Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Judge Rules D.A. Fani Willis Can Stay On Trump Election Case; Supreme Court: Public Officials Can Block Social Media Followers; Judge: Wade Must Withdraw For D.A. Willis To Stay On Trump Case. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired March 15, 2024 - 11:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:51]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And you are in the CNN Newsroom. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. This morning, we're following all the reverberations from the monumental ruling in the criminal case against Donald Trump in Georgia. The judge has just ruled Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis can continue prosecuting Trump and his allies in the Georgia election subversion case.

But she may only stay, only stay if the special prosecutor, Nathan Wade, who had a relationship with Willis is removed. If Willis and her team had been disqualified, it would almost certainly have delayed a trial until after the presidential election in November. That is something Trump desperately wanted in all of this and as other legal cases as well. CNN's Nick Valencia is just outside the Fulton County courthouse for us. So Nick, can you walk us through this morning's historic ruling?

NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, it was historic, monumental decision, Fani Willis getting a technical win, but a massive indictment on her behavior coming down in this ruling from Judge Scott McAfee. He did say that there was no evidence of a through line that she financially benefited from her relationship with her lead prosecutor, Nathan Wade, but he was highly critical of that relationship between them saying that Georgia law does not permit an actual conflict for bad choices, even repeated ones.

And here's what he's saying in part of that decision. 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. And it was during her testimony on February 15th earlier this year, that she was fired up going so far as to call Ashleigh Merchant, the defense attorney that brought forward these claims, a liar.

But in this ruling, Judge Scott McAfee saying that Fani Willis had her own credibility issues on the stand. We did hear from Steve Sadow. He's the attorney for the former president. And we should expect an appeal. But in the meantime, big questions remain. When will we see Nathan Wade's resignation letter? That is one of the most principal questions. And will the District Attorney's Office be able to get this case back on track before the election? Wolf?

BLITZER: Nick Valencia with the latest, thank you very much. Let's continue this discussion with our analysts. Joining us now CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid, our national correspondent Kristen Holmes, and CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig, who is a former federal prosecutor. Paula, let me reiterate or repeat what we just saw. Part of the ruling, very strong words from this judge, 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. That's very, very strong language.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, there's a lot of strong language in here. This is an incredibly high stakes decision. And the judge had to show his work. He found that he believed that there was a pattern of bad behavior. That's what a lot of this strong language is about. But ultimately, that Fani Willis was not engaged in some sort of scheme to profit off of this case, which is why he is letting her stay on this case. But he's asking for Nathan Wade to be removed or the office itself to just remove themselves from the case, but it's never a good day, Wolf, when the judge overseeing the most high profile case in your portfolio questions your judgment.

BLITZER: Because if you read this 23-page statement in the Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia. State of Georgia versus Donald Trump, Rudolph William Lewis, Giuliani and these others, Mark Meadows, and these other co-defendants in this particular case, the language is incredibly tough, very strong. And let me get Elie Honig to weigh in. Let me read another part about Nathan Wade. Now listen to this Elie. Very strong statement, Wade's patently unpersuasive explanation for the inaccurate interrogatories he submitted in his pending divorce 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 resulting in some form of benefit to the District Attorney or even whether the romantic relationship has resumed. Elie, how damaging is that -- is all of this for a prosecutor.

[11:05:04]

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Wolf, this is bottom line a victory for Fani Willis but it's a pyrrhic victory. It's a very costly victory, both to her and to Nathan Wade, one of whom has to go now. Spoiler alert, it's going to be Nathan Wade, who leaves the case. But let's remember, these people are prosecutors. Nathan Wade is functioning as a prosecutor on the most important case that that office has ever brought or that they've ever seen in the State of Georgia.

And now we have the judge calling out as you just showed in that segment, the veracity, the truthfulness of Nathan Wade. He all but says, Nathan Wade lied on the stand. And he has similar language, a little bit toned down from that, but calling into question whether Fani Willis was truthful when she took the stand.

So Nathan Wade is going to get kicked off the case. He has to go. I actually think Fani Willis ought to think about whether she takes herself off the case, a conflict of interest is something that you need to monitor as a prosecutor to protect the case itself. And if it reaches a point where an individual's involvement in a case is going to shed public doubt on the case itself, comes down that our prosecutor, and I include Fani Willis, needs to think about whether the right thing for the case is for her to step aside, given these rulings.

BLITZER: Very strong words. Indeed, Kristen, we heard a very strong statement released very quickly from the Trump legal team.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. And, you know, just to reiterate how the campaign has become the legal side of this. We got this from the attorney, but then also reaching out to the campaign, this is the statement that they pointed out to. So we haven't heard from Donald Trump or the campaign directly.

