Atlanta District Attorney Fani Willis ordered to disclose communications with Jack Smith and January 6 Committee, raising questions about potential coordination in Trump prosecution.
At a Glance
- Judge rules Willis violated open-records laws by not responding to Judicial Watch’s request
- Willis must provide all communications with Special Counsel Jack Smith and House January 6 committee within five days
- Judicial Watch claims Willis’s office likely had undisclosed communications with federal authorities
- Court hearing set for December 20 to address attorney fees owed to Judicial Watch
- Willis faces scrutiny over affair with lawyer hired for Trump prosecution
Court Finds Willis in Violation of Open Records Act
In a significant development, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney has ruled that Atlanta District Attorney Fani Willis violated open-records laws by failing to respond to an August 2023 request from Judicial Watch. The watchdog organization had sought access to communications between Willis’s office, Special Counsel Jack Smith, and the House panel investigating the January 6 riots. As a result of this ruling, Willis has been ordered to hand over all relevant communications within five business days.
This case marks a notable first in legal circles, as pointed out by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Fani Willis is something else. We’ve been doing this work for 30 years, and this is the first time in our experience a government official has been found in default for not showing up in court to answer an open records lawsuit,” Fitton stated.
BREAKING: A judge in Georgia just ordered Fani Willis to release all communications she had with Jack Smith and the January 6th Committee to plot the RICO case against President Trump.
The court also declared that she violated Georgia's Open Records Law.
"The Court also hereby… pic.twitter.com/MvpsMgKz7E
— George (@BehizyTweets) December 3, 2024
Implications for Ongoing Trump Prosecution
The court’s decision comes at a critical time for Willis, who is currently prosecuting the only remaining case against former President Donald Trump, related to alleged election interference in Georgia. This case has gained heightened attention as other federal cases against Trump have been dropped, and his sentencing in a Manhattan state case has been postponed.
The requirement to disclose these communications raises serious questions about potential coordination between Willis’s office and federal authorities in the prosecution of Trump. Judicial Watch’s lawsuit argues that Willis and Fulton County’s claim of having no records is almost certianly false, citing a December 2021 letter from Willis to the January 6 Committee requesting assistance and offering to meet in Washington, D.C.
“Fani Willis and Fulton County seem to have provided false information about having no records of communications with Jack Smith and the Pelosi January 6 committee,” said Fitton.
Broader Implications and Ongoing Investigations
This ruling is part of a broader effort by Judicial Watch to uncover potential connections between various investigations into former President Trump. The organization has also filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice for records of communications between Jack Smith’s office and the Fulton County DA’s office regarding federal assistance in the investigation of Trump. The DOJ has so far refused to confirm or deny the existence of such records, citing potential interference with enforcement proceedings.
Adding to the complexity of the situation, Willis has faced criticism for an affair with lawyer Nathan Wade, whom she hired for the Trump prosecution. This personal scandal has further intensified scrutiny of her office’s handling of the high-profile case.
Looking Ahead
A court hearing is set for December 20 to address Judicial Watch’s request for attorney fees in the case. This hearing may provide further insights into the extent of Willis’s non-compliance with open records laws and could potentially impact the ongoing prosecution of Trump in Georgia.
As this situation unfolds, it underscores the delicate balance between investigative transparency and prosecutorial discretion in high-profile cases with national implications. The outcome of this open records dispute could have far-reaching consequences for the Trump prosecution and potentially shape future practices in handling sensitive communications between local and federal law enforcement agencies.
