March 1, 2024 - The Benny Show - Benny Johnson
05:48:31
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
|
unidentified
|
Now, a Fulton County judge will hear final arguments today in the case to disqualify D.A. Fannie Willis from prosecuting former President Trump. | |
| Defense attorneys say she had an inappropriate relationship with Nathan Wade, the man she appointed to be special prosecutor in the case, and lied about it. | ||
| Katie Tchaikovsky is a con law attorney, that stands for constitutional law attorney, former federal prosecutor, and she joins me now. | ||
| All attention being paid to these text messages between Wade's former attorney, Terrence Bradley, And defense counsel, Ashley Merchant, he was asked about the relationship. | ||
| Do you think it started before she hired him? | ||
| Bradley responded, quote, absolutely. | ||
| It started when she left the DA's office and was judge in South Fulton. | ||
| But this contradicted ultimately what Bradley himself testified on the stand. | ||
| He was kind of hemming and hawing there. | ||
| What do you make of this bombshell reveal of these text messages randomly between one of the witnesses and defense counsel? | ||
| That's odd. | ||
| I mean, I think the text messages are pretty unequivocal, and his denials are just incredible. | ||
| So obviously there's mounting evidence that this relationship began much sooner than both Willis and Wade admitted. | ||
| And the weird thing is that the relationship itself was never the problem. | ||
| It was always about the lies. | ||
| So at this point, I think the judge has significant evidence to support a disqualification decision, if that's the direction he's going to go with this. | ||
| I don't want to get too in the weeds, but I want to prepare people for something that I think may happen today. | ||
| Defense Counsel Ashley Merchant, she's a lawyer in this case, but her text messages right here have to be admitted into evidence. | ||
| So do you see her at some point being called as a witness? | ||
| It's possible that the district attorney's office can put her on the stand to talk about that. | ||
| The judge obviously allowed for examination about those messages already, so certainly that's possible. | ||
| Attorneys don't like to be on the stand. | ||
| It obviously hasn't been going well for all these other attorneys here, but I think for Ms. Merchant's purposes, it's pretty cut and dry. | ||
| He said what he said. | ||
| It's not normal to call the attorney to the stand, and it sort of underscores everybody calling this a soap opera. | ||
| You see this stuff in soap operas. | ||
| You don't usually see this in a court of law. | ||
| Obviously, in the end, this is all going to come down to Fonny Willis. | ||
| Does the judge believe her? | ||
| Because he's making all the decisions. | ||
| In this case, there's no jury on this part of it. | ||
| Here's what Fannie said on her relationship. | ||
| Take a listen. | ||
| I want to be clear because my credibility is being evaluated here, right? | ||
| We were friends. | ||
| We hung out prior to November of 2021. | ||
| In November of 2021, I hired him. | ||
| I do not consider our relationship to have become romantic until early of 2022. | ||
| Based upon the weight of evidence, if the judge determined that Fannie Willis right there lied under oath, one, what happens to the Trump prosecution? | ||
| Two, what happens to her career in this county where she is the prosecutor? | ||
| Well, you're right. | ||
| There's several different issues here. | ||
| So Fannie has her own issues as an attorney. | ||
| If the judge finds that she perjured herself, I think that he has to disqualify her. | ||
| Once you have established perjury from a prosecutor, that really undercuts the entire case, in my opinion. | ||
| My God, I actually pity those poor bastards we're going up against. | ||
| My God, I do. | ||
| We're not going to just meme those globalists. | ||
| We're going to meme them till they cry and use their tears to crease the treads of our takes. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The End | |
| That was really good. | ||
| *laughs* | ||
| Oh, I love the movie Patton. | ||
| You ever seen that movie? | ||
| That's a great one. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Woo! | |
| Load that up. | ||
| Tank round. | ||
| Put a tank round into the barrel. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Let's go, baby! | |
| We are blasting away here. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Welcome to Fanny Ghazi! | |
| Today is the day of reckoning, judgment day, for Big Fanny. | ||
| Will she get spanked hard and be given hard time based on her lack of knowledge of the penal code? | ||
| We will cover all of it today, ladies and gentlemen. | ||
| The puns will be flowing. | ||
| We are locked and loaded and ready to go. | ||
| It is Friday, March 1st, 2024. | ||
| Damning text between Fannie Willis' lover and divorce lawyer revealed today to the court. | ||
| We now have the full... | ||
| Text messages and all of the data. | ||
| We will cover live today the final disqualification hearing. | ||
| The judge has said he's heard enough! | ||
| And we are going to go live to Fulton County. | ||
| We'll be bringing on a series of experts today to talk about this. | ||
| Legal experts, people who worked in the Trump administration, people who are directly related to Fulton County, who know Fulton County very, very well. | ||
| Some of our favorite... | ||
| Political commentators like Mike Davis and Tasha Kay, along with some other, well, special guests, ladies and gentlemen. | ||
| Meanwhile, Donald Trump in court in Florida. | ||
| While the streets are lined with MAGA supporters, the outpouring of support is the official and total backfire of the Biden regime, which is going down in flames today. | ||
| Let's get started. | ||
| My name is Benny Johnson and this is The Benny Show. | ||
| What's inside our tank round here? | ||
| We got the Benny Brigade tank. | ||
| The salt that we fire. | ||
| We got the salt on the front of the brigade tank. | ||
| The salt that we fire loaded into a tank round like this. | ||
| What's inside? | ||
| It's blackout coffee. | ||
| We are ready to rock. | ||
| We're going to be live for like a while here, okay? | ||
| So get ready. | ||
| I am locked in. | ||
| We are in our command vehicles here. | ||
| I hope you are ready to go. | ||
| Locked and loaded with us. | ||
| Blackout coffee is our charge. | ||
| Is our energy. | ||
| We drink it because it is delicious. | ||
| We drink it because it is freedom coffee. | ||
| Because it is a sweet juice of anti-communism. | ||
| And it is made right here in the state of Florida. | ||
| Ladies and gentlemen, it powers our show. | ||
| Blackoutcoffee.com slash Benny. | ||
| Use the code Benny for 20% off your order. | ||
| Check out the gear section while you're there. | ||
| Blackoutcoffee.com slash Benny. | ||
| Stay awake. | ||
| Not woke. | ||
| Lock and load, baby! | ||
| The judge will hold the final critical hearing live on this show in Fulton County. | ||
| We have a show packed wall to wall, and we also have something very special. | ||
| A bowl of popcorn. | ||
| Know this, that today, during the hearing, not only will I be eating the popcorn, I encourage you to pop your own popcorn. | ||
| I will also probably be taking this popcorn and throwing it, or maybe burying my face into it, out of sheer joy and out of sheer love for what is happening right now in this country. | ||
| I've never been more encouraged. | ||
| I've never been happier. | ||
| This week, we saw Mitch McConnell resign his leadership position. | ||
| Ooh, baby! | ||
| We saw Joe Biden go to the border and get completely clowned by Donald Trump yesterday, live. | ||
| Joe Biden going down to the border, literally getting on his diseased old syphilitic knees and begging Donald Trump to help him. | ||
| Incredible. | ||
| I mean, I've never seen anything like it. | ||
| Never seen anything like it. | ||
| This week, we've seen the Supreme Court take up the Trump case, the January 6th case against Trump, presidential immunity. | ||
| We've also seen the Supreme Court reviewing Section 1512, C2, which is freeing. | ||
| As we speak, freeing January 6th political prisoners. | ||
| So right now, January 6th political prisoners are literally walking free. | ||
| The Supreme Court taking up this case obviously means that they will not be able to try Trump before the election, which was the goal for these mongoloid communists. | ||
| These Marxists, who make up the Democrat Party, have decided that they are going to do what every Marxist does. | ||
| Which is to obviously destroy all the institutions in society for power. | ||
| Their inability to have anything of meaning in their lives. | ||
| They do not serve God. | ||
| They do not serve any purpose. | ||
| They often are without families, without any love, without any soap. | ||
| They do not shower. | ||
| They have disgusting orange teeth. | ||
| They are sickening. | ||
| A sickening lot. | ||
| They have nothing left. | ||
| They have nothing to live for other than the accumulation of power and the destruction of you, your systems, your life, your security, your safety. | ||
| So it is right to despise these people. | ||
| It is correct to say that these people should not have power, but they should be left to their own miserable little lots, sipping their soy lattes in the welfare lines. | ||
| So, ladies and gentlemen, it is time for us to rejoice in a week of victories. | ||
| For us to rejoice in the fact that we have gotten rid of a McConnell, a McCarthy, and a McDaniel. | ||
| All the mix that have been, well, uniparty power centric for the Republican Party. | ||
| The Republican Party has been given back to the grassroots. | ||
| We are in control. | ||
| Nothing against Irish people. | ||
| I know that St. Patrick's Day is coming up. | ||
