Willis’ Withholding of Documents
When Willis finally acknowledged the existence of records, she quickly asserted that nearly all of them (except one letter to Committee Chairman Benny Thompson) were exempt from disclosure. While Georgia’s ORA and various other statutes provide exemptions for specific circumstances—such as ongoing investigations, privacy concerns, and privileged communications—the abruptness and timing of Willis’ revelation have raised eyebrows.
Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch, stated:
“Fani Willis flouted the law, and the court is right to slam her and require, at a minimum, the payment of nearly $22,000 to Judicial Watch. But in the end, Judicial Watch wants the full truth on what she was hiding—her office’s political collusion with the Pelosi January 6 Committee to ‘get Trump.’”
Broader Context – Investigations Targeting Trump
Judicial Watch is no stranger to legal battles related to investigations involving Donald Trump:
- FOIA Suits Over Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Office: The DOJ has resisted releasing the names of top officials in Smith’s unit targeting Trump, citing potential interference with enforcement proceedings.
- Fulton County, Georgia, Hiring of Special Prosecutor: Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit in January 2024 seeking details on Nathan Wade’s role as a special prosecutor under Willis in the 2020 election dispute probe.
- Funding for Trump Investigation: Another Judicial Watch lawsuit focuses on communications between the DOJ and Willis’ office regarding possible federal funds or assistance.
- New York DA Alvin Bragg’s Hiring of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher: Through a separate records request, Judicial Watch uncovered that Alvin Bragg paid outside counsel at premium rates to sue Rep. Jim Jordan, an attempt to forestall congressional oversight of Trump’s indictment.
All these legal maneuvers coalesce into a larger narrative about prosecutorial transparency, the bounds of investigative authority, and the public’s right to scrutinize public officials.
Fani Willis’ response to Judicial Watch’s motion for a special master is due on January 16, 2025. It remains to be seen whether she will consent to the oversight or continue to challenge the appointment. Meanwhile, the $21,578 penalty stands as a cautionary tale for any official ignoring or delaying compliance with open records laws.
The message is clear: transparent governance is not a suggestion but a legal requirement, and evasion or delay can carry a hefty price tag.
