ing housing costs to fighting climate change. shake up the senate - with democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message. there is a lot of information out there. hamas is a terrorist group oppressing the palestinian people. hamas refused a continued ceasefire, a continued pause in fighting and more aid from israelis in exchange for just freeing more hostages. instead, hamas resumed attacks. not to protect the palestinian people or obtain peace, only to destroy israel. we must stand against hamas and stand with palestinians and israelis for basic human rights.

she brought charges against trump and 18 others in georgia. now fani willis has some serious questions of her own to answer. tonight on "laura coates live." the election subversion case against trump in georgia is a sprawling one. it involves more than a dozen co-defendants, some of trump's closest allies and sweeping racketeering charges otherwise known as rico. you've all heard people talk about it. now a new let's call it a wrinkle for a second could make this case a whole lot messier. it relates to fulton county district attorney fani willis, the special prosecutor, nathan wade, she brought in and whether there's some big conflict of interest that would affect the underlying charges. wade's estranged wife is alleging willis had an affair with her husband and she says

she's got receipts to back it up. now there are new records released in the divorce proceedings, including copies of credit card statements that show wade purchased airline tickets for himself and for willis, the destinations, miami in october 2022 and san francisco in april 2023. all of this has blown up after mike roman, one of the defendants in that georgia case, moved to now disqualify fani willis over the alleged relationship. roman claims it began before willis hired wade in november 2021 to manage the case. he didn't provide any proof, mind you, and to be clear, there's still a lot we need to learn. for her part, willis says nothing to see here. in a court filing yesterday she accused wade's weave of conspiring with "interested parties in the criminal election interference case to use the civil discovery process

to annoy, embarrass, and oppress her." willis has been openly defending wade and her other appointed counselors even though she hasn't directly addressed the allegations. >> all three of these special counselors are superstars, but i'm just asking god is it that some will never see a black man as qualified no matter his achievements? what more can one achieve? the other two have never been judges, but no one questions their credentials. >> well, tonight all this is even getting even more complex, if you can believe it. the fulton county commissioner now launching an investigation into allegations that willis misused county funds and took gifts or other personal benefits from wade. there are potentially huge implications here. will willis or wade lose their jobs? who would replace them if that were the case and is the case

itself in jeopardy? frankly, what does this mean for trump and the other co- defendants? it may not take too long for us to learn the answers because the judge overseeing this important georgia case has now set a february 15th hearing to consider whether willis and wade should be disqualified. i want to dig right into this because this is such an important, important conversation with former trump attorney tim protori, traveling compliance attorney seth barron's white and tia mitchell, washington correspondent for the atlanta journal constitution. just going through what i've described, messy, reads a bit like a housewives episodes of some kind and yet all of it's going on is deeply interesting for so many reasons because it could actually mean this very important trial in georgia will be viewed through a lens that they don't intend it to be. let me begin with you here, tim, on this issue because look, we don't yet know what

her response is to the allegations. she has not directly addressed them, but when you hear this at first blush, what do you think of? is this really tied to the facts of the case or really about a soap opera? >> it doesn't really have any bearing on the specific allegations in the case and they haven't really tied it to impropriety in bringing the indictment. so i think whenever you bring a prosecutorial misconduct motion and i've done this before, you ask for dismissal, disqualification and i see disqualification being a very strong argument in this case, dismissal not so much because ultimately this misconduct, if proven, which it sounds like it's going to be conceded in some ways -- >> maybe. we don't know that. >> -- it is something that ends up putting their personal interests tied to the case.

so therefore, judges do frequently disqualify. i've had that myself in previous cases. so they would be out. the fulton county district attorney's office would be out because she's the head of that office and another office would come, in possibly the attorney general or another county, which could take a very different view of the case. >> let me ask you. if it's not implicating the underlying facts of the case, is it that the optics don't look good and therefore, a jury pool might raise an eyebrow? because you have to wonder if these allegations don't actually go to the heart of the matter and we aren't really clear entirely how they do, although the disqualification request suggests that judgment is impaired here in some respects. what is the issue? >> well, the issue at hand is whether this co-defendant in the rico case can use the dirty laundry from this incredibly messy and high level divorce to soil the rico case in a way for him to tell the court that this is such an infected, corrupt process that they should be

