Harry enten. Thank you. Thank you. Concerned about the snowfall, the news continues, the source with kaitlan. Collins starts now safe from the source tonight, delay delay, disqualify Donald Trumps strategy is on full ill display in two different courtrooms a cliffhanger in the maralago case, and dramatic final arguments from trump and company in georgia and their effort to get the Da There Fani Willis kicked off the case. Also drastic measures being taken as President Biden says, the us military is now prepared to start dropping humanitarian aid from the air into gaza to get food, water, and medical supplies to so many who are starving. Also, as lawmakers in alabama, my home state are rushing to protect ivf couples in the middle of the process are still left shaken, bearing that their dreams are growing, their families could be shattered im kaitlan collins, and this is the source two more big steps and Donald Trumps fullcourt press to keep delaying his most Serious Chris trials until after the election. For the republican front runner even know ruling really looks like a win tonight that fact was only amplified after the Supreme Court dropped anchor this week on the federal case in dc, thats the one about his efforts to try to overturn the election in 2020 and then in overlapping hearings today judges heard arguments in two of trumps most dangerous cases, both personally but also politically. Both judges went home without a ruling. The former president sat in court near his home in florida. Is judge Aileen Cannon said that the governments proposed july schedule for the Classified Documents Trial was, quote, unrealistic at the exact same time. Is that was going on in florida, 500 miles north in the Georgia Election conspiracy case District Attorney fani willis grabbed a Front Row Seat for apparently the final day of attacks allegations and accusations she violated her public duty as a prosecutor to serve her personal interests and the personal interests of her boyfriend, over 2000 calls almost 9,800 texts yeah. I dont even think loves struck teenagers communicate that much. Prosecutors dont act like this. Lawyers dont act like this. These people, your honor, is a systematic misconduct. She was the one playing the race card in a way to try to deflect from her own conduct. It was a calculated determination by ms willis to prejudice the defendant and their counsel i should know willis has denied all of those accusations, denials that her team repeated after the Defense Attorneys went its absurd its absolutely absurd. Its ridiculous. Its absurd. And it is desperate. We have absolutely no evidence that ms willis received any financial gain or benefit the judge who is listening to both of those arguments says that his decision on whether or not he will disqualify fani willis from prosecuting this case, will come within the next two weeks. If shes removed, it would effectively end the case potentially weve a host of brilliant legal minds to sort it all out for you here with me tonight, a pair of former top federal prosecutors, elie honig and Jennifer Rodgers and elie, i mean, this is basically it is the ballgame. Weve got now two weeks to decide where do you think the judges head is at all this im gonna make a bold prediction right here on the source, okay . Its 50, 50 im sorry. But you know, i would say if i felt strongly one way or the other, this one so hard for me to peg because theres a thing we say is prosecutor sometimes which is its one thing to know something. Its another thing to be able to prove it. Now, having watched these hearings play out over the last couple of weeks, i think theyre very serious questions about when this relationship began, about whether fani willis and nathan wade well the truth or lied on the stand. Thats one of the other. Theres no gray area here about whether she has some sort of untenable financial interest. But the problem is that evidence was such a mess. It was so confusing and unclear and so muddled. And now the judge is going to have to wade through this and watching the judge today, he was begging for help. He was basically like lawyers helped me out here. What matters, what doesnt what should i be paying attention to . And i dont think either side really drove it home, so neither outcome would surprise me. Hear you kind of thought that the Defense Attorneys did a good job with their closing arguments. What stood out to you . Well, i think they did a good job at crystallizing what the issues are saying here are the issues its here where heres where we think the evidence leads you to believe that she should be disqualified. I just thought that they were very focused in their arguments. I agree with elie. The whole thing is a mess. Its also really a big deal to disqualify her. I mean, this is basically the end of the case. If he does show so i dont know, 50, 50, maybe im leaning against 51, 49, but i do think that they did a better job than williss office did at making their arguments in court today. What it all comes down to, its not about her having a relationship with this person. Its about financial misconduct thats actually its easy to forget because of everything that has said it in court. But really what it comes down to is whether there was a Conflict Of Interest or if the judge cares that there was the appearance of a Conflict Of Interest. Okay. So Conflict Of Interest gets a bad rap. It sounds bad, but usually a Conflict Of Interests. It doesnt mean the person did anything wrong. It just means theres a crossing of wires here. Ill give you an example. I was conflict good off of a case and removed from a case because one of the witnesses distantly knew something to do with my dad, had nothing to do with the charges in the case, and i didnt do anything wrong nor did the witness, but it happens something i was taken off his case. I didnt want anyway, so i was happy. But what probably to jen or somebody in our hall but it happens all the time and you do it to protect yourself. You do it to protect your office, and you do it to protect the case itself. You cant have in this case to the appearance issue, you cannot have members of the public sort of saying, well, wait a say isnt there some conflicting interests here the bar here is not really clear, and the Defense Attorneys came out trying to set a very low bar, but the judge himself, im glad you mentioned him because hes a lot of good questions say that i do think reveal some insight one of those questions was, is buying gum for your boss a personal benefit . This is what he asked the Defense Attorneys if someone buys their bosses stick of gum, is that per say, disqualify . It may not meet at materiality requirement, but its a personal benefit i mean, does this kind of Create A Slippery Slope if this is a basis for disqualification . Well, we dont know. And this is getting to one of the questions the judge is trying to figure out because the facts here are so crazy, they have amounts of money that wade paid for vacations that they both took fani willis testified that she paid him back half of that approximately lee and cash, but its all very rough. They dont have any records. So this is what the judge is trying to figure out. Where am i going to draw the line here because the law just isnt clear enough about it, and that was a fumble by the way, the answer when hes asked what she said, no, thats a tiny amount, but 9,000 or whatever is more thing about our trips its to napa trips to aruba, like its much syria, much more serious than buying a piece. And this is a perfect example of where the evidence is so muddled because it is clear that nathan wade laid out substantial amounts of money for fani willis, but nobody was ever able to identify how much. And she said, well, i repaid all of it or most of it are some of it with cash. Theres no risk seats, theres no Withdrawal Slips and so the judge has a tough one to wait. No pun intended to wade through here. Well, lan gen. Stick around because we also have someone who knows fani willis. Well, here it is also someone who knows what it means to be a District Attorney in the state of georgia. Gwen Keyes Fleming is the former District Attorney of neighboring dekalb county, and its great to have you back here are the source you what fani willis so it has done here from testifying in court to sitting there today as her attorneys were arguing from her office, were arguing on her behalf. She made her presence known at the court and was passing her attorney notes. I should note my colleague, Nick Valencia said that she was trying to light a firecracker under her attorney by sitting in that room today, i wonder what you made of how it came off so im glad you came to me because ive been sitting on the edge trying to jump in here obviously shes very interested in the outcome of this case. Theyve attacked her personally and again, at least in my view, reading and this may be where i disagree with your guests in studio. I do not believe based on the evidence that i saw that the standard in georgia has been met terms of their being evidenced uncontroverted evidence of an actual financial conflict and so again, it is a high bar there Supreme Court in georgia is very clear in that matter, and that the appearance of impropriety is insufficient so i think what you saw from the da today is her being in court and really demonstrating to all involve the citizens that elected her, her team the defense that she maintains that this is her case. Shes still involved very heavily involved in this case and shes going to see it through based on what i saw in this limited instance the defense are the ones that have the burden here, and i simply do not see where theyve met it. So you think she ultimately will be able to stay on to prosecute this case . I think theres a record. If you look squarely at the record, that is the result that i would come to. But certainly as your guests know, we never can tell what a judge is going to do so i do think by the line of his questioning, he is concerned not only about the facts in this case, but he recognizes that if he strays from the rulings of the georgia Supreme Court, hes going to have to find a new line. And so sometimes judges are reticent to do that sometimes theyre willing to do that again, as we all know, the stakes are very high here yeah, one point that her office was making today was that a lot of what has been dredged up over the last few weeks is not really relevant to the actual allegation at hand about financial misconduct that theyre just trying to embarrass her and bring turmoil into this argument. And at one point, i just want to listen to some of the language that the Defense Attorneys were using today in this courtroom, knowing of course, that cameras are also there that were carrying it live on okay. Well news this is just a snippet of what they were saying she put her boyfriend in the spot. My boyfriend boyfriend or boyfriend, they conceal it from the parties, from daddy. Daddy. Daddy was there and daddy would know what did you make of that . So, again i think that that demonstrates how far weve gotten away from the actual issues. Was there any type of financial benefit contingent either on the outcome of the case or anything else. And thats the law. And so again, all of this, and as salacious as it is or is as interesting as it may be to sum, it has nothing to do with the underlying charges and the sufficiency of the evidence of those charges. And again, remember, she already has four defendants that have pled guilty and accepted some sort of accountability in this overall scheme and shes indicated that she is ready to go forward within 