1 00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:14,080 Speaker 2: After months of Donald Trump's attorney's legal wrangling and trying 3 00:00:14,080 --> 00:00:17,000 Speaker 2: to get delays in his criminal trials in three states 4 00:00:17,000 --> 00:00:20,119 Speaker 2: and DC, a judge in Manhattan put his foot down 5 00:00:20,239 --> 00:00:23,760 Speaker 2: and firmly scheduled the hush money payments trial for March 6 00:00:23,800 --> 00:00:27,280 Speaker 2: twenty fifth. Trump complained outside the courthouse. 7 00:00:26,920 --> 00:00:29,520 Speaker 1: I'm going to have to sit here for months on 8 00:00:29,720 --> 00:00:30,240 Speaker 1: a trial. 9 00:00:30,760 --> 00:00:34,760 Speaker 2: I think it's ridiculous, it's unfair. In fact, other judges 10 00:00:34,760 --> 00:00:37,960 Speaker 2: are weighing decisions this week that will have major implications 11 00:00:38,000 --> 00:00:41,600 Speaker 2: for Trump. In Atlanta, a judge's hearing from witnesses in 12 00:00:41,640 --> 00:00:44,479 Speaker 2: a motion to get prosecutor Fanny Willis kicked off the 13 00:00:44,560 --> 00:00:48,519 Speaker 2: Georgia Rico case, And tomorrow a Manhattan judge is slated 14 00:00:48,520 --> 00:00:51,760 Speaker 2: to deliver a bombshell verdict in New York civil fraud 15 00:00:51,800 --> 00:00:55,040 Speaker 2: trial against Trump. In addition, the Supreme Court is weighing 16 00:00:55,120 --> 00:00:58,840 Speaker 2: whether to put Trump's DC election case on whole while 17 00:00:58,840 --> 00:01:01,560 Speaker 2: he appeals the DC's Circuit court ruling that he does 18 00:01:01,600 --> 00:01:05,640 Speaker 2: not have presidential immunity from prosecution. Joining me is former 19 00:01:05,680 --> 00:01:09,480 Speaker 2: federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner McCarter in English, it 20 00:01:09,560 --> 00:01:13,520 Speaker 2: seems like Trump now is asking that these cases be 21 00:01:13,600 --> 00:01:16,720 Speaker 2: put off until after the election. They certainly ask for 22 00:01:16,760 --> 00:01:19,520 Speaker 2: that in this case, and they made similar arguments in 23 00:01:19,560 --> 00:01:21,000 Speaker 2: the Supreme Court briefing. 24 00:01:21,560 --> 00:01:24,480 Speaker 3: One scene that we've seen from the Trump defense team 25 00:01:24,560 --> 00:01:28,160 Speaker 3: throughout all of these cases is the allegation and number 26 00:01:28,200 --> 00:01:31,399 Speaker 3: one that they're politically motivated, but sort of piggybacking on 27 00:01:31,480 --> 00:01:34,160 Speaker 3: that idea, they say that at a minimum, none of 28 00:01:34,160 --> 00:01:36,840 Speaker 3: these cases she go to trial until after the election, 29 00:01:37,319 --> 00:01:41,039 Speaker 3: and to do so before the election is an unconstitutional 30 00:01:41,319 --> 00:01:45,679 Speaker 3: violation because it interferes with former President Trump's ability to 31 00:01:45,720 --> 00:01:49,680 Speaker 3: campaign and ultimately interferes with the right of people in 32 00:01:49,680 --> 00:01:52,480 Speaker 3: this country to decide who should be their next president. 33 00:01:53,160 --> 00:01:56,040 Speaker 3: Long standing Department of Justice policy has always been that 34 00:01:56,160 --> 00:02:00,320 Speaker 3: federal prosecutors should try to avoid bringing in DIBt in 35 00:02:00,360 --> 00:02:03,600 Speaker 3: a way that may affect an upcoming election. Now, that 36 00:02:03,800 --> 00:02:07,880 Speaker 3: typically has meant that no indictments should be returned against 37 00:02:07,880 --> 00:02:11,400 Speaker 3: an individual within sixty days of an election, on the 38 00:02:11,560 --> 00:02:14,760 Speaker 3: theory that if you simply charge somebody with a crime, 39 00:02:15,200 --> 00:02:18,359 Speaker 3: they are still considered innocent because they have not yet 40 00:02:18,360 --> 00:02:21,760 Speaker 3: been convicted. But the allegations alone may affect the outcome 41 00:02:21,760 --> 00:02:24,919 Speaker 3: of the election, and so that generally has been the rule. Here, 42 00:02:24,960 --> 00:02:28,520 Speaker 3: we're seeing indictments that were handed down long ago, but 43 00:02:28,600 --> 00:02:31,680 Speaker 3: the trial itself is now beginning to bump up with 44 00:02:31,800 --> 00:02:35,040 Speaker 3: a campaign season. It's not something that we've ever seen before. 45 00:02:35,120 --> 00:02:38,040 Speaker 3: Certainly we've never seen it in connection with a former 46 00:02:38,120 --> 00:02:42,960 Speaker 3: president running for the presidency for a third time. And 47 00:02:43,040 --> 00:02:46,280 Speaker 3: so there is no real case law on this issue. 48 00:02:46,320 --> 00:02:49,000 Speaker 3: But I think all of the judges down the line 49 00:02:49,160 --> 00:02:51,359 Speaker 3: have taken the view that they are trying to get 50 00:02:51,360 --> 00:02:55,240 Speaker 3: these cases done before the election, but ultimately they cannot 51 00:02:55,320 --> 00:02:58,280 Speaker 3: consider as a reason to delay the trial simply the 52 00:02:58,320 --> 00:03:01,840 Speaker 3: fact that former President Trump wants to be campaigning for office. 53 00:03:02,160 --> 00:03:06,240 Speaker 2: Also, it seems like the judges, having seen the way 54 00:03:06,600 --> 00:03:09,840 Speaker 2: Trump's attorneys act in court, some would say, you know, 55 00:03:10,000 --> 00:03:13,480 Speaker 2: they're over the top and their presentation, they interrupt a lot. 56 00:03:13,680 --> 00:03:17,200 Speaker 2: This judge just put up with no nonsense from these attorneys. 57 00:03:17,600 --> 00:03:19,840 Speaker 3: The judge in the Manhattan Das case has been very 58 00:03:19,919 --> 00:03:22,959 Speaker 3: no nonsense from the start and set a March twenty 59 00:03:22,960 --> 00:03:26,840 Speaker 3: fifth date for this trial to begin. Initially, the thought 60 00:03:27,000 --> 00:03:29,440 Speaker 3: was that the trial out of the district of Columbia, 61 00:03:29,520 --> 00:03:33,960 Speaker 3: the federal trial that deals with the events surrounding January sixth. 62 00:03:34,200 --> 00:03:36,400 Speaker 3: That was going to be the first trial, but now 63 00:03:36,480 --> 00:03:39,920 Speaker 3: that case has been hung up on appeals. Former President 64 00:03:39,960 --> 00:03:42,960 Speaker 3: Trump's lawyers are arguing that he should be immune from 65 00:03:43,000 --> 00:03:46,040 Speaker 3: any criminal conduct while he was president, and that has 66 00:03:46,040 --> 00:03:48,920 Speaker 3: been making its way through the court. A unanimous three 67 00:03:49,000 --> 00:03:52,040 Speaker 3: judge panel for the Court of Appeals rejected that argument. 68 00:03:52,440 --> 00:03:55,480 Speaker 3: The Trump defense team has now sought appeal by the 69 00:03:55,520 --> 00:03:58,080 Speaker 3: Supreme Court, and we're waiting to hear whether the Supreme 70 00:03:58,120 --> 00:04:02,040 Speaker 3: Court will stay the lower court trial while that decision 71 00:04:02,080 --> 00:04:05,040 Speaker 3: is made, and even whether the Supreme Court will take 72 00:04:05,080 --> 00:04:07,920 Speaker 3: the case. But while the case in Washington, d c. 73 00:04:08,760 --> 00:04:12,280 Speaker 3: Has been delayed because of these appeals, it has set 74 00:04:12,320 --> 00:04:14,960 Speaker 3: the stage for the Manhattan Day's case to now be 75 00:04:15,040 --> 00:04:19,159 Speaker 3: the first case where a former president is facing criminal charges. 