Fulton County district attorney is leading a sprawling case against the former president and his allies
The Georgia prosecutor leading a sprawling election interference case against Donald Trump has testified in court about allegations of misconduct levelled against her by the former president and his co-defendants – questions that could potentially disqualify them from the case.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis began her testimony in an Atlanta courtroom on Thursday after defence attorneys questioned lead prosecutor Nathan Wade about the timeline of their relationship and the expenses they shared.
The attorneys had already admitted to their relationship but firmly rejected the “meritless” and “salacious” allegations as “bad-faith” attempts to see her kicked off a case that Mr Trump has baselessly labelled a conspiracy against him, according to court filings.
Thursday’s hearing is scrutinising allegations that the former couple financially benefited from Ms Willis hiring Mr Wade to prosecute the former president’s case, which charges Mr Trump and more than a dozen co-defendants as part of a “criminal enterprise” to overturn the state’s election results in 2020.
“I’ve been very anxious to have this conversation with you today,” Ms Willis told defence attorney Ashleigh Merchant. “It’s ridiculous that you lied on Monday and yet here we are. … I’m actually surprised that the hearing continued. But since it did, here I am.”
Oh, v the whole “taxpayer money” thing is nonsense. They aren’t saying they improperly used government funds. They’re saying that their paychecks come from the government, so it’s taxpayer money. It was their salary.
I didn’t think there was anything to it. Like I said, my only problem here is that she’s a hypocrite. But she wouldn’t be the first lawyer who’s a hypocrite.
The only question I’d have is whether the salary that was agreed upon for the prosecutor was established before the relationship, if she even had any say in it at all. Otherwise it might be fair to argue she unfairly bumped his pay, meaning some taxpayer money unfairly went to his pocket.
Not that I really care all that much. Even if the relationship started before she says it did, and even if some of his $650,000 payment was unjustly given (not that I believe all of that)…aren’t we having a trial about obstruction of the democratic process here?
It’s more that this whole thing is ridiculous, given the stakes of the trial, than it being actually upsetting.
I’d be super surprised if she was able to set his salary. Government workers usually have pretty narrow bands.