Return to Transcripts main page
Inside Politics
GA Prosecutor Nathan Wade Questioned About Relationship With Willis; Now: Hearing To Consider Removing D.A. From Georgia Election Case; NY Judge Rules Trump's First Criminal Trial Will Begin March 25; Trump On Hush Money Charges: There's "Absolutely No Case Here". Aired 12-12:30p ET
Aired February 15, 2024 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[12:00:00]
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My math is not good, but I did not include anything with your mother on this.
NATHAN WADE, SPECIAL PROSECUTOR IN TRUMP'S GA ELECTION CASE: You wouldn't be able see it because it is not separated out. It just shows a charge on the account when actually it would have been something with my mother and dad.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My approach with exhibits 10 and 11. They're both certified business records from -- one from (inaudible).
WADE: 10 was taxes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I am sorry, 11. These are business records, judge they have the certifications for minimum.
WADE: All right. Defense 11 and 12 is cross.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Based on this merchants' representation that they are true and accurate as soon as certification that was provided to her. We have no question.
WADE: All right. I don't see no other objection admitted.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, the trip -- just the trip to Aruba alone, are you and D.A. Willis was $3,835.26, correct, just to Aruba.
WADE: I'm looking for the amount.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This one is 11.
WADE: Yes ma'am, $3,835.26.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And then the Royal Caribbean for just you and Ms. Willis was $1,269.70, correct?
WADE: No ma'am.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Your mother's got a different line item on here. I'm talking about the cruise, the actual cruise cabin. WADE: You need to rephrase that as in the form of a question as mentioned.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you pay Royal Caribbean for yours and Ms. Willis's cabin $1,269.70?
WADE: Where are we? Which page?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We're on the receipts -- just a few pages of receipts on exhibit number 11.
WADE: OK. Can you direct me to where you are -- within in exhibit 11?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Your seat for Royal Caribbean. So, we've got your flights on this one page. I already asked about (Inaudible). And just for the record, I blacked out their dates and months. And then Royal Caribbean may be on -- oh, it's small. It's hard to read. It's very hard to read.
So, let me just (Inaudible). Do you recall paying around $1,269.70 for Royal Caribbean cruise for you and Ms. Willis. You don't remember that?
WADE: That amount seems kind of small. I don't think so.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. So, you believe it was higher. OK. While you were in Aruba, then you bought a cruise -- a Norwegian cruise, right? And that was the New Year's Eve cruise.
WADE: While I was in Aruba, no matter.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The credit card documents that were admitted earlier. So, the purchase stay. When you were in Aruba, but you don't remember doing that in Aruba.
WADE: I didn't purchase a cruise while I was in Aruba. That may be when the cruise company decided to run the invoice, but I didn't purchase a cruise in Aruba.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Around the time you enter Aruba, you purchased a cruise for Norwegian, for you and as well as to take for New Year, correct?
WADE: Before I went to Aruba. Yes ma'am. And that was roughly $3,387. The Crystal River. I mean the -- I'm sorry, the Norwegian cruise.
WADE: So that cruise was with my sisters.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK.
WADE: And the number that you are seeing would reflect my buying dinner for my sisters and their husbands. [12:05:00]
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm just talking about the cruise. The amount that was paid for the cruise ahead of time when you booked the cruise. I'm just talking about that.
WADE: OK.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That that was a little over $3,000.
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. So, I understand you -- you're saying you paid for other things, but I'm just talking about the cruise amount. And you paid for a Jeep, and you paid for dinner while you were there in Bahamas.
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's the one that M. Willis paid for a flight for, correct?
WADE: That's one of the fights she paid for. Yes, ma'am.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Documented, paid for, non-cash. I'm talking about non track cash transaction. That's what she paid for.
WADE: You mean the one that I provided the receipt for?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
WADE: Yes, ma'am. That's that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And she booked that on her credit card and wasn't worried about. I know you said earlier that you were booking everything because she was worried about -- people knowing where she was traveling. She didn't have any fears booking that one, though. Correct?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can I object to the phrasing of that questions to speculate as to what was motivational for district attorneys. She went to ask, but that was the transaction.
WADE: Ms. Merchant, I think you can rephrase the question, but also sustain it on the current phrasing.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, she purchased that under her own name, correct. OK. Let's see. So, I know we talked a little bit about the seminar where you all met. Isn't it true that you would go to Ms. Willis's house in South Fulton County occasionally?
WADE, I've never gone to her house in South Fulton County.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You've never gone to her house?
