A recent development in the Georgia legal procedures against former President Donald Trump is the drive to remove District Attorney Fani Willis from the case. David Shafer is a prominent figure in the case as the 2020 Georgia GOP Chairman and a GOP presidential elector. Shafer’s legal action stems from accusations made against Willis, according to which she has committed wrongdoing that compromises the credibility of both her office and the prosecution.
Shafer’s lawsuit is in line with earlier complaints made by co-defendant Michael Roman, who brought attention to an apparently improper connection between Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade, whom Willis assigned to lead the substantial racketeering case against Trump. Willis, responding to these allegations, admitted to a personal connection with Wade but refuted any conflict of interest, citing Georgia law’s requirements for disqualification based on conflict.
The main thrust of Shafer’s case for Willis’s disqualification is her alleged history of making disparaging remarks in public on the case, which Shafer claims may slant the Fulton County jury pool. He notably brings up comments Willis made in a church in Atlanta, which Shafer takes to be an attempt to paint criticism of her behavior or Wade’s as being driven by race.
In addition, Shafer’s motion closely examines Willis and Wade’s professional connection, focusing in particular on money transactions and Wade’s billing procedures, which Shafer claims pose a conflict of interest as well as possible ethical and legal transgressions. According to the motion, it has been especially detrimental for Willis to label Shafer and other Republican presidential electors as “fake electors,” casting doubt on their qualifications for office.
Shafer’s legal team is prepared to provide information that they believe merits Willis’s removal from the case at a hearing set for mid-February to discuss these issues. Shafer’s attorney highlights the significance of the charges on Shafer’s life and reputation while understanding the pain that such a hearing may create. They also highlight the importance of addressing these problems in order to achieve a fair judicial process.