Fani Willis confronted with fresh allegation on timing of romance by Trump’s co-defendant
Co-defendant in Trump’s Georgia Election Subversion Case Requests Additional Witness
A co-defendant in the Georgia election subversion case involving former President Donald Trump has made a compelling request to the judge. Cathy Latham, accused of being a “fake elector,” is seeking to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis due to alleged impropriety and corruption. Latham has asked the judge to allow attorney Manny Arora to testify, as his testimony could contradict Willis’ claims about her relationship with her special prosecutor, Nathan Wade.
Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee has already heard testimony from witnesses regarding the alleged romantic relationship between Willis and Wade, which Trump and his co-defendants argue led to improper financial benefits for the district attorney. Latham’s lawyers argue that Arora’s conversations with Terrence Bradley, Wade’s former law partner, provide evidence that the relationship began before Wade’s hiring. They believe Arora’s testimony is crucial and should be heard.
Claims Made by Arora
- Arora had conversations with Bradley about the relationship between Willis and Wade from September to October 2023.
- Arora can testify that Wade and Willis were involved romantically while Willis was running for District Attorney in 2019 through 2020.
- Arora can confirm that Bradley had personal knowledge of the relationship, including Wade having a garage door opener to access Willis’ rented condo.
During hearings in February, both Willis and Wade testified under oath that their romantic involvement began in 2022. However, witnesses have come forward with claims that contradict their testimony, leading to doubts about the timeline of their relationship.
Latham’s motion follows another co-defendant, David Shafer, who requested to introduce evidence of an alleged phone conversation between Willis and Bradley. Shafer claims that prosecutor Cindi Lee Yeager overheard the conversation and became concerned when Bradley’s testimony contradicted what he had previously told her. The judge will decide whether to allow these claims to be submitted as evidence.
The defense argues that Willis hired Wade for personal gain, but Willis maintains that she made cash reimbursements for trips they took together. The defense seeks to prove that Willis and Wade lied about the origins of their relationship, regardless of whether corrupt intentions were involved.
Judge McAfee aims to make a ruling on Willis’ involvement in the case within the next two weeks.
Read the full filing from Cathy Latham here.
How might the outcome of Latham’s request impact the public perception of the events surrounding the 2020 presidential election
Efendants claim influenced the prosecution of their case. However, Latham believes that Arora’s testimony will provide a different perspective on the matter.
According to Latham’s attorney, Michael Niesen, Arora has worked closely with Willis and Wade on multiple cases in the past. Niesen asserts that Arora’s knowledge of their working relationship will shed light on whether there was any bias or improper conduct in the handling of the election subversion case.
Niesen argues that if Arora testifies and contradicts Willis’ claims, it could potentially undermine the credibility of the entire prosecution. He believes that Latham is entitled to a fair trial, and allowing Arora to testify is crucial to ensuring a just outcome.
However, Willis and Wade vehemently deny any romantic relationship and maintain that their working relationship has always been professional. They have both filed affidavits stating that they have never engaged in any improper conduct or shown any favoritism towards each other.
In response to Latham’s request, Willis has argued that Arora’s testimony is irrelevant to the case at hand. She believes that Latham is using this request as a tactic to divert attention from her own alleged actions as a ”fake elector.” Willis is adamant that Latham’s disqualification request is merely an attempt to discredit the prosecution and avoid accountability for her actions.
Judge McAfee must now weigh the arguments presented by both sides and decide whether to allow Arora to testify. It is a crucial decision that could have significant implications for the Trump Georgia election subversion case.
The outcome of Latham’s request could potentially determine the course of the trial and raise questions about the credibility of the prosecution. If Arora’s testimony contradicts Willis’ claims, it could cast doubt on the integrity of the case and potentially lead to its dismissal.
On the other hand, if Judge McAfee denies Latham’s request, it may reaffirm the prosecution’s stance that there is no evidence of misconduct or bias in the handling of the case. This decision could bolster the prosecution’s case against Latham and further implicate Trump and his co-defendants in the alleged subversion of the Georgia election.
As the legal proceedings continue, the eyes of the nation are on the Georgia election subversion case. The outcome of this trial could have far-reaching implications for the future of election integrity in the United States. It is a case that will likely shape public perception of the events surrounding the 2020 presidential election and the actions of those involved.
Regardless of the decision on Arora’s testimony, one thing is clear: the Georgia election subversion case has captured the attention of the American people and will continue to be a source of controversy and debate. The quest for justice and the truth behind the allegations of election subversion remain at the forefront of this high-profile case.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...