On the day after Valentine’s Day, the judge presiding over the Georgia election interference case against former President Donald Trump and 18 of his co-defendants will hold an evidentiary hearing to help determine whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (and her entire office) will be disqualified due to her romantic life allegedly creating a conflict of interest.

While it’s understandable that Judge Scott McAfee wants an evidentiary hearing to ensure he has all the facts before him prior to ruling, the hearing is unlikely to yield any enlightening evidence—because the premise of the motion is so deeply flawed.

Trump co-defendant Michael Roman—who oversaw a Koch brothers network research unit before working as a Trump campaign aide and in the Trump White House—seeks to disqualify Willis on the theory that her romantic relationship with a special prosecutor she hired, Nathan Wade, creates a conflict of interest for her in prosecuting the case.

Much media focus has breathlessly characterized the judge’s decision to hold a hearing as a signal the judge is leaning towards disqualification. That’s wrong. Let’s start with the fact that McAfee set clear limits about what the hearing is about.

First, despite the salacious focus of Roman’s legal team, the hearing is not about Willis’ romantic relationship with Nathan Wade. Given that Willis submitted pleadings in which the existence of a personal relationship that developed after Wade was hired, Judge McAfee rightly said the existence of a personal relationship is not at issue—and the only relevance of that relationship is the question of whether it creates an actual conflict of interest or the appearance of one.

Fulton........

© The Daily Beast