WADE: And I've never seen her house. The first time even heard the address of that house was when one of the individuals in the election fraud case somehow doxed it and it got out. That was the first time I'd even seen that address.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But she would go to the East Point, Condo, correct.
WADE: What is east point?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: East point, Hapeville, something like that.
WADE: I've never been to East Point with Ms. Willis.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You've never gone to -- you've never gone to a condo in either the East Point or hateful area with Ms. Willis.
WADE: Right, that's different. I have gone to a condo in Hapeville.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK, so Hapeville.
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, you have gone to a condo with Ms. Willis in Hapeville?
WADE: I have.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And you spent the night there?
WADE: Never.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Never spent the night?
WADE: Never.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is that the condo that was rented by Robin Yeartie?
WADE: I believe it was.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And other members of the D.A. staff were there as well, correct, sometimes?
WADE: I've never been around other members of the D.A. staff at a condo in a bill.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There's never been any security from Ms. Willis?
WADE: Not around me.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you ever ride with Ms. Willis with her security detail to and from the house?
WADE: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You served the Ms. Willis's transition team, correct?
WADE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And you were part of all of her interviews where she interviewed and re interviewed employees? WADE: I would say probably 99 percent of them, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is it fair to say you took an active role in these interviews?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Prior to this, you'd never worked at a D.A.'s office, right?
WADE: Have I ever worked in her D.A.'s office, no ma'am.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: At the D.A.'s office, any D.A.'s office.
WADE: No ma'am.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Have you ever managed a large law firm or a large --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm going to object to the relevance of these questions.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ms. Merchant.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You served on her transition team. And so, then what we're trying to prove is that there's a personal and financial relationship and there was improper. And so, you know, whether or not he had experience to serve on his transition team, I think it's relevant.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. The other thing I'd say that we don't need the evidentiary hearing on that point.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Terrence Bradley also received a contract for Fulton County, correct?
WADE: You're asking me about Terrence?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I asked if Terrence Bradley also received a contract for Fulton County.
WADE: I believe that he did.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And you were partners with him at that time, correct?
WADE: I was.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, under what you testified to earlier, you would get a third of that contract as well, correct?
WADE: I would have.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And Chris Campbell also had a contract with Fulton County.
WADE: I believe he did.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And so, under what you've testified to you would also get a third of that, correct?
WADE: I would.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They both had contracts for what are called first appearance, which is where they would appear on behalf of the district attorney to do first appearance hearings, correct?
WADE: I believe they -- I believe they did.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. And they also had what's called a taint contract. They both entered into on January 25, 2021, correct?
[12:10:00]
WADE: Filter. Yes, ma'am.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Taint or filter?
WADE: Yes, ma'am.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And that was -- we're working at anticorruption unit?
WADE: I don't -- I don't know that it was anticorruption. I think that it was civil rights, maybe.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. And judge the D.As Fulton County comment -- I got certified now. So, we would move to admit the contracts. I've got those -- under that certificate I was planning on doing it under the open records (Ph) officer, but I believe now they've certified it. I don't have to looked at everything they certify, though.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm going to ask that the document be looked at and confirmed prior to signing.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right. Ms. Merchant, is there anything else? What are the areas we plan to cover on his direct other than these documents?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm planning on introducing all of the contracts and invoices, but I haven't had a chance to look at what Fulton County certified. So, I'm planning on introducing those and then not much.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can we do the not much -- we do that not much, and then we'll get back to the contracts.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. Yeah, definitely. OK. So, this taint tank contract and we're not admitting these right now. But if I represent to you that they say anticorruption unit. Can you tell us what attaint attorney for an anticorruption unit would do?
WADE: I didn't have a part in those contracts.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They were your partners at the time, correct?
WADE: Oh, absolutely.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. And so, you didn't have a part in those contracts but you got a third of the contract payment?
WADE: Oh, absolutely.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. So, the taint contracts that Bradley and Campbell, who are your law partners at the time had for doing taint review. You got a third of those?
WADE: Yes ma'am.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. You signed a confidentiality agreement with the D.A.s office as well, correct.
WADE: I do.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And think I'm up to judge 13. Marking that as number 13.
WADE: You have.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Showing you a copy of what I marked as number 13. If you can take a look at that and tell me if that is the confidentiality agreement that you find.
WADE: It is.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And this basically says you can't talk about anything that happens inside of the D.A.s office, right?
WADE: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It doesn't say you can't talk about it.
