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.

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."

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.