A tense hearing in the Georgia election interference case against Donald Trump cast a critical light on Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s office.
During the proceedings, a key employee admitted to dismissing an open records lawsuit as "frivolous" without reviewing it, leading to scrutiny of Willis’s leadership, as Law & Crime reports.
The contentious hearing took place on a Friday, continuing from a marathon session the previous day. At the heart of the testimony was Dexter Bond, the deputy of operations for the district attorney’s office, who serves as the agency’s records custodian. Bond faced tough questions from attorney Ashleigh Merchant, who represents Michael Roman, a co-defendant in the Trump RICO case. The exchange highlighted possible violations of Georgia’s Open Records Act by the D.A.’s office.
Merchant pressed Bond on whether his office had conducted proper searches for public records related to the case. She questioned why certain information regarding Nathan Wade, a former special assistant district attorney, had not been provided. Bond’s testimony revealed that he did not conduct thorough searches, believing the lawsuit to be unworthy of his attention.
"Once I saw your lawsuit and I recognized who it was from, I immediately thought that this was a frivolous lawsuit and that I needed representation," Bond stated on the stand. He later admitted, "I’m telling you I did not read the lawsuit. So, if you’re asking me a specific search for your lawsuit? I didn’t care about your lawsuit."
The plaintiffs, including Merchant, hope to eventually call District Attorney Willis to testify. While Fulton County Superior Court Judge Rachel Krause did not rule out the possibility of Willis being called, she indicated she wanted to hear from her subordinates first. The exchange between Bond and Merchant was widely discussed online after clips from the hearing were shared on social media.
The heated back-and-forth between Bond and Merchant sparked reactions from legal experts on social media. Attorney Phil Holloway criticized Willis’s leadership, sharing a clip of Bond’s testimony and commenting, "This is how #FaniWillis runs her office. Here’s her open records guy telling @AshleighMerchan they essentially hate her." Atlanta-based attorney Doug Weinstein also weighed in, praising Merchant’s patience in the face of Bond’s evasive answers.
The testimony brought to light broader concerns over how the district attorney’s office handles public records. Bond’s admission that he dismissed the lawsuit based on the identity of the filing attorney, without reviewing its contents, drew sharp criticism. His repeated reference to the lawsuit as "frivolous" prompted objections from Merchant, which were overruled by Judge Krause.
The judge did agree with Merchant that Bond appeared evasive in his answers about conducting post-lawsuit searches. Bond attempted to clarify, asking, "May you clarify the question?" and later stating that he could not provide a direct response because he had handed the lawsuit over to Fulton County for representation, believing it was not worth his time.
The hearing is part of a broader legal battle over transparency and record-keeping in the high-profile case involving Trump and several co-defendants. At issue are records related to Nathan Wade, a key figure in the case, and the D.A.’s office’s handling of the requests for information. Merchant’s questioning sought to determine whether the office had fulfilled its legal obligations under the Georgia Open Records Act.
Bond’s responses were characterized by vague recollections and a clear dismissal of the lawsuit’s validity. He explained that once he determined the lawsuit was "frivolous," he did not feel compelled to take any action, a stance that has raised eyebrows both inside and outside the courtroom. "It did not merit any work for me because of who you are and what you alleged," Bond told Merchant, adding that he had passed it off to Fulton County representation instead. Critics of Willis’s office argue that the testimony points to a broader pattern of neglect when it comes to transparency and responsiveness to public records requests.
As the hearing continues, the potential for Fani Willis herself to take the stand remains a looming possibility. Judge Krause has kept that door open, but for now, she is allowing the D.A.’s underlings to testify first. The implications of Bond’s testimony, however, may extend beyond this specific case and raise questions about the practices of the DA’s office as a whole.
As clips of the testimony continue to circulate online, the public response has been sharp, with many questioning the integrity of Willis’s office. Bond’s testimony, in particular, has become a flashpoint for criticism, with observers pointing out the potential implications for the D.A.’s conduct in other sensitive cases.
