Lawyers representing former President Donald Trump and seven co-defendants in the Georgia election interference case have initiated a legal maneuver to challenge a Georgia judge’s ruling regarding Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.
The move comes after Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee’s decision last Friday, in which he permitted Willis to remain as the prosecutor in the racketeering case against Trump, contingent upon the resignation of Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor appointed by Willis. Wade complied with this directive by resigning later that day.
Trump’s legal team, along with the co-defendants, had leveled accusations of misconduct against both Willis and Wade. They alleged that Willis had a financial interest stemming from a past romantic relationship with Wade, citing instances such as joint vacations taken while they worked on the case together. While McAfee found no direct conflict of interest, he determined that either Willis and her office or Wade needed to step aside due to the “appearance of impropriety.”
In response, Trump and his co-defendants have lodged a formal request, contending that Wade’s resignation alone does not rectify the perceived impropriety highlighted by McAfee. They argue that the issue warrants further scrutiny and should be adjudicated by the state Court of Appeals.
Steve Sadow, Trump’s attorney, underscored the significance of McAfee’s ruling, characterizing it as ripe for immediate appellate review. Sadow emphasized McAfee’s acknowledgment of an “appearance of impropriety” and a lingering “odor of mendacity” within the case, while also expressing dissatisfaction with the judge’s decision not to dismiss the case or disqualify Willis.
Given the procedural limitations on directly appealing McAfee’s decision at this stage, the defendants have petitioned the judge to authorize a “certificate of immediate review.” This procedural step would elevate the matter to an appeals court for further deliberation.
The legal maneuvering underscores the contentious nature of the case, which has significant implications for both the individuals involved and the broader political landscape.
