Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is standing firm against the latest attempt by former President Donald Trump and his co-defendants to disqualify her entire office from prosecuting the election subversion case in Georgia. Willis has filed a court document asking the Georgia Court of Appeals to uphold the ruling that allowed her to remain on the case after her top prosecutor, Nathan Wade, resigned following a judge's decision.
Willis argued that there was no conflict of interest and that her comments about race playing a role in criticism of her office did not amount to misconduct requiring disqualification. The district attorney's office emphasized that there was no evidence of calculated pre-trial misconduct to prejudice the defendants.
Trump and his co-defendants have been pushing for Willis' disqualification, citing a romantic relationship between Willis and Wade as a conflict of interest. However, Willis remains focused on moving forward with the criminal case and aims to put Trump and his co-defendants on trial before the November presidential election.
The Georgia Court of Appeals is now tasked with deciding whether to review the decision not to disqualify Willis and her office. The ongoing legal battle does not halt the prosecution process, which is continuing as scheduled.
Meanwhile, Trump is also seeking a review of a judge's refusal to dismiss the indictment on First Amendment grounds, arguing that his efforts to challenge the 2020 election results are protected political speech. The defense attorneys have presented their arguments, citing legal precedents and historical cases to support their position.
For Trump's appeal to proceed, approval from the judge overseeing the case is required, followed by a decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals on whether to consider the matter further.
As the legal proceedings unfold, Willis remains committed to pursuing the case against Trump and his co-defendants, with a trial date for the racketeering case yet to be scheduled.
Prosecutors have refrained from commenting on the ongoing developments, maintaining that the free speech issue should be addressed by a jury during the trial.
