take place that reflection is when the, when the, when the district attorney sat down and wrote out. but look at the look, i'm sure the court has when you look at that video, it's in evidence of her speech, a church she has written now at everything and she's reading from it. she chooses to deflect the court asked earlier, wasn't she really responding to the motion that had been filed against her? would that she had because if she had she would have looked a members of that church in the face and say, i have been there's been an allegation that i had a romantic relationship with mr. wade and ladies and gentlemen, that's congregation. it's true she didn't do that she chose to deflect and to do two things that are rep. free hansel for any lawyer, but particularly for a prosecutor. she chose to pull out the race card and the god card. that's what she did

discussion with god, why are they only attacking one or in reference to mr. to mr. wade? and then she goes on. to say, god isn't it them playing the race card when they only question one. now, if she had been truthful with that congregation, truthful with the community, she would've said i had a relationship with him good, bad, forgive me. whatever that's what she should have said. but she chose to deflect and say the them the reference to them and the others and they saw obviously a reference to that motion filed by him by ms merchant's. they choose to go after the black man and she then goes on again deflecting

away and deflecting to the what i call the third rail in american society, choosing somebody on the other side of being a racist so and so is a racist. they're racist she was the one playing the race card in a way to try to deflect from her own conduct she goes on to say in discussions with the lord, god, is that is it that some some will never see a black man is qualified, no matter his achievements. again, the deflection. what is, what is she saying? the listener is not necessarily in that audience in that church. the listener is in fulton county. the potential jurors who will come into a courtroom and say whether or not they can fairly judge the evidence or judge the but the defense in this case, she chose to inject race into the minds of the listeners and virtually everybody in this

community, and literally everybody in this country has reviewed and analyzed her speech that she made an a premeditated way and bringing in not only the race card, but also in bring in the religious matter. this is exactly what hammond's v. state and our supreme court talks about condemning is an inflammatory appeal to the jurors, private religious beliefs why would she do that >> to deflect >> but now, not only is she deflecting, but she is then going forward. and in a way telling the community telling the congregation that god is on her side. not on the side of these fetal god. she said in when she's talking and she's saying god, pray for their souls. i, meaning god qualified you i qualified you're in flawed self. i see you in every

hour do my work as though she's telling the folks in her very, very, very implicit way, injecting into the minds of the jurors god wants me to win this case god wants me to prosecute this case. and why is he going and why are these others going after the black man? well, the answer is very simple, as we said in our brief, we didn't mention mrs. krause, mr. cross, the white female, or mr. floyd? the white male, because there was absolutely no evidence and is no evidence of a personal romantic relationship with them in which he obtained these benefits. that's the reason why we did not do that. she goes forward with her with the deflections that's exactly what she does when she goes forward and she talks about a planned interviews time and

time again with authors of a book, find me the votes, where she's talking about a case is going to be tried in this courtroom. it's reprehensible. >> so in that excuse me instance setting aside the fact that she was willing to go on the record before a case that even reach the jury. what specific statements from that book do you contend cross the line? >> well, for example, she's saying she goes on to talk about all the calls that she's gaetz, you get from people calling her racial terms. and all the calls are racist, which he's trying to do. and i think there's a reference in there too, maga people, whatever in that which he's really saying is that those people calling me up and making those claims or those those horrible racial slurs to me are really people on their side of the fence that's what she's doing. and there's no reason, your honor, ever for a prosecutor to sit

down and go forward with this this kind of interview. she did it and find the votes, but then they then they what really happened here? is this hiding of the relationship. because in hiding in the relationship, they have done such a good job. mr. wade filed false documents in his divorce case when well on met one on may the 23rd and may of 2023, talking about have you ever had a sexual relations with a person? now, during the course of the marriage or including the period of separation, he still married he doesn't have a divorce decree, but he has answer is none. then he's asked whether or not on any occasions he's entertained or ben entertained by by someone from a woman a member of the officers section, this case, a woman from the date of the marriage to the present talking about place and time and all that. what does he answered? none. why does he do that? he does that because he

doesn't want to tell about the relationship that he has with ms willis and the benefits that he has gotten and that he gave to her that's exactly what these answers are absolutely reprehensible that a member of the state bar of georgia would file these these answers that are that are that are inaccurate what does what does ms way do as he mean this ms willis to ms willis on her financial for whether or not she has gotten anything of $100 or more in value from a prohibited source. the court asked earlier about what a threshold might be. well, if for the financial board, it's $100, that's if she doesn't report any of all of the benefits it's that that she received from mr. wade all the trips, all the entertainment, all the the the three nights in

