Fani Willis moves to block supoena for 'fishing expedition' by Trump co-defendant

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has filed a motion to quash subpoenas filed against her office by Michael Roman, a co-defendant in the Georgia election racketeering case that is also prosecuting former President Donald Trump.

Roman and his attorney have produced evidence that Willis was in a romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, one of her special prosecutors, which Trump's allies are now using to claim that the entire prosecution was a grift to allow them to fund romantic vacations with public money. She has now admitted to the relationship but denies any professional misconduct in the hire.

The issue is the basis of an upcoming evidentiary hearing ordered by Judge Scott McAfee, for which Roman's subpoenas are intended to produce evidence and testimony.

ALSO READ:Alina Habba is persona non grata at her Pennsylvania law school

"Roman has served several members of Willis’ staff, including her executive assistant, her security detail, as well as attys and investigators who are prosecuting the case at issue. He’s also subpoenaed Nathan Wade’s former divorce attorney and Synovus Bank for Wade’s records," noted MSNBC legal commentator Katie Phang. "Willis argues that Roman is merely on a fishing expedition and has no good faith basis for these subpoenas. She says it is gamesmanship and an effort by Roman to conduct baseless discovery."

Georgia State law professor Anthony Michael Kreis argued in a lengthy thread that Willis has long odds of succeeding, at least in full.

"I am left to wonder: what's the point of having an evidentiary hearing if you cannot have testimony from the two people with the most knowledge?" wrote Kreis. "If Judge McAfee wants to just rule and say there's not enough there, even if all true, to DQ then hold a quick hearing. But if we're having an *evidentiary* hearing that's focused on an alleged conflict and not work product, I don't see how you get around Willis and Wade testifying. Judge McAfee would keep folks on a short leash, if so, to avoid things getting gross."

"I don't envy Judge McAfee on this one," he added. "But I can't see him back tracking on having the evidentiary hearing just to make sure regular process is followed to avoid giving short shrift to the allegations."