BREAKINGπŸ”₯ Fani Willis DISQUALIFICATION Saga - FANI's Entire Team REMOVED🚨Trumps Motion of Appeal

US Immigration
31 Mar 202426:09

Summary

TLDRThe ongoing legal battle involving former President Donald Trump and his associates in Georgia continues, with a focus on the appeal to disqualify District Attorney Fannie Willis from the election interference case. Trump's defense team argues that Willis's relationship with former prosecutor Nathan Wade creates a conflict of interest, while the judge's ruling on their motion to dismiss has raised questions about the impact on the trial's future. The case also hinges on whether Trump's political speech is protected under the First Amendment, with his lawyers asserting that the charges against him aim to criminalize political speech.

Takeaways

  • πŸ“œ The Trump team is actively seeking to have the case dismissed and DA Fannie Willis removed from the Georgia 2020 election interference case.
  • πŸ”Ž A motion to dismiss charges against former President Donald Trump is under consideration by a judge in the Georgia election interference case.
  • 🀝 An appeal has been filed by Trump and eight co-defendants to get DA Fannie Willis removed from the high-stakes election case, claiming her relationship with former prosecutor Nathan Wade creates a conflict of interest.
  • πŸ‘¨β€βš–οΈ Judge Scott McFey, who first heard the Trump team's complaint, found a significant appearance of impropriety but only required one of them (Wade) to leave the case.
  • βš–οΈ The Trump team is calling the decision a 'plain legal error' and is asking the Georgia Court of Appeals to intervene before any trial takes place.
  • πŸ—£οΈ The defense argues that the recent withdrawal of Nathan Wade from the case does not go far enough and should have also disqualified Willis and her entire office.
  • πŸ›οΈ The case has been distracting from the underlying criminal charges, with Willis stating that the focus should be on the attempt to steal the 2020 election, not on her personal life.
  • πŸ“’ The attorneys for the former president focused on the First Amendment, arguing that Trump's alleged criminal conduct was political speech and therefore protected.
  • 🀯 Prosecutors countered that the First Amendment does not provide blanket protection and that it is not unconstitutional to bring the case to trial.
  • πŸ“… The defense attorneys' request for the state's appellate court to reconsider the disqualification ruling could have major consequences for the timeline of the case, especially with the November election in sight.
  • πŸ” The credibility of the district attorney and the conduct of the case are under scrutiny, with the defense arguing that the relationship between Willis and Wade has damaged their ability to impartially prosecute the case.

Q & A

  • What is the main legal effort currently being undertaken by the Trump team in relation to the Georgia 2020 election interference case?

    -The Trump team is appealing to have the case dismissed and is seeking to have District Attorney Fannie Willis and her entire office removed from the case.

  • What was the initial ruling by Judge Scott McFey regarding the complaint against DA Fannie Willis?

    -Judge Scott McFey ruled that there was a significant appearance of impropriety, leading to the removal of Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade from the case, but not DA Fannie Willis herself.

  • What is the Trump team's argument regarding DA Fannie Willis's relationship with former prosecutor Nathan Wade?

    -The Trump team argues that Willis's romantic relationship with Wade created an actual and apparent conflict of interest, which they believe damaged their ability to impartially prosecute the case.

  • What is the significance of the appeal to the Georgia Court of Appeals in this case?

    -The decision of the Georgia Court of Appeals could have major consequences for DA Fannie Willis's stated goal of taking the case to trial before the November election.

Outlines

00:00

πŸ“š Legal Proceedings in Georgia Election Interference Case

The paragraph discusses the ongoing legal efforts by former President Trump's team to dismiss charges against him in the Georgia 2020 election interference case. It highlights the appeal to remove District Attorney Fannie Willis from the case, alleging her relationship with former prosecutor Nathan Wade created a conflict of interest. The Trump team argues that Judge Scott McFey's decision to only disqualify Wade is insufficient and requires reversal. The paragraph also notes the distraction from the underlying criminal charges against Trump and others, who have pleaded not guilty to conspiring to overturn the election results.

