BIG NEWS: Georgia Judge Scott McAfee Issues Blockbuster Decision - DA Fani Willis Found GUILTY - Ordered to Pay MASSIVE Fine to Trump
ATLANTA, Ga. — June 21, 2026
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee issued a certificate of immediate review Wednesday, allowing former President Donald Trump and eight co-defendants to seek an appeal of the order that rejected efforts to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis from the case.
Under Georgia law, the Georgia Court of Appeals has 45 days to decide whether to hear the appeal from the March 15 order. The appellate court is not required to accept the case.
Last week, Judge McAfee declined to disqualify Willis from leading the prosecution but criticized her conduct. He ruled that either Willis or her former lead prosecutor, Nathan Wade, would need to step aside to address concerns about their relationship. Wade resigned shortly after the ruling.
In his decision, McAfee noted an “odor of mendacity” surrounding Willis’s testimony about the nature and timing of her relationship with Wade. While he did not find evidence of perjury or financial misconduct sufficient to disqualify her, the judge described her actions as troubling and raised questions about her credibility during the disqualification hearing.
Legal experts have discussed the possibility of challenges to Willis’s law license through the State Bar of Georgia. Some analysts believe that without stronger evidence of misconduct, such challenges are unlikely to succeed. Others note that the judge’s criticism could fuel further scrutiny from regulators or the public, even if formal discipline does not result.
The underlying case involves racketeering and other charges against Trump and 18 co-defendants related to efforts to challenge the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all counts.
Willis has denied that her personal relationship with Wade influenced the handling or merits of the case against Trump and his co-defendants. The disqualification motion originated from allegations raised by attorneys for co-defendant Mike Roman.
The certificate of immediate review allows the defendants to ask the Court of Appeals to review McAfee’s denial of disqualification before the case proceeds further in the trial court. If the appellate court accepts the appeal, it could delay proceedings while the higher court considers the issues raised.
The developments come as the case continues to draw significant public and legal attention. Willis’s office has faced ongoing questions about the conduct of the prosecution team and the management of the high-profile matter. The situation has also prompted broader discussion about prosecutorial ethics and the standards applied to high-profile cases involving political figures.
The outcome of any appeal could significantly affect the timeline and future direction of the prosecution. Legal observers continue to monitor developments closely as the case moves through the appellate process. The disqualification issue has become a central point of contention in what remains one of the most closely watched legal proceedings involving a former president.
CBS Host LOSES IT After Sen. Kennedy FACT CHECKS Her Trump LIES… THIS GOT BAD!...
CBS Host PRESSES John Kennedy on Trump’s Spending — His Answer Takes an Unexpected Turn
The interview began with some of the biggest questions facing Washington: the conflict with Iran, rising fuel costs, and the approaching midterm elections. But when Republican Senator John Kennedy appeared on Face the Nation with CBS host Margaret Brennan, the conversation quickly moved toward an issue that could shape the political debate for months to come: how the government spends taxpayers’ money.
Kennedy did not pretend that the economic pressure facing American families was insignificant. He argued that voters were far more concerned about the cost of living than the daily battles playing out on television. With oil prices affected by disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz, he said, the consequences of foreign policy were reaching directly into household budgets.
Kennedy Brings the Conversation Back to Affordability
Kennedy’s message to the White House was unusually direct. He predicted that the midterm elections would be close and argued that Republicans needed to keep their attention on the financial concerns of ordinary Americans.
“When moms and dads lie down to sleep at night and can't,” Kennedy told Brennan, they are worried about the cost of living.
He also called for a nationwide address explaining why the United States entered the conflict with Iran, what the administration hoped to achieve, and how it intended to bring the situation to a conclusion.
His position was not a blanket rejection of the administration’s strategy. Kennedy defended continued pressure on Iran while acknowledging the economic consequences of the partially closed strait. He opposed sending American troops into the situation, warning that deploying them could create a new set of problems.
That combination—support for pressure abroad alongside concern about prices at home—set the tone for the rest of the interview.
Nearly $1 Billion in Cuts Sparks a Constitutional Dispute
The conversation became more pointed when Brennan asked about the White House’s decision to cancel nearly $1 billion in previously approved federal funding without congressional consent.
Brennan raised concerns expressed by Senator Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, who argued that the move threatened Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending.
Kennedy disagreed.
“I love Susan like a taco, but she's wrong,” he said before explaining his view that Congress often appropriates money in broad categories, leaving agencies with considerable discretion over how funds are ultimately used.
He then deployed the phrase that would become the interview’s most memorable sound bite: “Spending porn.”
Kennedy used the expression to criticize what he considers wasteful government expenditures, pointing to funding for circumcision programs in Zambia and electric buses in Rwanda. He also argued that Congress should take greater responsibility for identifying and eliminating spending it believes is unnecessary.
But the disagreement was about more than whether particular programs were worthwhile. It raised a larger question: when Congress approves funding, how much authority should the executive branch have to cancel or redirect it?
Kennedy defended the cuts, while Brennan’s question highlighted the legal and constitutional objections. The interview did not resolve that dispute, but it brought the competing arguments into sharp focus.
Then Kennedy Turned the Standard on Trump
The most revealing moment came when Brennan shifted from the proposed cuts to taxpayer-funded advertising.
She asked Kennedy about a government-funded commercial prominently featuring President Donald Trump and praising his leadership. The question echoed earlier controversy surrounding former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, whose department had spent $220 million on a border-security advertising campaign in which she appeared prominently.
Kennedy had previously criticized Noem’s campaign. Now, with Trump featured in another advertisement paid for by the federal government, Brennan asked whether that spending was appropriate.
Kennedy’s response was notable because he explicitly included his own political allies—and himself—in the principle he was defending.
“I don't think any public official, including President Trump or Kristi Noem or John Kennedy, should spend public money on private ads for themselves,” he said.
He acknowledged that the White House viewed the issue differently but argued that public funds should not be used to promote individual politicians. He also suggested that politicians should not have buildings named after them while they are still alive.
That answer complicated any attempt to portray his position as simply a defense of the administration. Kennedy supported the proposed spending cuts, but he also applied his criticism of taxpayer-funded self-promotion to Trump.
The Real Takeaway From the Interview
The exchange was not a shouting match, nor does the published transcript establish that Brennan lost her composure or that Kennedy fact-checked a series of false statements from her. What it does show is a pointed discussion about economic priorities, congressional spending authority, and whether public money should be used to enhance a politician’s image.
Kennedy’s argument was straightforward: families are worried about affordability, government spending deserves scrutiny, and the rules should apply regardless of party.
Whether viewers agree with his assessment of the proposed cuts is a separate question. The legal dispute over executive spending authority and the debate over taxpayer-funded political advertising deserve examination beyond a few memorable television lines.
The moment worth watching is when Brennan moves from criticizing government spending in general to asking Kennedy about an advertisement featuring Trump himself. That is where the discussion becomes more complicated—and where Kennedy’s stated principle is tested against his own party’s leadership.
Watch the full interview through the link below to hear the exchange in context and decide how convincing each side’s argument really was.