the luxury suite in aruba. all of that none of that is here. and they say, oh, well, maybe it all balanced out, even though i can we have prove it with the cash. well, that's like saying, did i give the court a christmas present? well, maybe i gave the court christmas present in the court gave me one back. the court has to fill out a form whether you got a christmas present from anybody, you say i got one from mr. gillen. you don't say now? well, i gave him one back, so it really evens out they are false reports and because they're false when they had to do is they had to say oh, ms merchant has caught us. and so what we're going to do is we're going to get in our response, we're going to get mr. wade to file a false declaration, which he does his declaration in this case is false. and the evidence showing that that is false as it relates to the timing. and the court asked earlier why does it matter? we know if the relationship was before or

after november 1, 2021? the answer is they think it's important and frankly, i do too, because when she's hiring somebody and she's not telling the people are gonna be paying in the tab up to $700,000. >> hey, >> i just hired my boyfriend who's taking me on trip to the caribbean and taking me down to aruba and taking me to california. hope you don't mind no disclosure whatsoever. and the money flows on >> but because >> they got caught, they then commit what i think is forensic an additional component of forensic misconduct. and that is fraud on this court. when they when they file that affidavit and now it's been proven. i think beyond virtually any doubt any doubt that the relationship occurred prior to november 1, 2021, and the benefits that were there, and we don't have to run around. and i love the you know, we've got all the records

showing from mr. wade about the payment for these it's trips for the cruises, for the flights, all this stuff. >> what's the only >> way as they sat around and met together before they testified and came up with her story. what's the only way that they can save themselves? pay no attention to the records, pay no attention to the airlines into the flights and vacations and the cruises i paid him back in cash. >> show us your receipts. where did you take cash out of the bank ever? i don't have any will show us the deposits that he had. well never we don't have any what we have here is a fraud on this court which has been shown i think overwhelmingly by the evidence in overwhelmingly through not only the testimony of yeartie, the testimony of the of the emails on the text from from

mr. bradley to ms merchant's, as well as all the documents that they had no answer to other than the just trust me, i gave him money, evaporated. i don't know where it came from and he doesn't know what he did with it. just please trust us and believe us because it's our only way out of the trap that they set for themselves. these people, sadly, and i hate to sound as a forum, as a coordinate as i was i was a prosecutor for about three-and-a-half million years. it seems in the federal building and i was an assistant da beforehand prosecutors don't act like this. lawyers don't act like this these people, your honor, is a systematic misconduct and they need to go. thank you. >> your honor, i'm going to

cover a few factual details without overly rehashing what has already been said during the, pendency of this investigation in this case mr. wade and ms willis basically lived rotten leeches lifestyle of the rich and famous. and they did this riding on the backs of the defendants in this case funded by the taxpayers of fulton county and the state of georgia with the money that was paid to mr. wade through the contract that ms willis got him, that money flow. that is the personal interests of you asked about. she was personally benefiting from the position from the job, from the scope of the investigation, from the scope of the indictment, and how they conducted it. and we know this we know from the records that have been submitted before the court that mr. wade paid at least $17,095

towards this relationship? that does not even include the various dinners that day trips that both wade and willis admitted to. that number is likely even higher. we know from the documents that ms willis only paid $1,394 for an airline ticket we know from ms yeartie who was pretty much uncontested. there was no evidence presented by the state disputing her timeframe that that relationship started in 2019 she saw them kissing. she saw them hugging. >> now >> whether or not they had sex before january of 2022, i do not know they admitted sometime in early 2022 and i found it curious that they both wade and willis just went straight to the sex. so maybe that's when they started having sex. i do not know. but the relationship predated that there combined in

overly suggestive. focus on that is a red herring to this court into the defense that that's where they want you to focus on. they want you nor all the evidence that the relationship predated that the relationship started in 2019. the relationship continued through 2020. the relationship continued through 2021. looking at the cell phone communications just in the first 11 months of 2021 over 2000 calls, almost 9,800 texts i don't even think love's struck teenagers communicate that much. the november 29 in november 30, escobedo phone call from ms willis between ms willis and mr. wade 11, 32 that night shortly after midnight the phone starts traveling down from what where mr. wade lives and ends up where ms will staying. and he's there until roughly 04:55 a.m. none of the

excuses none of the explanations that mr. wade gave go into the porsche experience go into dinner go into the airport. none of that explains that. i'm pretty sure the porsche experience is an open in the middle of the night i'm pretty sure that there weren't a restaurants that he drove 30 to 45 minutes to go eat at in the middle of the night right after he talked to ms willis teenagers have a name for those kinds of calls and those kind of expats, i won't go into it. >> but the documentary evidence, the objective evidence undercuts everything that both wade and willis set when you look at ms yeartie again, she unequivocally said that relationship began in 2019 she saw physical evidence of a romantic relationship mr. bradley in the text messages,

