Fani Willis' disqualification case against Trump will be heard by the Georgia court one month after the presidential election.

On Dec. 5, the Georgia Court of Appeals will hear former President Trump's case to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis, a month after the 2024 presidential election.

Trump and his co-defendants are appealing to have embattled Willis disqualified from the case due to an alleged "improper" affair with former special prosecutor Nathan Wade.

In Georgia, lawyers for Trump filed an appeal brief last month, challenging a court order that could disqualify him from participating in a broad electioneering lawsuit.

Steve Sadow, lead attorney for Trump, stated that the brief persuasively argues that the trial court should have dismissed the case and disqualified DA Willis for her forensic misconduct and the appearance of impropriety between her and former Special Assistant DA Wade, who was her lover and taxpayer-funded financial benefactor.

"We are hopeful that the Court will rule in our favor on the appeal."

Yes, the brief argues that a prosecutor should be disqualified if they intentionally and repeatedly violate ethical and professional standards to benefit defendants for personal or political gain.

Is it necessary to disqualify a prosecutor who testifies falsely, conceals misconduct, and creates an odor of mendacity that results in a significant appearance of impropriety? Yes, if this prosecutor diverts attention from her misconduct by claiming on national television that the defendants are dishonest racists for bringing truthful accusations to light, can anyone trust the impartiality of her actions? No.

The appeals court halted proceedings in the case against Trump, effectively ending any chance for Willis to prosecute the former president prior to the Nov. 5 election.

Earlier this month, Willis filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the lower court did not have enough evidence to support the claims of conflict of interest, and that there is no basis to appeal Fulton Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee's March ruling allowing Willis to remain on the case.

Trump's lawyer characterized the motion as a "final attempt to prevent any appellate examination of [her] misconduct."

In August, Trump and 18 others were indicted as part of a yearslong investigation led by Willis and Georgia prosecutors into Trump's alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election in the state.

The accusations encompass violating the Georgia RICO Act, soliciting a public official to break their oath, conspiring to impersonate a public official, conspiring to forge documents in the first degree, conspiring to make false statements and writings, conspiring to file false documents, and filing false documents.

Since then, Willis has faced challenges in her attempts to interview Trump, the GOP presidential candidate, prior to the election.

In March, McAfee rejected six of the accusations and asserted that the state lacked sufficient specificity for six counts of "solicitation of violation of oath by public officer."

In November 2021, Wade was hired by Willis to help prosecute the case, but in February 2022, Michael Roman, a GOP operative and co-defendant in the case, accused Willis of having an "improper" affair with Wade.

She profited from her relationship with him through extravagant trips, as other co-defendants claimed similar allegations.

Wade and Willis denied having a romantic relationship before he hired her and stated that they would split the expenses of their shared travels. Willis admitted that she reimbursed Wade for her portion of the trips in cash.

In order to keep Willis from disqualification in the Trump election interference case, McAfee ordered that Wade be removed following evidentiary hearings held in February.

The prosecution team's structure is infected with impropriety, as highlighted by the established record. The State must remove this appearance through one of two options: either Willis and her entire office step aside or Wade withdraws from the case.

Wade subsequently resigned from his post as special prosecutor.

McAfee stated in his March order that although Willis' reimbursement practice was unusual and there was a lack of any documentary corroboration, he ultimately decided that the defendants did not present sufficient evidence to show that expenses were not divided evenly.

The District Attorney's decision to indict and prosecute the case was not influenced by the financial gain that the defendant's relationship with Wade could bring.

McAfee wrote in his order that the record from the evidentiary hearing showed that the District Attorney's prosecution had an appearance of impropriety.

"As the case progresses, it is possible that the public may question whether the financial exchanges have benefited the District Attorney or if the romantic relationship has been rekindled."

An outsider might believe that the District Attorney is not making decisions entirely on her own, due to potential influences. This perception will continue as long as Wade is involved in the case.

In March, McAfee argued that his Order on the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and Disqualify the Fulton County District Attorney, issued on March 15, was of great significance to the case and should be immediately reviewed. As a result, the defendants were granted the opportunity to appeal to the Georgia appeals court, which was granted last month.