Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2: After months of Donald Trump's attorney's legal wrangling and trying
Speaker 2: to get delays in his criminal trials in three states
Speaker 2: and DC, a judge in Manhattan put his foot down
Speaker 2: and firmly scheduled the hush money payments trial for March
Speaker 2: twenty fifth. Trump complained outside the courthouse.
Speaker 1: I'm going to have to sit here for months on
Speaker 1: a trial.
Speaker 2: I think it's ridiculous, it's unfair. In fact, other judges
Speaker 2: are weighing decisions this week that will have major implications
Speaker 2: for Trump. In Atlanta, a judge's hearing from witnesses in
Speaker 2: a motion to get prosecutor Fanny Willis kicked off the
Speaker 2: Georgia Rico case, And tomorrow a Manhattan judge is slated
Speaker 2: to deliver a bombshell verdict in New York civil fraud
Speaker 2: trial against Trump. In addition, the Supreme Court is weighing
Speaker 2: whether to put Trump's DC election case on whole while
Speaker 2: he appeals the DC's Circuit court ruling that he does
Speaker 2: not have presidential immunity from prosecution. Joining me is former
Speaker 2: federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner McCarter in English, it
Speaker 2: seems like Trump now is asking that these cases be
Speaker 2: put off until after the election. They certainly ask for
Speaker 2: that in this case, and they made similar arguments in
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court briefing.
Speaker 3: One scene that we've seen from the Trump defense team
Speaker 3: throughout all of these cases is the allegation and number
Speaker 3: one that they're politically motivated, but sort of piggybacking on
Speaker 3: that idea, they say that at a minimum, none of
Speaker 3: these cases she go to trial until after the election,
Speaker 3: and to do so before the election is an unconstitutional
Speaker 3: violation because it interferes with former President Trump's ability to
Speaker 3: campaign and ultimately interferes with the right of people in
Speaker 3: this country to decide who should be their next president.
Speaker 3: Long standing Department of Justice policy has always been that
Speaker 3: federal prosecutors should try to avoid bringing in DIBt in
Speaker 3: a way that may affect an upcoming election. Now, that
Speaker 3: typically has meant that no indictments should be returned against
Speaker 3: an individual within sixty days of an election, on the
Speaker 3: theory that if you simply charge somebody with a crime,
Speaker 3: they are still considered innocent because they have not yet
Speaker 3: been convicted. But the allegations alone may affect the outcome
Speaker 3: of the election, and so that generally has been the rule. Here,
Speaker 3: we're seeing indictments that were handed down long ago, but
Speaker 3: the trial itself is now beginning to bump up with
Speaker 3: a campaign season. It's not something that we've ever seen before.
Speaker 3: Certainly we've never seen it in connection with a former
Speaker 3: president running for the presidency for a third time. And
Speaker 3: so there is no real case law on this issue.
Speaker 3: But I think all of the judges down the line
Speaker 3: have taken the view that they are trying to get
Speaker 3: these cases done before the election, but ultimately they cannot
Speaker 3: consider as a reason to delay the trial simply the
Speaker 3: fact that former President Trump wants to be campaigning for office.
Speaker 2: Also, it seems like the judges, having seen the way
Speaker 2: Trump's attorneys act in court, some would say, you know,
Speaker 2: they're over the top and their presentation, they interrupt a lot.
Speaker 2: This judge just put up with no nonsense from these attorneys.
Speaker 3: The judge in the Manhattan Das case has been very
Speaker 3: no nonsense from the start and set a March twenty
Speaker 3: fifth date for this trial to begin. Initially, the thought
Speaker 3: was that the trial out of the district of Columbia,
Speaker 3: the federal trial that deals with the events surrounding January sixth.
Speaker 3: That was going to be the first trial, but now
Speaker 3: that case has been hung up on appeals. Former President
Speaker 3: Trump's lawyers are arguing that he should be immune from
Speaker 3: any criminal conduct while he was president, and that has
Speaker 3: been making its way through the court. A unanimous three
Speaker 3: judge panel for the Court of Appeals rejected that argument.
Speaker 3: The Trump defense team has now sought appeal by the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court, and we're waiting to hear whether the Supreme
Speaker 3: Court will stay the lower court trial while that decision
Speaker 3: is made, and even whether the Supreme Court will take
Speaker 3: the case. But while the case in Washington, d c.
Speaker 3: Has been delayed because of these appeals, it has set
Speaker 3: the stage for the Manhattan Day's case to now be
Speaker 3: the first case where a former president is facing criminal charges.
