DA suggests Georgia election interference case against Trump may continue

The state prosecution of Donald Trump on election interference charges in Georgia may be able to continue despite his impending inauguration, a lawyer for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis signaled in a court filing that urged an appeals court to reject the president-elect's request to throw out the case based on presidential immunity.

The filing argued that Trump's lawyers failed to demonstrate why a state prosecution would be subject to the Department of Justice memorandum prohibiting the prosecution of a sitting presidents -- which was cited by special counsel Jack Smith when he wound down his federal cases against Trump -- or impede Trump's duties as president.

"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," Fulton County Chief Senior Assistant District Attorney F. McDonald Wakeford wrote.

"The notice makes mention of these concepts without actually examining them or applying them to the present circumstances. In other words, Appellant has not done the work but would very much like for this Court to do so," the filing said.

According to the filing, state prosecutors are not bound by the Department of Justice's policies, and past court decisions have not clearly established a precedent for state cases proceeding against a sitting president.

"Given these vague statements, to simply invoke the phrase 'federalism and comity concerns,' without more, offers nothing of substance," the filing said, accusing Trump's lawyer of making "sweeping legal generalizations which are either misleading or oversimplified" and providing "a smattering of quotations that are alternately mischaracterized or stripped of context."

In a two-page response filed Wednesday, Trump attorney Steve Sadow said that prosecutors failed to address the merits of the president-elect's immunity argument.

"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 wrote.

Trump and 18 others pleaded not guilty last year to all charges in a sweeping racketeering indictment for alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in the state of Georgia. Four defendants subsequently took plea deals in exchange for agreeing to testify against other defendants.

Wakeford, in his filing, urged the Georgia Court of Appeals to reject or ignore Trump's request to order the dismissal of the case, describing Trump's recent filing as nothing more than a "decree."

"The notice thus fails to adequately notify this Court of anything except for the outcome that Appellant would prefer -- and expects -- to see," the filing said. "Such a filing is best understood as a decree. Appellant has provided this Court with half a thought and gestured toward a smattering of constitutional principles, and as a result, he feels entitled to instruct this Court as to what its conclusions are expected to be."

The Georgia Court of Appeals took up Trump's case after trial Judge Scott McAfee declined to disqualify Willis over her romantic relationship with a fellow prosecutor, who was forced to resign from the case. Earlier this month, Trump's lawyer sent the court a notice requesting they order the trial judge to dismiss the case based on Trump's presidential immunity, which they argued applied to him as president-elect.

Wakeford, in his filing, categorically denied the existence of president-elect immunity.

"While the courts' understanding of presidential immunity continues to evolve, 'president-elect immunity' obviously does not exist," the filing said.

Wakeford also defended the integrity of the case against Trump, accusing the president-elect of using a "familiar tactic" when he argued the case is politically motivated.

"This case is thus the result of two separate grand juries and years of investigation, and any suggestion it is motivated by 'possible local prejudice' remains utterly unfounded," the filing said.