76 00:04:19,279 --> 00:04:22,240 Speaker 3: And unlike the case brought by the New York Attorney General, 77 00:04:22,400 --> 00:04:24,960 Speaker 3: which was a civil case that dealt with the Trump 78 00:04:25,040 --> 00:04:28,680 Speaker 3: organization and whether or not assets have been inflated improperly 79 00:04:28,720 --> 00:04:31,600 Speaker 3: in order to get more favorable loan terms. That case, 80 00:04:31,680 --> 00:04:34,919 Speaker 3: former President Trump was not required to attend every day, 81 00:04:35,160 --> 00:04:38,240 Speaker 3: and so he did sporadically but the criminal case is 82 00:04:38,279 --> 00:04:41,200 Speaker 3: one where he will have to attend every day. So 83 00:04:41,240 --> 00:04:44,680 Speaker 3: it will be a historic spectacle to see a former 84 00:04:44,720 --> 00:04:48,359 Speaker 3: president Trump sitting in the courtroom every day during a 85 00:04:48,400 --> 00:04:51,160 Speaker 3: criminal trial. It's never been done before, and it's going 86 00:04:51,200 --> 00:04:54,000 Speaker 3: to happen beginning on March twenty fifth in Manhattan. 87 00:04:54,440 --> 00:04:57,640 Speaker 2: Now, there were several arguments that Trump's lawyers, they raised 88 00:04:57,680 --> 00:05:00,960 Speaker 2: every argument I think you could imagine, and they said 89 00:05:01,000 --> 00:05:04,360 Speaker 2: that despite the fact that the DC trial has been 90 00:05:04,400 --> 00:05:08,360 Speaker 2: put on hold, they said, they've been preparing for that trial. 91 00:05:08,440 --> 00:05:10,800 Speaker 2: We had to focus one hundred percent of our attention 92 00:05:10,920 --> 00:05:14,159 Speaker 2: on preparing for that trial. And the judge basically said 93 00:05:14,200 --> 00:05:17,560 Speaker 2: too bad. He said, you willingly chose those two cases 94 00:05:17,600 --> 00:05:20,520 Speaker 2: to represent Trump in I told you March twenty fifth 95 00:05:20,600 --> 00:05:23,720 Speaker 2: was a date certain you proceeded at your own peril. 96 00:05:24,600 --> 00:05:28,240 Speaker 3: So what ends up happening is that judges have to 97 00:05:28,480 --> 00:05:32,640 Speaker 3: navigate the other cases in terms of scheduling their trials. 98 00:05:32,640 --> 00:05:35,839 Speaker 3: There's no set rules and there is no set procedure 99 00:05:36,080 --> 00:05:39,440 Speaker 3: to determine which case goes to trials first. And so 100 00:05:39,560 --> 00:05:42,159 Speaker 3: what the judges here have done is they have tried 101 00:05:42,200 --> 00:05:45,640 Speaker 3: to be respectful of the other proceedings and try to 102 00:05:45,680 --> 00:05:47,960 Speaker 3: not get in the way of other trials that were 103 00:05:47,960 --> 00:05:49,800 Speaker 3: set to go first. And that's why we saw the 104 00:05:49,839 --> 00:05:52,039 Speaker 3: case of the District of Columbia set to go in 105 00:05:52,080 --> 00:05:55,240 Speaker 3: early March, and the Manhattan DA's case, the case that 106 00:05:55,360 --> 00:05:57,200 Speaker 3: is now going to trial at the end of March, 107 00:05:57,560 --> 00:05:59,760 Speaker 3: was going to be delayed because of the case and 108 00:05:59,800 --> 00:06:03,000 Speaker 3: the sort of Columbia involving the January sixth insurrection. But 109 00:06:03,080 --> 00:06:05,760 Speaker 3: now that that case is put off, the case Manhattan 110 00:06:05,880 --> 00:06:08,400 Speaker 3: is going first, and this judge has said from the 111 00:06:08,400 --> 00:06:11,240 Speaker 3: beginning that you have to be ready to go in 112 00:06:11,320 --> 00:06:14,040 Speaker 3: March if we go first. Now, the Trump defense team 113 00:06:14,040 --> 00:06:16,440 Speaker 3: has raised a litany of issues as to why the 114 00:06:16,480 --> 00:06:17,640 Speaker 3: Manhattan DA's. 115 00:06:17,279 --> 00:06:18,480 Speaker 1: Case should be delayed. 116 00:06:18,720 --> 00:06:21,280 Speaker 3: One of them, as you mentioned, is that they have 117 00:06:21,360 --> 00:06:25,200 Speaker 3: been preparing for the case in Washington. Clearly everybody thought 118 00:06:25,240 --> 00:06:27,120 Speaker 3: that case was going to go first, but the judge 119 00:06:27,200 --> 00:06:30,760 Speaker 3: Manhattan really had no patience with that argument, by saying, 120 00:06:31,040 --> 00:06:34,520 Speaker 3: you chose to represent former President Trump in these two cases. 121 00:06:34,600 --> 00:06:36,800 Speaker 3: There could have been another lawyer in that case, and 122 00:06:36,839 --> 00:06:39,000 Speaker 3: that is something you did at your own risk, and 123 00:06:39,080 --> 00:06:41,240 Speaker 3: so he was not going to delay the trial for 124 00:06:41,279 --> 00:06:44,320 Speaker 3: that reason. They also raised a number of other arguments 125 00:06:44,400 --> 00:06:47,560 Speaker 3: saying that would interfere with the campaign season. That was 126 00:06:47,560 --> 00:06:50,680 Speaker 3: something that was not successful. The Trump defense team also 127 00:06:50,880 --> 00:06:53,680 Speaker 3: tried to delay the trial by trying it to the 128 00:06:53,760 --> 00:06:57,159 Speaker 3: recent verdict in the Egene Carrol defamation case. That's the 129 00:06:57,200 --> 00:07:00,320 Speaker 3: case that was recently decided also in Manhattan, had to 130 00:07:00,360 --> 00:07:03,680 Speaker 3: deal with allegations that he had defamed Egen Carroll in 131 00:07:03,720 --> 00:07:06,919 Speaker 3: connection with a sexual assault. There was a large verdict, 132 00:07:06,960 --> 00:07:09,880 Speaker 3: a lots of publicity, an eighty three million dollar plain 133 00:07:09,960 --> 00:07:13,280 Speaker 3: of verdict on behalf of Egen Carroll for defaming her 134 00:07:13,360 --> 00:07:15,520 Speaker 3: when he denied that he sexually assaulted her. And the 135 00:07:15,520 --> 00:07:17,840 Speaker 3: Trump lawyers are saying that that will paint the jury 136 00:07:17,840 --> 00:07:20,920 Speaker 3: pool again. The judge thought that can be dealt with 137 00:07:20,960 --> 00:07:23,480 Speaker 3: a trial. That could be dealt with during jury selection. 138 00:07:23,800 --> 00:07:26,240 Speaker 3: You always have issues of a person who has a 139 00:07:26,240 --> 00:07:29,440 Speaker 3: lot of notoriety, People have strong opinions about him. Frankly, 140 00:07:29,440 --> 00:07:31,200 Speaker 3: you're never going to find a jury in Manhattan that 141 00:07:31,240 --> 00:07:33,840 Speaker 3: doesn't have strong opinions about former President Trump. And so 142 00:07:34,320 --> 00:07:37,640 Speaker 3: the Vadier process where lawyers get to question jurors will 143 00:07:37,680 --> 00:07:40,280 Speaker 3: have to be used effectively to try to weed out 144 00:07:40,280 --> 00:07:42,920 Speaker 3: anybody who has a preconceived notion about what the verdict 145 00:07:42,960 --> 00:07:45,360 Speaker 3: should be, and they will ultimately have to take whatever 146 00:07:45,440 --> 00:07:47,680 Speaker 3: time it does in order to select a jury that 147 00:07:47,720 --> 00:07:50,040 Speaker 3: has an open mind, that will make a decision based 148 00:07:50,080 --> 00:07:53,200 Speaker 3: solely on the evidence and not based upon any preconceived 149 00:07:53,200 --> 00:07:56,520 Speaker 3: notions or any extraneous information that's not presented a trial. 