which are substantive evidence, says that relationship began in 2019 again, his january you temporary amnesia that somehow is triggered temporarily after a gabe banks called him we can question that, but we do have statements from him that specifically said that relationship predated mr. wade's appointment by ms willis you asked well and mr. wade, you asked what the materiality would be. how much is enough >> well, clearly >> 17,000 is enough but fulton county has told us has told mrs. willis what the materiality is. it's $100 a year. she twice signed declarations certifications that she did not receive any gifts and even under her

strained her strained explanation there were monies that were gifts, there were dinners, there were excess contributions flowing her way that exceeded $100 her excuse or i'm sorry, her explanation well, i just paid in cash that just does not stand a reason. it does not hold up to the light of truth anyone that has ever been in a money-laundering trial of forfeiture trial. >> if >> that's the explanation we give the state, they laugh. oh, i just gave cash. i have no records for it. i have no source for it >> the only >> thing that she could say that was a source for the money because at times she said she was down to 500,000 dollars. the only explanation she have as well. sometimes i go to publix and i may get an extra $50. that shows up on your

debit card or your credit card. did they bring those records in know? >> they bring her bank accounts in? know did they bring any document area? documentary. evidence in know they did not. and why is that important, judge? yes, the burden is ours but under ocga ocga 24 dash 14, dash 22 if. a party has evidenced in such party's power and within such parties reach by which he or she may repel a claim and they had that power. and this willis had that power. mr. wade had the power that they can repel the claim that we have made against them but they admit to produce it. or if they produce weaker evidence, do then you as the factfinder, judge, it is in your power to disregard that in a presumption arises that that documentary evidence that is in their possession that they failed to produce supports our claim and that is something that the state relies on regularly in

criminal trials and that is something that the court should rely on in this case when formulating. >> it's >> factual findings >> and we know that both mr. wade and ms willis have some difficulty expressing the truth when it comes to their relationship in these cases, we know mr. wade light and his interrogatories multiple times. we know ms willis falsely certified that she hadn't received any gifts from anybody. and mr. wade clearly was a prohibited source. he was someone doing business with fulton county. >> anything over $100 a year. she had to put down and she put zero it defies imagination that she could somehow forget about all these trips, all these dinners all these day trips, and not put that money down you would ask, i think it was mr. gillen

>> did she say in that church speech or anywhere else that the defendants were guilty >> and i think she did not charge speech. xi said in that church speech. and she was talking about a conversation that she apparently had with god talking about herself she said this leader has a trial conviction rate of 95% she said the trial team this leader put together has a conviction rate of 95% i do not see how anyone and i think that was purposefully intended by ms willis. i do not see how anyone can listen to those two statements. and not take that ms willis is telling everyone in that church and everyone that's going to hear that in the media afterwards, that these defendants are guilty that is what she was saying. she is a prosecutor. she's familiar with the us v. burger every single product, every single attorney that's ever been a prosecutor is familiar with the diktats, dictates of

that us supreme court case. >> that is a foul blow that is improper. and she violated pretty much every tenant. a prosecutor, must bide by to seek truth and justice. and in particular case so judge, when you're looking at this uncontroverted evidence, shows that they had a relationship prior. the uncontroverted evidence shows that mr. wade lavishly spent on ms willis the uncontroverted evidence shows that the money that he was spending on ms willis came from this contract that he had. and i'm not just talking about the contract as a special prosecutor, but there's also those other questionable contracts that no matter whom his partner seem to be, >> they also guide there is a direct financial benefit that ms willis received from this judge looking back at what ms

judgment furnish said if merely hosting a fundraiser for a political opponent of a putative defendant creates not only the appearance, but an actual conflict than what ms willis has done since then in this case, creates an actual conflict, but again, as prior counsel is stated, we only need to show the appearance of the conflict and we have done that by a preponderance of the evidence. in fact, i believe we've shown an actual conflict, but nonetheless, the results should be that ms willis and her office should be disqualified from this case. we still have a few more minutes. i think mr. cromwell may have something to say >> thank you, your honor. >> thank you >> good afternoon, your honor.