Speaker 3: And unlike the case brought by the New York Attorney General,
Speaker 3: which was a civil case that dealt with the Trump
Speaker 3: organization and whether or not assets have been inflated improperly
Speaker 3: in order to get more favorable loan terms. That case,
Speaker 3: former President Trump was not required to attend every day,
Speaker 3: and so he did sporadically but the criminal case is
Speaker 3: one where he will have to attend every day. So
Speaker 3: it will be a historic spectacle to see a former
Speaker 3: president Trump sitting in the courtroom every day during a
Speaker 3: criminal trial. It's never been done before, and it's going
Speaker 3: to happen beginning on March twenty fifth in Manhattan.
Speaker 2: Now, there were several arguments that Trump's lawyers, they raised
Speaker 2: every argument I think you could imagine, and they said
Speaker 2: that despite the fact that the DC trial has been
Speaker 2: put on hold, they said, they've been preparing for that trial.
Speaker 2: We had to focus one hundred percent of our attention
Speaker 2: on preparing for that trial. And the judge basically said
Speaker 2: too bad. He said, you willingly chose those two cases
Speaker 2: to represent Trump in I told you March twenty fifth
Speaker 2: was a date certain you proceeded at your own peril.
Speaker 3: So what ends up happening is that judges have to
Speaker 3: navigate the other cases in terms of scheduling their trials.
Speaker 3: There's no set rules and there is no set procedure
Speaker 3: to determine which case goes to trials first. And so
Speaker 3: what the judges here have done is they have tried
Speaker 3: to be respectful of the other proceedings and try to
Speaker 3: not get in the way of other trials that were
Speaker 3: set to go first. And that's why we saw the
Speaker 3: case of the District of Columbia set to go in
Speaker 3: early March, and the Manhattan DA's case, the case that
Speaker 3: is now going to trial at the end of March,
Speaker 3: was going to be delayed because of the case and
Speaker 3: the sort of Columbia involving the January sixth insurrection. But
Speaker 3: now that that case is put off, the case Manhattan
Speaker 3: is going first, and this judge has said from the
Speaker 3: beginning that you have to be ready to go in
Speaker 3: March if we go first. Now, the Trump defense team
Speaker 3: has raised a litany of issues as to why the
Speaker 3: Manhattan DA's.
Speaker 1: Case should be delayed.
Speaker 3: One of them, as you mentioned, is that they have
Speaker 3: been preparing for the case in Washington. Clearly everybody thought
Speaker 3: that case was going to go first, but the judge
Speaker 3: Manhattan really had no patience with that argument, by saying,
Speaker 3: you chose to represent former President Trump in these two cases.
Speaker 3: There could have been another lawyer in that case, and
Speaker 3: that is something you did at your own risk, and
Speaker 3: so he was not going to delay the trial for
Speaker 3: that reason. They also raised a number of other arguments
Speaker 3: saying that would interfere with the campaign season. That was
Speaker 3: something that was not successful. The Trump defense team also
Speaker 3: tried to delay the trial by trying it to the
Speaker 3: recent verdict in the Egene Carrol defamation case. That's the
Speaker 3: case that was recently decided also in Manhattan, had to
Speaker 3: deal with allegations that he had defamed Egen Carroll in
Speaker 3: connection with a sexual assault. There was a large verdict,
Speaker 3: a lots of publicity, an eighty three million dollar plain
Speaker 3: of verdict on behalf of Egen Carroll for defaming her
Speaker 3: when he denied that he sexually assaulted her. And the
Speaker 3: Trump lawyers are saying that that will paint the jury
Speaker 3: pool again. The judge thought that can be dealt with
Speaker 3: a trial. That could be dealt with during jury selection.
Speaker 3: You always have issues of a person who has a
Speaker 3: lot of notoriety, People have strong opinions about him. Frankly,
Speaker 3: you're never going to find a jury in Manhattan that
Speaker 3: doesn't have strong opinions about former President Trump. And so
Speaker 3: the Vadier process where lawyers get to question jurors will
Speaker 3: have to be used effectively to try to weed out
Speaker 3: anybody who has a preconceived notion about what the verdict
Speaker 3: should be, and they will ultimately have to take whatever
Speaker 3: time it does in order to select a jury that
Speaker 3: has an open mind, that will make a decision based
Speaker 3: solely on the evidence and not based upon any preconceived
Speaker 3: notions or any extraneous information that's not presented a trial.
