The House Judiciary Committee is facing unexpected challenges in locating Nathan Wade to serve him a subpoena in their ongoing investigation into Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. This unusual development is causing concerns about increased taxpayer spending and complications in the Committee’s probe.
The Daily Caller reported that the Judiciary Committee has been unable to find Wade, who is seen as a crucial figure in the investigation. The Committee seeks his testimony as part of its inquiry into the actions of Fani Willis, who has been involved in a high-profile case regarding election interference by former President Donald Trump.
Wade’s involvement in the case stems from his previous position, from which a judge ordered him to step down in March 2024, allowing Willis to continue her work on the Trump investigation.
What makes this situation particularly notable is the difficulty the Committee has faced in locating Wade. According to Russell Dye, a spokesperson for the House Judiciary Committee, it is “extremely unusual” for the Committee to encounter such trouble in serving subpoenas.
In fact, over 100 subpoenas have been issued by Congress, largely without controversy or the need to employ U.S. Marshals.
With Wade evading the subpoena, the Committee is now facing the possibility of having to use taxpayer money to find him.
This could include hiring a private investigator or sending a staff member to track down his location. Dye has emphasized that Wade’s refusal to comply is an anomaly and that it will require additional efforts to ensure his testimony is obtained.
Wade’s failure to respond or cooperate with the Committee is creating both financial and procedural headaches. The Committee’s primary concern is securing Wade’s input in its investigation into Willis’s handling of the Trump case, a probe that has already raised eyebrows due to allegations of misuse of federal funds by the district attorney.
Earlier this year, in February 2024, the Committee issued a subpoena to Willis herself. That subpoena requested documents tied to her alleged misuse of federal funds.
However, Willis did not comply with the email service of the subpoena, forcing the Committee to call in U.S. Marshals to deliver it. This precedent suggests that the Committee may have to resort to similar measures to serve Wade.
Wade’s connection to the Willis investigation has drawn even more attention because of previous controversies involving the district attorney.
Contracts obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) revealed that Willis awarded Wade a contract with higher pay than Georgia’s top expert in racketeering. This discrepancy in pay has added fuel to the Committee’s investigation into her office’s actions.
Further complicating the picture, Willis has previously ignored a subpoena from the Georgia state senate. On September 13, 2024, Willis was expected to attend a legislative conference in Washington, D.C., and failed to respond to the state senate’s request for her appearance. These actions have led some lawmakers to question her commitment to accountability and transparency.
Despite the growing controversy and mounting questions, Nathan Wade has remained silent. He has not responded to any requests for comment from either the Committee or the press.
His lack of communication has only heightened the concerns of the Judiciary Committee, which is now forced to consider alternative means of locating and compelling him to testify.
The challenge of serving a subpoena to Wade is not only uncommon but has introduced significant delays in the Committee’s work.
Dye stated that the Committee’s experience with issuing subpoenas has been largely smooth, with minimal pushback or need for enforcement measures. However, Wade’s evasion is proving to be a unique obstacle.
With more than 100 subpoenas already successfully served during this session of Congress, the trouble with Wade’s case stands out. The Committee’s frustration is palpable as it grapples with how to move forward in light of this roadblock.
Should the Committee decide to pursue Wade using taxpayer funds, it could lead to public scrutiny of the costs associated with the investigation. Given the already contentious nature of the probe into Willis and her actions, the additional expenses could spark further debate about the legitimacy and necessity of the Committee’s work.
If Wade continues to avoid the subpoena, the Committee may resort to more extreme measures to secure his testimony.
While it is not typical for private investigators to be hired for such purposes, the unique nature of Wade’s evasion may require this step.
The Committee is also considering the possibility of sending staff members to physically track down Wade, though this would also incur additional costs. The goal is to bring Wade in to provide testimony that could be critical in the Committee’s assessment of Willis’s actions.
At this point, it remains unclear what strategy the Committee will pursue. However, it is evident that the situation has escalated beyond a simple case of subpoena service, becoming a matter of financial and procedural complexity.
