To republican control of the senate. Stop garvey. Adam schiff for senate. Im adam schiff, and i approve this message. 1808836464. Thats 1808836464. Im Fred Pleitgen in tehran. And this is cnn welcome to. Cnn news central. Im Boris Sanchez alongside jessica dean in washington. And in just moments were going to see some pivotal humans in the Georgia Election subversion case against donald trump and his codefendants, Attorneys For Trump and his codefendants are going to deliver Closing Arguments in their push to disqualify the person who brought thats sweeping case, Fulton CountyDistrict Attorney, fani willis. They claimed that willis financially benefited from her romantic relationship with one of her top prosecutors nathan wade. Now the judge will ultimately decide if the defense proved those explosive allegations were going to take you live inside the courtroom once those presentations again, which we are expecting momentarily, but first lets take you to Zachary Cohen who was outside the courthouse in atlanta, and also here with us seeing an anchor and chief legal analyst, laura coates. Zach, lets start with you. How are you expecting all of this to play out today you guys any minute, we expect offensive thanks for donald trump and his fellow codefendants to enter into this courtroom in layout for the judge in this case, judge scott mcafee, why the evidence that theyve put forward so far, warrens disqualifying fani willis, the District Attorney here in yoni from the Georgia Election subversion case. And look, theyre going to have to meet the burden. And one of the things we will look, were were looking for for scott mcafee to clarify, today is what that burden is exactly now amounts, whether the evidence amounts to a Conflict Of Interest, theyve argued that the evidence shows that fani willis financially benefited from her romantic relationship with wade or even if the burden is is the appearance of a Conflict Of Interests that could radically change the calculation into whether or not scott mcafee is likely to ultimately disqualify willis but look, the lawyer for the District Attorneys office are going to have a chance to push back and make their own case as to why fani willis should remain on the case. And i dont have to state the state its here for you guys. Its a Pivotal Moment in this case, sources have told me for weeks now that if fani willis is disqualified, people inside the District Attorneys office fear that that means its the case itself is effectively dead because nobody else in this state will want to pick it up because of the political taint that would be on it. And now were also looking to see more from scott mcafee offer any clues as to where he might be leaning coming into this hearing . All a lot of questions coming in, but were hoping that we could at least get some clarity and whether or not we might be headed toward a resolution over the question of whether or not fani willis remains or is disqualified here zach, please standby. We are watching judge Scott Mcafee A Fever Proceedings appear to be getting underway a moment ago, we saw the defense team and the prosecution settling into place before we go to the proceedings. Lets listen to laura coats and what she has to say about what were expecting today. Its been stevie, theres been some fireworks. Its been a hot mess. This has been a happy to cobbler. We are all way down in georgia, right . And atlanta and thinking about it, think about what the stakes are. Zach is right . If fani willis is disqualified and thats a high burden to meet by the way. It is having to show that she had a Conflict Of Interest that actually hurt the defendants, that they cannot have a fair trial, not just issues that are salacious and for the details that people are leaning into here about, but didnt actually impact the ability to have a fair trial bay. Those who are moving for it have to connect those dots. It has to be be a financial benefit of some time. Theyve had trouble establishing that through threadbare and why . Because her having an additional income or a separate income and going dutch, so to speak, cannot be enough to establish Conflict Of Interests. It might surprise people to know that there are romantic endeavors that take place between Police Officers prosecutors, defense kearney, dredges. It is the real does it actually hurt the defendant is the case here. Now today, this judge has had very little patience up till now about how to have this whole thing go down. It is there a burden to prove it . And were going to see if they actually meet it. And so im curious who or what you think about the fact that this controversy, whether or not whatever happens today, it is now, has it tainted kind of Public Opinion on this . And whats the Public Opinion piece of it moving forward, will it have any bearing on in this trial . We ask yourself if you were a juror call to serve in this matter, hoping to focus on the presentation of evidence and instead, youre thinking, know which one of you were involved in whats happening here, trying to get distracted nothing. Weve heard so far it goes to the underlying facts its in the case, so thats the most important part here. We havent touched the allegations against any of those codefendants. There has been no credible evidence to undermine any of those allegations as of yet, the focus is that but the idea that she could be disqualified is not just her. Itd be the entire office. Itd be a separate prosecuting counsel in georgia who traveled would then be due to a point or assign because this is not the most attractive case to want to bring for Security Reasons alone, let alone this scrutiny