Below is my column in the New York Post on the ruling in the Willis/Wade controversy. The references to the decision as “Solomonic” or “Solomonesque” might not be fair to King Solomon. Indeed, the comparison only highlights what is missing in Willis: an overriding interest in the case as opposed to their own position. While the court gave Willis two options (to transfer the case or remove her former lover), there is a third option: step aside.
Here is the column:
Many commentators reviewing the decision of Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee to disqualify lead Special Counsel Nathan Wade but not Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis as “Solomonic” or “splitting the baby” in the Trump prosecution.
Indeed, it was similar in all but one respect. The baby at issue before King Solomon survived. That whole point of the story was not to kill the baby but to see which of the two women loved the baby more.
In the story from 1 Kings 3:16–28, two mothers claim the male child who Solomon declares that each can get one half. One mother immediately accepts while the second woman begs him to just give the first woman the child and not to kill him.
Solomon immediately gives the second woman the child as clearly the mother who loves the baby.
But if either Wade or Willis truly loved “their baby” — the case against Trump — they would have removed themselves weeks ago.
Their personal controversies have derailed the case and mired the prosecution in scandal. Ethically, this should not have been a difficult question. They should have stepped aside.
That conclusion is more than evident in Judge McAfee’s decision, which shreds their claims on the stand and outside of the courthouse.
The court describes Willis’s controversial speech at a church as “’playing the race card . . . to cast racial aspersions at an indicted Defendant’s decision to file this pretrial motion.”
He hammers Willis for her lack of professional judgment and stresses, with perhaps an unintentional pun, that “providing this type of public comment creates dangerous waters for the District Attorney to wade further into.”
Judge McAfee also indicates that the testimony of Wade failed to resolve questions of filing false statements to a prior court and that his testimony on when the relationship began stood contradicted.
McAfee has done a fair job throughout the case. Moreover, he makes a valid point when he notes that this evidence does not establish a strong basis for claiming that the case was brought or pursued due to this relationship or possible financial gain.
Indeed, the purpose of this case was not personal but political.
While the indictments contain some valid criminal charges, they are largely minor offenses like unlawful access to voting areas. The overall racketeering claim used to ensnarl Trump is forced and weak.
The problem is that the Court casts doubt on Wade’s testimony on the relationship, but ignores that Willis effectively ratified those claims in her own testimony.
Willis and Wade are both prosecuting people for the very same conduct of filing false statements with courts and making false statements. The two lawyers testified in tandem but only one was disqualified.
McAfee is no Solomon in this decision. He splits the accused to avoid making the harder decision.
If he disqualified Willis, he likely would have had to disqualify her entire office. That would throw the entire case (and certainly the pre-election schedule) into doubt. So he left her with the choice:
“The prosecution of this case cannot proceed until the State selects one of two options. The District Attorney may choose to step aside, along with the whole of her office, and refer the prosecution to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council for reassignment. Alternatively, SADA Wade can withdraw, allowing the District Attorney, the Defendants, and the public to move forward without his presence or remuneration distracting from and potentially compromising the merits of this case.”
He is leaving Wade with no choice at all beyond an appeal. However, Willis will be allowed to place her own interests as the overriding purpose of the prosecution.
In some ways, it is a result that should please no one other than Donald Trump.
The defense removed the lead special prosecutor while leaving Willis carrying more baggage than Amtrak.
It does not, however, serve the interests of justice. Willis will now prosecute defendants for false statements as her own questionable testimony is likely to be investigated by the state and the bar.
She could still be effectively removed or disqualified. That prospect does not appear to give Willis pause.
It is not too late for Willis to act professionally in best interests of her office and the people of Fulton County. She can step aside in light of the damning findings of the court. Otherwise, like the first woman in the trial with Solomon, she would rather see the baby sawed in half than give it up entirely.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
I am sad ppl have to be ruined like this. Both fani and wade were judges once. So this bummer because it brings so much shame on our legal system- they were both judges once. Yet macafee whio worked for her before also lacked the courage – a coward. He knew she lied- but instead of making it stark- cabined it and gave others authority to proceed. So much for the bar policing itself – which is our separation of power now macafee invites others to police our bar . He should have policed our branch but he was a coward.
