Posted on 02/08/2024 5:44:55 AM PST by Red Badger
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis motioned Wednesday to quash a subpoena requiring her to testify at a coming hearing on allegations she improperly benefited from hiring her romantic partner, special prosecutor Nathan Wade.
The attorney for Trump co-defendant Michael Roman, who filed the motion to dismiss the case and disqualify Willis, issued subpoenas to her, Wade and a handful of other staff members in the district attorney’s office. Willis claimed Wednesday that there is “no factual basis that could reasonably justify requiring opposing counsel and other employees to be a witness in the case.”
“Georgia law—as well as authority from across the country predictably frowns on a process that permits counsel for one litigant to compel the testimony of counsel and employees of the opposing party, and there is no justification to depart from that general principle here,” she wrote.
Willis also claimed a subpoena to Wade’s former law partner Terrence Bradley, who represented Wade early in his divorce case, is similarly not in accord with the law because any information he has would be protected by attorney-client privilege.
Roman’s original motion alleged Willis benefited from awarding Wade a lucrative contract when he took her on trips using the money he earned from his position. Bank statements later showed Wade purchased two airline tickets in Willis name to Miami and San Francisco and made payments to a cruise line on the same day he purchased the Miami ticket.
In a Friday filing responding to Roman’s initial motion, Willis confirmed she had a personal relationship with Wade but denied it provided her with any financial benefit. Wade claimed in an affidavit that their relationship did not start until after his contract began and that expenses for travel were “roughly divided equally,” with Willis at times making payments from her own personal funds.
Roman responded later that day by suggesting the testimony of witnesses would contradict Willis’ claims.
“Some of the individuals whom Mr. Roman has subpoenaed to testify have personal knowledge that Wade and Willis’ personal relationship began before his appointment as a special prosecutor,” Roman’s motion stated. “In other words, they have knowledge that the assertion by Willis in the State’s response and in Wade’s affidavit are both false.”
The hearing to consider Roman’s motion is scheduled for Feb. 15.
The racist Ghettopotamus can railroad and push around a former President of the United States but like her butt boyz, Bidenskyyyyy and Newyorkass, she believes she’s above the law. Lock the biatch up.
Or is it just racist?
BTTT
“..Well, she can always get a job as a Victoria’s Secret™ model if this D.A. thing doesn’t work out....”
LMAO...
With all the woke DEI BS that’s floating around amongst the inane these days, she could probably nail that gig with no problem. Only problem would be Victoria’s Secret™ would most likely have to declare bankruptcy on the next business cycle......LOL. Think Bud Light...LOL
TAP DANCING as fast as she can
Lock her up and toss the key.
Just be careful. Don’t you know that Shining the Light of TRUTH on any Ghettopotamus is a Racist Act.
The Race Card is the number one defense mechanism for Ghettopotamus’ in both NY and GA.
I agree LOCK THE BIATCH and her entire staff up! They are ALL guilty by association.
no factual basis that could reasonably justify requiring opposing counsel and other employees to be a witness in the case
———
Wrong. 1) if there were no case against Trump there would be no reason to hire Wade, her boyfriend, as outside counsel. 2). If there is no reason to hire Wade, there is no reason for Willis to use taxpayer funds to pay wade. 3) if there are no payments to Wade, there is no mechanism by which Willis could use those taxpayer funds for her own benefit. There is an appearance of a quid pro quo. Bring a case, hire her boyfriend, and derive direct benefits from those payment.
One could argue that these actions are racketeering among other crimes - bringing a case in order to justify hiring her boyfriend as outside counsel so that her boyfriend could then lavish her with gifts at taxpayer expense. If she didn’t bring the case, she would have received no benefit. Or in other words, the case could have been brought expressly in order that she would personally profit by it.
It’s a question that has to be explored.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.