BLITZER: Statement of Steve Sadow, lead defense counsel for President Trump in the Fulton County GA, Georgia case.

HOLMES: Exactly. So that's his lawyer. So this is what he said. He says, 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 relationships began, as well as Willis extra judicial MLK, quote, church speech, where she played the race card and falsely accused the defendants and their counsel of racism. We will use all legal options available to continue to fight to the end of this case, which should never have been brought in the first place.

That shows that there's going to be an appeal there, which Nick had mentioned. It also shows that they want this to be their official line that they wanted Fani Willis off the case that this is something they believe should never have been brought forward. However, when I'm talking to Trump sources on background who are not public, they are saying that this is a win. They believe that there is a lot that in this ruling that they can spin to their benefit politically. They believe that taking Nathan Wade off the case is good for them. They don't know who's next, who will be the next special counsel, special prosecutor in this case. It could be someone who they have more information on. We -- they just -- there's a lot of unknowns here.

Also the other part of this, they're happy because they believe that this will delay it past the November election, which is something that they've been working on time and time again, in all of his various cases.

BLITZER: They want to delay as much as possible. You know, Paula, apparently, Fani Willis, the district attorney will stay on this case, there's no indication she will resign or anything like that, right?

REID: That's exactly right. And look, the underlying case remains largely intact. Earlier this week, the judge did dismiss six of the counts, they can always bring this back to a grand jury and add them back in and remedy some of the issues. But it's unclear if this case is going to go before the election. If former President Trump is reelected, it's unclear if that case would go in the next four years or at all.

I mean, obviously, the Trump lawyers at some point are going to have to defend their client in a court of law based on the facts and the law. But until that time, they have two goals. One is to delay. They have succeeded with help from this process to disqualify her and these allegations, and then also to undermine the credibility in the prosecutors and in the justice system. And the conduct here has helped Trump achieve both of those. So, yes, the underlying case remains intact. Fani Willis continues to oversee it unless she steps aside. But it is hard to see how this is a win for Fani Willis or for the justice system writ large because I think a lot of folks are going to look at this and have some questions.

BLITZER: Yes. But at these 23 pages, how much does it damage her case right now potentially.

REID: The underlying case remains intact, right? There's no question about the credibility of the case. Yesterday, in fact, the judge even when he dismissed those six counts said look, you have still supported these allegations quite well. But there's some specific counts where you lacked enough detail to allow them to prepare their defense. But when it comes to the Court of Public Opinion, this whole episode, this effort to disqualify, the allegations that came to the surface, the conduct, this isn't damaging, because to the average voter, they don't understand why you would be sleeping with the person heading up the most high profile case of your career and one of the most significant in the land.

And they probably also have some questions about the hundreds of thousands of dollars he received. Now the judge said that the amount he was paid was not inappropriate. But again, we're talking about the Court of Public Opinion. This was a forced error and a gift, a gift to former President Trump. He doesn't even have to make things up. This is a gift.

HOLMES: That's right, Wolf. And just one thing I want to add here is that this is all about messaging for foreign present Trump, as we know. He wants to play all this out in the Court of Public Opinion. He doesn't want to just go to trial. He wants to walk up to the cameras at trial and talk about how this is a witch hunt, how this is a Democratic, you know, Democrats coming after him because he is running for president.

[11:10:05]

It's all about messaging for the former president so he can use the language in this, that scathing language that you just read, to spin this as a win for him and saying that this -- that she had lapses in judgment, should this case have even been brought. Again, legally, one side, public opinion, messaging, that's completely different. BLITZER: You know, it's interesting, Elie, the judge hinted a gag order may actually be necessary for Fani Willis, tell us why and what would that -- and how would that happen?

HONIG: Yes, that's a really remarkable part of the ruling. It's sort of towards the end, and it's the B storyline, but it's important here. Now, this refers to the church speech that I think Paula referenced earlier. A few days after the defendants made this motion to disqualify Fani Willis, she went in public in a church with cameras rolling, and essentially said that the reason that this motion had been brought was racism.

And the judge says in his ruling that that was an -- a legally inappropriate statement for the D.A. to make. He's absolutely right. A prosecutor cannot make inflammatory public statements about the defendants. They're the ones who have their rights at issue. And the judge basically said, it may be necessary to put a gag order on the D.A. And that tells you something. I mean, look, Fani Willis has made, in my view, and in the judge's view improper public statements throughout this case.

She's given dozens of public interviews. She's given her opinion on Donald Trump's guilt before the grand jury even voted on this, which is improper. And so it's pretty rare. I don't think I've ever seen it before, where a judge has said, we may need to slap a gag order on the prosecutor. Prosecutors are supposed to operate under gag orders anyway. Prosecutors like to say we do our talking in court. Here, Fani Willis has violated that principle. And the judge has taken note of it.