thrown out and his case should be thrown out and everything should be turned upside down. while i absolutely agree that in the court of public opinion this is really a hot mess and i don't even know what she was thinking, her brief on this issue is due february 2nd. so we have to wait a little bit in terms of reserving that judgment hearing on february 15th , but regardless of what happens in the court of public opinion, i really think in a court of law it's going to be very difficult for this co- defendant to say that this messy laundry in a divorce case is something that can disqualify these folks or certainly to have this case dismissed in the rico action. >> you're with the atlantic journal constitution. how is this playing out locally? maybe it looks some way, but is it perceived the same way locally? >> well, i think people are still processing. i had a friend today call me and say break it down. why does this even matter? why is fani willis' personal

life having any type of reflection on this rico case. i think regular folks, some of it might depend on your personal leanings. if you aren't already a fan of the rico case, you aren't already a fan of the district attorney, then for you this is proof of politicization of the issue. this is proof maybe she isn't as sharp or as prepared and maybe this is all about personal vendetta, but if you are inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt, if you do think trump should be held accountable, maybe you're looking at it like why does again something that's personal, something that's messy in her personal life, why does it have any bearing on this case? so quite frankly, what's playing out kind of nationally is what's also playing out locally and again, fani willis has not directly answered the core question as to whether she does have an intimate personal

relationship with her special prosecutor. so in the absence of kind of where that actually stands, a lot of this is just rumor and innuendo now. >> you're saying there's an irony i can't get out of my head, the idea of so many people have been angered about a lack of due process when it relates to donald trump or any of the co-defendants, the assumption that some political witch hunt that's underlying all of it and you have to give him due process and benefit of the doubt and there's an eagerness in our society to get the answers immediately and we try to bypass that at times because we want the answers now and she has said, "let me filing speak for it," but there is something about the jury pool. i always go there as a trial attorney and think to myself what message do i want to send? how do i want their minds to be focused? you have to wonder how this will play for a jury to look and see is this person here fairly? are they qualified or something else?

does it cast some doubt on it? is that worth it? >> as a prosecutor, you really want to be able to have a higher moral position and -- >> morality for lawyers, this is a new course. i don't know, but okay. >> it is one of those things where especially if you're going to bring a case of this magnitude, you have to hold the high moral ground and when you see that, assuming that these allegations are proven, i think it will significantly impact her credibility. as far as, for example, nathan wade, i mean he's kind of a different story here. i dealt with him very briefly, took me 20 seconds to realize that he was not competent to handle this case. >> why do you say that? >> just he doesn't understand basic criminal principles. >> i'm sure he would take issue with that, right? obviously you're connected as a counsel. i don't know personally his

work. >> he didn't understand the 5th amendment is something that operates for witnesses to invoke when they are accused of being a conspirator. sso simple things like that he didn't understand and that he can get a judge to simply order it. >> excuse me. go ahead. >> be careful what you wish for. i mean there have been allegations that he's a lightweight, but if you're a criminal defendant, i don't know why you'd want to disqualify him. in fairness to him, he's also been a judge. >> yeah. >> there have been elements of his resume that balance in the other direction. so reasonable people can differ, but really this has become a weapon of mass distraction for mr. trump and the co-defendants. it's also going to be an open question as to whether this will ultimately get to the jury because they will absolutely file a motion to preclude this admission to say that it is not probative. it's prejudicial.

it's very, very distracting. so it's very much an open question whether it comes in, but i think we're all in agreement this is an incredibly bad look. it raises a heightened degree of concern. >> i can't help but wonder just knowing the role that perception plays and sexism can play if it were a man who were lead d.a. having these allegations, would it be viewed differently? i don't know the answer to that. would the qualifications be treated differently based on how people think? i don't know the answer to that, but i do know as a trial prosecutor, you want the jury focused on the case, focused on these defendants and what you can prove in court and i do wonder in the same way that the defendants believe this to be a politically motivated witch hunt against them, i could easily see a jury population saying ha, pot calling the kettle black. this seems a lot like a hit job. >> yeah. i think fani willis in her speech on martin luther king

sunday raised an issue of racism and whether that's playing any role in this because there are three special prosecutors. she pointed out the one that's receiving the criticism that he's not qualified is the one who is black. of course, she also has mentioned being a woman in this role and things like that. i think again, people will agree or disagree depending on i think where they naturally already arrived at the case. but i do think fani willis has made decisions that maybe not with the case, but at the end of the day, she's still an elected official, a politician and has to deal with the realities of public perception for her own career and her own legacy and, quite frankly, her own job and i don't know if some of the decisions she's made in the last couple weeks have served her well. i get that she wants to let this play out in court. she's kind of saying i'm going to speak through the filings.

