Fani willis is not disqualified from prosecuting donald trump and his codefendants. But the judge, he didnt just issue a ruling judge mcafee issued an ultimatum either. She goes or nathan wade goes nathan wade went. And if youd thought robert hurs one line throwing some shade at President Biden was savage while judge mcafee is order hardly had any sunlight when it came to willis and wade, although there were moments that he recognized that the burden had not been met to show that they in fact, had a Conflict Of Interests that made a fair trial impossible. Theres one particular quote, georgia law does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices. In repeatedly all the scrutiny of fani willis and nathan wade and their relationship who live where when who paid for what how an all it went down. It all threatens to overshadow throat knee of what this case is actually about. Let me remind you for a second. Weve already been through the hearing and trial about the personal now, how about what is alleged in the indictment the alleged efforts by the then president of the United States and his codefendants to overturn the 2020 election of one President Joe Biden you think im on trial . These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020. Im not on trial no matter how hard you try to put me on trial. Well, Finding Willis says shes not on trial, by the way. She was not on trial criminally, but it didnt seem like she was non trial during those hearings. But she is prosecuting now in this trial. So why is that distinction so important . Well, look, the court of Public Opinion is weighing her relationship with nathan way and theyre also wang this decision by the judge and now theyre wearing her credibility in this extremely consequential case. Thats the court of Public Opinion. Meanwhile, a jury in the court of law will weigh the charges against donald trump and 14 codefendants, four of them, by the way way of the original 18, theyve already pleaded guilty. Now the charges they include filing false documents, violation of the georgia rico act conspiracy, and influencing witnesses. So the question tonight, of course, is which case well weigh heavier in those scales of justice because if lady justice is blind, well, she certainly heard a whole lot. Did she not . I wanted to talk for now to tiffany, right . Im so glad that you are here because in this ruling today, judge scott mcafee called fani willis testimony. At one point, dramatic, and of course, unprofessional and i say the words, of course only because im recalling what he said, not attributing that to truth, but when you saw all of this play out, tiffany i dont know about you, but my chats were going off watching the trial, watching the testimony, remembering all that was going on. How did you see this judges approach to evaluating this . I thought his comment about her performance during the hearing vein unprofessional. Its interesting in one sense. I cant say i disagreed with that. Watching it in isolation, it may come across that way. But i think we should apply the same standards, two similar conduct we have seen other people when faced with charges that they think are unfair and they think its warranted to defend themselves. They come in and they do so stridently so the question for me is, why are we applying a different standard . Are looking at her with a different lens and i think part of it is shes a black woman who walked into court and said, im not bowing my head. Im going to look at you and your eye. You called for me. Im here and i want to address what you are saying about me and i think its ridiculous. I think some of it may appear unprofessional, but some of it was warranted because at the core, the legal claim there, mr. Trump was making was ridiculous and this was really an attack on her character in some sense, theres the two lenses. One can look at it on the one hand, theres the lens of someone being attacked in the way she was. The other, of course, being that they were trying to file a motion to get the result they wanted, then theres the third aspect of it, right . The idea that youre talking about the death by 1,000 cuts for credibility. But it strikes me as particularly interesting that her statements on the stand became a kind of inkblot tests, right . You would hear someone describe how she reacted and the way in which some called it combative and a pejorative sense, other called a combative. And they were praising that very notion. When you look at the audience of people, she is an elected official. Shes not unknown that people are Fulton County does that impact it for you at all . The judge pointed this out in his opinion today that the voters will have some say about it later this year. And i think thats absolutely correct for me what this speaks to is going to what you said about how this really isnt inkblot test, right . Who you are determines how you saw this, right. And i did see people who saw it when ways that this is an unprofessional woman, how dare she speak this way . And then for me though, as a black woman having been called unprofessional or being combative when im just being assertive and defending myself thats what i saw in it. And so i want to separate the bad choices and i think we all can agree that there was some bad choices here as a lawyer, you should not engage in sexual relationships with people who are connected in your cases in any way . So she has to take the macapa on that. In the other sense, she was hard before a court forced to answer questions about her personal relationships when the core of the legal claim was really always ridiculous. She did not have a financial or pecuniary interest in the outcome of this or in the way it was handled. And thats what mr. Trump would have had to prove in order to win his legal claim and all of the other parts of it was a little bit at the utricle, was interesting as well, is as somebody who is an elected official you know, as youre talking about the different standards and the different double standards at seven instances. What would be expected of how she was supposed to respond versus how she did. I kept saying during the actual trial, had can you imagine . Jack smith some taking the stand and added to answer questions about his sexual life, his personal life, his romantic relationship. Might say, well, youre not doing it because maybe he was not engaged in any of those things, laura and therefore, thats why its shot in her own foot. But the attack specifically against Finding Willis and the georgia case feels very personal in a different way. Do you think so absolutely. I cannot imagine jack smith, even if he had engaged in this conduct even if he had been accused of something that was inappropriate to be put on a stand, an ax questions about his personal entanglements and relationships down to the detail, how much money did you exchange when when the focus of the legal claim was did you have a financial stake in the outcome or the conduct of this legal proceeding . And the answer to that was always know, nobody believes theyre fani willis brought this case because of a financial interest in it. Nobody believes that shes conducting it in a way to make money off of it. And so if there is no basis to the legal claim i cant imagine a judge allowing that spectacle to have proceeded in the way that it did against ms willis. The judge did not buy that discussion that she suddenly was trying to maintain or sustain relationship because she wanted to benefit from it and click including the pace at which she started to have the trial to avoid severing, separating the different different defendants will which are prolonged. Everything really quick. I want you to answer because youve been a law clerk for the Supreme Court, Justice Sonia sotomayor we know Supreme Court justices are known for the dictum, the things they are supposed to address, and then the rest theyre actually wanting to address. There was some dictum here in the sense that he got went beyond just the ruling in this case, he could have just said, youre not disqualified. And nathan wade has to go are you have to go he went into professionalism and beyond. Was that inappropriate to you or appropriate . There was a lot of diktat here and theres always this debate about when dicta is appropriate and when its not i thought some of it. The comments about her professionalism. I thought that maybe that was fair game. I think actually calling out the election was to me seemed a bit inappropriate. This is a legal opinion. Its not a place to explicitly in both politics and this way that part. I thought when a little bit too far, but there was certainly a lot of dicta that did not have any legal weight tiffany, right . Always a pleasure to have you on. Thank you so much. In his ruling today, judge. Scott mcafee said a lot of things read through eddie called fani willis is dramatic testimony on the stand, while the war we were talking about that he used unprofessional this would they kolas to me that you lied on monday and yet here we still are. Thats one of your lives. Youve been intrusive into peoples personal lives. Youre confused. Im not on trial no matter how hard you try to put me on trial. No, no, no, no. This isnt true, judge. And good. Luck. So what is the court of Public Opinion . Think about all of this. Well, lets ask the jurors and our virtual courtroom to weigh in on the judges ruling Finding Willis stays on the case against donald trump, but is forced to lose special prosecutor nathan wade of the scrutiny over their romantic the relationship will do our jurors agree, and they think race or gender played a role. Weve got four jurors here, Everyday Americans meeting tonight for the first time to share their opinions with each other. And of course with you. Now this is not a court of law our jurors are not rendering a verdict, but they will tell us what they think of todays ruling and give us some insight and a window into the court of Public Opinion. Im glad that youre all here today. Thank you so much. Let me begin because the judge did say to fani willis that she could stay on the case are not disqualified qualify, but it came at a cost. The removal of nathan wade by a Show Of Hands. Which of you agreed with the decision for her not to be disqualified . All of you. So lets unpack that a little bit more here as to why well, when you think about the reasoning by this judge said so they said they did not meet the bar of proving that there was going to be a prejudice against the defendants. What was the most important aspect to you evaluating a juror for youre nodding your head well, when we look at this case, whos really on trial at the end of the day and if were going to establish ethical standards, ethical standards need to be applied not only to fani, a fani willis, but to everyone that has a position of political power whether that be formal or informal. Interesting, youre nodding along. Yeah, because well want to look at it and whats been happening. It wasnt really about because it also has been there was a whats the wearing of interests, Conflict Of Interest when it was only putting her life on display. So never wants that they make the case that it was a Conflict Of Interests. And like she told him, im not on trial. They dont forget about it. And then i hear some people say, well maybe if she would had just in the beginning said, yeah, we got cool, but i hand in the cookie jar. Okay. Okay. When i left it there probably because shes a black woman that they wouldnt left it there. And because trump, in the kind of people that he associate with, they wouldnt go leave it there because they are whole idea is to try to have the case dismissed so the us think that race and her gender played a role in how people perceived her professionalism absolutely how i think even when she went to defend herself, i think they tried to paint the narrative of the angry black woman and she has a da of, i believe, the biggest county in georgia so how they painted her narrative, i think it was hard for her to give her truth under oath without it already being a shadow of her race on her. But interesting, so one of the things that the judge spoke about was that he perceived her as unprofessional