Connect with us

News

Trump Georgia prosecutor hits back at misconduct claims during hearing

Published

on

Trump Georgia prosecutor hits back at misconduct claims during hearing

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

The Georgia district attorney who indicted Donald Trump fought back against accusations of misconduct related to her relationship with an outside attorney hired by her office during a dramatic hearing that could have significant ramifications for the case.

Fani Willis, the Fulton County district attorney who indicted the former president over seeking to overturn the 2020 election, took the stand on Thursday in a courtroom in Georgia, where lawyers for Trump and some of his co-defendants are seeking to disqualify her from the case.

In often-heated exchanges, Willis denied accusations of conflicts of interest and defrauding the public in connection with her relationship with Nathan Wade, a special counsel she hired to work on the criminal case. 

Advertisement

During her testimony, Willis accused Ashleigh Merchant, a lawyer for one of Trump’s co-defendants, of having “interests contrary to democracy”.

“These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020,” Willis told Merchant. “I’m not on trial no matter how hard you try to put me on trial.” She also accused Merchant of lying in filings. “You’ve lied . . . right here, I think you lied right here,” Willis said, holding up court documents.

The hearing has added fuel to a controversy that threatens to overshadow the Georgia case, one of four criminal indictments brought against Trump. If the motion to disqualify Willis is granted, it could significantly delay or derail proceedings in the sprawling case.

Already, the former president and others have seized upon it to cast doubts on the case, which they have described as politically motivated. It has also drawn scrutiny from Republican lawmakers in Congress and Georgia’s state legislature.

Willis last summer obtained a 98-page indictment alleging the ex-president and 18 others interfered with the 2020 presidential election. Then, last month, Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign official, filed a motion seeking to dismiss the case and disqualify Willis, claiming Wade had used parts of his Fulton County salary to pay for vacations while they were dating.

Advertisement

The motion, which has been backed by Trump and other co-defendants, cited Wade’s divorce proceedings with his estranged wife. Credit card statements filed in that case showed he had bought plane tickets in his and Willis’s name.

Willis and Wade, who also testified on Thursday, said their relationship began in 2022 and ended last year. He was hired by the Fulton County district attorney’s office in November 2021.

Earlier in the hearing, an estranged friend of Willis’s and former employee of the district attorney’s office said the relationship had started in 2019, which Willis denied. Referring to a conference where she first met Wade in 2019, Willis told Merchant: “I think in one of your motions you tried to implicate I slept with him at that conference, which I find to be extremely offensive.”

The hearing at times delved into intimate details of the relationship between Willis and Wade, including trips they took to locations including California, Belize and Aruba. Willis and Wade respectively said that in those cases where he paid for the pair upfront, she often paid him back in cash. 

“I didn’t take gifts from him,” Willis said. “I don’t need anybody to foot my bills.”

Advertisement

“You know that public funds are scrutinised . . . you understand you are under a microscope,” Merchant told Willis as she asked whether she had physical records of cash payments made to Wade. For the most part, there is no written record of these payments, Willis said.

Wade, who is also a partner at a law firm, pushed back against allegations that trips were paid with public funds. “To say that I’m paying a credit card statement with funds coming from Fulton County or the state of Georgia would not be an accurate statement because the funds could have very well come from my private practice,” he told the court.

Willis’s testimony will continue on Friday.

Trump, the frontunner to clinch the Republican nomination to run as president later this year, was not present at the hearing on Thursday, opting instead to travel to Manhattan, where a judge there denied his motion to dismiss a separate criminal indictment alleging he falsified business records to conceal “hush money” payments to a porn star with whom he allegedly had an affair. A trial in the Manhattan case is set to begin on March 25.

