Judge's ruling allowing Fani T. Willis to continue in Georgia election interference case against Donald Trump is a victory for the Fulton County district attorney, and if it does happen, what a loss it would be. I shudder when I think about it.
Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee's decision allows Willis to continue leading the case, provided that lead prosecutor Nathan Wade, with whom Willis had a romantic relationship, stands aside. This conclusion, based on the finding that the couple's romantic and financial entanglements created “an appearance of serious misconduct,” seems a sensible conclusion.
Trump supporters will rant, but the evidence in the Willis v. Wade case calls for the disbarment of Willis and his entire firm, or the consequent relocation and possible shelving of the case against Trump and numerous co-defendants. It didn't reach the level.
Still, Mr. McAfee's findings were nothing short of humiliating for Mr. Willis, who had previously worked with him. The episode has tarnished her reputation and leaves open the possibility of sanctions by the Georgia Ethics Commission, the state attorney and others, as McAfee suggested in her sentencing.
Follow this author Ruth Marcus Opinions
The main point of the complaint against Willis, filed by defendant Mike Roman and joined by Trump, is that Willis profited from hiring Wade because Wade paid for several vacations they took together. It was said that it was. Mr. Willis and Mr. Wade said they “roughly” split the costs, and Mr. Willis repaid them in cash. McAfee called the claim “insanely implausible.” That's not the kind of rousing support a prosecutor would want to hear from the judge overseeing the biggest case of her career.
McAfee was just getting started.
He said there was no evidence that Willis “made any financial plans to enrich himself (or to curry favor with Wade).” Then he unloaded his load. He called the relationship a “gross error in judgment.” He criticized the “unprofessional manner” of Willis' combative testimony on the matter. “Georgia law does not allow a finding of an actual dispute simply for making a wrong choice, even if it is made repeatedly,” he said.
McAfee then turned to the nature of the conflict and the related question of when Willis and Wade's relationship began. Was it before she hired him, or after he joined the company, as they both testified? Here, McAfee correctly assesses that he does not prove the defendant's claim that the romance came first. However, he also correctly cited the “smell of deception'' surrounding this issue.
“The district attorney and her hand-picked leads. [prosecutor] The false testimony about the timing of the relationship further confirms the need to make reasonable efforts to identify and correct misconduct. ”
Please wait a moment to understand that. McAfee goes beyond implying that there is “reasonable doubt” as to whether Willis lied under oath.
Similarly, Mr. McAfee cited Mr. Wade's “patently unconvincing explanation of the inaccurate cross-examination he submitted in the pending divorce.” In a written response to questions from his wife's lawyers in their divorce case last May, Wade said he had sexual relationships with others during their marriage, including while they were separated and “to this day.” He denied having any relationship. However, at a hearing before McAfee, Wade admitted that he had previously had a sexual relationship with Willis. In his response to cross-examination, he claimed that by then his marriage had been “irretrievably broken down” and defended his false statements to the contrary. McAfee properly tasked him and said his reaction “demonstrates a willingness on his part to improperly conceal his relationship with the District Attorney.”
Finally, Mr. McAfee turned to Mr. Willis' speech at Big Bethel AME Church in Atlanta on January 14, the day before Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and expressed his concern for hiring Mr. Wade. He accused anonymous critics of “playing the race card” by backing his decision. , Who are the black people? “The effect of this speech was to cast a racial slur on the accused defendant's decision to file this pretrial motion,” McAfee said. He said that while this “doesn't cross the line to the point where the defendant is basically denied the opportunity for a fair trial,” it is “still legally inappropriate.”
McAfee, who is only 34 years old and just joined the bench, will likely face criticism from both sides. He led a chapter of the College Republicans and joined the conservative Federalist Society in law school. He and his wife also contributed to Mr. Willis' campaign. Watching him in the courtroom, I was impressed by his calm demeanor amid courtroom shenanigans, including a heated exchange between Willis and defense attorney Ashley Merchant, but also by his ability to keep the evidentiary hearing from dragging out. I was also irritated by his attitude.
In Friday's opinion, it's right in the middle. Willis will likely stay, but it's hard to imagine a more shocking victory.