Welcome back to Sunday Night in America. Final arguments were made, and now a Georgia judge will decide whether the conduct of Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade warrants disqualification. But it may be more than simply who prosecutes the Trump case in Georgia. Were lawyers who appeared before the grand jury legally empowered to do so? Will this case be dismissed or tried or something in between? Meanwhile, the Supreme Court will consider Trump's presidential immunity claim, even as they also mole the ballot access case. It seemed clear from the oral argument, Trump will be back on the ballot in Colorado, but the immunity case is seemingly much more challenging for him. Joining us now as Trump attorney in Missouri, AG candidate, Will Scharff. Welcome, Will. Thank you so much for being here. Defense Council, it sounded to me like, did a good job of showing a relationship between Willis and Wade and impeding their credibility. But is it enough to get them booted from the case.

I think the misconduct that we've seen from Fannie Willis and her lover/prosecutor, Nathan Wade, really shows how corrupt that case has been from the start. We're certainly hopeful that that case will be dismissed. At the very least, I think Judge McAfee was certainly strongly considering dismissing both Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade from that case based on an appearance of impropriety, at least an appearance of impropriety. All in all, I think it was a very, very good day in court for President Trump's team down there, led by Steve Sado.

All right, so you're a highly skilled lawyer. I was a mediocre one, but a lot of our listeners are not lawyers. I heard two different things. I heard an involuntary recusal of the prosecutors, but also a potential dismissal of the indictment. I'll give you three options. This is a trial timing issue, and they got to go get brand new prosecutors, or the indictment itself is in danger. Third option being nothing happens, but I don't think that's a realistic one.

Yeah, look, I think if Wade and Willis are disqualified, bringing in new prosecutors could result in any number of possibilities. The new prosecutors might look at the case, decide that it should never have been brought in the first place, which is what we believe, and just move for its dismissal. The judge could also find that their actions have so deeply corrupted the case that it should be dismissed from the bench. One way or the other, though, I think it is highly, highly unlikely that that Georgia case moves to trial before the November 2024 election. In terms of its relevance to this campaign of election interference being waged against President Trump, I think it's certainly been a good day, a good week, a good series of events for our team.

All right, let's move to another case. Tough facts made for challenging arguments. We've all been there before. You get dealt a bad hand of facts and you do the best you can with them. I want to understand the president's argument. Is the argument that a president who conspires to kill a political opponent must be impeached and convicted by the Senate before he or she can be indicted and tried in criminal court? Or what exactly is the argument?

Well, that's not That's really the argument, Trey. If a president just killed his political opponent, that would be a private act. We're not saying that he would be immune from prosecution for acts like that after he leaves office. What we're talking about is official acts, acts that fall within the outer perimeter of a president's responsibilities as president. For those acts, we believe that a president should have criminal immunity the same way that the courts have consistently held that he has civil immunity. In this case, in this DC prosecution, what What President Trump is being prosecuted for is acts that fall within the core of his Article 2 duties. Things like asking the Department of Justice to investigate election fraud, communicating with members of Congress about the same, communicating with state officials about election fraud in the 2020 election. These are all presidential acts. For acts like that, we believe that a president would first have to be impeached and convicted by the House and Senate before he could then be prosecuted. That's the constitutional design. That's how our system is set up. We think that Jack Smith, the special counsel in his team, are running roughshot over core constitutional principles in their hast to get Trump.

All right, I got to ask you one quick legal question. I can't afford you for more than one block. I can't afford your rate, so I got one more. What happens legally if he's tried and convicted after he's elected, but before he's sworn in?

Well, we don't think that's going to happen, Trey. If that were to be the case, he would still be able to take office as President. The President, he's a constitutional officer. There's ample case law on the idea that the other branches of government cannot interfere with the President's ability to exercise his responsibilities under Article 2. But again, we just think that's highly, highly unlikely. President Trump hasn't done anything wrong here. I think that case is falling apart as we speak, and we think it's likely that the Supreme Court rules for us on presidential immunity. We also think that the Supreme Court is likely to throw out half that indictment after hearing Fischer, which is a case on January 6th-related case, later this spring. So all in all, that prosecution, I don't think it holds any water at all. I think the events that you just described are highly unlikely to come to pass.

Will Scharff loaning us his legal expertise. Thank you for joining us on a Sunday night. Look forward to having you back.

Thanks a lot, Trey. I really appreciate it.

Hey, Sean Hannity here. Hey, click here to subscribe to Fox News' YouTube page and catch our hottest interviews and most compelling analysis. You will not get it anywhere else.