BREAKING: Attorneys argue ‘appearance of conflict of interest’ between Fani Willis and Nathan Wade can disqualify them, judge could decide today

Before hearing closing arguments in the case to disqualify Willis, Judge Scott McAfee indicated that he may be able to make a decision in the case today.

"I think we’ve reached the point where I’d like to hear more of how the legal arguments apply to what has already been presented, and it may already be possible for me to make a decision without those needing to be material to that decision," McAfee said.

Attorneys pushing for the disqualification of Willis argued two concepts: the appearance of conflict and the forensic misconduct pieces of the case.

John Merchant, a defense attorney for Mike Roman, argued that just "an appearance of conflict of interest" between Willis and prosecutor Nathan Wade was "sufficient" to disqualify her from the case.

"I want to make clear to the court that – the law in Georgia suggests and is very clear that we can demonstrate an appearance of a conflict of interest and that is sufficient," Merchant said.

"The reason why the appearance of a conflict is so prescient here is because if this court allows this kind of behavior to go on and allows DAs across state by its order to engage in these kinds of activities, the entire public confidence in the system will be shot,” Merchant added. “And the integrity of the system will be undermined."

Merchant also said there was a "good chance" that if McAfee rules alongside the state, defendant Mike Roman would request a new trial on the matter.

"If this court allows this kind of behavior to go on," Merchant said of Willis, "the entire public confidence in the system will be shot and the integrity of the system will be undermined."

Steve Sadow, an attorney for Trump, spoke on Willis’ appearance at a church in Atlanta in January, in which she called into question Wade being "attacked."

Sadow said Willis could have told the members of the church that she had a romantic relationship with Wade, but she didn’t and instead "chose to deflect," choosing to "pull out the race card and the God card. That’s what she did."

Sadow also called into question her use of cash to allegedly pay back Wade for the trips they took.

Sadow said "It’s been proven, I think beyond virtually any doubt, that the relationship occurred prior to November 1 2021," he said, later adding that "we’ve got all these records showing from Mr Wade about the payment for these trips, for the cruises, for the flights, all this stuff. What’s the only way — is they sat around and met together before they testified and came up with their story — what’s the only way they can save themselves? Pay no attention to the records, pay no attention to the airlines and to the flights and vacations and cruises. I paid him back in cash. Show us your recipts? Where did you take cash out of the bank? I don’t have any," Sadow said.

Attorney for the state Adam Abbate argued that the defense attorneys have not shown how Willis and Wade’s relationship has affected the defendants’ Constitutional rights.

"There’s absolutely no evidence that the defendants in this case, their due process rights have been harmed in absolutely any way, there was zero evidence, not a single shred of evidence was produced to any of the exhibits or the witness testimony showing their constitutional rights, their due process rights, were at all affected by the relationship that began in March of 2020 with Ms Willis and Mr Wade, and because of that the motions to disqualify should be denied."

This is a breaking story, please refresh the page for updates.