Speaker 2: So now Michael Cohene is going to be key his
Speaker 2: testimony in this case. Trump's lawyers complained that Cohen had
Speaker 2: committed perjury when he testified in October in the New
Speaker 2: York Attorney General's case, and they said, how can we
Speaker 2: possibly go to a trial with a witness who committed
Speaker 2: perjury across the street two months ago. They should be
Speaker 2: investigating him.
Speaker 3: Well, what the Trump team was referring to was in
Speaker 3: the New York Attorney General's case, where former President Trump's
Speaker 3: lawyer Michael Cohene was also a key witness. He had
Speaker 3: testified under oath that former President Trump had directed him
Speaker 3: to inflate his assets again in order to try to
Speaker 3: receive more favorable loans from Joasia Bank. Tone later changed
Speaker 3: that story during the trial today that while he was
Speaker 3: not directly directed by former President Trump, it was implied
Speaker 3: by former President Trump that he wanted to inflate those assets.
Speaker 3: The Trump defense team has said that Cohen has allegedly
Speaker 3: admitted to perjury. Whether that was perjury or not is
Speaker 3: an open question, but the right remedy for that.
Speaker 1: This is what the.
Speaker 3: Prosecution argues, is that that is fodder for cross examination.
Speaker 3: Michael Cohen will be a key witness in the case
Speaker 3: of Manhattan DA's office. He already carries a lot of
Speaker 3: baggage with him because he's pled guilty the federal campaign violations,
Speaker 3: He's admitted to lying in other proceedings, and so we
Speaker 3: can expect a very rigorous cross examination of him during
Speaker 3: this trial. And the Trump lawyers will essentially argue that
Speaker 3: you can't believe anything Michael Cohen says, and then ultimately
Speaker 3: it will be up to a jury to decide whether
Speaker 3: he's telling the truth when he testifies in this trial,
Speaker 3: and Bob.
Speaker 2: This is the case that's going first. This is also
Speaker 2: the case that most legal analysts and others consider the
Speaker 2: weakest of the criminal cases against Donald Trump. Explain why
Speaker 2: it's considered the weakest.
Speaker 3: One of the issues that has been dogging this case
Speaker 3: from the outset was the way in which the Manhattan
Speaker 3: DA charged it. This is basically a charge for full
Speaker 3: defying business records. And in this case, what it means
Speaker 3: is that back in October of twenty sixteen, the allegation
Speaker 3: is that former President Trump, through Michael Cone, his former attorney,
Speaker 3: was paying off Stormy Daniels, a porn star who alleged
Speaker 3: that she had an affair with former President Trump. The
Speaker 3: allegation is that former President Trump, who was campaigning for
Speaker 3: office then, was concerned about this allegation going public and
Speaker 3: damaging his chances in the election. So there was a
Speaker 3: payment made to Stormy Daniels through Michael Cone that was
Speaker 3: later concealed as a legal payment. Ultimately, that created, according
Speaker 3: to the Manhattan DA, a false business record. Now, typically
Speaker 3: business records violations in New York State are misdemeanors, which
Speaker 3: means they're punishable only by up to a year in prison,
Speaker 3: and they're relatively minor charges. But what the DA did
Speaker 3: here is he turned those into felonies, which you can
Speaker 3: do if the business records violation is somehow tied to
Speaker 3: another crime, or, in this case, the concealment of another. Now,
Speaker 3: the real issue here is that the concealment of the
Speaker 3: other crime was a federal campaign law violation, and that
Speaker 3: theory tying the business records violation to a federal rather
Speaker 3: than a state law violation has never been tested in
Speaker 3: the appeals court. So although that issue was argued before
Speaker 3: the trial judge Manhattan, and the judge rejected it, I
Speaker 3: think we can see that issue raised again on appeal.
Speaker 3: And if there's going to be a real problem with
Speaker 3: this case, it's not likely to be in the evidence
Speaker 3: that's presented a trial. It's likely to be in this
Speaker 3: legal theory, which is somewhat novel, never been tested. It's
Speaker 3: possible that on appeal, an appeals court and may look
Speaker 3: at the trial court ruling and take a different view
Speaker 3: as to whether or not there was a legal basis
Speaker 3: to bring these charges in the first place.
Speaker 2: And another which you discussed earlier, is just that so
Speaker 2: much of the case relies on the testimony of Michael Cohen,
Speaker 2: and the defense has so many ways to attack him.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Michael Cohen is certainly a problematic, but prosecutors deal
Speaker 3: with that all the time.
