A recent court filing in the ongoing legal proceedings against former President Donald Trump has raised serious allegations of a potential conflict of interest involving Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. The documents, filed by attorneys representing defendant Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign official, claim that a special prosecutor appointed by Willis, Nathan Wade, had an alleged romantic relationship with her.
The court papers further assert that Wade used Fulton County funds to finance vacations taken with Willis. Although there is no concrete proof provided in the filing to substantiate the claims, the motion seeks to dismiss the charges against Roman, arguing that the alleged romantic link creates an unconstitutional bias in the case.
Michael Roman faces charges, including racketeering and conspiring to organize “alternate electors” to cast votes for Trump after the 2020 election. The court documents also call for the disqualification of Willis, Wade, and the entire DA’s office from prosecuting the case.
The allegations, if proven true, raise concerns about the independence and impartiality of the investigation and subsequent prosecution. Ethics expert Stephen Gillers emphasizes that if Willis was involved in a romantic relationship with the special prosecutor, it could compromise the required independent professional judgment in handling the case.
While the court papers don’t provide concrete evidence of the alleged romantic relationship, they claim that “sources close to both the special prosecutor and the district attorney have confirmed they had an ongoing, personal relationship.” The DA’s office and Wade have not yet responded to the allegations.
Roman’s attorney, Ashleigh Merchant, suggests that evidence would be presented during a hearing, potentially including testimony from Willis and Wade. The motion also highlights irregularities in the sealing of Wade’s divorce proceedings, with Merchant requesting that the case file be unsealed.
The unfolding developments add complexity to an already contentious legal battle, prompting questions about the integrity of the prosecution and the need for a thorough examination of the alleged conflict of interest.