Experts explain why Fani Willis allegations don't hurt merits of Trump criminal case

Whether or not Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis' hired her beau — the proof in the election interference case lodged against Trump and 18 others has already been laid bare.

That's the central takeaway from former federal prosecutors Norman Eisen and Joyce Vance along with former White House lawyer Richard Painter in their co-written op-ed published in The Atlanta Journal Constitution.

"What we do know: Even if every allegation is accurate — a big if — there's no impact on the question of the defendants' guilt," the article reads. "And there doesn't seem to be any basis for disqualification under Georgia law."

Willis has been accused of misconduct for hiring special prosecutor Nathan Wade, a private attorney, to work in the case and allegedly paying him nearly $700,000 in legal fees dating back to January 2022.

ALSO READ: How Trump's campaign visits cost local police departments

The revelations came to light in a motion filed by the lawyer on behalf of Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign operative who is attempting to get his criminal charges dismissed and disqualify Willis and Wade from prosecuting the case.

A D.A. spokesperson told the outlet that the office will respond to Roman’s allegations “through appropriate court filings.”

Eisen, Vance, and Painter take note that so far, there is nothing proving that Willis and Wade are an item and whatever might come out, it doesn't affect the substance of criminality in the RICO statute case brought against Roman and his fellow defendants — who include former President Donald Trump. (Trump has pleaded not guilty.)

"Roman alleges that Willis violated contracting rules, but there’s nothing in the motion connected to any improper interest in obtaining Roman’s conviction," according to the op-ed. "For example, Wade’s salary is not contingent upon that outcome."

They continue: "Beyond this test: the motion hasn’t identified any misconduct that unfairly prejudiced the defense. Roman has no personal harm to object to other than that he’s being prosecuted for alleged crimes and doesn’t like it."