05:02

πŸ—£οΈ Defense Arguments and Credibility Assessments

This paragraph focuses on the defense strategies and the assessment of credibility in the courtroom. It discusses the hearings to disqualify Willis and the defense's readiness for trial, despite their belief in the innocence of their clients. The paragraph also touches on the challenges faced by a key witness, Terence Bradley, and the legal debate over whether an actual conflict of interest or just the appearance of impropriety is enough to disqualify a prosecutor. Additionally, it highlights the media interactions of the attorneys involved and the potential impact on the case's progress towards trial.

10:02

πŸ›οΈ First Amendment and Political Speech in Court

The paragraph delves into the legal arguments surrounding former President Trump's First Amendment rights, with his lawyers asserting that the charges against him are an attempt to criminalize political speech. The discussion includes the judges' considerations of whether Trump's speech is protected, the nature of political speech, and the implications of prosecuting such speech. The paragraph also addresses the defense's argument that the prosecution is politically motivated and the potential impact of the case on the upcoming November election.

15:59

πŸ“ Analyzing Over Acts in Conspiracy Cases

This paragraph examines the role of overt acts in conspiracy cases, specifically within the context of RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) laws. It clarifies that overt acts need not be separate crimes but serve to demonstrate the operation of a conspiracy. The defense's misunderstanding of this role is highlighted, along with the argument that Trump's conduct, whether protected by the First Amendment or not, can still be part of a conspiracy case. The paragraph also discusses the expectation of an appeal regarding the disqualification of Willis and the potential outcomes of such an appeal.

21:01

πŸ€” Implications of the Case on Future Legal Proceedings

The paragraph briefly touches on the potential implications of the case on future legal proceedings, particularly regarding the handling of the case by DA Fannie Willis and the impact of her decision to remove her ex from the case. It suggests that the case's outcome could have broader consequences for legal practices and the interpretation of conspiracy laws.

Mindmap

Keywords

πŸ’‘Trump

Refers to the former President of the United States, Donald Trump, who is the central figure in the legal case discussed in the transcript. The video revolves around his appeal against the decision to keep District Attorney Fannie Willis on the case and the charges against him related to the 2020 election interference in Georgia.

πŸ’‘Fannie Willis

Fannie Willis is the District Attorney of Fulton County, Georgia, who is involved in the case against former President Trump and others for alleged election interference. Her role and the controversy surrounding her participation in the case are significant points of discussion in the transcript.

πŸ’‘Election Interference

This term refers to the alleged actions by Trump and others to illegally overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia. The charges and the legal proceedings surrounding these allegations form the core of the video's narrative.

πŸ’‘First Amendment

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech, religion, and the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government. In the context of the video, Trump's lawyers argue that his political speech is protected under the First Amendment, and thus the charges against him are an attempt to criminalize political speech.

πŸ’‘RICO

RICO stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a federal law that is used to address and prevent organized crime. In the video, it is mentioned in relation to the charges against Trump, with his lawyers arguing that the nature of his speech, even if true, cannot be the basis for a RICO indictment.

πŸ’‘Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest occurs when a person's objectivity in a professional role is potentially compromised because of a personal interest or relationship. In the video, the defense argues that the relationship between Fannie Willis and former prosecutor Nathan Wade created an actual and apparent conflict of interest, affecting the ability to impartially prosecute the case.

πŸ’‘Disqualification

In legal proceedings, disqualification refers to the removal of a judge or prosecutor from a case due to a perceived bias or conflict of interest. The video discusses efforts to disqualify both Fannie Willis and the judge from the case, based on the appearance of impropriety.

πŸ’‘Overacts

In the context of a RICO conspiracy case, overt acts are actions taken by conspirators to further the conspiracy, which do not necessarily have to be criminal in nature but must show the conspiracy is operational. The video discusses the role of overt acts in the case against Trump and the defense's misunderstanding of their role.

πŸ’‘Appearance of Impropriety

This term refers to a situation where there is a perception that something is not right or fair, even if no actual wrongdoing has occurred. In the video, the defense argues that the relationship between Willis and Wade creates an appearance of impropriety, which is sufficient under Georgia law to disqualify them from the case.

πŸ’‘Political Speech

Political speech refers to expressions or communication related to politics, political matters, or the government. In the video, Trump's lawyers argue that his speech as a political figure is the most protected type of speech under the Constitution, and thus the charges against him are an effort to criminalize political speech.