We gunnalose control of over who makes the bar and continues in it by this coward alone whio instead of keeping our bar tight invited oversight of our third branch. Traitor of fedeal8
Judge McAfee seems to have totally neglected the consideration of how anybody, under similar circumstances, could get a fair trial under such a discredited DA. The problem is certainly more that one of “appearances”.
Liberal— a”fair trial “? Explain to me exactly how Trump wouldn’t get a fair trial based on the failed effort by his blondie lawyer to prove Willis was getting wined and dined on taxpayer money—-that’s what she tried, but failed, to prove. Regardless of whether you or the Judge has doubts about when the affair started, there is simply no proof that Willis misappropriated taxpayer funds. As to the evidence against Trump, the call to Raffensberger was recorded. Trump tried to bully him into falsifying election results. Trump lied by claiming he won by a lot— that wasn’t and still isn’t true. The fake Electoral College documents speak for themselves and prove there was a criminal conspiracy to rig the election, all based on a lie. Falsifying election documents submitted under oath is a felony. Explain to me how the affair between Willis and Wade impacts these facts, which, under Georgia law are criminal. More specifically, how the affair would prevent Trump from getting a fair trial.
You just have to look at it the way a lawfare judge would (and did).
They lied about their lies, so that cancels itself out.
C’mon man, you know the thing.
There is no logical reason why two lawyers on the same side of a case prejudice the defendant in any way if they are in a relationship. This is nothing but another hollow Trump delay tactic.
It’s not about any actual prejudice. As Judge McAfee stated at the beginning of the hearing that the standard he would use is the APPEARANCE of any impropriety, of which there was a bundle, besides the ethical violations and the failure to adhere to county regulations regarding disclosure of gifts and the illegal contract she let. I guess the judge conveniently threw those out with the bath water.
I won’t even get into the filing of false documents with the courts and perjury in written statements and in testimony under oath.
You’re worrying about the “appearance of impropriety” when Trump tried to steal the Presidency by lying, trying to bully election officials and getting people to falsify election documents? Only a disciple or paid pundit could view this case in that light.
“. . . two lawyers on the same side of a case . . .”
When you shear the context from the issue, that seems like a plausible conclusion.
The defendants’ claim was that the whole case was ginned up in order to give Willis an excuse to hire her boyfriend, pay him extremely generously from the public coffers, and have him kick some of that money back to her in the form of paid vacations, etc. If such considerations influence the decision to bring these charges, then the defendants have certainly been prejudiced.
The judge decided that there was no actual conflict of interest, since the benefit Willis seems to have received from the money she channeled to Wade is so small that it makes no sense that she did this whole thing just for that. But it stinks to high heaven, and therefore gives the appearance of such a conflict. Therefore they can’t both continue on the case. One or the other had to get out, and they decided that was going to be Wade.
The “decision to bring charges” is based on the FACTS set forth in the indictment–Trump tried to bully Raffensberger to falsify vote totals by “finding” him votes he didn’t get. That call was recorded–we all heard it. He got fake electors to falsify Electoral College documents by claiming he won in Georgia–when he didn’t–this is a felony. Those falsified documents were sent to the National Archives. Trump plotted a way to stay in power by trying to get Pence to refuse certified votes and having false Electoral College documents sent to the National Archives claiming he won. One of his stupid lawyers came up with the idea that if Pence caved, the results of the election would be placed in sufficient doubt that somehow all of the votes cast would be thrown out and the issue could get sent to the states where Republican legislatures would just award him the presidency. Of course, there’s no legal authority supporting this scheme. If you don’t see what’s wrong with this picture, you shouldn’t be allowed to vote at all.
Was Willis just supposed to overlook the fact that Trump tried to cheat to retain power against the will of the American people by doing these things? If she had done that, she would be a criminal. There is no stench coming from Wade and Willis that could even remotely compare with the stench of Trump’s willingness to cheat to keep power he cheated to get in the first place.
MacAfear is proof we are on our own. Radical fools and Biden sleeping, we’re finally without hope