| I married an Irish girl. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Come on. | |
| Nothing against Irish people. | ||
| But Ronna McDaniel, gone. | ||
| Kevin McCarthy, gone. | ||
| And Mitch McConnell, gone. | ||
| As of this week. | ||
| And what does that ultimately mean? | ||
| And the final little thing I'll say here, ladies and gentlemen. | ||
| I can't. | ||
| This popcorn, it smells so delicious. | ||
| I can't with this popcorn. | ||
| I've got to put it down here. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| What does it say about our movement? | ||
| This is a really important point. | ||
| What this says about our movement is our movement is real. | ||
| That we, the American people, are in control of the Republican Party. | ||
| Donald Trump is our candidate. | ||
| Donald Trump will be the first candidate in American history in the Republican Party or the Democrat Party to win all 50 states in a contested primary. | ||
| A bunch of people ran against Donald Trump. | ||
| There was once more than 10 Republicans running in 2024. | ||
| And ladies and gentlemen, Donald Trump beat them all and is, of course, triumphant today. | ||
| The regime is trying to stop us and they are failing. | ||
| We are in control of our party. | ||
| We are in control of the priorities of our party. | ||
| The Democrats, Democrat activists are not in control of the Democrat party. | ||
| Democrat activists get nothing. | ||
| They get nothing. | ||
| The Democrat party is a fake party. | ||
| It is a cutout. | ||
| It is a mirage to get their voters, voters, to think that they, to think that there's someone standing in on, up on their behalves. | ||
| And so many people around the world, around the country are finding out that the Democrat party is fake. | ||
| It's not real. | ||
| Go ask a black person in the south side of Chicago what the Democrat Party has done for them twice a day. | ||
| We play a clip from a local news in Chicago with these historically all-black neighborhoods, and they're like, these people hate us, actually. | ||
| We can't believe it. | ||
| They actually despise us. | ||
| Go to Fulton County. | ||
| I don't know if we have the clip loaded up, but you can see Fulton County, the people leave their homes to cheer for Trump after he gets arrested. | ||
| There is a great awakening happening right now in the nation. | ||
| There is a great spiritual awakening. | ||
| And these people who have subsisted off of creating fake movements, astroturfed movements that are really just goblin-esque. | ||
| World Economic Fund, globalist-centric, America Last, corporatist cutouts, which is the entire Democrat Party right now. | ||
| Oh, we got big fundraising numbers because a lot of rich people like us, a lot of international rich people like us who aren't Americans. | ||
| Okay, don't care. | ||
| You can have all your fiat currency. | ||
| We're the ones who actually have power, meaning we have people at our backs. | ||
| We have an army. | ||
| We have supporters. | ||
| We have real people that really come out of their homes in a dark blue Fulton County to cheer for Donald Trump. | ||
| You know what they're chanting here? | ||
| Can I get just a little bit of audio here? | ||
| You know what they're chanting? | ||
| Free Trump! | ||
| Free Trump! | ||
| The guy goes, Fannie, you done effed up! | ||
| After Trump got his mug shot. | ||
| Ladies and gentlemen, look at that. | ||
| Look at him cheer. | ||
| There's an awakening happening in the country. | ||
| There is a great awakening. | ||
| Do you feel it? | ||
| Do you feel that spiritual energy? | ||
| Man, it is something special. | ||
| Boys, I'd like to show what it looked like in Miami this morning because you're going to see something very similar to what I just showed you on screen there. | ||
| Donald Trump arriving in Miami this morning. | ||
| Or his little Jack Smith Biden regime. | ||
| Lock you up because we don't like your skin color administration. | ||
| You're too orange. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We don't like you. | |
| It looks just the same. | ||
| Ladies and gentlemen, Royce, just pop it on screen when you got it. | ||
| It looks just the same. | ||
| Wait till you see the army of MAGA supporters waiting to see Donald Trump. | ||
| I mean, lining the streets like for miles as Donald Trump rolls in to the courthouse. | ||
| It is utterly and totally remarkable. | ||
| And what that shows you is that we have a real movement, ladies and gentlemen. | ||
| What it shows you is that our movement is made up of the people. | ||
| We are in control of our party. | ||
| We are in control of our destiny. | ||
| We are in control of our country. | ||
| Here we go, ladies and gentlemen. | ||
| Look at this. | ||
| This is what it looked like when Donald Trump... | ||
| Rolling up to the courthouse this morning. | ||
| A remarkable, remarkable moment. | ||
| Ladies and gentlemen, do the other one, Royce. | ||
| I want to see the one where they're actually rolling down the street. | ||
| Crazy. | ||
| Yeah, that one. | ||
| This. | ||
| This is what power actually looks like. | ||
| Actually having the people on your side. | ||
| This is what it actually looks like to have a movement of real Americans, not just corporate slop, globalist corporate slop. | ||
| Look at the scene at the court. | ||
| Make it big. | ||
| Let's go. | ||
| Big, big. | ||
| Look at the scene at the courthouse when Trump arrived. | ||
| Look at that. | ||
| Hoo, man. | ||
| Look at those flags. | ||
| Look at those people. | ||
| Oh, it's amazing. | ||
| This is Trump. | ||
| This is real. | ||
| This is power. | ||
| This is what an actual constitutional republic looks like. | ||
| This is what having the people at your back and on your side looks like, ladies and gentlemen. | ||
| The police who are escorting Donald Trump proudly. | ||
| Yeah, baby. | ||
| You ever see anything like this show up for Joe Biden? | ||
| Have you ever? | ||
| I mean, have you ever? | ||
| Joe Biden could never. | ||
| I mean... | ||
| Have you ever seen anyone holding a Joe Biden flag? | ||
| Like anyone even holding a flag? | ||
| Not just thousands of people, which is right here, but anyone holding a single flag with Joe Biden's face on it? | ||
| Have you ever seen? | ||
| Look at them, miss me yet. | ||
| Anything? | ||
| Nothing? | ||
| Joe Biden can't even fill the circles that they draw on the floor for his rallies. | ||
| Joe Biden went to Texas yesterday. | ||
| And they couldn't even fill the, like, seven plastic chairs in the front of the event. | ||
| Joe Biden didn't even know where he was. | ||
| Joe Biden said, where am I? | ||
| We have the clips. | ||
| We'll play them later in the show. | ||
| Look at this. | ||
| ALX, see if there's anything from the actual motorcade. | ||
| We're very close to Donald Trump's team. | ||
| Dan Scavino is Donald Trump's sort of, that's the right way to say this, consigliere when it comes to his digital presence. | ||
| He's a dear friend of the show. | ||
| He's an awesome dude. | ||
| And he's always filming things like this. | ||
| I want to go hunt and see if there's something from the actual motorcade. | ||
| This is going to be remarkable. | ||
| Donald Trump's going to... | ||
| Last time Donald Trump went to go see these barbarians in the Miami court, this Jack Smith classified documents case, the last time Donald Trump did this, he stopped at a Cuban bakery. | ||
| A human bakery that's very famous in Miami. | ||
| And he got out and, like, sang. | ||
| It was his birthday, I think. | ||
| And they sang him happy birthday. | ||
| And he talked to the cameras. | ||
| And he talked to the press. | ||
| And he went and, like, treated it like a Trump rally. | ||
| Maybe we can get a re-up later in the show about that. | ||
| Because that was an amazing moment. | ||
| So expect that today. | ||
| We're going to be live today. | ||
| We show up for you and you show up for us. | ||
| So we're going to be live today through all of these massive breaking news events. | ||
| We're going to punctuate today that we are in control of our destiny in this country. | ||
| The Democrats have nothing. | ||
| Their party is fake. | ||
| It doesn't represent them. | ||
| Go ask. | ||
| Go ask traditionally Democrat voter blocs if they're represented by their party. | ||
| They're not. | ||
| They're forgotten about and betrayed. | ||
| I used, like, the black south side of Chicago because we have thousands of clips. | ||
| From residents there being like, they've replaced us. | ||
| They've moved in immigrants. | ||
| We don't have football fields. | ||
| We don't have high schools anymore. | ||
| They're literally eroding any of our, like, the little political power we had, they're, like, destroying it. | ||
| The Democrat Party has abandoned us. | ||
| Some members of that community say that they are going to get rowdy during the DNC convention. | ||
| I guess we'll see. | ||
| I guess we'll see. | ||
| I mean, if you've been this betrayed by your party. | ||
| Go talk to working class Americans throughout the Rust Belt. | ||
| Go talk to union members. | ||
| Are you a working class American? | ||
| Do you get up and get dirty for your job? | ||
| Do you feel like you've been supported by Democrat outsourcing policies and open borders? | ||
| Or do you feel like you've been betrayed by the traditional support of unions and trade unions for the Democrat Party? | ||
| Something remarkable happened just recently, which is that the United Auto Workers Started donating to the Republican Party for the first time in their history. | ||
| I believe I've got that right. | ||
| Make sure that we source that with an article. | ||
| It was either the United Auto Workers or some massive trade union here in the country for the first time cut a fat check to the Republican Party and said, you know what? | ||
| We're going to start supporting the Republican Party. | ||
| Because actually, we're done. | ||