harry macdougald for mr. clarke i'm going to talk further about conflicts and i'm going to assume the most difficult standard for us to me, which is actual conflict but before i begin that i want to add just a little bit to what has already been said. about the standards that apply to prosecutors are appellate courts have said, often, the administration of the law and especially that of the criminal law, should like caesar's wife the above suspicion and should be free from all temptation bias, or prejudice so far as it is possible for our courts to accomplish it. the first occurrence of that, then i can find as nichols phi state more than 100 years ago, 1915 the most recent riggi stay the state in the supreme court in 2010 although they don't refer to caesar's wife, that requirement is also embedded in the prosecutors statutory oath 15 dash 18 dash to which

requires impartially and without fear or favor discharge my duties as district attorney and take only my lawful compensation. so help me god the general rule on conflicts of interests for lawyers is in rule of professional conduct 1.7 and we all know it's all drummed into us that we cannot have a conflict of interests. and if we do, we have to withdraw or we will be disqualified. the basic idea is that a conflict of interest impairs the lawyer's independent professional judgment. that's the test of a conflict and whether it can be waived and whether it's disqualifying and that conflict is not just financial, it can be any conflict that impairs your independent professional judgment. and you see that in

mclaughlin v. pain, the court asked what was a personal interest for personal purposes of disqualification? it's anything that and players professional judgment that's reflected in the aba standards that were quoted by mr. merchant code, which list the prosecutors personal, political, financial, professional, business, property, or other interests, or relationships. and that's really embedded headed in the prosecutors oath to act impartially and the earlier disqualification order by judge mcburney was based on political interests, not financial what my colleagues have described as forensic misconduct is also cognize able as a conflict of interests based on that footnote. and williams kicks the root of all of the problems that we see in this court right now is a conflict of interest

arising from their individual personal contrasts in perpetuating and concealing their relationship that's the original sin from which all of the other problems flow. there are six different actual conflicts of interest in this case. any one of which warrants disqualification. but collectively, practically compelling first, the financial conflict that's already been covered secondly, personal ambition, political ambition their third, there's a dovetailed are complimentary pattern of deceit and concealment of the relationship and the money for the speech at the church. fifth, the motion for protective order that the da filed and mr. weinstein horse case sixth, the way the state has conducted the defense of this motion to disqualify, especially the hearing on the

financial piece. the court asked for a limiting principle and asked about materiality. the limiting principle is whatever impairs the independent professional judgment of the lawyer that is applied routinely we have a county code section that flatly prohibits gifts from contractors period. >> we have >> by analogy, the federal bribery statute, which has a threshold of $5,000 usc 666 the court asked about and burdens and inferences the court can draw a negative inference from the state failure to produce evidence to support the invisible magic cash balancing theory based on state v. thomas 311 georgia for 07 particularly footnote 19 as to the timing question that the court asked

about there were two contracts for mr. wade executed after they acknowledged the relationship began. each one of them afflicted are conflicted under county and common law the second conflict it's sort of political ambition for which he was previously chest asked by judge mcburney and that's also present in this book for inside flap of this book says that they were given exclusive access to thousands of secret documents emails, text messages, and audio recordings. the court has twice-denied defense motions to unseal special purpose grand jury materials she helped herself to get the glory of this book. i introduced certified copies of a number of county code sections. i'm not going to walk through those, but i'll tell you why they matter

>> the >> stack of law from the state constitution down to the county ordinances imposes a regime on the da under which she has three obligations. she has to go to the county commission to get approval to pay him like she did. she cannot accept gifts from our prohibited source. she has to disclose this gifts that she received she evaded all of those requirements section to bash 69 of the county code prohibits gifts from prohibited sources, which he was there is no boyfriend exception the disclosure forms the evidence is sufficient for you to find that her disclosure form for 2022 is false and then it is a false writing that's an actual conflict of interests between her duty legal duty of disclosure, or legal duty of

candor as a prosecutor, and her private and personal interests and concealing the relationship, concealing the gifts and keeping the gravy train rolling for as long as possible. here's part in the pattern of concealment. it's a story you see in many divorce cases. husband is hiding things from his wife how much money he's making. >> the >> other woman and what he's been in one other woman and he got on that stand why does interrogatories and he got on the stand and he lied about line in the interrogatories and the lawyers for the da the da's office, they just sat there and let him do it i did nothing to correct obviously, perjured testimony in and of itself that warrants disqualification of every one of them the reason they lied and covered it up was to avoid the trouble therein right now

that's served their personal interests to the detriment of their public duties as prosecutors. the speech at the church i want to focus on why she did that. mr. gillen talked about that she did it to deflect attention from her own misconduct in that if mr. wade she violated her public duty as a prosecutor to serve her personal interests and the personal interests of her boyfriend. that is a disqualifying conflict between your personal, interesting or public duty. that is actual operational and keep materialize. and it rests on undisputed facts the next thing that she did that was a disqualifying conflict of interests, was the emergency motion for protective order actually filed in the divorce. i filed a certified copy of that as exhibit 37 she sought a protective order under the apex

