The NPR Politics Podcast - Alleged Improper Relationship Could Thwart Trump Ga. Trial

Episode Date: January 26, 2024

Former President Donald Trump's co-defendant in the election interference criminal case in Georgia is requesting the removal of the Fulton County district attorney and lead prosecutor from the case �� after accusing them of having an improper relationship. We review the allegations and the impact on the impending trial. This episode: political correspondent Susan Davis, national justice correspondent Carrie Johnson, political reporter Stephen Fowler and national security correspondent Greg Myre.This podcast was produced by Jeongyoon Han, Casey Morell & Kelli Wessinger. Our editor is Erica Morrison. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi. Unlock access to this and other bonus content by supporting The NPR Politics Podcast+. Sign up via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Connect:Email the show at [e-mail] the NPR Politics Podcast Facebook Group.Subscribe to the NPR Politics Newsletter.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Hi, this is Elizabeth from Dayton, Ohio. I'm about to start driving three hours to get to my book club in Akron, where I used to live, because a really good book club just can't be left behind. This podcast was recorded at 12.53 p.m. on Friday, January 26th. Things may have changed by the time you hear it. Okay, here's the show. Oh, I love my book club. 27 years and counting. No way. That's amazing.

I would like to know what book she's reading now. For a book club that's so good, I want to know the book. Write in and tell us, please. Please. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Susan Davis. I cover politics. I'm Stephen Fowler.

I cover the election. And I'm Keri Johnson. I cover the Justice Department. And Stephen, thanks for being here. It's pretty obvious you are in a busy place. That is actually LaGuardia Airport. And we are grateful that you're making time for the podcast today because today on the podcast, we're talking about some of the developments or lack thereof in the criminal cases against former President Donald Trump. Stephen, can you just do a quick refresher on what the charges are against Donald Trump in the Georgia case?

Absolutely. Donald Trump and 18 others were charged with violating Georgia's racketeering act, typically used to go after the mob or gangs. were just 2020 election results, violating a number of state laws about influencing witnesses, making false statements, so on and so forth, that there was this pressure campaign in public and private to undo the election results that ultimately the prosecutors say broke the law. And Carrie, there is now a side legal fight playing out involving one of those defendants, Republican operative Michael Roman and Fulton County District Attorney Fawnie Willis, as well as the case's lead prosecutor, Nathan Wade. Can you explain what's happening there? This is a big mess, Sue, and a huge distraction. Michael Roman, one of the defendants in this case, has filed court papers accusing the District Attorney Willis of having an improper personal relationship with the special prosecutor she hired, Nathan Wade. We know Wade has received something like $650,000 so far. And while there's been no concrete proof

of this improper personal relationship, there has been some evidence produced that they may have traveled together on at least a couple of occasions. And the Roman is trying to use these allegations to disqualify Wade Willis and her entire office from the case and try to get these charges dismissed altogether. Now, that's him or against the whole case entirely against him. But the news of this week is that Trump's lawyer in Georgia has now joined this motion to disqualify Wade and the district attorney's office, he says not only does he think there may have been an improper personal relationship between these two, but also that the district attorney in an address at a church in Georgia over Martin Luther King weekend may have improperly injected race into this case and racial bias in a way that could prejudice the jury. So this is a brewing

issue. It's gotten bigger, not smaller over time. And there's going to be a hearing on this matter with the judge in the case. Yeah. In the next couple of weeks, there's supposed to be a hearing in Georgia. We think that will be televised. And Willis is due to respond in court papers by next week. Let me ask you a legal 101 question, because I could understand prosecutorial misconduct or something that might throw out a case if it was, say, the judge and the prosecutor or the defense and the judge. But these are two attorneys who are on the same side of a legal argument. So what is the misconduct? Yeah, let's untangle this. There's allegations of legal impropriety here. There's an issue of public opinion.

