A Georgia state court ordered Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to provide more information about her RICO case against Trump and ties to Jack Smith.
Last year, the Fulton County Superior Court found Fani Willis in default for refusing to hand over documents in an open records lawsuit.
Fani Willis refused to respond to a public records lawsuit seeking her communications with Special Counsel Jack Smith and the January 6 Committee.
In 2022, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan launched an investigation into whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis coordinated with federal officials during her multi-year probe into Trump and his associates.
In a letter, Chairman Jordan requested all documents and communications between Fani Willis’ office and DOJ, including Special Counsel Jack Smith, related to the Trump investigation.
In referring to Jim Jordan’s letter to Fani Willis, Judicial Watch filed a Georgia Open Records Act request seeking her communications with Jack Smith.
Finally, on Monday, the court ordered Fani Willis to reveal new info on Trump investigation and ties to Jack Smith.
As reported by Judicial Watch:
Judicial Watch announced today that 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.
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 (Judicial Watch Inc. v. Fani Willis et al. (No. 24-CV-002805)).
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.
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.)
Share your thoughts by scrolling down to leave a comment.