WADE: No, no, no. You said it basically says that I can't talk about anything that happens inside the D.A.s office. And that's not what --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you tendering this exhibit?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I am, yes. We would tender 13.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: To see the relevance -- relevance objection but otherwise.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ms. Merchant relevance of this?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Judge, it's relevant to his testimony if he signed an agreement that says he can't talk about things that happened in the district attorney's office. I think that's relevant to this. I also think that he -- because it's motivation in his testimony, I mean, whether or not he's going to testify to something.
(CROSSTALK) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's also been certified. I mean it's part of the record as from what Fulton County gave us.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sure, but. He hasn't said that that's preventing him from testifying in any way today.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can ask him about that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Wade's this confidential agreement affecting your testimony today?
WADE: No, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. All right. The contract stretch, and the invoices that I wanted to admit, I wanted to admit all of his invoices and contracts with Fulton County. I have them certify, I guess I have them certified through Fulton County. So, I wasn't sure if I need to do that. I just wanted to know if the state had an objection to those before.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't think they've had a chance to look at them. So is that that's the sole remaining exhibit and line of questioning here.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
WADE: And in terms of the follow up questions, would it just be for him to say what's reflected in these documents themselves?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If they have an objection to the certificates that Fulton County has given? I would admit them through him because he could recognize them. But assuming they're admitted, would there actually be anything substantive. He would add the documents themselves.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. So, suddenly that qualification, do you have any other questions for this witness?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: May I.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sure.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you. Is it possible actually we take a quick break.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're getting there.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you discuss your relationship with Ms. Willis in social settings?
WADE: Help me understand your question.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you discuss your relationship with Ms. Willis in social settings?
WADE: No, I heard the question. I just need to understand what you're asking me. Like what relationship -- when?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Your personal relationship with Ms. Willis (Inaudible) qualified, I'm sorry. Did you discuss your personal relationship, your private personal romantic relationship with Ms. Willis in social settings?
WADE: No, ma'am.
[12:15:00]
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You've never discussed it in social settings.
WADE: No, ma'am.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you ever discuss it in front of Robin Yeartie in a non-social setting?
WADE: No, ma'am. Ms. Willis is a very -- as we're private people not -- our relationship wasn't a secret. It was just private. So not at all. I wouldn't have discussed my relationship with Ms. Yeartie or anyone else publicly.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. I actually did have some questions just about the invoices is -- we want to just --
WADE: Using the documents that you're referring.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah, they are. It's all of his invoices. I mean --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I mean what kind of questions with these B's other than the invoices say what they say?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Just yes, that they say what they say? Just talk about it, that's fine. Yeah. Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right. At this point, we'll take a break. I'll ask the parties to take a look at what did -- as you mark that as a defense exhibit.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I have his contracts in his invoices that I'm about to mark. So, before he leaves me, I just want to make sure that the state doesn't have any objection.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So those are marked as--
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There are about the marks--
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is sort of 14?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: 14, 15, 17 and 18.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, so 14 through 18. So that's state -- take a look at those.
MATTINGLY: We'll take a look at this and see if I can match them up with certified documents.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, and then we'll address whether they are tendered for the record when we come back. And from there, then we would turn it over to the remainder of defense counsel, and then the state for any examination as well. So, to that end, let's take 45 minutes. We'll be back at one o'clock. Mr. Wade, you're still under oath. And I'd asked you not to speak with any other witnesses about your testimony -- about your testimony that's already occurred.
WADE: Yes, sir
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right. We'll be in recess.
JIM ACOSTA, CNN HOST, INSIDE POLITICS: All right. Welcome to Inside Politics. I'm Jim Acosta in for Dana Bash. You've been watching a live hearing in Fulton County, Georgia. As witnesses testify about an alleged improper relationship between the district attorney and the lead prosecutor and Trump's election subversion case.
At stake here, whether or not the D.A. should be disqualified which could of course, derail the entire case. Meanwhile, in New York, a judge just ruled that Donald Trump's first criminal trial will start next month. CNN has full team coverage both inside and outside the courtrooms. Kaitlan Collins is covering the hush money case in New York Laura Coates is at the Fani Willis hearing in Atlanta.
Let me start with you, Laura. Take it away. What did you make of what we saw throughout this morning? Perry Mason, this was not but it could be very important to this case.
LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Perry Mason, this was not, but you know what this was extraordinary. We've been listening for now better part of a few hours, testimony about whether Fani Willis and her team could be disqualified from actually being a part of this case. It's a huge case. A huge Rico case. At one point more than a dozen different codefendants, including a former president United States.