30 days. Ive noticed from the judge. So i think a lot of this is an end. Defendants are able to raise whatever issues they may want to raise, but they simply have not connected the dots to demonstrate how they would be prejudiced or that there is any type of legal conflict that would justify justify her disqualification, at least one of them said that if she does stay on, that, theyll theyll ask for a new trial. Gwen Keyes Fleming. Great to have your perspective on this tonight. Thank you for that. And of course, as all eyes were glued to georgia, it was hard to ignore whats happening in florida today. The Maralago Club thats why documents case, may not have been on tv, but it was no less compelling than what was happening up north. I want to bring in former Senior Justice DepartmentNational Security official and former senior prosecutor for the Robert Mueller investigation, brighton and bad. Greg and its great to have you back as you were listening to this. And i know this is just so much for people to keep up with. Were trying to tick through each of them separately. But in florida today, what we heard from that, judge judge Aileen Cannon, who of course has so much sway over what that trial looks like. She said that she thought jack smiths proposed schedule to start in july was unrealistic. If youre jack smith, how are you taking what happened in the courtroom today well, part of it is the realization that the trial is probably not going to happen in july but you have in that case, the former president s attorneys saying, well, we could technically have a trial in august. And so i think youre still not giving up hope for the possibility of infact having a trial this summer. I think thats really the focus right now. No one has said otherwise. And you at least have the other party thats conceding the possibility that could occur. And did that make sense to you . Because what weve heard heard from all of trumps attorneys, the ones who have been on this program, theyve said theres no way this trial so complicated and dealing with Classified Information could happen before the election. But yet his attorneys are now proposing a date that is in august well before the election well it can occur quite simply. The Classified Information. In fact, that the judge has potentially it seems ruled on sort of some of the more difficult issues in terms of what Classified Information must be turned over to defense counsel. So it can happen. And in fact, if you in terms of the filings and at the hearing one of the key arguments that the two arguments that former president s, attorneys were making. One was this concern about election interference. Thats not a timing issue, thats not a preparation issue, that election interference, which we can talk about. The second was concerned about just not being able to be in court, it wasnt about how do we prepare all these filings . There are a lot of issues, but the reality is is there actually was at least tacit understanding that a summer case could happen. Its really up to the judge whether she wants to push the parties, but but its certainly within the realm of possible yeah. Well, they were complaining about trump being off the Campaign Trail in the courtroom today, even though his presence was not required. But youll one point, judge cannon was questioning prosecutors from the doj about this policy. There are no overt investigative moves 60 days before an election. And jay bratt from the team said that it doesnt apply to this because the indictments of already happened. Hes already been charged here and at that should have no effect on the timing. Is that how you see it as well thats exactly right and lets just spend a moment. So this policy, again, its not a regulation is on a statute, but its a policy for good measure. Is that the Justice Department shouldnt be taking actions, shouldnt be taking investigative actions. That good interfere with the election. But in a case where there have been charges, the allegations are out there. These remarkable inflammatory, serious allegations. They are already out there. And what the Justice Department is saying is theres no theres no interference issue. What were talking about in terms of having a trial, its not election pharynx, its providing election information. It is actually forcing the government to present the facts to a jury. It is hadnt been jury decide this issue if theres any interest in terms of the election, the interest is in fact, having these trials so that the voters have this information before they make the decision. Can i get your thoughts on one other moment where it was from reporters who were in the room said that there was a moment where jack smith sat up straight, raised his eyebrows when the judge was asking a prosecutor on his team about when they plan to reveal their witness list. Which the prosecutor said theyre not prepared to do, yet. Theres been concern over the witnesses names being out there. What did you make of that moment well, theres, you know, we dont have a trial date yet. And so to ask the question, when are you prepared to . Provide the witnesses the first question is, well, when when is there going to be a trial . And then we can work backwards on inappropriate time to provide the witness list and the core issue there was the defendants had filed a motion that disclosed potentially the names of potential witnesses and with the government was saying is at this moment, so early in the case before theres been a trial were worried about harassment. That is, those names, that information should be as close in time as possible to the trial, which is why it was sort of shifting. Its like, well, when do we get the witness list . Its like, well, lets deal with these preliminary issues, but lets pick a trial date first. And so there was sort of a