. >> i want to bring in elliot williams. i want to talk about this, as well. you and i appeared in federal court. the idea of a defendant talking a out of turn. these judges enjoy that lifetime tenure. and they will exercise the authority to tell you that is their courtroom. why do you think he was operating in that way? >> it's a political stunt for the former president. i've been in federal courts a long time over the course of my career. there's a little of a pedantic adherence to rules in federal court. they tend to be stuffy. and judges control their courtrooms. the idea of walking in and saying i would love it. that bluster works on the campaign trial but not in federal court. i'm surprised he made it this far without being sanctioned or t kicked out. it's not a criminal proceeding. he's not required to be there. i think of trying to get in the minds of what they're thinking. he doesn't have to be there. you heard natasha say. the power aspect of the accuser. he's already done this. why allow your client to be present. you can imagine the head-turning mo

george conway, elliot williams, john dean. elliot, just to start things off, i think a question here is how expansively the judges could rule here and really what this could mean. and also how soon we could know, it seemed where they were leaning today but how soon we could know what their decision is. >> i think we could know relatively soon in legal terms. now, again, that's not news cycle terms. we may not hear tomorrow. but certainly within days if not weeks. something that people should know is that these judges have been preparing for this argument for weeks, perhaps even months. they would have had hundreds of pages of briefing from the attorneys. so they kind of might have had a sense going in as to where they were going to rule, and really just sort of refining and figuring out what their opinion's going to say. so i would be on the lookout for something within the coming days. now, in terms of how expansive it could be, exactly as your lead-in to this segment noted, kaitlan, it was pretty clear listening to the argume

elliot williams, trump and his co-defendants were closely anticipating wade's testimony tomorrow.s there any way they could still compel him to testify? >> it is hard to say, wolf. they certainly will -- they're bringing a conflict of interest claim on the court, and they -- they said they're going to subpoena the testimony. it is up to the judge to decide whether to allow that. now, look, this is a profound mess and to the broader point, e elie touched on this, the individual between the two individuals may have been permissible in the eyes of the law and ethical rules that govern all georgia attorneys. the simple fact is it still puts a cloud over the work of the prosecutors office and those are two very different things. people, adults can engage in various forms of conduct or misconduct that may not run afoul of the law, but it still casts doubt on the public's faith in the integrity of an investigation. and this continued cloud is going to stay over the case if any of these people come up and testify. >> elie, trump and two of his co-defendants, thisey are seeki to disqualify

joining us now to talk more about evan's interview and what we heard from the attorney general, elliot williams. elliot, what do you think of the attorney general's comments there? what do you hear in how he's speaking? >> absolutely, he's not saying anything that's that remarkable. i think it's in this world of the former president's testing the limits of the legal system. there are basic rules. and defendants are entitled to speedy trials. it's not that the former president is being extended some special treatment or being treated differently. or that the attorney general is going out on a limb here. he's stating what the constitution says. and it's in the interest both of the defendant and the public that the defendant be given a speedy trial. it benefits all of us. so it is a very important rule, and you know, the president should get a speedy trial, full stop. >> when he says the public interest requires a speedy trial, that is his way of nodding to there's an election hanging over all of this. but what if the defendant doesn't want a speedy trial? which seems to be donald trump's position

her with us now to discuss this is former prosecutor elliot williams. what do you make of the fact that the former president took time out of his campaigning to be there today when he did not have to be. is there any kind of legal strategy? do you think there was grandstanding? >> it is not a legal strategy. when someone is a defendant in a criminal trial, which this is not, they have to be present in court. when you are sued in a civil suit you do not have to go to court. his attorneys could have made all the arguments and presented their case without it. the question is why is he doing it? we all know from watching him that there is a certain amount of media coverage and excitement and he can whip up supporters in the middle of the campaign season and that is probably what is going on. >> let's be clear with what is at issue and what is not. it is similar to the fraud case because he defamed her. he is liable for sexually abusing her. this is about damages and it is also about, it was 2019 -- sorry. this is about 2019 it was about 2022 before. >> ther