150 00:07:57,120 --> 00:07:59,480 Speaker 2: So now Michael Cohene is going to be key his 151 00:07:59,560 --> 00:08:03,920 Speaker 2: testimony in this case. Trump's lawyers complained that Cohen had 152 00:08:03,920 --> 00:08:08,280 Speaker 2: committed perjury when he testified in October in the New 153 00:08:08,320 --> 00:08:11,880 Speaker 2: York Attorney General's case, and they said, how can we 154 00:08:12,000 --> 00:08:14,480 Speaker 2: possibly go to a trial with a witness who committed 155 00:08:14,480 --> 00:08:17,640 Speaker 2: perjury across the street two months ago. They should be 156 00:08:17,680 --> 00:08:19,240 Speaker 2: investigating him. 157 00:08:19,520 --> 00:08:22,080 Speaker 3: Well, what the Trump team was referring to was in 158 00:08:22,160 --> 00:08:26,200 Speaker 3: the New York Attorney General's case, where former President Trump's 159 00:08:26,240 --> 00:08:29,400 Speaker 3: lawyer Michael Cohene was also a key witness. He had 160 00:08:29,440 --> 00:08:33,480 Speaker 3: testified under oath that former President Trump had directed him 161 00:08:33,520 --> 00:08:36,640 Speaker 3: to inflate his assets again in order to try to 162 00:08:36,720 --> 00:08:41,480 Speaker 3: receive more favorable loans from Joasia Bank. Tone later changed 163 00:08:41,520 --> 00:08:44,640 Speaker 3: that story during the trial today that while he was 164 00:08:44,640 --> 00:08:48,720 Speaker 3: not directly directed by former President Trump, it was implied 165 00:08:48,800 --> 00:08:53,000 Speaker 3: by former President Trump that he wanted to inflate those assets. 166 00:08:53,240 --> 00:08:56,280 Speaker 3: The Trump defense team has said that Cohen has allegedly 167 00:08:56,600 --> 00:09:00,120 Speaker 3: admitted to perjury. Whether that was perjury or not is 168 00:09:00,120 --> 00:09:02,840 Speaker 3: an open question, but the right remedy for that. 169 00:09:03,160 --> 00:09:03,719 Speaker 1: This is what the. 170 00:09:03,679 --> 00:09:07,360 Speaker 3: Prosecution argues, is that that is fodder for cross examination. 171 00:09:07,920 --> 00:09:09,959 Speaker 3: Michael Cohen will be a key witness in the case 172 00:09:09,960 --> 00:09:12,960 Speaker 3: of Manhattan DA's office. He already carries a lot of 173 00:09:13,000 --> 00:09:16,920 Speaker 3: baggage with him because he's pled guilty the federal campaign violations, 174 00:09:17,200 --> 00:09:20,280 Speaker 3: He's admitted to lying in other proceedings, and so we 175 00:09:20,360 --> 00:09:24,440 Speaker 3: can expect a very rigorous cross examination of him during 176 00:09:24,440 --> 00:09:27,360 Speaker 3: this trial. And the Trump lawyers will essentially argue that 177 00:09:27,400 --> 00:09:30,840 Speaker 3: you can't believe anything Michael Cohen says, and then ultimately 178 00:09:30,920 --> 00:09:32,920 Speaker 3: it will be up to a jury to decide whether 179 00:09:32,920 --> 00:09:35,120 Speaker 3: he's telling the truth when he testifies in this trial, 180 00:09:35,480 --> 00:09:36,600 Speaker 3: and Bob. 181 00:09:36,440 --> 00:09:39,360 Speaker 2: This is the case that's going first. This is also 182 00:09:39,440 --> 00:09:43,800 Speaker 2: the case that most legal analysts and others consider the 183 00:09:43,800 --> 00:09:48,680 Speaker 2: weakest of the criminal cases against Donald Trump. Explain why 184 00:09:48,760 --> 00:09:50,080 Speaker 2: it's considered the weakest. 185 00:09:50,800 --> 00:09:53,560 Speaker 3: One of the issues that has been dogging this case 186 00:09:53,600 --> 00:09:56,480 Speaker 3: from the outset was the way in which the Manhattan 187 00:09:56,559 --> 00:09:59,840 Speaker 3: DA charged it. This is basically a charge for full 188 00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:03,240 Speaker 3: defying business records. And in this case, what it means 189 00:10:03,400 --> 00:10:06,920 Speaker 3: is that back in October of twenty sixteen, the allegation 190 00:10:07,400 --> 00:10:11,800 Speaker 3: is that former President Trump, through Michael Cone, his former attorney, 191 00:10:12,040 --> 00:10:15,559 Speaker 3: was paying off Stormy Daniels, a porn star who alleged 192 00:10:15,559 --> 00:10:18,320 Speaker 3: that she had an affair with former President Trump. The 193 00:10:18,360 --> 00:10:21,319 Speaker 3: allegation is that former President Trump, who was campaigning for 194 00:10:21,440 --> 00:10:24,600 Speaker 3: office then, was concerned about this allegation going public and 195 00:10:24,720 --> 00:10:27,240 Speaker 3: damaging his chances in the election. So there was a 196 00:10:27,240 --> 00:10:31,160 Speaker 3: payment made to Stormy Daniels through Michael Cone that was 197 00:10:31,240 --> 00:10:35,760 Speaker 3: later concealed as a legal payment. Ultimately, that created, according 198 00:10:35,800 --> 00:10:39,200 Speaker 3: to the Manhattan DA, a false business record. Now, typically 199 00:10:39,280 --> 00:10:43,040 Speaker 3: business records violations in New York State are misdemeanors, which 200 00:10:43,080 --> 00:10:45,560 Speaker 3: means they're punishable only by up to a year in prison, 201 00:10:45,800 --> 00:10:49,160 Speaker 3: and they're relatively minor charges. But what the DA did 202 00:10:49,200 --> 00:10:52,400 Speaker 3: here is he turned those into felonies, which you can 203 00:10:52,480 --> 00:10:56,680 Speaker 3: do if the business records violation is somehow tied to 204 00:10:56,800 --> 00:11:00,800 Speaker 3: another crime, or, in this case, the concealment of another. Now, 205 00:11:00,840 --> 00:11:03,560 Speaker 3: the real issue here is that the concealment of the 206 00:11:03,600 --> 00:11:07,920 Speaker 3: other crime was a federal campaign law violation, and that 207 00:11:08,160 --> 00:11:12,000 Speaker 3: theory tying the business records violation to a federal rather 208 00:11:12,080 --> 00:11:15,200 Speaker 3: than a state law violation has never been tested in 209 00:11:15,240 --> 00:11:18,679 Speaker 3: the appeals court. So although that issue was argued before 210 00:11:18,679 --> 00:11:21,480 Speaker 3: the trial judge Manhattan, and the judge rejected it, I 211 00:11:21,520 --> 00:11:24,160 Speaker 3: think we can see that issue raised again on appeal. 212 00:11:24,360 --> 00:11:26,120 Speaker 3: And if there's going to be a real problem with 213 00:11:26,160 --> 00:11:29,400 Speaker 3: this case, it's not likely to be in the evidence 214 00:11:29,440 --> 00:11:31,520 Speaker 3: that's presented a trial. It's likely to be in this 215 00:11:31,720 --> 00:11:36,040 Speaker 3: legal theory, which is somewhat novel, never been tested. It's 216 00:11:36,120 --> 00:11:38,760 Speaker 3: possible that on appeal, an appeals court and may look 217 00:11:38,760 --> 00:11:41,320 Speaker 3: at the trial court ruling and take a different view 218 00:11:41,360 --> 00:11:43,640 Speaker 3: as to whether or not there was a legal basis 219 00:11:43,640 --> 00:11:45,240 Speaker 3: to bring these charges in the first place. 220 00:11:45,800 --> 00:11:50,400 Speaker 2: And another which you discussed earlier, is just that so 221 00:11:50,520 --> 00:11:54,120 Speaker 2: much of the case relies on the testimony of Michael Cohen, 222 00:11:54,160 --> 00:11:56,960 Speaker 2: and the defense has so many ways to attack him. 223 00:11:57,200 --> 00:12:02,000 Speaker 3: Yeah, Michael Cohen is certainly a problematic, but prosecutors deal 224 00:12:02,040 --> 00:12:03,200 Speaker 3: with that all the time. 225 00:12:03,640 --> 00:12:04,960 Speaker 1: They will typically. 