inside and pay and so the entire office be disqualified, which means they dont have to even follow the grand jury indictment. They dont have to keep this case, keep all the defendant. They could add the defendants, they could not go forward either way. The timeline would be totally thrown off of such a consequential case during a consequences so period in american history, would you say that trumps team has been successful on those two fronts if their strategy has been partly to muddy the waters, as you say, none of what were watching today are up to this point has really been about the facts of the case outside of Sydney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro sort of adjudicating their aspect there angle of this and in the second part of it is the fact that the trump team in all of these cases has tried to delay delay, delay. Its been a success for that defense team hasnt it . This has been death by 1,000 credibility cuts. Why . Because think about when youre in the courtroom and youre listening to the presentation of evidence, and you have a lawyer whose credibility has been challenged, then turning to a witness and trying to challenge. Theres on the stand. Oh, these documents dont actually say this or im checking to believe what you have to say, trying to persuade jury of 12 people on this, may be thinking, well, hold on. Youre not a blank canvas to me. I dont know. So give you the benefit of the doubt in the same way thats a problem. But again, we have not touched the actual meat on the bone of the case, and we have some time between now and if there is a trial, amnesia sets in like you wouldnt believe in a lot of cases. And remember, this is the actual site of the allegations where peoples votes were likely affected or sought to be impacted and that could actually overrule ones irritation with the more salacious, but make no mistake about it. No prosecutor, fani willis, nathan wade, or anyone on that team wants anyone thinking about these aspects as opposed to the facts in this case . Well, thats it. You want them you want them focused on the case and boris, you mentioned i think such a salient point, which is its the muddying of the water is their strategy here because you just said it, weve gotten to the media the case here. Its this is about just muddy up that water as much you possibly can. Optics are very important. Theyre important for jurors. They are important for you. Think about the hint of impropriety. We challenge our Supreme Court justices or judges on conflicts of interests. But for this judge, his focus ought to be the law. I mean, the optics we can all agree. Nobody should be hearing about whether someone likes grey goose versus why whether a bartenders have future cash or not, what trips you had the time we take in had that kind of time to take a prosecutor and cnn, i have an issue with that, but i dont have enough about thinking about this. Judge has to be focused did you meet the burden you brought us here because you want to disqualify an elected official because you say there is a Conflict Of Interest that will mean that these defendants cant get a fair trial so he has to synthesize he has to focus and yes, to follow that legal obligation. I want to bring zach back into the conversation. I believe hes still on okay. Zach has gone well, you got me, kid about one of the things you mentioned, The Burden Of Proof and the challenge that the defense team has to sort of show that there was impropriety, that there was a Conflict Of Interest, et cetera. So, judge mcafee said that hes going to allow this report from a price evan investigator that track the Cell Phone Pings of nathan wade and put them within a certain distance of fani willis at all hours of the night, how could that impact what we see in this hearing . Well, first, lets talk about how the technology would work if you think about the way in which your cell phone on receives data and signals. Its kinda like a baton relay race. As you go to one area, the baton is passed the editor pick it up. Thats how youre able to track someones movements. The investigator, and how i process to get a case in the past and the fbi often does the same thing is to figure out what your course was, what was your actual path based on that baton pinging . What are you and how long were you there . Doesnt tell you what the Text Messages said necessarily doesnt tell you what the nature of the conversation, but the sheer contact of pinging alone, why this is important here is because they have said in testimony that they did not begin a romantic relationship before a certain date, that he did not spend the night. I think it was the phrasing that they asked him about trying to establish that he had visited a particular location where she lived. They were trying to does suggest there was some kind of a loves shaq thats why she didnt live at home any longer. You laugh at that phrase and returned to say, i mean the beat other side about a love shack wasnt part of the child here, but this is a whole thing, right . The tin roof rested. Yeah. But thats the implication there, trying to make here. And so theyre trying to discredit and saying you testified in front of this court about certain dates, you have a duty of candor under your ethical obligations in the courtroom. And this judge knows it and theyre all lawyers. They want to discredit that very testimony. Again, though, does it go to the heart of the matter of disqualification and being able to prove that this is going to hurt the defendants in this action . Likely not. But remember as well heres whats interesting. You have to fight to get that in through an