Advertisement

News

Video: F.A.A. Ignored Safety Concerns Prior to Collision Over Potomac, N.T.S.B. Says

Published

on

Video: F.A.A. Ignored Safety Concerns Prior to Collision Over Potomac, N.T.S.B. Says

new video loaded: F.A.A. Ignored Safety Concerns Prior to Collision Over Potomac, N.T.S.B. Says

transcript

transcript

F.A.A. Ignored Safety Concerns Prior to Collision Over Potomac, N.T.S.B. Says

The National Transportation Safety Board said that a “multitude of errors” led to the collision between a military helicopter and a commercial jet, killing 67 people last January.

“I imagine there will be some difficult moments today for all of us as we try to provide answers to how a multitude of errors led to this tragedy.” “We have an entire tower who took it upon themselves to try to raise concerns over and over and over and over again, only to get squashed by management and everybody above them within F.A.A. Were they set up for failure?” “They were not adequately prepared to do the jobs they were assigned to do.”

Advertisement
The National Transportation Safety Board said that a “multitude of errors” led to the collision between a military helicopter and a commercial jet, killing 67 people last January.

By Meg Felling

January 27, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Families of killed men file first U.S. federal lawsuit over drug boat strikes

Published

on

Families of killed men file first U.S. federal lawsuit over drug boat strikes

President Trump speaks as U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth looks on during a meeting of his Cabinet at the White House in December 2025.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Relatives of two Trinidadian men killed in an airstrike last October are suing the U.S. government for wrongful death and for carrying out extrajudicial killings.

The case, filed in Massachusetts, is the first lawsuit over the strikes to land in a U.S. federal court since the Trump administration launched a campaign to target vessels off the coast of Venezuela. The American government has carried out three dozen such strikes since September, killing more than 100 people.

Among them are Chad Joseph, 26, and Rishi Samaroo, 41, who relatives say died in what President Trump described as “a lethal kinetic strike” on Oct. 14, 2025. The president posted a short video that day on social media that shows a missile targeting a ship, which erupts in flame.

Advertisement

“This is killing for sport, it’s killing for theater and it’s utterly lawless,” said Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. “We need a court of law to rein in this administration and provide some accountability to the families.”

The White House and Pentagon justify the strikes as part of a broader push to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S. The Pentagon declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying it doesn’t comment on ongoing litigation.

But the new lawsuit described Joseph and Samaroo as fishermen doing farm work in Venezuela, with no ties to the drug trade. Court papers said they were headed home to family members when the strike occurred and now are presumed dead.

Neither man “presented a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to the United States or anyone at all, and means other than lethal force could have reasonably been employed to neutralize any lesser threat,” according to the lawsuit.

Advertisement

Lenore Burnley, the mother of Chad Joseph, and Sallycar Korasingh, the sister of Rishi Samaroo, are the plaintiffs in the case.

Their court papers allege violations of the Death on the High Seas Act, a 1920 law that makes the U.S. government liable if its agents engage in negligence that results in wrongful death more than 3 miles off American shores. A second claim alleges violations of the Alien Tort Statute, which allows foreign citizens to sue over human rights violations such as deaths that occurred outside an armed conflict, with no judicial process.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Jonathan Hafetz at Seton Hall University School of Law are representing the plaintiffs.

“In seeking justice for the senseless killing of their loved ones, our clients are bravely demanding accountability for their devastating losses and standing up against the administration’s assault on the rule of law,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior counsel at the ACLU.

U.S. lawmakers have raised questions about the legal basis for the strikes for months but the administration has persisted.

Advertisement

—NPR’s Quil Lawrence contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

News

Video: New Video Analysis Reveals Flawed and Fatal Decisions in Shooting of Pretti

Published

on

Video: New Video Analysis Reveals Flawed and Fatal Decisions in Shooting of Pretti

new video loaded: New Video Analysis Reveals Flawed and Fatal Decisions in Shooting of Pretti

A frame-by-frame assessment of actions by Alex Pretti and the two officers who fired 10 times shows how lethal force came to be used against a target who didn’t pose a threat.

By Devon Lum, Haley Willis, Alexander Cardia, Dmitriy Khavin and Ainara Tiefenthäler

January 26, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending