Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Misconduct Hearing For Georgia DA; Judge Sets Trial Date. Aired 9:30-10a ET

Aired February 15, 2024 - 09:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[09:30:00]

DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: A problem with -- I call it Biden migrant crime, because you have millions of people came into this -- this place, this country, that has been so badly hurt and they're -- they're doing things that nobody's ever seen before. So, you have violet, migrant crime. And they're after me for doing nothing wrong.

You know, I paid almost $300 million in taxes over the period of time. $300 million. And they say, oh, let's get Trump now. You have people that its -- everything is politics in this city, including decisions and judges and everything else. It has to straighten out and they have to focus on violent crime, not made up crime.

Thank you very much. We'll see you later. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President, can you expand your NATO comments?

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Donald Trump manipulating the moment. A campaign stop on his way inside a Manhattan court where he is facing charges, local charges, New York charges, not federal charges, despite what he said.

Elie Honig, a quick fact check on the legal matter.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, first of all, we have to address the tired and tiresome claim that this is all coming out of the Biden White House. This is a state case. There's zero evidence whatsoever that Joe Biden or the administration had anything to do with this prosecution.

Second of all, Donald Trump said, quote, "this is not a crime." There's a fair debate about how serious this is. But this is a crime if proven as alleged in the indictment. There's some question about whether it would be just a misdemeanor, falsification of business records, or a higher-level felony. But under any reasonable construction, if proven, this is a crime.

And the third thing Donald Trump said that I noted is he said, there's absolutely no case here. This is a debatable case. It will be tried to a jury. But this is a case that has a good faith basis. There's a basis of fact in the indictment. It will be up to a jury. BERMAN: OK, from New York to Georgia, Fulton County, which Judge Scott

McAfee is beginning this hearing that could determine whether or not the Georgia federal election interference case continues.

JUDGE SCOTT MCAFEE, FULTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT: For the record identify themselves, starting with the state, and then we'll go through the defendants in the listed order.

So.

ANNA GREEN CROSS: Good morning, your honor. I'm Anna Green Cross for the state.

ADAM ABBATE: Morning, Judge. Adam Abbate for the state.

ANDREW EVANS, NATHAN WADE'S ATTORNEY: Good morning, your honor. Andrew Evans for Nathan Wade.

MCAFEE: All right. And beginning with -- from the order of - on the notice, and for former President Trump.

STEVE SADOW, DONALD TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: Good morning, your honor. Steve Sadow and Jeniffer Little for President Trump. And he waves his presence at the hearing.

MCAFEE: Thank you, Mr. Sadow.

On behalf of Mr. Giuliani.

ALLYN STOCKTON, RUDY GIULIANI'S ATTORNEY: Allyn Stockton for Mr. Giuliani. And he waves his presence as well.

MCAFEE: Mr. Meadows.

JIM DURHAM, MARK MEADOW'S ATTORNEY: Your honor, Jim Durham on behalf of Mr. Meadows.

MCAFEE: All right, thank you, Mr. Durham.

On behalf of Mr. Clark.

HARRY MACDOUGALD, JEFFREY CLARK'S ATTORNEY: Harry MacDougald, your honor. And Mr. Clark waves his appearance at the hearing.

MCAFEE: And let me go back to Mr. Durham.

Mr. Durham, does your client also waive his presence as well?

DURHAM: Yes, your honor.

MCAFEE: Yes. Did I catch that from Mr. Giuliani.

STOCKTON: Yes.

MCAFEE: OK.

All right, on behalf of Mr. Cheeley.

RICHARD RICE, ROBERT CHEELEY'S ATTORNEY: Richard Rice and Mr. (INAUDIBLE). And our client waves his presence.

MCAFEE: Thank you.

On behalf of Mr. Roman.

ASHLEIGH MERCHANT, MIKE ROMAN'S ATTORNEY: Good morning, Judge. Ashleigh Merchant and John Merchant. On behalf of Mr. Roman. And he waves his presence.

MCAFEE: Mr. Shafer.

CRAIG GILLEN, DAVID SHAFER'S ATTORNEY: Good morning, your honor. Craig Gillen and Anthony Lake for Mr. Shafer. Mr. Shafer is present in the courtroom.

MCAFEE: All right.

And Mr. Floyd.

AARON MCCULLOUGH (ph), HARRISON FLOYD'S ATTORNEY: Aaron McCullough (ph) on behalf of Mr. Floyd.

MCAFEE: Then we also have Ms. Latham.

WILLIAM CROMWELL, CATHY LATHAM'S ATTORNEY: Good morning, your honor. William Cromwell for Ms. Latham. She waves her presence.

MCAFEE: And did we get that, Mr. McCullough, also as well for Mr. Floyd? Just making sure.

MCCULLOUGH: Yes.

MCAFEE: OK. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He's here.

MCCULLOUGH: Here's here, your honor.

MCAFEE: Oh, Mr. Floyd is here. OK, I see Mr. Floyd is present as well.

All right.

KAREN SANDY MONROE (ph), FULTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE: Your honor, one more (ph), Karen Sandy Monroe (ph) on behalf of the Fulton County District Attorney's Office.

MCAFEE: All right.

Any one else present who believes they may need to be on the record or address any issue coming up in the proceeding?

Seeing none. DAVE BANKS (ph), CHRISTOPHER CAMPBELL'S ATTORNEY: Judge, I'm here, Dave Banks (ph). I've been subpoenaed as a witness, but I also represent Christopher Campbell. So.

MCAFEE: All right, thank you, Mr. Banks.

BIMAL CHOPRA, TERRENCE BRADLEY'S ATTORNEY: Judge, Bimal Chopra for Terrence Bradley. We're under subpoena. We'll be waiting in the hall.

MCAFEE: All right, and, sir, could we have you spell your name for the record.

CHOPRA: First name, b-i-m-a-l. Last name, c-h-o-p-r-a.

MCAFEE: All right. In terms of -- just a little housekeeping. In terms of presenting the evidence this morning my thought was, as witnesses are called, this being Mr. Roman's motion, that counsel for Mr. Roman would be the first.

[09:35:09]

And any witness that they call, then in order of the list of defendants, there would be the opportunity for additional direct or cross-examination. However you want to characterize it. And then the state on the tail end of that.

So, with that, I will turn it over to Ms. Merchant.

Is there anything that we would need to take up before calling the first witness?

MERCHANT: Judge, we would invoke the rule sequestration (ph).

MCAFEE: All right. So, to that end, pursuant to Rule 615, I would ask that any witnesses subpoenaed, or expected to testify at the hearing today, that they should remain outside the courtroom until called and they shouldn't discuss their testimony with any other witness or watch any kind of live proceeding or recording of the testimony until the evidence is excluded -- is concluded, or they're excused from being called today.

MERCHANT: Thank you.

MCAFEE: Are there any exceptions to this rule?

ABBATE: Not from the state.

MCAFEE: Any from the defense?

MERCHANT: No. Thank you, Judge.

MCAFEE: OK.

Mr. Abbate.

Yes, your honor. Prior to starting, any testimony, the state would just like the address, I guess, the (INAUDIBLE) matter is an issue for the court as it relates to what was represented during the previous hearing, as it relates to witness testimony, specifically the testimony of the former law partner of Nathan Wade, that being Mr. Terrence Bradley, and what the court - or what the state would like the court to understand and realize that is that in preparation for this hearing and speaking to witnesses and doing the additional research as it relates to the comments that were represented by counsel, specifically council for Mr. Roman, Ms. Merchant, that we've been able to determine that the claims that the defendant, as asserted and did assert during the last hearing on Monday, are not only legally meritless, but are factually unsupported by the statements that Ms. Merchant made to the court. What I would say are - they're patently false. They are egregious misrepresentations of what is believed that Mr. Bradley would say or even knows.

And what I would bring to the courts attention, in my speaking with the defense council for Mr. Bradley, Mr. Chopra, is that anything that he -- any knowledge of anything he would have would be protected under the attorney-client privilege. He would assert that. And that privilege has not the waved by Mr. Wade. More importantly, a representation was made to the court that Ms. Merchant spoke to Mr. Bradley and that Mr. Bradley represented that he had firsthand knowledge from speaking to several witnesses that he would be able to impeach with the statements she represented, that there was a relationship prior to Mr. Wade being appointed special prosecutor and that there was issues with cohabitation that you would be able to directly impeach those witnesses. That is patently false in speaking with Mr. Chopra.

Those are misrepresentations that are not true. They are for the purpose of harassment and undue burden to the district attorney. And we'd ask to renew our motion to quash. And the only hearing we should be having is the hearing as it relates to sanctions or the defense counsel's lack of candor that's required by not only statutory law, but professional rules and responsibility and case law. And we ask that we move into a hearing that -- that is related to the sanctions do to the misrepresentation and flagrant falsehoods that have been spread throughout the world in an effort to affect this case and to keep it from moving forward.

With that, your honor, that's' our request.

MCAFEE: So just a small matter of housekeeping.

ABBATE: Yes.

MCAFEE: All right.

Ms. Merchant.

MERCHANT: Oh, Judge, first, the witnesses haven't been sequestered. So, I just ask that they be sequestered before we argue this or have any more argument. I know Mr. Wade is still here. So, we just ask that he leaves since he is under subpoena. That -

MCAFEE: Let's - let's start there. Mr. Abbate.

ABBATE: Well, I agree when testimony starts. But the rules of sequestration, I'm will to apply (ph), Mr. Wade to leave, but we haven't started testimony. This is argument. He's lead counsel for the case, and he has every right to be sitting at the table.

MCAFEE: OK. And, Ms. Merchant.

MERCHANT: Let's hear from some witnesses first. Let's actually hear some sworn testimony under oath. I have made proffers and it just seems like all we're going to get is objection after objection because the state clearly does not want any witnesses to take the stand, doesn't want the truth to come out in the (ph) court. This is a very important issue, and we need to have witnesses.

[09:40:04]

I have a good faith basis. (INAUDIBLE) I have a good faith basis.

And Mr. Bradley is not my only witness to this good faith basis. It just happens to be the evidence I proffered at the hearing when the state first tried to keep all of the other witnesses off the stand. I was forced to proffer certain testimony to get over the hurdle to refute their motions to quash.

I did that. I use Mr. Bradley's testimony to do that. He is not the only witness that can state that there was a relationship prior two years from Wade being hired. The first witness that I'd like to call it Robin Yeartie, not Mr. Bradley. No privilege issues. Let's start with her.

SADOW: Your honor, we have an addition argument on matters to be brought up. We want to do it, like, can I just stand up and - with relation to what's just been said by Mr. Abbate, or do you want to hear Ms. Merchant at this point? I just need to know the court's protocol on that.

MCAFEE: Sure. So, I think at this point we just need to take these issues one at a time. And as you've joined the motion, I think defense counsel would have the opportunity the weigh in, but, again, if at any point, if I'm just hearing the same thing over and over again from each separate defense counsel, I'm going to reserve the right to say, thank you.

SADOW: I - I appreciate that.

MCAFEE: All right.

SADOW: I only asked (INAUDIBLE) -

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: And, of course, we are monitoring right now this hearing that is happening in Georgia. You can see the defense and the prosecutors there both making their arguments.

But we do want to bring you an important update that is happening in the courtroom here in New York, in Manhattan, in the first criminal case that was brought against former President Donald Trump. We have just learned the judge has rejected Trump's request to dismiss this case against him, and they have set a date. March 25th will be the first criminal trial, based on what we know right now, against former President Donald Trump. He was indicted last March on 34 counts of falsifying business records, ultimately arguing that that was an illegal campaign contribution on the prosecutors -- in the -- according to the prosecutor's argument. And now we have learned March 25th will be the date of that court case.

And Paula Reid and Kristen Holmes are here with me outside of this courthouse.

Obviously, this was a longshot bid.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

COLLINS: But I think what's key is what Trump said right before he went into that courtroom, basically knowing that this was going to happen, is he said he's also going to seek to delay this date that was just set.

REID: That's exactly right. And that's what they're doing right now. And the judge said, look, jury selection is going to start on March 25th. His lawyer, Todd Blanche, is advocating for a delay. He's calling it, quote, "a grave injustice" to begin the trial then. And he says, "it is a completely different landscape" for President Trump since, of course, there have been additional indictments since this one came down. Not only is he juggling these other criminal cases, but also a campaign.

And you and I were talking earlier, I had two questions, right? Will we get a date? Well, we have a date now. We'll see if it sticks. And then how will Trump behave. And it was clear from his remarks that he's going to turn this case into a campaign rally. He is going to cry election interference. And I expect that we'll probably hear from him every day talking about how unfair this case is.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And I will say, you know, Trump's team does not want to go to trial. Anyone who tells you differently is not being honest with you.

Sorry about that.

