DA Fani Willis appears before a judge to determine the outcome of the Georgia election interference case, raising concerns about a potential conflict of interest.

Developing: A former associate of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis informed the court that Willis' involvement with special prosecutor Nathan Wade commenced in 2019, preceding Wade's acknowledgement in an affidavit and prior to Willis hiring him for assistance with the Georgia election case. 

Robin Yeartie, who was also employed by the DA's office and has not had any communication with Willis since resigning in 2022, expressed unwavering certainty that Willis and Wade were engaged in a romantic relationship starting in 2019. Yeartie claimed to have witnessed them displaying affectionate behavior in social settings, including hugging and kissing. Currently, Wade is testifying in court.

Wade, who is currently under oath, reiterated his previous statement that the relationship began in 2022, specifically in March of that year. He further disclosed that Willis reimbursed him for travel expenses in cash, and their disagreement over her insistence on paying her own way occasionally caused tension in their relationship.

During his testimony, Wade also asserted that the romantic relationship with Willis had concluded by the summer of 2023. When pressed to provide evidence of Willis reimbursing him in cash, Wade admitted his inability to produce any bank deposit records for the money. The defense counsel scrutinized invoices for Wade's work with the Fulton County District Attorney's Office and attempted to undermine his claim that the personal relationship with Willis did not commence until March 2022. The hearing is still ongoing.

At approximately 3 p.m. on Thursday, Wade concluded his testimony, and now it is Willis' turn to take the stand.

A judge in Georgia is set to consider today whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis should be disqualified from prosecuting the election interference case against former President Donald Trump and 14 others.

Over half of the remaining co-defendants, including Trump, who are facing criminal charges for alleged attempts to interfere with the 2020 election result, are now accusing Willis of a conflict of interest. They are requesting that Fulton Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee dismiss the charges against them.

McAfee stated on Monday, "Because I think it's possible that the facts alleged could result in disqualification, I think an evidentiary hearing must occur to establish the record on those core allegations."

The allegations of misconduct were initially raised in January by co-defendant Michael Roman, a relatively unknown operative who worked for the Trump campaign in 2020 and is now facing seven felony charges.

Roman's lawyer, Ashleigh Merchant, is accusing Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade of benefiting financially by funding vacation travel together using Wade's hourly compensation from the case.

Merchant wrote in a filing, "The more money the special prosecutor makes, the more the district attorney gets to reap the financial benefits. These benefits are tangible, personal, and financial. They also contradict the district attorney's duty to seek justice, which is why both the district attorney and special prosecutor will always be burdened by this conflict, regardless of when their relationship began."

It took Fulton County prosecutors several weeks to formally address the allegations. In a filing on February 2, they acknowledged a personal relationship between the two prosecutors but stated that it began after Willis hired Wade for the position in 2021.

"To be absolutely clear, the personal relationship between Special Prosecutor Wade and District Attorney Willis has never involved direct or indirect financial benefit to District Attorney Willis," they wrote.

However, since that time, Roman and the other defendants have submitted numerous additional motions. Roman's lawyer has accused the prosecutors of not being truthful about the timeline of Willis and Wade's relationship, and has promised to present evidence in court to support this claim.

"Given that Willis and Wade were not honest about their relationship from the beginning, there is no reason to believe their current statements," Merchant stated in a response motion. "These last-minute actions are solely intended to minimize the consequences."

Furthermore, Trump's attorney in Georgia, Steve Sadow, has accused Willis of unjustly injecting "racial animus into this case to publicly condemn and criticize the defendants" during a speech at Big Bethel AME Church in January.

In anticipation of the hearing on Thursday, Judge McAfee has refused to dismiss the subpoenas for the testimonies of Willis, Wade, and others. However, he has assured that the scope of the questioning will be limited, preventing any further discussion regarding allegations of Wade's lack of qualifications for the job or his improper appointment.

"What remains to be proven is whether there was any financial benefit, and if so, to what extent," McAfee stated on Monday.

What constitutes a disqualifying conflict?

According to legal precedent in Georgia, a conflict of interest is present when there is a personal interest or stake in the defendant's conviction.

However, some legal experts disagree with this assessment. A group of law professors and former prosecutors filed a brief arguing that the defendants have not provided sufficient grounds to disqualify Willis and Wade. They argue that even if the defendants' allegations are true, they do not warrant disqualification. Previous cases in Georgia have shown that prosecutors are trusted to carry out their duties impartially, even when there may be conflicting interests that create an appearance of impropriety.

Nevertheless, there is some disagreement among legal scholars regarding the standard the judge will use to determine disqualification in this case. Clark Cunningham, a law professor specializing in legal ethics at Georgia State University, believes that there is a lower threshold for disqualification based on his interpretation of the case law. If Judge McAfee determines that District Attorney Willis has a personal interest or stake in prosecuting the defendants, he must disqualify her and the entire office, without the defendants having to prove that they have been directly harmed by that personal interest.

During a hearing, Judge McAfee hinted that the mere appearance of a conflict may be sufficient to warrant disqualification.

"I believe that disqualification can occur if evidence is presented that demonstrates an actual conflict or even the appearance of one," McAfee stated.

It is worth noting that Willis has already been disqualified from prosecuting one potential target in the election case. Fulton Superior Judge Robert McBurney prohibited her from pursuing Burt Jones, a so-called fake elector in Georgia, after she hosted a fundraiser for his opponent in the lieutenant governor race.

Judge McAfee's decision carries significant implications. If Willis is disqualified, not only will the entire Fulton DA's office be removed from the election interference case, but the Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia will have to appoint a special prosecutor to take over. It is worth noting that in a similar situation 18 months ago, when the Fulton DA's office was disqualified from investigating the lieutenant governor, no new prosecutor was appointed to resume the case.

The outcome of this latest disqualification effort could have a direct impact on whether the Georgia election case proceeds to trial this year. Cunningham believes that Judge McAfee's decision has the potential to alter American history. However, he also cautions that regardless of McAfee's ruling, the Georgia case could face obstacles due to the possibility of appeals that could significantly delay the proceedings.

Trial dates have yet to be set by McAfee, primarily due to the complex legal calendar of former President Trump, who is facing criminal charges in multiple cases. Fulton County prosecutors had initially aimed for an August trial, but the timing of Trump's federal trial, which has been delayed as the U.S. Supreme Court considers his claim of absolute immunity, will have ripple effects in Georgia.

Norm Eisen, a legal scholar at the Brookings Institution, believes that the cases could be tried consecutively since Trump has different legal teams representing him in each case. Eisen suggests that the Georgia case could potentially begin immediately after the federal trial concludes, without much of a buffer period.