Highlights

The Trump team is appealing to have the district attorney Fannie Willis disqualified from the Georgia election interference case.

A judge is considering a motion to dismiss charges against former president Donald Trump in the Georgia 2020 election interference case.

Donald Trump and eight co-defendants filed an appeal to remove district attorney Fannie Willis from the high stakes election interference case in Georgia.

The appeal claims that Willis's romantic relationship with former prosecutor Nathan Wade created a conflict of interest.

Judge Scott McFey who first heard the Trump team's complaint saw a significant appearance of conflict.

Transcripts

00:00

this is the latest step in what has been

00:01

an exhaustive effort by the Trump team

00:03

to have the case dismissed and Willis

00:05

and her entire office removed former

00:07

president Trump is appealing a key

00:09

rolling in the Georgia election

00:10

interference case saying that the judge

00:12

was wrong in keeping the da fonnie

00:15

Willis on the case this morning a judge

00:17

is considering a motion to dismiss

00:18

charges against former president Donald

00:20

Trump in the Georgia 2020 election

00:22

interference case now we are following

00:25

the latest in the fton County district

00:27

attorney disqualification Saga even

00:29

after her lead prosecutor stepped down

00:31

Donald Trump and eight of his

00:32

codefendants filed an appeal to get

00:34

district attorney fonnie Willis removed

00:36

too from the high stakes election

00:38

interference case in Georgia the appeal

00:40

calling Willis quote utterly unrepentant

00:43

about her romantic relationship with

00:45

former prosecutor Nathan Wade once you

00:47

have the appearance of impropriety under

00:49

forensic misconduct the law in Georgia

00:51

is clear that's enough to disqualify

00:55

Judge Scott mcfey who first heard the

00:57

Trump team's complaint was unconvinced

00:59

Willis benefited financially from her

01:01

relationship with Wade but said there

01:03

was significant appearance of

01:04

impropriety and ruled only one of them

01:07

had to leave the case the Trump team now

01:09

calling that decision a quote plain

01:11

legal err requiring reversal and asking

01:14

the Georgia court of appeals to weigh in

01:16

immediately before any trial takes place

01:18

the disqualification effort has

01:20

distracted from the underlying criminal

01:22

charges at hand Willis saying is much

01:24

frustrated when she took the stand last

01:26

month you're confused you think I'm on

01:28

trial these people are on trial for

01:30

trying to steal an election in 2020 in

01:33

August Trump and 18 others were charged

01:35

with illegally conspiring to overturn

01:38

Trump's 2020 election loss in Georgia

01:40

now Trump and the other remaining

01:41

defendants pleaded not guilty to all

01:43

charges defense lawyers argued in their

01:46

brief Friday a recent ruling which led

01:48

to withdrawal of Nathan Wade from the

01:50

case didn't go far enough and should

01:52

have also disqualified Willis and her

01:54

entire office from the case they claim

01:57

that Willis romantic relationship with

01:59

Wade created an actual and apparent

02:01

conflict of interest that damaged their

02:03

ability to impartially prosecute the

02:05

case it's now up to a panel of three

02:07

appell at judges to decide whether to

02:09

accept the appeal their decision could

02:11

have major consequences for Willis

02:13

stated goal of taking the case to trial

02:15

before the November election how will

02:18

fonny's mess is the only way I know how

02:21

to put it well it's it was a

02:22

disqualification wasn't a trial but it

02:24

was a hearing how is that going to

02:26

affect Trump's case now how do they how

02:28

do they squeeze that into their argument

02:30

right just hours ago now a team of

02:33

defense attorneys formally asked the

02:35

state's Appel at court to reconsider Fon

02:38

County Superior Court Judge Scott

02:39

McAfee's disqualification ruling earlier

02:42

this month that allowed Fulton County DA

02:44

fonny Willis to remain on the case as

02:47

long as special prosecutor Nathan Wade

02:49

resigned and Wade did just that stepping

02:52

down from the case hours after McAfee

02:54

ruled earlier this month but the team of

02:56

defense lawyers argued in their brief

02:58

today that that that ruling didn't go

03:01

far enough and should have also

03:03

disqualified Willis and her entire

03:05

office from the case they claimed that

03:08

Willis's romantic relationship with Wade

03:10

