'EXPLOSIVE ENDING': Former DOJ official reacts to DA Fani Willis hearing wrapping up

FRIEND, LIZ MAC DONALD.

ELIZABETH: THANK YOU SO MUCH IS,

LARRY.

IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN.

LET'S GET RIGHT AT IT, BRING IN

TOM DUPREE AND FORMER DOJ

ATTORNEY HANS VON SPAKOVSKY.

GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR

JOINING US.

FIRST TO YOU, TOM, IT GOT REALLY

HEATED IN THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS

TODAY TO DISQUALIFY FULTON

COUNTY T.A. FANI WILLIS DUE TO

MISCONDUCT CHARGES.

TOM, WHERE DO YOU THINK IT

LEADS?

>> WELL, LIZ, TODAY WAS AN

EXPLOSIVE ENDING TO WHAT HAS

BEEN AN EXPLOSIVE PROCEEDING.

THE TESTIMONY THAT WE HEARD, THE

EVIDENCE THAT WE SAW WAS

STUNNING.

I THINK WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN

NEXT IS THE JUDGE SAID HE WANTS

TO TAKE EVERYTHING UNDER ADVISE

ISMENT.

THAT'S JUDGE SPEAK FOR HE WANTS

TO LOOK BACK OVER THE EVIDENCE,

THE TESTIMONY AND FIGURE OUT

WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES.

HE'S GOING TO REND OR A DECISION

IN ABOUT TWO WEEKS.

MY HUNCH IS HE WAS PROBABLY VERY

DISTURBED ABOUT A LOT OF THE

TESTIMONY HE HEARD BOTH FROM

FANI WILLIS, FROM MR. WADE AND

FROM THE OTHER WITNESSES BECAUSE

SO MUCH OF WHAT THEY SAID DURING

THAT HEARING, LIZ, OR DIDN'T

SEEM TO HOLD UP UNDER

CROSS-EXAMINATION AND WHEN THEY

WERE SHOWN THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE

INCLUDING THE PHONE RECORDS IN

THIS CASE.

ELIZABETH: YEAH.

SO WHEN THEY WERE SHOWN ACTUAL

EVIDENCE, THEY COULDN'T ANSWER

TO IT, HANS, AND INSTEAD THEY'RE

CLAIMING RACISM.

I MEAN, THE ALLEGATION IS SHE

COVERED UP AND PERJURED HERSELF,

DENYING SHE HIRED HER BOYFRIEND,

NATHAN WADE, TO WORK ON THE

CASE, THE GEORGIA 2020 CASE,

GAVE HIM A BIG SALARY.

HE THEN BOUGHT THEM LUXURY

TRIPS.

SHE SHOWED UP FOR THE CLOSING

ARGUMENTS.

DO YOU THINK SHE'S GOING TO GET

REMOVED WHO?

OH, I THINK THE JUDGE HAS NO

CHOICE IN IT.

IF HE DOESN'T, THAT WOULD, TO

ME, AMOUNT TO SWIEW ADDITIONAL

MALPRACTICE.

FOLKS NEED TO REMEMBER, YEAH, A

LOT OF FOCUS ON THE ADULTERESS

RELATIONSHIP SHE'S ADD WITH

WADE, BUT THERE'S AT LEAST HALF

A DOZEN, HALF A DOZEN ETHICAL

VIOLATIONS AND POSSIBLE

VIOLATIONS OF STATE ASK AND

FEDERAL LAW.

SEVERAL OF THEM DIDN'T ACTUALLY

GET MENTIONED IN THE HEARING.

WHY?

BECAUSE THE JUDGE SAID AHEAD OF

TIME HE HAD ENOUGH EVIDENCE ON

HOSE ALREADY.

SO I JUST DON'T THINK -- AND

PARTICULARLY, LOOK, JUDGES LOOK

AT YOUR BODY LANGUAGE WHEN YOU

ARE A WITNESS IN COURT, AND FANI

WILLIS, NATHAN WADE, THEY ALL

CAME ACROSS AS A EVASIVE, NOT

WANTING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

AND AND IF I THINK, ACTUALLY,

THEIR APPEARANCES GAVE THEM A

HUGE LOSS OF CREDIBILITY.

PLEAT BREATH YEAH.

SO WHAT HANS JUST SAID IS, TOM.

YOU KNOW, FANI WILLIS' LAWYER

DOWNPLAYING THIS AS, OR QUOTE,

CONJECTURE, SPECULATION SAYING

THERE WAS NO CONFLICT, THE

DEFENSE TEAM IS SAYING THERE WAS

HALF A DOZEN EXAMPLES THAT SHE

COULD HAVE -- HE ALSO SAID THE

LAWYER FOR FANI WILLIS

REPORTEDLY SAID SHE COULD HAVE

FINANCIALLY BENEFITED FROM

STRETCH THING OUT THIS VERY

COMPLEX IFLY COE CASE.