Speaker 1: They will typically.
Speaker 3: Argue that you don't have cooperating witnesses who have clean hands,
Speaker 3: You don't have cooperating witnesses who are choir boys, who
Speaker 3: have people who have gotten down into the DIRG who've
Speaker 3: engaged in illegal acts, and that's why they're valuable as
Speaker 3: witnesses because they played a key role in the crime.
Speaker 3: So that's sort of a standard playbook for prosecutors. But
Speaker 3: the flip side to that is that defense lawyers have
Speaker 3: the ability to question their credibility and state of jurors.
Speaker 3: Michael Cone has admitted to lying under oath before, why
Speaker 3: do you believe he's not lying under oath now? And
Speaker 3: they'll be up to prosecutors to try to prop up
Speaker 3: Michael Cone by presenting other evidence, through other witnesses and
Speaker 3: corroborating documentary evidence to try to convince the jury that
Speaker 3: they should believe Michael Cone. And they're going to do
Speaker 3: that by not resting their entire case on Michael Cone's
Speaker 3: credibility on his testimony, but by saying that when you
Speaker 3: view his testimony in connection with all the other evidence
Speaker 3: that's being presented, it's something that the jury can believe,
Speaker 3: something that the jury can believe. The prosecution has met
Speaker 3: its burner proof on which is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 3: But ultimately you're correct, Michael Cohne will be the star
Speaker 3: witness and whether he's believed by this jury will ultimately
Speaker 3: determine the outcome of the case.
Speaker 2: Trump has put himself in this position because he's trying
Speaker 2: to delay all these trials, and so they run into
Speaker 2: each other because of his attempts at delay. I mean,
Speaker 2: otherwise the DC trial would have gone off in early March,
Speaker 2: and the New York judge was prepared to put that
Speaker 2: case on hold.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, and that's one of the reasons the trial
Speaker 3: judge gave for ejecting the delay, saying that former President
Speaker 3: Trump and his legal team has fought critical stepoenas in
Speaker 3: the Manhattan DA's case, which ultimately delayed the trial. And
Speaker 3: that's currently true that there has been tremendous motion practice
Speaker 3: and appeals in all of these cases and it has
Speaker 3: delayed them. And now the Trump defense it's trying to
Speaker 3: flip that on the head and saying, well, now that
Speaker 3: we're too close to the election, we really ought to
Speaker 3: carry it over until after November. But so far we're
Speaker 3: not seeing the trial judge buying that argument.
Speaker 2: And Bob, you mentioned how important the jury selection will
Speaker 2: be in the hush money case, and there was discussion
Speaker 2: today about the jury questionnaire that potential jurors will fill
Speaker 2: out before the voisdir. The judge hasn't decided on the
Speaker 2: final questionnaire yet, but both the prosecution and the defense
Speaker 2: discussed having jurors identify where they get their news from.
Speaker 2: The Prosecutors also want the judge to find out if
Speaker 2: potential jurors have read any of Trump's books, and lawyers
Speaker 2: for Trump also asked the judge to question potential jurors
Speaker 2: about what kind of bumper stickers and lawn signs they
Speaker 2: had in front of their homes to determine their politics.
Speaker 2: So it is likely to be a long questionnaire. Thanks
Speaker 2: so much, Bob. That's Robert Mints, a partner Maccarter and
Speaker 2: English and in Atlanta today, in an extraordinary hearing that
Speaker 2: threatens to upend one of the f criminal cases against
Speaker 2: the former president, Fulton County District Attorney Fanny Willis took
Speaker 2: the witness stand and forcefully pushed back against what she
Speaker 2: described as lies about her romantic relationship with the special
Speaker 2: prosecutor she appointed in the case. Highly offensive with someone
Speaker 2: lies on you, and it's highly offensive when they that
Speaker 2: you slept with somebody the first day you met with them.
Speaker 2: And I take exception two and joining me now from
Speaker 2: the courthouse in Atlanta is Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakis.
Speaker 2: And David, I know it's a little noisy where you are,
Speaker 2: but I'm happy to have you. It seemed very tense
Speaker 2: watching this on TV. What was it like in the.
