Fani Willis Goes All In With Crusade Against Trump

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis said the hearings into her alleged misconduct have not delayed Georgia’s election interference case against Donald Trump and his co-defendants, the Associated Press reported.

In a March 23 interview on CNN, Willis dismissed the notion that the case had been delayed by the allegations against her and special prosecutor Nathan Wade. She conceded that there had been “efforts to slow down the train,” but insisted “the train is coming.”

Willis’ comments came just days after Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee permitted defense attorneys to appeal his decision to allow Willis to remain on the case as long as Nathan Wade stepped down.

Willis told CNN that nothing she did was embarrassing and that she did not believe her reputation was harmed. She said her only crime was to have a “relationship with a man.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s legal team continued its fight to have the Georgia charges dismissed.

In a March 28 hearing, Judge McAfee heard arguments on a filing from Trump’s attorneys as well as two pre-trial motions from co-defendant David Shafer.

Trump’s lawyers had filed a motion to dismiss the indictment arguing that the charges brought against the former president would criminalize protected political speech.

Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead attorney in the Fulton County case, told the judge that there was nothing alleged in the indictment that wasn’t political speech. He argued that it was “the height of political speech” for a sitting president to express concerns about an election, and even if what the president said was false, it would still be protected speech.

Fulton County prosecutor Donald Wakefield dismissed the claim, arguing that Trump’s comments weren’t just false, they were also central to criminal activity and therefore not protected by the First Amendment.

In arguing against Trump’s motion, Wakefield cited US District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s December ruling when Trump’s attorneys made the same argument in the federal election interference case. Chutkan wrote that it was “well-established” that speech “used as an instrument of a crime” was not protected by the First Amendment.