TAKE A LISTEN TO SOME OF THE

CLOSING ARGUMENTS.

WATCH THIS.

>> PROSECUTORS DON'T ACT LIKE

THIS.

LAWYERS DON'T ACT LIKE THIS.

THESE PEOPLE, YOUR HONOR, IS A

SYSTEM MAT IF YOU CAN MISCONDUCC

MISCONDUCT, AND THEY NEED TO GO.

>> THE RELATIONSHIP STARTED IN

2019.

THE RELATIONSHIP CONTINUED

THROUGH 2020.

THE RELATIONSHIP CONTINUED

THROUGH 2021.

LOOKING AT THE CELL PHONE

COMMUNICATIONS, JUST IN THE

FIRST11 MONTHS OF 2021 OVER

2,000 CALLS, ALMOST 9,800 TEXTS.

I DON'T EVEN THINK LOVE-STRUCK

TEENAGERS COMMUNICATE THAT MUCH.

ELIZABETH: YOU HEARD THAT, TOM.

YOUR REACTION.

WHAT MATTERS MORE, LYING UNDER

OATH OR THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST

OR?

WHAT DO YOU THINK, TOM?

[LAUGHTER]

>> THAT'S A TOSS-UP, IN MY BOOK,

LIZ.

PROSECUTORS SHOULDN'T BE WITH

COMING ANYWHERE NEAR EITHER OF

THOSE TWO THINGS.

AND, LOOK, WHAT'S GOING ON HERE,

TO MY MIND, IS VERY SIMPLE.

THE STANDARD THAT PROSECUTORS

OFTEN USE TO DESCRIBE THEIR OWN

CONDUCT, THE CONDUCT OF JUDGES

AND OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN THE

LEGAL SYSTEM IS THE APPEARANCE

OF IMPROPRIETY.

IN OTHER WORDS, YOU DON'T

ACTUALLY HAVE TO PROVE IMPROIF

PRIORITY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO

ACTUALLY PROVE A CONFLICT OF

INTEREST, YOU DON'T ACTUALLY

HAVE TO PROVE PERJURY.

IT'S A MUCH HIGHER STANDARD.

IT BASICALLY SAYS IF THERE ARE

FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT

CREATE THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROIF

PRIORITY, THAT MAKES IT LOOK

LIKE SOMETHING'S NOT ON THE UP

AND UP, YOU NEED TO STEP ASIDE

AND BRING IN A NEW TEAM, AND I

THINK THAT'S WHERE THE JUDGE MAY

GO IN THIS CASE.

ELIZABETH: YEAH.

HANS, LET'S LISTEN TO TERRANCE

BRADLEY, AN ASSOCIATE9 OF FANI

WILLIS AND NATHAN WADE, YOU'RE

GOING TO HEAR HIM MUTTER THE

WORDS OH DANG WHEN CONFRONTED

WITH HIS OWN TEXT MESSAGES

SHOWING THEIR AFFAIR STARTED IN

2021.

NOT 2022 AS THEY TESTIFIED TO.

BRADLEY HAD REPEATEDLY ALSO

DENIED ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR

RELATIONSHIP NUMEROUS TIMES.

LISTEN TO THIS.

WATCH.

>> DO YOU THINK IT STARTED

BEFORE HE HIRED HIM? -- SHE

HIRED HIM?

DO YOU SEE THAT?

>> DANG.

ELIZABETH: WHAT DO YOU SAY,

HANS?

>> LISTEN, HIS TRYING TO BACK,

BACK AWAY FROM WHAT HE SAID IN

ALL THOSE TEXTS, THAT'S CALLED T

STATEMENTS, AND THEY --

INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS, AND

THEY BRING IN THE CLASSIC ADAGE

THAT A LAWYER WILL ASK, WELL,

ARE YOU -- WERE YOU LYING THEN

ARE OR ARE YOU LYING NOW?

AND I JUST DON'T THINK THERE'S

ANY WAY THE JUDGE IS GOING

BELIEVE WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO

SAY IN THE COURTROOM NOW WHEN

YOU HAVE ALL OF THOSE TEXTS IN

WHICH HE WAS GIVING LOTS AND AND

LOTS OF DETAILS ABOUT WHAT

HAPPENED.

PLUS, LOOK, SOMETHING THAT

DIDN'T GET MENTIONED, REMEMBER,

HE WAS THE DIVORCE LAWYER FOR

NATHAN WADE.

ADULTERY IS A REASON FOR

DIVORCE, AND IT CAN AFFECT IF

THE DIVISION CAN OF MARITAL

PROPERTY.

