A Higher Standard of Conduct: The Appearance of Wrongdoing

On Friday, March 15, Judge Scott McAfee of The Superior Court of Fulton County Georgia ruled on the motion to dismiss and disqualify the Fulton County District Attorney (DA) in the racketeering case against Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, and 6 others for their alleged attempt to overturn Georgia’s 2020 Presidential election.[1] He noted DA Fani Willis’ and Special Assistant DA (SADA) Nathan Wade’s “lapse in judgement” in the apparently unequal spending during their personal time together after their romantic relationship began.

Judge McAfee did not, however, find sufficient evidence that either was guilty of any misconduct. Rather the bulk of his written opinion focused on the appearance of wrong-doing, the damage it can cause to both public opinion and the court’s administration of justice, and the legal precedents for grading the damage and for fashioning a remedy.

In the end, the Court offered two options to remedy “the financial cloud of impropriety and potential untruthfulness.” (1) “The DA may choose to step aside along with the whole of her office …” or (2) “SADA Wade can withdraw …” [Page 17]. Within hours, SADA Wade resigned ” … in the interest of democracy, in dedication to the American public, and to move this case forward …” [2] How thoroughly will the Court’s remedy and SADA Wade’s resignation effect this extraordinarily important criminal case and the public’s confidence in it? Will the DA hire another special prosecutor to assist in the case? And who will argue the case for the State of Georgia?

What is most striking to me about this story is the high standard of conduct to which DA Willis and SADA Wade have been held. Finding that a public official has broken the law is rare. But the appearance of wrongdoing is not just common but is expected and accepted. Lawmakers routinely seek and accept money from lobbyists and other special interests. How is that not influence peddling? Federal judges accept gifts from corporate heads whose cases are before the court. How can that fail to be an unacceptable conflict of interest for the judge? The members of Congress are elected to represent their local constitutencies but their votes are commanded by their respective party leaders who control their party’s reelection purses. How is that school yard bully team dynamic consistent with our nation’s democratic principles?

How much more effective would our government be if our public officials were held to the undeniably reasonable standard articulated by Judge McAfee? How much more representative of the will of the people would our government policies be? How much greater would be the confidence we have in our democracy? How much greater would be the respect which America commands around the world? How much safer would we be? How much greater would we be?

[1] March 15 ruling on the motion to disqualify DA Willis, Judge Scott McAfee of The Superior Court of Fulton County Georgia, 20240315-order-on-motion-to-disqualify10.pdf (thehill.com)[2] March 15 resignation letter, Special District Attorney Nathan Wade, SCAN0001.PDF (documentcloud.org)

 

Don Krieger is a biomedical researcher whose focus is the electric activity within the brain. Don is author of the hybrid collections “Discovery” (Cyberwit, 2020) and “When Danger Is Past, Who Remembers?” (Milk and
Cake Press, 2022), a 2020 Pushcart nominee, and a 2020 Creative Nonfiction Foundation Science-as-Story Fellow. Don’s work has appeared in Seneca Review, The Asahi Shimbun, Beltway Quarterly, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Tallahassee Democrat, American Journal of Nursing, Neurology, and others, and has been translated into Farsi, Greek, Italian,
German, Turkish, Romanian, and Portuguese.