Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) faced a wave of criticism from legal experts on Friday after she complained that Judge Scott McAfee should have recused himself in the Fani Willis case due to his alleged bias. Greene claimed that McAfee had previously worked for Willis and donated to her campaign, arguing that these factors should have disqualified him from presiding over the case.
However, lawyers and legal analysts swiftly dismissed Greene's arguments, stating that she failed to cite a "sufficient basis for judicial recusal." They pointed out that McAfee's ruling was highly critical of Willis' "unprofessional" behavior, suggesting that his decision was not influenced by any prior connections to the Fulton County district attorney.
"Sigh. Judge McAfee donated a small sum to Fani Willis' campaign in 2020-before he was appointed to the bench," tweeted Anna Bower, a Lawfare legal fellow and courts correspondent. "Georgia courts have held that nominal campaign contributions are an insufficient basis for judicial recusal. There's no basis for McAfee to recuse."
Bower also addressed Greene's accusation that McAfee had worked for Willis in the past, noting that while the judge had indeed worked in the same office as Willis before his appointment to the bench, this was long before Willis ran for district attorney. "Again, not a sufficient basis for judicial recusal, as the Georgia Supreme Court has held!" Bower wrote.
In his ruling, Judge McAfee admonished Willis for her combative testimony during the evidentiary hearing and her January speech at an Atlanta church, where she suggested that she was being targeted because of her race. Despite finding a "significant appearance of impropriety" in the prosecution team's structure, McAfee ultimately allowed Willis to remain on the Trump criminal case, provided that she remove her alleged lover, Nathan Wade, from the team.
Greene expressed outrage at the decision, claiming that Willis and Wade had conspired with the White House and the January 6th Committee, and called for an investigation into their alleged abuse of taxpayer funds. She also accused Willis of lying under oath in McAfee's courtroom.
Legal experts, however, took issue with Greene's assertions. Lawyer Andrew Fleischman noted that McAfee's order "strongly, strongly implies that Wade and Willis lied under oath," adding, "You would not write these things about someone you were sucking up to."
Law professor Anthony Michael Kreis also weighed in, stating that McAfee's small campaign contribution before accepting a judicial seat was not a due process issue. "Judge McAfee has been extremely cautious, methodical, and thorough. There is zero basis to believe he hasn't been playing this down the middle even if you disagree with some of his decisions," Kreis wrote.
The controversy surrounding Judge McAfee's role in the Fani Willis case has drawn attention to the broader issues of judicial impartiality and the influence of political connections in high-profile legal proceedings. While Rep. Greene's accusations have been largely dismissed by legal experts, they have nonetheless sparked a debate about the importance of maintaining public trust in the judiciary.