But if they are going to go to trial in a criminal case, this is the one that they want, because they believe that they can paint this as political. Now, there's no cameras in the courtroom. It's going to require him making remarks. But he owns properties here. He's going to be in New York. This is the case they believe is the most impactful that they can paint as political.

COLLINS: And I think one point - part, though, is, Trump did make a point outside of the courtroom, you know, when he said multiple things that were not true -

REID: Yes. COLLINS: And claiming that this is election interference when its essentially the reverse that is being argued against him. Obviously a tried and true tactic of his to accuse people of what he himself is accused of. But he did say that there is no crime at the heart of this. And making a hush money payment is not inherently illegal. But the new and novel theory that is being tested and going to be tested potentially as soon as March 25th is Alvin Braggs argument here that because he falsified business records to make a payment that was related to his campaign by paying off Stormy Daniels, that it was an illegal campaign contribution.

REID: That's right. And sources close to the prosecution side say they view this as an election interference case, because they say that these payments were made to help Donald Trump's chances in the 2016 election and therefore this was a campaign contribution and should have been documented as such, which is why he's charged with falsifying business records.

Look, that's an open question. Intelligent minds disagree about whether they will ultimately prevail on that legal theory, even in front of a friendly Manhattan jury.

Now, unlike our colleagues down in Georgia, of course, we don't have cameras in the courtroom. We are relying on updates from our colleagues inside the courthouse. And it's interesting because they're talking about how there have actually been conversations between this judge and Judge Tanya Chutkan, who's the judge overseeing the federal case in D.C. And it's going to be interesting to see if Trump picks up on that because that's completely reasonable for two judges to talk about, hey, I had a trial scheduled.

[09:45:04]

Of course, the January 6th case has been moved. This one, they're hoping to go forward. It's going to be interesting to see if Trump now starts to accuse the judges of any sort of collaboration, because this is becoming really a topic of discussion, where they can put this on the calendar, and the fact that there's been coordination.

COLLINS: Right. And what their complaint -- what we're reading, this live feed right now, is that they are arguing against this March 25th trial date, Trump's attorneys are, saying that that would be a grave injustice, as they called it, talking about that March 4th trial date that was initially set by Judge Chutkan in the federal election interference case, which is now off the books. They're using that, even though right now we don't know when that trial's going to happen.

HOLMES: We don't even know when that would be, right.

COLLINS: They're arguing that this shouldn't start on March 25th because of a trial date that now no longer exists.

HOLMES: Yes, that they don't even know when it will happen.

I mean, remember, they were celebrating when that came off the books because that was a case that they were also very concerned about. That is a federal case in D.C. that they believe that she wants to bring before the election and that they believe could cause problems for Donald Trump.

I do want to point out one other thing that Trump said here because we're talking about using these as campaign stops. And one of the things he said was that he could be out in South Carolina campaigning. Well, he actually could be. He - they waived his -

COLLINS: He doesn't have to be here today.

HOLMES: Yes, they waived his appearance to be here. He doesn't have to be here.

And, by the way, after this, he's going back to Florida for days. So, he's not going to South Carolina right after this. He is choosing to be here, choosing to use these legal appearances as campaign stops.

REID: This is interesting. We're getting some updates from our colleagues inside. This is the way we're getting this information. And the judge just cut off Trump's attorney as they're sparring about the scheduling, saying, look, you don't have a trial date in Georgia. True. They're currently talking about possibly disqualifying the prosecutor. She says, you don't have a trial date in Florida, which is expected. There is one on the calendar. It's expected to be pushed back. And he doesn't have a trial in D.C. So, the judge is just rejecting this argument from Trump's lawyers that they can't go to trial in this case in late March.

COLLINS: John, a notable moment. I mean we are 46 minutes into this when we started this hour talking about the moment here and what this looks like. And we have now learned that they're protesting it right now. This judge has decided March 25th -

BERMAN: All right, Kaitlan, sorry to cut you off, but they are calling the first witness in Fulton County, Georgia, here. This is the courtroom and the case that will decide when, maybe even if, the various federal interference charges in Georgia will go to trial, if there was prosecutorial misconduct between Fani Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, and Nathan Wade, the lead prosecutor in that case. They have acknowledged that they had a personal relationship. At issue is whether she financially benefited from that personal relationship in the course of the case.

The first witness has been called. We're waiting for that witness to take the stand. I believe it is a friend of Fulton County DA Fani Willis, who will be on the stand.

Nathan Wade, the lead prosecutor, has left the courtroom because other witnesses who might have to testify have been sequestered.

Let's listen for a second.

MCAFEE: I think the last exchange we'd had is that he can join us by Zoom and apparently he's elected not to do so.

So, I don't really know what else we can do with that. He was noticed of the hearing. We provided him a link and we haven't heard from him at all. So, I think we need to go forward

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE).

MCAFEE: All right.

MONROE: Your honor, before we go forward, we have business documents that were certified and filed yesterday evening. Sorry, filed this morning. Emailed to (INAUDIBLE) council yesterday evening. We wanted to make sure that this was part of the record before any testimony is taking and before (INAUDIBLE).

MCAFEE: All right. And so in your mind this satisfies Fulton County's subpoena in this case?

MONROE: Correct.

MCAFEE: OK. Just -- if you could hand that to Ms. Merchant, and we'll take it from there.

MERCHANT: OK. And I don't know (INAUDIBLE).

MONROE: I have an original for the court.

MCAFEE: Ms. Monroe, if you can just provide it to Ms. Merchant -

MONROE: She already has a copy.

MCAFEE: And if you can just stay on call, we'll let you know if we need you again, OK?

MONROE: OK. Thank you.

MCAFEE: All right.

Were we bringing in Ms. Yeartie?

BERMAN: OK.

We are waiting for the first witness to be called into the courtroom here. It is Robin Bryant-Yeartie, a friend of Fulton County DA Fani Willis.

Let's go to Laura Coates outside the courtroom.

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: So, what's been happening so far, John, we had an initial motion to quash, again, saying a last ditch effort. Can we just drop this hearing? Can be moved past this? The judge said, no, this is going to proceed.

The person they're now calling, a longtime friend of Fani Willis, the DA, at the core and heart of this entire matter, and a former employee of the DA's office.

This is going to go forward. We're going to - we already see Nathan Wade. The witnesses are asked to stand outside of the courtroom before their own -- actually when (ph) they testify. [09:50:04]

That tells you they don't want them tipped off or to have the information that they are asking them about in advance. They want them to have a fresh essentially moment here, not having everything relied on.

Nick, this is really important that we're having right now. They tried one more time to say, let's not be here. The judge said, we are here. They are going to doubled down on this. And the defense attorney bringing this very motion seems very, very intent.

NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, they couldn't make it any more clear.

COATES: Yes.

VALENCIA: The DA's office, is that they don't want to be here. They don't want to do this.

COATES: Right.

VALENCIA: They feel that Ashleigh Merchant has brought this not in good faith. They believe that this is focused instead on this spectacle, this circus, and not necessarily getting to the bottom of whether or not Fani Willis financially benefited from this personal relationship or not, but rather to create a circus environment surrounding this case.

They don't want to be here, and they can't make it any more clear. So, again, like you said, last ditch effort to try to get this motion quashed.

COATES: Yes.

VALENCIA: To try to keep Wade from testifying today.

COATES: It is surprising because we thought that it was going to be Nathan Wade as the very first witness.

VALENCIA: Yes.

COATES: He's actually -- he was in the courtroom, right? The (INAUDIBLE) are supposed to wait outside the courtroom. He is in the courtroom. He's not going to go first. Does that surprise you that he is not going to be the first person to testify?

VALENCIA: It does. There's been a lot of back-and-forth over the last several days. Yesterday I spoke to Ashleigh Merchant, and she told me that her intention was to bring Nathan Wade first.

COATES: Yes.

VALENCIA: That she was going to start with him. In fact, when I talked her, she was sketching out her examination - her cross-examination of him. Now, though, we see that Robin Yeartie is going to go first. It's interesting, though, Laura, because earlier in a hearing on Monday, a hearing to try to quash this hearing -

COATES: Yes.

VALENCIA: The judge has said he wants Terrence Bradley to go first. And Bradley is the so-called star witness of Ashleigh Merchant, the one that evidently has the goods that can prove that it was -

COATES: Former law partner of Nathan Wade.

VALENCIA: Former - that's right.

COATES: Fraternity brother, I believe, as well.

VALENCIA: That's right. That's right. Former law partner, fraternity brother, a man that represented him as well during his divorce proceedings in part. And this is the person who Merchant believes would be able to prove that Fani Willis is lying about when this relationship started.

And that's important because she says that this relationship began before he was hired as the special prosecutor in this case.