on the sand when she was speaking to the attorney who is leading the disqualification, did you see her behavior, her demeanor as unprofessional or passionate . And i think it depends on whos calling unprofessional. Weve seen many cases of things that dont necessarily meet rr. And again, it just indicates that theres a changing standard. But who is the one to truly define it . And theres subjectivity there. What do you think it felt more like passion to me. It felt like frustration and that she was just trying to display how disheartened she was that this was going to be happening to her. And how much she wanted to show this is not this is not really what were supposed to be talking about. This is not the issue at hand. Yeah. There was a moment that she spoke at a Church In Georgia and there was a lot of conversations around what she said. She was talking to a congregation. They were prepared remarks. That was an issue that it seemed going to be excise, forethought lemon. Listen, let me let you all hear what she had to say and then ill ask you what you thought of that moment. Listen one white brutal in a great boom in ohio, one black man another superstar, a green flame and a great boeing lord, they dont be mad when oh, my own is first thing they say oh, she gone play the race card now. But no the race card very much played into the statements by at least one of the attorneys interpreting what she had to say about that moment. How did you perceive her statements . Theyre made before . If a trial they were public. How did you perceive that moment . One thing she would just express and how she feels and what was happening with her. I think trying to get ahead of it. Yeah. I think she was trying to get ahead of it. I think she knew that it was coming. Im the undertones were already there before this trial soon as soon as it was announced, which she was going to do the racial undertones were there the threats were there. So once this came up, i think she tried to get ahead of it because she knew what was coming and its easy for them to say, oh, shes playing the race card when theyve had colleagues that look like them and have done this for years. So they do not know her to experience. So why cant we give her the benefit of it . Doubt for sharing from her perspective, the benefit of the doubt was not part of the calculus that you heard, at least at this particular hearing. But what you did here, a lot of was about the nature of the relationship between herself and nathan wade, particularly as related to cash, the element of Cash Reimbursements going dutch, or just keeping cash on hand a lot was made at bat. I wonder how each of you saw that moment. Der ultimately, she tried to demonstrate that shes making her own case, that its not about its about the financial Conflict Of Interest, but there wasnt enough proof to demonstrate that there was a financial contract Conflict Of Interests. How do you see it . No. I like what she said. Number one, in back, people in the foul deed keep money, and your parents, when he went out with a gentleman, david, tell you keep money if something happened as you can get home on your own. And then i love how she said a man is not a plane. You know what i mean . So she was standing up for right . They for companionship and so im thinking if shes making all this money and hes making good money, why does she have to use this money . Well, i couldnt like she said, share the money let me get a Show Of Hands from each of you because part of the conversation is that the jury pool that will eventually here this case, when it gets to that point in time, will be much more interests state and distracted by what youve seen through this trial and the evidence at hand by a show of error does not go down the line. Actually, you can just say, will you as a juror in this case, be influenced by now knowing about this particular aspect of the trial, yes or no . I would not no. No. No. Thats interesting. I think many people are wondering if that would in fact be the case. The fact that shes an elected official, does that have an impact on how you view her . I think for anyone that isnt leadership, there needs to be some sort of wisdom. So are there lessons to be learned . Absolutely. But to the detriment of a career, absolutely not. And ys question for you all there were statements made about whether they were truthful on the stand or that they were not credible in some aspects before the judge. Does the does the statements made by the prosecutors in this case impact the way you would see how they present evidence in a trial . Yes or no no. No. According to the media, is today, but according to media, yes. But according to the media, you dont know because at the end of the day, when we talk about the truthfulness, is interesting when we look at all the parties that are at play. And so is there one thats better than the other . I dont think . It would be . A fair comparison because for this, it was personal to her so i dont think it would be fair to compare wish she would do to continue to do in the courtroom because this was specific to her with her personal life. This went beyond her role in the courtroom so for me, as youre four things, for me, would be a no, but i can see the Public Opinion to being a little different. I also agree its two separate cases. Yeah. And thats what im saying. Its important that we separate the two as they are distinct and have two different important roles to play thank you so much to hear your insight was really invaluable to me and i think very illuminating for so many people, especially thanks to our grand jury or a jury tonight, i called you grant because you want if youd like to be a juror on the next court of Public Opinion gain touch with us by filling out the form you can access by scanning that qr code you see on your screen or email. Laura coates, jury at cnn. Com um, that despite all of the made for tv drama, theres still a case to be tried here. And it may end up being one of the most important cases. Im all of all the criminal cases against donald trump. So what kind of repercussions will be f