BREAKING🔥 Fani Willis DISQUALIFICATION Saga - FANI's Entire Team REMOVED🚨Trumps Motion of Appeal
Summary
TLDRThe ongoing legal battle involving former President Donald Trump and his associates in Georgia continues, with a focus on the appeal to disqualify District Attorney Fannie Willis from the election interference case. Trump's defense team argues that Willis's relationship with former prosecutor Nathan Wade creates a conflict of interest, while the judge's ruling on their motion to dismiss has raised questions about the impact on the trial's future. The case also hinges on whether Trump's political speech is protected under the First Amendment, with his lawyers asserting that the charges against him aim to criminalize political speech.
Takeaways
- 📜 The Trump team is actively seeking to have the case dismissed and DA Fannie Willis removed from the Georgia 2020 election interference case.
- 🔎 A motion to dismiss charges against former President Donald Trump is under consideration by a judge in the Georgia election interference case.
- 🤝 An appeal has been filed by Trump and eight co-defendants to get DA Fannie Willis removed from the high-stakes election case, claiming her relationship with former prosecutor Nathan Wade creates a conflict of interest.
- 👨⚖️ Judge Scott McFey, who first heard the Trump team's complaint, found a significant appearance of impropriety but only required one of them (Wade) to leave the case.
- ⚖️ The Trump team is calling the decision a 'plain legal error' and is asking the Georgia Court of Appeals to intervene before any trial takes place.
- 🗣️ The defense argues that the recent withdrawal of Nathan Wade from the case does not go far enough and should have also disqualified Willis and her entire office.
- 🏛️ The case has been distracting from the underlying criminal charges, with Willis stating that the focus should be on the attempt to steal the 2020 election, not on her personal life.
- 📢 The attorneys for the former president focused on the First Amendment, arguing that Trump's alleged criminal conduct was political speech and therefore protected.
- 🤯 Prosecutors countered that the First Amendment does not provide blanket protection and that it is not unconstitutional to bring the case to trial.
- 📅 The defense attorneys' request for the state's appellate court to reconsider the disqualification ruling could have major consequences for the timeline of the case, especially with the November election in sight.
- 🔍 The credibility of the district attorney and the conduct of the case are under scrutiny, with the defense arguing that the relationship between Willis and Wade has damaged their ability to impartially prosecute the case.
Q & A
What is the main legal effort currently being undertaken by the Trump team in relation to the Georgia 2020 election interference case?
-The Trump team is appealing to have the case dismissed and is seeking to have District Attorney Fannie Willis and her entire office removed from the case.
What was the initial ruling by Judge Scott McFey regarding the complaint against DA Fannie Willis?
-Judge Scott McFey ruled that there was a significant appearance of impropriety, leading to the removal of Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade from the case, but not DA Fannie Willis herself.
What is the Trump team's argument regarding DA Fannie Willis's relationship with former prosecutor Nathan Wade?
-The Trump team argues that Willis's romantic relationship with Wade created an actual and apparent conflict of interest, which they believe damaged their ability to impartially prosecute the case.
What is the significance of the appeal to the Georgia Court of Appeals in this case?
-The decision of the Georgia Court of Appeals could have major consequences for DA Fannie Willis's stated goal of taking the case to trial before the November election.
Outlines
📚 Legal Proceedings in Georgia Election Interference Case
The paragraph discusses the ongoing legal efforts by former President Trump's team to dismiss charges against him in the Georgia 2020 election interference case. It highlights the appeal to remove District Attorney Fannie Willis from the case, alleging her relationship with former prosecutor Nathan Wade created a conflict of interest. The Trump team argues that Judge Scott McFey's decision to only disqualify Wade is insufficient and requires reversal. The paragraph also notes the distraction from the underlying criminal charges against Trump and others, who have pleaded not guilty to conspiring to overturn the election results.
🗣️ Defense Arguments and Credibility Assessments
This paragraph focuses on the defense strategies and the assessment of credibility in the courtroom. It discusses the hearings to disqualify Willis and the defense's readiness for trial, despite their belief in the innocence of their clients. The paragraph also touches on the challenges faced by a key witness, Terence Bradley, and the legal debate over whether an actual conflict of interest or just the appearance of impropriety is enough to disqualify a prosecutor. Additionally, it highlights the media interactions of the attorneys involved and the potential impact on the case's progress towards trial.
🏛️ First Amendment and Political Speech in Court
The paragraph delves into the legal arguments surrounding former President Trump's First Amendment rights, with his lawyers asserting that the charges against him are an attempt to criminalize political speech. The discussion includes the judges' considerations of whether Trump's speech is protected, the nature of political speech, and the implications of prosecuting such speech. The paragraph also addresses the defense's argument that the prosecution is politically motivated and the potential impact of the case on the upcoming November election.
