Donald Trump's attorney in his closing arguments told the judge that DA Fani Willis and prosecutor Nathan Wade were "not truthful" when they testified under oath about the timing of their relationship, urging the judge to use that to disqualify her from the case.

"I suggest to you that the testimony that Mr. Wade gave and Mrs. Willis gave ... that that brought forth a true concern about their truthfulness," said Trump's attorney, Steve Sadow.

Sadow told the judge he doesn't need to find that Willis and Wade lied on the stand in order to disqualify them, but that he only needs to find that a "legitimate concern," telling the judge, "That's enough."

The judge pressed Trump's attorney on what the "limiting" area of that conclusion would be, noting the DA signs every single indictment her office brings.

"Does that mean she would be off every case?" the judge asked regarding Sadow's allegations about her truthfulness. "How does that not spill over into every case the district attorney brings?"

Sadow pointed to the testimony of witnesses Robin Yeartie, and even the testimony of Terrance Bradley, saying Bradley did "everything he could possibly do to evade answering questions" because he knew if he did, the judge would be able to find "that both Willis and Wade lied" about when the relationship started.

McAfee asked Sadow what to make of Bradley's testimony, noting if he takes the view that Bradley's testimony was untruthful, "what's left standing?"

"In these text messages, is it ever definitely shown how he knew this, and whether he did know it?" the judge asked, referring to Bradleys' text messages, read in court, in which he previously told defense attorney Ashleigh Merchant that Willis and Wade's relationship began long before Wade was hired -- before Bradley testified earlier this week that any past statements he made to that effect were "speculation on my part."

Former President Trump's attorney Steve Sadow, in the first portion of his closing argument, focusing on the speech DA Fani Willis gave at Big Bethel AME Church in January, which he claimed was "a calculated determination by Ms. Willis to prejudice" a prospective jury against the defendants.

"I appointed three special counselors," Willis said in her speech, noting that Wade was the only Black one. "Isn't it them playing the race card when they only question one?"

"Willis took it upon herself to go to to a historic black church in Atlanta, having not responded at all, to the motion of Miss Merchant's client Roman ... it was a calculated determination by Miss Willis to prejudice the defendants and their counsel," Sadow argued to the court.

Sadow argued that the speech represented an "ethical violation," saying that Willis' comments invoking "race and religion" significantly heightened public condemnation of the defendant.

"Can you think of anything more that would heighten public condemnation of the defendant than alleging that defense counsel and the defendants were making their motion based on race and religion? That's just as bad as it gets in Fulton County," Sadow said.

"She could have said the facts of the matter. Instead, she misstated what the situation was took advantage of the opportunity," he argued.

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.

John Merchant, co-counsel for Trump co-defendant Michael Roman and the husband of co-counsel Ashleigh Merchant, who initially brought the motion to disqualify DA Fani Willis, is presenting arguments for the defense.

Judge McAfee noted at the top of the hearing and before arguments began that the defense would have an hour and a half for arguments today.

The judge said that time will be divided up between each defendant.

In a court filing Monday, one of Donald Trump's co-defendants proposed new testimony if Judge Scott McAfee were to reopen the evidentiary process in the defendants' effort to disqualify DA Fani Willis, claiming he has a new witness who previously spoke to prosecutor Nathan Wade's former attorney, Terrance Bradley, and will back up claims that he has knowledge to dispute what Willis and Wade say is the timeline of their relationship.

According to the filing from Trump co-defendant David Shafer, Cindi Yeager -- the co-chief deputy district attorney in Cobb County, Georgia -- had "numerous" conversations with Bradley related to Willis and Wade, in which Bradley told her their relationship began before Wade was hired on the election interference case.

"Mr. Wade had definitely begun a romantic relationship with Ms. Willis during the time that Ms. Willis was running for District Attorney in 2019 though 2020," the filing alleged Bradley told Yeager during conversations that occurred between August 2023 and January 2024.

The testimony would allegedly refute what Bradley -- who was supposed to be the defense's "star witness" -- said on the stand at the hearing: that he had "no personal knowledge" of the timing of Willis and Wade's relationship and that he was "speculating" when he said their relationship started around 2019.

The filing also claims Bradley was in Yeager's office in September 2023 when he received a phone call that Yeager "could hear" was Fani Willis allegedly "calling Mr. Bradley in response to an article that was published about how much money Mr. Wade and his law partners had been paid in this case."

"Ms. Yeager heard District Attorney Willis tell Mr. Bradley: "They are coming after us. You don't need to talk to them about anything about us," the filing says.

The filing seeks permission to subpoena Yeager and present her testimony, if the judge were to reopen the evidentiary process.