Speaker 4: Courtroom at different times? It was quite tense, particularly when
Speaker 4: Fannie Willis was on the stand. She was at times combative,
Speaker 4: she was funny, She pushed back on many different points
Speaker 4: that the sense lawyers questioned her on and again the
Speaker 4: Trump Co defendants are accusing her of misconduct removed from
Speaker 4: the case, and she's very emphatically pushing back against that. So, yeah,
Speaker 4: tense is a word that I was used to describe
Speaker 4: the atmosphere when she was on the stand and when
Speaker 4: Nathan Wade was on the stand as well.
Speaker 2: Let's go back to Nathan Wade for a moment. What
Speaker 2: did you make of his testimony? He contradicted what one
Speaker 2: of the earlier witnesses said about timing of their affair,
Speaker 2: and timing seems to be very important here.
Speaker 4: Key to the timing is that Nathan Wade was hired
Speaker 4: in November of twenty one, and the Trump Co defendants
Speaker 4: claimed that he was having an affair with Bonnie Willis
Speaker 4: at the end of twenty nineteen, which he hotly disputes.
Speaker 4: He said it didn't begin until early twenty twenty two,
Speaker 4: which is also what Bonnie Willis testified to. The timing
Speaker 4: matters because it goes to whether the two of them,
Speaker 4: twenty wee Willis and Nathan Wade, were deriving improper financial
Speaker 4: benefits from the investigation.
Speaker 2: There was a lot of quibbling, it seemed to me,
Speaker 2: overwording because they had his derogatories in his divorce case
Speaker 2: that they were quizzing him about.
Speaker 4: There was a basic point. Nathan Wade is still married,
Speaker 4: and in his eyes, he testified that he has not
Speaker 4: been married for several years because his marriage is irretrievably
Speaker 4: broken and so he can do what he likes, and
Speaker 4: so in his divorce proceedings, which are happening at the
Speaker 4: same time in neighboring Cobb County, he filled out after
Speaker 4: Davis that said that he did not have romantic relationship
Speaker 4: outside of his marriage, and so Trump Co decendants are
Speaker 4: trying to pin him to those words while he's also
Speaker 4: admitting that he had an affair with Bonnie Willis for
Speaker 4: a year and a half and so the question is
Speaker 4: he married or not. He's still legally married.
Speaker 2: So now when she got on the stand, and there
Speaker 2: was this dramatic moment because they were arguing about whether
Speaker 2: or not she would have to be called, and she
Speaker 2: suddenly appeared in the courtroom and said, I'm ready. I'm
Speaker 2: ready to go right.
Speaker 4: Sister Attorney's office had fought the subpoena for her. They
Speaker 4: tried to quash it, and the judge had agreed earlier
Speaker 4: this week that he would temporarily quash it until he
Speaker 4: saw what the testimony was and decided whether she would
Speaker 4: need it or not. So then when frump codfendant Michael
Speaker 4: Roman's lawyer, Ashley Merchant, called her, there was a dramatic
Speaker 4: moment where the Sister Attorney's office said that they were
Speaker 4: dropping their objections and that she wanted to testify. So
Speaker 4: then she came to the courtroom and everyone was sort
Speaker 4: of taken aback.
Speaker 2: She was very dramatic on the stand. I mean, she
Speaker 2: seemed like she was in control of the questioning because
Speaker 2: she got in what she wanted to get in, no
Speaker 2: matter what the question was.
Speaker 4: Well, the judge didn't always agree with her approach. There
Speaker 4: were times when he thought that she was making speeches
Speaker 4: and not answering direct questions. She felt she needed more
Speaker 4: room to answer those questions, and so there were some
Speaker 4: tense moments with the judge. But clearly this the woman
Speaker 4: who's charismatic and a strong speaker, and I guess is
Speaker 4: used to being able to state things the way she
Speaker 4: wants to.
Speaker 2: And what do you think she established in her testimony
Speaker 2: or what did the defense establish in her testimony?
Speaker 4: Well, the defense raised some substantial questions about how she
Speaker 4: manages cash, and she testified that she had had several
Speaker 4: thousand dollars in cash in her house at various points,
Speaker 4: and that she consistently reimbursed Nathan Wade for their travels
Speaker 4: with cash. And so the defense makes the case that
Speaker 4: there's no receipt of that, there's no proof of her
Speaker 4: claim that she in fact made these cash reimbursements. So
Speaker 4: that's going to have to be the question that's left unresolved,
Speaker 4: and it's something that Judge Scott McAfee is going to
Speaker 4: have to decide who's more credible here, Is it Wade
Speaker 4: and Willis or was it the friend of Wade who
Speaker 4: took the stand earlier and said that their affair began
Speaker 4: in twenty nineteen.
