BREAKING🔥 Fani Willis DISQUALIFICATION Saga - FANI's Entire Team REMOVED🚨Trumps Motion of Appeal

this is the latest step in what has been

an exhaustive effort by the Trump team

to have the case dismissed and Willis

and her entire office removed former

president Trump is appealing a key

rolling in the Georgia election

interference case saying that the judge

was wrong in keeping the da fonnie

Willis on the case this morning a judge

is considering a motion to dismiss

charges against former president Donald

Trump in the Georgia 2020 election

interference case now we are following

the latest in the fton County district

attorney disqualification Saga even

after her lead prosecutor stepped down

Donald Trump and eight of his

codefendants filed an appeal to get

district attorney fonnie Willis removed

too from the high stakes election

interference case in Georgia the appeal

calling Willis quote utterly unrepentant

about her romantic relationship with

former prosecutor Nathan Wade once you

have the appearance of impropriety under

forensic misconduct the law in Georgia

is clear that's enough to disqualify

Judge Scott mcfey who first heard the

Trump team's complaint was unconvinced

Willis benefited financially from her

relationship with Wade but said there

was significant appearance of

impropriety and ruled only one of them

had to leave the case the Trump team now

calling that decision a quote plain

legal err requiring reversal and asking

the Georgia court of appeals to weigh in

immediately before any trial takes place

the disqualification effort has

distracted from the underlying criminal

charges at hand Willis saying is much

frustrated when she took the stand last

month you're confused you think I'm on

trial these people are on trial for

trying to steal an election in 2020 in

August Trump and 18 others were charged

with illegally conspiring to overturn

Trump's 2020 election loss in Georgia

now Trump and the other remaining

defendants pleaded not guilty to all

charges defense lawyers argued in their

brief Friday a recent ruling which led

to withdrawal of Nathan Wade from the

case didn't go far enough and should

have also disqualified Willis and her

entire office from the case they claim

that Willis romantic relationship with

Wade created an actual and apparent

conflict of interest that damaged their

ability to impartially prosecute the

case it's now up to a panel of three

appell at judges to decide whether to

accept the appeal their decision could

have major consequences for Willis

stated goal of taking the case to trial

before the November election how will

fonny's mess is the only way I know how

to put it well it's it was a

disqualification wasn't a trial but it

was a hearing how is that going to

affect Trump's case now how do they how

do they squeeze that into their argument

right just hours ago now a team of

defense attorneys formally asked the

state's Appel at court to reconsider Fon

County Superior Court Judge Scott

McAfee's disqualification ruling earlier

this month that allowed Fulton County DA

fonny Willis to remain on the case as

long as special prosecutor Nathan Wade

resigned and Wade did just that stepping

down from the case hours after McAfee

ruled earlier this month but the team of

defense lawyers argued in their brief

today that that that ruling didn't go

far enough and should have also

disqualified Willis and her entire

office from the case they claimed that

Willis's romantic relationship with Wade

created an actual and an apparent

conflict of interest that damaged their

ability to impartially prosecute the

case former Gwynette County district

attorney Danny Porter says it's now up

to a panel of three appell at judges to

decide whether to accept that appeal and

their decision could have major

consequences for Willis's stated goal of

taking the case to trial before the

November election so in court yesterday

attorneys for the former president

focused on the First Amendment arguing

Mr Trump's alleged criminal conduct was

political speech and therefore protect

it prosecutors countered saying the

First Amendment does not give someone

blanket

protection it's unconstitutional the

force and accused be it the president of

the United stat former president or

anyone else to stand trial on protected

speech to say we can't mention this

particular act or this particular

conduct because it's not a crime or it's

protected by the First Amendment the

answer to that is actually so what

former president Trump was not the only

defendant with an attorney in the

courtroom yesterday an attorney for a

former State GOP chairman David Schaefer

was also in court arguing to dismiss

charges and Judge Scott McAfee he didn't

rule on any of those motions argued in

front of him yesterday so we're going to

be watching in the coming days to see

what he decides of all the attorneys

were representing the 15 remaining

codefendants in the Georgia election

interference case Ashley Merchant has

become one of the most prominent

Merchants profile skyrocketed in January

when she alleged district attorney

fonnie Willis had a personal

relationship with Nathan Wade a special

prosecutor Willis hired you have said we

are ready to go if this were to be Tri

tomorrow do you think your client would

be acquitted um I do not think the state

can prove these charges I think my

client's innocent um I we were ready to

go to trial and I I think it would be a

very favorable outcome the hearings to

disqualify Willis were closely watched

one of the most memorable moments was

when Willis entered the courtroom I'm so

curious about how you felt about

everything that was happening in that

moment yes I was surprised because at

the same time she walked in her lawyer

is literally arguing and had been

arguing just vehemently arguing to quash

her subpoena that that you know the that

was literally the last thing they wanted

was her on the witness stand it is a it

is a when when Willis was was calling me

a liar at that point I'd been called a

liar so many times that day I think I

was sort of numb to it um but I could