created an actual and an apparent

03:13

conflict of interest that damaged their

03:15

ability to impartially prosecute the

03:17

case former Gwynette County district

03:19

attorney Danny Porter says it's now up

03:21

to a panel of three appell at judges to

03:24

decide whether to accept that appeal and

03:27

their decision could have major

03:29

consequences for Willis's stated goal of

03:32

taking the case to trial before the

03:34

November election so in court yesterday

03:36

attorneys for the former president

03:38

focused on the First Amendment arguing

03:41

Mr Trump's alleged criminal conduct was

03:43

political speech and therefore protect

03:45

it prosecutors countered saying the

03:47

First Amendment does not give someone

03:50

blanket

03:51

protection it's unconstitutional the

03:53

force and accused be it the president of

03:56

the United stat former president or

03:58

anyone else to stand trial on protected

04:02

speech to say we can't mention this

04:07

particular act or this particular

04:09

conduct because it's not a crime or it's

04:11

protected by the First Amendment the

04:12

answer to that is actually so what

04:15

former president Trump was not the only

04:17

defendant with an attorney in the

04:18

courtroom yesterday an attorney for a

04:20

former State GOP chairman David Schaefer

04:23

was also in court arguing to dismiss

04:25

charges and Judge Scott McAfee he didn't

04:28

rule on any of those motions argued in

04:30

front of him yesterday so we're going to

04:32

be watching in the coming days to see

04:34

what he decides of all the attorneys

04:36

were representing the 15 remaining

04:38

codefendants in the Georgia election

04:40

interference case Ashley Merchant has

04:42

become one of the most prominent

04:44

Merchants profile skyrocketed in January

04:47

when she alleged district attorney

04:49

fonnie Willis had a personal

04:51

relationship with Nathan Wade a special

04:53

prosecutor Willis hired you have said we

04:56

are ready to go if this were to be Tri

04:59

tomorrow do you think your client would

05:01

be acquitted um I do not think the state

05:03

can prove these charges I think my

05:05

client's innocent um I we were ready to

05:07

go to trial and I I think it would be a

05:09

very favorable outcome the hearings to

05:10

disqualify Willis were closely watched

05:13

one of the most memorable moments was

05:15

when Willis entered the courtroom I'm so

05:17

curious about how you felt about

05:19

everything that was happening in that

05:21

moment yes I was surprised because at

05:23

the same time she walked in her lawyer

05:25

is literally arguing and had been

05:27

arguing just vehemently arguing to quash

05:31

her subpoena that that you know the that

05:33

was literally the last thing they wanted

05:34

was her on the witness stand it is a it

05:37

is a when when Willis was was calling me

05:40

a liar at that point I'd been called a

05:41

liar so many times that day I think I

05:42

was sort of numb to it um but I could

05:45

tell that she had a lot of things that

05:47

she needed to say yeah so I wonder if

05:50

you feel as if this process has impacted

05:52

her credibility oh definitely I mean I I

05:54

definitely think it has

05:56

and that's one of the things that people

05:59

don't necessarily understand is that

06:01

when you're in a courtroom you are

06:02

judging people's credibility that's what

06:04

happens on the witness stand and that's

06:06

what a trial is that's what a hearing is

06:08

judging The witness's credibility and

06:09

everybody got to see that firsthand So

06:11

speaking about credibility Terence

06:13

Bradley was supposed to be your star

06:15

witness he became a very reluctant

06:18

witness he did not freely want to

06:20

corroborate some of the allegations that

06:23

you wanted to prove did you not do a

06:26

good enough job of properly vetting par

06:29

Bradley I don't think it was an issue of

06:32

properly vetting him it was unfortunate

06:33

how he ended up testifying I wish he had

06:35

been able to give more details um like

06:37

he had given me previously but I

06:39

understand I mean I think he was scared

06:41

the judge said that offense the

06:43

attorneys like yourself who represent

06:46

that offense did not meet the burden for

06:49

proving right an actual conflict here

06:53

what will you differently to convince

06:55

the Georgia court of appeals otherwise

06:58

there was a lot of argument back and

06:59

forth if you have to prove an actual

07:00

conflict or if the appearance is enough

07:02