Speaker 2: Let's say they had an affair. Let's say the affairs
Speaker 2: start in twenty nineteen. How does that prejudice the defendants here.
Speaker 4: Well, because it's an undisclosed conflict of interest. They argue
Speaker 4: that it's something that she should have disclosed to the county,
Speaker 4: which is paying for his bills, his invoices. And it
Speaker 4: also suggests that they have an improper motive in the prosecution,
Speaker 4: and carrying the prosecution on has been the more money
Speaker 4: he makes, the longer the prosecution goes, the more the
Speaker 4: two of them benefit.
Speaker 2: So what happens now is the hearing over.
Speaker 4: The hearing will continue on Friday. The judge and the
Speaker 4: lawyers just made clear that it's going to take most
Speaker 4: of the day. The judge will then entertained legal arguments
Speaker 4: after tomorrow. He's going to try to get through the
Speaker 4: evidence ary part of this hearing tomorrow, and the judge
Speaker 4: also made clear that it's going to take him a
Speaker 4: while to make a decision.
Speaker 1: Here.
Speaker 2: Do we know what other witnesses are coming up? She
Speaker 2: mentioned her father a great deal.
Speaker 4: There's going to be some financial records. There's going to
Speaker 4: be continued questioning of Fannie Willis, which could take some
Speaker 4: time tomorrow. Then the DA's office said that they have
Speaker 4: witnesses that could take them four hours or so, but
Speaker 4: they didn't spell them out.
Speaker 2: Wow, that's a lot more than I expected. Thanks so
Speaker 2: much for taking the time to talk to us, David.
Speaker 2: That's Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakis, obviously coming to us
Speaker 2: from the courthouse in Atlanta. Up next on the Bloomberg
Speaker 2: Law Show, we'll talk more about the hearing in Georgia
Speaker 2: that could upend one of the criminal trials of Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. He started
Speaker 2: dating shortly thereafter correct a line that's one of you lives.
Speaker 2: A fiery Fannie Willis took the witness stand and denied
Speaker 2: she engaged in any misconduct in her election fraud prosecution
Speaker 2: of Donald Trump and his co defendants. They're trying to
Speaker 2: disqualify her over a romantic relationship with her. Lead prosecutor
Speaker 2: in the case, Nathan Wade, the Fulton County District Attorney,
Speaker 2: adopted a combative tone as Trump's co defendant, Michael Roman
Speaker 2: claims she and Wade financially benefited from overseeing the sprawling case.
Speaker 2: Joining me is former federal prosecutor Michael Zelden. Is it
Speaker 2: just me? Or did this seem very tawdry?
Speaker 1: The case has sort of a tawdry overlay to it
Speaker 1: because the accusation is that Wade and Willis with bad purpose,
Speaker 1: manipulated a system so that they could benefit personally during
Speaker 1: a romantic relationship. I don't think the evidence has established that,
Speaker 1: but the accusations surrounding those theories are such that they
Speaker 1: are upsetting to everyone who's in their minds being falsely accused.
Speaker 1: So you can see why tempers are running high in
Speaker 1: this case.
Speaker 2: So, in other words, the theory is that they prolonged
Speaker 2: this case, or they brought this case so that he
Speaker 2: could make a salary and take her on vacations. Is
Speaker 2: that the theory here?
Speaker 1: Yeah, The theory is they have a pre existing relationship,
Speaker 1: she hires her boyfriend, who then is making good money,
Speaker 1: who is then taking her out on expensive trips with
Speaker 1: that money, and that they are prolonging this case with
Speaker 1: an indictment and an extended discovery process so that they
Speaker 1: can keep the gravy train going, it seems to me
Speaker 1: is the theory, but I haven't seen any evidence of that.
Speaker 1: And in fact, the judge at one point when Wade
Speaker 1: was understand said to the moving party, why is the
Speaker 1: amount of money he earned relevant? Meaning he's a private
Speaker 1: sector lawyer who was brought in as a independent consultant
Speaker 1: to help them in this case. Whatever the state wants
Speaker 1: to pay him, the state can pay him. And unless
Speaker 1: you can establish a link that somehow there was almost
Speaker 1: like Menendez like fraud that they earned money on false representations,
Speaker 1: his submissions about time was wrong, or his requests for
Speaker 1: reimbursements or fraudulents. It's an arms length agreement between the
Speaker 1: state and an individual, and that is the states and
Speaker 1: the individual's prerogative. And in fact, I don't see how
Speaker 1: but for appearance purposes, the fact that they were in
Speaker 1: an adult relation with one another during the tendency of
Speaker 1: this case so far, and now they've broken up in
Speaker 1: August we learned, has anything to do with emotion for disqualification.