In a legal brief, Fani Willis said that this personal relationship began in 2022. Who's telling the truth here?

COATES: Right.

VALENCIA: We saw a tense start to this day already, Laura, going back- and-forth with the DA's office and Merchant. They're accusing her of basically bringing gossip to the courtroom.

COATES: They talk about sanctions potentially against her. The judge said that she is now on notice.

VALENCIA: On notice.

COATES: That they obviously have this - this feeling about her.

You know, interestingly enough, if the person who was a former law partner and fraternity brother of Nathan Wade would testify, some might argue if he represented him in the divorce it is going to be attorney-client privilege. But it would be the nature of his knowledge prior to that relationship that would be the issue here, right?

VALENCIA: Yes.

COATES: The idea of having an attorney at one point in your life does not say that everything you've ever told this person is not -- is going to be covered. It could be very much fair game here.

VALENCIA: That's such an important point. And that's what you saw the DA's office try to do here, say that some of the questions are probably going to be attorney/client privilege -

COATES: Yes.

VALENCIA: And they want to stop this before it starts. They are adamant that this is not a good faith effort by Merchant.

And I want to speak on Merchant a little bit because a lot of people may not be familiar with her.

COATES: She's the attorney bringing this case.

VALENCIA: That's right. She's the one that first leveled these allegations. She made them public about a month ago.

Merchant is not one of these so-called fringe conspiracy theorist, election denier attorneys. She has a tremendous amount of respect in neighboring Cobb County. I've spoken to several people who know her. They say she would not have brought this if she didn't have the goods.

COATES: Yes.

VALENCIA: And I've been speaking to her. She says she knows Nathan Wade personally, and she really weighed this before she brought these allegations. She said there was the personal trouble that she had in whether or not she wanted to even bring these allegations, but she had the obligation, as a defense attorney, to give her client, Mike Roman, the former Trump campaign official, the absolute best defense. And in her eyes, bringing forward these allegations was that best defense?

COATES: Well, again, this, John, is going back the idea of disqualification, not the heart of the allegations against the co- defendants in this case. But, obviously, if Fani Willis were to be disqualified as a result of these allegations and this action being brought, it would have the effect, John, of having the entire team disqualified. And the team that would come in next is not beholden, is not required to follow what she wanted to do, the grand jury indictment and beyond. It could be very consequential. This is why this is so important today.

BERMAN: And, Laura, we are waiting for that for -- first witness. Robert Bryant-Yeartie - Robin Bryant-Yeartie, to come into the courtroom and take the stand. She's a friend of Fani Willis. She will be the first to testify.

We have an eye in the Georgia courtroom. We're going to talk mostly about that in a second because these events are going on.

But, first, I'm with Elie Honig, Jennifer Rodgers, and Michael Moore, three esteemed attorneys.

I want to go back quickly to the major news that was just made in New York and make one thing clear, Donald Trump just lost what he was trying to do today. He lost in what he was trying to do, and he lost very quickly.

HONIG: Yes.

BERMAN: His motion to dismiss the case, you know, he was ruled against very quickly and a trial date was just set for March 25th.

HONIG: This is real. This is happening now. It's 39 days away from today they're going to start picking a jury about a mile from here down at the courthouse.

[09:55:04]

And Donald Trump wants to avoid this. Even though it's probably, from his perspective, the least serious of the four cases, he's still going to have a criminal trial happening, according to this schedule, reconfirmed just now in March.

And I want to make an important point where we look at the overlap between the criminal case and the political calendar. Donald Trump, as the defendant, has to be in that courtroom. It's not optional. We've seen him sort of dip in and out of the E. Jean Carroll case, the other civil case. He has to be there.

And this means, if this goes as planned, and the estimates seem like this will be a two month or so trial, he will be off the campaign trail, in the courtroom in Manhattan, March through April into May.

And if Jack Smith's case gets back on track, we're looking at a summer trail. He could be essentially pulled off the campaign trail for five, six months consecutively, right in the heart of this campaign.

BERMAN: And the thing is, remember, the courtroom is the campaign trail for Donald Trump. He may not be unhappy with the fact that he'll go speak in front of those cameras every day on the way in there.

And, Jennifer, he just - he presented a novel legal theory on his way in today. He said, even if I am guilty of something, there is no crime, which in a way might be the campaign slogan for Donald Trump. Even if I am guilty of something, there is no crime. That's the type of statement that may get him in trouble with a jury as this continues.