tell that she had a lot of things that

she needed to say yeah so I wonder if

you feel as if this process has impacted

her credibility oh definitely I mean I I

definitely think it has

and that's one of the things that people

don't necessarily understand is that

when you're in a courtroom you are

judging people's credibility that's what

happens on the witness stand and that's

what a trial is that's what a hearing is

judging The witness's credibility and

everybody got to see that firsthand So

speaking about credibility Terence

Bradley was supposed to be your star

witness he became a very reluctant

witness he did not freely want to

corroborate some of the allegations that

you wanted to prove did you not do a

good enough job of properly vetting par

Bradley I don't think it was an issue of

properly vetting him it was unfortunate

how he ended up testifying I wish he had

been able to give more details um like

he had given me previously but I

understand I mean I think he was scared

the judge said that offense the

attorneys like yourself who represent

that offense did not meet the burden for

proving right an actual conflict here

what will you differently to convince

the Georgia court of appeals otherwise

there was a lot of argument back and

forth if you have to prove an actual

conflict or if the appearance is enough

so we'll be arguing that legal point but

also he made a lot of factual findings

in his order that I think support that

there was an actual conflict the

district attorney has been criticized

for outof court statements um you are

now speaking with members of the media

are you concerned that you two could

potentially cross a line of making out

of court statements that are

inappropriate in the eyes of the Court

no I'm not concerned at all about that

and the reason is once the prosecutor

puts that out there we actually have a

duty to respond to that in my opinion

Merchant also talked about her previous

relationship with both Willis and Wade I

think it's important to know that I've

been longtime friends with both of these

prosecutors so you know that was

surprising because they know me and so

for them to make those types of

allegations was extremely surprising we

asked what impact her attempt to

disqualify Willis could have on the

other codefendants I look at my case and

I get my case and I don't look at

anything else so you know I'm very

focused hyperfocused on my case and my

defendant so I haven't analyzed all the

other defendants um but what I can say

is if it does result in anybody who

shouldn't be free going free that is no

fault other than the states how do you

think Jud Scott mcafe is handling this

case I think he has run this case very

well um you know and when I when people

ask lawyers all the time their opinions

on judges I want a judge that follows

the law and I want a judge that's

courteous and efficient I mean that's

that's really what I want um and I think

that he's done that how will fonny's

mess is the only way I know how to put

it well it's it was a disqualification

it wasn't a trial but it was a hearing

how is that going to affect Trump's case

now how do they how do they squeeze that

into their

argument well I think it's a separate

argument that's being made and now

litigated on appeal and I you know I

think the appell court may look dimly on

the misbehavior the misconduct of fonnie

Willis it makes no sense that they she

and Nathan Wade her lover both engaged

in in the same improper conduct that

violates the Cannons of Ethics yet only

one gets disqualified and the other

remains I mean that makes no sense so

that will be litigated on appeal

separately I see I see all right but it

is Rico I mean I know AOC says Rico is

not a crime but it is a crime it's a

very complex crime to prosecute

and in order to get everything together

you have to have really top e top legal

advisers to help you through the case

clearly Nathan Wade was not one such

person so much so little did he know

about the whole thing that he had these

meetings at the White House what more do

we need to know about those White House

meetings who was talking to him and were

they actually giving him advice of how

to carry out a RICO

case you know fonny Willis is claimed

this is not a politically motivated

prosecution there was no coordination

with the white house or the Biden

campaign that's undermined by the

billing records of Nathan Wade he

charged 16 hours two meetings eight

hours each with the white house nobody's

answered that question uh and you know I

think from a political standpoint much

less a legal one uh Americans deserve

the answer was this entire prosecution

coordinated uh with Donald Trump's

political opponent you know don't forget

it was Joe Biden who urged that Trump be

prosecuted right he told it to a bunch

of AIDS and upon instructions they

leaked it to the media and overnight

merri Garland his attorney general got

his marching orders and the prosecutions

of trump began yeah so this is a

president who's incumbent who realizes

his polls are in the toilet

and he decided laware might be the best

way to get rid of his opponent Donald

Trump a judge in Georgia heard arguments

over whether former president Donald

Trump's speech was protected by his

first amendment rights the hearing is

part of former president the former

president's election interference case

Trump's lawyers argued that the charges

against him are an effort to criminalize

they say political speech all right

thank you Mr Floyd all right Mr I'll

give you a couple minutes uh final word

thank you sir

if I heard what Mr Floyd just

said that if everything president

Trump said was assumed true and included

in the RICO

indictment and therefore now we're

talking about true political speech not

alleged false he could still be

prosecuted for the violation of

Rico but the over acts as alleged

let's say even the

overa um ran a foul the First Amendment

he's saying that wouldn't be fatal to

count one because at that point if if

they if there could be some other thing

they prove that's not alleged as an over

act okay that that may as I understand