Speaker 1: It's just not seemingly relevant to me.
Speaker 2: I'm actually surprised that the judge had this hearing in
Speaker 2: open court. Isn't this something he could have disposed of
Speaker 2: in his chambers.
Speaker 1: The state moved to quash this subpoena and prevent this
Speaker 1: hearing from going forward. But the judge, I think, trying
Speaker 1: to you know, be careful and ensure that there's no
Speaker 1: allegations of sort of politics on his part, decided to
Speaker 1: let the hearing go forward. I think he could have
Speaker 1: ended this hearing before it started. I think he could
Speaker 1: have ended this hearing long into the day. But you know,
Speaker 1: he's a smart guy, and he decided this wasn't the
Speaker 1: best interests of the case and all the parties to
Speaker 1: have a full hearing of all the allegations, and then
Speaker 1: he'll render his decision based on the evidence that I've
Speaker 1: seen so far. See any basis for the disqualification, nor
Speaker 1: do I see any basis for the dismissal that all said.
Speaker 1: If I were Nathan Wade, having been sort of found
Speaker 1: not to have violated any other ethics or the criminal lawyer,
Speaker 1: I would say, you know what, in the interests of
Speaker 1: the best interest of this case, I'm going to now
Speaker 1: step aside and let somebody else take over. It's just
Speaker 1: too much of a distraction to have me here.
Speaker 2: Let's talk about his testimony for a bit. How did
Speaker 2: you find his testimony? Was he credible to you?
Speaker 1: He was very calm and collected, and he took issue
Speaker 1: with I thought a lawyer who asked some pretty unfounded questions,
Speaker 1: meaning there was no foundation for her questions. Look, her
Speaker 1: very first witness, she couldn't even get testimony out of him,
Speaker 1: and she had to dismiss him. The second witness seems
Speaker 1: to have had a bias that she didn't bring out
Speaker 1: herself because she was fired by Willis. So when you
Speaker 1: get to Wade, who was very calm, very collected, answer
Speaker 1: your question was in a business like way. I don't
Speaker 1: think she made any headway with him, and I think
Speaker 1: that he came off looking, you know, rather sober as
Speaker 1: a witness.
Speaker 2: He did quibble with the interrogatories in his divorce case.
Speaker 2: And you know what exactly the questions Matt It sounded
Speaker 2: like he had a different interpretation of the questions than
Speaker 2: most people would.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, you get a written interrogatory and you
Speaker 1: read it and you answer it the way you understand
Speaker 1: the question to be on the paper. You don't have
Speaker 1: to say, well, what was the questioner really trying to
Speaker 1: get at here? That's not your job. Your job is
Speaker 1: to answer the question, and he answered it, and they
Speaker 1: explain his thinking in the manner in which she answered it.
Speaker 1: So I think in some respects, bad questions are on
Speaker 1: the questioner, they're not on the answer.
Speaker 2: Then we had this moment of real drama where they're
Speaker 2: arguing about whether or not Danny Weiller should have to testify,
Speaker 2: and she appears in a shocking pink dress in the
Speaker 2: frame of the camera and says, I'm ready to go.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right, and she went, and she was pretty
Speaker 1: forceful that she is an independent woman who I think.
Speaker 1: She said that she and Wade broke up because Wade
Speaker 1: said something that was rather sexist, misogynist, and she said,
Speaker 1: you know what, I don't need this and walked away
Speaker 1: from it. So I think that, you know, if you're
Speaker 1: watching this from the standpoint of a powerful prosecutor despending
Speaker 1: herself from accusations that pertain mostly to her private life,
Speaker 1: I think she did a good job.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I was surprised that the judge lets some
Speaker 2: of the questions go on and on. For example, so
Speaker 2: she and Nathan Wade said that she reimbursed him with
Speaker 2: cash for the expenses he paid for and she said
Speaker 2: she kept cash in her house, and she went, you know,
Speaker 2: through along litley of how her father told her that,
Speaker 2: et cetera, et But then they kept questioning it, Well,
Speaker 2: where in your house? You know, how much did you have?
Speaker 2: Where did that come from?
Speaker 1: Yes? I thought that that could have been cut much shorter. Now, look,
Speaker 1: if she was a criminal defendant on trial for money
Speaker 1: laundering having money that exceeds your means, then those are
Speaker 1: sort of routine questions. But that's not what she is.
