uh I think has been very much made clear by the argument and the uh made today is that there are several legal issues to sort through several factual determinations that I have to make uh and those aren't ones I can make at this moment and so I will be taking uh the time to make sure that I give this case the full consideration it's due I hope to have an answer for everyone within the next 2 weeks uh until that point um if there are any other issues that come up Council can reach out and uh we'l
l have an order posted on the docket thank you all we're off the Record thank you Mr H everyone I'm major Garett in washhington we have been listening to closing arguments wrapping up in the hearing to determine if Fulton County district attorney fony Willis should be removed from former president Donald Trump's Georgia election subversion case lawyers for Trump and other defendants in this election case are arguing that Bonnie Willis's romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade w
hom she assigned creates a conflict of interest material conflict of interest here on the set with me is CBS News Congressional correspondent Nicole Killian who is a close closely been following this case for us so my summary of today Nicole is as follows for the defendent attorneys there was synonyms for lying you either lied you misrepresented meaning Vonnie Willis and Nathan Wade you had a scheme at one point uh it was referred to as original sin that they had a magic cash Theory to hide all
of their not only personal relationships but Financial benefits enjoyed the state said you know what we're going to come come up with synonyms for gossip speculation inuendo and meaning all of the testimony and evidence brought by the defendants attorneys should be discounted and as the judge Fon County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee just said lots of questions of Law and fact he will need at least two weeks to render a judgment your impressions well I think you summed it up perfectly and I d
on't think we were expecting that he would Ru From the Bench today and OB not after that not after 3 hours back and forth and there there's a lot to take in there but you know at the end of the day Bonnie Willis's reputation her case is at stake for the next two weeks until right until the ne until the judge rules uh same for Nathan Wade who is a special prosecutor and has played a pretty key role in this case and so what we heard largely from both sides is each side trying to poke arguments in
the other right so of course in the case of the state they contend that fonnie Willis and Nathan Wade did not have any type of conflict that the defense the burden's really on the defense to prove that there was some type of conflict of interest here that Fon will is personally or financially benefited which was part of the allegations that were initially brought from Ashley Merchant the lead attorney in this case who represents codefendant Michael Roman uh so they argue that yes while it may be
speculation while it may be in uendo there was no conflict that the testimonies of district attorney fonny Willis and Nathan Wade were consistent in terms of when they met which was at a Judicial conference in 2019 which is that their relationship started in early 2022 after Nathan Wade was brought on board the Trump case that yes they did go on trips together uh they did do that that the district attorney paid cash for some of those trips reimbursed Nathan Wade that the relationship ended in t
he summer of 2023 and so at this point they continue to contend that neither one did anything wrong with respect of having this conflict of interest which is why they argued at the very end that the district attorney should not be disqualified the defense on the other hand obviously sees things differently and so they are pointing to the witnesses that they brought forth people who knew both Nathan Wade and the district attorney uh prior to Nathan Wade being hired who testified well one witness
who testified in particular a friend of district attorney Fon Willis that they did have a relationship prior to Nathan Wade being hired the second witness Terence Bradley a former law partner of Nathan Wade he said that he didn't recall um and he said that uh repeatedly which is something the state pointed out but that being said the defense also tried to inject the fact that there are these cell phone records that they believe should be considered that put Nathan Wade in the vicinity of the dis
trict attorney prior to Nathan Wade being hired again we heard the state try to poke holes in that saying that those records aren't necessarily valid and that is something the judge will have to take into consideration in terms of whether that should be evaluated so again a lot of arguments back and forth also worth noting that as we see here in our screen the district attorney was there front and center we did not hear from her explicitly which was a big question considering that you know she w
as very resistant to testify during this evidentiary hearing a couple of weeks ago but made that decision to explain herself so I wasn't sure honestly if she was going to say something or not but clearly she wanted to be there to hear these closing arguments so did Nathan Wade um so I think both of their presences there were certainly notable Nicole standby for just one moment I want to bring in our CBS News legal contributor and loyal law school Professor Jessica levenson Jessica as was said by
both parties this is one of the few things that both parties agreed to the standard is direct conflict or appearance of conflict they argued about whether that had been established but that's really what's before Fon County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee if there's a real conflict or a dam damaging appearance of conflict well under state law Georgia the district attorney has to be removed is that what this is really in the end all about in the end I think that's exactly what this is all abou
t I mean I think the way you laid this out and Nicole's analysis is exactly right what I also heard is the judge and to your question about the standard really probing have we ever disqualified just based on appearance so certainly what the defense is arguing here here is that an appearance problem alone is enough and obviously that would be beneficial for them not having to prove that there was an actual conflict but having to say isn't this a bad enough look that it might be enough of a proble
m that we shouldn't move forward that the district attorney should in fact be disqualified whereas the state wants to say no you have to prove an actual conflict and because of what Nicole was just pointing out because of all of those questions about when exactly the relationship started because of all of those questions about whether or not there could have been a financial conflict of interest given the way that they seem to have split cost fonnie wills and Nathan Wade given the way that she s
eems to have reimbursed him so that question of is it just actual or is actual and apparent I think is a big one to focus on in addition I thought Cole was exactly right also to Z on this question of who's burden that the defense really does have to come forward with enough evidence here I think all of those reasons are the reasons why we aren't going to hear anything for at least two weeks and Jessica there was a conversation rather lengthy one about Terrence Bradley he had made representations
about his knowledge about this underlying Affair via text message but his testimony didn't match that in a matter of law which carries more weight text messages to one of the litigants meaning the attorney for the defendants or what you actually say in the court proceeding itself well obviously I think this is a credibility issue for the judge to weigh and what the judge will be looking at is what we're all asking ourselves right now which is once you're under questioning and this hearing is st
arting do you have more of a reason to lie or be less than forthcoming then and or when you're engaging in text messaging with this attorney did would you have any reason to lie then so that's really what it comes down to when you have this type of conflict when do we believe your statements and when do we think that you would have a greater incentive to lie now of course at this point and or be less than forth and I think you were exactly right to characterize this as lies versus gossip now in
this case the difference is that it's not a jury weighing credibility it's this one judge who's looking at whether or not the facts give rise to a conflict of interest Jessica levenson thank you so very much Nicole Killian my thanks to you
Comments