We heard testimony today from a former law partner and a former fraternity weather and counsel for Mr. Nathan Wade. In his divorce proceedings, he was very contrarian. He did not want to testify. He was there under subpoena, made very clear did not want to be there had an issue of an attorney client privilege. And that was the crux of the issue whether we could talk about anything.
You had a testimony from Miss Yeartie, who was somebody -- who was a former employee of the D.A.'s office. And a former friend of Fani Willis. They tried to discredit her by talking about her having an axe to grind. But she spoke about when she said she had personal knowledge that Fani Willis and Nathan Wade were romantically involved. And here's what she had to say about what she personally observed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you observe them do things that are common among people having a romantic relationship?
ROBIN BRYANT YEARTIE, FORMER FRIEND OF FENI WILLIS, FORMER DA'S OFFICE EMPLOYE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Such as can you give us an example?
YEARTIE: Hugging, kissing, his affection.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All before November 1 of 2021, correct?
YEARTIE: Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now this is so important right now. And I want to bring in at Collins with me right now. Zack, let's reorient for a second where we are and why we're here. It's not to watch a Bravo housewives' episode or about salacious details about a romance. It's because there are allegations that Fani Willis has financially benefited from her relationship with Nathan Wade, at the expense of this case seeking to disqualify her.
And so, we're hearing testimony today from these parties about whether and when it started, they say it started after he was already special counsel, right. But his testimony today was about whether it began before which is very bad in terms of credibility.
[12:20:00]
ZACHARY COHEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY & JUSTICE REPORTER: That's right. And Nathan Wade did not get put in a corner where he contradicted himself, right. During testimony the lawyers tried to ask him about, you know, what missy already (Ph) said about the fact that -- the date that she said that he was hired and started his relationship with Fani Willis that that predated what he put it in a sworn affidavit.
And he never admitted to that contradiction, but it did -- you know, it was an important data point because it does raise the question, why was Nathan Wade hired? When did that relationship start? And did Fani Willis benefited financially from their relationship? And that is the threshold, right?
That is Fani Willis gets disqualified. That's the threshold the defense attorneys have to make. They're not quite there yet. But they have raised questions about the credibility of both Fani Willis and the prosecutor. And remember to, we still have the prospect of Fani Willis having to testify in this hearing. And, you know, it seems like defense attorneys are making inroads towards that.
COATES: I mean, they went through painstakingly all the different trips. I mean, first of all, the amount of time that they had had to go on trips. I mean, this is an eighteen codefendant Rico case. Talking about Aruba and Miami and Napa and Tennessee, just to name a few -- cruises and beyond. There's a lot at stake there. But there was this moment that made me raise my eyebrows. And that was about his statement that he made an affidavit about whether he'd had any sort of extramarital behavior. Listen to what he says when he talks about -- well actually in 2015, my marriage had been irretrievably broken. Therefore, everything after that was not actually technically a lie. Listen?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WADE: My marriage was irretrievably broken in 2015, ma'am, by agreement. My wife and I agree that once she had the affair in 2015, that we'd get a divorce. We didn't get a divorce immediately because my children were still in school, and I refuse to allow them to grow up without their father at the time. So, we waited.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, this is important because he has affidavits where he changed his answer after the filing to try to disqualify them to file by Fani Willis. This suggests before that he said he had not been involved with anyone. After he had and now it's about this answer about the irretrievably broken marriage.
COHEN: Semantics seemed to be at play here for sure.
COATES: Copies uncoupling, if you will.
COHEN: It really does. Can you go back to that question of credibility, right? That is at the center of this hearing and what Nathan Wade's testimony so far has proven us. It does poke holes in the benefit of the doubt, prosecutors in this case should have coming into this hearing.
The fact that Nathan Wade was not only forced to testify because the defense brought a witness that, you know, open that door, but that he's had to testify for over two hours now. And he's going to be back after lunch and can have to face questions from every defense attorney that's joined this motion. And you know, again, Fani Willis, the risk of her having to get on that stand has increased for sure to testify.
COATES: Jim, I can't help, but wonder. Can you imagine if right now, we were watching Jack Smith go through his either extramarital or romantic relationships? Can you imagine the impact on their credibility for a jury or for the case at large?
ACOSTA: Right. Or even the prospect that Jack Smith could be removed from the case because of something like this. I mean, as we were talking about here, Fani Willis goes away. What happens to this case down in Fulton County? I mean, that's the big question hanging over all of this. Laura and Zack, thank you very much.
