Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Judge Rules D.A. Fani Willis Can Stay on Trump Election Case; Judge Says, Prosecutor Wade Must Withdraw for D.A. Willis to Stay on Trump Case. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired March 15, 2024 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. You are live in the CNN Newsroom. I'm Jim Acosta in Washington.

This morning, a monumental ruling drops in the criminal case against Donald Trump down in Georgia a short time ago. As we've been reporting on CNN, the judge announced that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is allowed to continue prosecuting Trump and his allies in the Georgia election subversion case. But the judge added that the special prosecutor in the case, Nathan Wade, who has had a relationship with Willis, must be removed for the case to continue.

The removal of Willis and her team would have almost certainly delayed a trial until after the presidential election. That is something Trump desperately wants in this case and his other legal cases.

CNN's Nick Valencia has had a busy morning. It continues to be busy outside the Fulton County courthouse. Nick, this ruling, I mean, it delivers kind of an ultimatum to Fani Willis over her relationship with the lead prosecutor. Wade has to go where else? So, walk us through it.

NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And at this point, an easy ultimatum for her to make. It's either her or him that has to go. And we know that decision is going to come pretty soon here.

We have reached out to Nathan Wade. We have still not heard back. We've also reached out to the district attorney's office, but they have yet to comment. This is a huge win for Fani Willis, but it does not come without its criticism, the judge admonishing Fani Willis for her behavior during her testimony, calling it unprofessional, and also saying that there's a potential for her to receive a gag order.

Remember, part of what defense attorneys were upset about was this speech, this now sort of infamous speech that she gave immediately after these allegations at Big Bethel AME, a historic black church here in Atlanta, during which she sort of addressed to it, sidestepped the allegations to just say that she made mistakes, but that she's not perfect. And now she's going to be allowed to continue on with the case that she started investigating more than three years ago, a case that began with an infamous phone call from the former president to the secretary of state here in Georgia, in which he tried to get more votes found so he could win the Georgia election.

The judge here, though, handing a victory to Fani Willis, and we are waiting to hear from the district attorney's office. But earlier, we did speak to Defense Attorney Scott Grubman, who represented Ken Cheseboro during his portion of this case, and Grubman gave us some insight into what potentially defense attorneys will do next after this decision.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT GRUBMAN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: If you were being charged with a crime that could land you in prison for a decade-plus and this was happening, would you feel like you were getting a fair shake? No, of course you wouldn't. And so I would be very disappointed if I were in the case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VALENCIA: So we should stand by as well. Steve Sadow is saying basically in his statement that he is planning an appeal. He's probably drafting that motion as we speak. But for now, the Fulton County District Attorney's Office likely celebrating this victory and this decision from Scott McAfee. Jim?

ACOSTA: All right. Nick Valencia down at the courthouse in Atlanta.

Let us know if anything develops, we'll go right back to you, but let's continue this conversation in the meantime.

Joining us now is CNN Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent Paula Reid, National Correspondent Kristen Holmes, and on my left, Chief Legal Analyst Laura Coates, Legal Analyst Elliott Williams.

I am not used to having so many people with me when I'm doing it. I mean, this is -- it's an embarrassment of which is I don't know who to go to first, but I'll go to Paula first. You've been leading this coverage, a good part of this morning.

I have no idea how -- I mean, I guess she stays on the case, Fani Willis on the case, but it just feels like this is not good. It just feels -- I mean, let's read this one part of the ruling. This finding is by no means an indication that the court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment or the unprofessional manner of the district attorney's testimony during the evidentiary hearing.

I mean, that -- it just sounds like, yes, the case continues, but it almost feels like is it going to hobble along? I mean, what do you think?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, let's put this in the larger context. At some point, Trump's lawyers are going to have to defend him in a court of law, maybe not this year, based on the facts and the law.

But until then, they have two goals. The first is to delay all four of his criminal trials. The other is to sow distrust in the criminal justice system.

[10:05:02]

And what we've seen down in Fulton County over the past few months has helped him with both of those goals in this language today, where the judge describes Fani Willis is having quote, a lapse in judgment, calls her unprofessional on the stand, said she repeatedly made bad choices and insinuates that she lied.

He described a significant appearance of impropriety that infects the current structure of the prosecution team and basically says, look, your office can recuse or you can get ready your lead prosecutor.

So, while, yes, this is about Fani Willis' fate in terms of leading this, there's something much more at stake, which is trust in the judicial system. So, anyone who says that this is a win for Fani Willis, it's a technical victory, but I would argue this, this helps the Trump team.

ACOSTA: Yes. And, Kristen, I do want to ask you about the political implications because Trump is going to run wild with this. But, Laura, I mean, I have to go to you. Why let her stay on the case if you're going to go after her in this way so publicly, tremendous lapse in judgment and so on? I mean, it sounds to me like a gift to the defense if they want to appeal, they want to tie this up further.

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: This absolutely gives them ammunition to try to attack her credibility and taint their own version of the jury pool to try to undermine. And this is in combination with an earlier this week decision to remove and dismiss some of these charges for not having been what they call properly pled.

They were too insufficient, too lacking in detail to have them be able to prepare for a defense. You combine those two things, they will use this to suggest that she should not be trying this case. But if she is, then, hey, she's not good enough to actually have a burden of proof met.

But this is actually pretty extraordinary as a result. The judge did not have the legal basis to say that an appearance of a conflict was enough to remove. He does talk about the fact that there was the lapse in judgment. He does not condone it, but they did not meet their burden, those who are moving for this particular case, disqualify her to say that this goes to the heart of the defendant's ability to get a fair trial.

All of these salacious details and we leaned in for the gossip, I certainly did. But when it comes down to it, none of this trial had anything to do with the underlying facts of this case. Even the speech that has been referenced by Nick Valencia and others, where she talks about what they called playing the race card, identifying why are you just going after one of my prosecutors, not the rest of them. Even that, he said, did not rise to the level of disqualification.

So, yes, this takes a hit, but he did say they are so far removed from the actual jury selection to provide a permanent taint on a jury pool. He knows this is down the road. Amnesia might set in.

ACOSTA: Yes. And, Elliot, it may help Fani Willis' case if the case is delayed to some extent, because it does provide a little distance between now and when this case gets going, I suppose. I mean, that would be music to the Trump team's ears as well.

But, I mean, I just want to show that the part that the judge says about Nathan Wade, I mean, this is also brutal, patently, unpersuasive explanation for the inaccurate interrogatories he submitted in his pending divorce case indicates a willingness on his part to wrongly conceal his relationship with the district attorney.

As the case moves forward, reasonable members of the public could easily be left to wonder whether the financial exchanges have continued to result in some form of benefit to the district attorney or even whether the romantic relationship has resumed.

And as Laura was saying, I mean, this has nothing to do with -- I mean, as Fani Willis said, I'm not the one on trial. Trump and these co-defendants are on trial. But the judge just goes after Fani Willis and Nathan Wade as if they were on trial.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Absolutely. And there's other language along those lines where -- and I was just trying to find it here -- where the possible mendacity, I think, is the word he uses, referring to Fani Willis and Nathan Wade.

Now, it is important for any judge writing an opinion like this to substantiate how he's landing at the decision he's coming to. And some of that is assessing the credibility of witnesses. Can I, as the finder of fact and law, actually believe the things that are being said to me?

Now, a number of these statements sort of toe the line of, is this a credibility finding, or are you taking a pot shot at the prosecutor? And there were a few. So, for instance, one of them referring to Fani Willis being unprofessional on the witness stand serves no purpose whatsoever. It doesn't speak to the witness' actual credibility.

ACOSTA: She was angry.

WILLIAMS: She was angry, right? Now, don't get me wrong, that's great, like Laura says, to the human element of all this, some of the intrigue and so on, but it doesn't help.

Now, I have to push back on you a little bit, Jim, that even if this trial is delayed, nothing in here helps Fani Willis and her case. And to the point that Kristen and I were talking about a little bit earlier, a lot of this actually sort of hurts the credibility of the office.

That said, there's a difference between the legal correctness and sort of the political or moral correctness of all of it. And, legally, this is sound. You do not have a basis for removing this prosecutor from the case, but there's all kinds of political stuff that we can talk about.

ACOSTA: Yes, and this is happening in the middle of a political campaign, obviously, Kristen, and Trump is going to run wild with this.

[10:10:02]

He's already been doing it out on the campaign trail at these rallies talking about Fani Willis and Nathan Wade. It almost sounds like Strzok and Lisa Page. It's the same thing.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Right, it's very, very similar. And, look, I'm sitting at a table with lawyers and I am not a legal person, but I can tell you --

WILLIAMS: You are a legal person.

HOLMES: I am not a lawyer. I don't have a legal background.

WILLIAMS: See, that's what happens when you are a reporter (ph).

HOLMES: So, when I look through this, I see how Donald Trump's team is going to take advantage of it. Now, they said what you would expect for them to say, which was that they were disappointed. We got a statement from Trump's lawyer, Steve Sadow, he essentially said, while respecting the court's decision, we believe that the court did not afford appropriate significance to the prosecutorial misconduct of Willis and Wade, including the financial benefits, testifying untruthfully about when their personal relationship began, as well as Willis' extrajudicial MLK church speech, where she played the race card and falsely accused the defendants and their counsel of racism. Then he continues and says, we will use all legal options available to continue to fight to end this case, which should have never been brought in the first place.