others, the supreme court justice analyst, as well as our legal analyst and former prosecutor elliot williams. house democrats demanding again, recusing himself, and in part, and by justice thomas's wife, jenny tom ince, nine board members for a conservative group that led the stop the steal movement. -- ginny thomas. and you could not be deciding whether or not in this case they can look at it. >> it is incredibly bad, the problem is, something we've talked about at quite some length, the supreme court does not really have ethical standards or governing when justices really ought to recuse themselves from cases. if justice thomas can say or assert that he can view a case fairly and impartially, he doesn't have to recusing he probably won't, it's an issue that has plagued the supreme court for quite some time, it is about the reputation more than the facts of one case. >> if justice thomas does not recuse himself and that seems almost a certainty as certain as anything can possibly be in this world, death, taxes and justice thomas won't recuse himself, can the supreme court recover from the p

jonah goldberg of the dispatch, nia-malika henderson of bloomberg, and cnn legal analyst elliot williams. hi, everybody. nice to see you. little leery from making it back from iowa this morning. but we did it. okay, so let's stay focused, and elliot, i want you to kind of give the context for what is happening, just stay focused on this particular case right now in new york. >> okay, fraud in new york, it is a civil suit being brought by the attorney general of new york against the trump organization. the judge has already found there was, i believe the language was persistent fraud, persistent ppervasive fraud, and now it's a question of what the damages will be and also some other questions, insurance fraud being one of them, conspiracy to falsify business record and other things. now, it seems pretty clear, and paula touched opthis a moment ago, it seems pretty clear that trump's team has not done particularly well in the eyes of the judge, and it's a question of what the damages will be, will it be the full $300 plus million dollars or something less. the judge will write an opinion

let's get some analysis with ron brownstein and legal analyst and former federal prosecutor elliot williams. it's >> what do you make of this move by the judge in the trump case? >> on the one hand it's bad for the judge to say he would allow something and then not but it would turn the trial into a circus and the judge was right in wanting to limit what someone can say to closing arguments. closing arguments are meant to sum up the evidence that has been seen, not provide a political speech and turn what would have certainly been a somewhat somber occasion, maybe not the right word, but -- >> serious. it's >> right it's supposed to be serious and it would've turned into a political speech and declaring war on the deep state and all of the above. it was the right decision to do. why -- what circumstances there would've been for somebody who was already represented by competent counsel to give his own crazy statement is beyond me. >> outside the likelihood that he would have wanted to use this to give what amounts to a campaign speech. he has said he is going to appeal the decision so, legal

cnn analyst elliot williams.nn political correspondent kristen holmes who spends all of her time on the campaign trail and the trump trail, so you can certainly weigh in on the very important politics of this. let's start with more of what cara was talking about. i just want to read something specific that the judge said to alina habba, the former president's lawyer who is making her closing statements right now. just before the jury was brought in, alina habba tried to make a record to refute a ruling that the defense cannot use a slide they planned in a closing presentation. judge kaplan just cut her off and said you are on the verge of spending some time in the lockup. now sit down. those are not words that a lawyer appearing before a judge wants to hear. i mean that is a very, very strong threat that i think the judge is willing to follow up on if really need be. but that is about as strong a message as a judge can send to the lawyer that she needs to stay within the bounds of the judge's order. of course, it

let's talk about now with elliot williams and shermichael singleton and lancia johnson.e talk about this being a two- person race and the third party, no labels, but when it comes down to it, trump has used each court appearance as a campaign stop. it has been advantageous for him in polling. he has fundraised heavily off all of it. when you look at that elephant in the room, valencia, these courts, these trials, what do you see? >> you said it. it's free press that donald trump likes. i think that's the only reason he likes to go testify is because he knows he'll get the media attention for it. i was talking to folks earlier this week that even though that means the media will be sucked up in those cases, those are free campaign ads for us because not only are democrats tired of the chaos and court cases, so are independents, moderates and general election voters. it will benefit us in a weird way when i say not a lot of media attention on the candidate does actually benefit you because it's horrible press for donald trump with what's happening in the courts. >> he thin

. >> elliot williams, jessica roth, maggie haberman, thanks. >>> coming up next, what we are learning from court documents just unsealed about sex trafficker jeffrey epstein and his accomplice, ghislaine maxwell. later, we are live on the southern border as the biden administration sued texas for arresting migrants. senators get closer to a border deal. and some house republicans threatening to block any compromise. in order for small businesses to thrive, they need to be smart, efficient, savvy. making the most of every opportunity. that's why comcast business is introducing the small business bonus. for a limited time you can get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. yup, $1000. so switch to business internet from the company with the largest fastest reliable network. give your business a head start in 2024 with this great offer. plus, ask how to get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. >>> more breaking news tonight, tonight, a federal court here in new york unsealed documents are expected to contain the names of nearly 200 men and women connected in one