As Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump continues his bid to remove Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from the racketeering case against him, the former president’s legal team filed a brief in the Georgia Court of Appeals, arguing that Willis should be taken off the case due to her “racial rhetoric.”
Steve Sadow, Trump’s legal counsel, told the Washington Examiner that the reply brief filed Monday “persuasively” rebutted the arguments the state made.
In the court filing, the former president’s attorneys argue that Willis should be “disqualified” over her “proven false, incendiary racial rhetoric” in a church speech they say “was calculated to heighten public condemnation of, and thereby prejudice, the defendants in eyes of potential jurors.”
They noted that the speech Willis made at an Atlanta church on Martin Luther King Jr. Day weekend “violated the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct.”
Fulton County prosecutors have said Willis’ speech was “vague” and did not identify whom she was referring to when she spoke about “weapons” being formed against her.
“The Scripture they keep sending me is ‘No weapon formed against you shall prosper,'" Willis said in February. “I need y’all to hear me, though. They did not say the weapons will not form.”
While Judge Scott McAfee, who presided over the case at the trial level, said the speech was “improper,” he did not consider it to be disqualifying.
In his 22-page reply brief, Sadow argued that the state’s “interpretation” of Willis’ speech is “disingenuous at best.”
"Willis’s purpose was plain: To obscure her misconduct by falsely accusing the defense of racism,” Sadow wrote. “Willis’s strategic use of pronouns was neither innocuous nor vague — Willis repeatedly used 'them,' 'they,' and linked these terms to her antagonist: 'White male republicans.’”
The defense cited an opinion from former Georgia Supreme Court Justice Harold Nelson Hill, which suggests that a state attorney should be disqualified if their involvement in a case could cause reasonable potential for prejudice against the defendant.
Given the “extensive media coverage” of the case, Sadow said there is a high probability of Trump receiving unfair treatment.
While Willis has not yet responded to the defense’s latest filing, her office previously said that she did not express any personal opinion about Trump’s guilt and would not discuss the details of the case publicly.
Trump’s effort to have Willis removed from the case was prompted by Republican operative Mike Roman, a co-defendant known for conducting opposition research. Roman’s attorney filed a motion to disqualify Willis in January over an affair she was having with then-special prosecutor Nathan Wade.
During lengthy hearings, Willis and Wade claimed the case was not tainted due to their relationship and that Wade’s expenses for lavish trips the pair took were reimbursed by undocumented cash payments Willis made.
Wade resigned from the case after the judge ordered that either he or Willis must step aside for it to move forward.
According to the Examiner, the appeals court is scheduled to hear Trump’s motion to disqualify Willis on Dec. 5.