226 00:12:04,600 --> 00:12:09,559 Speaker 3: Argue that you don't have cooperating witnesses who have clean hands, 227 00:12:09,720 --> 00:12:12,719 Speaker 3: You don't have cooperating witnesses who are choir boys, who 228 00:12:12,720 --> 00:12:15,520 Speaker 3: have people who have gotten down into the DIRG who've 229 00:12:15,559 --> 00:12:18,240 Speaker 3: engaged in illegal acts, and that's why they're valuable as 230 00:12:18,280 --> 00:12:20,920 Speaker 3: witnesses because they played a key role in the crime. 231 00:12:21,160 --> 00:12:23,760 Speaker 3: So that's sort of a standard playbook for prosecutors. But 232 00:12:23,840 --> 00:12:26,760 Speaker 3: the flip side to that is that defense lawyers have 233 00:12:26,880 --> 00:12:30,840 Speaker 3: the ability to question their credibility and state of jurors. 234 00:12:30,960 --> 00:12:35,320 Speaker 3: Michael Cone has admitted to lying under oath before, why 235 00:12:35,320 --> 00:12:37,720 Speaker 3: do you believe he's not lying under oath now? And 236 00:12:37,800 --> 00:12:40,120 Speaker 3: they'll be up to prosecutors to try to prop up 237 00:12:40,160 --> 00:12:44,440 Speaker 3: Michael Cone by presenting other evidence, through other witnesses and 238 00:12:44,520 --> 00:12:48,120 Speaker 3: corroborating documentary evidence to try to convince the jury that 239 00:12:48,160 --> 00:12:50,720 Speaker 3: they should believe Michael Cone. And they're going to do 240 00:12:50,800 --> 00:12:54,200 Speaker 3: that by not resting their entire case on Michael Cone's 241 00:12:54,240 --> 00:12:57,520 Speaker 3: credibility on his testimony, but by saying that when you 242 00:12:57,640 --> 00:13:00,880 Speaker 3: view his testimony in connection with all the other evidence 243 00:13:00,920 --> 00:13:04,240 Speaker 3: that's being presented, it's something that the jury can believe, 244 00:13:04,559 --> 00:13:07,560 Speaker 3: something that the jury can believe. The prosecution has met 245 00:13:07,559 --> 00:13:10,120 Speaker 3: its burner proof on which is beyond a reasonable doubt. 246 00:13:10,440 --> 00:13:13,240 Speaker 3: But ultimately you're correct, Michael Cohne will be the star 247 00:13:13,320 --> 00:13:16,240 Speaker 3: witness and whether he's believed by this jury will ultimately 248 00:13:16,280 --> 00:13:17,480 Speaker 3: determine the outcome of the case. 249 00:13:17,720 --> 00:13:21,439 Speaker 2: Trump has put himself in this position because he's trying 250 00:13:21,480 --> 00:13:24,480 Speaker 2: to delay all these trials, and so they run into 251 00:13:24,520 --> 00:13:26,920 Speaker 2: each other because of his attempts at delay. I mean, 252 00:13:27,360 --> 00:13:31,160 Speaker 2: otherwise the DC trial would have gone off in early March, 253 00:13:31,400 --> 00:13:35,240 Speaker 2: and the New York judge was prepared to put that 254 00:13:35,400 --> 00:13:36,200 Speaker 2: case on hold. 255 00:13:36,640 --> 00:13:39,080 Speaker 3: Well, yeah, and that's one of the reasons the trial 256 00:13:39,200 --> 00:13:44,000 Speaker 3: judge gave for ejecting the delay, saying that former President 257 00:13:44,040 --> 00:13:47,440 Speaker 3: Trump and his legal team has fought critical stepoenas in 258 00:13:47,480 --> 00:13:51,400 Speaker 3: the Manhattan DA's case, which ultimately delayed the trial. And 259 00:13:51,440 --> 00:13:54,800 Speaker 3: that's currently true that there has been tremendous motion practice 260 00:13:54,800 --> 00:13:57,840 Speaker 3: and appeals in all of these cases and it has 261 00:13:57,960 --> 00:14:00,520 Speaker 3: delayed them. And now the Trump defense it's trying to 262 00:14:00,520 --> 00:14:02,160 Speaker 3: flip that on the head and saying, well, now that 263 00:14:02,160 --> 00:14:04,280 Speaker 3: we're too close to the election, we really ought to 264 00:14:04,320 --> 00:14:07,120 Speaker 3: carry it over until after November. But so far we're 265 00:14:07,120 --> 00:14:09,120 Speaker 3: not seeing the trial judge buying that argument. 266 00:14:09,360 --> 00:14:12,199 Speaker 2: And Bob, you mentioned how important the jury selection will 267 00:14:12,240 --> 00:14:15,520 Speaker 2: be in the hush money case, and there was discussion 268 00:14:15,559 --> 00:14:19,480 Speaker 2: today about the jury questionnaire that potential jurors will fill 269 00:14:19,520 --> 00:14:23,960 Speaker 2: out before the voisdir. The judge hasn't decided on the 270 00:14:24,000 --> 00:14:27,360 Speaker 2: final questionnaire yet, but both the prosecution and the defense 271 00:14:27,440 --> 00:14:31,640 Speaker 2: discussed having jurors identify where they get their news from. 272 00:14:31,960 --> 00:14:34,920 Speaker 2: The Prosecutors also want the judge to find out if 273 00:14:34,920 --> 00:14:38,960 Speaker 2: potential jurors have read any of Trump's books, and lawyers 274 00:14:38,960 --> 00:14:41,960 Speaker 2: for Trump also asked the judge to question potential jurors 275 00:14:42,040 --> 00:14:45,280 Speaker 2: about what kind of bumper stickers and lawn signs they 276 00:14:45,320 --> 00:14:48,160 Speaker 2: had in front of their homes to determine their politics. 277 00:14:48,400 --> 00:14:51,360 Speaker 2: So it is likely to be a long questionnaire. Thanks 278 00:14:51,400 --> 00:14:54,200 Speaker 2: so much, Bob. That's Robert Mints, a partner Maccarter and 279 00:14:54,280 --> 00:14:58,200 Speaker 2: English and in Atlanta today, in an extraordinary hearing that 280 00:14:58,320 --> 00:15:01,400 Speaker 2: threatens to upend one of the f criminal cases against 281 00:15:01,400 --> 00:15:05,440 Speaker 2: the former president, Fulton County District Attorney Fanny Willis took 282 00:15:05,480 --> 00:15:08,760 Speaker 2: the witness stand and forcefully pushed back against what she 283 00:15:08,920 --> 00:15:13,040 Speaker 2: described as lies about her romantic relationship with the special 284 00:15:13,120 --> 00:15:16,920 Speaker 2: prosecutor she appointed in the case. Highly offensive with someone 285 00:15:16,960 --> 00:15:19,840 Speaker 2: lies on you, and it's highly offensive when they that 286 00:15:19,920 --> 00:15:22,040 Speaker 2: you slept with somebody the first day you met with them. 287 00:15:22,160 --> 00:15:24,600 Speaker 2: And I take exception two and joining me now from 288 00:15:24,680 --> 00:15:29,240 Speaker 2: the courthouse in Atlanta is Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakis. 289 00:15:29,520 --> 00:15:31,720 Speaker 2: And David, I know it's a little noisy where you are, 290 00:15:31,760 --> 00:15:34,440 Speaker 2: but I'm happy to have you. It seemed very tense 291 00:15:34,640 --> 00:15:37,920 Speaker 2: watching this on TV. What was it like in the. 292 00:15:37,880 --> 00:15:42,120 Speaker 4: Courtroom at different times? It was quite tense, particularly when 293 00:15:42,200 --> 00:15:46,000 Speaker 4: Fannie Willis was on the stand. She was at times combative, 294 00:15:46,240 --> 00:15:50,880 Speaker 4: she was funny, She pushed back on many different points 295 00:15:50,720 --> 00:15:55,280 Speaker 4: that the sense lawyers questioned her on and again the 296 00:15:55,360 --> 00:16:00,840 Speaker 4: Trump