HE WOULD BE AN INCOMPETENT

LAWYER IF HE HAD NOT GOTTEN FULL

DETAILS FROM NATHAN WADE ABOUT

HIS ADULTERESS -- ADULTEROUS

RELATIONSHIP SO HE COULD BE

PREPARED TO DEAL WITH THAT IN

THE IF --

ELIZABETH: INTERESTING.

SO THERE'S A SECOND TRUMP CASE

THAT'S HITTING THE HEADLINES,

BOTH FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP AND

SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH IN

COURT IN FLORIDA, NO RULING YET

ON WHEN IT WILL START FROM JUDGE

EILEEN CANNON, TOM.

SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH WANTS

A JULY 8TH DATE FOR THE FEDERAL

CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CASE.

THAT'S A WEEK BEFORE THE RNC

CONVENTION.

THE TRUMP TEAM ASKED FOR AUGUST

12TH.

WHAT HAPPENS?

>> MY GUESS IS SHE'S GOING TO GO

WITH THE TRUMP TEAM'S PROPOSAL,

LIZ.

I THINK AUGUST IS MORE SENSIBLE

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

AS THE JUDGE HAS NOTED, THIS IS

A CASE THAT'S GOING TO REQUIRE

THE PARTIES TO GO THROUGH

BOATLOADS OF CLASSIFIED

INFORMATION, AND THAT TAKES FAR,

FAR LONGER THAN YOU ANTICIPATE.

THAT SAID IS, LOOK, I THINK THIS

JUDGE AND ALL THE JUDGES OR WHO

ARE HANDLING THESE CASES ARE

GOING TO HAVE A REAL CHALLENGE

MANAGING ALL THESE CASES SO AS

NOT TO INTERFERE EVEN MORE THAN

THEY ALREADY ARE WITH THE

CAMPAIGN SEASON.

IT'S LYE LIKE GETTING PLANES ON

A RUNWAY.

YOU'VE GOT TO SEQUENCE AND PUT

IT IN ORDER.

ELIZABETH: YOU KNOW WHAT'S

INTERESTING TOO, HANS, THE

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S 60-DAY RULE

CAME UP.

IT'S AN UNSPOKEN RULE, A POLICY

THAT FEDERAL PROSECUTORS WILL

NOT TAKE ANY OVERT ACTION

AGAINST A CANDIDATE 60 DAYS

BEFORE AN ELECTION.

JACK SMITH'S TEAM SAID THEY

WON'T VIOLATE THAT, BUT HOW CAN

THEY SAY THAT NOW?

THERE COULD BE DELAYS BECAUSE,

YOU KNOW, CO-DEFENDANT'S

ATTORNEYS ARE TALKING SEPTEMBER

9TH AS THE ABSOLUTE EARLIEST.

THAT'S IN VIOLATION OF THE

60-DAY RULE.

>> WELL, YEAH, BUT IT'S NOT JUST

THAT, THERE'S A FEDERAL

PROSECUTOR'S HANDBOOK FOR

DEALING WITH ELECTION OFFENSES,

AND IT MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT

FEDERAL PROSECUTORS ARE NOT

SUPPOSED TO TAKE ACTIONS WHICH

INTERFERE IN ELECTIONS,

PARTICULARLY ELECTION OUTCOMES.

JACK SMITH WAITED, WHAT, TWO

YEARS, TWO YEARS TO ACTUALLY

FILE THIS, THESE INDICTMENTS,

LONG AFTER HE HAD THE EVIDENCE

NEEDED FOR THAT AND, FRANKLY,

RIGHT AS THE CAMPAIGN SEASON FOR

'24 WAS STARTING.

SO HIS DENIALS THAT HE'S NOT

TRYING TO INTERFERE WITH THE

ELECTION, I JUST THINK THEY FALL

FLAT.

ELIZABETH: YEAH.

SAME WITH, YOU KNOW, THE GEORGIA

2020 CASE.

THEY WAITED YEARS TO FILE THAT

TOO.

>> RIGHT.

ELIZABETH: LET'S GET YOUR

REACTION, TOM, TO CNN'S ELLIE

HOENIG ON THE CLASSIFIED

DOCUMENTS CASE GOING TO TRIAL IN

JULY OR AUGUST.

WATCH THIS.

>> JACK SMITH HAS NOW CONCLUDED

IT'S VERY UNLIKELY HE'S GOING TO

GET HIS JANUARY 6TH TRIAL.

WE JUST SAW THE SUPREME COURT

TAKE THAT CASE, I THINK HE'S

DONE THE MATH AND SEEN THAT'S

ESSENTIALLY A DONE DEAL IN TERMS

OF BEFORE THE ELECTION.