That's exactly what you would expect, right? That they're not happy, Fani Willis gets to stay on the case, that, you know, moving forward, they want this case to be dismissed. However, when you actually look at how they're going to use this, Donald Trump is going to repeat some of these lines in rallies.

And, you know, I'm getting a lot of pushback already online for saying that, you know, Donald Trump is going to use this and his supporters are going to eat this up. But this is what I've seen for the last several years. Donald Trump takes this nugget of truth.

ACOSTA: That's a statement of fact.

REID: He pushed backed on that.

HOLMES: So, Donald Trump takes a nugget of truth from this report and then he will blow it up and his people will believe him. And not just his people, he will be able to reach other people by using this because that is the tactic he has used since 2016.

COATES: I will say, I mean, yes, this is, as you mentioned, Paula, it's a win-ish. But there is a lot of good information in here to actually buttress the credibility of Fani Willis. It might be surprising. One part in particular, this judge called B.S. on the idea that the people who brought this motion had proven that the money that was given as a salary was a through line to what was used for the vacation. It was their burden, just like it'll be the burden of the prosecutors at trial to make their case.

Also, another aspect of here, that they said, this was the theory of the defense's case, the defense, meaning Trump and counsel, that they were bringing this case and prolonging this case in an effort to sustain the romantic relationship, go to West Virginia and drive there or Nashville at different points in time.

The judge essentially said, well, that can't be true, that she was trying to prolong. Not only did she ask for a trial date in six months after she brought this case, she said that she didn't want to sever these defendants. She wanted them all to stay together. Everything that she was doing was trying to expedite this case, which belies what they were trying to articulate. And so on that realm, she has some legs to stand on.

I do agree. This judge, if you thought Robert Hur's one line about Biden was problematic, this is a whole opinion full of things. And no one, I'm sure, in the office wants to hear it, but I'm suspecting it's one of those, you don't have to go home, Nathan Wade, but you can't stay here.

ACOSTA: Yes, it's closing time. All right, well, guys, stand by. We got a lot more to talk about. We're going to squeeze in a quick break. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

ACOSTA: All right, back to our top story, the Fulton County district attorney, Fani Willis, will remain as the lead prosecutor in the RICO case in Georgia against Donald Trump and his co-defendants.

Joining me now is CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig and CNN Legal Analyst, Michael Moore.

Elie, what was your take on this ruling, and what happens if they bring in -- I mean, they have to bring in another prosecutor, or else the case goes bye-bye, but, I mean, what does that do to the case?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, Jim, the bottom line here is the most important, which is the D.A. has survived, the D.A. will remain on the case. Now, she will have to jettison, get rid of Nathan Wade, for sure. And you raise a really interesting question. What happens with who conducts this case now? My answer from the D.A. is she's got a whole office full of very experienced prosecutors. And by the way, that's one of the curious things about this scenario to begin with.

Fani Willis is the district attorney for Fulton County. She's got dozens and dozens of deeply experienced, deeply qualified prosecutors in her office who served the people of Atlanta and Fulton County, and yet she decided that she had to go choose this outsider, Nathan Wade, I guess there's a dispute about whether she was already dating him or not, who had never prosecuted a felony before.

Well, he's out the door now, and so I think the right move, there's an easy move here for Fani Willis, just pick your best prosecutor from within your office to lead it.

ACOSTA: Yes. Michael, I mean, what do you think about this ruling? I mean, there's a part of me that wonders, you know, it just feels kind of, I don't know, sickening to the stomach that their personal life got thrown into all of this. And now the judge has come out and said, well, you know, tremendous lapse in judgment and so on, and it's going to damage this case. It's potentially going to damage and delay this case. Your sense of all of it. Or is there time for -- you know, time heals all wounds. Does that apply here?

MICHAEL MOORE, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I'm glad to be with you, Jim.

ACOSTA: Yes.

MOORE: I will tell you, I probably have a different take on it. I think that any injury that has come to the case has been a self- inflicted wound by the D.A.'s office in the case, or specifically by the D.A. and by Mr. Wade. And so I think the court is simply saying, look, there's an appearance problem here. This is the second judge now who's been dealing with the case, Judge McBurney. The first one said, told the D.A. that she had used bad judgment.

[10:20:01]

There was a problem, an appearance problem. And so now we have a second round of that.