And then there may be an ethics issue, too, right? With respect to whether Willis would need to disqualify herself from this case, lawyers seem to disagree about that. But the allegation from one of the defendants, Michael Roman, is that Willis and Wade have an interest in prolonging this case because he's making money off of it and she's getting trips with him. And these are taxpayer dollars. Taxpayer dollars. And so that is why, and Stephen can jump in here because he knows these parties, that is why some state officials in Georgia, some Republican state officials in Georgia, are now launching investigations of Willis with respect to the use of public funds. Stephen, how is this all playing out in Georgia?

In Georgia, Republicans for a long time have been trying to disqualify Willis, discredit the case, say that there was nothing wrong here. And this is just kind of the latest example of what's being used. Earlier today, the state Senate approved a new committee on investigations that will investigate Bonnie Willis. It has subpoena power. It's the latest thing they can do, but it can't really do anything other than hold hearings, subpoena people and write reports and ultimately kind of muddy the waters and embarrass Bonnie Willis. Now, in court, one thing we haven't heard from is Fonny Willis and Nathan Wade, both the people involved in this party. There's a deadline to respond by February 2nd, but that silence has made this huge space that has been filled by innuendo, speculation, and arguments from people across the entire spectrum that there's chaos in this case,

they need to step down or be removed from the case and that things should go in a different direction. Let me ask another legal question. Can a judge in a case like this order new prosecutors? Is that even an option? Like, can you order a recusal? Yes, and it's happened. It's happened with respect to this pool of potential defendants. Willis has now been disqualified from investigating the state's now lieutenant governor because she participated in a political event for his

opponent, his political opponent. And a judge already ruled that was really a bad look and a conflict and she could not be allowed to participate in any prosecution. Stephen, it makes sense to me that Donald Trump and his allies would be calling for Fannie Willis to be removed from the case or the case thrown out. But is there any criticism coming from inside the House, from her political allies or people in the legal community that are otherwise aligned with her to say like, hey, this doesn't look good. And this is a case that has tremendous political and legal consequences, not just for Donald Trump, but for this country. This is much bigger than Fannie Willis. Yeah, absolutely. I think what I mentioned earlier about there being a lot of silence

and things filling the void is you've had a lot of people that are frustrated that there hasn't been a response from Willis to either say, this isn't true or these allegations are true, but it doesn't matter the case. There's just been not a squat, zip, nothing. And a lot of people in the legal community and a lot of people that are considering themselves Fonny Willis allies are saying, why did you hire this guy? Like, what are you doing? Because there've been resume items that Nathan Wade has touted that maybe haven't been up to

snuff. He's never prosecuted a RICO case. He's never done things that merit kind of this high profile level. And that's also because why he was hired, the things that he's done so far, Sue, is that he managed this special purpose grand jury process where you had this grand jury meeting in secret to hear all of the evidence and ultimately decide who they recommend face charges. He was kind of a behind the scenes manager

of information, of people, of allegations and cases. He's not the guy in front of the court every day saying, this is why insert person here should be found guilty. He's a behind-the-scenes player. But with that type of money involved and with that type of scrutiny on every aspect of the case, even some people that are, you know, supportive of the charges and supportive of Fannie Willis are saying, why is this the guy we're going with? Stephen, also the obvious point, this has provided a tremendous amount of political ammunition for Donald Trump to shape public opinion around this case. Absolutely. I mean, Trump, even before Trump's lawyer joined in on this motion to try to get

Fannie Willis disqualified, he spoke about it at rallies in Iowa. He posted about it on Truth Social. I mean, from before the charges were even filed, Trump has gone after Fannie Willis, calling it a political witch hunt, calling it, you know, unfair prosecution. He did nothing wrong. There are a lot of people that see this case as an obstacle to Trump and his reelection chances.