BLITZER: Yes, lots to digest indeed. Elie, Paula, Kristen, to all of you, thank you very much. Joining us now, CNN legal commentator, James Schultz, a former lawyer in the Trump White House. James, thanks very much for joining us. This is a win for Fani Willis. She gets to stay on as the D.A. But how do you expect Trump and his co-defendants to respond down the road?

JAMES SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: Look, I think first of all, I think they've already kind of telegraphed that they're going to appeal this, right? And the question of the appeal is going to be is it going to be an appeal that can be taken interlocutory, which is now that will then tie up the case even further? Or do they -- are they going to have to wait until after the case to have the appeal heard. There's probably a pretty strong argument. And the judge would have to agree to this, that it gets taken up now. Because if the appellate court rules the other way, and finds that the trial judge committed error in this case, as far as the law goes, then the case gets, you know, moved on and it goes to that panel, and then could potentially get moved on to another prosecutor from another county.

So that's the next step legally in this case. And you have to remember on appeal, the veracity of the witnesses, those types of calls that the judge made in his opinion, the truthfulness of those witnesses, the truth nobleness of Fani Willis, the truthfulness of Wade will all have to be taken at face value, as if they own the determinations of the trial judge. The appellate judge won't look into those determinations, but whether the appropriate standard was applied.

And especially in this case, where you have, OK, one of them has to get off the case. So if one of them has to get off the case, because of the appearance of impropriety, what about the entire time the case was ongoing? And that's something I think the appeals court is going to have to look at.

BLITZER: Yes, I'm sure you're right. What does this mean, James, for the strength of Fani Willis's case right now?

SCHULTZ: So look, she's taken a couple of hits, right? It was a big deal that they dismissed, not legally a big deal. But from a public relations perspective, the fact that they dismissed those six counts earlier in the week for lack of factual basis, if you will, or notice to the defendant is significant in this case, and it's a significant blow to the politics of this, the PR of this, it gave Donald Trump and his team and Republicans one other thing to talk about.

Now this case and the scathing opinion as to her conduct, the conduct of Wade is another political and PR win for Trump. As it relates to the legality of case, I think it just -- this is just going to -- this will slow down the process. I've said from the beginning, I don't think there's any chance this case is heard prior to the election, certainly not now.

BLITZER: So you don't see the possibility that this specific trial could be heard before the election?

SCHULTZ: No, I've never really thought that this was going to make it. It's a lot of counts. It's a lot of defendants. RICO cases typically take a really long time. And now you have all these missteps along the way. There's no way this gets done before November.

BLITZER: Interesting. All right, James Schultz, appreciate it very much. We're going to continue this conversation ahead. Also to come it was, quote, like a bomb going off. That's how a sheriff is describing the damage from deadly storms that ripped through the Midwest.

Plus, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has approved a plan of action for Rafah in southern Gaza, what we're learning about plans to evacuate more than a million Palestinians and when.

[11:15:13]

And how an in-flight mishap may have caused a plane's terrifying plunge. The new reporting just coming in involving a cockpit seat. Stay with us. You're in the CNN Newsroom.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:20:04]

BLITZER: Right now we have more breaking news coming into CNN. The United States Supreme Court has just ruled that public officials can block social media followers in some circumstances. I want to bring in CNN Senior Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic was going through and reading about all of this. So what's going on? What are we learning?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: I just came from the Supreme Court when all nine justices were on the bench. And Justice Amy Coney Barrett, speaking on behalf of unanimous court has established a new test for when public officials are allowed to block their followers on social media.

Now, these cases that she was deciding on behalf of the court, speaking on behalf of the court came from Michigan and California. But you'll recall that Donald Trump when he was in office, blocked people on Twitter, that case never was heard by the Supreme Court because he was out of office by the time it reached up there. But now deciding a matter involving I say two local -- two sets of local officials who had blocked followers who had complained about their activity, the justices establish a test.

And it's a pretty -- it's a test that in some way splits the difference from where lower courts had been but pretty hard. The test says that a public official who blocked someone or otherwise prevent somebody from commenting on the official social media page is engaging in state action only if the official possessed actual authority to speak on the state's behalf on a particular matter.

And here's another key part, purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant posts. The court said this is a very fact bound question. You know, it doesn't matter if the person was definitely a public employee, or a public official, or the site appeared to look a certain way. The question is whether the alleged blocking or censorship is actually a matter on which the officials, it's within their bailiwick and if the official was purporting to actually exercise certain government authority.

