The hearing was scheduled in response to a motion filed by defendant Michael Roman.
Ahead of a scheduled Feb. 15 hearing that will address allegations that have rattled the Fulton County District Attorneyâs office in the Georgia election case, the attorneys have filed a motion to quash subpoenas that would require top prosecutors to testify.
Subpoenaed to testify were Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, Executive District Attorney Daysha Young, Deputy District Attorney Sonya Allen, Deputy District Attorney Dexter Bond, special prosecutor Nathan Wade, Assistant Chief Investigator Michael Hill, Deputy Executive Assistant Tia Green, Chief Investigator Capers Green, and Assistant Chief Investigator Thomas Ricks from the district attorneyâs office.
Also subpoenaed were an attorney who represented Mr. Wade in his divorce proceedings and a bank that has the personal and business bank records of Mr. Wadeâs private practice.
Ms. Willis is prosecuting former President Donald Trump and 14 others, alleging that their actions to challenge the 2020 Georgia election results amounted to a racketeering conspiracy.
Defendants Say Willis Should Be Disqualified
The hearing was scheduled in response to a motion filed by defendant Michael Roman. Last month, Mr. Roman, a former White House aide, alleged that Ms. Willis was having an âimproperâ relationship with Mr. Wade, a prosecutor she hired to take a lead role in the case. He also alleged that Mr. Wade didnât have the professional experience necessary for the role, that Ms. Willis personally profited from the appointment when he took her on âlavishâ vacations, and that she used funds meant to clear COVID-era case backlogs to pursue the investigation, including contracting media consultants to track her media appearances.
Ms. Willis has already pushed back on these claims in court filings, arguing that nothing she has done is grounds for disqualification. In a sworn affidavit attached to the response, Mr. Wade acknowledged that the two had a âpersonal relationshipâ and they had taken trips together.
The prosecutors say that Mr. Roman has not spoken to any of the 11 parties subpoenaed, and therefore, it cannot be believed that their testimony is necessary or relevant.
They accuse him of a âtransparentâ fishing expedition to support his âreckless accusationsâ and asked a judge to quash the subpoenas.
Attorney Ashleigh Merchant, representing Mr. Roman, had separately sued the district attorney to turn over records and has argued that material that is public under Georgia law, like the expenditures for her office, was requested multiple times over several months and never received. She argued, in court filings, that this is material necessary for the defense of her clientâif the alleged pattern of financial misconduct on the district attorneyâs part is proven, Ms. Merchant argues this should disqualify her and end the case.
Mr. Willis, meanwhile, has argued that this is all part of an attempt to âharassâ and âembarrassâ her.
Limelight
âThe indiscriminate breadth with which Defendant Roman has sought to secure testimony from District Attorney employees is troubling, and suggests an eye toward public narrative as opposed to legal remedy,â the motion reads.
Mr. Romanâs motion indeed put a spotlight on Ms. Willis, and events have snowballed. Other allegations of misconduct were reported, and Ms. Willis is now the subject of several investigations in different jurisdictions.
The panel has not interviewed these people yet, but plans to additionally subpoena people to testify under oath.
Feb. 15 Hearing
It is unclear that Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee will allow Mr. Roman to demand testimony from the nine attorneys in the district attorneyâs office, because it is rare to require testimony from opposing counsel.
The regular pretrial motions hearings have not typically been formal to the point of a mini-trial, and Mr. Roman also has yet to make clear what these testimonies would provide.
However, the judge is likely to want to hear from Ms. Willis herself. In previous hearings, Judge McAfee has stuck to a mediatorâs role, making sure questions from one side are addressed by the other. He has also prioritized efficiency and previously criticized Mr. Shafer for bringing a separate motion to disqualify Mr. Wade because his private law practice had reportedly sent brochures courting the business of Mr. Shafer and other codefendants.
Original News Source Link – Epoch Times
Running For Office? Conservative Campaign Consulting – Election Day Strategies!