DA Fani Willis and members of her team stood up and left as prosecutor Adam Abbate concluded his argument on behalf of the state.

Willis looked stern and made no comment as she left the courtroom.

The defense then presented its rebuttal, led by Trump attorney Steve Sadow.

Judge Scott McAfee then concluded the hearing, saying he hopes to have a ruling on Willis' disqualification within the next two weeks.

State attorney Adam Abbate said that allegations that DA Fani Willis financially benefited from her relationship with prosecutor Nathan Wade were "all speculation and conjecture" lodged in order to "harrass and honestly embarrass" her.

Abbate said Willis was subjected to irrelevant questioning on the witness stand that was intended "to again embarrass and harass the district attorney in a way that was very public, in a way that was to impugn her character as it relates to that line of questioning in front of the court, in front of anyone watching the proceedings."

But Judge Scott McAfee pressed the DA's office after they suggested Willis' alleged conflict was theoretical or speculative.

"Aren't we past the speculation and conjecture aspect of this, though?" McAfee asked, saying that "the core of the financial allegation was that there is a relationship, and that money has changed hands."

"I think it was conceded that that balance could run in the district attorney's favor -- is that contested?" the judge asked.

The DA's office responded that they did contest that, saying the costs paid by each party were "equal."

But the judge pushed back again, saying the bottom line remained: "It's no longer just a theory that money changed hands."

"It's no longer speculation or conjecture," the judge said.

Willis, seated at the prosecution table, appeared alert and highly engaged during Abbate's arguments, visibly nodding or shaking her head at points.

She at one point scribbled down a note and passed it to Abbate, during his presentation of arguments on behalf of the DA's office.

At the end of his arguments, Abbate mounted an impassioned plea for the judge to dismiss the defendants' claim that Willis sought to live a lavish lifestyle on the taxpayer dime -- citing her relatively humble accommodations during a visit to Napa Valley: a DoubleTree Hotel.

"Most people, when they go to Napa -- if they want to lavishly experience Napa -- stay at the Ritz Carlton, the Four Seasons, things of that nature -- not a DoubleTree. So the allegations and assertions that Miss Willis was living the lifestyle of the rich and the famous is a joke," he said. "An absolute joke."

Abbate added there was "no validity" to arguments that the speech Willis made at the church would prejudice a jury.

"For all the reasons before Your Honor, this motion should be denied because the legal requirements by that are required in order for the district attorney to be disqualified have not been satisfied," Abbate concluded.

Adam Abbate, an attorney with the district attorney's office, argued that defendants had failed to meet the "high standard of proof" for disqualification -- calling the narrative they spun about Willis and Wade's relationship "absolutely absurd."

"It doesn't make any sense," Abbate said. "The motions to disqualify should be denied, and Miss Willis as district attorney of Fulton County, and Mr. Wade, as the special prosecutor assigned to this case, should be allowed to remain on this case and continue to prosecute the case."

Contrary to what defense attorneys argued, Abbate argued that they must prove an "actual conflict" of interest to secure a disqualification -- not just the "appearance of impropriety."

"The defense has to show an actual conflict, and in this instance, they have to show in the actual conflict would be that Miss Willis received a financial benefit or gain -- and got it based upon the outcome of the case," Abbate said.

"We have absolutely no evidence that Miss Willis received any financial gain or benefit," he argued. "The testimony was that Miss Willis paid all of the money back in cash as related to the trips."

Judge McAfee seemed skeptical of that argument, citing language that allows for removal based on the "appearance of impropriety" and referencing examples of past misconduct raised by the defendants.

Abbate pushed back, arguing that in each of those cases, the "appearance of impropriety ... arose from the fact that the court found an actual conflict in each of those cases."

Abbate also called into question the credibility of defendants' key witnesses in the disqualification hearings, calling the testimony of Robin Yeartie, ex-friend of Willis, "at best inconsistent."

The hearing has resumed after a short break, with state attorneys now presenting their closing arguments.

DA Fani Willis is seated at the prosecution table, along with other prosecutors including Nathan Wade.

Defense attorney John Merchant made a lengthy case for Fani Willis' disqualification under the law -- and also laid out how even the appearance of conflict could undermine the public's confidence in their prosecution and justify her removal.

"You know it when you see it," Merchant said. "They did this, they knew it was wrong, and they hid it."

Merchant laid out the case for dismissal in plain terms, as he and the other defendants see it: Willis and Wade conspired to bring this case to enrich themselves with public money, then "used that money to go on personal vacations and trips."

"We frankly couldn't care less if they had a relationship outside of work," Merchant said. But "if the court allows this kind of behavior ... the entire public confidence in the system will be shot and the integrity of the system will be undermined."

"[Willis] put her boyfriend in the spot, paid him, and then reaped the benefits," Merchant said.

Judge McAfee pressed Merchant about whether the amount of money Wade spend on vacations for himself and Willis -- which she said she paid him back in cash but has no record for -- was a relevant factor. Merchant calculated the amount to be more than $9,200, and the judge asked whether a subordinate buying their boss a stick of gum, for example, would merit disqualification.

"I don't know if $100 would be enough, $200 be enough -- I think you have to look at it globally" and in context, Merchant said.