In Atlanta, a judge is currently deliberating on the authority of a Georgia state Senate committee regarding the issuance of subpoenas for testimony and documents from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. This inquiry pertains to allegations of misconduct during her prosecution of President Donald Trump, who was recently elected.
The Republican-led committee issued subpoenas to Willis in August, aiming to compel her attendance at a September meeting and to request numerous documents. This committee was established earlier in the year specifically to investigate allegations of various types of misconduct by Willis, a Democrat, related to her handling of Trump’s case and others that focus on their attempts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia.
Willis’ attorney, former Democratic Governor Roy Barnes, presented his case to Fulton County Superior Court Judge Shukura Ingram during a hearing on Tuesday. He argued that while the Georgia General Assembly holds subpoena powers, this authority does not automatically extend to any single chamber or its committees. Moreover, even if the committee possessed such power, Barnes contended that the subpoenas were excessively broad and lacked a legitimate legislative basis.
Barnes emphasized that the scrutiny directed at Willis and her investigation into Trump indicates that the committee’s motives are politically driven rather than a genuine probe into the operations of district attorney offices. “What they were trying to do is chill the prosecution of Donald Trump and find out what they had,” he stated.
In rebuttal, Josh Belinfante, a lawyer representing the committee members, argued that the Georgia Constitution does not prevent the Senate from issuing subpoenas. He clarified that the committee was formed to evaluate whether new legislation is necessary to regulate the practices of district attorneys throughout the state.
Belinfante expressed, “They are investigating and making an inquiry into these allegations that may show that existing state laws… are inadequate.” The committee’s resolution particularly pointed to Willis’ employment of special prosecutor Nathan Wade, with whom she reportedly had a romantic involvement, which the committee claims resulted in a “clear conflict of interest” detrimental to taxpayers.
One subpoena issued to Willis demands various documents related to Wade, including those concerning his hiring, payment, and any exchanges of value between him and Willis. Additionally, they have requested communication records between Willis and entities such as the U.S. House or even the White House pertinent to the 2020 election.
Prior to the subpoena deadlines, Willis challenged the requests legally. Her challenge was still pending when she missed a hearing in mid-September, during which committee members had intended to question her.
In October, the committee sought Judge Ingram’s assistance to compel Willis to comply with the subpoenas, asserting that her noncompliance hindered their ability to conclude their investigation and potentially propose legislative recommendations.
Barnes countered this, stating that once the legislative session adjourns, which happened in March, interim committees cannot demand an appearance or document submission. Belinfante disagreed, asserting that the state Constitution allows interim committees to operate and establish regulations.
Barnes claimed that, even if the subpoenas were valid, they were overly broad, asking for personal information that falls outside of legitimate legislative inquiry. Belinfante maintained that the lawmakers were acting within their rights and requested that Willis testify before the committee in early January and provide the requested documentation, explaining any exclusions.
As the state lacks clear legal precedents regarding the General Assembly’s subpoena authority, Judge Ingram will need to address this issue. She assured that she would evaluate the arguments presented and render her decision promptly.
Both Willis and Wade have confirmed their prior relationship, stating it began post-employment and concluded before the indictment against Trump. Trump and his co-defendants argue this relationship constitutes a conflict of interest that necessitates Willis stepping down from the case. While Judge Scott McAfee noted Willis exhibited a “tremendous lapse in judgment,” he ultimately ruled that no conflict of interest disqualified her, provided that Wade recused himself, which he did. Trump and his co-defendants are currently appealing this ruling in the Georgia Court of Appeals, which remains unresolved.