Ms. Willis hired Mr. Wade, a lawyer in private practice, in 2021 to help run the Trump case and stated that she needed a trustworthy confidant for the job.
Nathan Wade reached a temporary agreement in his divorce case on Tuesday to avoid testifying about an alleged romantic relationship with Fani T. Willis.
The Trump Georgia Case: Nathan Wade Settles Divorce, Avoiding Testimony
Nathan Wade reached a temporary agreement in his divorce case on Tuesday to avoid testifying about an alleged romantic relationship with Fani T. Willis.
Fani Willis hired Nathan Wade in 2021 to help run the Trump case and stated that she needed a trustworthy confidant for the job.
The special prosecutor leading the election interference case against former President Donald J. Trump will not have to testify this week about an alleged romantic relationship with his boss, Fani T. Willis, after reaching a temporary agreement in his divorce case on Tuesday.
Ms. Willis hired Mr. Wade, a lawyer in private practice, in 2021 to help run the Trump case and stated that she needed a trustworthy confidant for the job.
A filing three weeks ago from one of Mr. Trump's co-defendants, Michael Roman, claimed that the two prosecutors were romantically involved and had taken vacations paid for by Mr. Wade.
Mr. Roman argues that this amounts to a conflict of interest and is grounds for removing both prosecutors as well as Ms. Willis’ entire office from the case.
So far, neither Mr. Wade nor Ms. Willis have confirmed or denied the allegations of a relationship.
Fani Willis will not have to testify Wednesday in special prosecutor Nathan Wade's divorce case.
Nathan Wade is one of the attorneys leading the prosecution of former President Donald Trump and his co-defendants under RICO charges for election interference in Georgia's 2020 presidential election. Willis hired Wade to work on the case.
Accuracy
Fani Willis hired Nathan Wade to work on the case.
Nathan Wade was appointed special prosecutor on Nov. 1, 2021 and has billed Fulton County more than $654,000 in legal fees since then.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it falsely states that Fani Willis will not have to testify on Wednesday in the special prosecutor's divorce case when a judge has already indicated that they have come to an agreement and canceled the scheduled proceedings. Secondly, it misrepresents Jocelyn Wade's filing as evidence of Nathan Wade being involved in a romantic relationship with Fani Willis when there is no proof provided to support this claim. Thirdly, it presents Roman's allegations that both Willis and Wade improperly benefited financially from the arrangement without providing any context or evidence for these claims.
The article falsely states that Fani Willis will not have to testify on Wednesday in the special prosecutor's divorce case when a judge has already indicated that they have come to an agreement and canceled the scheduled proceedings.
The article presents Roman's allegations that both Willis and Wade improperly benefited financially from the arrangement without providing any context or evidence for these claims.
It misrepresents Jocelyn Wade's filing as evidence of Nathan Wade being involved in a romantic relationship with Fani Willis when there is no proof provided to support this claim.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several logical fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Fani Willis is one of the attorneys leading the prosecution of former President Donald Trump and his co-defendants under RICO charges for election interference in Georgia's 2020 presidential election. However, this does not necessarily mean that her actions are justified or ethical. Secondly, there is a dichotomous depiction of Fani Willis as both an ally to the prosecution and accused by Michael Roman of having an affair with Nathan Wade. This creates confusion and undermines credibility in the article's claims about Willis' actions. Thirdly, inflammatory rhetoric is used when describing Roman's allegations that both Willis and Wade improperly benefited financially from their relationship, which could be seen as an attempt to discredit them without providing evidence of wrongdoing.
The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Fani Willis is one of the attorneys leading the prosecution of former President Donald Trump and his co-defendants under RICO charges for election interference in Georgia's 2020 presidential election. However, this does not necessarily mean that her actions are justified or ethical.
