Politics
Column: Fani Willis' prosecution of Donald Trump may be alive, but it isn't well
Special prosecutor Nathan Wade’s resignation Friday from the Georgia racketeering prosecution of Donald Trump and others was the right decision and, indeed, a virtually forced one. Judge Scott McAfee’s resolution of a defense motion to disqualify Wade’s boss, Fulton County Dist. Atty. Fani Willis, left no practical alternative.
But it would be a mistake to assume that Wade’s withdrawal puts an end to the ugliness and doubt surrounding Willis’ handling of the case.
To dispel the appearance of a conflict of interest arising out of a romantic relationship between the two prosecutors, McAfee held that either Wade or Willis, along with her entire office, would have to step aside. That made Wade’s withdrawal, which many observers had been urging, the best way to begin to clean up a distracting mess while allowing Willis to continue leading her office and its highest-profile prosecution.
But the order, and the circus-like atmosphere of the multiday evidentiary hearing that preceded it, in some ways served only to intensify the controversy surrounding the case and ensure that the rhetorical challenges will continue.
Notwithstanding the decorous and professional language of McAfee’s order, it lands several haymakers on Willis’ judgment and probity. Probably the most notorious and enduring is his assertion that “an odor of mendacity remains” around the testimony of Willis and Wade, specifically as to the timing of their relationship. It’s a phrase that could have a continuing political impact in Georgia and nationally.
Whatever the judge’s intent, his analysis bolsters Trump and other Republicans in Georgia, which is among the most fiercely contested states in the coming election. With a special committee created by the state Senate investigating Willis and a new law enabling oversight of district attorneys’ offices, Georgia Republicans will have plenty of opportunities to keep sounding the refrain that the problem is not Trump but Willis. A prosecution revolving around an infamous Trump sound bite — “I just need 11,780 votes” — is now tainted by an “odor of mendacity.”
That reality may be deeply unfair, and it is certainly steeped in a Southern stew of racial and sexual politics, but Willis’ conduct will continue to be under intense and even undue scrutiny, particularly as both she and McAfee face an election this year. The motion to disqualify her has already drawn attention to questions that really had no bearing on the legal issues at hand, including precisely when she and Wade began their relationship.
Part of the responsibility for the abiding eyesore that the case has become must be laid at the feet of McAfee. The Fulton County Superior Court judge has earned generally high marks for his even temper and solid preparation for a monster of a case. But the meager allegations in Trump co-defendant Michael Roman’s original motion could have been resolved without the chaotic evidentiary hearing that McAfee convened. The judge even could have denied the motion to disqualify and left it at that.
McAfee’s ultimate rejection of the motion is unassailable because there never was a plausible claim of a financial conflict of interest in Willis’ relationship with Wade, and nothing short of that could justify disqualifying the district attorney. Whatever Wade spent on Willis — for flowers, fancy meals or even airfare — it was not just baseless but also silly to suggest that such benefits drove the district attorney’s management of the case. And that’s all the judge needed to know to reject the defendants’ far-fetched argument.
McAfee, however, permitted the show to go on. And though he properly rejected the claim of a conflict, he roamed into amorphous “appearance of conflict” territory to justify the difficult choice he served up to Willis and Wade in forcing one of them to exit the case.
But Wade’s withdrawal can’t cleanse the case of the stink bomb dropped into the proceedings by Roman and Trump. Even if Willis retakes the reins and pursues the case with impeccable judgment and prudence from this point forward — as there’s no reason to doubt she will — it will be while Trump and his champions shout this counternarrative from the rooftops.
The whole misadventure is only the latest in a recent series of unearned breaks for Trump in his single-minded quest to keep all his trials from going forward before the November election. Willis and a Fulton County grand jury leveled grave charges against the former president. The odds that they will reach trial and a verdict that the American people can consider in choosing their next president are now perilously close to zero.
Harry Litman is the host of the “Talking Feds” podcast and the new Talking San Diego speaker series. @harrylitman
Politics
Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he plans to meet with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado in Washington next week.
During an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Trump was asked if he intends to meet with Machado after the U.S. struck Venezuela and captured its president, Nicolás Maduro.
