The hunter has become the hunted after a Georgia court ordered a prosecutor to turn over more files on her quest to imprison President Donald Trump, after she previously claimed they did not exist.
The nonprofit public interest law firm Judicial Watch reports “a Georgia state court ordered Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis to provide new information and potentially conduct a new search for Trump-related records because her recent affidavit to the court made no reference to whether any searches of the devices of former Fulton County Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade or those of Chief Investigator Michael L. Hill, who was involved gathering evidence and coordinating investigative efforts, and likely met with the January 6 Committee.”
“Fani Willis can’t be trusted. Every time we go back to court there are new excuses and new documents that she said never existed. And now we find that entire universes of records may have been ignored,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
“The court order was issued in a Judicial Watch lawsuit filed after Willis falsely denied having any records responsive to Judicial Watch’s earlier Georgia Open Records Act (ORA) request for communications with Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office and/or the January 6 Committee,” JW reports.
“A March 7, 2025 court order directed Willis to turn over 212 pages of records and provide an affidavit detailing how the records were found and the reason for withholding them from the public. The records were belatedly found in response to Judicial Watch’s request and lawsuit. In a February 28 hearing Willis’ lawyers admitted to finding the records after what was believed to be a fifth search of her office,” JW reports.
“The court awarded Judicial Watch $21,578 ‘attorney’s fees and costs.’ (Willis’ office made payment to Judicial Watch 10 days after the court-ordered deadline.),” JW notes.
“In December 2024, Willis finally admitted to having records showing communications with the January 6 Committee but refused to release all but one document in response to the court order that found her in default. She cited a series of legal exemptions to justify the withholding of communications with the January 6 Committee. The only document she did release was one already-public letter to January 6 Committee Chairman Benny Thompson (D-MS),” JW reports.
Judicial Watch reports it “subsequently filed a motion, asking the court to conduct a private inspection of any records found.”
The new court order states:
On 7 March 2025, this Court, after hearing about Defendant’s desultory efforts to determine the full universe of responsive information, ordered Defendant to produce for in camera review the records that had been identified — after repeated denials of their existence — but which were being withheld on the basis of being exempt from disclosure under the State’s Open Records Act…. Defendant timely complied with the March 2025 Order, providing the Court with (1) an affidavit from her Legal Counsel summarizing the steps taken to conduct an actual, meaningful search for the requested information and (2) a digital storage device containing 212 pages of search protocols, e-mails, text messages, and written correspondence. The Court has since reviewed these materials and concurs with Defendant that, at this point, given that the criminal case related to these materials remains open (if not particularly active), pursuant to the exceptions set forth in O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72, these records are not presently subject to disclosure. Specifically, the Court finds that the documents are “[r]ecords of law enforcement, prosecution, or regulatory agencies in any pending investigation or prosecution of criminal or unlawful activity” (and they are not “initial police arrest reports and initial incident reports”)….
Defendant’s work is not yet done, however. In reviewing the submitted materials, in particular the search protocols prepared by each employee of Defendant whose records and devices were reviewed, the Court noticed the following omissions:
1) There was no search protocol produced for or by Investigator Michael L. Hill II indicating what accounts, devices, etc. were searched and for what terms.
2) It is unclear if anyone consulted with Nathan Wade, who is now employed elsewhere but who at the relevant time was, among other things, Defendant’s lead counsel for her office’s investigation into “possible criminal disruptions that occurred during the administration of the 2020 general elections in Georgia” (to use her office’s phrasing).
3) While Legal Counsel’s affidavit avers that Defendant’s own records were searched, the responsive materials do not include the search protocol used to do so nor is the scope of the search described.
Consequently, Defendant shall, within fourteen days of entry of this Order, submit to the Court the search protocols (i.e., search terms used and data sources searched) for Investigator Hill and Defendant as well as a clarification of whether Attorney Wade’s materials were searched. If they were not, they shall be and any responsive records forwarded to the Court. If they already were, then the same requirement of supplying the search protocol applies. Any additional materials that are generated by this effort will be received in camera and will remain in camera pending an analysis similar to the one the Court performed with the first set of submitted materials.
The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.
READ NEXT: Deadly New Drug Sweeping Across America
Put her in prison.
Fanni is a very untrustworthy attorney.
No one is above the law say the Democrats: except the Democrats in their mind.