So anything and everything that pops up is being used as an example to say why these charges should be thrown out. And even if these allegations are true and even if a judge says there's no misconduct here, the case can go on. The optical and political headache is kind of the point. Not just that. Fannie Willis has said she wanted to take Donald Trump to trial in August 2024. I have a really hard time believing that is going to happen with this mess in front of the judge. And Carrie, in an unrelated case, we're still waiting for a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Can you just catch us up to and remind us on what is the legal question they're going to decide in this case? Sure. A couple of weeks ago, Donald Trump

appeared at this federal courthouse in Washington, just a block or two away from the U.S. Capitol. This is the case that accuses Trump of defrauding the United States, conspiring to obstruct the certification at the Capitol on January 6th. It's a really big one, right? Along with the Georgia election interference case we just talked about, These are probably the two most important in terms of the seriousness of the allegations here. And Trump has argued that he should enjoy absolute immunity from criminal prosecution because he took these acts while he was in the White House. So this appeals court is going to have to decide first whether Trump has the right to appeal now before the trial. If he does have that right, do presidents enjoy an absolute shield from criminal prosecution for actions they took in the White House?

We've never had to ask or answer that question in the history of the country before. So it's kind of a big issue. And if there are limits on a president's immunity, has Donald Trump crossed those lines? And so we're all waiting. And the reason why this is so important is that this trial was supposed to start on March 4th, like just in a couple of months, and everything is on pause while we wait for this opinion. And even once we get this opinion from the appeals court, Trump may ask the entire appeals court to hear this case, not just the three judges who heard it. And he may go to the Supreme Court, which would inject additional delay and potentially mean that no jury in the United States would consider these January 6th-related allegations before voters go

to the polls. I think that's a really important thing to remind listeners of, and we were talking about this this week, is I think there was an expectation at the onset of all of these criminal indictments that there would be an answer to these questions before an election so voters could make up their mind. And there is a very reasonable chance that we will not know the outcomes of these trials before Election Day. Not just the outcomes, Sue. There are things we still don't know. There are witnesses that jurors and the American public might want to hear from, including people who served alongside Donald Trump in the White House, like his vice President Mike Pence and many of his cabinet members. Those people are on a potential witness list for one or both of these cases in D.C. and Georgia. And the question

is whether we're going to hear from all of them and any new information they have to share before the election. And a reminder to listeners that our friend of the pod, Scott Detrow, is now hosting a podcast called Trump's Trials for NPR. It's a weekly wrap up of all the developments in the legal cases. So if you want deeper dives, you can check it out and hear from our friends, Domenico Montanaro and Kerry Johnson on the regular. Okay, Stephen, don't go anywhere. But Kerry, we're going to let you go before we take a quick break. And when we get back, we're going to talk about why border negotiations are in trouble in Congress. And we're back and we are joined by national security correspondent Greg Myrie. Hey, Greg. Hi, Sue. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the quiet part out loud this week, at least behind closed doors. He told Senate Republicans that the political calculations have changed around ongoing bipartisan talks to reach a deal on a border security bill that's tied to an international aid package. What changed is Donald Trump won the New Hampshire primary and is now the party's presumptive nominee.

McConnell told Republicans, quote, We don't want to do anything to undermine him, him being Donald Trump. Stephen, this caused a scramble on the Hill because negotiators have been working for weeks to reach a bipartisan deal. And even if the Senate can reach a deal, it faces a difficult time in the House. But it's hard to overstate how much the issues of border security first stepped onto the scene in 2016 and honed over the last eight years is this populist message of open borders and immigration coming in and, you know, hurting the American worker, hurting the American economy and making it hard for people like you to live the American dream. And so this is probably one of, if not the biggest areas that Donald Trump's going to focus on this year, other than relitigating the 2020 election for the fifth year. But this is kind of the key defining cornerstone of Trump's new view of the Republican Party. And we're seeing that with what's playing out on the Hill. It's also been one of his key attacks against Joe Biden in the 2024 presidential race. Absolutely. I mean, it's one of those things where, you know, no matter where you live, if you live in Texas or if you live further in the country,

you hear people talk about the border and what to do about the border and what to do about immigration. You have governors of states that don't touch the Mexico border talking about doing things to protect the border because it's a thing that Republicans believe is a winning message against Democrats, especially with the way Joe Biden has or has not done things so far. It's pretty cynical, but doesn't Mitch McConnell have a point? You know, if congressional Republicans want to see Donald Trump beat Joe Biden in November, then delivering big policy victories to Joe Biden on an issue like border security, where he has had a weakness, at least according to public polling, could be politically risky for Republicans. They want to be able to campaign on

