In a significant win for President Trump, a Georgia state court ordered Fulton County DA Fani Willis to search for more records in her case against President Donald Trump, citing inadequate prior information. The decision follows Judicial Watch’s pursuit of communications between Willis’ office, the Jan. 6 committee, and Jack Smith’s team.
For context, Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch criticized Willis, claiming improper coordination with federal entities that undermined the credibility of her case. In its decision, the court highlighted significant omissions in the searches of devices belonging to key investigators.
Speaking about the situation, Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, stated, “The lawsuit is about any collusion and collaboration with Congress and the Justice Department, Jack Smith, and we haven’t seen the documents, but they show that there has been because their very existence shows that they were talking to them.”
Speaking about the major crisis of confidence in this investigation at the center of the scandal, he announced, “Look, if Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff are running this investigation, you can be darn sure it’s not credible.”
Willis has faced numerous significant legal setbacks. As we reported, another court ordered Fulton County DA Fani Willis to pay over $54,000 in attorney fees and expenses to Ashleigh Merchant, representing Trump aide Michael Roman, for violating the Georgia Open Records Act (ORA). The ruling requires Willis to release the requested public records and pay $54,103.23 in legal costs.
The court ruling stated, “Defendants have never asserted that the records sought were not public records or were exempted in some manner from ORA. Therefore, the only remaining issue for the evidentiary hearing was to determine whether Defendants had substantially complied with the obligations of the ORA.”
Explaining the specifics of this law, the ruling revealed, “Under the ORA, an agency or custodian of public records has three business days, upon receipt of an ORA request, to determine whether and how to produce or permit copying and inspection of the requested records. O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70(f). Within those three days, the custodian must either produce or provide access to the records, propose a timetable for doing so, or ‘specify in writing the specific legal authority exempting such… records from disclosure’ . . . If the custodian fails to affirmatively respond to an open records request within three business days, by notifying the requesting party of the determination as to whether access will be granted, the ORA has been violated.”
"*" indicates required fields
Offering another example of how the law was violated, the judges noted, “In response to some of Plaintiffs open records requests, Defendants acknowledged their receipt of the requests, but there is no dispute Defendants did not advise Plaintiff affirmatively within three business days (for any of Plaintiffs ORA requests) whether any records would be made available. Thus, Defendants failed to comply with O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70(f) and violated the ORA.”
Concluding the document with an epic rebuke of Willis, the court wrote, “Further, based on the evidence offered at the hearing and the record as a whole, Defendants’ failure to comply was not substantially justified, and Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 50-18-73(b).”