| These people have destroyed our towns, destroyed our cities, destroyed our communities. | ||
| Go drive through East Palestine, Ohio. | ||
| We have. | ||
| We physically went to East Palestine when nobody else would. | ||
| The air stung our eyes and irritated our skin. | ||
| They poisoned these people's water, earth, and food. | ||
| And Joe Biden didn't care about them. | ||
| He didn't even visit. | ||
| It took him 400 days to visit. | ||
| There we go. | ||
| The Teamsters Union has... | ||
| They've begun donating to the RNC. | ||
| Exposes division among its members. | ||
| Donald Trump heads to the Teamsters Union and they begin donating to the RNC. | ||
| What a world. | ||
| What an incredible moment we are living through right now. | ||
| And I'll simply end with this, ladies and gentlemen. | ||
| Our little open here. | ||
| I'll end with this. | ||
| That we're winning. | ||
| Like, we're on the side of victory. | ||
| No more Rana. | ||
| No more Mitch. | ||
| No more McCarthy. | ||
| The RNC. | ||
| The unions are donating to the RNC. | ||
| Go do any man on the street. | ||
| In any hood. | ||
| And you'll see that they want Trump back. | ||
| Go talk to traditional Democrat voters blocs. | ||
| They want Trump. | ||
| Cases that have been brought against Trump have proven to many Americans who thought there was already a broken judicial system in this country that was set against them that that's true. | ||
| And in fact, the same guy that locked up hundreds of thousands of young black men for a small crack rock, and you can argue whether that was right or wrong, but here's what is wrong. | ||
|
unidentified
|
He won't lock up his kid. | |
| These guys did a scintilla of what his jackass son is on camera doing. | ||
| On camera! | ||
| He filmed it himself. | ||
| Hunter Biden's never spent a day in prison. | ||
| Something that Joe Biden locked up hundreds of thousands of young men for. | ||
| And people are beginning to awaken right now, ladies and gentlemen. | ||
| People are beginning to say, wow, this system. | ||
| Is rigged against me. | ||
| Whether it's elections, whether it's news, whether it's big pharma, whether it's legally. | ||
| Like, this is rigged against us, the American people. | ||
| Here is, ladies and gentlemen, Donald Trump arriving at the court. | ||
| Look at this. | ||
| Look at this. | ||
| The darkest blue city in America. | ||
| Joe Biden walking in to a fundraiser at the darkest blue city in America doesn't have images like this. | ||
| This is Donald Trump right now. | ||
| Arriving at the court. | ||
| Look at the outpouring of love for this man. | ||
| It is utterly and totally remarkable. | ||
| Ladies and gentlemen, it's a truism that in a society like ours, we, the people, have the power. | ||
| The entire society is structured around individuals having the right to worship who we want. | ||
| To live the way we want? | ||
| To be unobstructed by the government? | ||
| To have the freedom of knowledge and information? | ||
| And to not be slaves? | ||
| Ultimately, that is the question. | ||
| Are you a slave or are you a free man? | ||
| Or a free woman? | ||
| Are you a slave? | ||
| You are a slave if you cannot know information. | ||
| Hunter Biden's laptop is hallmarks of Russian disinformation. | ||
| We're going to censor it. | ||
| Well, then you're a slave. | ||
| That's slavery. | ||
| If you have information controlled and you're not allowed to know information, the pretext of how our society is supposed to function is we are allowed access to information. | ||
| We are allowed all of the information on the table and we make an assessment, an discernment. | ||
| We trust the people. | ||
| We the people. | ||
| You are a slave if you can't control what goes into your body. | ||
| You are a slave if the government mandates experimental injections on you and you can't say no, then you're a slave. | ||
| If somebody has control over your body, you are a slave. | ||
| You are a slave if all of the institutions are set and rigged against you. | ||
| If those institutions corruptly come after you because you may potentially get in the way of their power. | ||
| And they wish to literally put chains on you. | ||
| You are a slave. | ||
| Ladies and gentlemen, if you do not fight like Donald Trump is fighting, if you do not fight like we have fought through the oppressions of the tyranny state and the super state over the last few years, that is ultimately what we are fighting. | ||
| We are fighting the fight of freedom versus slavery. | ||
| Freedom versus tyranny. | ||
| And if you are truly free, then you'll be able to control your fate, your destiny. | ||
| You'll be able to make decisions. | ||
| Good ones, bad ones, they're your decisions. | ||
| You live with them. | ||
| There is an outcrying of people throughout this nation who wish to be free. | ||
| There is a crying out of those who understand that the only way forward for a nation, actually, is to live as free men and free women. | ||
| There is an outcrying from communities. | ||
| That you would never typically hear from. | ||
| Right down the street from where Donald Trump is going to a hearing right now in Miami. | ||
| One of our dear friends, Shani Rich, filmed this video where he asked young black men, Trump or Biden? | ||
| This is just down the street. | ||
| Miami, typically? | ||
| Dark blue area? | ||
| Like it did vote for DeSantis in the last election, but that's something very, very new. | ||
| It's typically been a Democrat stronghold. | ||
| You would typically not expect to get these answers, but here they are. | ||
| The only reason we play this is because the corporate media would never. | ||
| No one would ever show you this. | ||
| And that's why it's more important than ever to actually reveal the truth. | ||
| The truth shall set you free. | ||
| Trump or Biden? | ||
|
unidentified
|
You know, we fuck with Trump. | |
| I fuck with Trump. | ||
| I don't know what everybody got against him. | ||
| He's the breadwinners, you heard? | ||
| I'm a Democrat, too, but f*** it, we Trump. | ||
| We need Trump back in Oakland right now. | ||
| I'm gonna be honest with you. | ||
| I quit Trump. | ||
| To be honest with you, bro, for real, Trump really did the s***. | ||
| And I like him because he's about money. | ||
| It wasn't about no politics. | ||
| He wanted to make America great again through Trump. | ||
| I'm like, Trump, we making sure the s*** to get they bread. | ||
| I ain't gonna lie. | ||
| I'm thinking Trump for life. | ||
| Trump for life. | ||
| I ain't gonna lie. | ||
| Blood down to Trump. | ||
| Trump wanted us to get off our ass and get some money. | ||
| Trump 2024. | ||
| Is it true? | ||
| He made everybody hold a piece of money. | ||
| Trump really up balls. | ||
| So Trump running it how it's supposed to be ran. | ||
| And people just can't take it. | ||
| And he's putting out facts in front of the people. | ||
| He ain't lying. | ||
| He's putting out facts. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Trump, man. | |
| We rocking with you. | ||
| So you, Trump. | ||
| My dog. | ||
| What's up? | ||
| Trump had your country on a better path as far as economically. | ||
| He put America first. | ||
| So it makes sense. | ||
| I like someone who likes to pledge people first. | ||
| Trump 2024, my brother. | ||
| They know they can't get him for none of the real shit. | ||
| We get it, gang. | ||
| I ain't used to like that. | ||
| But now, bro, I realize that he made well for the country. | ||
| You need that back. | ||
| Free Trump. | ||
| Trump 2024. | ||
| They all tricked y'all dumbass to get Trump out the chair. | ||
| And now look how that shit done backfired on y'all dumbass. | ||
| Trump got my back. | ||
| Trump for life. | ||
| Donald Trump. | ||
| He showed us love. | ||
| He showed us love. | ||
| And he didn't stop. | ||
| 2024 Trump. | ||
| Trump 2024. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We from Baltimore. | |
| I ain't gonna lie. | ||
|
unidentified
|
They know they can't get him for none of the real shit. | |
| We get it, gang. | ||
| No. | ||
| As much as they talk shit about Trump, he's probably the best name for America right now, no cap. | ||
| Really? | ||
| Trump. | ||
| My man Trump. | ||
| He's gangster. | ||
| I like him. | ||
| I love him. | ||
| Make America great again. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Let's go. | |
| Trump 2024. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Trump 2028. | |
| Trump 2032. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Come on. | |
| Man, listen. | ||
| Trump for life. | ||
| Come on. | ||
| Trump for life. | ||
| Trump, my motherf... | ||
| Dog! | ||
|
unidentified
|
Come on! | |
| It's too good! | ||
| They'll never show it to you. | ||
| Because it shows that the people have the power, that we're winning. | ||
| That our message, not only is winning, it's won, actually. | ||
| That's what videos like that prove. | ||
| Videos from Fulton County, videos from Miami. | ||
| We can show them all to you. | ||
| That they are completely and totally supported by fraud, the other side. | ||
| They have no one at their back. | ||
| They have no one at their side. | ||
| They have no army. | ||
| They're a bunch of generals with no army. | ||
| They have no actual support. | ||
| No one actually supports what they're doing. | ||
| And so they hate us for it. | ||
| They hate you. | ||
| And they hate me. | ||
| And they hate the fact that we know they hate us. | ||
| And that they are actively working against us. | ||
| Because they have no real support. | ||
| Nobody actually likes them. | ||
| Their policies don't benefit us at all. | ||
| And their only hope is to shut us up. | ||
| To persecute us. | ||
| Their only hope is that if they put enough of us in jail, well, that then they can get rid of us. | ||
| Tyrants. | ||
| Vicious monsters. | ||
