Fulton County District Attorney’s alleged lover, special prosecutor Nathan Wade, avoided on Tuesday having to testify at a scheduled hearing in his divorce case.
A Wednesday hearing where Wade was expected to speak was canceled Tuesday after he and his wife came to a temporary financial agreement, according to the court order. The “terms and provisions” of the agreement were not filed with the court, according to the order.
“The Court has reviewed the terms and provisions of the temporary agreement entered into by and between the parties through their counsel of record and hereby approves said temporary agreement as it is just and proper in the circumstances,” the order states.
Willis allegedly awarded Wade a “lucrative” contract to work on the racketeering case against former President Donald Trump and benefited from it when he took her on vacations using the money he earned from his position, according to a motion filed in January by Trump co-defendant Michael Roman. Bank statements contained in filings for Wade’s divorce case, which showed he purchased airline tickets in Willis’ name, provided some support for these allegations.
Trump “Special Prosecutor” and alleged lover of Fulton DA #FaniWillis avoids testifying tomorrow by temporarily resolving pending financial divorce issues
The court allows the parties to NOT FILE the actual agreement and to keep that private. pic.twitter.com/RmDBmORO2F
— Phil Holloway ✈️ (@PhilHollowayEsq) January 30, 2024
Wade’s wife had alleged that he did not disclose payments from the county to her and left her without financial support through the divorce proceedings.
Last week, Cobb County Superior Court Judge Henry Thompson temporarily blocked Willis’ scheduled deposition in the divorce case, saying that he could only “make a determination” whether she had unique knowledge that would require her to testify after hearing from Wade.
Wade recently requested to reseal parts of the case containing personal and confidential information on Jan. 24 after the judge found earlier in the week that the original protective order “was not properly entered.”