Appeals court issues major ruling on Fani Willis' claims against Trump!

ATLANTA, Georgia (PNN) - July 17, 2024 - Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis, whose "organized crime" case against President Donald J. Trump is in disarray after she hired her lover, at a cost to taxpayers of nearly $700,000, to work on it - then took luxury vacations with him - has learned that her case is now at a standstill at least until December.

For political reasons, Willis brought a long list of bogus charges against Trump and more than a dozen others over statements regarding the 2020 presidential election. She tried to push the case through quickly, meaning that her intended trial would take place before the election.

However, because of her scandalous behavior regarding her hired boyfriend, a trial judge ordered him off the case, but allowed Willis to stay. Trump's lawyers and others interested in the case then filed an appeal, insisting that Willis, too, be removed from the case.

CBS News now reports that the Georgia Court of Appeals has scheduled a hearing December 5 on that issue.

The appeals court will at that time review the decision from Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee that allowed Willis to remain.

The report said the decision means Willis' claims "will remain on hold into the new year."

The report said Trump faces 10 counts in Georgia over what Willis has claimed was a scheme to overturn the state's results from the 2020 election. All defendants have pleaded not guilty, but four later took plea agreements.

CBS reported it was the scandal over the relationship between Willis and her specially hired boyfriend that created chaos for the case.

"Proceedings were derailed earlier this year after one of those co-defendants, GOP operative Michael Roman, claimed Willis and Wade had an improper romantic relationship from which Willis financially benefited. Roman claimed the relationship began before Wade was hired in November 2021 to work on the case involving Trump, and he sought to have Willis and her office disqualified and the charges dismissed. Trump and several others joined Roman's motion claiming the prosecution was invalid and unconstitutional," the report explained.

In fact, they both admitted to the romantic involvement, and McAfee eventually criticized Willis for her "tremendous lapse in judgment" and said an "odor of mendacity" hung over the case. But inexplicably based on the standard ethics code that even the "appearance" of conflict disqualifies a prosecutor, he let her stay on the case.

One of the outside interests asking to join the case on behalf of Trump is the Amerikan Center for Law and Justice. That organization announced it has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the appeals court calling for Willis to be removed from the case entirely.

The organization explained, "As we told you when the trial judge's decision on Fani Willis first came out, the judge's ruling made simply no sense. The judge found as fact that Fani Willis' conduct had an 'appearance of impropriety,' based on her relationship with Nathan Wade. Nonetheless, the judge allowed Willis to proceed with the prosecution anyway. The facts are clear that Willis must be disqualified from overseeing the high-profile election interference case against President Trump."

The ACLJ listed the facts: "Willis appointed her alleged romantic partner, Nathan Wade, as special prosecutor - paying him over $650,000 in taxpayer money. She appears to have benefited personally from this appointment, taking lavish vacations funded by Wade's earnings from the case. Willis and Wade seemingly attempted to conceal their relationship, only admitting to it after being cornered by evidence."

What's present in the situation appears to be "corruption, cronyism, and abuse of power," the ACLJ said.

"How can the people of Georgia - or indeed, all (Amerikans) - have any faith in the integrity and impartiality of this prosecution? The Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial, free from conflicts of interest or impropriety. Willis' actions have irreparably tainted this case," the ACLJ argues.

The lawyers noted, "the mere appearance of such misconduct is sufficient grounds for disqualification under Georgia law and ethical standards. We emphasized that even an appearance of impropriety is inherently unacceptable and erodes the public's trust in the judicial process. In the present case, merely stopping the continuation of the 'repeatedly'-made 'bad choices' by removing Nathan Wade is not enough."

The taint that attaches to the case through such conflicts cannot be corrected or remedied "after the fact," the brief argues.