📝 Analyzing Over Acts in Conspiracy Cases
This paragraph examines the role of overt acts in conspiracy cases, specifically within the context of RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) laws. It clarifies that overt acts need not be separate crimes but serve to demonstrate the operation of a conspiracy. The defense's misunderstanding of this role is highlighted, along with the argument that Trump's conduct, whether protected by the First Amendment or not, can still be part of a conspiracy case. The paragraph also discusses the expectation of an appeal regarding the disqualification of Willis and the potential outcomes of such an appeal.
🤔 Implications of the Case on Future Legal Proceedings
The paragraph briefly touches on the potential implications of the case on future legal proceedings, particularly regarding the handling of the case by DA Fannie Willis and the impact of her decision to remove her ex from the case. It suggests that the case's outcome could have broader consequences for legal practices and the interpretation of conspiracy laws.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Trump
💡Fannie Willis
💡Election Interference
💡First Amendment
💡RICO
💡Conflict of Interest
💡Disqualification
💡Overacts
💡Appearance of Impropriety
💡Political Speech
Highlights
The Trump team is appealing to have the district attorney Fannie Willis disqualified from the Georgia election interference case.
A judge is considering a motion to dismiss charges against former president Donald Trump in the Georgia 2020 election interference case.
Donald Trump and eight co-defendants filed an appeal to remove district attorney Fannie Willis from the high stakes election interference case in Georgia.
The appeal claims that Willis's romantic relationship with former prosecutor Nathan Wade created a conflict of interest.
Judge Scott McFey who first heard the Trump team's complaint saw a significant appearance of conflict.
Transcripts
this is the latest step in what has been
an exhaustive effort by the Trump team
to have the case dismissed and Willis
and her entire office removed former
president Trump is appealing a key
rolling in the Georgia election
interference case saying that the judge
was wrong in keeping the da fonnie
Willis on the case this morning a judge
is considering a motion to dismiss
charges against former president Donald
Trump in the Georgia 2020 election
interference case now we are following
the latest in the fton County district
attorney disqualification Saga even
after her lead prosecutor stepped down
Donald Trump and eight of his
codefendants filed an appeal to get
district attorney fonnie Willis removed
too from the high stakes election
interference case in Georgia the appeal
calling Willis quote utterly unrepentant
about her romantic relationship with
former prosecutor Nathan Wade once you
have the appearance of impropriety under
forensic misconduct the law in Georgia
is clear that's enough to disqualify
Judge Scott mcfey who first heard the
Trump team's complaint was unconvinced
Willis benefited financially from her
relationship with Wade but said there
was significant appearance of
impropriety and ruled only one of them
had to leave the case the Trump team now
calling that decision a quote plain
legal err requiring reversal and asking
the Georgia court of appeals to weigh in
immediately before any trial takes place
the disqualification effort has
distracted from the underlying criminal
charges at hand Willis saying is much
frustrated when she took the stand last
month you're confused you think I'm on
trial these people are on trial for
trying to steal an election in 2020 in
August Trump and 18 others were charged
with illegally conspiring to overturn
Trump's 2020 election loss in Georgia
now Trump and the other remaining
defendants pleaded not guilty to all
charges defense lawyers argued in their
brief Friday a recent ruling which led
to withdrawal of Nathan Wade from the
case didn't go far enough and should
have also disqualified Willis and her
entire office from the case they claim
that Willis romantic relationship with
Wade created an actual and apparent
conflict of interest that damaged their
ability to impartially prosecute the
case it's now up to a panel of three
appell at judges to decide whether to
accept the appeal their decision could
have major consequences for Willis
stated goal of taking the case to trial
before the November election how will
fonny's mess is the only way I know how
to put it well it's it was a
disqualification wasn't a trial but it
was a hearing how is that going to
affect Trump's case now how do they how
do they squeeze that into their argument
right just hours ago now a team of
defense attorneys formally asked the
state's Appel at court to reconsider Fon
County Superior Court Judge Scott
McAfee's disqualification ruling earlier
this month that allowed Fulton County DA
fonny Willis to remain on the case as
long as special prosecutor Nathan Wade
resigned and Wade did just that stepping
down from the case hours after McAfee
ruled earlier this month but the team of
defense lawyers argued in their brief
today that that that ruling didn't go
far enough and should have also
disqualified Willis and her entire
office from the case they claimed that
Willis's romantic relationship with Wade
created an actual and an apparent
conflict of interest that damaged their
ability to impartially prosecute the
case former Gwynette County district
attorney Danny Porter says it's now up
to a panel of three appell at judges to
decide whether to accept that appeal and
their decision could have major
consequences for Willis's stated goal of
taking the case to trial before the
November election so in court yesterday
attorneys for the former president