this issue. So it's the old choice of do you want to solve the problem or do you want to have the fight? Yeah, I mean, that's how a lot of our politics works these days. But this is really one of the starker examples. You do finally have a deal or the workings of a deal coming to the table saying, OK, it's important to you. It's important to us. We're going to come together and try to find a way to work it. But now this is like Lucy with a proverbial football and Charlie Brown where because Donald Trump says, no, you know, I don't want it because it won't help me politically. Now we're seeing that pulled back. But it is risky because especially if you've primed so many Republican voters to say that there's an invasion at the border, that there is a problem with immigration and a problem with border security, and then say, but we're not going to fix it yet, then you run the risk of having some of those people be

like, well, wait a minute, were you ever going to fix this? Or are you just using it to rile us up? And it gives Joe Biden and Democrats the opportunity to go out and campaign and say, look, we wanted to fix the border. We wanted to do this. And Republicans walked away, which is a lot better optically than what you've seen over the past couple of years. Greg, Republicans took the issue of border security and they said the only way to get this international aid package for money for Ukraine mainly and as well as for Israel is you have to give us a border deal. If the border deal falls apart, it could well take Ukraine money with it. James Lankford is a Republican from Oklahoma. He's been the Republican negotiator on the

bipartisan border talks. Basically said as much yesterday. He was asked, if the border fails, does it take Ukraine money with it? And he suggested it likely could. This is something that President Biden and, frankly, top Republicans and Democrats in Congress do still support. It probably has majority support in Congress. What is the ultimate effect, is if the U.S. cannot pass this money for Ukraine and it never materializes? Yeah, Sue, we're talking about a lot of money. And in the case of Ukraine, President Biden wants more than $60 billion in military assistance. And for Israel, more than $14 billion. This is

particularly critical for Ukraine in two areas specifically. The Russians fire a lot of cruise and ballistic missiles trying to take down Ukraine's electrical system in the winter. They tried to do this last winter. Ukraine was able to sort of hold them off, but now they're going through the same thing again. This is an area that Ukraine needs resupplies to shoot down those incoming Russian missiles, or parts of the country could be at real risk in terms of their electricity system. The other part is artillery. This has been very much an artillery war on the front lines in eastern Ukraine. The Russians simply have more manpower and more firepower throughout the war, but the U.S. and Europe

have given the Ukrainians enough to fight back. But Ukraine seems to be running short, both in terms of missiles and artillery. The U.S. has been the leading supplier. Europe has stepped up much more than many people thought. Still, if the U.S. backs out, that's a huge chunk of Ukrainian support going away. And the U.S. has organized this through the contact group, more than 50 countries that are assisting Ukraine. So if the U.S. is not providing it, then a lot of other countries might say, what are we doing? Why are we supplying this if the U.S. is not willing to support Ukraine? Is there any, I think it's hard for people that when you look at the Pentagon that has an annual budget of hundreds and hundreds of billions and billions of dollars, is there really no money in the banana stand for Ukraine? Like do they have to have this $60 billion or is it $60 billion or nothing? Is there no alternatives for the Pentagon to help some pretty creative accounting over the years. You know, if a certain amount of money is authorized, well, then if the U.S. is supplying weapons that are already on the shelf, how much are those weapons worth? Are they worth what the U.S. paid for them five years ago or what it would cost to replace them today? So there's a little wiggle room for some creative accounting. But we're at the point now where the U.S. can't provide any sizable resupply to