Speaker 1: She's not a criminal defendant and she's not on trials
Speaker 1: for money laundering, and they're asking her, how do you
Speaker 1: pay your bill? I pay a lot of bills by
Speaker 1: writing a check. I think I'm sort of an outlier there.
Speaker 1: Most people don't pay that way. Most people are venmoing
Speaker 1: or credit carding or debit carding. I just don't like
Speaker 1: doing that. I like having a check and I like
Speaker 1: getting it back in the mail. So does that make
Speaker 1: me what old? Yeah? Does it make me a criminal?
Speaker 1: Absolutely not.
Speaker 2: So. Do you think it was an example of the
Speaker 2: witness in control of the examination?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I thought the direct examination and the cross examination
Speaker 1: across all of the witnesses was pretty pedestrian. And you know,
Speaker 1: it's funny because they all know one another. Willis and
Speaker 1: the lawyer from Rohan, they tried cases against one another
Speaker 1: when she was a public defender and she and Willis
Speaker 1: was a prosecutor. Willis knows Wade professionally, and Wade knows Merchants.
Speaker 1: You know, when Merchants said in the beginning of the
Speaker 1: way too, you know, of course I supported you Wade
Speaker 1: when you ran for offense, and I wore your T
Speaker 1: shirt and my kids wore your T shirts. It just
Speaker 1: said I'm sorry, miss Merchants. That has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with anything. So there, you know. It is a group
Speaker 1: of sort of friends who you know, have all gone
Speaker 1: sideways with each other. And of course is your Tea,
Speaker 1: the former friend of miss Willis from college who willis fired,
Speaker 1: is testifying that this relationship started years before anybody else
Speaker 1: seems to support it. And of course the clear bias
Speaker 1: was established by prosecution for the state thing. You were
Speaker 1: fired by her, weren't you, And she wouldn't even say yes,
Speaker 1: you're well, I resigned. Well you resigned because you were
Speaker 1: told you're going to be fired, you know, So the
Speaker 1: whole thing was circus like. But when you asked the
Speaker 1: ultimate question of do you think that they presented sufficient
Speaker 1: evidence to require, as a matter of law, the recusal
Speaker 1: of Willis or the recusal of Wade, or the dismissal
Speaker 1: of the indictment. I think the answer at this point
Speaker 1: is no. We come back tomorrow to see part two.
Speaker 1: But on part one, I think they have not met
Speaker 1: their burden.
Speaker 2: And I thought that Willis was really dominant and expressed
Speaker 2: her outrage and waving papers around and saying, these people
Speaker 2: are on trial for election subversion. I'm not the one
Speaker 2: on trial, and really her outrage at this happening to
Speaker 2: her and the lies that she said were in the
Speaker 2: motions by the defense attorneys here.
Speaker 1: I think she showed righteous indignation, which I think if
Speaker 1: you're watching this as a lay person and you're thinking,
Speaker 1: what would I be like if I were in miss
Speaker 1: Willis's shoes, I think that most people would say absolutely good,
Speaker 1: you know, you go girl, or whatever the expression is,
Speaker 1: stand up for yourself.
Speaker 2: And also what came out too was how hard it's
Speaker 2: been for her since she's had this case, because she's
Speaker 2: had to keep moving because of death threats. So that
Speaker 2: was another sort of human element. So she was tough,
Speaker 2: and she was funny, and she was sort of, you know,
Speaker 2: telling a story.
Speaker 1: I think you could feel both, you know, so sympathy
Speaker 1: and empathy for her. And you know, she's a young
Speaker 1: African American woman who has done miraculous things in her career.
Speaker 1: And now you have this head of the Republican party
Speaker 1: in Georgia and his lawyer accusing her of wrongdoing. And
Speaker 1: I think she said, essentially, you are the ones who
Speaker 1: are doing this for political purposes. You are the ones
Speaker 1: whose motives are to be impugned, not me.
Speaker 2: So we'll see how her testimony concludes tomorrow. Thanks so
Speaker 2: much for your insights, Michael. I really appreciate your being here.
Speaker 2: That's former federal prosecutor Michael Zelden and that's it for
Speaker 2: this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember you can
Speaker 2: always get the latest legal news by subscribing and listening
Speaker 2: to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg
Speaker 2: dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law. I'm June Grosso and
Speaker 2: this is Bloomberg