Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ combative testimony in court defending her romantic relationship with a prosecutor working alongside her—and her racially charged speech at a Black church in Atlanta—are not the victories she intended them to be.
Her actions have now created a rocky road ahead in her criminal case against former President Donald Trump for election interference, with a judge’s order on Friday that warned of potential consequences to come as they approach a historic trial in Georgia.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee’s order will force the DA to make a Sophie’s choice: disqualify her entire office from the case or drop her ex-boyfriend, Nathan Wade, from the prosecution team.
His decision fell far short of what Trump and his fellow defendants wanted—a full dismissal of the case—but the judge made it clear he wouldn’t excuse Willis’ fierce response to critics, nor her decision to date a subordinate. The judge criticized her for what he called “unprofessional” conduct that was beneath someone in her position of power.
He specifically referenced her scorched earth bravado on Feb. 15, when Willis made the rare move of testifying in court and at times refused to answer defense lawyers’ questions directly, ultimately delivering a fiery jab when she said, “You think I’m on trial. These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020. I’m not on trial, no matter how hard you try to put me on trial.”
“This finding is by no means an indication that the court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment or the unprofessional manner of the District Attorney’s testimony during the evidentiary hearing,” he wrote, noting that “Georgia law does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices—even repeatedly.”
Also at issue is Willis’ Jan. 14 speech at a local Atlanta church, when the District Attorney complained about the swirling questions about her decision to hire Wade. In the speech, Willis thanked the historically Black church for the invitation, despite the headlines, and discussed the stressors of her job as DA. While she did not address the relationship, Willis defended her decision to hire Wade, whom she did not mention by name but simply referred to him as a “superstar, a great friend, and a great lawyer.”
“You did not tell me, as a woman of color, it would not matter what I did—my motive, my talent, my ability, and my character would be constantly attacked,” Willis said.
The speech came days after the defense motion that instigated the months-long saga. In the motion, an attorney for Trump co-defendant Mike Roman argued Willis should be disqualified from the case after allegedly misusing her office and having an improper relationship with Wade, whom she hired in November 2021.
“When referring to her detractors throughout the speech, she frequently utilized the plural ‘they.’ The State argues the speech was not aimed at any of the defendants in this case. Maybe so. But maybe not,” McAfee wrote in the Friday ruling. “Therein lies the danger of public comment by a prosecuting attorney.”
The judge noted that, by vaguely pointing to Roman’s motion, Willis “left that question open for the public to consider.” Then, instead of attributing the motion’s critique to a normal defense strategy, McAfee said that Willis “ascribed the effort as motivated by ‘playing the race card.’”
“She went on to frequently refer to SADA Wade as the ‘black man’ while her other unchallenged SADAs were labeled ‘one white woman’ and ‘one white man,’” McAfee wrote. “The effect of this speech was to cast racial aspersions at an indicted defendant’s decision to file this pretrial motion.”
McAfee noted that Willis did not cross an ethical line because she did not name any defendant by name, disclose any confidential evidence, or talk about details that may eventually faint a Trump jury.
“But it was still legally improper,” he wrote.
The judge even signaled he might eventually take the precautionary step of restricting the DA from speaking about the case publicly, taking an extraordinary step that other judges in New York and Washington have found more fitting to use against Trump.
“Providing this type of public comment creates dangerous waters for the District Attorney to wade further into,” the judge added. “The time may well have arrived for an order preventing the state from mentioning the case in any public forum to prevent prejudicial pretrial publicity, but that is not the motion presently before the court.”
In a statement to The Daily Beast, Trump’s lawyer, Steve Sadow, stressed that in his Friday ruling, McAfee did not give proper significance to Willis’ church speech “where she played the race card and falsely accused the defendants and their counsel of racism.” “We will use all legal options available as we continue to fight to end this case, which should never have been brought in the first place,” he added.
Despite the admonishment, McAfee refused to disqualify Willis from the Trump case, stating there was no evidence of an “actual conflict of interest” brought on by the relationship. The judge also noted that defense attorneys failed to prove Willis’ finances impacted the case or that she had a “personal stake” in its outcome.
But, he said, the secret affair brought a “significant appearance of impropriety that infects the current structure of the prosecution team” that can only be remedied if Wade is removed.
“Wade’s patently unpersuasive explanation for the inaccurate interrogatories he submitted in his pending divorce indicates a willingness on his part to wrongly conceal his relationship with the District Attorney,” McAfee wrote. “As the case moves forward, reasonable members of the public could easily be left to wonder whether the financial exchanges have continued resulting in some form of benefit to the District Attorney, or even whether the romantic relationship has resumed.”
Former DeKalb County District Attorney J. Tom Morgan told The Daily Beast that McAfee’s admonishment of Willis highlights the importance of a gag order in a high-profile case that personal attacks from the start have marred.
“In criminal cases, the prosecution and defense strike blows at each other but they are never personal,” Morgan said. “These became personal and they were below the belt and I think these are the repercussions. This was a situation she created.”
“Willis should lick her wounds, say ‘this hurts but it’s not the death of the case’ and move on,” Morgan said. “Jurors have the memory of a gnat. So I don’t think her comments will affect a fair trial.”
What was once considered the strongest criminal case against Trump is now hobbling forward at a snail’s pace. At a global women’s summit last year, Willis indicated she expects the trial to last well into 2025—meaning Trump could already be in the White House if the top Republican candidate manages to win this year’s presidential election. But her assessment came well before the case went on a two-month detour while the defendants tried to get her disqualified for her romantic relationship.
Since then, the judge has pared down the indictment by dropping six criminal charges, including what many considered the most blatant evidence of Trump’s election interference: his infamous January 2021 phone call intimidating Georgia’s secretary of state to “find 11,780 votes” that didn’t exist to flip the ballot results there in his favor.
The DA can continue to prosecute the case as a mob takedown, levying racketeering charges for the overall conspiracy against Trump, MAGA lawyer Rudy Giuliani, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, election lawyer John Eastman, and others who tried to rewrite history by reversing the legitimate results of the 2020 election.
But the case now proceeds with a blemished DA who has fewer criminal charges to employ against a defense team that has already scored a win by putting up a united front against her.
