell you, I hired one white man, brilliant, my friend and a great lawyer. And I hired one black man. Another superstar a great friend and a great lawyer. These appointments she's talking about are the people she hired to work on THIS case. We know that because of their race and gender, but also because later in the speech, she lists their resumes and awards. This is proof that Fani lied to the judge in her filing. She goes on to talk about "they" and "them" in her speech, which appears to be talking about the defendants and their motion. Additionally, they claim that on January 10th, Fani emailed Trump's attorney privately and accused him of racism as a response to the allegations. They asked for an evidentiary hearing because they would like to ask her who else, besides the defense counsel, she was calling racist. A transcription of her prepared remarks is available here: https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/20...da-fani-willis-improper-relationship-charges/. Trump's counsel goes on to explain that "not a single reporter, journalist, or media outlet has expressed the slightest bit of doubt that the DA's racially invective comments were in direct response to Roman's allegations in his court filing and were directed at the defendants and defense counsel." They also say it is nonsense that Trump's counsel "raised vague and plaintive cries of Due Process." They assert Trump never mentioned due process in his motion, identifying this as a straw man fallacy. She fabricated a legal argument that Trump's team did not make so she could attack it. Their final argument is that Fani seems to believe that she is something special who can be treated differently and "that the ethical rules and laws simply don't apply" to her. They continue that Fani must believe that she "alone can make prejudicial out-of-court racially partisan and invidious statements about the case, defense counsel, and the defendants whenever she pleases, in clear violation of her ethical duties as a prosecutor, and therefore that this Court is powerless to punish her by dismissal of the case and her disqualification, and instead may only seek to undo the substantial prejudice she creates during voir dire. Such hubris; such self-consequence." Cited case law: Williams v. State, 258 Ga. 305 The Supreme Court was asked to overturn a conviction because allegedly unethical extrajudicial statements by the prosecutor should have required his disqualification. After discussing the ethical prohibitions against making extrajudicial statement, the Court found that the prosecutor’s public comment did not require disqualification. Id. at 313-314. But in so holding, the Court affirmatively signaled that if the improper out-of-court remarks by a prosecutor were “egregious,” disqualification would be a remedy. State of Vermont v. Hohman Trial court erred in denying motion to disqualify prosecutor because of ethical impropriety of extrajudicial statement but reversal of conviction not required... Final quote from the filing: Here, the DA’s conduct was indeed egregious. It was undeniably unethical. Her MLK holiday “church speech” intentionally and in bad faith injected race, religion, and politics into the case and stoked racial animus by, among other statements, asking God why defense counsel and the defendants were questioning her conduct in hiring a Black man but not his White counterparts, and why the judgment of a Black female Democrat wasn’t as good as White male Republicans. This is the part that has always confused me about her church speech. The only way this makes sense is if she was secretly cohabitating and sleeping with all of them.
A couple of days ago, another defendant in the case filed a motion to disqualify Fani, including her entire office and staff. David Shafer's argument is effectively that Fani has engaged in repeated prosecutorial and forensic misconduct. He uses Fani's own words against her. She told the Washington Post: If I were to comment on any open case, it would be a reason to conflict my office out. Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis, November 14, 2023 Well, that quote stings. Some key points from the filing: 1. He makes similar arguments to those that Trump has made, but he provides many examples. One example is that he claims that for the past year and a half, she has given multiple interviews where she has improperly labeled defendants as "Fake electors." 2. Rather than responding to Roman's allegations in a legal filing, she went to a historical church on MLK weekend to tell the cameras that the defendants were racist. He claims the obvious intent was to infect the potential jury pool. I agree; there's no other reason for her to do that other than to defend herself within the public eye and to try to sway the public opinion of her prosecution after seeing that the wheels were falling off the truck. 3. Fani never disclosed the nature of her personal relationship to the Fulton County Board of Commissioners when hiring Wade or the personal benefits received. Just the opposite is true, she tried to conceal it. 4. Fani omitted the gifts from her required financial disclosure reports. 5. She violated her fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of Fulton County. There's a lot more, I'll try to update more later tonight or tomorrow.
This would have never even made it to the news if it weren't for Trump bringing the swamp into the spotlight. I warned these lefties that the same things could happen to them if they set this precedent. I'm LOVING it blowing up back in their smug faces!
The plot thickens... https://www.newsweek.com/fani-willis-relationship-prosecutor-nathan-wade-1868747 Merchant is claiming that Fatty Willis lied in her court filing. Now, we're looking at possible perjury...lol
Yeah, Wade's divorce lawyer and prior employee is willing to testify under oath that his relationship with Fani began before she hired him. That's not gonna go over well with the judge. It seems they both lied to the court.