it as As I understood it as

well but what I'm suggesting is if all

of the overt acts are nothing more than

core political speech or Express conduct

and nothing else is alleged which is not

protected by the First Amendment then

you have an insufficient basis for which

he has been indicted because he's being

indicted for First Amendment uh Speech

and not for unprotected speech and

therefore statement that was made about

if it were true we could still use it as

an overt act uh suggest that they can

prosecute true speech um which is what

we're trying to get to here it's the

nature of the speech the political

speech the heightened value of such

which gets this situation different than

others and the fact that it comes from

then president of the United

States going back to what was said in

addition by the state what the state

claims is Criminal here is lying to the

government that's what it

said that's the exact reason why in

several of the Supreme Court cases it's

been found to be protected speech

because it deals with the government and

falsity in the in sense of communication

U with or to the government is best

dealt with through true speech not

through prosecutions in because

prosecutions chill speech and when it

comes to political core speech what you

don't want is chilled I use um

fortunately I have a a co-counsel that

is able to pull things up and and help

me inform the court uh till the computer

shuts down uh and looking at what Haley

says just to give you an idea of how the

Georgia Court the Supreme Court might

look at this there's a quote from Haley

and it says while there is no

constitutional value in false statements

of fact such erroneous statements are

nevertheless inevitable in free debate

and Punishment of error runs the risk of

inducing a cautious and restrictive

exercise of the constitutionally

guaranteed freedoms of speech and press

accordingly the first amendment requires

that we protect some falsehood in order

to protect speech that matters and I

think that's what we're talking about

here to end this and again we're

focusing on um president Trump's conduct

at at the time that he in fact is the

head of the Executive

Branch

cided also in Alvarez bottom line here

is this but for protected First

Amendment

speech president Trump would not be

charged in Rico or the other counts take

out the protected speech and you don't

have an underlying basis for which to

charge him and since that violates

Constitution as applied to the charges

here and his speech here and his

position here this is right for a

constitutional challenge one step

further if it's not right now and we get

into intent when does the court

determine that do you determine that

after we have a

trial I think it would be the directed

verdict stage but would it that's a

sufficiency of evidence with all

inferences yeah in favor of the that's a

whole question I mean do we go through

the whole trial God forbid there should

be a conviction and then we go back to

try and determine as applied uh I'm

suggesting the reason it's right now and

the reason why we don't even get to a

trial is because it's unconstitutional

to force and accused be it the president

of the United stat former president or

anyone else to stand trial on protected

speech um and I think that's what

Alvarez and the progeny previous to that

and after uh say all right thank you Mr

s arguments are underway on motions to

dismiss the case from Trump's attorneys

and one of the codefendants Trump wants

to throw the case out entirely his

attorney cite the First Amendment and

argue since he served as president

Trump's speech is political speech

that's the most protected type of speech

under the Constitution one of Trump's

codefendant attorneys with

this we've got the freedom to associate

the freedom to petition the government

the freedom to speak so all of this

conduct that's part of this indictment

is really covered by the First Amendment

and if you think about it it makes sense

that a judge should be the one that

protects that right because you

shouldn't have to go in front of a jury

to protect your constitutional rights

senior correspondent Jonathan Siri is

outside the courthouse

Jonathan good morning Harris in addition

to that first amendment issue regarding

former president Trump that attorney we

just saw representing uh one of the code

defendants also took issue with the

wording of the indictment take a

listen when you look at the indictment

you see a lot of language that says fake

electors things like that um duly

elected um fraudulent and those are

legal conclusions and so we're trying to

have those dismissed saying that the

state can't just put those legal

conclusions in there that's something

that a jury has to

decide this is the first Hearing in the

Georgia Trump case since March 15 when

special prosecutor Nathan Wade resigned

from the case as a condition for

district attorney Fon Willis to continue

Prosecuting it he was more involved I

think with Witnesses and and negotiating

plea agreements very important work but

it's not the kind of stuff that we would

see in the courtroom in oral arguments

day in and day out so I don't anticipate

uh you know anything really changing in

terms of how the the district attorney

presents their case in the

courtroom yeah and several uh defense

attorneys have said that the judge's

ruling earlier this month didn't go far

enough by giving fonny Willis that

option to remain on the case and so the

defense is expected to appeal that

judge's order Harris all right Jonathan

thank you very much Andrew kski is here

former Federal prosecutor and US

military veteran great to see you today

all right so we're back in court on this

one what do you think about Trump and

the codefendants argument about the most

protected type of speech political

speech well today is all about the First

Amendment and these are things that I

argue all the time in court when the uh

the argument of the prosecution is all

based on what Donald Trump said you we

have to look at what the First Amendment

really protects and it protects

