Between Four criminal cases facing Donald Trump, the Georgia case stands out as the strongest, according to many legal experts. It centers on attempts to disrupt the 2020 election. The case has taken an uncertain turn due to a reported romantic relationship between Fulton County prosecutor Fani Willis and Nathan Wade, one of the prosecutors hired to oversee the case.
One of the 18 defendants filed a January motion seeking to disqualify Willis, the former president, and the entire prosecution team. Judge Scott McAfee rejected Willis’s bid to dismiss the request and confirmed he would uphold his previous ruling. A video hearing is scheduled for Thursday and Friday and will be broadcast on television. Trump will not attend, as he is focused on the New York criminal case. The following points highlight why this moment is pivotal.
Trump was indicted by Willis last year along with 18 others, four of whom have already pleaded guilty. The indictment names prominent Trump allies such as former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and attorney Rudy Giuliani, and rests on extensive evidence of efforts to alter the electoral outcome. It includes the call in which Trump asked the secretary of state to locate 11,780 votes needed to defeat Joe Biden, and the scheme to deploy false electors to Washington. These charges were brought under Georgia’s racketeering and corrupt influence statute, known as RICO, designed to combat organized crime. The penalties range from five to 20 years in prison. Because this is a state case, a conviction would not be covered by any presidential pardons that might apply at the federal level. Georgia is among the few states where the governor lacks pardon authority; the power lies with a board of pardons and parole, and a pardon cannot be granted before a convicted individual serves at least five years.
The relationship between Willis and Wade has drawn intense scrutiny. On January 8, Michael Roman, another defendant who worked on the Trump campaign, filed a motion alleging that Willis maintained a clandestine relationship with Wade, whom she hired in November 2021 for the case. The defense, led by attorney Ashleigh Merchant, argues Wade lacked prior experience for the role and has collected more than $650,000 for the work to date. They claim the relationship creates a conflict of interest that warrants disqualification, noting that Wade and Willis have financed trips, vacations, and cruises together to destinations such as Miami, California, Aruba, and Belize.
Merchant contends that the longer they work on the case, the more money they earn. She asserts that the two have a personal stake in the outcome of the case, undermining her client’s right to a fair trial. Trump’s lawyers, as well as those of other defendants, have filed motions in support of Roman’s request.
Willis’s defense remained quiet for weeks. On February 2, Willis and Wade acknowledged a romantic relationship, stating that they had known each other before Wade was hired but began the relationship after he joined the team. They insist that travel payments were split roughly in half and that public statements suggesting racism were unfounded. Anna Cross, Willis’s spokesperson, argued that the defense offers no factual basis and only gossip, adding that the state should not endorse such tactics.
Judge McAfee has kept the Thursday hearing date intact. He said a disqualification could occur if credible evidence demonstrates a conflict or its appearance. He also allowed Terrence Bradley, a former Wade colleague who represented him during a divorce and who may testify, to speak. Merchant argues that Bradley could show that the Willis-Wade relationship started before Wade’s hiring and has already noted the shifting positions in Wade’s divorce filings, including an amended claim invoking the Fifth Amendment. McAfee indicated he would wait to hear Bradley before deciding whether to compel testimony from Willis, Wade, and other prosecutors.
Regardless of the ruling, the case has already suffered reputational damage. Trump’s public attacks on Willis and other Republican allies have intensified. A Georgia ethics complaint has been filed by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, while a state Senate panel has launched a review. At the federal level in Washington, the Judiciary Committee is pursuing inquiries into the matter as well. The consequences extend beyond optics; even if the original team remains, the conduct in question could influence potential jurors’ perceptions of prosecutorial fairness and Willis’s integrity.
If McAfee decides to disqualify Willis and Wade, the Georgia Prosecutor’s Council would need to appoint another prosecutor to proceed, an outcome that could prolong the process. Precedents show that speed is not guaranteed. Earlier, a judge disqualified Willis from a case involving former state senator Burt Jones after Willis participated in a fundraising event for a Jones opponent during the vice gubernatorial race. The judge acknowledged the optics as “horrible” and removed her from that case, though Jones ultimately won the election and has not faced further charges. The current proceedings remain unresolved.
Cited sources note the dramatic impact of ongoing disputes on the case, shaping public opinion and the level of trust jurors place in the prosecutorial process. The situation continues to develop as the court weighs the competing claims and prepares for forthcoming testimony and rulings. In this volatile environment, the outcome remains uncertain, with broader implications for how political investigations are conducted and perceived in the United States.
(Cited reporting).