There is a dichotomous depiction of Fani Willis as both an ally to the prosecution and accused by Michael Roman of having an affair with Nathan Wade. This creates confusion and undermines credibility in the article's claims about Willis' actions.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author implies that Fani Willis's alleged affair with Nathan Wade is a violation of her duty as a public official and could compromise the integrity of the election interference case against former President Donald Trump. Additionally, there are references to Roman trying to get charges dismissed on grounds that both Willis and Wade improperly benefited financially from their relationship.
The author implies that Fani Willis's alleged affair with Nathan Wade is a violation of her duty as a public official
There are references to Roman trying to get charges dismissed on grounds that both Willis and Wade improperly benefited financially from their relationship
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
There are multiple examples of conflicts of interest in this article. Fani Willis is a special prosecutor investigating the Trump campaign's interference in Georgia's 2020 presidential election and has hired Nathan Wade to work on the case. However, it was later revealed that Wade had previously worked for Michael Roman, who is also being investigated by Willis for his role in the election interference case. Additionally, Jocelyn Wade, a former partner of Nathan Wade's alleged romantic partner and a witness in his divorce proceedings against him, has been subpoenaed to testify on behalf of Fani Willis in her own divorce case. The article also mentions that Judge Henry R. Thompson released an order stating that the parties had reached an agreement and that it is just and proper in these circumstances.
Fani Willis hired Nathan Wade to work on the Trump campaign case
Jocelyn Wade has been subpoenaed to testify on behalf of Fani Willis in her own divorce case
Nathan Wade worked for Michael Roman, who is also being investigated by Fani Willis
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
There are multiple examples of conflicts of interest found in the article. Fani Willis hired her alleged romantic partner Nathan Wade to work on the Trump campaign case and later fought against being deposed in his divorce proceedings. Additionally, Michael Roman and Bob Cheeley joined forces with Willis's effort to disqualify her from Georgia's election interference case.
Fani Willis hired her alleged romantic partner Nathan Wade to work on the Trump campaign case
Michael Roman and Bob Cheeley joined forces with Willis's effort to disqualify her from Georgia's election interference case
Willis fought against being deposed in Jocelyn Wade’s divorce proceedings
Nathan Wade reached a temporary agreement in his divorce case on Tuesday to avoid testifying about an alleged romantic relationship with Fani T. Willis
Fani Willis hired Nathan Wade in 2021 to help run the Trump case and stated that she needed a trustworthy confidant for the job
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author's statement that 'Nathan Wade might have been forced to address allegations of a romantic relationship with his boss at a divorce hearing this week.' is misleading as it implies that there was an imminent threat of testifying when in fact the hearing was scuttled and no testimony occurred. Secondly, the author's statement 'Ms. Willis hired Mr. Wade to help run the Trump case because she needed a trustworthy confidant for the job.' is misleading as it implies that Ms. Willis knew about their alleged romantic relationship at the time of hiring when in fact there was no evidence of such a relationship until three weeks later when Michael Roman filed his motion. Lastly, the author's statement 'So far, neither Mr. Wade nor Ms. Willis have confirmed or denied the allegations of a relationship.' is misleading as it implies that they are both equally responsible for not confirming or denying their alleged romantic relationship when in fact only Mr. Wade was expected to testify at the divorce hearing and had already agreed to do so before the hearing was scuttled.
The author's statement 'Ms. Willis hired Mr. Wade to help run the Trump case because she needed a trustworthy confidant for the job.' is misleading as it implies that Ms. Willis knew about their alleged romantic relationship at the time of hiring when in fact there was no evidence of such a relationship until three weeks later when Michael Roman filed his motion.
The author's statement 'Nathan Wade might have been forced to address allegations of a romantic relationship with his boss at a divorce hearing this week.' is misleading as it implies that there was an imminent threat of testifying when in fact the hearing was scuttled and no testimony occurred.
The author's statement 'So far, neither Mr. Wade nor Ms. Willis have confirmed or denied the allegations of a relationship.' is misleading as it implies that they are both equally responsible for not confirming or denying their alleged romantic relationship when in fact only Mr. Wade was expected to testify at the divorce hearing and had already agreed to do so before the hearing was scuttled.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that Fani T. Willis hired Nathan J. Wade as a trustworthy confidant for the Trump case without providing any evidence of his qualifications or experience in handling such high-profile cases.
