The Georgia judge overseeing Donald Trump’s criminal case over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election in the state on Friday declined to remove Fani Willis, the Fulton county district attorney, from leading the prosecution, finding there was no conflict of interest stemming from her romantic relationship with her top deputy.
But the judge, Scott McAfee, ruled the relationship had the “appearance of impropriety” and gave Willis a choice: either she could step down, or the deputy, special prosecutor Nathan Wade, could do so. Wade resigned just hours later.
Nonetheless, the prosecution against Trump will be one that is deeply politically damaged, especially due to the scathing criticism of her by McAfee.
Here are the top takeaways from the 23-page ruling:
Willis can continue with the prosecution
The principal result of the judge’s decision is that Willis can stay on the case, along with her other top deputies and line attorneys who have lived and breathed the Trump Rico case for years as they combed through the evidence and presented the evidence to the grand jury.
There had been no showing that the Willis-Wade relationship violated the Trump defendants’ rights or hurt them in any way, the judge wrote, and disqualifying Willis was unnecessary when she could simply have Wade step down.
The fear with this disqualification motion brought by Trump’s co-defendant Mike Roman was that if Willis was removed, it would also disqualify her entire office and have the case referred to a council of prosecutors which, in theory, could have seen the end of the case.
But that is not happening. In many ways, the judge gave Willis a straightforward choice in a balanced opinion. There were two ways to cure the appearance of impropriety – either Willis went or Wade went – and the judge left it up to Willis to decide how to set things straight.
No financial gain as alleged by Trump
“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,” McAfee wrote.
That finding was notable because the whole theory of the conflict of interest allegation, as put forward by the Trump defendants, was that Willis was involved in some kickback scheme whereby her relationship with Wade meant she was obtaining an unlawful benefit.
And while the judge wrote that Willis’s claim that she and Willis reimbursed each other for personal expenses was unusual and understandably concerning, the evidence did not show it was so incredible that it was inherently unbelievable.
after newsletter promotion
Brutal criticism for Willis
“This finding is by no means an indication that the court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment or the unprofessional manner of the district attorney’s testimony during the evidentiary hearing,” McAfee wrote.
Although the judge found the evidence was insufficient to disqualify her from bringing the case, he was unsparing in his deep criticism of the way that Willis so casually handled the relationship and the manner of her testimony on the witness stand.
The Wade-Willis relationship still amounted to such a fatal appearance of impropriety that one of the pair needed to resign even if no actual conflict of interest existed, the judge wrote, making clear the commingling of personal and professional relations was untenable.
Willis may face a gag order
“The court cannot find that this speech crossed the line to the point where the defendants have been denied the opportunity for a fundamentally fair trial, or that it requires the district attorney’s disqualification. But it was still legally improper,” McAfee wrote.
Trump’s lawyer, Steve Sadow, had additionally asked the judge to remove Willis because of a speech she gave that complained vaguely about the disqualification motion, decrying the use of the “the race card” – which Sadow argued inflamed racial animus inappropriately.
While the judge found Willis’s remarks did not amount to trying the case in public, he condemned the speech and suggested he might be prepared to issue a gag order against the district attorney’s office to prevent further public commentary.
Source: US Politics - theguardian.com
