"specific conduct, and impacts more than a 'nebulous' public interest because it concerns a public prosecutor." He also found that "an odor of mendacity remains" and that "reasonable questions about whether the District Attorney and her hand-selected lead SADA testified untruthfully...further underpin the finding of an appearance of impropriety."McAfee also held that an appearance of impropriety can warrant disqualification of individual prosecutors, BUT not the prosecutor's office as a whole, and further held that removing Wade would "cure" the appearance of impropriety.I just don't think this last legal holding can survive appellate scrutiny. The appearance of impropriety implicates BOTH Willis and Wade. There are reasonable questions about whether Willis testified truthfully and about whether she financially gained from the prosecution. Those questions don't just go away if Wade withdraws.Further, the cases Judge McAfee cites for the proposition that an appearance of impropriety doesn't require the whole office to be DQ'd are cases where it was the line prosecutor who had the conflict issues, not the elected district attorney. When it's a line prosecutor, sure, it's easy enough to just replace that specific prosecutor and cure the issue. But when it's the elected DA who has the conflict - well, every prosecutor in the office reports to the elected DA. There's no way to remove the "odor of mendacity" without removing the entire office.