that's speaking like an attorney. that's not necessarily speaking like a politician. i think the politician in her probably should have addressed this more clearly and more head on because now we've had over two weeks of speculation. >> we've all talked about the discussion about those who are elected prosecutors and those who are not and how this can really muddy the waters for a lot of reasons, really fascinating. thank you both. double-edged sword, if she were to go, let me think the lady does protest too much. shakespeare on friday night. thank you. next, it was a case that gripped the entire nation, the murder trial of scot peterson, convicted of killing his wife and unborn child. so why is the los angeles innocence project taking a look at what happened? i'm talking two decades later. we'll explain in just a moment.

it was a notorious murder case. scot peterson was convicted and sentenced to death in 2005 for the killing of his nearly eight months pregnant wife and their newborn son. now in a shocking development the los angeles innocence project is taking up his case, looking at newly discovered evidence saying it's investigating peterson's claim of actual innocence. let me back up for a second, okay? take a minute to remember how all of this unfolded. peterson's 27-year-old wife laci disappeared christmas eve 2002. a short time later police discovered peterson was having an affair with a massage therapist named amber frye.

months later when the bodies of laci and her unborn child washed up in san francisco bay, police arrested peterson and charged him with murder. when arrested, 30 miles from the mexico border, peterson was carrying nearly $10,000 in cash, multiple cell phones. his brother's id card and he had dyed his hair. peterson pleaded not guilty and maintained his full innocence. his death penalty was overturned in 2020 and a court reaffirmed his conviction in 2021 with a life sentence and no possibility for parole, but in april 2023 his attorneys filed a petition that alleges "a claim of actual innocence that is supported by newly discovered evidence." now the innocence project is involved. the organization's mission statement says, "we work to free the innocent, prevent wrongful convictions and create fair, compassionate, and

equitable systems of justice for everyone." its director saying, "it became apparent to me that numerous items referred to throughout the police reports in mr. peterson's case were not included in the discovery provided to the defense at the time of trial. joining me now, michael be lmessieri, a juror in the trial. when people saw this headline, they had to go back 20 years and think about all that transpired in that trial. you were a juror. how were you feeling about the news there are claims by his new counsel that he could potentially be innocent? >> good morning -- i mean good evening, ms. coates. yes. i don't feel bad about anything we've done. we made a decision based on the evidence and testimony that was

available at the time. now apparently there may be some new evidence and yeah. i think that's nice that we have an organization like that group that is able to do these things. justice denied isn't justice. >> a really important point talking about the context and what was before you as we ask all of our jurors the evidence that was before them as you weigh and ponder the evidence and verdict. at the time sharon rocha said this after sentencing, "you are selfless, heartless, self- centered and a coward, but above all you are an evil murderer. not even satan will claim to have a part in your making. you, scott, have proved evil can lurk anywhere. you don't have to look evil to be evil. you chose what you thought would be the easiest way out

for you." when you look at that and hear that as obviously a heartbreaking statement by a mother who has lost her daughter and grandchild, what was it about the evidence that came in that made you believe that he, in fact, was guilty? >> well, it took a while, but the issue of determining scot peterson's guilt was several issues. it was a case in which there wasn't a lot of physical evidence, but a lot of circumstantial evidence and it was like a puzzle. you know, you had to listen and pay close attention to the testimony and so many other things in respect to the recordings and what have you to form an opinion and then sit down with the rest of the

jurors and deliberate on that to cover what makes sense, what the logic and the reasoning of whatever actions or statements or what have you were and come to a final decision and that's what we did. we worked very hard, very hard. it was stressful, but in the end i am of the firm belief that we made the right decision because we made the decision based on truth, based on fact. and there could only be one truth and fact. now when we look back at that, i think that's exactly how juries ought to proceed and it's a situation where scott is