| Lucky for us, and very unlucky for them, written in the core and carved into the cornerstone of this nation and this country are institutions that are outside of their Vicious control. | ||
| Institutions that are, well, quite frankly, holy. | ||
| The inspiration of who man is on this earth, like divine, divine natural rights. | ||
| Rights given to us by God and not given to us by man. | ||
| Rights given to us not from government, but that we are born with. | ||
| Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness among them. | ||
| The freedom to speak, the freedom of information, the freedom to control our own bodies, our own future, the wonderful adventure that is a free life, that is our birthright, ladies and gentlemen. | ||
| It is truly profound, and the awakening is spiritual, and we are living through a great awakening, and it is just an exciting thing. | ||
| Does the hair stand up on the back of your neck as it does mine? | ||
| Guys, let's grab that Tucker Carlson Trump ad. | ||
| I really love that one. | ||
| I want to talk through it because as we witness what we're going to witness today, we're going to go soon to some legal experts and the Fannie Willis trial. | ||
| We'll bring you, obviously, our entire reporting phalanx is on with us. | ||
| We will bring you live from the Donald Trump. | ||
| We're going to give you sort of a lot of breaking updates leading up to this Fannie Willis trial. | ||
| We'll go to that live when that kicks off here in just a little bit. | ||
| About 30 minutes, the Fannie Willis trial will kick off or begin rolling. | ||
| The disqualification trial. | ||
| We'll cover all of it and we'll be ready for, of course, anything that comes our way. | ||
| But I kind of want to put like a last little Bow on what we've talked about and explain it in a way that, well, only a true mentor of mine, somebody who I've worked for before, Tucker Carlson, could explain. | ||
| Ladies and gentlemen, this is an ad that isn't an official ad. | ||
| That isn't an official ad from Trump, I don't think, but it should be. | ||
| And I just wanted to cap off sort of our introduction to the show today in the best possible way. | ||
| This is the best possible way. | ||
| This is a monologue from Tucker Carlson. | ||
| I think right after Trump left office. | ||
| And it perfectly personifies the moment that we are living in today. | ||
| This is profound. | ||
| And it's sometimes best to bow your head and humbly accept when someone just is the master. | ||
| And Tucker Carlson is the master at crystallizing a moment. | ||
|
unidentified
|
This is really going to age well. | |
| The Trump ad that should play before. | ||
| In every market for 60 days leading up to the November election this year, Tucker Carlson explaining the moment we are living through right now and why Trump matters. | ||
| Millions of Americans sincerely love Donald Trump. | ||
| They love him in spite of everything they've heard. | ||
| They love him often in spite of himself. | ||
| They love Donald Trump because no one else loves them. | ||
| The country they built, the country their ancestors fought for over hundreds of years, has left them to die in their unfashionable little towns, mocked and despised by the sneering halfwits with finance degrees, but no actual skills, who seem to run everything all of a sudden. | ||
| Whatever Donald Trump's fault, he is better than the rest of the people in charge. | ||
| At least he doesn't hate them for their weakness. | ||
| Donald Trump, in other words, is and has always been A living indictment of the people who run this country. | ||
| That was true four years ago, when Trump came out of nowhere to win the presidency. | ||
| And it's every bit as true right now. | ||
| Trump rose because they failed. | ||
| It's as simple as that. | ||
| If the people in charge had done a halfway decent job with the country they inherited, if they cared about anything other than themselves, even for just a moment, Donald Trump would still be hosting Celebrity Apprentice. | ||
| But they didn't. | ||
| Instead, they were incompetent and narcissistic and cruel and relentlessly dishonest. | ||
| They wrecked what they didn't build. | ||
| They lied about it. | ||
| They hurt anyone who told the truth about what they were doing. | ||
| That's true. | ||
| We watched. | ||
| America is still a great country, the best in the world, but our ruling class is disgusting. | ||
| A vote for Trump is a vote against them. | ||
| That's what's going on in this country. | ||
| Every single time. | ||
| I don't consider myself a... | ||
| I don't cry at movies, right? | ||
| Except for It's a Wonderful Life. | ||
| It's the only movie I actually cry at. | ||
| I don't consider myself, like, overtly emotional or, like, filled with cortisol or, like, unhinged. | ||
| And I watch that, and I've seen it probably now a hundred times, and I get chills every time. | ||
| Every time I watch that Trump-Tucker ad, I get chills. | ||
| It's actually what makes me think that Tucker would make a great vice president. | ||
| Or at the very least, should narrate Trump's ads. | ||
| The ruling class in this country are despicable. | ||
| They hate you because you've seen their failures and call them out and have the rights to call them out on it. | ||
| And therefore, they seek to destroy things they didn't build and make your life worse to punish you. | ||
| This is the message of that ad and Donald Trump. | ||
| Donald Trump is a stinging... | ||
| Rebuke of their failures. | ||
| A stinging rebuke of their failings in life and in action and in politics. | ||
| And that is why Trump is so important right now. | ||
| It is why they are doing everything, and I mean everything, to try and destroy the man. | ||
| Starting with, of course, the Russia collusion hopes. | ||
| Moving on to the demonization of supporters, trying to lock up his own, trying to arrest his movement, to lawfare. | ||
| We are in the lawfare stage. | ||
| And that is all failing. | ||
| It's all failed. | ||
| It's all collapsing. | ||
| If you're a believer, if you're a believer, then you believe that this is divine, perhaps. | ||
| And this is something that, you know, this is God's protection. | ||
| If you're simply a patriot, then maybe you just see the foundations of our nation. | ||
| Which is a foundation and a nation that says, in God we trust, on our federal buildings, our currency, and our founding documents, then maybe that's just shining through after all. | ||
| And the institutions will survive the storm. | ||
| Ladies and gentlemen, an institution will be put to test today in Georgia, in Fulton County. | ||
| Can and will a judge allow one of the most corrupt Utterly grotesque. | ||
| Demonic. | ||
| And the reason we say demonic is because we don't use that word lightly. | ||
| She depended on literal witches to get this indictment of Donald Trump. | ||
| We can prove it. | ||
| She depended on somebody who practices witchcraft and promotes witchcraft. | ||
| I mean, dude, when you're siding with people who are like into the dark arts and witchcraft, pentagrams and everything, in order to bring your case against Donald Trump, don't you dare go to the church. | ||
| Try and robe yourself in sanctity. | ||
| It's demonic, and it's worth calling out. | ||
| It's important. | ||
| A judge will decide today if somebody who has lied openly to the court and behaved like an absolute lunatic, Big Fanny Willis, as we call her, and Nathan's hot dog, if the two of them will be allowed to go forward and prosecute Donald Trump on charges that are specious and fake, that are not true, not grounded in reality. | ||
| That are completely and totally centrally organized by a regime that is desperately trying to clean the power in spite of the fact that nobody supports them and they don't support us. | ||
| Can the collapse begin today? | ||
| Is the collapse at hand? | ||
| We'll see. | ||
| We'll watch it live together. | ||
| And we already got our popcorn popped. | ||
| Here's what's going to go on in the court, ladies and gentlemen, in just a short little while today. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay, we're seeing something in Florida. | |
| This is Fort Pierce now, and Donald Trump just showed up screen right. | ||
| And look what's going on screen left. | ||
| Wow. | ||
| It is Trump territory on the southeast coast of Florida. | ||
| And all those people have showed up for him to come in and listen to. | ||
| The case is whether or not it could get bumped. | ||
| This is the documents matter that pertains to Mar-a-Lago. | ||
| After the president left the White House. | ||
| So we're going to see whether or not the trial date stands up or what they decide to do. | ||
| But that is some turnout there. | ||
| Quite the escort as well, as you see on your full screen right now of the police in Fort Pierce, Florida, escorting the former president to this court date. | ||
| And, you know, I mean, this is this is why this works with the campaign. | ||
| It doesn't work against the campaign. | ||
| Doesn't take him. | ||
| It takes him off the campaign trail. | ||
| But in many ways, it puts him right on it because this is a huge outpouring of support. | ||
| Ladies and gentlemen, we are getting a Fannie Willis update right now. | ||
| But it is worth noting that Donald Trump is in court today for this documents trial. | ||
| I think we might as well, like, cruise past this and express the fact that this judge, Eileen Cannon, with this Trump documents trial, ain't taking any shit, if you know what I mean. | ||
| Right? | ||
| She's not letting Jack Smith, she's like not allowing Jack Smith to budge at all on this. | ||
| And the judge is straight up arguing. | ||
| The judge is saying, hold up, Joe Biden bragged about how many classified documents he hoarded. | ||
| Joe Biden bragged. | ||
| About how he kept classified documents for years when he had no right to do so. | ||
| No plenary right to do so. | ||
