In Focus Now, Phil Holloway, former Assistant district Attorney for Cobb County, Georgia. First of all, I follow you on social media, so I know some of your thoughts, but I want you to share with the audience of the Faulkner Focus what you thought about the job that that judge did yesterday.

Well, great to be with you, of course, Harris, always. I think the judge did a good job on balance, though. I do think that he surrendered control to DA Willis when she took the stand. I wish he had done a better job of reigning her in. I wish he had allowed the defense lawyers to rein her in a little bit better with their questions because she took the stand and she came in there and she was obviously angry She had a lot she wanted to vent about. But the witness stand, Harris, is not the right place to be venting your emotions when you're angry. To be honest with you, and this is just my opinion, I thought, and it still seems like She was watching the witnesses testimony yesterday, which you're not supposed to do. That's not allowed. The defense had invoked the rule of sequestration, and it appears that she was mad because she had watched the testimony in the cross-examination of Nathan Wade, and it looks like it upset her. But this whole thing is evolving into perhaps an ethical dumpster fire. And by that, I mean, if they can prove satisfactorily that she and/or Nathan Wade have made material misrepresentations to the court, then she could be in very big trouble.

This is potentially disbarment territory if they can make out that case.

Look, I'll get to the wads of cash that were stashed here and there and traded hands and so on and so forth. But in Axio's headline, Donald Trump's attorneys have multiple reasons for hope right now. Some of them, possible removal of DA Fannie Willis, federal election trial indefinitely postponed. His first trial will be the Hush Money case, and legal experts say it is the weakest of the four. The US Supreme Court will likely put him back on Colorado's primary ballot. Phil, your thoughts on that?

Well, I agree with that. Let's take it Just in the context of this Atlanta case in Fulton County, let's just say the judge does rule to remove her, then the state will appeal that. On the other hand, if the judge rules that she's not going to be removed, then the defense can appeal that, probably pre-trial. This can go to the Georgia Court of Appeals and then the Georgia Supreme Court. Any resolution of this trial is going to be put out well beyond the election in November of this year. This, at a minimum, is going to delay things. The prospect of conducting a criminal trial, let's say Donald Trump wins the election, what is the judge going to do with that then? Is he going to try to put a sitting president on trial in Fulton County, Georgia? I I think the odds of that are pretty slim. But in any event, this is quite the spectacle. We have a mess on our hands. This is not a good look for Fulton County, for Atlanta. Quite frankly, it's an embarrassment to the legal profession here in Georgia.

I want to get to the money now. Were you surprised, first of all, that they focused on the money? Second of all, just the details that we heard about what she was doing with cash. I mean, at one point, she said, Cash is fungible, to which I put on social media, cash is taxable. What was going on with that line of questioning? Were you surprised that the attorneys went that way with her?

The defense had to try to do the best that they could to show that she was personally enriched. That's a key part of their claim of conflict of interest. That's the thing that really could go towards getting her removed. So they had to drill down on that. It seems to a lot of people, myself included, that the explanation being that she reimbursed Nathan Wade in untraceable cash, that seemed to be just a little too convenient. But at the end of the day, the question is going to be for the judge to decide, does he believe their testimony? Does he believe that cash explanation? If he does, regardless of how she came across on the stand, if the judge is satisfied that she reimbursed Nathan Wade in cash, then she could theoretically prevail on this issue. But it's a credibility call for as a judge.

All right, we'll move on. Just one last comment. I thought that there was some discrepancy between the amounts of cash and the times that they were handed between from her to Nathan Wade, and that could be a problem. If you move 10,000 of anything, your bank flags that. Like the IRS wants to know what you're doing with big pockets of cash, so she was careful to say it was never more than 2,500. It was interesting if you put their testimony side by side with the cash. All right, we'll move on. It is the White House versus the Department of Justice at this point. And the point of contention, Phil, is that Special Counsel Robert Hur's brutal Biden classified documents report that labeled Biden as elderly with a poor memory. The White House objects to that characterization. In an unusual move, the DOJ wrote directly to the White House saying, Robert Herr's report was consistent with legal requirements and department policy and not gratuitous. Fox News legal editor, Kerry Kupecker-Bonn, said this.

Let me translate this DOJ letter to the White House. What they are saying to President Biden is, We are just as unhappy with you as you are with us. President Biden has repeatedly violated DOJ White House norms by commenting on open and ongoing investigations and prosecutions when former President Trump would say anything about DOJ, all hell would break loose. Now President Biden is doing that all the time.

It's also the White House versus journalists that cover them. The White House accused media outlets of striking inaccuracies that misrepresent the special counsel's report on the President. The White House correspondence Association President, clap back saying, No, it does not, cannot, and will not serve as a repository for the government's views of what is in the news. The President and the White House have been railing against the report, as we know, ever since it came out. Just this quick point. It was supposed to be good news for the President because he didn't have charges pressed against him. But the bad news was we got to see the truth from somebody who spent five plus hours with him.

Yeah, Harris, I'm of the camp that I don't think that the President's current mental status or how a jury might theoretically perceive him if he's a defendant in a criminal case, I don't think that should be part of the charging decision. That's a consideration for a prosecutor to make when maybe they're considering a plea deal or perhaps on sentencing, perhaps it's an issue for competency to stay in trial. But it has nothing to do with whether or not there's probable cause to believe a crime was committed. This goes back to when he was a senator, and I'm old enough to remember when Clinton advisor Sandy Berger, got prosecuted for walking out of a skiff with a classified material. That's exactly what Joe Biden did when he was a senator decades ago. This material literally got up walked out, I guess, on its own from a Senate skiff and wound up in his garage for God knows how long. That is a crime. It's plain and simple.

It's a crime of face of crime, and it needed to have been charged, quite frankly. You think there is a case to charge him, and the, Well, he's an elderly man with a poor memory, was not a good enough reason not to charge him. What should happen next? Real quick.

Yeah, that has nothing to do with whether or not there's probable cause to believe a crime is committed. He should have been recommended for charges. I know that they don't indict a sitting president, but that can wait. He should be facing charges at a minimum for walking out of a Senate skiff because whether or not he's a sympathetic elderly man with potential dementia, that is not a consideration that should go into whether or not he's charged. If the facts and the evidence bear out that a sitting senator walked out of a skiff with classified information, that demands criminal charges.

You and I both know that likely he wouldn't remember that and could make a compelling show of all the times his memory has failed to prove that he couldn't remember that. It may be that Robert Herr knew what he was up against, but we will see and just cover the news as it happens. Phil Holloway, thank you very much.

Hey, everyone.

I'm Emily Campanio.

Catch me and my co-host, Harris Faulkner and Kaylee McEnneney on Outnumbered every weekday at 12:00 PM Eastern or set your DVR.

Also, don't forget to subscribe to the Fox News YouTube page for daily highlights.