Trump co-defendant donates to Judge McAfee's campaign in Fani Willis case

In a recent development in the Georgia racketeering case involving former President Trump, it has been revealed that co-defendant Ray Smith III made a donation to the 2024 campaign of Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, who is presiding over the case. The $150 donation was reported in campaign data filings and raises questions about potential conflicts of interest. Smith, who was appointed by Brian Kemp to serve a full four-year term starting in January, has been vocal about alleged irregularities in the 2020 presidential election, claiming that Georgia's election process was flawed. Smith's donation to Judge McAfee is not the first instance of contributions from the defense side of the case, as reported by Newsweek. The case against Trump is currently on hold pending a review by the Georgia Court of Appeals on Trump's arguments that Judge Willis should be disqualified. Earlier this year, McAfee allowed Willis to continue on the case under certain conditions, despite allegations of a romantic relationship between her and another individual involved in the case. During a three-day evidentiary hearing, Trump and his co-defendants argued for Willis's disqualification, citing concerns about her relationship and potential bias. While McAfee acknowledged the lack of conclusive evidence regarding the alleged relationship, he expressed doubts and emphasized the importance of addressing any appearance of impropriety. The decision to allow Trump and his co-defendants to appeal was later taken up by the Georgia Court of Appeals in May. Ray Smith III, indicted alongside Trump and 17 others in the racketeering case, has not provided a comment on the matter following a request from Fox News Digital. The donation to Judge McAfee's campaign adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing legal proceedings, highlighting the intricate web of relationships and interests involved in the high-profile case. The implications of these developments on the fairness and impartiality of the judicial process remain a subject of scrutiny and debate as the case continues to unfold.