expert that can be qualified. Mrs. Expert, to say what you are presenting it as is actually intended to go to the meat of the matter. Its interesting to figure out how Cell Phone Data works but the defense, who raised the motion got to cutesy when they didnt ask precise questions. We said things like, could you spend the night . Did you sleep over . I have prosecuted sex crimes. We have to be quite precise in the language to actually get the testimony in they tried to dance around an issue. It might hurt them in the end. All right. Well, lets listen and listen in and see as this begins down in your old county of the conflict issue and the appearance of the conflict and what we believe the evidence to show on that issue. Mr. Sadow, mr. Gilliam will be talking more about the forensic misconduct piece of it ms willis is Church Speech statements made to the media. Fraud on the court. Frankly, and the book that she gave several interviews for. So i wont be discussing any of those issues. So you if youd like to ask me, certainly i can try to address them, but that is going to be the focus of their presentation and then towards the end, other folks may have issues specific type arguments, either in follow up to mine or the forensic misconduct, but those are the two lanes that were going to be covering, but im gonna do the conflict piece of it for you on that issue. Your honor this is a matter of First Impression in georgia. I cant find a single case thats been published by the Court Of Appeals or the Supreme Court. That is based on these facts. There of course, number of different Appellate Court cases that deal with conflict related issues. And more importantly, appearance of conflict related issues and some of those are based in state law, some of them are based on the ethical rules that govern lawyers. Some of them are based upon the sixth amendment right to due process. Thats implicit in all of what were doing here today. I want to remind the court that were here today on this motion to disqualify da willis and her office because of her judgment. Frankly, xi is supposed to be disinterested under the sixth amendment and shes anything but that the fact that these proceedings have taken this long convoluted, looted way weve made it here today explain that. So as i present my arguments, i want the court to understand that this court represents the guardrails for the sixth amendment in this context. And ms willis has already been disqualified. Wants so i would encourage the court to remember what judge mcburney did in his order, disqualifying the same argument was made in that case as to whether or not there needs to be an actual Conflict Of Interest or whether or not the appearance of a Conflict Of Interests might be sufficient under the facts. I want to make clear to the court that i the law in georgia suggest and is very clear that we can demonstrate an appearance of a Conflict Of Interest. And that is sufficient. There are there is im going to be candid with the court. There is a Supreme Court decision from 1996 lambie state, and then there are two court of appeal decisions after that debt deal. Frankly, in some dikta that suggests that an actual conflict is required, but the Supreme Court or georgias, since those decisions came down, has made quite clear that the appearance of a conflict like standards still applies. And the reason thats important is i think under the sixth amendment, which is where were at in order to preserve the defendants rights under that under that provision and under corollary provisions of georgia law, youve got youve got to consider the appearance of conflict. And the reason why the appearance of a conflict is so prescient here is because if this court allows this kind of behavior to go on in alouds das across the state by its order to engage in these kinds of activities. The entire Public Confidence in the system will be shot. And the integrity of the system will be undermined. And so with those sort of Public Policy and constitutional principles i wanted to turn to the law in georgia on disqualification. And your honor, im gonna im gonna give you the law and im going to talk about the facts and how they apply the law at the end, if you want to talk about the facts earlier, jump right in and ill be happy to do that. Im sure youre 100 is very wellprepared and probably knows all the law that im going to cite to you. But to give the skeleton outline the original the seminal case that deals with Conflict Of Interest from the georgia Supreme Court is williams v. State. Thats 258, georgia 305. And theyre basically two methods by which you can disqualify a District Attorney. One of them is a Conflict Of Interests, and ill suggest that to the core, that doesnt mean an actual conflict, that could mean an appearance of conflict as well and then forensic misconduct importantly, in the williams case, though in footnote four, and i think this is important for the courts analysis about the facts and where do they which box it fits into the court said there was no clear Demarcation Line between Conflict Of Interests and forensic misconduct given a given ground for disqualification of the prosecutor, might be classifiable as either. And i think thats important because we have facts that fit in both boxes. So if the state stands up and says, well, theres no actual conflict here, judge, that doesnt mean necessarily that it doesnt apply forensic misconduct typically, forensic misconduct relates to statements that the prosecutor designed to impugn the character of the defendant before trial and to effect the jury pool, which we have here, which im not going to discuss, but the