As Fannie Willis was testifying today, one particular book played a notable role in the case that Trump and his co-defendants attorneys were trying to make.

We've been bombarded with the book, Find Me the Votes. So you gave interviews to the authors of this book? I have not read this book. Can you show me where that is? Because this is where you put the tab. You saw the book here, Find Me the Votes. I'm a little wary of entering an entire 300-page book because I don't know exactly what every single line. The title of the book, of course, is a hard-charging Georgia Prosecutor, a Rob President, and the Plot to Steal an American Election.

The full title of that book is Find Me the Votes, a Hard-Charging Georgia Prosecutor, a Rob President, and the Plot to Steal an American Election. Of course, a reference to Donald Trump's request to the Georgia Secretary of State, a notorious one. The authors of that book, Michael Isakoff and Daniel Kleidman, are here with me tonight. One, I hope this was great for book sales, given this was being aired on every single cable Network, and they were showing the literal cover of your book. But, Michael, let me start with you, because what the attorneys were focusing on was one single paragraph about Fannie Willis's finances in your book. I wonder if when you heard this today, you were wondering if they're missing the point of the other 324 pages.

Well, they actually missed the point of the paragraph that they were asking about, because there is a passage in the book in which we're talking about And quoting Fannie Willis about the financial troubles she was having after she ran for a judgeship in 2018 and lost. She was talking about how she was drained. She was a single mother at that point, she wasn't She didn't have a lot of clients in her law firm, and she was struggling. She talked about that, and that was a reason that she hesitated about running for DA in 2020. But if they had read the next couple of paragraphs of the book, they would have understood that after her concerns about her financial troubles in 2018, she was appointed to a judgeship. She got a healthy salary from that. Her law practice improved, and her finances were much better at the time. If they had read the book a little more closely, which I hope your viewers will do, they'll see that they really miss characterized what we were saying there.

Yeah, Daniel, I imagine that when you were writing this book and you all were reporting this out, that you probably didn't think this paragraph would be such a central focus of this hearing. But it's because the money matters here, and that's key to the allegations that they are making against the district attorney. I mean, I wonder what stood out to you as you were listening to that today and how they were talking about your book.

Well, I was in the courtroom, and it was a little bit of an out-of-body experience hearing them mention the book title, talk about entering it into evidence, and all these lawyers scrutinizing our words. But yeah, the point that they were trying to make was that this was evidence that Fannie Willis hired Nathan Wade and took on this Trump case because they saw an opportunity to enrich themselves. She needed it because she was destitute, according to their interpretation of our book. But as Mike just said, they distorted our account account, and the reality is that she was actually doing quite well then. Her concern was running another race, pouring in some of her own money, and ending up in that position once again. Look, I'm not surprised. Lawyers take whatever evidence they have, facts they have, they throw them against the wall and see what sticks. But she actually, when she testified, she corrected the record, and her account was very consistent with what we in the book.

Yeah, but Michael, what I couldn't get over is, as someone who has seen your book and knew what it was about, is that these are the co-defendants, attorneys for the people who were indicted for trying to overturn the election in the state of Georgia, which is what your entire book is focused on, that effort and just the links that they went to. And they're citing your book but trying to prove a different point.

Yeah. I mean, look, the really surreal aspect of this is that we spent all day delving into the personal sex lives of the DA and the special prosecutor she hired. They didn't really get all that much to advance their case. They had the one witness who contradicted them, but she was vague, she didn't have any specifics, she had been fired by Fannie Willis, so there was that. But all of which is a huge distraction from what the case is all about and what our book is all about, which was a rather elaborate conspiracy to overthrow the results of an election. All the serious matters we talk about in the book and which are part of the case, the pressure on state officials, the blatantly false testimony by Rudy Giuliani at a Georgia legislature that led to all the threats against election workers like Ruby Freeman, the fake electors, the cyberheist raid in coffee County, rural Georgia. All of that is almost forgotten. Instead, we're talking about something that really has no bearing on the evidence at all.

Caitlin, that's precisely what underscore is why this is so problematic for Fannie Willis, because the last thing she wants is for people and potential jurors out there and the public not to be focused on the really serious matters underlying this case. The problem is for a district attorney who's bringing such a serious set of charges to herself become a witness in a spectacle like this, and at least for a short period here, lose the moral high ground. Now, I think this could, if she is not disqualified, if the case continues, it'll be part of the narrative, but I think she could get back on track here and get the focus back on the underlying issues, which is the threat to democracy by a serious attempt to subvert an election.