So both cases are being sent back to lower court judges to figure out whether these cases, the officials can be sued.

BLITZER: Has it make any difference if the public official has one, you know, one site that is, you know, associated with the government, as opposed to a totally private site just associated with him or her?

BISKUPIC: Well, in one of the cases somebody did have dual sites like that, but that doesn't, that's not going to completely inform the question. The question is going to be in the particular questionable action blocking a constituent who was complaining, look at that action and see was that official speaking in his or her official capacity, and purporting to do that in the particular action of blocking. So as I said, very fact specific, Wolf.

BLITZER: It's very significant. So someone like Anthony Blinken, the Secretary of State, he can't go ahead if somebody writes something really negative about that person on Twitter or whatever, Instagram, he can't go ahead and block that person because he's a public official.

BISKUPIC: Well, probably in that case, it -- he would not be allowed to. But the court was very careful to say it didn't want public officials losing the right to speak publicly about matters of civic concern. So as I say, it will really depend on the particular posts, the particular action that's being taken.

BLITZER: Interesting, very interesting indeed.

BISKUPIC: No automatic series.

BLITZER: A nine nothing unanimous decision. It doesn't happen very often.

BISKUPIC: No. And I think the reason it did here is because there are a lot of questions for lower court judges to hash out exactly like the one you just raised.

BLITZER: All right. We'll watch it closely, very significant. Joan Biskupic, appreciate it very much.

I want to get back to our top story right now, this morning's pivotal ruling in Georgia's election subversion case against Donald Trump and others. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis will be allowed to lead Georgia's election subversion case against the former president of the United States but only if the special prosecutor, Nathan Wade, is off the team. That was the ruling from Judge Scott McAfee just a little while ago.

We're joined now by Tamar Hallerman. She's a senior reporter for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. She's been doing a lot of extensive reporting on this story from day one. Tamar, thank you very much for joining us. Do you expect we'll hear from Fani Willis today or what happens next in the case?

TAMAR HALLERMAN, SENIOR REPORTER, THE ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION: Yes, we're waiting to hear really from all the sides in this fight. We have yet to hear from the D.A.'s office. Although they did take their time to respond to the initial motion seeking to disqualify her, it took them several weeks to come out with an official response. We are expecting to hear from them sometime in the coming hours or days. Is she OK with this decision? Did she let Wade go?

We are expecting her to take that path as opposed to recusing her entire office. We're also waiting to hear from the defense attorneys in this case especially Ashleigh Merchant, the attorney for Mike Roman who filed the initial disqualification motion and whether she plans to appeal this ruling. That could obviously extend the timeline for this fight and keep it dragging on for weeks or even months to come.

[11:25:15]

BLITZER: So Nathan Wade, he could potentially just resign or she could fire him, right?

HALLERMAN: Yes, exactly. And he's been on this case since November 2021, almost since the beginning. He really has been a key organizational force and all of this. And so that could be a major change day to day for this roughly 12 person team that's been working on this case.

BLITZER: Do we have any idea who might replace him? HALLERMAN: Well, as I mentioned, there's already about a dozen other folks who she could decide to elevate into that kind of key quarterback role. Many of them have been at the D.A.'s office for several years now. Or she could look for outside counsel. She has two other special prosecutors who have been helping with this case and across in John Floyd, they've been helping in more limited capacities.

John Floyd is an expert on RICO laws here in Georgia and across is known as an expert, especially when it comes to arguing before federal courts. She could decide to tap one of them, expand the roles of one of her current folks or even look outside.

BLITZER: Tamar, how much does that Judge McAfee's ruling today weaken her case against Trump and these other co-defendants?

HALLERMAN: I wouldn't say that it weakens the case as it stands because this is entirely outside of the charges that we're talking about. But it absolutely hurts her credibility and could lead to all sorts of political headaches for her down the road. And it could lead to some timing headaches, too. As I mentioned, if anyone chooses to appeal that could drag stuff out for several weeks or months.

But in terms of politics here, you know, this is something that Republicans are not going to let D.A. Willis forget about. She's on the ballot this year. She's seeking a second term and she has two challengers, one from her left and one from her right. Trump has been added like a dog with a bone in his rallies going after D.A. Willis and how unfair she is.

And Republicans in Georgia State legislature have launched an investigative committee with subpoena power to also look into these allegations that's expected to continue in the weeks and months ahead. And they've indicated that they plan to subpoena the D.A. to testify publicly. So these headaches will persist for the D.A. no matter what going forward.

BLITZER: Tamar Hallerman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, thanks for joining us. Thanks for your excellent, very excellent reporting. We appreciate it.

And we're also following an outbreak of deadly storms here in the United States, including tornadoes across several states, more on that just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)