Legal analyst Caroline Polisi weighed in on the coverage of the Georgia hearing on Fulton District Attorney Fani Willis’ eligibility in the election interference case against Donald Trump, saying it’s “game over.”
During an appearance on MSNBC, Co-anchor Andrea Mitchell said:
“You’re watching MSNBC’s special coverage of the trials of Donald Trump. You were just listening to a hearing in Fulton County, Georgia, to determine whether DA Fani Willis and lead prosecutor Nathan Wade should be disqualified on the stand just now, Robin Yeartie, managing public relations at the DA’s office.”
Co-anchor Jose Diaz-Balart said:
“Caroline, we have been watching this, and it is so legal-centric and so important and fascinating.”
Polis responded:
“Right. Don’t let the legalese fool you. This is epic. This is monumental.”
“If things are going in the direction we think Fani Willis lied to the court, it’s game over for her. She will be disqualified.”
“If they had a relationship prior to when they represented truth to the court, it’s a huge deal. I can’t overstate.”
On Thursday, Willis lost her composure and screamed in the courtroom in response to accusations against her.
The hearing took a contentious turn as defense attorneys highlighted a potential conflict of interest.
The controversy was regarding her undisclosed romantic relationship with a key prosecutor working on the case, Nathan Wade.
Evidently frustrated by the questions, Willis snapped when responding to the allegations.
“No, no, no, no. This is the truth, Judge. It is a lie!” she shouted.
Watch
In another tense moment, Willis vehemently objected to the defense’s tactics:
“No! No! No! Look! I object to you getting records! You’ve been intrusive into people’s personal lives. You’re confused. You think I’m on trial.”
Watch
Last month, legal unearthed personal connections between Willis and external prosecutor Nathan Wade, brought to light in a document by former Trump operative Michael Roman.
Wade faced a barrage of questions regarding his financial dealings as skepticism mounted over his claims of being reimbursed in cash by Willis for her portion of lavish vacations.
However, Willis maintained that travel expenses were equally split, claiming any financial conflict was irrelevant to their relationship with the case and her professional judgment.