so we'll be arguing that legal point but

07:04

also he made a lot of factual findings

07:06

in his order that I think support that

07:08

there was an actual conflict the

07:10

district attorney has been criticized

07:12

for outof court statements um you are

07:17

now speaking with members of the media

07:19

are you concerned that you two could

07:22

potentially cross a line of making out

07:24

of court statements that are

07:26

inappropriate in the eyes of the Court

07:28

no I'm not concerned at all about that

07:30

and the reason is once the prosecutor

07:32

puts that out there we actually have a

07:34

duty to respond to that in my opinion

07:36

Merchant also talked about her previous

07:38

relationship with both Willis and Wade I

07:40

think it's important to know that I've

07:42

been longtime friends with both of these

07:43

prosecutors so you know that was

07:46

surprising because they know me and so

07:48

for them to make those types of

07:49

allegations was extremely surprising we

07:51

asked what impact her attempt to

07:53

disqualify Willis could have on the

07:56

other codefendants I look at my case and

07:59

I get my case and I don't look at

08:00

anything else so you know I'm very

08:02

focused hyperfocused on my case and my

08:04

defendant so I haven't analyzed all the

08:06

other defendants um but what I can say

08:08

is if it does result in anybody who

08:11

shouldn't be free going free that is no

08:13

fault other than the states how do you

08:14

think Jud Scott mcafe is handling this

08:16

case I think he has run this case very

08:19

well um you know and when I when people

08:23

ask lawyers all the time their opinions

08:24

on judges I want a judge that follows

08:26

the law and I want a judge that's

08:28

courteous and efficient I mean that's

08:30

that's really what I want um and I think

08:33

that he's done that how will fonny's

08:35

mess is the only way I know how to put

08:38

it well it's it was a disqualification

08:40

it wasn't a trial but it was a hearing

08:41

how is that going to affect Trump's case

08:44

now how do they how do they squeeze that

08:46

into their

08:48

argument well I think it's a separate

08:50

argument that's being made and now

08:52

litigated on appeal and I you know I

08:55

think the appell court may look dimly on

08:58

the misbehavior the misconduct of fonnie

09:01

Willis it makes no sense that they she

09:04

and Nathan Wade her lover both engaged

09:06

in in the same improper conduct that

09:08

violates the Cannons of Ethics yet only

09:11

one gets disqualified and the other

09:14

remains I mean that makes no sense so

09:17

that will be litigated on appeal

09:19

separately I see I see all right but it

09:22

is Rico I mean I know AOC says Rico is

09:25

not a crime but it is a crime it's a

09:26

very complex crime to prosecute

09:30

and in order to get everything together

09:31

you have to have really top e top legal

09:35

advisers to help you through the case

09:37

clearly Nathan Wade was not one such

09:39

person so much so little did he know

09:42

about the whole thing that he had these

09:44

meetings at the White House what more do

09:46

we need to know about those White House

09:49

meetings who was talking to him and were

09:51

they actually giving him advice of how

09:54

to carry out a RICO

09:57

case you know fonny Willis is claimed

09:59

this is not a politically motivated

10:01

prosecution there was no coordination

10:04

with the white house or the Biden

10:06

campaign that's undermined by the

10:08

billing records of Nathan Wade he

10:11

charged 16 hours two meetings eight

10:14

hours each with the white house nobody's

10:17

answered that question uh and you know I

10:20

think from a political standpoint much

10:23

less a legal one uh Americans deserve

10:26

the answer was this entire prosecution

10:30

coordinated uh with Donald Trump's

10:32

political opponent you know don't forget

10:35

it was Joe Biden who urged that Trump be

10:40

prosecuted right he told it to a bunch

10:42

of AIDS and upon instructions they

10:44

leaked it to the media and overnight

10:46

merri Garland his attorney general got

10:48

his marching orders and the prosecutions

10:51

of trump began yeah so this is a

10:55

president who's incumbent who realizes

10:57

his polls are in the toilet

10:59

and he decided laware might be the best

11:02

way to get rid of his opponent Donald

11:04

Trump a judge in Georgia heard arguments

11:07

over whether former president Donald

11:08

Trump's speech was protected by his

11:10

first amendment rights the hearing is

11:12

