Or should we focus more on Nathan Wade's billed meeting at the White House instead? Do either of these matter -- at least in terms of the disqualification motion in Fulton County that seeks to remove Fani Willis and her office from the prosecution of Donald Trump?

Yesterday, defense attorney Ashleigh Merchant testified at a legislative committee hearing about the conflicts of interest she unearthed involving Wade and Willis. Merchant brought with her some records from the White House that show both Wade and Willis there on separate days. One record shows that Willis and Atlanta mayor Andre Dickens met with Kamala Harris a few months before Willis indicted Trump et al ... kind of:

Merchant shared publicly available White House records during the hearing that showcased Willis’s meeting with Harris took place on Feb. 28, 2023, just months before a special grand jury handed up an indictment to Willis’s office in August of that year.

During the roughly three-hour hearing, Merchant noted that the Mayor of Atlanta, Andre Dickens, was present for the meeting at the White House.

“My understanding is that it’s highly regulated who can access the White House … so you have to apply ahead of time,” Merchant said, adding the White House records showing the meeting are open to the public.

Yes, but ...

A screenshot that Merchant showed regarding Willis’s logged visit revealed she was among a group of 455 other people and was located at the “side lawn/tent” at the vice president’s residence. A spokesperson for Willis told CNN that she was attending a Black History Month event and that Willis only saw Harris on stage from a distance.

That doesn't exactly look like collusion, not unless it took place in front of hundreds of witnesses. (That would make for one hell of a RICO theory!) Willis is a DA, but that position is elected on a partisan basis. Fani Willis was at one time seen as an up-and-comer in Democrat circles. It's not unusual for successful candidates in elections at this level to get these kind of invitations, and the White House may have looked more specifically for progressive DAs to attend so as to highlight their own "restorative justice" policies (ie, George Soros' agenda). 

But did Willis lie about being at the White House?

During her testimony, Fani Willis SPECIFICALLY and CATEGORICALLY denied having visited the White House when she was in DC.

Today, Ashleigh Merchant provided receipts PROVING that Fani did in fact visit the White House.

This means that Fani not only lied under oath, but lied… pic.twitter.com/jlunzwsg7p

— Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) March 6, 2024

Well, she's certainly wrong about having been at the White House, but that's not the same thing as lying about it. The context of the questioning was pretty clearly whether Willis met with the White House about the case or about Trump or any of the other defendants. Willis may have reasonably forgotten about having attended a Black History Month event on the White House lawn, at least in terms of the context of a disqualification hearing. 

If that's the only visit Willis made to the White House before the RICO indictment, then nothingburger may overstate its import. But what about Nathan Wade's visit with the White House? BizPac Review covers the details from Merchant's records for a visit that took place three months prior to Willis' attendance at the White House party:

“Wade previously billed Willis’s office $2,000 for an interview he had with ‘DC/ White House’ attorneys on Nov. 18, 2022, according to his billing records,” the Examiner reports. “Willis has denied ever traveling with Wade the Washington, D.C. while the pair have worked together.” ...

According to former U.S. attorney Brett Tolman, “There’s really no circumstance for the White House counsel or anyone in the White House to go anywhere near this if their goal is to make sure that it is an objective review of potential criminal activity of an opponent, of a political opponent.”

“If, however, you are coordinating and you are wanting to take down a political opponent, that’s temptation that the White House, I think, probably gave into, was to have conversations and looked at the four different criminal cases,” Tolman continued. “All of them have access, and we are learning that most of them, at this point, have had conversations with the White House, just prior to charges being brought.”

“That is not coincidence,” he stated. “That’s coordination.”

This certainly looks more questionable than Willis' event attendance. Wade billed Fulton County for the meeting, which means Wade discussed the RICO case with the White House in some official manner; Wade has no other contract with Fulton County. Wade isn't an elected official, so he wasn't there for a meet-and-greet either, especially if Wade billed for his professional services at this meeting. 

At the very least, it seems inappropriate to have this meeting at the White House and/or with White House personnel. There may have been some reason to reach out to special counsel Jack Smith, whose prosecution of Donald Trump on January 6-related charges might overlap with the actions alleged in the RICO indictment. But the special counsel is supposed to be independent of the White House, not coordinating with it, and Smith is almost certainly smart enough to know better.

Perhaps Wade needed some records from the White House for the prosecution, but why wouldn't he just submit a request? That wouldn't require a trip to DC, let alone meet with White House attorneys. If he needed to consult on records or even witnesses, Wade would have connected with the Department of Justice first (or Smith's office). And what witnesses would there be in the current White House to the events in Georgia that are alleged to be crimes in the RICO case?

It's very curious, but perhaps more so for the White House than Wade. Unless Wade can come up with a very good explanation for that meeting, it certainly has the appearance of impropriety, but on the part of the Biden White House more than Wade. What was their purpose in meeting with the special prosecutor of the man likely to become the president's political opponent two years before the election? What did they want to tell Wade, and what did they tell Wade?

In the end, though, that's a political question for both the White House and Wade, not really a legal disqualification issue. The meeting raises questions about how involved Biden's team has been in this prosecution, but there's no legal basis for a disqualification of Wade or Willis over it. Trump and his team can and certainly will demand more answers about the nature of Wade's consultation at the White House and argue that it shows Biden engaging in illegitimate lawfare against his political opponents -- but that's an issue for Congress and voters, not a judge in Fulton County. 

Judge Scott McAfee already has plenty of reasons to boot Willis from this case, and to refer both attorneys to the Georgia State Bar. It's not necessary to gild the lily.