So, you know, this is the kind of situation that could have been remedied early on. In other words, once the allegations came to light, the motion was filed. If she was already in the relationship and this enormous sum of money had been paid, she simply could have, at that time, asked Mr. Wade to step aside. She didn't do that, she pushed on through, and so we ended up with this sort of spectacle of a hearing.

I don't think it's a good day for the state. It's win in the sense that she will remain in the case, but it is a loss in the lens through which this case will be viewed, both by the public and probably more importantly by the court will be one in the judge talks about there's the odor of mendacity or the stench of lying is what it boils down to, and falsity that that's now in the cases. And so that may be the lands that we're operating under for a period of time.

So, you know, we are where we are. There are the prosecutors that can step in. She's got lawyers that have been speaking on behalf of the D.A.'s office through all these motions and through this process. Certainly, somebody can come in and continue to move forward with the case.

ACOSTA: Yes. Elie, I mean, maybe I'm wrong here, but I can hear some of our viewers at home saying, why do I know more about the personal life of Fani Willis and Nathan Wade than I do about the details of this case of Donald Trump and these alleged co-conspirators trying to overturn election results in Georgia. I mean, is there some unfairness there or is it, as Michael was saying, a self-inflicted wound in the legal system in Fulton County and Georgia has to deal with it, it is what it is?

HONIG: I think it's a fair question for people to be wondering about, but conflicts of interest matter. They're important. This is absolutely fair game for a defendant to raise a potential conflict of interest and to get a ruling on it.

In fact, prosecutors are really expected to address conflicts of interest on their own. Usually, you don't wait for the defendants to raise it, you raise on your own and you do the right thing, recuse yourself. I suppose there's some good faith debate here about whether Fani Willis should have done this.

But it's really important to keep in mind, Jim, the appearance of impropriety matters. It's not just superficial. It is not we like things to look good because it is neither that way. It's because the D.A. is trying to take away a person's liberty. That's the case in the Donald Trump prosecution, in any prosecution. She's trying lock Donald up probably for more years than he has left on his lifespan.

And that prosecution needs to be pure. It cannot be tainted by conflicts of interest, by the lingering odor of mendacity, as the judge says. So, there's a real problem here. And it goes -- yes, there is a political angle. Yes, Donald Trump will surely utilize this and weaponize it, but it also matters when it comes down to the integrity of this case itself.

ACOSTA: And, Michael, very quickly before I get back to the panel with me in the studio, does this case happen before the election?

MOORE: I see no way that it happens before the election, sort of this, this aside or not. The judge already indicated that really back early on that he did think that the case, given the time estimations, it would be likely to hear it before the election.

ACOSTA: All right, guys, thank you very much, I really appreciate it.

And, Paula, you wanted to chime in on how Judge McAfee has handled this. There were a lot of questions because he's pretty young guy, how this was all going to go down. And I suppose this is one of those really sort of made everybody unhappy because Fani Willis gets to continue with this case but at the same time, I mean, that the way he went after her and Nathan Wade, and it's just devastating, it is brutal.

REID: Look, if you're making everyone unhappy, as a judge, you might be doing a good job. I've been talking to sources in and around this case, and so far, there's been pretty universal praise for the nuanced approach that he took here.

Well, let's remind people who Nathan Wade is. He's in his early 30s. He is a rookie judge. He has been on the judge for just about a year --

ACOSTA: McAfee.

REID: McAfee, sorry. Then he's handed this case that is in the high most high-profile, you know, criminal case certainly of his career, one of the most high-profile in his career and in the country. But he first had to decide whether to disqualify the district attorney.

And I asked some sources and said, what did you think? You've worked in this case on the defense side, and I've told, quote, he has managed to navigate the many nuanced issues here and arrive at what I think is probably the result, the best result. Both sides win a little and there's at least some consequence to the extremely fast and loose behavior regarding the exchange of money.

So, he had a very difficult task here.

ACOSTA: Yes.

REID: McAfee is receiving some praise from defense attorneys significant.

WILLIAMS: It's also worth noting he's running for office literally as we speak.

Now, there's a much bigger and broader question about the propriety of judges even being elected in America. That's -- we can say that for the PhDs --

ACOSTA: Great subject, but, yes.

WILLIAMS: But there's a political element to all of this, including in the judge's approach to writing the opinion.

Now, he did manage quite successfully to thread a needle that both maybe angered and satisfied everybody, but it's worth noting as a backdrop that, yes, he's still on the campaign trail as we speak.

[10:25:00]

COATES: So, is Fani Willis, by the way. And at the end of the day, I mean, it's very important to know thy audience, right? And the audience that she has to go before is a jury whose own county was impacted by the alleged actions of Donald Trump and the co-defendants.