part of former president the former

11:14

president's election interference case

11:16

Trump's lawyers argued that the charges

11:19

against him are an effort to criminalize

11:21

they say political speech all right

11:23

thank you Mr Floyd all right Mr I'll

11:25

give you a couple minutes uh final word

11:27

thank you sir

11:30

if I heard what Mr Floyd just

11:35

said that if everything president

11:39

Trump said was assumed true and included

11:44

in the RICO

11:46

indictment and therefore now we're

11:48

talking about true political speech not

11:51

alleged false he could still be

11:54

prosecuted for the violation of

11:56

Rico but the over acts as alleged

11:59

let's say even the

12:02

overa um ran a foul the First Amendment

12:05

he's saying that wouldn't be fatal to

12:06

count one because at that point if if

12:10

they if there could be some other thing

12:11

they prove that's not alleged as an over

12:13

act okay that that may as I understand

12:16

it as As I understood it as

12:20

well but what I'm suggesting is if all

12:24

of the overt acts are nothing more than

12:27

core political speech or Express conduct

12:30

and nothing else is alleged which is not

12:33

protected by the First Amendment then

12:35

you have an insufficient basis for which

12:38

he has been indicted because he's being

12:40

indicted for First Amendment uh Speech

12:43

and not for unprotected speech and

12:47

therefore statement that was made about

12:49

if it were true we could still use it as

12:52

an overt act uh suggest that they can

12:55

prosecute true speech um which is what

12:58

we're trying to get to here it's the

13:00

nature of the speech the political

13:02

speech the heightened value of such

13:04

which gets this situation different than

13:07

others and the fact that it comes from

13:09

then president of the United

13:11

States going back to what was said in

13:15

addition by the state what the state

13:17

claims is Criminal here is lying to the

13:19

government that's what it

13:21

said that's the exact reason why in

13:26

several of the Supreme Court cases it's

13:28

been found to be protected speech

13:31

because it deals with the government and

13:33

falsity in the in sense of communication

13:37

U with or to the government is best

13:39

dealt with through true speech not

13:42

through prosecutions in because

13:44

prosecutions chill speech and when it

13:48

comes to political core speech what you

13:50

don't want is chilled I use um

13:54

fortunately I have a a co-counsel that

13:56

is able to pull things up and and help

13:59

me inform the court uh till the computer

14:03

shuts down uh and looking at what Haley

14:06

says just to give you an idea of how the

14:08

Georgia Court the Supreme Court might

14:10

look at this there's a quote from Haley

14:13

and it says while there is no

14:15

constitutional value in false statements

14:17

of fact such erroneous statements are

14:20

nevertheless inevitable in free debate

14:23

and Punishment of error runs the risk of

14:26

inducing a cautious and restrictive

14:29

exercise of the constitutionally

14:31

guaranteed freedoms of speech and press

14:34

accordingly the first amendment requires

14:36

that we protect some falsehood in order

14:39

to protect speech that matters and I

14:42

think that's what we're talking about

14:44

here to end this and again we're

14:47

focusing on um president Trump's conduct

14:51

at at the time that he in fact is the

14:54

head of the Executive

14:58

Branch

15:59

cided also in Alvarez bottom line here

16:01

is this but for protected First

16:06

Amendment

16:07

speech president Trump would not be

16:09

charged in Rico or the other counts take

16:12

out the protected speech and you don't

16:14

have an underlying basis for which to

16:17

charge him and since that violates

16:19

Constitution as applied to the charges

16:22

here and his speech here and his

16:24

position here this is right for a

16:27

constitutional challenge one step

16:29

further if it's not right now and we get

16:32

into intent when does the court

16:34

determine that do you determine that

16:37

after we have a

16:38

trial I think it would be the directed

16:40

verdict stage but would it that's a

16:43

sufficiency of evidence with all

16:44

inferences yeah in favor of the that's a

16:46

whole question I mean do we go through

16:48

the whole trial God forbid there should

16:49

be a conviction and then we go back to

16:51

try and determine as applied uh I'm

16:54

suggesting the reason it's right now and

16:57

the reason why we don't even get to a