THIS WOULD ALLOW HIM TO AT LEAST

TRY THE MAR-A-LAGO E CASE.

AND FROM TRUMP'S TEAM

PERSPECTIVE, THEY GET THE WIN OF

MOVING THE JANUARY 6TH TRIAL

UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION.

IF YOU'RE DONALD TRUMP, YOU'RE

GOING TO HAVE -- HALF THAT

JURY'S GOING TO BE TRUMP

SUPPORTERS, TRUMP --

>> THERE'S ALSO QUESTIONS ABOUT

THE JUDGE.

>> I THINK IF YOU'RE TRUMP'S

LAWYERS, AND WE'VE HAD REPORTERS

ON THIS, YOU'RE FEELING GOOD

ABOUT YOUR CHANCES IN FLORIDA.

ELIZABETH: THE SUPREME COURT IS

TAKING UP THE PRESIDENTIAL

IMMUNITY CLAIM FOR FORMER

PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE JANUARY

6TH CASE.

WON'T THAT AFFECT THE CLASSIFIED

DOCUMENTS CASE TOO?

>> WELL, IT COULD INCORRECTLY.

I -- INDIRECTLY.

I THINK THE BIGGEST CONSEQUENCE

IS THAT IT'S GOING TO DELAY THE

JANUARY 6TH TRIAL IN WASHINGTON

BY SEVERAL MONTHS AT A MINIMUM.

THAT DOES GIVE THE FLORIDA COURT

AT LEAST THE OPPORTUNITY, TO

JUDGE CANNON IF SHE WANTS TO, TO

HOLD HER TRIAL BEFORE THE

JANUARY WITH 6TH TRIAL.

BUT, LOOK, I AGREE, I THINK

IT'S, FRANKLY, GOING TO BE VERY

DIFFICULT FOR THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT TO GET EITHER

PROSECUTION OFF THE GROUND AND

COMPLETED BEFORE THE ELECTION.

THEY STARTED THIS CASE VERY

LATE, AND THEY ARE NOW IN A

POSITION OF THEIR OWN MAKING

WHERE THEY'VE GOT TO COME PRESS

EVERYTHING INTO A MATTER OF

MONTHS BEFORE NOVEMBER.

ELIZABETH: INTERESTING, WHAT TOM

JUST SAID.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S THIS ISSUE

TOO, HANS, PEOPLE ARE TALKING

ABOUT THIS IS AN INJUSTICE, THE

CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CASE

AGAINST TRUMP.

PRESIDENT BIDEN KEPT HUNDREDS OF

PAGES OF U.S. SECRETS IN

UNSECURED BOXES, FOR EXAMPLE,

NEAR A DOG BED, IN HIS DAMAGE,

POSSIBLY DATING BACK TO THE

'70s WHEN HE WAS A SENATOR.

HE HAD NO LAW TO TAKE THEM AS

EITHER SENATOR OR VICE

PRESIDENT.

SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT HUR SAID

YOU CAN'T PUT BIND ON TRIAL

BECAUSE A JURY WOULD SEE BIDEN

AS AN ELDERLY MAN WITH COGNITIVE

ISSUES AND, QUOTE, DIMINISHED

FACULTIES.

A LOT OF PEOPLE SAYING THIS IS

UNFAIR.

>> WELL, IN FACT, I THINK

TRUMP'S LAWYERS BROUGHT THAT UP

TODAY AS SELECTIVE PROSECUTION,

AND JACK SMITH'S LAWYERS TRIED

TO SAY, WELL, IT'S NOT THE SAME

THING.

IT IS THE SAME THING.

WILLFUL RETENTION OF CLASSIFIED

DOCUMENTS, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT

TRUMP IS BEING CRIMINALLY

PROSECUTED FOR, AND THAT'S WHAT

HUR FOUND THAT THAT JOE BIDEN

DID.

ELIZABETH: YEAH.

AND, TOM DUPREE, FINAL WORD,

DIDN'T THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

ALLOW BIDEN'S OWN TEAM OF

ATTORNEYS TO SEARCH AND AND

AIDES TO SEARCH FOR THE

CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS?

>> YEAH --

>> YEAH.

>> -- THEY WERE REMARKABLY

ACCOMMODATING, IN MY JUDGMENT,

TO ALLOWING HIM TO DO THAT,

ALLOWING HIS OWN TEAM TO GO IN

AND CONDUCT THAT INITIAL SEARCH.

MY GUESS, AND IT'S A STRONG

HUNCH, IS THEY WOULD NOT HAVE

GIVEN THE SAME TREATMENT TO

FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP.

ELIZABETH: YOU GUYS ARE SO

SMART, SO TERRIFIC.

WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU HELPING

US OUT THI