Former prosecutor Nathan Wade faced tough questions over his billing for several White House meetings during the investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 election results.
Fox News reported that Wade was recently scrutinized by the House Judiciary Committee for his alleged meetings with White House representatives during the Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' investigation into former President Donald Trump.
The central inquiry was whether these meetings, billed at high rates, directly concerned the ongoing probe into Trump's actions following the 2020 presidential election.
Chairman Jim Jordan led the committee's interrogation, focusing on the nature and details of Wade’s discussions with the Biden administration.
Wade, who confirmed the billing details pointing to two White House meetings in 2022, has, however, stated that the invoices do not confirm the meetings' contents or specific locations.
The first meeting was reportedly billed for a conference with White House counsel on May 23rd, while the second took place on November 18th, each costing $2,000 for eight hours of consultation.
During the proceedings, Wade was pressed to confirm whether the meetings occurred as billed. His responses were vague, as he mentioned he had "no specific memory of those meetings."
Wade elaborated that while the billing was accurate, it did not necessarily reflect the actual occurrence of the meetings as documented. This lack of specific recollection raised concerns about the transparency and relevance of the interactions to the investigation.
Attorney Andrew Evans, defending Wade, suggested that his client's failure to recall details could stem from the routine nature of such governmental consultations, which might not stand out in memory if they’re procedural.
Evans highlighted the legal necessity for prosecutors to meet with government officials under certain circumstances, presumably referring to instances where Wade might have needed to interview key figures from the Trump administration, like former chief of staff Mark Meadows.
It is important to note that Trump and his allies were previously indicted on charges related to their efforts to overturn the election results in Georgia.
The legal proceedings have drawn significant public and political attention, complicating the roles of those involved in the investigation, like Wade and Willis.
The public became aware of Wade's connection with Willis, which was later argued as a potential conflict of interest by co-defendants in the Trump case. A decision by a Fulton County judge determined that Willis could continue her role in the investigation provided Wade stepped down, leading to his resignation.
During the committee examination, Wade was reminded of his billing records. He stated, "If I billed for a conf with White House counsel, this document doesn’t say that that con[g] with White House counsel happened in Athens. That’s not what that says."
This ambiguous statement pointed to the complexity of confirming the exact nature and location of the billed consultations.
Both Willis and Wade have faced accusations of leveraging their professional positions for personal gains related to the probe.
They have consistently denied these claims, asserting their integrity and accusing their critics, primarily Republicans, of attempting to disrupt the probe for political reasons. This ongoing battle underscores the charged atmosphere surrounding the legal and ethical dimensions of the investigation.
The lack of clear memory from Wade concerning these meetings, coupled with the vague and non-committal nature of available records, paints a picture of an investigation that is as politically complex as it is legally pivotal. As the case unfolds, the public and legal communities alike are left pondering the intricate balance between justice and political influence.