Co defendants are accusing her of misconduct removed from 297 00:16:00,840 --> 00:16:05,320 Speaker 4: the case, and she's very emphatically pushing back against that. So, yeah, 298 00:16:05,560 --> 00:16:07,840 Speaker 4: tense is a word that I was used to describe 299 00:16:07,840 --> 00:16:11,040 Speaker 4: the atmosphere when she was on the stand and when 300 00:16:11,480 --> 00:16:13,360 Speaker 4: Nathan Wade was on the stand as well. 301 00:16:13,880 --> 00:16:15,960 Speaker 2: Let's go back to Nathan Wade for a moment. What 302 00:16:16,040 --> 00:16:19,640 Speaker 2: did you make of his testimony? He contradicted what one 303 00:16:19,640 --> 00:16:22,960 Speaker 2: of the earlier witnesses said about timing of their affair, 304 00:16:23,040 --> 00:16:25,240 Speaker 2: and timing seems to be very important here. 305 00:16:25,480 --> 00:16:29,520 Speaker 4: Key to the timing is that Nathan Wade was hired 306 00:16:29,680 --> 00:16:34,640 Speaker 4: in November of twenty one, and the Trump Co defendants 307 00:16:35,480 --> 00:16:41,520 Speaker 4: claimed that he was having an affair with Bonnie Willis 308 00:16:41,840 --> 00:16:46,440 Speaker 4: at the end of twenty nineteen, which he hotly disputes. 309 00:16:46,520 --> 00:16:49,600 Speaker 4: He said it didn't begin until early twenty twenty two, 310 00:16:49,760 --> 00:16:54,920 Speaker 4: which is also what Bonnie Willis testified to. The timing 311 00:16:55,040 --> 00:16:59,360 Speaker 4: matters because it goes to whether the two of them, 312 00:16:59,600 --> 00:17:03,680 Speaker 4: twenty wee Willis and Nathan Wade, were deriving improper financial 313 00:17:03,720 --> 00:17:06,119 Speaker 4: benefits from the investigation. 314 00:17:06,480 --> 00:17:08,399 Speaker 2: There was a lot of quibbling, it seemed to me, 315 00:17:09,160 --> 00:17:13,440 Speaker 2: overwording because they had his derogatories in his divorce case 316 00:17:13,480 --> 00:17:15,040 Speaker 2: that they were quizzing him about. 317 00:17:15,600 --> 00:17:19,199 Speaker 4: There was a basic point. Nathan Wade is still married, 318 00:17:19,800 --> 00:17:24,119 Speaker 4: and in his eyes, he testified that he has not 319 00:17:24,280 --> 00:17:28,879 Speaker 4: been married for several years because his marriage is irretrievably 320 00:17:28,920 --> 00:17:31,920 Speaker 4: broken and so he can do what he likes, and 321 00:17:32,000 --> 00:17:36,080 Speaker 4: so in his divorce proceedings, which are happening at the 322 00:17:36,119 --> 00:17:39,480 Speaker 4: same time in neighboring Cobb County, he filled out after 323 00:17:39,560 --> 00:17:43,160 Speaker 4: Davis that said that he did not have romantic relationship 324 00:17:43,240 --> 00:17:48,040 Speaker 4: outside of his marriage, and so Trump Co decendants are 325 00:17:48,080 --> 00:17:51,840 Speaker 4: trying to pin him to those words while he's also 326 00:17:51,960 --> 00:17:55,080 Speaker 4: admitting that he had an affair with Bonnie Willis for 327 00:17:55,520 --> 00:17:59,639 Speaker 4: a year and a half and so the question is 328 00:18:00,119 --> 00:18:02,439 Speaker 4: he married or not. He's still legally married. 329 00:18:03,359 --> 00:18:05,879 Speaker 2: So now when she got on the stand, and there 330 00:18:05,920 --> 00:18:10,200 Speaker 2: was this dramatic moment because they were arguing about whether 331 00:18:10,359 --> 00:18:12,119 Speaker 2: or not she would have to be called, and she 332 00:18:12,280 --> 00:18:15,200 Speaker 2: suddenly appeared in the courtroom and said, I'm ready. I'm 333 00:18:15,240 --> 00:18:16,480 Speaker 2: ready to go right. 334 00:18:16,640 --> 00:18:20,160 Speaker 4: Sister Attorney's office had fought the subpoena for her. They 335 00:18:20,200 --> 00:18:24,480 Speaker 4: tried to quash it, and the judge had agreed earlier 336 00:18:24,520 --> 00:18:28,440 Speaker 4: this week that he would temporarily quash it until he 337 00:18:28,840 --> 00:18:31,840 Speaker 4: saw what the testimony was and decided whether she would 338 00:18:31,880 --> 00:18:35,320 Speaker 4: need it or not. So then when frump codfendant Michael 339 00:18:35,400 --> 00:18:39,760 Speaker 4: Roman's lawyer, Ashley Merchant, called her, there was a dramatic 340 00:18:39,880 --> 00:18:42,840 Speaker 4: moment where the Sister Attorney's office said that they were 341 00:18:42,920 --> 00:18:46,359 Speaker 4: dropping their objections and that she wanted to testify. So 342 00:18:46,480 --> 00:18:49,280 Speaker 4: then she came to the courtroom and everyone was sort 343 00:18:49,280 --> 00:18:50,000 Speaker 4: of taken aback. 344 00:18:50,600 --> 00:18:53,879 Speaker 2: She was very dramatic on the stand. I mean, she 345 00:18:54,000 --> 00:18:57,119 Speaker 2: seemed like she was in control of the questioning because 346 00:18:57,160 --> 00:18:59,280 Speaker 2: she got in what she wanted to get in, no 347 00:18:59,320 --> 00:19:00,560 Speaker 2: matter what the question was. 348 00:19:01,119 --> 00:19:04,760 Speaker 4: Well, the judge didn't always agree with her approach. There 349 00:19:04,760 --> 00:19:07,520 Speaker 4: were times when he thought that she was making speeches 350 00:19:07,560 --> 00:19:11,560 Speaker 4: and not answering direct questions. She felt she needed more 351 00:19:11,640 --> 00:19:14,680 Speaker 4: room to answer those questions, and so there were some 352 00:19:14,840 --> 00:19:17,840 Speaker 4: tense moments with the judge. But clearly this the woman 353 00:19:17,880 --> 00:19:22,480 Speaker 4: who's charismatic and a strong speaker, and I guess is 354 00:19:22,600 --> 00:19:25,760 Speaker 4: used to being able to state things the way she 355 00:19:25,840 --> 00:19:26,280 Speaker 4: wants to. 356 00:19:26,640 --> 00:19:29,600 Speaker 2: And what do you think she established in her testimony 357 00:19:29,920 --> 00:19:32,280 Speaker 2: or what did the defense establish in her testimony? 358 00:19:32,680 --> 00:19:37,000 Speaker 4: Well, the defense raised some substantial questions about how she 359 00:19:37,080 --> 00:19:40,520 Speaker 4: manages cash, and she testified that she had had several 360 00:19:40,560 --> 00:19:43,639 Speaker 4: thousand dollars in cash in her house at various points, 361 00:19:43,840 --> 00:19:49,040 Speaker 4: and that she consistently reimbursed Nathan Wade for their travels 362 00:19:49,080 --> 00:19:53,520 Speaker 4: with cash. And so the defense makes the case that 363 00:19:53,560 --> 00:19:57,520 Speaker 4: there's no receipt of that, there's no proof of her 364 00:19:57,840 --> 00:20:02,560 Speaker 4: claim that she in fact made these cash reimbursements. So 365 00:20:02,640 --> 00:20:07,440 Speaker 4: that's going to have to be the question that's left unresolved, 366 00:20:07,480 --> 00:20:11,119 Speaker 4: and it's something that Judge Scott McAfee is going to 367 00:20:11,200 --> 00:20:15,280 Speaker 4: have to decide who's more credible here, Is it Wade 368 00:20:15,280 --> 00:20:18,959 Speaker 4: and Willis or was it the friend of Wade who 369 00:20:19,040 --> 00:20:21,919 Speaker 4: took the stand earlier and said that their affair began 370 00:20:22,320 --> 00:20:23,520 Speaker 4: in twenty nineteen. 