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, he's, I think, conflating a few things there. This notion of, its a misdemeanor if you falsify business records. It only becomes a felony if you do that to cover up or to commit another crime. So, he's kind of getting his legal jargons mixed up there.

But one important thing here, you know, this has been on the calendar for a long time, but now it's done. There is no delay from here, right? There's going to be no appeals. There is no way, like we saw in the federal election interference case, goes up to the Supreme Court, that's not happening here. This date, unless you have a longer than, you know, expected jury selection or something, is going to happen. We're not seeing any more delays from here on out. So, that's why it's such a big loss for him.

BERMAN: And, Michael Moore, anything in the fact that the judge, Juan Merchan, here ruled right away. I mean we were expecting a two-hour hearing here, maybe some arguments back and forth. No, this started today. This hearing started. He said, you know, Trump, your motion is, you know, rejected -

MICHAEL MOORE, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Right.

BERMAN: And we're starting the trial March 25th.

MONROE: Yes. And I wasn't surprised by that. And actually when you heard Trump make his statements before he went into the courtroom, this may be the only time he's listened to his lawyers. And they probably had already told him he was going to lose his motion because he essentially conceded it going in -- going into the courthouse. So, I think it was a quick issue. No question it was going to be denied. And so now we're off.

I do think he will continue to use the courtroom as his campaign stump.

BERMAN: Sure.

MONROE: I mean that's what -- that's what he's done through.

BERMAN: Yes.

MONROE: And so I think we'll see that.

BERMAN: The idea that it's taking him off the campaign trail.

MONROE: That's right.

BERMAN: In this case it might not apply because this is the campaign trail.

Kaitlan Collins, on the campaign trail outside the courthouse in New York. Let's go back to her.

COLLINS: Yes, it looks a lot different than the campaign trails that we've seen in the past, John, but it very well may be that. And its notable because this is at the heart of what they here are arguing about right now inside that courthouse behind us.

And, Paula Reid and Kristen Holmes, essentially what's happening in there, which is remarkable to me as, you know, politically Trump is so angry that Nikki Haley is still in the primary and that she has not dropped out yet, even though it's all but effectively over, as when people look at what the numbers are. But right now they are making the argument that this trial they say would be unconstitutional for it to start March 25th and go on to six weeks, as the judge is predicting, because it would be in the middle of this primary process that is still underway right now.

HOLMES: Yes, a primary process that they don't believe is actually happening. I mean if you talk to anyone on Trump's campaign, they believe he's going to be the nominee by mid-March, which actually makes all of this that much more striking, that you will have, if their math is right, it Republican nominee. It's not just Donald Trump's first criminal trial. It's probably - it's the first time a Republican nominee will be having a criminal trial in the middle of a campaign cycle.

But, yes, look, we know that Trump's lawyers are going to use whatever they can to try and delay these trials. We have seen it time to time again.

COLLINS: And, of course, John, as we are monitoring what's happening inside this courtroom, I know, obviously, there's a lot of developments also happening there in Georgia as well.

BERMAN: Yes, let's get right back to that courtroom in Fulton County, where the first witnesses has taken the stand. They've changed tactics here. The first witness is Terrence Bradley, the former law partner to Nathan Wade. And there are some arguments being fielded here before he does testify.

Let's listen.

CHOPRA: Rather than having to restate it repeatedly.

MERCHANT: And, Judge, I've carefully crafted my questions to avoid any privileged information. But if they think that I'm invading that, then I welcome an objection, and I'm happy to address it.

MCAFEE: Let's see how it goes. And again, Mr. Bradley, I'll ask if you can just give a pause in between each question to allow counsel the opportunity to object before answering.

MERCHANT: Thank you, Judge.

Was the witness sworn in, or do I need to swear the witness in?

MCAFEE: I believe he was.

MERCHANT: Great. Thank you. I'm sorry.

Good morning, Mr. Bradley, how are you?

TERRENCE BRADLEY: Good morning.

MERCHANT: Not happy to be here, I'm assuming.

BRADLEY: I am not.

MERCHANT: OK. I understand. Thank you for being here.

BRADLEY: Wasn't by choice.

MERCHANT: Right. You were subpoenaed to come and testify in this case.

[10:00:01]

BRADLEY: I was.

MERCHANT: OK. And -- but you and I have spoken previously about relevant facts surrounding Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis' relationship.