Staff Reports
The saga surrounding the prosecution of former President Donald Trump in Fulton County takes another bizarre twist, this time highlighted by the fumblings of Nathan Wade, the former special prosecutor in the case. In his recent testimony to House investigators, Wade exhibited an extraordinary ability to forget crucial details—58 times, to be exact—while discussing meetings he had with White House officials during his tenure leading this politically charged prosecution.
The testimony, released in transcripts from October 15, reveals that Wade met with individuals in the White House on numerous occasions but conveniently found his memory to be rather elusive when pressed for specifics. It’s rather convenient for a prosecutor who, despite his job being to build a solid case against Trump, seems to have misplaced all notes and recollections of pertinent discussions. Audiences are left scratching their heads—how can a supposed legal eagle fail to remember nearly sixty critical interactions?
What to know: Special prosecutor's testimony shows White House contacts during Georgia Trump case https://t.co/dSFFrkymNY
https://t.co/13Xz3BFM3k#JDATA#BALLOTWATCH
— JDATA – BALLOTWATCH (@JdataBW) October 23, 2024
Additionally, financial records shed light on something even more troubling: Wade was billing Fulton County for several meetings connected to the White House, including a two-grand rendezvous labeled as an “Interview in D.C./White House.” This raises eyebrows not just about his memory, but also about what was being discussed at taxpayers’ expense while he bucks the trend of conventional legal practices. How many divided bills were racked up on the public dime while Wade meandered through D.C.?
The testimony also reveals a fascinating timeline—District Attorney Fani Willis had already put plans in motion to prosecute Trump between the November 2020 election and the beginning of 2021, before assuming office. This premeditated approach raises questions about the entire integrity of the operation. Could it be that this case was more about political theater and less about justice? The timing stinks of orchestrated opposition, and the American public deserves to know just how deep this rabbit hole goes.
Wade’s experience—or lack thereof—also surfaces as a topic of concern. Despite leading this monumental case, he required extensive training on racketeering charges, lessons he would expect from a rookie rather than a seasoned prosecutor. Prioritizing his role as a divorce attorney could explain his limited grasp on the intricacies of RICO laws, but one might think a little background research would be in order when dealing with the former president.
To cap it all off, the investigation into Wade and Willis has revealed a personal entanglement that further muddies the waters. Amidst financial gain and questionable qualifications, the obvious concerns about potential impropriety become harder to ignore. This case, once framed as a pursuit of justice, seems increasingly like an episode of a reality show more focused on ratings than on the rule of law. As the political drama unfolds, one can’t help but wonder: is the prosecution here merely a pretext for political harm instead of genuine concern for accountability? The answer seems to be blowing in the wind, just like Mr. Wade’s memories.
