On Friday, March 15, 2024, The Hill reported that Trump’s lawyer criticized a Georgia judge’s decision in the former president’s election interference case.

The case involves claims that Donald Trump improperly attempted to influence Georgia officials to overturn his electoral defeat in the 2020 election. Trump and other defendants have sought to remove District Attorney Fani Willis from overseeing the prosecution, citing her past romantic relationship with a special prosecutor on the case, Nathan Wade.

Judge Scott McAfee ruled that the relationship between Willis and Wade posed a perceived conflict of interest. However, the judge found that the prosecution could continue if either Willis or Wade removed themselves from the case. This ruling was a middle-ground option between removing the whole district attorney’s office versus letting the prosecution proceed as is.

Trump’s attorney, Steve Sadow, argued the judge did not go far enough. Sadow claimed the judge understated the “prosecutorial misconduct” of Willis and Wade, including financial benefits they received and untruthful testimony about when their relationship began.

Sadow also criticized comments Willis made in a church speech where she allegedly “played the race card” against Trump and his legal team. Going forward, Sadow said Trump’s defense will “use all legal options” to end the case, which he believes should never have been initiated.

The prosecution delays stem from defense efforts to prove Willis inappropriately hired Wade as a special prosecutor and subsequently took luxurious vacations with him, raising conflicts. Judge McAfee noted reasonable people could question if financial exchanges between Willis and Wade continued or if their romantic relationship resumed.

Unless Wade withdraws from the case, the judge warned outsiders may doubt the independence of the district attorney’s judgment. However, the ruling did not fully side with Trump’s demand to remove the whole district attorney’s office.

Another defense lawyer in the case expressed being “disappointed” in the limited nature of the decision. With appeals expected, the legal battles over the prosecution’s impartiality are likely to continue dragging out the high-profile case.



Source: The Hill