Nathan Wade spoke to ABC News over the weekend. A fluffy piece, but it’s nice to see something about this case make it into the media.
Wade’s remarks mark the first time he has spoken since leaving the case. In drawn-out, televised public hearings on the issue, both Wade and Willis testified that their relationship began in early 2022 and ended in 2023 after he was hired in 2021.
In the interview with ABC News, he called those hearings a “mockery” and said he was surprised they went forward after the court filings.
“I think it essentially made a mockery of the profession. And that hurts. I was not thrilled at all that the system that I’ve dedicated my life to, and that I’ve put so much into, would even allow a sideshow like this,” Wade said.
“I thought that it would be dealt with swiftly, without the need for an entire circus,” Wade continued, “But unfortunately, it wasn’t.”
Speaking about McAfee’s ruling that ultimately forced his resignation, Wade said he may have had a “cultural lack of understanding” about their use of cash.
“You can get that impression from a lack of understanding, could be a cultural lack of understanding. Could be a conceptual lack of understanding overall,” Wade said. “I mean, and what I mean by that is, culturally, we do things that other cultures may not. We might keep cash and other cultures may not do that.”
Wade’s comments were in response to McAfee’s order, which said an “odor of mendacity” remained on the case.
Speaking of which, what is going on with this case? We had a trial within a trial to say that Fani Willis didn’t actually do anything wrong but it sure looked bad, Nathan Wade removed himself from the case and then the case just… stopped.
I think this was the latest important development:
@JohnT alluded to this earlier by posting a link to a tweet, but it doesn’t look like anyone posted an article to the story.
Regardless, that article concludes with the situation we’re in now:
No trial date has been set for the sprawling Georgia case, one of four criminal cases pending against Trump as he seeks to return to the White House, though Willis has asked for the trial to begin in August. Four people have pleaded guilty after reaching deals with prosecutors. Trump and the others who remain have pleaded not guilty.
In other words, it’s going slowly because that’s how the justice system is. The case hasn’t “stopped”, it just hasn’t had anything of note for a while.
The Georgia Court of Appeals will hear an appeal of a ruling that allowed Fani T. Willis, the district attorney in Fulton County, to continue leading the prosecution of former President Donald J. Trump on charges related to election interference, the court announced on Wednesday.
The decision to hear the appeal, issued by a three-judge panel, is all but certain to delay the Georgia criminal case against Mr. Trump and 14 of his allies, making it less likely to go to trial before the November election. Legal experts said it may take months for the appellate court to hear the case and issue a ruling.
The court’s terse three-sentence announcement reopened the possibility that Ms. Willis could be disqualified from the biggest case of her career, and one of the most significant state criminal cases in the nation’s history.
this could delay things quite a bit, like into next year delayed.
So instead of having to wait until after a trial like everyone else, Trump gets to just keep arguing the same things over and over again to appeals courts that bend over backwards for him until he gets the result he wants?
Tell me again how you are being treated unfairly, Trump.
This is SO disappointing, and ridiculous. What’s more important:
giving YET MORE consideration to the barely-worth-considering-in-the-first-place idea that hiring a boyfriend somehow disqualifies some judge from a particular case;
OR
Ensuring that a republic with 350 million people has a chance to persist into the future as a functioning democracy, by concluding a judgment on acts that almost four years ago — four! — almost brought it down…when further delays could very well cause it to NEVER be adjudicated (plus, the voting populace deserves to know if one of the candidates committed this treasonous crime).
But her position is an elected office, so there’s a non- zero chance that she’ll be replaced as DA in the next election. Would that make the whole motion to exclude her moot and allow the trial to proceed without further delays?
I have no idea. This whole situation is so far outside the norm, I don’t know what we would look to to inform us about what’s coming in this case.
But I doubt her being reelected would moot her removal from the case, if that happens. (And it’s my feeling that this is very much being engineered for that to happen.)