guilty until proven innocent. now before he was innocent until proven guilty. you know, the prosecution succeeded at that. now he's guilty with me until proven innocent. not everybody feels that way. i understand and if there's new evidence and if, in fact, the new evidence proves him -- you know, he actually didn't kill his wife, well, then much bad, if you will, has occurred to scot peterson. >> i'll tell you i remember that trial lasting for 5 1/2 months and the deliberations and everyone kind of held their breath wondering what would happen in this trial. i should note for the audience, mike, they are at the innocence project requesting dna testing from duct tape found on laci peterson's pants, rope tied around the neck of her son, connor peterson's remains, a target bag from where laci peterson was found and duct tape from that bag, all which of i'm certain would have

played an interesting part in the trial. michael belmessieri, thank you so much for being with us here today and helping us understand better the jury process in america. thank you. coming up, cnn's representation -- or presentation, presentation of f hbo'o's "overtimime with bilill maher.r."

now let's turn it over to our friends at hbo because every friday after "realtime with bill maher" bill and his guests answer viewer questions about topics in the national conversation. so here is "overtime with bill maher." >> great to be back on cnn. happy new year! we've got with us today the guy who hosts the beat, ari melber over here and who writes the daily newsletter, andrew sullivan. ari, what do you make of the recent study that found half of inflation in the u.s. is due to

high corporate profits? they're calling this greedflation, which i think is right. what impact does that have on our economy? there was a legitimate reason why prices rose for a while, but they use that as an excuse to raise the prices. now that stuff is coming down, somehow the prices don't come down, too, because the profits are fat now. >> yeah. the price gouging is documented. they brag about it on earning calls on wall street. it's allowed. there are places that make this a lot harder. france actually has rules that make it illegal to do. at the same time they're giving themselves big raises in the boardroom. >> what do you do about it? gavin and i talked for a second about jawboning. presidents did that in the past. they literally just did it by the power of presidential coercion. they got people in the oval office and said look, you knuckleheads, you're doing something bad for the country and sometimes that worked. nixon, as i recall -- maybe i

got this wrong -- but i think he had price controls. that's something very foreign. even i barely remember that. >> they don't work in the long run. >> right. >> the best way to bring prices down is competition, right? if these companies, if there's a cartel involved in keeping prices high when they should be going down, then the cartel needs to be broken up. i haven't read the study, so i don't know. it's not like inflation hasn't been explained by a variety of factors, obviously the supply site stuff, constrained supply of goods of and then you had the big overspending of the biden stimulus. i understand why they did it and they got a good deal of growth from it. some of it came out in inflation. >> some of that was trump, too. >> yeah. >> everybody got together to spend $6 trillion to lock ourselves in our rooms. >> what's interesting now is the most resilient high prices

are food, right? >> yes. >> food corporations bragging about this? >> yeah, they are on the earnings calls because they don't think they'll really get heard that much. they're even doing it on diaper sales. it's not a cartel, but there are a lot of diaper providers. the three main companies that do it on a national basis? no, there's no competition. >> there are certain products you can't do without. i'm sure if you have someone who needs diapers either at the beginning or end of life, you definitely want -- >> sure. >> i always hear people complain about plumbers. they charge you an arm and a leg. have you ever needed a plumber? if plumbers only knew what we would pay them. >> yeah. >> when it's coming up through your bathroom -- okay. andrew, this is for you. what are your thoughts about the pope's recent declaration that sexual pleasure is a gift from god?

