Good evening. Im bret baier. Breaking tonight, the judge in former President Trumps Election Interference Trial said this morning either the District Attorney or the special prosecutor must step aside. The decision, out of Fulton County georgia, comes amid allegations of an improper relationship between the two. This afternoon the special prosecutor nathan wade resigned. Correspondent Jonathan Serrie is in atlanta tonight to tell us where things go from here. Good evening, jonathan. Good evening to you, bret. Facing pressure from the judges order, special prosecutor nathan wade stepped down from the case leaving District Attorney fani willis perhaps wounded but not disqualified as the defense initially wanted. The Fulton County District Attorneys office faced an unpleasant but not difficult decision. Had nathan wade remained a special prosecutor in the Georgia Election interference case, d. A. Fani willis and her entire office would have had to step aside. Instead, wade resigned, expla
And this is americas late news, fox news at night. And breaking tonight, a crucial day in multiple courtrooms for donald trump. The former president attended proceedings in florida, where a judge is weighing when the federal documents case against him will go to trial. More on that in a moment. But first, it is now up to a judge in georgia to decide whether fani willis, the District Attorney overseeing the Election Interference Case against trump there, should be removed from the case over alleged impropriety. The Senior National correspondent kevin corke is live in dc with more from the Closing Arguments and what, if anything, we can read from the tea leaves. Anything but a tea party in georgia, good evening sdmooeven tea leaves indeed my friend. Evening to you. After listening to three hours of legal arguments, judge scott mack any said he hoped to issue a ruling in the next couple of weeks. Now the judge is now tasked with determining Whether Da Fani Willis and her office should be
decide. is that acceptable as a way for the president to behave, or is it simply something that the president is allowed to do in his discretion? but i think the facts are so overwhelming at this point. when you combine all the witnesses together, they give you an unmistakable conclusion that the president wanted to use the leverage of his office, meetings, almost $400 million in aid to damage his political opponent. that s what happened. now, what the implications of that are right, the consequences. just to get the analogy, dave, i don t know why you want to be susceptible to this ukraine conspiracy theory, but the idea of denial over reality, imagine if the president was not giving aid to a country because he wanted them to find out if obama was a citizen or not once and for all. wouldn t you see that as an abuse of power itself? let s unpack this. jeff didn t hear the whole
john, don t get me started. i heard the same kind of arguments about what nixon knew, when did he know it. i knew, my limited knowledge, had to make some presumptions based on conversations and the feel of a conversation. what s this man really understand, what doesn t he understand? i m seeing the same thing go on right now. in this instance, however, we start with the smoking gun tape, which is the transcript of the call out or the readout of the conversation. didn t have that with nixon. that comes at the end. what we re arguing about are the events that happened before or around that conversation. that conversation resolves virtually all the questions. well, as ross garber correctly pointed out this morning, i watched his show this morning, chris, it goes to the mens rhea. state of mind. big case on governor mcdonald of virginia. interestingly, sondland s
to court. i think it s only going to be on election day that we learn whether that was the right strategy or not. i don t know. and add that to the obstruction charge on the articles of impeachment. thank you for that. john, i want you to weigh in, but will you fill in that question with damages put out there? thank you for that. is it worth taking an article of impeachment for obstruction of process in order to keep mulvaney, pompeo, bolton or mcgahn out of the chair? no. first of all, that was the weakest vote for articles against nixon. they didn t even carry all the democrats on the committee. it was a 21-17 vote on the obstruction of congress. for some reason, congress doesn t really get excited and try to defend stuff. on jeff s point on the mcgahn