Ukraine. And in fact, there was this meeting of the contact group, the 50 countries this week. But this time, the U.S. didn't announce a new package of aid for Ukraine. And this meeting has been taking place monthly for about two years. And we believe this is the first time the U.S. hasn't announced that. So it really is hitting the bottom of the barrel. There may be some little assistance here or there, but nothing major is going to go to Ukraine if Congress doesn't act. Although that's important to remind people, too, that this isn't actually money to Ukraine. This is money that mainly goes to U.S. defense manufacturers. Oh, absolutely. These are weapons that the U.S. either has on the shelf or U.S. defense contractors are making and sending to Ukraine. So these tens of billion dollars

have overwhelmingly gone to U.S. companies who make weapons for the U.S. military or make weapons which are going on to Ukraine. It's not money in the main. It's not like the U.S. military or make weapons which are going on to Ukraine. It's not money in the main. That is, it's not like the U.S. is writing a check to Ukraine, which they cash and then they distribute the money. These are weapons and big weapons, missiles, artillery, stuff like this that is being sent over there after it's been purchased in the United States. Stephen, politically, again, you know, there's an old guard on Capitol Hill that I think is represented by Mitch McConnell, who has been loudly fighting in support of passing this Ukraine money for months, but he hasn't been able to move the needle. The new guard of the

Republican Party is deeply skeptical of U.S. intervention in Ukraine or, frankly, anywhere else, and don't see much of a political loss if the U.S. intervention in Ukraine or, frankly, anywhere else, and don't see much of a political loss if the U.S. walks away from supporting Ukraine and certainly would also support Donald Trump's agenda more. Right. And I mean, you've seen this in the past few years, that there is this changing of the guard where the elected members of Congress, especially in the Republican Party, are a little bit more reflective of their base voters on issues like this. And I mean, there's a multi-pronged front of foreign policy that a lot of this new guard is pursuing and pursuing more in the sense of, you know, protecting things at home rather than abroad, because it's an

easier sell to their base voters to say, look, there's a lot of things happening in our backyard, like the border and immigration, that are more important uses of time and money than what's going on in Ukraine or Israel or things like that. And so it's, you know, it's definitely a shift. And as we see more and more of the old guard, like you mentioned, age out of Congress or retire or get defeated in primaries, that is going to be something to watch as the complicated geopolitical future of the world continues. Greg, I have to imagine people in the national security orbit are pulling their hair out at the idea of the U.S. making a foreign policy decision that could de facto help Russian President Vladimir Putin. Oh, absolutely. I mean,

there's a very strong consensus in the U.S. security community that Putin poses a great threat, obviously, to Ukraine, but also to Europe and ultimately to the United States and larger issues. And the real irony here is for so many years during the Cold War and even after, Republicans were staunchly opposed to Russian activity on security grounds. I'm a child of the 80s. I remember the movies. The Russians were always the bad guys. Absolutely. Absolutely. And so here you've seen something we hadn't seen really in decades. We didn't even see during the Cold War. Moscow, Soviet Union, now Russia, going across a border to invade a country. And there was initially two years ago strong support for this. But the Republicans are the ones who have become wobbly on whether or not the U.S. should continue support to Ukraine. All right, let's take a quick break. And when we get back, it's time for Can't Let It Go. And we're back and it's time for Can't Let It Go,

the part of the show where we talk about the things from the week we just can't stop thinking about, politics or otherwise. I have to note at the top of this that both Greg and Stephen are newbies to Can't Let It Go. It's my understanding neither of you have ever taken part. So I'll try to make this one gentle on you. But, you know, you're setting the bar for yourself from here on out. So no pressure. The thing I can't let go of is politics related. And it just made me laugh. It was from a tweet from a Colorado reporter named Kyle Clark, who was covering a debate for Colorado's

fourth congressional district. This is a district that Republican Congresswoman Lauren Boebert is running for reelection in. Boebert received national attention for, shall we say, unacceptable behavior in a theater. And it became a national news story. But he tweeted this, that the loudest cheers of the Republican primary debate in Colorado's fourth congressional district came when six of the nine candidates raised their hands to say that they, too, have been arrested. Six out of the nine. And then what made me laugh even more was his follow up. I should note a 10th Republican congressional candidate was not present for the show of hands on the arrest records. Justin Schreiber is currently

facing felony charges, including stalking and harassment. So seven of the 10 Republican candidates in this congressional district have been arrested in their past. And I just think it's a good reminder that truly anyone can serve in Congress. And didn't they all high five after that, too? Yes. It was not a moment of embarrassment. It was a moment of celebration, I would think. Greg, what about you? What can't you let go of? Well, a major controversy is brewing between Britain and the United States. A professor at Bryn Mawr College in the U.S., a chemistry professor, I should note, has published a piece saying that the best way to make a cup of