371 00:20:24,040 --> 00:20:25,960 Speaker 2: Let's say they had an affair. Let's say the affairs 372 00:20:26,000 --> 00:20:31,040 Speaker 2: start in twenty nineteen. How does that prejudice the defendants here. 373 00:20:31,320 --> 00:20:35,320 Speaker 4: Well, because it's an undisclosed conflict of interest. They argue 374 00:20:35,359 --> 00:20:40,320 Speaker 4: that it's something that she should have disclosed to the county, 375 00:20:41,000 --> 00:20:46,639 Speaker 4: which is paying for his bills, his invoices. And it 376 00:20:47,119 --> 00:20:52,760 Speaker 4: also suggests that they have an improper motive in the prosecution, 377 00:20:52,920 --> 00:20:56,679 Speaker 4: and carrying the prosecution on has been the more money 378 00:20:56,720 --> 00:21:00,960 Speaker 4: he makes, the longer the prosecution goes, the more the 379 00:21:01,000 --> 00:21:02,120 Speaker 4: two of them benefit. 380 00:21:02,720 --> 00:21:05,480 Speaker 2: So what happens now is the hearing over. 381 00:21:06,080 --> 00:21:09,560 Speaker 4: The hearing will continue on Friday. The judge and the 382 00:21:09,600 --> 00:21:12,040 Speaker 4: lawyers just made clear that it's going to take most 383 00:21:12,080 --> 00:21:16,360 Speaker 4: of the day. The judge will then entertained legal arguments 384 00:21:16,400 --> 00:21:18,879 Speaker 4: after tomorrow. He's going to try to get through the 385 00:21:18,920 --> 00:21:22,200 Speaker 4: evidence ary part of this hearing tomorrow, and the judge 386 00:21:22,200 --> 00:21:24,240 Speaker 4: also made clear that it's going to take him a 387 00:21:24,240 --> 00:21:25,400 Speaker 4: while to make a decision. 388 00:21:25,560 --> 00:21:25,679 Speaker 1: Here. 389 00:21:26,119 --> 00:21:28,480 Speaker 2: Do we know what other witnesses are coming up? She 390 00:21:28,600 --> 00:21:30,080 Speaker 2: mentioned her father a great deal. 391 00:21:30,720 --> 00:21:34,280 Speaker 4: There's going to be some financial records. There's going to 392 00:21:34,320 --> 00:21:38,480 Speaker 4: be continued questioning of Fannie Willis, which could take some 393 00:21:38,640 --> 00:21:42,399 Speaker 4: time tomorrow. Then the DA's office said that they have 394 00:21:42,560 --> 00:21:45,919 Speaker 4: witnesses that could take them four hours or so, but 395 00:21:45,960 --> 00:21:47,080 Speaker 4: they didn't spell them out. 396 00:21:47,520 --> 00:21:50,560 Speaker 2: Wow, that's a lot more than I expected. Thanks so 397 00:21:50,640 --> 00:21:52,800 Speaker 2: much for taking the time to talk to us, David. 398 00:21:53,080 --> 00:21:57,240 Speaker 2: That's Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakis, obviously coming to us 399 00:21:57,320 --> 00:22:01,240 Speaker 2: from the courthouse in Atlanta. Up next on the Bloomberg 400 00:22:01,320 --> 00:22:03,919 Speaker 2: Law Show, we'll talk more about the hearing in Georgia 401 00:22:04,000 --> 00:22:08,080 Speaker 2: that could upend one of the criminal trials of Donald Trump. 402 00:22:08,359 --> 00:22:11,200 Speaker 2: I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. He started 403 00:22:11,280 --> 00:22:14,159 Speaker 2: dating shortly thereafter correct a line that's one of you lives. 404 00:22:14,600 --> 00:22:17,920 Speaker 2: A fiery Fannie Willis took the witness stand and denied 405 00:22:17,960 --> 00:22:22,119 Speaker 2: she engaged in any misconduct in her election fraud prosecution 406 00:22:22,240 --> 00:22:25,280 Speaker 2: of Donald Trump and his co defendants. They're trying to 407 00:22:25,280 --> 00:22:29,440 Speaker 2: disqualify her over a romantic relationship with her. Lead prosecutor 408 00:22:29,440 --> 00:22:33,040 Speaker 2: in the case, Nathan Wade, the Fulton County District Attorney, 409 00:22:33,240 --> 00:22:37,679 Speaker 2: adopted a combative tone as Trump's co defendant, Michael Roman 410 00:22:37,760 --> 00:22:42,600 Speaker 2: claims she and Wade financially benefited from overseeing the sprawling case. 411 00:22:42,920 --> 00:22:46,399 Speaker 2: Joining me is former federal prosecutor Michael Zelden. Is it 412 00:22:46,600 --> 00:22:48,960 Speaker 2: just me? Or did this seem very tawdry? 413 00:22:49,960 --> 00:22:53,520 Speaker 1: The case has sort of a tawdry overlay to it 414 00:22:53,600 --> 00:22:59,800 Speaker 1: because the accusation is that Wade and Willis with bad purpose, 415 00:23:00,480 --> 00:23:04,959 Speaker 1: manipulated a system so that they could benefit personally during 416 00:23:05,119 --> 00:23:09,880 Speaker 1: a romantic relationship. I don't think the evidence has established that, 417 00:23:10,440 --> 00:23:15,320 Speaker 1: but the accusations surrounding those theories are such that they 418 00:23:15,400 --> 00:23:19,280 Speaker 1: are upsetting to everyone who's in their minds being falsely accused. 419 00:23:19,320 --> 00:23:22,719 Speaker 1: So you can see why tempers are running high in 420 00:23:22,760 --> 00:23:23,320 Speaker 1: this case. 421 00:23:23,560 --> 00:23:26,840 Speaker 2: So, in other words, the theory is that they prolonged 422 00:23:26,920 --> 00:23:29,639 Speaker 2: this case, or they brought this case so that he 423 00:23:29,720 --> 00:23:33,720 Speaker 2: could make a salary and take her on vacations. Is 424 00:23:33,760 --> 00:23:34,800 Speaker 2: that the theory here? 425 00:23:35,320 --> 00:23:38,960 Speaker 1: Yeah, The theory is they have a pre existing relationship, 426 00:23:39,119 --> 00:23:44,320 Speaker 1: she hires her boyfriend, who then is making good money, 427 00:23:44,560 --> 00:23:48,639 Speaker 1: who is then taking her out on expensive trips with 428 00:23:48,840 --> 00:23:52,439 Speaker 1: that money, and that they are prolonging this case with 429 00:23:52,520 --> 00:23:56,960 Speaker 1: an indictment and an extended discovery process so that they 430 00:23:56,960 --> 00:24:01,000 Speaker 1: can keep the gravy train going, it seems to me 431 00:24:01,200 --> 00:24:05,280 Speaker 1: is the theory, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. 432 00:24:05,480 --> 00:24:08,560 Speaker 1: And in fact, the judge at one point when Wade 433 00:24:08,600 --> 00:24:12,000 Speaker 1: was understand said to the moving party, why is the 434 00:24:12,040 --> 00:24:16,240 Speaker 1: amount of money he earned relevant? Meaning he's a private 435 00:24:16,280 --> 00:24:20,760 Speaker 1: sector lawyer who was brought in as a independent consultant 436 00:24:21,400 --> 00:24:25,040 Speaker 1: to help them in this case. Whatever the state wants 437 00:24:25,080 --> 00:24:28,240 Speaker 1: to pay him, the state can pay him. And unless 438 00:24:28,280 --> 00:24:32,520 Speaker 1: you can establish a link that somehow there was almost 439 00:24:32,560 --> 00:24:38,200 Speaker 1: like Menendez like fraud that they earned money on false representations, 440 00:24:38,240 --> 00:24:42,399 Speaker 1: his submissions about time was wrong, or his requests for 441 00:24:42,480 --> 00:24:48,000 Speaker 1: reimbursements or fraudulents. It's an arms length agreement between the 442 00:24:48,040 --> 00:24:51,800 Speaker 1: state and an individual, and that is the states and 443 00:24:51,840 --> 00:24:55,800 Speaker 1: the individual's prerogative. And in fact, I don't see how 444 00:24:55,920 --> 00:24:58,919 Speaker 1: but for appearance purposes, the fact that they were in 445 00:24:58,960 --> 00:25:01,960 Speaker 1: an adult relation with one another during the tendency of 446 00:25:02,000 --> 00:25:04,240 Speaker 1: this case so far, and now they've broken up in 447 00:25:04,280 --> 00:25:08,520 Speaker 1: August we learned, has anything to do with emotion for disqualification. 