doctrine on the grounds that she's the da the whole filing is expressly predicated on her status as da in fact, she never let you forget it. she says that 27 times in 12 pages in that filing, speaking, as da, she said the circumstances, quote, suggests that defendant joycelyn wade is using the legal process to harass and embarrass district attorney willis. and in doing so, is obstructing and interfering with an ongoing criminal investigation in the prayer for relief on page 11, she asked for six months to quote, complete a review of the filings in the instant case, investigate and depose relevant witnesses with regard to the interference and obstruction. this motion contents there's no sugar coating it. that's a clear violation of rule of professional conduct 3.4 h,

which prohibits lawyers from making threats of criminal prosecution to gain advantage in a civil case. >> she abused her power she abused her position to threaten her boyfriend's wife was criminal prosecution to gain advantage for herself and her boyfriend and or boyfriends divorce. she violated her public duties not to make that kind of a threat in order to serve for private personal interests and those of mr. way another actual operational conflict. the last category is the conduct of the defense of this hearing a lot of objections made based on attorney-client privilege during mr. bradley's testimony most of those objections were made by the state, but the privilege being asserted does

not belong to the state. it belongs to mr. wade. that shows that the da's office is serving the personal interests of the da and mr. wade in carrying out further concealment and cover up of their relationship and not the cause of justice. they are sworn to serve. that is a conflict of interest it's a continuation of the wrongful pattern of concealment and cover up that they've engaged in since the beginning. but now they've enlisted the entire office in the infra prize in the written response to the motion to disqualify, wray said this and i quote, should be absolutely clear there is no evidence that da willis derived any financial benefit from mr. wade. that's on page 15 flat-out false ten lawyers in

this case, but their name on that starting with the da so throw another log on the bonfire of conflicts of interests the problem here is the da cannot distinguish between her personal interests and ambitions on the one hand, and her public duties as a prosecutor on the other. and apparently neither neither can anyone else in their office of the six conflicts i've identified, only one is subject to a conflict in the evidence this is a case study in what happens when you operate under a conflict of interest it's put an irreparable stain on the case thank you. was the message that would be sent if they were not disqualified. if this is tolerated, we'll get more of it. this office is a global laughing stock because of their conduct they should be

disqualified in the case should be dismissed. >> rana is not much oxygen left in the room >> if we >> delineated the times based on the whole presentation, is what would your honor consider some time for us in rebuttal? >> no. >> okay. well, then could i reserve what i have five minutes for? >> that's fine. all right. thank you, your honor. >> all right. >> let's take a quick >> five and we'll be back to 40 ish debris here from this day. thank you >> all right. you have been listening to the final >> arguments there in that disqualification hearing down in fulton county, hearing from attorneys for the defendants in the broader case. just to remind everyone, this is a hearing within that case surrounded on that prosecutor,

fani willis yes. >> some really interesting arguments to get into harry mcdougal, who was just speaking now he's an attorney for jeffrey clark, one of trump's more than a dozen co-defendants describing what he sees as a conflict of interests for fani willis as an irreparable stain, as a bonfire of conflicts, of interests. asking what message? he thinks would be sent if they were not disqualified, they being the district attorney, fani willis, and the entire team, nathan wade, included. let's bring in cnn's laura coates, who has been watching and taking notes alongside us this entire time, learning from laura echevarria, you have to do so. >> initially a big part of the discussion that we heard from the defense team had to do with the question of whether there was an actual conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interests, that offense there at one point, john merchant, part of the defense team for mike roman seemed to argue that they

didn't need to prove actual conflict, but rather just the appearance of conflict of interests. what did you make of those arguments? of the arguments overall? >> well, first, on the arguments overall, qualitatively, what a different experience this afternoon has been compared to the sort of meandering, trying to figure out what the theory of the case was going to be earlier. a lot of testimony, a lot of back-and-forth. this was a streamlined approach based on what they would like the judge to know. now, remember, the most persuasive arguments are based on primacy and recency. the first thing i told you in the last thing i told you that what you did forget everything in between and they're going to come here at the last part talking about the idea of forensic misconduct. you heard that all day they say, what does that mean? well, there's two primary ways is qualify somebody. either you had a financial benefit that makes it such that the defense cannot have a actual fair trial or you have a personal stake in the outcome of the case. they are suggesting that this is a blurred line on one hand that she is financially benefitting, that they cannot be considered to be truthful at all. and the judge can not what they say