thanks, big man. but that pornography must be avoided? well, that's contradictory. no, i'm kidding. >> he's stating actually catholic doctrine. we're not supposed to hate our sexual pleasure. i mean this is not the case with protestants, of course, but catholics are allowed. >> right. >> when i first realized i had this between my legs, it was the best day of my entire life. i never really could understand it as a sin. masturbation and that pleasure was just something that seemed so obviously self-evidently natural and great. why would god be punishing me for it? i was very devout. i just decided well, that's obviously not true. the way i decided that the virgin mary wasn't physically ascended into heaven. there was some things you just said okay, that's not right. >> i remember when i was first masturbating and i did not know what it was. we didn't have -- and i

remember thinking is this bad for me? and it was like nah. really, it's like i didn't know really. i thought it was urine. i did it in the dark. the only thing i'd ever seen come out of there was urine and it seemed like this doesn't seem right, but -- >> the fact that you remember that moment, i remember my moment, too, just shows you how natural it is. >> and how naive we were compared to kids today because i'm sure they know everything before they're 7 years old. >> they do. there was no porn either. >> right. >> honestly, i had a scrap that i would draw the dudes i wanted to have sex with. that's all i could do, draw them, but that meant my imagination was kind of set off. when i first discovered sex, it's like oh, this is interesting. now you meet someone who is 21 and they're like well, i'd like you to be daddy with a bad report card. you need to be there with a spanker, wear this and i'm like

where did you get this from? okay. >> we're on cnn, not club random. >> i'm sorry. for panel, who do you think trump has on his short list for vp? stefanik was the one talked about now? she's the new york state, used to be a normal and then became trump crazy. okay. >> claudine gay. >> i think still haley. >> no. >> j.v. vance wrote a whole book and launched his career with trump. although there are parts of maga we discussed that might not love helper, if trump says this is it and he's very practical and she would help in the suburbs, which is his

general election vulnerability, i think there are actual numbers people around trump trying to get him to think about that. it would probably get him several points. >> i saw in the paper he is doing better and did better with college educated. i remember when he won iowa or was running in iowa in 2016 and he had that famous line, "i love the poorly educated." you can't write this. >> you said it looks like he could get reelected. he definitely could. he get 3 million fewer votes in '16. he got 7 million fewer votes in '20 and they've had bad midterms. if he's going to win, which he could, he can't run as the '20 or '16 version of him and the ticket is the largest way you say to the suburbs i'm a little different. >> the trouble with nikki is she makes dick cheney look sort

of like the dalai lama. there is not a country she wouldn't invade or bomb and trump's entire message is i'm not an neocon. >> you're giving the voters too much credit. this is not what they're thinking about. >> no. this is why i get back to the issues with trump. >> they don't care. >> one of the issues that helped him, people were sick of these wars and when they have someone that seems they're going to get into war with, they aren't going to like it. >> i don't think the voters expect the running mate to set foreign policy. >> i don't think they think of foreign policy except the one they care about now is ukraine because it's holding up immigration reform. they care about this country, what's going on in this country, just the way most people watch local news. they don't watch national news. >> that's why they don't want the wars, which nikki represents. that's their position on

foreign politics. >> the median trump owner doesn't think he'll take the cues from her on that. >> that's really the issue they're voting on. nikki haley, what is she going to do about pakistan? i just don't think this has anything to do with it. time for one more? i see they're going after alec baldwin again for the shooting. is this not the most ridiculous thing? does anyone think alec baldwin purposely shot that person? if not, what was this about? if it was an accident, it was a horrible accident. accidents happen. maybe this is some sort of man sort of thing, but certainly he didn't go give me a loaded gun. i want to shoot the cinematographer. i feel this is ridiculous. >> you want a legal view? >> yes. >> it's very overcharged and it's hard to imagine charging a normal random citizen, a nonfamous citizen twice on this theory of the case. legally the prosecutors say well, look, as an involuntary

manslaughter we don't have to prove deliberate intent. we're saying it's so reckless and a life was lost and it's tragic. it is a terrible tragedy. obviously a lot has to change on however the set was run, but i don't think based on how it looks that a citizen would be double charged like this. >> that's it. run out of time. thank you, cnn. thank you, audience. thank you, panel. we'll see you next week. good to be back. >> you can watch "realtime with bill maher on friday nights on hbo at 10:00 p.m. and then watch "overtime" right here on cnn friday nights at 11:30. up next, madonna facing a new lawsuit over starting some of her concerts more than two hours late. does the case hold water or is it a big stretch? one of the plaintiffs is my guest.

♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ get exclusive offers on select new volvo models. contact your volvo retailer to learn more.

madonna in hot water for being late to her own concerts. two fans have now filed a class action lawsuit against the material girl accusing madonna, livenation and brooklyn's barclay center of false advertising, negligent misrepresentation and unfair deceptive trade practices after she started her celebration tour concerts hours late last month, to which i ask what the friday? the lawsuit says she arrived over two hours late to three separate shows, two of which

were during the workweek. the fans say they had a hard time getting home and had to get up early the next day. we reached out to madonna, livenation and barclays for comment but have not heard back. joining me now, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, jonathan hadden with his attorney richard class. thank you both for being here. when i first saw this headline, i had to delve deeper and understand what the nature of the suit was about and the why. we'll begin with you, jonathan. according to your lawsuit, one of those concert nights madonna did not take the stage until i think it was 11 p.m. and the advertised start time was 8:30 p.m. two hours late, i get you, annoying, my goodness, but tell me why this rises to the level you think of a lawsuit. >> well, because it's consistent behavior. i attend a lot of concerts. i greatly enjoy live performance and, of course,

anyone can be excused for "unforeseen circumstances," but her delays are not related to unforeseen circumstances. she plans on going on that late. it's been every night on the tour and -- >> how do you know that? >> for one person to be slightly inconvenienced, there were 20,000 people in the audience that night alone and she's doing six concerts overall in new york. that's 120,000 people and then multiply it across all the cities. so this is a major inconvenience to a large population of people. >> i wonder first how you're aware of the lateness, but also just more specifically, since you are aware this is, as you say, consistent, then would you not be expecting it to be? how did you not know it was going to be late? >> well, here's the thing. i've been to every madonna tour since 1985. these a wonderful performer. i would encourage everyone to

go see her shows. however, it is definitely misrepresentation to say that a show is going to start at 8:00 p.m. and not take the stage until 10:30. >> i have to wonder from a perspective of many people who have gone to a concert that's advertised and all of a sudden there is an opening act you did not anticipate. you bought a ticket to see said performer and they have an opening number that goes longer than you thought or you thought there was maybe an end time or you wanted to play all of your favorite songs in pops and they decided i'm done with that. i want to play my other music. would all those things rise to the level of a lawsuit because it wasn't your preference how they conducted their own performance? >> so madonna is notorious for starting her concerts late, much later than what the ticket says. however, that's not always the case. she has started concerts on time. so it's not the case that she always starts a concert two hours or over two hours late

and it's not unreasonable, unconscionable that she does that and also a lot of fans are not aware that that's what happens with her concerts. >> i understand the inconvenience and especially if you're in a certain city or not and relying on public transportation and beyond. what is the end game? surely you could have left someone would say. you could have decided not to attend the concert or left early at a time convenient for you. would a refund be sufficient or are you asking for greater damages? >> at a minimum, you know, we're asking for a class to be served. it's a class action that's being brought and jonathan has stepped up as the class representative and we are asking for a refund, but obviously we're asking for damages. that will be determined by the judge who certifies the class, but we're asking for her to be a good -- prospectively to do

good. she still has -- her tours are still going. there's still concerts coming up. the tour is not over. so we want her to be a good performer going forward, good to her fans. >> i understand. jonathan, i want to give you the last word. i'm assuming you're not going to her concerts anymore or are you on this tour again? >> the rest of the world operates on schedules. that's the way the world operates. things start at a certain time. there's an expectation concerts will run approximately three hours, 8:00 to 11:00 the typical concert. anything that is not going to be typical should be identified as such. if you're starting at a later hour, if you're running for five hours, all those things should be noted. that's just good communication and good business practice. >> well, i suspect there are a number of reasons madonna is on

the tip of people's tongues for many decades. thank you both for stopping by. >> thank you. we'll be right back.

you know how sometimes you say something and you wonder whether people might take it the wrong way? it happened to me earlier this week. they're beating a dead horse. peta, don't kill me. it's just a turn of phrase when i say that. >> not only did peta not get

mad at me, they sent what they call animal friendly suggestions replacing some common phrases. beating a dead horse becomes fedding a fed horse. killing two birds with one stone becomes feeding two birds with one stone. bring home the bacon becomes bring home the bagels. thank you, peta. i do check my email. thank you all for watching! i'll be live on instagram in a couple minutes. tune in for a kind of after show and the news continues right here on cnn.