And so we can certainly talk about the death by a thousand cuts to credibility, but at the end of the day, any sound prosecutor knows that my personal life might be an issue. In this case, it likely will be in the memory, but they're going to balance that as a jury against what is alleged.

You have a sweeping RICO case, conspiracy cases. People remember Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman. Anytime someone's mentioning the race card purported to be played by Fani Willis in a church, they're going to think about who was targeted by the likes of Rudy Giuliani in places like Fulton County and Atlanta and beyond. And you're having a balancing test.

And so what you would have to believe if the politics comes into play, and there will be that narrative, full stop, they will capitalize, they will seize, they will try to discredit and beyond, but at the end of the day, the jury is going to have this question. Do I care more about the relationship between Nathan Wade and Fani Willis or more about the actions alleged that you're going to provide evidence for in trial if you can?

At the end of the day, the reason this did not survive is the very reason that Fani Willis could not succeed. And that is your burden of proof matters. You can't intimate or raise your eyebrow high enough to suggest, I mean, believe me, trust me, I don't care as a jury, show me. They've got to do it here.

HOLMES: I want to say one thing because this happened during the break and it goes to exactly what I was saying. I have gotten multiple text messages now from people close to Donald Trump who said, this is a win for us. We just won. Nathan Wade is out. Nathan Wade was the special prosecutor.

ACOSTA: (INAUDIBLE).

HOLMES: Yes, but this is not for -- this is for how they're interpreting it. This is not for them -- when Donald Trump goes out there and says, I won, then we can ask a question. This is their internal conversation about how they feel right now. And that it goes to what I said, they're going to put out the statement saying, you know, we are going to fight this. We think she should have been taken off the case.

But any movement for them was a win, particularly as we talk about, you just heard this lawyer saying that they don't believe this case is going to go to trial before November. The entire goal of all of these different motions and pushes has been to push these trials until after the November election with the hope that Donald Trump gets elected and get rid of all of them.

Now, obviously, there's another option that he doesn't get elected and then he just has a bunch of trials. But that's not --

ACOSTA: And he can't make the Georgia case go away.

COATES: He can't pardon away.

ACOSTA: He can't pardon or change out the Justice Department.

HOLMES: But president going to trial is what would be complicated.

WILLIAMS: But if there's any one thing that Donald J. Trump has been more successful at than any in the last five years, it's taking a fact, there's a kernel of legal truth to it, spinning it, putting it out to the people, getting it like chum in the water and confusing the public. He did it in the context of in the in one of the New York cases saying, we won on appeal. I don't understand why this is still here because the judge ruled for it. Well, the judge in one sentence had ruled in Trump's favor and any sort of it confused people. I think this adds more grist to the former president's ability to confuse the public what's actually going on.

ACOSTA: And that's the thing that, Laura -- I mean, this has been my observation throughout this entire process that he has been able to play the legal system of this country like a fiddle. And the Alvin Bragg case, for example, may not start now on March 25th. There's a possibility that's going to get delayed a month. There's the immunity questions in the Jack Smith January 6th case. I mean, the list goes on and on. And, I mean, what are your thoughts about the way that he has just been able to pull this off? I mean, so far, we're not there yet.

COATES: Every defendant has the right to bring as many sound motions as possible to aid in their defense, full stop. I'm particularly invested and interested now that so many members of Congress, the Robert Hur testimony and Congressman Jim Jordan alike talking about a two-tier justice system. I'm so hopeful that they will recognize that with the idea of the rich and the poor and how there is this big divide.

ACOSTA: There's this tier way up where the wealthy and the powerful can just delay things until kingdom come, and then there's everybody else that does not have that ability.

COATES: I hope for consistency's sake, the same fervor they use to defend on a political reason, to defend for everyone else who is a Tom, Dick and Harry in the justice system. But at the end of the day, delay is a tactic, but you can only kick the can down the road so far if you are him and somebody in an office.

But this case is so much more important than just the one. We talk about the audience of one as Donald Trump. There are co-defendants who are not being held to account in any other state, any other jurisdiction at any other level. They include the false set of electors, they include conspiracy allegations, they talked about things that go to the very heart and core of our democracy.

And so this is a case that certainly has an impact on what Donald Trump will be able to say and what maybe Mark Meadows can say, but there are more than a dozen others who are not household names, who are very much alleged to have engaged in behavior that is antithetical to our democracy.

And so we have to be very expansive of how we think of this for not just Trump but the rest, the defendants as well.

[10:30:02]

REID: I mean, Trump is getting help. It's not just that there is a criminal mastermind sort of delaying everything. They're getting help with judges, justices.