| Donald Trump was the president. | ||
| Donald Trump has the right to classify or declassify. | ||
| In fact, the fact that he's touching it, he's embodied in one man, the executive. | ||
| He is the executive. | ||
| Joe Biden was never the executive when he was hoarding all these classified documents to sell to the Chinese. | ||
| And so you're going to have to explain to me what the difference is here because you all just let Joe Biden off on this. | ||
| Well, of course, like... | ||
| Stabbing him, shiving him right in the side, metaphorically, by saying that you're too incompetent to stand trial. | ||
| It's pretty beautiful, ladies and gentlemen. | ||
| The documents trial update, this court ain't taking it. | ||
| This judge, Eileen Cannon is her name. | ||
| Say a prayer for her. | ||
| She is, well, a cannon of salty, salty cannon fodder and truth. | ||
| Check it out. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Former president is in the courtroom right now and is inside the building right now. | |
| Remember, the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago back in August 2022. | ||
| Here we are, March 1st, 2024, waiting for a trial date. | ||
| This is a complicated case with tens of thousands of pages of documents, though we do expect President, the former President Donald Trump, to be in court most of the day with his attorneys, also potentially Jack Smith himself, along with his legal team. | ||
| We have some video of the former president arriving in his motorcade today here in Fort Pierce with some of his supporters outside. | ||
| The big focus, when will this go to trial? | ||
| It's scheduled, Bill and Martha, to begin here May 20th here in Florida, but it's likely this date will slide. | ||
| One of two chief reasons both sides wanted to. | ||
| Special counsel Jack Smith, as of yesterday, proposed July 8th to be the new start date. | ||
| Trump's team said they could settle on August 12th. | ||
| Another reason Trump is claiming in both his federal prosecutions that he should be immune because he was president. | ||
| Judge Eileen Cannon, the federal judge appointed by Donald Trump when he was president, is proceeding over this case and has since the early days after the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago. | ||
| She met both sides in person two weeks ago to go over concerns the government has about producing classified evidence to Trump's team. | ||
| As of today, this is called a scheduled hearing. | ||
| We should get some idea about what she's thinking when it comes to a trial. | ||
| Guys. | ||
|
unidentified
|
*laughter* | |
| Guys. | ||
| As we are doing our monologue, a staff member of our show... | ||
| Who lives in Washington, D.C., spotted on the Washington, D.C. metro this image. | ||
| Let's go ahead and zoom in here. | ||
| This is what's being read in the nation's capital right now. | ||
| President Trump needs your vote. | ||
| 2024 D.C. Republican primary. | ||
| President Trump's agenda. | ||
| Secure America's borders. | ||
| Prosperity for all Americans and public safety and free speech. | ||
| Read that. | ||
| Look at that. | ||
| Look at our show Manifest Live. | ||
| Watch, ladies and gentlemen, and feel how special this moment is. | ||
| A true spiritual awakening. | ||
| A proper spiritual awakening is happening, even inside of the demonic and totally... | ||
| End-to-end, controlled, rat-infested, scummy Washington, D.C. Ladies and gentlemen, here is our update from Fulton County. | ||
| So that's our update. | ||
| We're going to keep track of everything, right? | ||
| We're going to keep track of everything. | ||
| In Miami, Donald Trump is in court. | ||
| In Fulton County, the judge will begin a disqualification trial presently. | ||
| Our update from the big fanny spanking happening soon. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Watch. | |
| Martha, we're about three hours away from those final arguments in this misconduct hearing. | ||
| And basically, the judge is going to have to decide one main question. | ||
| Does he think that the DA, Fannie Willis, and the prosecutor she hired, Nathan Wade, are lying about when their relationship began? | ||
| Did they lie under oath? | ||
| So far, defense attorneys have presented one eyewitness, a colleague, who said she saw them hugging and kissing long before they said they were in a relationship. | ||
| They also presented text messages from Wade's former law partner. | ||
| One exchange went as follows. | ||
| Do you think it started before she hired him? | ||
| Absolutely, the law partner responded. | ||
| They're also trying to present cell phone records from Nathan Wade. | ||
| Those records show in the one year before the two said they were an item that Wade called Willis an average of six times a day, messaged her 30 times a day, all before the two claimed under oath they were in a relationship. | ||
| So the judge is likely to decide next week whether to do nothing, remove Willis, remove Wade, or remove both of them from this case. | ||
| Ooh, baby. | ||
| We'll have a number of legal experts joining the show. | ||
| Either in live form or in previews of what they've said on other media channels, these legal experts, many of the not big-time Donald Trump fans, some of them MSNBC commentators, saying they're, for lack of a better term, effed. | ||
| Okay? | ||
| Like Fannie Willis done effed up, as the residents of Fulton County say as they cheer from the streets for Donald Trump. | ||
| They're done. | ||
| That's every legal expert saying the judge isn't having it. | ||
| We know how these go. | ||
| It's an embarrassment. | ||
| It's a fraud on the American people. | ||
| And the texts now prove it. | ||
| Now you have the hard data. | ||
| We can show you the texts right now. | ||
| You can see them for yourself. | ||
| Breaking. | ||
| Here are the key texts between attorney Ashley Merchant and Terrence Bradley that are at issue in the Fannie Willis disqualification battle. | ||
| They show a congenial collaborative effort between the two as Merchant attempted to investigate facts about their affair. | ||
| Oh, man. | ||
| Ooh, baby. | ||
| The big one, of course, is that... | ||
| The big one is that she says, why not just date? | ||
| Why do you gotta hire the guy? | ||
| And Terrence Bradley, who's Nathan Wade's attorney, goes, oh, yeah, yeah, absolutely. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, dope, I know. | |
| Looks pretty bad, don't it? | ||
| Great lawyering here. | ||
| Really smart. | ||
| Super smart lawyering. | ||
| So, there are multiple texts in this chain. | ||
| References to Fannie Willis' trips with Nathan Wade. | ||
| Bradley says, they took many trips to Florida. | ||
| We don't want ya! | ||
| We don't want ya, big Fannie down here! | ||
| Get outta here! | ||
| Fannie Willis, why would she hire Nathan Wade? | ||
| That's insane, says the text messages. | ||
| Just date. | ||
| Don't hire him. | ||
| And his lawyer goes, yeah, man. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's so good. | |
| It's so amazing. | ||
| Do you think the relationship, this is the full thread, these are all the texts, okay? | ||
| So these are the texts. | ||
| These are the direct screenshots. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That's how sloppy these people were. | |
| Do you think it started before she hired him, meaning the relationship? | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| It started when she left the DA's office. | ||
| And she was a judge in South Fulton. | ||
| This would be in the year 2020 and 2021. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Mm. | |
| Uh-oh. | ||
| Well, she also asked, has Nathan Wade ever prosecuted a felony? | ||
| His lawyer says never in his life has he prosecuted a felony. | ||
| This is the guy getting paid to go after Donald Trump. | ||
| Millions of dollars, okay? | ||
| This guy's been paid. | ||
| Upwards of $700,000. | ||
| Hard to keep track because of how much cash from Fannie's big fanny pack she's been shoveling into Nathan Wade's hands. | ||
| Greasy little hands. | ||
| But here we are, ladies and gentlemen. | ||
| Sticky-fingered Nathan Wade been hoovering up that taxpayer dollar. | ||
| Oh, man. | ||
| Oh, man. | ||
| So, ladies and gentlemen, they have now the text. | ||
| You can see them on your screen. | ||
| They were just talking about these during the investigation into the lying to the court, obviously, that went on here in Fulton County. | ||
| The cover-up. | ||
| And, boy, did they go in this past Wednesday when Terrence Bradley was forced to take the stand again and answer for these texts. | ||
| And it didn't go great. | ||
| Terrence Bradley proved that, in the words of Donald Trump, they're not sending their best. | ||
| Here's Donald Trump's attorney, Steve Sadow, doing as close as you can get to, like, complete and total public humiliation in the town square, okay? | ||
| Here you go. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay, in defense exhibit 26, which I showed you last time. | |
| Was two pages of text messages between you and Ms. Merchant, correct? | ||
| Correct. | ||
| Now, the first page starts off by saying, Ms. Merchant, like just date, don't hire him. | ||
| Do you think it started before she hired him? | ||
| You see that? | ||
| Dang. | ||
| Yes, I see it. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| And your response to that was absolutely, correct? | ||
| I'm going to object, ask, and answer. | ||
| All right. | ||
| So, after the word absolutely, you, on your own, said it started when she left the DA's office and was judged in South Fulton. | ||
| They met at the Municipal Court CLE Conference. | ||
| That's what you said, correct? | ||
| That is correct. | ||
| Okay, ladies and gentlemen, this is a special moment. | ||
| We're actually getting it clipped out right now. | ||
| The oh dang. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Oh dang. | |