focused on the First Amendment arguing
Mr Trump's alleged criminal conduct was
political speech and therefore protect
it prosecutors countered saying the
First Amendment does not give someone
blanket
protection it's unconstitutional the
force and accused be it the president of
the United stat former president or
anyone else to stand trial on protected
speech to say we can't mention this
particular act or this particular
conduct because it's not a crime or it's
protected by the First Amendment the
answer to that is actually so what
former president Trump was not the only
defendant with an attorney in the
courtroom yesterday an attorney for a
former State GOP chairman David Schaefer
was also in court arguing to dismiss
charges and Judge Scott McAfee he didn't
rule on any of those motions argued in
front of him yesterday so we're going to
be watching in the coming days to see
what he decides of all the attorneys
were representing the 15 remaining
codefendants in the Georgia election
interference case Ashley Merchant has
become one of the most prominent
Merchants profile skyrocketed in January
when she alleged district attorney
fonnie Willis had a personal
relationship with Nathan Wade a special
prosecutor Willis hired you have said we
are ready to go if this were to be Tri
tomorrow do you think your client would
be acquitted um I do not think the state
can prove these charges I think my
client's innocent um I we were ready to
go to trial and I I think it would be a
very favorable outcome the hearings to
disqualify Willis were closely watched
one of the most memorable moments was
when Willis entered the courtroom I'm so
curious about how you felt about
everything that was happening in that
moment yes I was surprised because at
the same time she walked in her lawyer
is literally arguing and had been
arguing just vehemently arguing to quash
her subpoena that that you know the that
was literally the last thing they wanted
was her on the witness stand it is a it
is a when when Willis was was calling me
a liar at that point I'd been called a
liar so many times that day I think I
was sort of numb to it um but I could
tell that she had a lot of things that
she needed to say yeah so I wonder if
you feel as if this process has impacted
her credibility oh definitely I mean I I
definitely think it has
and that's one of the things that people
don't necessarily understand is that
when you're in a courtroom you are
judging people's credibility that's what
happens on the witness stand and that's
what a trial is that's what a hearing is
judging The witness's credibility and
everybody got to see that firsthand So
speaking about credibility Terence
Bradley was supposed to be your star
witness he became a very reluctant
witness he did not freely want to
corroborate some of the allegations that
you wanted to prove did you not do a
good enough job of properly vetting par
Bradley I don't think it was an issue of
properly vetting him it was unfortunate
how he ended up testifying I wish he had
been able to give more details um like
he had given me previously but I
understand I mean I think he was scared
the judge said that offense the
attorneys like yourself who represent
that offense did not meet the burden for
proving right an actual conflict here
what will you differently to convince
the Georgia court of appeals otherwise
there was a lot of argument back and
forth if you have to prove an actual
conflict or if the appearance is enough
so we'll be arguing that legal point but
also he made a lot of factual findings
in his order that I think support that
there was an actual conflict the
district attorney has been criticized
for outof court statements um you are
now speaking with members of the media
are you concerned that you two could
potentially cross a line of making out
of court statements that are
inappropriate in the eyes of the Court
no I'm not concerned at all about that
and the reason is once the prosecutor
puts that out there we actually have a
duty to respond to that in my opinion
Merchant also talked about her previous
relationship with both Willis and Wade I
think it's important to know that I've
been longtime friends with both of these
prosecutors so you know that was
surprising because they know me and so
for them to make those types of
allegations was extremely surprising we
asked what impact her attempt to
disqualify Willis could have on the
other codefendants I look at my case and
I get my case and I don't look at
anything else so you know I'm very
focused hyperfocused on my case and my
defendant so I haven't analyzed all the
other defendants um but what I can say
is if it does result in anybody who
shouldn't be free going free that is no
fault other than the states how do you
think Jud Scott mcafe is handling this
case I think he has run this case very
well um you know and when I when people
ask lawyers all the time their opinions
on judges I want a judge that follows
the law and I want a judge that's
courteous and efficient I mean that's
that's really what I want um and I think
that he's done that how will fonny's
mess is the only way I know how to put
it well it's it was a disqualification
it wasn't a trial but it was a hearing
how is that going to affect Trump's case
now how do they how do they squeeze that
into their
argument well I think it's a separate
argument that's being made and now
litigated on appeal and I you know I
think the appell court may look dimly on
the misbehavior the misconduct of fonnie
Willis it makes no sense that they she
and Nathan Wade her lover both engaged
in in the same improper conduct that
violates the Cannons of Ethics yet only
one gets disqualified and the other
remains I mean that makes no sense so
that will be litigated on appeal