credit their testimony that they are lying somehow, and therefore, you can't believe anything they have to say. even going so far, i say they concocted the whole cache theory. we're going to figure out how to make this case go away. then there's the idea of the personal stake, meaning whatever the outcome of visits, i'm so deeply invested based on my personal are political ambition. but there was this huge moment that i thought was so fascinating and that was coming from the attorney for donald trump, mr. sadow. he went white right into the idea of the church speech. >> just a moment. >> when bonnie was went to a historically black church and she spoke about an intimate, the reason they were focusing on nathan wade as but one member of the team as opposed to all others, was because he was a black man. they wanted disqualify him. they wanted to undermine his credentials. they wanted to mask the un and professionally. this was a moment with the actual attorneys took high interest in they suggest that she tainted the jury pool by making that statement and may play out the timing of it. as forget their

relationship. the timing of when she made these statements, she had not yet responded in her pleadings to the judge would do the other filings in the motion. she wanted to have this moment and the judges or judges are asking the question, is the ethical allegation that you were raising enough to disqualify they want them to believe it actually is right there. >> who's just i >> believe come into the courtroom. we have not heard from her attorneys yet, are the attorneys representing her side of this argument? we are expecting to hear from them later this afternoon, but we're just in the middle of a quick five-minute break per the judge. laura, please finish your thought. >> well, yet again, what an appearance in by finding the last time she came into the courtroom. right. and all of a sudden she appears ready to testify. they actually pointed out her testimony in this latest argument to suggest that she was so defiant that she was kinda doing the idea. me thinks the lady doth protest too much that she wanted to focus on everything, but he was a moment they've, been focusing on relationship. they want to

suggest that they were being cutesy. they were it was wade and willis who wanted to focus on sexual interactions as distraction to win romance actually began. but remember, this judge asked a really important question. he asked, well, what is the personal interests that was a first question out of the gate which made me you think to myself, well, if the judge is asking after all your arguments, what is the personal interest he got a problem. the second really important one was about materiality. remember that point he said, is there an immaterial city requirements was the gum part. this was the gum pi >> was when we're all thinking, well, if i give you a stick of gum like in my disqualified you might need the gum. i might have the gum. i want to give the gum. that was a really important point because they had an opportunity to say, no, i'm not going to just strain credulity and tell you, yeah, everything is fair game. materiality goes to the idea of, okay, is what is being exchanged or given enough to disqualify you because the defendants can't have a fair trial, a stick of gum, come on, a coffee, come on. but they

pointed to her statements and signing off on limitations of what she'd gotten. that's where you're going. i know you knew it. yeah. $100. yeah. she signed documents. this is richard rice, robert cheeley is defense attorney saying that she she did not receive any gifts, none in excess of hundred dollars the defense team here is pointing to some 9,000 or so dollars that they believe were unaccounted for in these trips that nathan wade and fani willis took. i mean, it isn't that glaring, but there's 9,000 bucks that they don't really know where it went. >> the dabbles in the details and they think is glaring and they also think that the fact that this argument seems to be yet how about i paid you back? >> so >> all's well, that ends well, that's gonna be enough. >> when reality. they pointed out, what if you weren't a money-laundering case? now, of course, finding willis is known for wearing the biggest rico cases in georgia. she's litigating it right now. she has this other huge one involving a foreign press, the united states. she's a seasoned prosecutor. she knows full well, if someone were and i say, oh, hold on, you can't prosecute me because i paid that back. that would be

laughable. >> they're making that same argument now to >> suggest, you can't just say i paid this person back. it's fine. >> but >> you still have to connect this very important set of dots the money that she is spending. yes, may come from the salary from being an elected official and employee but is that the motivation for why this case is happening? >> updating that? no. keep going is that why it's happening? is that are you are you suggesting which is what they're trying to argue that they went into this entire case pace because they wanted to sustain a romantic relationship. and use these indictments as a kind of legal beard, right? to say hey, you know, what, how can we hang out more? how can we road trip to nashville? i know we're going to indict the former president of united and 17 other people. that what they're trying to suggest, but make no mistake. they want this judge to find if there was an ethical violation that's enough risk

qualification, and that is what they have to prove to this, judge >> but we also have former deputy assistant attorney general, harry litman with us. it appears that proceedings are soon to get underway, so we'll cut to what harry quickly your impressions of these arguments from the defense >> yeah. they are just very long on accusations of romantic activity, but very short on what they need, either financial conflict of interests. it's interesting point that we're just raised about this 100 dollars, but that's not the same as what you need to say. there's a bona fide financial conflict of interest and that's why they're doing it. i think laura's discussion just just showed why that's so tenuous. and then otherwise in some way, what if you don't have confidence in her, judge, or maybe you don't credit everything she said. that also is not the standard. so i think bag basically, they've they've been very salacious and tough on fani willis, but haven't presented anything to really give mcafee