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The authors of the article have a conflict of interest on several topics related to their reporting. Richard Fausset has previously reported on Nathan Wade and Joycelyn Wade's relationship with Donald Trump in the past, which could compromise his ability to report objectively on this topic. Danny Hakim has also previously reported on Fani Willis' investigation into the 2016 election interference by Russia, which could create a conflict of interest if he is reporting on her involvement in the Trump Georgia case.
Richard Fausset has previously reported on Nathan Wade and Joycelyn Wade's relationship with Donald Trump in the past.
Nathan Wade was appointed special prosecutor on Nov. 1, 2021 and has billed Fulton County more than $654,000 in legal fees since then
Roman’s motion alleges that Wade paid for his vacations with Willis out of the money he received from Fulton County
Accuracy
Fani Willis hired Nathan Wade to work on the case.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that Wade has reached a temporary divorce settlement with his estranged wife and canceled a public hearing on Wednesday. However, the article does not provide any details about what was included in this settlement or why it was necessary to cancel the hearing. This creates an impression of deception by omission as readers are left wondering what exactly happened behind closed doors. Secondly, the article states that Willis is likely to avoid testifying in the case due to this temporary divorce settlement. However, there is no evidence provided in the article that supports this claim or even suggests it's true. This creates an impression of deception by misrepresentation as readers are led to believe something that may not be accurate.
The article states that Wade has reached a temporary divorce settlement with his estranged wife and canceled a public hearing on Wednesday, but no details about what was included in this settlement or why it was necessary to cancel the hearing. This creates an impression of deception by omission.
The article states that Willis is likely to avoid testifying in the case due to this temporary divorce settlement, but there is no evidence provided in the article that supports this claim or even suggests it's true. This creates an impression of deception by misrepresentation.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority when they mention that Fulton Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee told Fani Willis to respond to the allegations in the election interference case by Friday. This is not a logical fallacy as it is simply stating a fact, but it does show bias towards the source of information.
Fulton County special prosecutor Nathan Wade has reached a temporary divorce settlement with his estranged wife, canceling a public hearing on Wednesday in which Wade was expected to be asked about his relationship with District Attorney Fani Willis.
Bias
(0%)
The article is biased in favor of Nathan Wade and his relationship with Fani Willis. The author uses phrases such as 'accused of having an improper romantic relationship' and 'Wade was expected to be asked about his relationship', which imply that there is something wrong or scandalous about the nature of their connection. The author also does not provide any evidence for these allegations, only citing court filings from Joycelyn Wade's attorneys. Additionally, the article mentions that Nathan Wade was appointed special prosecutor on the same day he filed for divorce, which could suggest a conflict of interest or impropriety in his role. The author does not question these facts or offer any alternative explanations.
The settlement reached Tuesday means Willis is likely to avoid testifying in the case.
Wade was appointed special prosecutor on Nov. 1, 2021, the day before he filed for divorce.
Willis has been told by Fulton Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee to respond to the allegations in the election interference case by Friday.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses the divorce settlement of Nathan Wade and Joycelyn Wade. The author is Bill Rankin who has a financial tie to Fani Willis as she was his former boss at the Atlanta District Attorney's office. Additionally, Scott McAfee is also mentioned in relation to this case which could be another potential conflict of interest.
Bill Rankin worked for Fani Willis when she was a prosecutor with the Atlanta District Attorney’s Office.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topics of Nathan Wade and Fani Willis as they are involved in an election interference case. The author also has a financial tie to Scott McAfee who is mentioned in the article.
Nathan Wade, Joycelyn Wade’s brother-in-law, was charged with obstruction of justice and making false statements before a grand jury investigating election interference allegations against Fani Willis. The special counsel for that investigation is also named in the divorce settlement.
Scott McAfee was mentioned as being involved in an email chain between Wade and Joycelyn Wade, which included discussions about the election interference case.