| Never a good thing that you can say. | ||
| Never a good thing. | ||
| When the guy who's supposed to be your lawyer looks at the evidence that proves you're lying and goes, oh dang. | ||
| Here you go, baby. | ||
| This is what we're going to argue today. | ||
| The texts are now exposed. | ||
| We can now read them to you. | ||
| Let's go! | ||
| I mean, they were friends. | ||
| So it was interesting to see him so adversarial on the witness stand. | ||
| But this one from January 5th, 2024, they had been texting back and forth about Fonnie Willis and Nathan Wade's relationship. | ||
| Ashley Merchant texts, do you think it started before she hired him? | ||
| Terrence Bradley. | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| Terrence Bradley says it started when she left the DA's office and was a judge in South Fulton. | ||
| Then we got into that part, Phil, where Ashley Burchard was talking about this in court. | ||
| She texts him back to say, is this accurate? | ||
| Upon information and belief, Willis and Wade met while both were serving as magistrate judges and began a romantic relationship at that time. | ||
| Terrence Bradley texts back, no, municipal court. | ||
| She says, thank you. | ||
| And he goes on to say, but you can't put where they met because not many people know that. | ||
| He was on the stand, Phil, saying, I can't recall, I can't recall, I can't recall. | ||
| It's right here in green and black and white. | ||
| Dude, when John Roberts, who's like real weak sauce at five, you know, he's... | ||
| Whatever. | ||
| I don't have anything against John Roberts. | ||
| But he's like Mr. Straight up and down tie. | ||
| Like, I will read the news. | ||
| I'll read the news. | ||
| Ron Burgundy. | ||
| When John Roberts is like laughing his ass off at how clumsy you are and how stupid you are and how you are obviously lying, you got a problem. | ||
| Here, we've clipped the oh dang for you. | ||
| I think we're going to use this a lot as a reaction meme. | ||
| Here's the official, here's the moment when they knew. | ||
| That Fanny Willis not only will be disqualified, the entire office will be disqualified, but that, like, they'll probably be disbarred, right, for their lie. | ||
| Here's the oh dang. | ||
| We've clipped just the oh dang part. | ||
| The moment of revelation. | ||
| All right. | ||
| I want captions added to that, and then I want to slow it down for dramatic effect. | ||
| Zoom in. | ||
| Let's put the editing team to the test here. | ||
| I want oh dang. | ||
| Super slow-mo. | ||
| I want a super slow-mo ESPN replay of all of that. | ||
| It's so good. | ||
| Legal experts are now saying, well, we're done here. | ||
| Even the ones on MSNBC, the libs who are paid to be as salty as possible are saying, it's finished. | ||
| They've done it to themselves and they don't have anything else to stand on. | ||
| They might as well just hang it up. | ||
| It's incredible. | ||
| Like, the consensus that's being formed right now in the legal space is really bad. | ||
| Here we go. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Listen, this shows really a different picture of a person who is actively assisting Ashley Merchant in her effort to investigate the facts and circumstances regarding this issue on behalf of her client. | |
| It's almost a collegial-type conversation as I see it. | ||
| Contrast that to what we saw from the witness stand, and it's obvious that something, and these texts, by the way, are recent. | ||
| They go through January and I think even February of this year. | ||
| Something recently has changed, but it's obvious that Mr. Bradley didn't want to be there. | ||
| He didn't want to be having to provide this testimony. | ||
| These text messages, many of which were used in court the last time he was on the stand, which I think was Tuesday. | ||
| It's called a prior inconsistent statement, and under Georgia law, a prior inconsistent statement can be used not only to contradict a witness that's called impeachment by contradiction. | ||
| These prior inconsistent statements, these text messages in this case, are also considered substantive evidence. | ||
| So, what he's saying there is... | ||
| The Georgia prosecutor is saying that they're all opening themselves up to criminal prosecution and impeachment. | ||
| Every one of them. | ||
| Because they're all lying. | ||
| Now they're caught in their lies. | ||
| And it's all like spiraling downward. | ||
| As tends to happen, actually. | ||
| Company of thieves sort of thing. | ||
| But here's what's really special. | ||
| This final thing I'll say. | ||
| On this matter, before bringing in one of our favorite legal experts, Mike Davis, to opine on all of this, I'm sure Mike and I will have a rowdy little time here. | ||
| Mike is the... | ||
| Oh, yeah, we're going to have some fun. | ||
| Their own friends are ratting them out. | ||
| This is how, again, if you are in the company of thieves, don't be surprised if you get stolen from, okay? | ||
| If these are the kind of people you choose to hang out with and do business with, don't... | ||
| Don't be surprised when the rats turn on each other. | ||
| Rats, hungry enough, they'll eat each other. | ||
| And ladies and gentlemen, the rats are a-turning. | ||
| There is a friend of Fanny's, apparently her best friend, who said, hold up. | ||
| She already testified in court. | ||
| She said, hold up. | ||
| They were dating, and they, like, Fanny Willis was being Nathan's hot dog wiener roller way back in 2020. | ||
| They're lying to you, says Fannie's friend, who's turned on her entirely and is one of the key witnesses here. | ||
| We don't talk enough about that because, well, Fannie Willis is too entertaining. | ||
| But her friend hopped on and she's like, what do you mean? | ||
| This is a lie. | ||
| It's an obvious lie. | ||
| They're lying to you. | ||
| She's testified in court. | ||
| That's her testimony, okay? | ||
| The defense was like, uh, we have no questions. | ||
| And so what Terrence Bradley is doing... | ||
| You've got to understand from a legal perspective, to what Sarah Bradley is doing is proving that she's telling the truth, and now you have multiple corroborating witnesses stacking up against Fannie Willis' erratic, nonsensical lies to the court. | ||
| It's going to be a tasty, tasty dinner tonight. | ||
| Here you go. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Let's not forget, John. | |
| These text messages corroborate what we saw from witness Robin Yurdy. | ||
| In fact, you can see from these text messages that it was Mr. Bradley that helped Ashley Merchant identify Ms. Yurdy, who came to court the last time, and she said under oath that the affair started as early as 2019. | ||
| She has personal knowledge. | ||
| She says she saw them kissing and hugging and acting like a romantic item. | ||
| And let's not also forget this also is consistent with the cell phone data information that was offered by the Trump team that purports to show that Nathan Wade's cell phone was traveling to and from what we call the Yurdy Condo, which is in Haightville, Georgia, to visit Ms. Willis in the overnight hours. | ||
| So all of this together adds up to a very dangerous set of circumstances for Ms. Willis. | ||
| If the judge believes that she has perpetrated a fraud on the court or that she has lied under oath, the consequences for her could be very, very severe. | ||
| ladies and gentlemen uh we have a very special guest who's joining us right now and i want to just preview for those of you watch the show mike davis obviously a legend mike davis uh is somebody who runs the article 3 project but that like quite frankly doesn't do his pedigree uh enough justice mike davis is somebody who's personally worked for supreme court uh | ||
| Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch personally worked for Chuck Grassley on the Judiciary Committee in the Senate who was in charge of all judicial nominations, judges, and all of these federal prosecutions. | ||
| Like Mike Davis is somebody who knows the internals of this system better than anyone and who personally shepherded and I think could rightly be said you wouldn't have the Trump Supreme Court granting cert. | ||
| In the presidential immunity, you wouldn't have the victories that we're seeing on Section 1512C2 without Mike Davis. | ||
| Mike Davis is the man who personally stood in the gap for Kavanaugh and stiffened the spines of the Republican Senate to get that man on the court. | ||
| Mike Davis is a profound legal expert when it comes to cases like these. | ||
| And the great Mike Davis joins the show now. | ||
| you you You'll never get a better introduction than that, Mike. | ||
| Although, I will say that I'm not even sure you would be able to maintain your composure with all of your pedigree when faced with the lies of Big Fanny. | ||
| What do you make of this case? | ||
| Can you sort of give us a little bit of a handicap of what's going to happen today? | ||
| So what should happen if there's any justice down in Georgia is this Fulton County DA, Fanny Willis. | ||
| Should be disqualified from this case. | ||
| So should her boyfriend, Nathan Wade. | ||
| So should her office, the Fulton County DA office. | ||
| This case should be dismissed without prejudice. | ||
| And then a new prosecutor should be brought in who is not corrupted, who has not perjured themselves, who has not obstructed justice to make the independent assessment whether to refile these charges. | ||
| Against President Trump and 18 others. | ||
| I would think that any sane, non-corrupted, uncorrupted prosecutor would not do that because it is not a crime to object to a presidential election. | ||
| It is allowed by the Electoral Count Act of 1887. | ||
| Democrats objected to Republican wins in 1968. | ||
| 2000, 2004, and 2016. | ||
| We don't see Al Gore and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton in prison for objecting to those Republican wins. | ||