or reason to actually disqualifier, which is a very extreme move obviously. >> all right, harry, stick with us, laura, stay with us. let's go back into the court the courtroom, and listen and mr. bradley would be able to impeach their knowledge by saying that they he specifically in there in his presence >> or to him said that ms willis and mr.. were in a romantic relationship and that ms willis and mr. wade were cohabitating that they all knew that and i would submit to the court. we didn't hear from any of those individuals mr. bradley impeached no one. and i say no one because he did not impeach mr. wade. and as you properly impeach a witness, you have to confront the witness with the specific statements. mr. wade, and you can look back at the youtube of the entire hearing things over the last couple of days, mr. wade wasn't once confronted with a statement that he claimed or said or that is claimed that he said. so mr. bradley the way

you properly impeach somebody, you have to get you to confront the witness. here would be mr. wade and once he makes a statement that you believe to be inconsistent and you have a witness who can prove that inconsistency inconsistency. that's when you call that witness. and when mr. wade was on the stand, not once. was he asked, did you tell mr. bradley this in a confidential conversation and you and your conference room. that was not covered under attorney-client privilege? that was not asked the specifics of that conversation was not asked. so any testimony that mr. bradley testified to is impermissible it is improper impeachment because they did not confront mr. wade with it so that's where the state would would begin with the comments that mr. merchant made about me referencing his wife as line i never called ms merchant a liar. i never used those words.

i don't know why she made the material misrepresentations. it could be because mr. bradley lied to her i don't know the reason so but i can submit to the court that those were material misrepresentations that were made to this court on the day a few mondays ago. as everyone was arguing the motions to quash certain subpoenas i'd also bring to the court's attention that during that motion to quash subpoenas, certain subpoenas, ms yeartie's attorney appeared. mr. partridge, and he made very clear on that zoom that ms you had absolutely no knowledge of a romantic relationship and absolutely no knowledge of cohabitation those and those with the specific references that he may so what i would submit to the court, as those are those are considered adaptive emissions that his client has made based on the statements he made because of the representations she made to him no, i let sounds

convoluted. but what i would say that the court is ms yeartie told mr. partridge because mr. parks was told the court that she had absolutely no information about romantic relationship and she had absolutely no information as in regards to wait, are you making an argument? i should make inferences base now these would be attorney-client privileges. are there communications then she's communicating with mr. partridge about what her upcoming testimony is. that's why she's hired him. and you're telling me i should infer things based on her communications to him >> absolutely. because they're not attorney-client communications anymore when he discloses them to the court and everybody else as they watch the zoom and attend the hearing, the difference is is there was no request to go in camera. there was no request to go a tab, a private conversation with you as was done with mr. bradley that would have been the proper procedure. so yes, i'm asking you to infer that 100%. i'm asking you to infer that her testimony was at best inconsistent because the

testimony of ms yeartie, when she testified was vague. very little description when asked in a very leading manner is it true or do you know that ms willis and missed mr. wade were in a relationship from 2019 into the time you were fired for excuse me, you were forced to resign from the district attorney's office in march of 2022. she said, yes. and then further when pressed by mr. sadow, he talks about why she believed they were in a relationship and what was interesting from ms yeartie's testimony that they were pretty close friends up until she left the da's office, that she asserted to the court that on a yearly basis ms willis said, i'm in a relationship with mr. wade and 20190 by the way, i

want to tell you again, in 2020, because we're in a new year, i'm still in a relationship with mr. wade. and again, in 2021, the assertion is ms willis then went back to ms yeartie and confirmed, hey, i just want to reconfirm me and mr. wade are still in a relationship. it's absurd it's absolutely absurd. more importantly, what mr. sadow asked her about why she believed that they were in a romantic relationship based on her own observations. each she said something he said he actually asked her, do you see him kissing or hugging? she said yes. but there was no description or qualification about when it occurred. what she actually solved. our sauce gives me was it a kiss on the cheek at things of that nature? so i would ask you to frame her testimony from that standpoint. when you're addressing her credibility as the court is going to do with each and every witness that you heard during

the testimony of all the witnesses during the hearing? i'm going to see if my screen will share >> now >> i want to talk a little bit about the standard and the burden. here in this instance

as it relates to defense counsel and the claims that they have made in the motion to disqualify and as i was doing a whole lot of research, i came a pound, i came upon this law review article from cornell scholarship, reading or publication and they made very clear that courts have been relatively reluctant to exercise their power to disqualify prosecutors for any reason and that goes along with the standard state would submit to the court. is that the defense has to show an actual conflict. and in this instance, they have to show the actual conflict would be that ms willis received a financial benefit or game and did it based ar got it. based upon the outcome of the case. he doesn't make any sense. it makes absolutely no sense. and during the three days of the extensive testimony of all of the witnesses and the prolonged

