By
Ann Turner
|
February 6, 2024

Trump co-defendant David Shafer enters petition to disqualify Fani Willis from case

In an unfolding drama that casts long shadows across the political and legal landscapes of Georgia, David Shafer, a co-defendant in the high-profile case against former President Donald Trump, has launched a significant legal challenge.

Shafer's motion to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis and her office raises serious concerns of prosecutorial misconduct and conflicts of interest, notably involving a personal relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade.

David Shafer, who played a significant role in the 2020 election as the Georgia GOP Chairman and a GOP presidential elector, has accused District Attorney Fani Willis of engaging in what he describes as a "pattern of prosecutorial and forensic misconduct."

This accusation stems from the broader legal confrontation involving former President Trump, positioning Shafer amongst a group of defendants in a case that has captured national attention.

Shafer's motion serves as the fourth attempt by a co-defendant in the case to challenge Willis's capacity to prosecute objectively. This motion specifically calls into question Willis's judgment and actions, spotlighting her "personal" but professional relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade, which Shafer and others claim compromises the integrity of the prosecution.

Allegations of Impropriety and Conflicts of Interest

Michael Roman, another co-defendant, initially raised eyebrows over the relationship between Willis and Wade, labeling it "improper." Despite these claims, Willis affirmed her relationship with Wade as personal, yet denied any conflict of interest that would warrant her disqualification.

Under Georgia law, a conflict of interest requires a direct negative impact on the defendant's case for a district attorney to be removed from proceedings, a threshold Willis insists is not met in this scenario.

Shafer contends that Willis made public statements prejudicial toward the case, aiming to negatively influence the jury pool's perception of Shafer and his co-defendants. This effort to "inject and infect" the jury pool, as Shafer's motion alleges, demonstrates what he perceives as an intentional breach of prosecutorial ethics.

In January, during an address at Bethel AME Church in Atlanta, Willis touched upon the affair allegations. Here, Shafer's filing takes particular issue with Willis's framing of the scrutiny over Wade's conduct and its subsequent racial undertones. Shafer's legal team argues that Willis's comments were strategically designed to prejudice the potential jury pool by suggesting racial bias underlies the criticism leveled against her and Wade.

Financial Concerns and Evidentiary Hearings

The financial arrangements between Willis, Wade, and the Fulton County taxpayer's purse have not escaped scrutiny either. Last month's allegations by Roman accused Wade of billing the county for an improbable 24 hours of work in one single day, implying a financial benefit to Willis through these apparently inflated compensations. Despite Wade's significant $654,000 billing to taxpayers since January 2022, concerns were raised about his lack of specific experience in RICO and felony prosecution cases.

Shafer's motion goes beyond mere implications, suggesting that Willis's employment of Wade, alongside the financial dynamics of their arrangement, signifies a conflict of interest and potential ethical and legal violations. By employing Wade under such conditions, Willis is accused of compromising both the integrity of her office and the fairness of the legal process itself.

"The obvious intent of her remarks was to inject and infect the jury pool in Fulton County with unfounded allegations that anyone who dares question her or Mr. Wade’s conduct must have done so for racist purposes," Shafer's filing contends.

Furthermore, Shafer and his legal representation request that the scheduled Feb. 15 evidentiary hearing remain in place to allow for a thorough presentation of evidence supporting their motion.

Craig A. Gillen, Shafer's attorney, underlines the gravity of these allegations and the uncomfortable scrutiny the hearing may attract. However, he insists on the necessity of this examination due to the severity of the alleged prosecutorial misconduct.

Gillen's statements capture the essence of their argument and the toll these proceedings have taken on Shafer, emphasizing how "His life has been upended by unwarranted and meritless charges filed by District Attorney Willis."

Charges and Characterizations Under Scrutiny

The characterization of Shafer and other 2020 Republican Presidential Electors as "Fake Electors" by Willis further adds to the alleged prejudicial conduct aimed at undermining their reputations and legal standing.

This, combined with financial and ethical concerns, paints a complicated picture of the prosecution's integrity and impartiality.

As this legal challenge unfolds, many eyes will be on the Feb. 15 hearing, which promises to be a pivotal moment in this ongoing legal saga. Both the allegations of misconduct and conflict of interest, alongside the broader implications for the case against former President Trump and his co-defendants, emphasize the complexity and high stakes of the situation.

Don't Wait
We publish the objective news, period. If you want the facts, then sign up below and join our movement for objective news:
Top stories
Newsletter
Get news from American Digest in your inbox.
By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: American Digest, 3000 S. Hulen Street, Ste 124 #1064, Fort Worth, TX, 76109, US, http://americandigest.com. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact.