by R. Cort Kirkwood, The New American:
A breach of legal ethics and lapse in judgment weren’t enough to disqualify Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis from continuing to prosecute Donald Trump for “election interference.”
While county Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee did not disqualify Willis, he clearly said mischief was afoot in her hiring boyfriend Nathan Wade to help prosecute Trump and other defendants.
Liberal legal analyst Jonathan Turley says McAfee’s “damning opinion” means that Willis is ethically bound to step down.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
The NY Post is out with my column on today’s ruling by Judge McAfee. It is, of course, not too later for Willis to put the interests of her office before her own. She can step aside. Her remaining in the case will continue to undermine her office…https://t.co/BqoXgt2Wws
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 15, 2024
The Decision
McAfee conceded that Willis and Wade were romantically involved and traveled the world together, a key allegation from the defendants, with Willis reimbursing Wade in cash.
But the unusual arrangement between the pair is less important than what the evidence showed: 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.”
As well, McAfee wrote, “defendants argue that the financial arrangement created an incentive to prolong the case, but in fact, there is no indication the District Attorney is interested in delaying anything.”
But the nut of McAfee’s opinion is that he simply cannot disqualify Willis for what amounts to being stupid or shady:
Without sufficient evidence that the District Attorney acquired a personal stake in the prosecution, or that her financial arrangements had any impact on the case, the Defendants’ claims of an actual conflict must be denied. 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. Rather, it is the undersigned’s opinion that Georgia law does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices — even repeatedly — and it is the trial court’s duty to confine itself to the relevant issues and applicable law properly brought before it.
McAfee addressed the Willis-Wade link in detail, and wrote that Wade was “unpersuasive” in his testimony about his divorce and affair with Willis.
Willis paid and supervised Wade while they were involved romantically, McAfee found, and the exchange of money “raises the possibility and appearance that the District Attorney benefited — albeit non-materially — from a contract whose award lay solely within her purview and policing. … An outsider could reasonably think that the District Attorney is not exercising her independent professional judgment totally free of any compromising influences. As long as Wade remains on the case, this unnecessary perception will persist.”
Such was the testimony at the hearings that “an odor of mendacity remains.”
Read More @ TheNewAmerican.com