everything uh that is short of it being

criminal speech and so that includes

wrong speech it includes uh outrageous

speech it includes ridiculous speech so

when Donald Trump is engaged back uh a

few years ago in his uh discussions

about the election and the outcome of

that election the prosecution has to do

more than just prove that he was wrong

in his statements that speech has to

actually attenuate to criminal conduct

and that criminal conduct can't just be

circular speech in its right it's like

if you rob a bank the direction to

somebody to Rob rob a bank that could be

criminal but simply saying I would like

$100,000 isn't Criminal speech even if

you say it in an aggressive or a

directed tone and then you put that into

a political bubble and that's even more

protected because people who are engaged

in that political speech are allowed to

say things that really do uh butt up

against The Fringe that seems basic is

that do seem basic yeah I mean how so

how long do you think it'll take to make

that basic argument well the the

argument's already going on in court

right now and the judge is actually in a

tough position because when the judge

rules on that in the course of a

criminal trial is not uh very clear

there's kind of can you look at it just

based on the indictment alone and the

judge make a ruling or does the judge

have to actually have facts come in

during the course of the trial and then

make that ruling as the facts develop

and so that's kind of the tough place I

think right now we're in a premature

place to see the judge come back with a

particularly uh dramatic ruling for

Donald Trump and he has ruled against

some of the codefendants on a similar

Motion in the past interesting you know

he has to be one of the most recorded

people right now on the planet in terms

of his speech Donald Trump whenever he

speaks so I can't imagine that they need

very many facts brought into the case on

whether or not he he actually engages in

political speech well I I see that point

the the point being though that the I

mean I'm not trying to argue his case

I'm just stating the facts AB absolutely

I mean we know what he said and I think

it's very clear what he said the

question is does that actually violate

the law that that was the argument this

morning as to whether the judge can

reach that determination at this point I

mean Donald Trump has repeatedly said

that this is protected speech and

there's very strong Arguments for that

but we have to turn back to how the

criminal code actually applies to the

judge looking at that and this may not

be the point that that happens second

we're being doubled up on here this not

a trial I think you can handle it Mr s

down um and it is I'm just going to be

on one specific point Not Duplicate the

argument made before um I I believe

defendant Trump fundamentally

misunderstands the role of an overt act

in a conspiracy case as we've discussed

many times previously this is a RICO

conspiracy case and so we heard Mr sow

discuss various over acts and say well

but this is just a tweet this is just a

phone call this is just act the unspoken

underlying and incorrect premise then is

that every over act must be a crime as

we've discussed a number of times and as

the state has set forth extensively and

multiple briefs that's not true uh the

purpose of an overact is to show the the

conspir is an operation it is not a

separate crime it doesn't have to

satisfy the elements it doesn't have to

be pled with that level of detail as

your honor acknowledged in order I think

that's all of two weeks old um and so to

say we can't mention this particular act

or this particular conduct because it's

not a crime or it's protected by the

First Amendment the answer that is

actually so what because it could be

first it could be legal conduct it could

be first amendment protected conduct

that also shows there's a conspiracy in

operation and that's as long as it

serves that purpose it's fine and so

overt acts should not be examined by a

standard that has no application to them

they are not separate freestanding

offenses um and there is federal case

law that and if maybe we can cite it to

it said an overt act can involve First

Amendment activity its purpose is not to

be something that is separately charged

here separately subject to a separate

sentence its purpose is to show that

there is a conspiracy and it's an

operation um Georgia requires Georg Rico

one overact by any one defendant so of

course the r would stand if anything any

of the 161 overt acts uh alleged

constituted an overt act it would only

take one it doesn't take any by Mr Trump

um but the point is we have an abundance

of them by Mr Trump and for purposes of

the RICO statute and the manner in which

it functions it doesn't matter whether

that's First Amendment conduct or not I

mean we've my colleague has fully

explained why much of this conduct is

not shielded under any circumstance by

the First Amendment and I don't mean to

contradict that in any respect but it's

important not to lose sight of the

function the

overact plays the role it plays in a

conspiracy case here because it is not

the role being suggested by defendant

Trump last Quick One on this fonny

Willis they they can appeal what what do

you think happens with that well there's

uh the appell court I think is going to

defer ultimately to what the trial judge

said but the trial judge in this case

when you look at the ruling that he

reached he is very critical of the law

uh kind of confused as to what the

precedent is he says that effectively in

his motion uh in his ruling and he also

says that he isn't particularly

confident in his ruling or at least

words to essentially communicate that so

I think the appell at court is going to

see that language and really step in to

make sure that they are either uh

supporting the ruling that he made or uh

draw some sort of Line in the Sand as to

where the law perhaps needs to be

clarified so we're uh at least a couple

of months away from hearing a decision

from the appell court on that they have

45 days to actually reach their