A lawyer is ready to testify that the romantic relationship between special prosecutor Nathan Wade and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, the official who hired Mr. Wade, started earlier than Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis allege.
Manny Arora, an attorney and former adjunct professor at Georgia State School of Law, is prepared to tell Fulton County Superior Court that he was informed the relationship actually started no later than 2020, according to a filing on March 5.
Mr. Arora, according to the filing, spoke multiple times in the fall of 2023 with lawyer Terrence Bradley, who represented Mr. Wade in his divorce case.
During the conversations, Mr. Bradley told Mr. Arora that the romantic relationship between Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis had “definitely begun” during the time Ms. Willis was running to become district attorney.
That time started in 2019 and went into 2020.
Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis have acknowledged entering a relationship but allege it did not begin until after she hired Mr. Wade to be a special prosecutor in the case against former President Donald Trump and others.
Mr. Bradley also told Mr. Arora that he has personal knowledge of the relationship, including how Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade used a specific property, owned by Robin Yeartie, according to the filing. Mr. Bradley said that Mr. Wade even had a garage opener to the property.
Mr. Bradley said recently that he did not know about Mr. Wade having a garage door opener.
Mr. Bradley was also said to have conveyed that Mr. Wade was used by Ms. Willis to hire and fire candidates for the district attorney’s office after she won the election, and as she prepared to transition into office.
Mr. Arora communicated the information to lawyers for Cathy Latham, who has been charged alongside President Trump, the filing stated. It was filed with Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, who is weighing requests to disqualify both Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis from the case.
Judge McAfee heard arguments for and against disqualification in a hearing that wrapped up on March 1.
The hearing included Mr. Bradley taking the stand and being confronted with text messages, including a message he sent to another lawyer that said the relationship between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade “absolutely” began before she hired him.
Mr. Bradley claimed he was speculating.
“I have no direct knowledge of when the relationship started,” he said.
Asked if he had lied, he said, “I do not recall ever come up whether any of it was a lie or not.” He added later: “Have I told lies about my friends? I could have, I don’t know.”
Mr. Bradley has been described as a friend of Mr. Wade’s; in addition to representing Mr. Wade in his divorce, Mr. Bradley is a former law partner of the special prosecutor.
Judge McAfee closed the hearing by saying he was going to work through several legal issues. “I hope to have an answer with everyone for the next two weeks,” he said.
Ms. Latham’s lawyers said that if the court decides to reopen the hearing to receive more evidence, they want to subpoena Mr. Arora and present his testimony regarding his conversations with Mr. Bradley.
Mr. Bradley could not be reached. Mr. Arora, who is representing Kenneth Chesebro, another co-defendant of President Trump, told CNN he would testify if he is subpoenaed.
Ms. Yeager can testify that Mr. Bradley told her that the relationship between Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis began at or around the time they met in 2019, according to the filing.
“Mr. Wade had definitively begun a romantic relationship with Ms. Willis during the time Ms. Willis was running for district attorney from 2019 to 2020,” the filing also stated, citing Mr. Bradley.
Ms. Yeartie, who used to work for the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office, also testified that the relationship started before Ms. Willis hired Mr. Wade, noting she witnessed the couple hugging and kissing before then.
In a third filing, lodged Tuesday, lawyers for Ms. Willis said that the judge should not disqualify Ms. Willis because the available evidence “fails to demonstrate an actual conflict of interest or forensic misconduct on the part of the district attorney by a ‘high standard of proof.'”
They added, “To whatever extent the defendants allege that the district attorney received a benefit arising out of this prosecution, they have made no allegation—and have offered no evidence—that the district attorney has any improper, direct, and material personal stake or interest in the outcome of these proceedings sufficient to authorize disqualification.”