The other big news as I mentioned, a judge in New York has said March 25 as the start date for Donald Trump's first criminal trial. This is for his alleged scheme to cover up hush money payments to two women. Kaitlan Collins, team Trump is not happy about this trial day. We heard that play out earlier this morning. KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Yeah. But they now seem resigned to the fact, Jim, that that is going to be the trial date. And the judge here offered no wiggle room on their pushed back to March 25 being the trial date for what is happening here in Manhattan. And it was just within moments that they were inside the courtroom behind me where that judge summarily dismissed their efforts to try to get this case thrown out and instead scheduled that court date.
And very quickly, they moved on to the nitty gritty of this, which was the talk about the jury negotiations and what questions potential jurors are going to be asked. And so, they seem very resigned to the fact that yes, this first criminal trial that has ever happened of a former president is now set to go forward on March 25.
Kara Scannell was inside that courtroom as all of this was underway, and she joins me now outside the courthouse here. And Kara, obviously, looking at this and these moments that what was happening inside the room. The one thing that stood out to me is obviously Trump's entire tactic has been to delay, delay, delay. This judge seemed to be having none of that.
KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. I mean, within 10 minutes of this hearing, beginning the judge said the trial -- this case is going to trial on March 25. Trump's lawyer was protesting. The judge continually shut him down saying, you're not giving me any new arguments than the ones that you have given me over the past year.
[12:25:00]
So, he made it very clear that unless he heard something new and something convincing, he wasn't going to move this trial. But he said that he did talk to Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the elections version case in D.C. They had conversations with her last week, you know, talked about the struggle of juggling all of these different cases.
But he said, you know, even -- when Trump's attorney Todd Blanche was raising the classified documents case that is tentatively set to go to trial in May. This Judge Juan Manuel Merchan shut that down, saying it's not a firm date. There is no firm date. This is the firm date. So, he made it very clear that they were going to trial today.
And you know, Trump's lawyer pushing again -- saying that this was unconstitutional. That it's not fair. That it's election interference. The line Trump really likes to use to say to have the Trump a former president -- who's running for president to have to be sitting in this courtroom for maybe as long as six weeks during the primary season.
So, he was pushing that line, you know, 42 primaries. The judge again saying he said, you knew all of this at the time. And he said to the Trump's attorney, that -- you know, even though he's representing him in numerous cases, he said, you did that at your own peril. And that we heard from the prosecutors, and they were asked, what do they think about moving the trial date. And one of the prosecutors put it pretty succinctly. He said that Trump uses a pendency of each proceeding to evade accountability in another proceeding. So, calling out that this is a delay tactic. And the judge, though very swiftly knock that down. And they moved on to some of the more nitty gritty details of how the trial will proceed.
COLLINS: And the judge predicted this could take about six weeks. I mean, Trump himself chose to be -- I should note in this courtroom today, not in the one in Georgia, where Laura and Zack were just now. What was the former president doing in the courtroom?
SCANNELL: So, it was interesting. Throughout them, he came in, he walked down the center aisle, it's got, you know, rows on both sides. And he -- as he did during the arraignment here, his eyes darted row to row to kind of see who was in the room. And then he sat down at the table. He was listening pretty attentively to the lawyers making their arguments. He was leaning back in his chair for a lot of it with his head pointed in the direction of the attorneys.
You know, what was interesting is at the end, once they had gone through a lot of the details. And the judge had said, is there anything else from any other side? I saw his lawyer look toward Trump, who nodded at him. And then as attorney again brought up saying, he thought it was so outrageous how this was election interference. So, repeating the line that Trump has used inside and outside the courtroom.
COLLINS: And very clearly those lawyers often performing, not just for the judge, but for an audience of one their client here at Kara. OK, we'll check back in with you. And Jim, obviously, what is so notable about this is just looking at the bigger picture here. You know, the client -- what we heard Trump said going into this courtroom and coming out multiple times.
And I just want to correct that because earlier we were going into the Nathan Wade testimony understandably. But Trump was claiming that this was the Biden justice department that's carrying out this. It is not -- it is the Manhattan district attorney. These are state charges that he is facing something that has been under investigation for quite some time, Jim.
ACOSTA: Right. This is part of his larger conspiracy theory that somehow all of these cases and prosecutors and judges are out to get them all at the same time. All right, Kaitlan Collins, thank you very much. And of course, we've got a lot to talk about with our panel. We do have a panel to discuss all this with. Stay with us. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
