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.

DA Fani Willis, who was not present for the early afternoon arguments, has entered the courtroom.

She entered while the court was on a short break and took a seat at the prosecutors' table.

Court will resume following the break.

Earlier, the defense attorney for ex-DOJ official Jeffrey Clark told the judge that the DA's office has put an "irreparable stain" on the case and are now a "global laughingstock."

"Think of the message that would be sent if they were not disqualified," attorney Harry MacDougald told the judge. "If this is tolerated, we'll get more of it. This office is a global laughingstock because of their conduct. They should be disqualified and the case should be dismissed."

MacDougald argued that Willis has six different conflicts of interest in the case, "any one of which warrants disqualification." He alleged the conflicts include a financial conflict, the speech at the church, and her "pattern of deceit and concealment," among others.

"The problem here is that the DA cannot distinguish between her personal interests and ambitions on the one hand, and her public duties as a prosecutor on the other," MacDougald said. "And apparently neither can anyone else in their office."

Richard Rice, the attorney for Trump co-defendant Robert Cheeley, also argued that the volume of alleged texts and calls between Willis and Wade proves their romantic relationship began prior to Wade receiving his job with the DA office.

DA Fani Willis engaged in a "calculated plan ... to prejudice the defendants in this case in the minds of the jurors" when she defended herself and Nathan Wade during a speech at an Atlanta-area church in January, according to Craig Gillen, an attorney for defendant David Schafer.

During her remarks at the church, Willis repeatedly referred to herself as "flawed" and "imperfect" -- but did not directly acknowledge her relationship with Wade.

Gillen argued that her "deflection" strategy at the church merits disqualification because it could improperly "inject" race into the case, which might compromise the impartiality of the prospective jury pool.

"She chose to play the race card and the God card … to deflect away from the allegations" in the motion for disqualification, Gillen said. "She chose to inject race into the minds of the listeners."

Judge McAfee initially appeared skeptical of this argument, asking Gillen directly whether he could cite other instances in Georgia where a prosecutor had been dismissed based on their public commentary on a case.

"Thank goodness it doesn't happen very often," Gillen replied. "Sadly, it's already happened here."

"Prosecutors don't act like this, lawyers don't act like this … and they need to go," Gillen said.

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.