tea is with a pinch of salt. What? Yes. Apparently, this takes a little bit of the bitterness out of the tea. Now, as you can imagine, the Brits are not really buying this. It could be the biggest clash since the Boston Tea Party. However, the U.S. Embassy has even weighed in on this. It did issue an official statement saying this is not official U.S. policy, then going on to add that it will continue to make tea the proper way by microwaving it. Now I will admit this does make me want to put a little salt in tea because you don't know until you try it. Maybe it does take better. I don't know about that.

Are you a tea drinker? I'm more a coffee drinker. Me too. I also would think it matters what kind of tea because like a chai tea is a completely different animal than a black tea. Oh, exactly. No, I've been many places. In fact, parts of the former British Empire where they put lots of milk in it and you get that sort of skin of milk on the top of the tea. So lots of different ways to do your tea.

I don't know about salt, though. Don't yuck another person's yum, I say. You know, who knows? I'm going to try it, though. Stephen, what about you? What can't you lick of? OK, so as you might have been able to hear, I am not in the studio with you. I'm actually based in Atlanta, but for now I'm based on the floor of an airport

because I've been traveling, doing some stories, and travel is fun for me. And one of my obsessions is Buc-ee's, the gas station, convenience store, slight cult following entity. And so my can't let it go is that somehow in my less than three weeks of being at NPR and not being on any email list for any candidates, any anything, having a threadbare inbox earlier this week, I received an email about Buc-ee's opening a third one in Georgia, inviting me to cover the groundbreaking of the Brunswick, Georgia Buc-ee's. So nobody else has my email, but Buc-ee's knows that I love them so much

that they somehow find my email and invite me to cover the groundbreaking that I'm kind of tempted to go to because I'm a big Beaver believer. There should be perks to this job. So if you want to be the Buc-ee's reporter, you should get to be the Buc-ee's reporter. I want to know, though, what makes a Buc-ee's so special? I have to admit, I don't think I've ever... Have you ever been in a Buc-ee's, Greg? Don't think so. I've never been in the Buc-ee's reporter. I want to know, though, what makes a Buc-ee's so special? I have to admit, I don't think I've ever. Have you ever been in a Buc-ee's, Greg? Don't think so. I've never been in a Buc-ee's. Well, unfortunately, we do not have another hour on this podcast to talk about it next time. But imagine, if you will, 100 plus gas pumps where gas is cheaper. Then imagine that place is where you can go and get fresh chopped brisket

24-7, some of the best you'll ever eat. Then imagine that place is also where you can go and get fresh chopped brisket 24-7, some of the best you'll ever eat. Then imagine that place is also where you can get fashionable merch with a beaver face on it, which is their mascot. Then imagine after you're done with that, you can go get some home goods like a giant Texas-sized cattle skull. And then imagine all of that and then some. And then you begin to scratch the surface of the Buc-ee's. I spent a lot of time on the road at my old job at Georgia Public Broadcasting. There's two of them, now about to be three. And there's no better site than after crisscrossing the state covering political events than pulling in, getting a giant XXL brisket sandwich, a cup of sweet tea, no sugar, and

paying 30 cents less for gas. That actually does all sound really nice and truly American. And I'm guessing you can't get any of that at the LaGuardia airport. No, you cannot. I did get a $15 travel voucher for my flight being delayed, but that means I could tell my anecdote about Buc-ee's. So, you know, some things you can let go. I call that free Buc-ee's money to spend when you finally get back to Georgia. Exactly. All right.

That is it for us this week. Our executive producer is Mathoni Mottori. Our editor is Erica Morrison. Our producers are Casey Morrell and Kelly Wessinger. Special thanks to Krishna of Calamer and Jung Yoon Han. I'm Susan Davis. I cover politics. I'm Stephen Fowler.

I also cover politics. I'm Greg Myrie and I cover national security. And thanks for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.