Fani Willis’ problems are mounting. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan recently subpoenaed Fulton County DA for allegedly misusing federal grant funds and has requested relevant documents regarding the matter. This move comes in response to reports indicating that Willis terminated a whistleblower just under two months after the employee raised concerns about misconduct within the Georgia prosecutor’s office.
The lucky former staff member turned whistleblower, Amanda Timpson, revealed in audio recordings obtained by the Washington Free Beacon that Willis’s campaign aide, Michael Cuffee, intended to utilize a $488,000 federal grant meant for the creation of a Center of Youth Empowerment and Gang Prevention for purposes such as purchasing “MacBooks,” promotional items (“swag”), and travel expenses. Despite Timpson’s warnings about the specific guidelines governing the grants, Cuffee insisted that the misuse of funds was aligned with Willis’ “vision.”
During a November 2021 meeting regarding Cuffee’s decision to demote her, Timpson expressed her concerns to Willis, stating that he wanted to do things with grants that were impossible. She then told Willis that she kept telling him, “We can’t do that.” Willis acknowledged Timpson’s assessment but ultimately had seven armed investigators escort the whistleblower out of her office a few weeks later.
In a letter dated February 2, accompanying the subpoena, Chairman Jordan highlighted the relevance of congressional oversight in light of public whistleblower allegations against Willis’s office. The letter expressed serious concerns about supervising federal grant funds allocated to the office and questioned whether actions were taken to conceal any unlawful use of federal funds.
The House Judiciary Committee had previously sent three letters to Willis in August, September, and December 2023 requesting documents outlining her office’s expenditure of federal funds. Willis openly defied these requests, accusing Jordan of attempting to obstruct a Georgia criminal proceeding and making partisan misrepresentations. Jordan countered, emphasizing Congress’s jurisdiction to oversee DOJ grant programs and suggesting potential legislative reforms to prevent future abuses.
While the committee remains committed to investigating Willis’s use of federal funds in her legal actions against former President Donald Trump, Jordan indicated that the recent whistleblower allegations have prompted a prioritization of document production regarding the office’s receipt and utilization of federal funds.
The subpoena and accompanying letter also come in the wake of revelations that a bipartisan committee of Georgia legislators will investigate Willis’s alleged inappropriate romantic relationship with private attorney Nathan Wade. Wade, contracted as a special prosecutor in her “get Trump” case, is accused of using $654,000 in taxpayer-funded legal fees earned from the case to finance extravagant vacations for both himself and Willis.
A filing by defendant Michael Roman in the election fraud case first exposed Wade and Willis’ alleged relationship. Roman has filed motions seeking to dismiss the matter and disqualify Willis, Wade, and the entire DA’s office from further prosecution of the case.
According to court documents, Willis and Wade were allegedly involved in a romantic relationship before Wade was appointed a special prosecutor. The filings state that the two individuals traveled together to Napa Valley and Florida and went on a Caribbean cruise together. Wade purchased the tickets for the cruise from Norwegian and Royal Caribbean cruise lines.
During Wade’s divorce case, a judge ordered the court records to be made public, revealing further evidence of his affair with Willis. Additionally, Willis was subpoenaed to testify in the case. Willis has faced criticism for hiring Wade, who lacks prosecutorial experience. Willis has defended her hiring decision. In addition, she has accused Wade’s estranged wife of obstructing her criminal election interference case against Trump and others by attempting to question her during the couple’s divorce proceedings.
