On Friday, Georgia Judge Scott McAfee rejected a motion to disqualify Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis from prosecuting Donald Trump and other defendants in her 2020 election interference case. Within hours, Nathan Wade, one of Willis’ three special prosecutors and her romantic partner, resigned from the case, as the decision essentially compelled him to do.
McAfee was unsparing in his criticism of Willis and Wade’s testimony and of their serious lapses of judgment. But what matters most in McAfee’s decision is what it shows about his devotion to legal principles, not what it means for Willis and Wade.
Indeed, if anyone needs evidence of the rule of law’s powerful force, look no further than Judge McAfee’s exemplary 26-page decision.
After hearing two and a half days of testimony, the judge did what the law required and ruled “that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of proving that the District Attorney acquired an actual conflict of interest in this case through her personal relationship and recurring travels with her lead prosecutor.”
The court went on to recognize, however, that the record established an appearance of impropriety. That required, the court said, that Willis had to let Wade go as a special prosecutor if she wanted to continue prosecuting the case.
Related
By giving Willis an option, the court did more than what judges often do in “splitting the baby.” In fact, metaphorically speaking, he saved the baby – the case against Trump – and "the mother" from herself. He told Willis to do what she should have done long ago without any push from a court.
Here are five key takeaways from McAfee’s decision.
1. The sideshow is gone. The allegations of a conflict of interest on Willis’s part were always meant as distractions – Trump’s brand –........