up examinations of the witnesses by multiple the defense counsel. they still got nowhere. we're in the same position. we were in on monday the same assertions that were made on monday have no answers today, as we before, your honor, they were not able to provide any evidence as to the contrary of ms willis and ms waves assertions of when their relationship began there's absolutely no evidence that contradicts that the relationship did not begin later then around march of 2022, years your honor at further submit to the court because of this failure that their assertion or their requests that one the indictment be dismissed. there's absolutely no evidence that the defendants in this case they're due process rights, had been harmed and absolutely. anyway, there was zero evidence, not a single

shred of evidence was produced to any of the exhibits or the witness testimony showing how their constitutional rights that are due process rights. we're all were at all affected by the relationship that began in march of 2022 with ms willis? mr. wade. and because of that, the motions to disqualify should be denied. and ms willis, the district attorney of fulton county, and mr. wade, as the special prosecutor assigned to this case. to be loud, to remain on this case and continue and continue to prosecute the case for the end, your honor, until the trial is set by the court and to begin now, the issues obviously, you've heard a lot from defense counsel as to what the issue all are for you to i guess, determine. and here we the state's contention is that you must find that there's an actual conflict. if you were or are to come to conclusion, that

you should disqualify ms willis, the district attorney's office and looking at and what you're talking about, this has been tura it's mcglynn, the state mcg ly and n b state 342, georgia appeal 172,000.17, case the case as it talks about the standard of proof that the defense of the burden that the defense must show and go to show an actual conflict. is they say it's a high standard of proof, which is definitely not a preponderance of the evidence, which is a much lower burden for any party who's trying to meet that standard of preponderance, but it's very clear that what the standard is, is that as a high standard of proof for both when determining whether there's an actual conflict and when there's forensic misconduct that is found, your honor and i

want to go through some of the cases that defense counsel has referenced. they argued here today and in their filings and i guess the bright-line standard or the standard in the grounds for which disqualification is appropriate. for, your honor, to be determining in all of the cases as relates to disqualify in the electric, the elected district attorney is the you either find that there's a conflict of interest or that there's been some sort of forensic misconduct. those are i guess the two areas that your honor that is in your purview when you are looking to resolve an issue regarding disqualification now, in a recent case, levy state, which is to 24 georgia, i'm sorry, lexus 31 i'm its february 2024

case here out of our appellate courts. and in that case of justice pensone wrote that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to disqualify an assistant district attorney absent an actual conflict of interests and that is the case that was ruled on by the georgia court of appeals about a month ago. your honor. now, the case the cases in which defense counsel has relied on in their briefs. and here today, i would submit to the court the sites or misleading already an app inapplicable, and some of them actually support the state's position. and what i would say to you is that defendants in many instances combined language from the multiple cases and kind of what i would say is misstates the law as it relates to what the law or what

is required in order for an elected district attorney. and they're often this to be disqualified >> and >> what i would submit to the court in moscow back to that, show me how yes show you how so i think the first one decided was battle versus the state certainly a conflict of interests or the appearance of impropriety let me the grounds for disqualification there are a number of these cases that seemed to exclusively rely on the appearance of impropriety, >> right. >> but what i think they acknowledged that there's some ambiguity here that sometimes worth worth gets cited of insurer and we've got this quote that comes up where it's just they only cite to an actual conflict that must be involved they they acknowledged the ambiguity you're saying there's no ambiguity whatsoever. >> i am saying that and why why

i am saying that. why would submit that to the court is an all of those cases, they do reference the appearance of impropriety, but they referenced that because they also find there's an actual conflict and each one of those cases. >> so your position would be your you're the case law. there's never been an appellate opinion that relied only on an appearance of propriety as it relates to a prosecutor, a district attorney? yes >> that is what i'm saying. what i would say is in those cases, they do reference the fact that there is an appearance of impropriety, but they referenced that fact because when you have an actual conflict, there's always in an appearance of impropriety and those are what those cases stand for. and i guess that is the main example of what i referenced as they kind of combine the language from separate different cases and tell you that the standard is an appearance of impropriety. and i would submit to the court that is not the standard and my first reading, i'm like, your honor, i did notice that the

cases each reference the appearance of impropriety, but also that that appearance arose from the fact that the court found an actual conflict and each one of those cases i won't belabor the point in going through all of your cases of the defense had cited. but what i would submit to the court and in reading those cases is that i found that there it kind of fell into five categories. that some that didn't concern disqualificatio n at all. some that determined are that we're about i call it divided loyalty, which is a conflict that arises from representing a becoming a prosecutor and then having represented the defendant prior to becoming a prosecutor. and then whether there's an actual personal interests in the outcome. and then others talk about whether the defendant was denied a fundamentally fair trial. at the conclusion, and the of the case after conviction