“Well, I understand she’s coming in next week sometime, and I look forward to saying hello to her,” Trump said.
Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado waves a national flag during a protest called by the opposition on the eve of the presidential inauguration, in Caracas on January 9, 2025. (JUAN BARRETO/AFP via Getty Images)
This will be Trump’s first meeting with Machado, who the U.S. president stated “doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country” to lead.
According to reports, Trump’s refusal to support Machado was linked to her accepting the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, which Trump believed he deserved.
But Trump later told NBC News that while he believed Machado should not have won the award, her acceptance of the prize had “nothing to do with my decision” about the prospect of her leading Venezuela.
Politics
California sues Trump administration over ‘baseless and cruel’ freezing of child-care funds
California is suing the Trump administration over its “baseless and cruel” decision to freeze $10 billion in federal funding for child care and family assistance allocated to California and four other Democratic-led states, Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced Thursday.
The lawsuit was filed jointly by the five states targeted by the freeze — California, New York, Minnesota, Illinois and Colorado — over the Trump administration’s allegations of widespread fraud within their welfare systems. California alone is facing a loss of about $5 billion in funding, including $1.4 billion for child-care programs.
The lawsuit alleges that the freeze is based on unfounded claims of fraud and infringes on Congress’ spending power as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“This is just the latest example of Trump’s willingness to throw vulnerable children, vulnerable families and seniors under the bus if he thinks it will advance his vendetta against California and Democratic-led states,” Bonta said at a Thursday evening news conference.
The $10-billion funding freeze follows the administration’s decision to freeze $185 million in child-care funds to Minnesota, where federal officials allege that as much as half of the roughly $18 billion paid to 14 state-run programs since 2018 may have been fraudulent. Amid the fallout, Gov. Tim Walz has ordered a third-party audit and announced that he will not seek a third term.
Bonta said that letters sent by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announcing the freeze Tuesday provided no evidence to back up claims of widespread fraud and misuse of taxpayer dollars in California. The freeze applies to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the Social Services Block Grant program and the Child Care and Development Fund.
“This is funding that California parents count on to get the safe and reliable child care they need so that they can go to work and provide for their families,” he said. “It’s funding that helps families on the brink of homelessness keep roofs over their heads.”
Bonta also raised concerns regarding Health and Human Services’ request that California turn over all documents associated with the state’s implementation of the three programs. This requires the state to share personally identifiable information about program participants, a move Bonta called “deeply concerning and also deeply questionable.”
“The administration doesn’t have the authority to override the established, lawful process our states have already gone through to submit plans and receive approval for these funds,” Bonta said. “It doesn’t have the authority to override the U.S. Constitution and trample Congress’ power of the purse.”
The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Manhattan and marked the 53rd suit California had filed against the Trump administration since the president’s inauguration last January. It asks the court to block the funding freeze and the administration’s sweeping demands for documents and data.
Politics
Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela
new video loaded: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela
transcript
transcript
Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela
President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.
-
“How Long do you think you’ll be running Venezuela?” “Only time will tell. Like three months. six months, a year, longer?” “I would say much longer than that.” “Much longer, and, and —” “We have to rebuild. You have to rebuild the country, and we will rebuild it in a very profitable way. We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need. I would love to go, yeah. I think at some point, it will be safe.” “What would trigger a decision to send ground troops into Venezuela?” “I wouldn’t want to tell you that because I can’t, I can’t give up information like that to a reporter. As good as you may be, I just can’t talk about that.” “Would you do it if you couldn’t get at the oil? Would you do it —” “If they’re treating us with great respect. As you know, we’re getting along very well with the administration that is there right now.” “Have you spoken to Delcy Rodríguez?” “I don’t want to comment on that, but Marco speaks to her all the time.”
January 8, 2026
-
Detroit, MI6 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology3 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX4 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Health5 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Nebraska2 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska
-
Iowa3 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Nebraska3 days agoNebraska-based pizza chain Godfather’s Pizza is set to open a new location in Queen Creek
-
Entertainment2 days agoSpotify digs in on podcasts with new Hollywood studios