Fani Willi won't go down without a fight. (Innuendo intended).
The Fulton County district attorney's office submitted a filing Tuesday to the Georgia Court of Appeals signaling that she's not done trying to take down Donald Trump, despite his president-elect status.
In the 14-page filing, a deputy DA urged the appellate court to reject Trump's request to toss out the Georgia election interference case on account of his impending inauguration.
On behalf of Willis, chief senior assistant district attorney F. McDonald Wakeford argued that Trump's attorneys failed to demonstrate why a state-level prosecution would be subject to a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) memorandum prohibiting the prosecution of a sitting president. Special Counsel Jack Smith had cited the longstanding DOJ policy when he was forced to wind down his federal lawfare campaign against the soon-to-be 47th president in light of Trump's 2024 triumph. Trump is now saying this precedent should also apply to criminal cases brought by state prosecutors.
"Appellant does not specify or articulate how the appeal—or indeed, any other aspect of this case—will constitutionally impede or interfere with his duties once he assumes office," Willis' underling wrote.
Wakeford categorically denied the existence of "president-elect immunity," saying that although the judicial system's understanding of presidential immunity continues to evolve, the idea of an incoming president wielding immunity prior to Inauguration Day "obviously does not exist." While a sitting president has the authority of chief executive under the U.S. Constitution, "a president-elect holds none," Wakeford continued. So, he asserted, all executive authority currently resides with the incumbent.
As a state prosecutor, Willis is not bound by the DOJ's standards or beholden to federal guidelines, Wakeford insisted, and past rulings have not established a clear precedent for such state proceedings against a sitting president.
Wakeford said Trump's petition mentioned these legal concepts surrounding presidential immunity "without actually examining them or applying them to the present circumstances."
"Given these vague statements, to simply invoke the phrase 'federalism and comity concerns,' without more, offers nothing of substance," Wakeford wrote, accusing Trump's defense counsel of making "sweeping legal generalizations which are either misleading or oversimplified" and invoking "a smattering of constitutional principles" with "half a thought."
The defense has "not done the work but would very much like for this Court to do so," Wakeford charged.
He then prompted the appeals court to either ignore or outright deny Trump's request seeking the case's dismissal, which Wakeford characterized as amounting to nothing more than a "decree," a declaration rallying for a favorable outcome. Trump "feels entitled to instruct this Court as to what its conclusions are expected to be," Wakeford retorted.
Moreover, it was not a motion prompting the court to issue an order, Wakeford wrote, but merely an "underbaked," argumentative notice that offered "conclusory statements rather than reasoned argument."
In response, Trump's legal team filed a rebuttal Wednesday, clarifying that the president-elect only "intended to alert this Court to a jurisdictional issue and his legal position on how and when the issue should be addressed."
Contrary to the state's claims, the defense "did not 'demand' this Court do anything," Trump's lead lawyer Steve Sadow said.
Sadow noted that the DA's office chose to attack the notice itself, not the merits of Trump's immunity claim.
"This is most telling, as the State effectively concedes it cannot continue the prosecution of President Trump, the incoming 47th President of the United States, and must dismiss the indictment against him," Sadow shot back.
Trump's initial filing lodged earlier in December asked the appeals court to "confirm its lack of jurisdiction" over the case and then accordingly direct the trial court to "immediately dismiss" the underlying indictment "well before" January 20.
Georgia's appeals court took up Trump's case after Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee declined to disqualify Willis over conflict-of-interest concerns related to the chief prosecutor financially benefitting from her hiring of Nathan Wade, whom she had placed in charge of prosecuting Trump and engaged in an affair with during the prosecutorial process. Trump appealed the non-disqualification decision, sending the issue to the higher court.
This month, the state's Court of Appeals was supposed to hear oral arguments about the slew of prosecutorial misconduct allegations against Willis. However, the court abruptly canceled, without any explanation, the December 5 hearing "until further order." It's still unclear why the event was suddenly taken off the court calendar.
Per procedure, the three-judge panel, all of whom are GOP appointees, must rule on the matter by mid-March.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member