448 00:25:08,840 --> 00:25:12,359 Speaker 1: It's just not seemingly relevant to me. 449 00:25:13,400 --> 00:25:17,280 Speaker 2: I'm actually surprised that the judge had this hearing in 450 00:25:17,359 --> 00:25:20,520 Speaker 2: open court. Isn't this something he could have disposed of 451 00:25:20,800 --> 00:25:21,879 Speaker 2: in his chambers. 452 00:25:22,440 --> 00:25:28,040 Speaker 1: The state moved to quash this subpoena and prevent this 453 00:25:28,160 --> 00:25:31,159 Speaker 1: hearing from going forward. But the judge, I think, trying 454 00:25:31,200 --> 00:25:35,719 Speaker 1: to you know, be careful and ensure that there's no 455 00:25:35,800 --> 00:25:39,119 Speaker 1: allegations of sort of politics on his part, decided to 456 00:25:39,160 --> 00:25:41,199 Speaker 1: let the hearing go forward. I think he could have 457 00:25:41,280 --> 00:25:43,600 Speaker 1: ended this hearing before it started. I think he could 458 00:25:43,600 --> 00:25:47,439 Speaker 1: have ended this hearing long into the day. But you know, 459 00:25:47,680 --> 00:25:49,879 Speaker 1: he's a smart guy, and he decided this wasn't the 460 00:25:49,880 --> 00:25:52,359 Speaker 1: best interests of the case and all the parties to 461 00:25:52,359 --> 00:25:55,479 Speaker 1: have a full hearing of all the allegations, and then 462 00:25:55,520 --> 00:25:58,120 Speaker 1: he'll render his decision based on the evidence that I've 463 00:25:58,119 --> 00:26:03,040 Speaker 1: seen so far. See any basis for the disqualification, nor 464 00:26:03,080 --> 00:26:06,119 Speaker 1: do I see any basis for the dismissal that all said. 465 00:26:06,280 --> 00:26:09,960 Speaker 1: If I were Nathan Wade, having been sort of found 466 00:26:10,040 --> 00:26:13,920 Speaker 1: not to have violated any other ethics or the criminal lawyer, 467 00:26:14,240 --> 00:26:16,159 Speaker 1: I would say, you know what, in the interests of 468 00:26:16,200 --> 00:26:18,880 Speaker 1: the best interest of this case, I'm going to now 469 00:26:18,920 --> 00:26:21,960 Speaker 1: step aside and let somebody else take over. It's just 470 00:26:22,040 --> 00:26:24,520 Speaker 1: too much of a distraction to have me here. 471 00:26:25,080 --> 00:26:27,760 Speaker 2: Let's talk about his testimony for a bit. How did 472 00:26:27,800 --> 00:26:30,080 Speaker 2: you find his testimony? Was he credible to you? 473 00:26:30,359 --> 00:26:34,240 Speaker 1: He was very calm and collected, and he took issue 474 00:26:34,359 --> 00:26:39,440 Speaker 1: with I thought a lawyer who asked some pretty unfounded questions, 475 00:26:39,480 --> 00:26:42,880 Speaker 1: meaning there was no foundation for her questions. Look, her 476 00:26:42,960 --> 00:26:46,199 Speaker 1: very first witness, she couldn't even get testimony out of him, 477 00:26:46,200 --> 00:26:48,960 Speaker 1: and she had to dismiss him. The second witness seems 478 00:26:49,000 --> 00:26:52,240 Speaker 1: to have had a bias that she didn't bring out 479 00:26:52,280 --> 00:26:55,639 Speaker 1: herself because she was fired by Willis. So when you 480 00:26:55,680 --> 00:26:59,440 Speaker 1: get to Wade, who was very calm, very collected, answer 481 00:26:59,520 --> 00:27:02,360 Speaker 1: your question was in a business like way. I don't 482 00:27:02,359 --> 00:27:04,240 Speaker 1: think she made any headway with him, and I think 483 00:27:04,240 --> 00:27:07,600 Speaker 1: that he came off looking, you know, rather sober as 484 00:27:07,640 --> 00:27:08,200 Speaker 1: a witness. 485 00:27:08,520 --> 00:27:11,840 Speaker 2: He did quibble with the interrogatories in his divorce case. 486 00:27:12,000 --> 00:27:15,840 Speaker 2: And you know what exactly the questions Matt It sounded 487 00:27:15,960 --> 00:27:19,560 Speaker 2: like he had a different interpretation of the questions than 488 00:27:19,600 --> 00:27:20,520 Speaker 2: most people would. 489 00:27:20,880 --> 00:27:24,560 Speaker 1: Well, you know, you get a written interrogatory and you 490 00:27:24,640 --> 00:27:27,640 Speaker 1: read it and you answer it the way you understand 491 00:27:27,680 --> 00:27:31,040 Speaker 1: the question to be on the paper. You don't have 492 00:27:31,160 --> 00:27:34,080 Speaker 1: to say, well, what was the questioner really trying to 493 00:27:34,119 --> 00:27:36,679 Speaker 1: get at here? That's not your job. Your job is 494 00:27:36,720 --> 00:27:40,120 Speaker 1: to answer the question, and he answered it, and they 495 00:27:40,160 --> 00:27:44,879 Speaker 1: explain his thinking in the manner in which she answered it. 496 00:27:44,920 --> 00:27:47,840 Speaker 1: So I think in some respects, bad questions are on 497 00:27:47,880 --> 00:27:50,119 Speaker 1: the questioner, they're not on the answer. 498 00:27:50,320 --> 00:27:54,200 Speaker 2: Then we had this moment of real drama where they're 499 00:27:54,560 --> 00:27:57,800 Speaker 2: arguing about whether or not Danny Weiller should have to testify, 500 00:27:57,840 --> 00:28:00,960 Speaker 2: and she appears in a shocking pink dress in the 501 00:28:01,000 --> 00:28:03,360 Speaker 2: frame of the camera and says, I'm ready to go. 502 00:28:04,240 --> 00:28:07,959 Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right, and she went, and she was pretty 503 00:28:08,000 --> 00:28:12,080 Speaker 1: forceful that she is an independent woman who I think. 504 00:28:12,080 --> 00:28:15,680 Speaker 1: She said that she and Wade broke up because Wade 505 00:28:15,720 --> 00:28:19,000 Speaker 1: said something that was rather sexist, misogynist, and she said, 506 00:28:19,040 --> 00:28:21,800 Speaker 1: you know what, I don't need this and walked away 507 00:28:22,080 --> 00:28:23,920 Speaker 1: from it. So I think that, you know, if you're 508 00:28:23,920 --> 00:28:29,240 Speaker 1: watching this from the standpoint of a powerful prosecutor despending 509 00:28:29,280 --> 00:28:33,879 Speaker 1: herself from accusations that pertain mostly to her private life, 510 00:28:34,040 --> 00:28:35,160 Speaker 1: I think she did a good job. 511 00:28:35,720 --> 00:28:38,520 Speaker 2: Yeah, and I was surprised that the judge lets some 512 00:28:38,560 --> 00:28:41,200 Speaker 2: of the questions go on and on. For example, so 513 00:28:42,400 --> 00:28:46,120 Speaker 2: she and Nathan Wade said that she reimbursed him with 514 00:28:46,240 --> 00:28:50,000 Speaker 2: cash for the expenses he paid for and she said 515 00:28:50,080 --> 00:28:52,680 Speaker 2: she kept cash in her house, and she went, you know, 516 00:28:52,800 --> 00:28:55,280 Speaker 2: through along litley of how her father told her that, 517 00:28:55,360 --> 00:28:58,360 Speaker 2: et cetera, et But then they kept questioning it, Well, 518 00:28:58,440 --> 00:29:01,280 Speaker 2: where in your house? You know, how much did you have? 519 00:29:01,480 --> 00:29:02,800 Speaker 2: Where did that come from? 520 00:29:03,120 --> 00:29:06,000 Speaker 1: Yes? I thought that that could have been cut much shorter. Now, look, 521 00:29:06,280 --> 00:29:09,800 Speaker 1: if she was a criminal defendant on trial for money 522 00:29:09,880 --> 00:29:15,280 Speaker 1: laundering having money that exceeds your means, then those are 523 00:29:15,880 --> 00:29:19,719 Speaker 1: sort of routine questions. But that's not what she is. 524 00:29:19,760 --> 00:29:22,400 Speaker 1: She's not a criminal defendant and she's not on trials 525 00:29:22,560 --> 00:29:25,280 Speaker 1: for money laundering, and they're asking her, how do you 526 00:29:25,320 --> 00:29:28,160 Speaker 1: pay your bill? I pay a lot of bills by 527 00:29:28,160 --> 00:29:31,200 Speaker 1: writing a check. I think I'm sort of an outlier there. 