| It's also allowed by the First Amendment to object to a presidential election. | ||
| It's only a crime to object to a presidential election in third-world Marxist hellholes like... | ||
| China and Russia and North Korea and Washington, D.C. and Atlanta, Georgia. | ||
| So that's what should happen to this case. | ||
| This is not about Fannie Willis hooking up with her boyfriend and then hiring him. | ||
| This is much bigger than that. | ||
| This is, as a criminal prosecutor, you cannot have a financial stake in the criminal. | ||
| That is absolutely unethical and illegal. | ||
| And you have to wonder why Fannie Willis brought this bizarre Rico case against Trump and 18 others. | ||
| Her secret boyfriend, not so secret now, was being paid $250 an hour, $700,000 and counting to bring these charges. | ||
| And then big fannies living the big life, going to Napa, going to the Caribbean, going to Belize with her secret boyfriend, taking these illegal kickbacks from her boyfriend. | ||
| Oh, but don't worry, her Black Panther father... | ||
| Taught her as a Black Panther cub that she needs to have six months of cash laying around the house like a prostitute or a drug dealer. | ||
| And she had cash laying around the house and she paid back Nathan Wade with cash, you know, thousands and thousands of dollars. | ||
| There's no evidence of this whatsoever other than their perjured statements, right? | ||
| And then... | ||
| She didn't replenish that cash, so she disobeyed her father's advice, her Black Panther father's advice. | ||
| She's been a bad Black Panther cub because she didn't replenish that cash to have six months of cash laying around after she spent thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars going on these trips. | ||
| She's obviously lying. | ||
| She's obviously taking bribes. | ||
| She's obviously taking illegal kickbacks. | ||
| This is perjury, supernation of perjury, obstruction of justice. | ||
| Remember, Nathan Wade... | ||
| Lied in a sworn statement to the divorce court. | ||
| That is perjury. | ||
| Then Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade and eight other attorneys in the Fulton County DA's office submitted that false affidavit from the divorce case to... | ||
|
unidentified
|
Go to a cabin with Ms. Willis. | |
| Sorry about that, Mike. | ||
| Codefendant Mike Roman's motion to dismiss. | ||
| They've lied to several courts. | ||
| They need to be thrown off this case. | ||
| They need to be thrown in prison. | ||
| Mike, I think that you're making a great point. | ||
| You know that I love puns. | ||
| I'm a father. | ||
| I like that. | ||
| It's too easy with Big Fanny and Nathan's hot dog. | ||
| It's too easy, obviously, with the, you know, stepping aside. | ||
| All the jokes, all right? | ||
| Lying to the court. | ||
| That's kind of like plainly obvious. | ||
| And all the evidence is stacked against them. | ||
| They have now officially lied to the court on multiple. | ||
| So let's just take that charge as it stands. | ||
| What should happen if you are found to be a prosecutor and you are lying to the court that you are supposed to be prosecuting in front of? | ||
| You're behaving criminally in that same court. | ||
| What's supposed to happen? | ||
| It's very clear what should happen and what must happen. | ||
| They need to be disqualified from the case. | ||
| The case needs to be dismissed for a new prosecutor to come in and decide whether to refile the charges. | ||
| They need to be disbarred. | ||
| So what would be the prison element to that? | ||
| Would you say, so now you're talking about taking bribes and embezzling federal money, that's then the crime? | ||
| It's bribery. | ||
| It's taking illegal kickbacks. | ||
| It's having an illegal financial stake in a criminal prosecution. | ||
| It's perjury. | ||
| It's supernation of perjury. | ||
| It's false statements. | ||
| It's obstruction of justice. | ||
| There are Fulton County gift ban violations here. | ||
| Marjorie Taylor Greene, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, the all-star Congresswoman from Georgia, sent a criminal referral to Governor Kemp, Governor Brian Kemp, and Attorney General Chris Carr in Georgia months ago. | ||
| They need to stop protecting Fannie Willis because of their hatred for Trump. | ||
| They need to do their job under Georgia statute and open a criminal probe on Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade. | ||
| They got eight lawyers in the Fulton County DA's office, eight prosecutors, to put their names on an affidavit that Fannie and Nathan knew contained perjured statements to the court. | ||
| How can it be? | ||
| How could you conceivably, not as any, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not some type of bright legal mind, but how in any universe could the court allow somebody to go forward who's done this inside of the same court? | ||
| I mean, it doesn't seem possible, right? | ||
| It seems like if you were going to handicap this, and we've been quite shocked that even MSNBC legal experts are saying, they're finished here. | ||
| Like, there really is no path forward. | ||
| Am I wrong? | ||
| No, and the question, they're clearly going to get disqualified. | ||
| The office is clearly going to get disqualified. | ||
| The only question is whether the judge dismisses the case without prejudice, which he should do, and allow a new prosecutor to come in, or if he allows this case to continue. | ||
| Here's the problem. | ||
| This case... | ||
| Has been corrupted since before the indictments with this illegal financial stake that Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade had in this case. | ||
| She admitted that her relationship with him started before the indictment. | ||
| That's all that matters. | ||
| It was before... | ||
| She decided to move forward with this unprecedented RICO indictment, this very expensive case. | ||
| And now we know why she brought this very expensive case because she's taking illegal kickbacks. | ||
| She's taking bribes. | ||
| She has an illegal financial stake in this criminal prosecution. | ||
| And if you believe that this Black Panther cub kept six months of cash around the house and paid back her boyfriend in cash and then didn't replenish the cash, no ATM transactions, no big statement showing that she got more cash to keep six months around her house, then you're suspending all common sense. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| So what happens when it gets back? | ||
| To the Biden White House and January 6th committee and their interaction here. | ||
| So, I mean, I'm asking inside of a Trump 2.0 administration and an actual investigation is launched to see what interaction did the White House have? | ||
| Why was Nathan Wade at the White House? | ||
| This guy hadn't even prosecuted a parking ticket, yet he's getting invited to go sit with the White House counsel. | ||
| Fannie Willis is going to the January 6th committee. | ||
| A proper investigation is done. | ||
| in the White House. | ||
| That seems like arguably a much bigger deal than like the sex they were having inside or outside of a cabin, right? | ||
| So Nathan Wade billed the Fulton County DA's office $250 an hour to meet with the Biden White House, including the Biden White House counsel. | ||
| It had to have been, before the indictment, it had to have been about this case because he billed Fulton County on this case. | ||
| So he was clearly colluding with the White House. | ||
| About this case, this January 6th case in Georgia before the indictment. | ||
| That's clear collusion. | ||
| That's clear evidence. | ||
| And what I would say is the Trump 47 Justice Department needs to appoint a special counsel to investigate this criminal conspiracy by Biden, his staff, and these various prosecutors, whether it's Biden Special Counsel Jack Smith, this Democrat Fulton County DA Fannie Willis and her boyfriend. | ||
| Nathan Wade, the Soros Fund at Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg, Big Tish, Tish James, the New York Attorney General. | ||
| This is a criminal conspiracy by these Democrat operatives and prosecutors to take out President Trump, to violate his civil rights. | ||
| And Biden has his hands on all four of these criminal prosecutions, all four of them. | ||
| Not only did Nathan Wade build the Biden White House before the indictment, you had Matthew... | ||
| Colangelo going from the number three office and the Biden Justice Department to go resuscitate the zombie case against Trump in Manhattan. | ||
| This bogus case for the non-felony of a businessman settling a nuisance claim. | ||
| You had Jonathan Hsu, Biden's deputy White House counsel, waiving Trump's claim of executive privilege on behalf of Joe Biden that led to the unprecedented, unnecessary, unlawful raid on the office of former president for presidential records Trump was allowed to have under the Presidential Records Act. | ||
| That spun off to Jack Smith indicting Trump for records he's allowed to have and the January 6th case. | ||
| Biden's hands are on all four of these criminal indictments, these unprecedented indictments against his political enemy, Trump. | ||
| We need to rush to have these cases tried and Trump convicted and these Democrat... | ||
| Before these Democrat judges and prosecutors and juries before November 5th, 2024, this is obviously election interference. | ||
| They're obviously violating President Trump's civil rights. | ||
| They need to be held accountable for this. | ||
| So I can't let you go, Mike, without asking about the Supreme Court and granting cert in the immunity, presidential immunity this week. | ||
| Obviously, SALT was rolling. | ||
| Giant salt rocks rolling down the street through Washington, D.C. All the right people were seething and hissing and spitting venom over this. | ||
| It seems like such an obvious thing for the Supreme Court to do. | ||
