UPDATE: (3:30 p.m. EST) Following a judges ultimatum, prosecutor Nathan Wade has resigned from the Georgia election interference case, according to legal filings.

Although the court found that the defendants failed to meet their burden of proving that the District Attorney acquired an actual conflict of interest, I am offering my resignation in the interest of democracy, in dedication to the American public, and move this case forward as quickly as possible, Wade wrote to the court.

I am proud of the work our team has accomplished in investigating, indicting, and litigating this case, he continued. Seeking justice for the people of Georgia and the United States, and being part of the effort to ensure that the rule of law and democracy are preserved, has been the honor of a lifetime.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who had admitted to a personal relationship with Wade, immediately accepted his resignation, calling him an outstanding advocate and commending him for agreeing to work on such a high-profile case.

Others who were considered were understandably concerned for the safety of themselves and their families that would arise from their acceptance of your role, Willis wrote to Wade. You were the one who had the courage to accept the role, even though you did not seek it.

PREVIOUSLY:

A Georgia judge ruled on Friday that Willis may proceed with her sprawling election interference case against former President Donald Trump after she spent weeks defending herself against corruption allegations.

However, for Willis to proceed, Judge Scott McAfee ruled that Wade, whose relationship with Willis caused the motion to dismiss the case, must remove himself from the case. If Wade does not remove himself, then Willis must be removed instead, McAfee ruled.

Willis charged Trump and more than a dozen co-defendants last year with meddling in the 2020 presidential election. While Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee dismissed a handful of the charges Wednesday, the most consequential ones remain.

The blockbuster case faced the prospect of being indefinitely delayed over allegations that Willis benefited from Wades hiring through dates, trips and meals he paid for with his public salary. But McAfee ultimately found little evidence to show such a conflict of interest.

[T]he Court finds that the evidence did not establish the District Attorneys receipt of a material financial benefit as a result of her decision to hire and engage in a romantic relationship, McAfees ruling says.

More importantly, McAfee ruled that the evidence demonstrated that the financial gain flowing from her relationship with Wade was not a motivating factor on the part of the District Attorney to indict and prosecute this case.

Over a span of weeks, McAfee heard details of Willis romantic relationship with Wade, whom she had hired as a special prosecutor to help with the Trump case.

Both Willis and Wade took the stand to defend themselves from accusations of impropriety. They maintained that while they had discreetly dated, their intimate relationship did not begin until 2022 after Willis hired Wade.

Attorneys for Trump and some of the other defendants claimed that the pair began their relationship in 2019, and thus, Willis had improperly hired a romantic partner.

Co-defendant Michael Roman, through his attorneys, initially made the accusations against Willis and Wade in an explosive January court filing arguing that Willis used Wade for her own financial gain.

This led to the challenge that Willis and Wades relationship amounted to a conflict of interest under Georgia law. Prosecutorial conflicts of interest can be found in Georgia, where a prosecutor is found to have a personal stake in the case or a financial stake in the outcome.

Romans lawyers claimed that Wade would pay for relationship-related expenses, including trips and meals, with money that came from public funds.

Willis vehemently pushed back on this allegation. In charged testimony, the district attorney said she and Wade split costs evenly, with the exception of a vacation she paid for in honor of his 50th birthday after battling cancer.

However, Willis said she did not have receipts to prove her version of events because she paid for many things in cash.

In his decision, McAfee stated that this reimbursement policy may be unusual and the lack of documentation understandably concerning, but it was ultimately corroborated by other evidence and not so incredible as to be inherently unbelievable.

While McAfee rejected the notion that Willis and Wades relationship created an actual conflict of interest that necessitated her offices dismissal from the case, he did find that the District Attorneys prosecution is encumbered by an appearance of impropriety.

If the case proceeded without any change, McAfee said, the concerns raised by the Defendants would persist. While the court did not find testimony contradicting Wade and Willis believable, an odor of mendacity remains. For that reason, either Willis or Wade must remove themselves from the case, McAfee ruled.

The District Attorney may choose to step aside, along with the whole of her office, and refer the prosecution to the Prosecuting Attorneys Council for reassignment, McAfee said. Alternatively, SADA Wade can withdraw, allowing the District Attorney, the Defendants, and the public to move forward without his presence or remuneration distracting from and potentially compromising the merits of this case.

Romans lawyers were not pleased with the decision, stating that they planned to continue pursuing means to dismiss the case.

While respecting the Courts decision, we believe that the Court did not afford appropriate significance to the prosecutorial misconduct of Willis and Wade, including the financial benefits, testifying untruthfully about when their personal relationship began, as well as Willis extrajudicial MLK church speech, where she played the race card and falsely accused the defendants and their counsel of racism, Steven Sadow, a lawyer for Roman, said in a statement. We will use all legal options available as we continue to fight to end this case, which should never have been brought in the first place.