Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade were subpoenaed last week to answer questions in the February 15 hearing on a motion alleging their improper relationship presented a financial conflict of interest in the election interference and racketeering case against Donald Trump and his co-defendants, CBS News reported.
The subpoenas were issued by attorneys for co-defendant Michael Roman, who in early January filed a motion to disqualify Willis and Wade over their alleged relationship. The motion seeks to have the charges against Roman dismissed.
Roman, the former director of election day operations for the 2020 Trump presidential campaign, is charged with seven counts in the Fulton County case.
The subpoenas, first reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, were included in a subsequent filing with the Fulton County Superior Court notifying the court that Roman intended to call Willis and Wade as witnesses in the February 15 hearing.
Ten other witnesses were also subpoenaed, including several employees from the district attorney’s office.
The February 15 hearing before Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee will address Roman’s motion to dismiss the charges against him and the allegations of misconduct against Willis and Wade.
In a February 2 filing ordered by Judge McAfee before the February 15 hearing, attorneys for Fani Willis acknowledged that she and Willis had a romantic relationship but vigorously denied the allegations of financial conflicts. The lawyers also pushed back against the claim that Willis should be removed from the case.
In an affidavit submitted along with the filing, Nathan Wade stated that the “personal relationship” between him and Willis began in 2022. Wade denied having a “financial interest” in the outcome of the case or the “conviction of any defendant.”
Wade insisted that the compensation he received in his role as special prosecutor was not “shared with or provided to District Attorney Willis.”
Willis’ attorneys also called the motion to disqualify a “ticket to the circus” and the “incredibly inappropriate efforts to intrude” on the personal life of opposing counsel “with little to no evidentiary value.”