528 00:29:31,240 --> 00:29:34,360 Speaker 1: Most people don't pay that way. Most people are venmoing 529 00:29:34,480 --> 00:29:37,240 Speaker 1: or credit carding or debit carding. I just don't like 530 00:29:37,320 --> 00:29:38,680 Speaker 1: doing that. I like having a check and I like 531 00:29:38,680 --> 00:29:41,320 Speaker 1: getting it back in the mail. So does that make 532 00:29:41,360 --> 00:29:44,760 Speaker 1: me what old? Yeah? Does it make me a criminal? 533 00:29:45,000 --> 00:29:45,680 Speaker 1: Absolutely not. 534 00:29:46,800 --> 00:29:49,800 Speaker 2: So. Do you think it was an example of the 535 00:29:49,840 --> 00:29:53,360 Speaker 2: witness in control of the examination? 536 00:29:53,840 --> 00:29:57,040 Speaker 1: Yeah? I thought the direct examination and the cross examination 537 00:29:57,320 --> 00:30:01,920 Speaker 1: across all of the witnesses was pretty pedestrian. And you know, 538 00:30:01,960 --> 00:30:05,360 Speaker 1: it's funny because they all know one another. Willis and 539 00:30:05,520 --> 00:30:08,480 Speaker 1: the lawyer from Rohan, they tried cases against one another 540 00:30:08,520 --> 00:30:10,400 Speaker 1: when she was a public defender and she and Willis 541 00:30:10,480 --> 00:30:16,360 Speaker 1: was a prosecutor. Willis knows Wade professionally, and Wade knows Merchants. 542 00:30:16,640 --> 00:30:19,120 Speaker 1: You know, when Merchants said in the beginning of the 543 00:30:19,600 --> 00:30:22,320 Speaker 1: way too, you know, of course I supported you Wade 544 00:30:22,320 --> 00:30:24,800 Speaker 1: when you ran for offense, and I wore your T 545 00:30:24,920 --> 00:30:26,480 Speaker 1: shirt and my kids wore your T shirts. It just 546 00:30:26,520 --> 00:30:29,720 Speaker 1: said I'm sorry, miss Merchants. That has nothing to do 547 00:30:29,800 --> 00:30:32,360 Speaker 1: with anything. So there, you know. It is a group 548 00:30:32,440 --> 00:30:35,680 Speaker 1: of sort of friends who you know, have all gone 549 00:30:35,720 --> 00:30:39,320 Speaker 1: sideways with each other. And of course is your Tea, 550 00:30:39,920 --> 00:30:44,400 Speaker 1: the former friend of miss Willis from college who willis fired, 551 00:30:45,080 --> 00:30:50,080 Speaker 1: is testifying that this relationship started years before anybody else 552 00:30:50,080 --> 00:30:53,760 Speaker 1: seems to support it. And of course the clear bias 553 00:30:53,880 --> 00:30:56,800 Speaker 1: was established by prosecution for the state thing. You were 554 00:30:56,800 --> 00:30:59,760 Speaker 1: fired by her, weren't you, And she wouldn't even say yes, 555 00:30:59,800 --> 00:31:03,640 Speaker 1: you're well, I resigned. Well you resigned because you were 556 00:31:03,680 --> 00:31:06,560 Speaker 1: told you're going to be fired, you know, So the 557 00:31:06,600 --> 00:31:10,560 Speaker 1: whole thing was circus like. But when you asked the 558 00:31:10,680 --> 00:31:14,800 Speaker 1: ultimate question of do you think that they presented sufficient 559 00:31:14,840 --> 00:31:18,280 Speaker 1: evidence to require, as a matter of law, the recusal 560 00:31:18,440 --> 00:31:24,400 Speaker 1: of Willis or the recusal of Wade, or the dismissal 561 00:31:24,440 --> 00:31:27,760 Speaker 1: of the indictment. I think the answer at this point 562 00:31:28,040 --> 00:31:30,800 Speaker 1: is no. We come back tomorrow to see part two. 563 00:31:31,080 --> 00:31:33,400 Speaker 1: But on part one, I think they have not met 564 00:31:33,400 --> 00:31:33,920 Speaker 1: their burden. 565 00:31:34,160 --> 00:31:40,080 Speaker 2: And I thought that Willis was really dominant and expressed 566 00:31:40,080 --> 00:31:44,520 Speaker 2: her outrage and waving papers around and saying, these people 567 00:31:44,640 --> 00:31:48,200 Speaker 2: are on trial for election subversion. I'm not the one 568 00:31:48,240 --> 00:31:53,320 Speaker 2: on trial, and really her outrage at this happening to 569 00:31:53,400 --> 00:31:56,640 Speaker 2: her and the lies that she said were in the 570 00:31:56,720 --> 00:31:59,280 Speaker 2: motions by the defense attorneys here. 571 00:32:00,040 --> 00:32:03,360 Speaker 1: I think she showed righteous indignation, which I think if 572 00:32:03,440 --> 00:32:06,160 Speaker 1: you're watching this as a lay person and you're thinking, 573 00:32:06,680 --> 00:32:09,040 Speaker 1: what would I be like if I were in miss 574 00:32:09,120 --> 00:32:13,000 Speaker 1: Willis's shoes, I think that most people would say absolutely good, 575 00:32:13,000 --> 00:32:15,240 Speaker 1: you know, you go girl, or whatever the expression is, 576 00:32:15,720 --> 00:32:16,720 Speaker 1: stand up for yourself. 577 00:32:16,880 --> 00:32:20,680 Speaker 2: And also what came out too was how hard it's 578 00:32:20,680 --> 00:32:24,280 Speaker 2: been for her since she's had this case, because she's 579 00:32:24,280 --> 00:32:27,160 Speaker 2: had to keep moving because of death threats. So that 580 00:32:27,320 --> 00:32:30,760 Speaker 2: was another sort of human element. So she was tough, 581 00:32:30,840 --> 00:32:33,400 Speaker 2: and she was funny, and she was sort of, you know, 582 00:32:33,760 --> 00:32:34,640 Speaker 2: telling a story. 583 00:32:34,920 --> 00:32:37,760 Speaker 1: I think you could feel both, you know, so sympathy 584 00:32:37,760 --> 00:32:41,560 Speaker 1: and empathy for her. And you know, she's a young 585 00:32:41,800 --> 00:32:47,080 Speaker 1: African American woman who has done miraculous things in her career. 586 00:32:47,480 --> 00:32:50,120 Speaker 1: And now you have this head of the Republican party 587 00:32:50,160 --> 00:32:55,640 Speaker 1: in Georgia and his lawyer accusing her of wrongdoing. And 588 00:32:55,720 --> 00:32:58,360 Speaker 1: I think she said, essentially, you are the ones who 589 00:32:58,360 --> 00:33:00,960 Speaker 1: are doing this for political purposes. You are the ones 590 00:33:01,000 --> 00:33:04,240 Speaker 1: whose motives are to be impugned, not me. 591 00:33:05,080 --> 00:33:08,600 Speaker 2: So we'll see how her testimony concludes tomorrow. Thanks so 592 00:33:08,680 --> 00:33:11,560 Speaker 2: much for your insights, Michael. I really appreciate your being here. 593 00:33:11,760 --> 00:33:15,360 Speaker 2: That's former federal prosecutor Michael Zelden and that's it for 594 00:33:15,400 --> 00:33:18,400 Speaker 2: this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember you can 595 00:33:18,440 --> 00:33:21,360 Speaker 2: always get the latest legal news by subscribing and listening 596 00:33:21,440 --> 00:33:25,120 Speaker 2: to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg 597 00:33:25,160 --> 00:33:29,200 Speaker 2: dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law. I'm June Grosso and 598 00:33:29,360 --> 00:33:30,600 Speaker 2: this is Bloomberg