separately I see I see all right but it
is Rico I mean I know AOC says Rico is
not a crime but it is a crime it's a
very complex crime to prosecute
and in order to get everything together
you have to have really top e top legal
advisers to help you through the case
clearly Nathan Wade was not one such
person so much so little did he know
about the whole thing that he had these
meetings at the White House what more do
we need to know about those White House
meetings who was talking to him and were
they actually giving him advice of how
to carry out a RICO
case you know fonny Willis is claimed
this is not a politically motivated
prosecution there was no coordination
with the white house or the Biden
campaign that's undermined by the
billing records of Nathan Wade he
charged 16 hours two meetings eight
hours each with the white house nobody's
answered that question uh and you know I
think from a political standpoint much
less a legal one uh Americans deserve
the answer was this entire prosecution
coordinated uh with Donald Trump's
political opponent you know don't forget
it was Joe Biden who urged that Trump be
prosecuted right he told it to a bunch
of AIDS and upon instructions they
leaked it to the media and overnight
merri Garland his attorney general got
his marching orders and the prosecutions
of trump began yeah so this is a
president who's incumbent who realizes
his polls are in the toilet
and he decided laware might be the best
way to get rid of his opponent Donald
Trump a judge in Georgia heard arguments
over whether former president Donald
Trump's speech was protected by his
first amendment rights the hearing is
part of former president the former
president's election interference case
Trump's lawyers argued that the charges
against him are an effort to criminalize
they say political speech all right
thank you Mr Floyd all right Mr I'll
give you a couple minutes uh final word
thank you sir
if I heard what Mr Floyd just
said that if everything president
Trump said was assumed true and included
in the RICO
indictment and therefore now we're
talking about true political speech not
alleged false he could still be
prosecuted for the violation of
Rico but the over acts as alleged
let's say even the
overa um ran a foul the First Amendment
he's saying that wouldn't be fatal to
count one because at that point if if
they if there could be some other thing
they prove that's not alleged as an over
act okay that that may as I understand
it as As I understood it as
well but what I'm suggesting is if all
of the overt acts are nothing more than
core political speech or Express conduct
and nothing else is alleged which is not
protected by the First Amendment then
you have an insufficient basis for which
he has been indicted because he's being
indicted for First Amendment uh Speech
and not for unprotected speech and
therefore statement that was made about
if it were true we could still use it as
an overt act uh suggest that they can
prosecute true speech um which is what
we're trying to get to here it's the
nature of the speech the political
speech the heightened value of such
which gets this situation different than
others and the fact that it comes from
then president of the United
States going back to what was said in
addition by the state what the state
claims is Criminal here is lying to the
government that's what it
said that's the exact reason why in
several of the Supreme Court cases it's
been found to be protected speech
because it deals with the government and
falsity in the in sense of communication
U with or to the government is best
dealt with through true speech not
through prosecutions in because
prosecutions chill speech and when it
comes to political core speech what you
don't want is chilled I use um
fortunately I have a a co-counsel that
is able to pull things up and and help
me inform the court uh till the computer
shuts down uh and looking at what Haley
says just to give you an idea of how the
Georgia Court the Supreme Court might
look at this there's a quote from Haley
and it says while there is no
constitutional value in false statements
of fact such erroneous statements are
nevertheless inevitable in free debate
and Punishment of error runs the risk of
inducing a cautious and restrictive
exercise of the constitutionally
guaranteed freedoms of speech and press
accordingly the first amendment requires
that we protect some falsehood in order
to protect speech that matters and I
think that's what we're talking about
here to end this and again we're
focusing on um president Trump's conduct
at at the time that he in fact is the
head of the Executive
Branch
cided also in Alvarez bottom line here
is this but for protected First
Amendment
speech president Trump would not be
charged in Rico or the other counts take
out the protected speech and you don't
have an underlying basis for which to
charge him and since that violates
Constitution as applied to the charges
here and his speech here and his
position here this is right for a
constitutional challenge one step
further if it's not right now and we get
into intent when does the court
determine that do you determine that
after we have a
trial I think it would be the directed
verdict stage but would it that's a
sufficiency of evidence with all
inferences yeah in favor of the that's a
whole question I mean do we go through
the whole trial God forbid there should
be a conviction and then we go back to
try and determine as applied uh I'm
suggesting the reason it's right now and
the reason why we don't even get to a
trial is because it's unconstitutional
to force and accused be it the president
of the United stat former president or
anyone else to stand trial on protected
speech um and I think that's what