The Fani Willis Trump debacle isn't over yet. In fact, it's just the beginning

On Thursday, the Georgia Court of Appeals disqualified Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from prosecuting President-elect Donald Trump and others on 2020 “election interference” charges. The court found that Mr. Willis suffered a conflict of interest by hiring his mistress, Nathan Wade, as a special prosecutor to investigate Mr. Trump.

Basic legal ethics and common sense dictate that both Mr. Wade and Mr. Willis, who resigned last March, should resign. The appeals court did not dismiss the charges, saying the record did not support imposing such “extreme sanctions.” The Georgia Prosecuting Attorneys Council will now assign the case to another prosecutor and decide whether to proceed with, reduce or drop the flawed RICO case.

There was no question that Willis suffered from a conflict of interest. But like other prosecutors who went after Trump in the name of democracy, she ignored all caution. For example, in July 2022, Willis targeted state Sen. Bert Jones, a Trump ally, even though he was serving as the centerpiece of a major fundraising campaign for Jones' Democratic opponent. tried to investigate. The judge had to block the prosecution because of an apparent conflict of interest.

Georgia Court of Appeals disqualifies Da Fani Willis and team in Trump election interference case

The employment of a mistress by a government employee is itself questionable in most cases. What's worse is that Willis hired Wade after he had already hired Georgia's leading RICO expert. She hired Wade even though he openly admitted that he had no experience with felony or RICO prosecutions. Willis paid Wade a higher hourly rate than a typical attorney, but did nothing if Wade far exceeded that amount.

Some estimates put Wade's total county income at more than $650,000 a year, three to four times the typical prosecutor's salary. The couple's many romantic trips and late-night meetings, which the judge examined on state television, exacerbated their conflict of interest.

The Georgia Court of Appeals necessarily found that the prosecution of Mr. Trump was “hampered by the appearance of impropriety” and that Mr. Willis was “exercising independent professional judgment without any compromising influence.” It was determined that there was a “scent of deception'' in the air.

Willis and Wade also failed to voluntarily and timely disclose their romantic and financial relationships to the defense, thereby failing to voluntarily and timely disclose their romantic and financial relationships to the defense, thereby failing to voluntarily and timely disclose their romantic and financial relationships to the defense. failed to fulfill its obligations. The rule states that the prosecutor's “duty is to pursue justice, not simply to convict. This special duty exists because the prosecutor represents the sovereign and is free from the discretion of the government.” “This is because they should refrain from exercising their powers.”

Ms. Willis exercised no such restraint, and Thursday's decision prevents Georgia courts from having to pre-empt her deeply flawed prosecution later. Mr. Willis' investigation posed a threat not only to Mr. Trump but also to the Oval Office.

Other prosecutors, such as Manhattan prosecutor Alvin Bragg and U.S. Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith, have been creative but narrowly targeted against Mr. Trump in hopes of making the case easier. brought charges against him.

Fani Willis was 'scared' because her case against Trump was 'weak', lawyer says

Willis cited major examples of prosecutorial overreach, including nearly all of the Trump campaign's significant actions from Election Day 2020 to the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol, and beyond. It accused Trump and his associates of carrying out the RICO conspiracy. She alleged 161 alleged acts, 19 indicted defendants and 30 unindicted co-conspirators, and claimed seven states and the District of Columbia were involved. This not only violates Trump, his co-defendants, and Republicans' First Amendment free speech rights, but also threatens future governments who must worry about national liability when making their most difficult decisions. It posed a threat to all presidents. Belongs to the state and is engaged in work.

For example, President Trump's televised speeches and tweets after the 2020 election are protected speech and political activity, regardless of whether his statements turn out to be accurate. Mr. Trump's plan to create an alternate slate of electors, the basis of Mr. Willis's RICO complaint, and the legal advice supporting it, were within reasonable legal argument. In the 1876 election between Republican Rutherford B. Hayes and Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, Tilden won the popular vote and the electoral vote, but the Republicans lost Florida, Louisiana, and Georgia because of Democratic involvement in the election. objected to South Carolina's election results. Fraud and black voter intimidation.

Mr. Hayes ultimately won with 185 electors, but Democrats offered alternative electors from multiple states. No one was criminally charged.

In the 1960 presidential election, Democrats contested Nixon's initial victory in Hawaii, signing the special electoral vote certificate and sending it to the Capitol. No one was criminally charged.

Trump toasts disqualification of 'corrupt' Fanny Willis, says case is 'completely dead'

After the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton's campaign and its liberal allies recruited celebrities and others to coerce electors not to cast their electoral votes for Trump. Again, no one was investigated or prosecuted.

Proposing replacement electors when Congress or the courts reject a state's vote as fraudulent falls within the free speech rights of political campaigns.

Additionally, the prosecution did not meet the standard requirements for a RICO prosecution. Neither Mr. Trump nor his co-defendants sought to gain money, property, or control of any business in their post-2020 election activities. Nor did they show any interest in starting or participating in any criminal enterprise to obtain property, money, or business. Rather, Trump wanted to win the 2020 election, which is not illegal. The fight to maintain power would have ended in some way by Inauguration Day in 2021.

But the most serious flaw in Willis' now-disgraced indictment of Trump was the threat to the presidency. The prosecution of Willis was part of the Democratic Party's plan to break with the republic's historically held political and legal norms in the name of defeating President Trump.

For the first time in American history, they filed criminal charges against a former president and a leading presidential candidate from the main opposition party during an actual election period. If our elected leaders, who are given power over prosecutors by our constitutional system, must break with American political practice dating back to 1789, they must provide compelling reasons and prosecutorial facts. and should do so when the law is strict. Instead, Willis filed charges that were doomed to fail in court, clouded by her own conflicts of interest and potential financial corruption.

For more FOX News opinions, click here

But since Willis sued Trump for his actions while in office, future presidents will need to factor the charges into their calculations. And investigators may not be able to wait until the president leaves office.

State prosecutors could file charges while the president is still in office. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires the state to wait.

This could leave the president risk-averse, especially if a partisan-elected prosecutor launches an investigation. At the very least, defending against one or more national criminal investigations takes advantage of the time and resources that the president can and should spend fulfilling his constitutional responsibilities and protecting national security. I will do it.

Because of these concerns, the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. United States granted former presidents blanket immunity from federal prosecution for official actions. But the Trump court's ruling, while broad, does not extend to (a) investigations by state prosecutors, (b) alleged violations of state law, or (c) investigations by the president acting in his personal capacity. The Trump court held that courts should not admit any evidence obtained from the president's official activities, even if used to prove a state crime, but state prosecutors should not It was not forbidden to do so.

Willis's prosecution not only damaged the Trump presidency in ways that implicate the Trump court, but also promised to set off a chain of retaliation that would further undermine important legal and political norms.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

There is nothing stopping an elected Republican district attorney from launching a corruption, bribery, and money laundering investigation against Hunter, James, or even President Joe Biden. All they need is some connection between the Biden family's criminal enterprise (to borrow President Trump's description of the Georgia campaign) and their jurisdiction. Initiating such a survey would provide good campaign material in red counties. Some prosecutors may pursue charges solely to retaliate for the New York City and Georgia charges.

Democrats may support state prosecutors like Mr. Bragg and Mr. Willis, but they should instead consider the whirlwind they are currently stirring up and do the right thing: drop the legally flawed case against President Trump. You should choose.

Click here to read more from John Yoo

Click here to read more from John Hsu