| It seems like the role of the Supreme Court to take up a case like this. | ||
| Your thoughts? | ||
| These left-wing lunatics, they're just zombies. | ||
| Were they wearing their Ukraine COVID mask when they were screaming and ranting? | ||
| So remember, these same zombies back in December when Jack Smith made the extraordinary request to the Supreme Court, a petition for cert before judgment. | ||
| Jack Smith said this case was so important that only the Supreme Court can hear it, and that's why the Supreme Court should skip the D.C. Circuit, the Federal Appellate Court, and hear this case. | ||
| The Supreme Court said, no, go to the D.C. Circuit first. | ||
| The Democrat operatives on the D.C. Circuit sided with Jack Smith, and now Jack Smith and all these Democrat zombies are saying, the Supreme Court can't take this case, right? | ||
| They're going to destroy democracy. | ||
| They can't take this case. | ||
| How did they say in December that this case is so important, that only the Supreme Court can take it, but now... | ||
| The Supreme Court is blowing up the Constitution by taking this case. | ||
| These people are left-wing lunatics. | ||
| Look, members of Congress have immunity from criminal prosecution for their official acts. | ||
| So do federal judges. | ||
| Why wouldn't the president of the United States? | ||
| He would need it more than anyone because he runs an entire branch of government and the Supreme Court is going to decide that the president, any president, is immune from criminal prosecution for his official acts, not his personal acts, his official acts. | ||
| They're going to remand this back to Judge Chuckkin, this Obama judge on the D.C. Circuit, who will hold an evidentiary hearing and decide. | ||
| What actions on January 6th were personal versus presidential? | ||
| One presidential is how do you fire your attorney general unless you're the president? | ||
| How do you order the D.C. National Guard to go put down a capital right unless you're the president? | ||
| There's going to be huge problems with Jack Smith's case. | ||
| It's not going to get tried before the election, and Trump's going to win, and this case is going to go away. | ||
| Boo-hoo to the Democrats. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Boo! | |
| So that, I mean, that does seem like it's going to just completely destroy, like, there's then no hope. | ||
| And I think they've hung their hope on the wrong people. | ||
| We couldn't believe it when Fanny Willis took the stand because we're just going to be going live to the judge rarely soon here. | ||
| And because you're very smart, you're very wise, Mike, and you're able to read people really well, better than anyone I've known. | ||
| I've known you for a while. | ||
| Can you give me your read on these antics that Fannie Willis displayed? | ||
| I'm sure you were watching live with the rest of us and were quite aghast, but you actually have a pedigree in this. | ||
| And so what does this say to you when a prosecutor starts waving files in the air and screaming at the top of her lungs? | ||
| And right after this, the judge put her in timeout. | ||
| It shows that she's an absolute buffoon. | ||
| She shouldn't be in a position of power. | ||
| But because she's in a Democrat hellhole called Fulton County, you can have buffoons like this who went in office. | ||
| She's clearly lying. | ||
| She's clearly obstructing justice. | ||
| She's clearly taking bribes. | ||
| She clearly is taking illegal kickbacks. | ||
| She clearly has an illegal financial stake in a criminal prosecution. | ||
| And big fan, he's clearly going to get kicked off this case. | ||
| And so is her dumb boyfriend, Nathan Wade, and the rest of her office. | ||
| The only question is whether the case... | ||
| Gets dismissed without prejudice to bring in a new prosecutor, which the judge should do if he's actually going to follow the law and follow justice, but we shall see. | ||
| There's a very special clip right here that's playing. | ||
| Would you know if you went to a cabin, Mike? | ||
| Or would you have to sweat and stare at the ceiling for 60 seconds? | ||
| You know, Ben, I don't think we've had enough controversy on this hit, so I will say this. | ||
| I actually feel sorry for Nathan Wade. | ||
| I don't think at $700,000 after watching Fannie Willis' testimony, he was paid enough. | ||
| One final thing, just because you're the legal expert for the show. | ||
| His lawyer said, oh, dang. | ||
| We have this clip for you. | ||
| It's a very short clip. | ||
| But when given the text messages, Terrence Bradley looks at them and literally under his voice, but you can hear it. | ||
| It's audible in the microphone. | ||
| He goes, oh, dang. | ||
| Let's put the clip up, Royce. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Here it goes. | |
| We've slowed it down for a fact. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| So, what does that mean? | ||
| What does that mean when your lawyer, like, sees the evidence against you and says something like that? | ||
| I think it means objection, Your Honor, we're screwed. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Something like that. | |
| Look, I would say to these Democrats, if you're going to try to use your lawfare to take out a president, a former and likely future president of the United States... | ||
| Don't pick utter morons like Jack Smith and Tish James and Fannie Willis and Alvin Bragg to do your bidding. | ||
| They're stupid, right? | ||
| And this whole house of cards is crumbling. | ||
| This was the Democrats' dream that they were just going to take President Trump off the ballot, bankrupt him, indict him, throw him in prison, and Biden was just going to, like, meander into the White House again with his ice cream cone by default. | ||
| Guess what? | ||
| It's backfiring, and you're welcome, America, from the Article 3 Project, because we helped make that happen. | ||
| Yes, ladies and gentlemen, please. | ||
| This is the Article 3 Project, so incredibly important. | ||
| Mike is the president and founder of the Article 3 Project, fighting for your rights and obviously putting the systems in place to prevent complete and total tyranny inside of our legal systems, and also, obviously, for you and I, just the regular citizens. | ||
| If they can do this to Trump, they can do it to all of us, right? | ||
| And Mike's one of the very few who are standing in the gap. | ||
| Mike, did I get that right? | ||
| I think so. | ||
| We joked about putting kids in cages. | ||
| We're not going to put kids in cages. | ||
| We're going to put Biden and Fannie and Alvin Bragg and Tish James and the rest of these Democrat, Matthew Colangelo, Nathan Wade, the rest of these Democrat operatives who are running this illegal criminal conspiracy to... | ||
| Take out a political opponent through this lawfare and election interference. | ||
| There is going to be justice coming after January 20th, 2025. | ||
| Support Mike at the Article 3 project. | ||
| We don't have enough time now, but I hear rumors that Mike might be appointed the acting attorney general to have a three-week reign of terror and to do every investigation, to not sleep, and he's just going to go find the bag of coke that Hunter Biden left at the White House and he's just going to rip it. | ||
| And go and do the three-week Reign of Terror. | ||
| And boy, oh boy, we might be live for the whole thing. | ||
| We'll see. | ||
| Ladies and gentlemen, the great Mike Davis. | ||
| Godspeed, sir. | ||
| Thank you, sir. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you, sir. | |
| I know for a fact that Mike does not do drugs and would never touch Hunter Biden's Coke left at the White House. | ||
| Hunter Biden asked just this week whether the Coke at the White House was his. | ||
| A very, very special moment. | ||
| Another special moment from the hearing, if you can call it that, earlier this week of Terrence Bradley was when he was asked, do you lie? | ||
| Oh, it's too good. | ||
| We're going to try. | ||
| I can't believe how fast the time has gone because the trial is going to start here very, very soon. | ||
| We have more guests. | ||
| We have more experts. | ||
| We have Tasha Kay coming up, one of our favorites, who's from Fulton County and from Georgia. | ||
| I think she may be giving Big Fanny a spanking. | ||
| She's gotten a little riled up, so we're excited to have Tasha K join us momentarily, ladies and gentlemen. | ||
| But, oh man, it would probably take the next seven hours for me to preview all of the nightmares of the past few testimonies here in Fulton County. | ||
| But one of my favorites was, do you lie to your friends? | ||
| Are you a liar? | ||
| Ladies and gentlemen, if... | ||
| Your wife, if you come home to your wife and she goes, are you a liar? | ||
| And then she presents to you like evidence that you're a liar or something like that. | ||
| Best not to like, again, profusely sweat and stare at the ceiling and not answer. | ||
| That's not the right answer to are you a liar? | ||
| But here we have it from Nathan's Hot Dog's own attorney. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Normal course of your relationships with your friends. | |
| Do you pass on lies about your friends? | ||
| Have I passed on a lie about a friend? | ||
| Is that what you're asking? | ||
| Is that something you normally do, Mr. Bradley? | ||
| Do you tell lies about your friends? | ||
| I could have. | ||
| friends? | ||
| I could have. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| Do you tell lies about your friends about a case of national importance? | ||
| Objection. | ||
| That's true. | ||
| Overruled. | ||
| I could have. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| I don't know, man. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| Do I lie about my friends, my wife, my business? | ||
| Am I a big fat? | ||
| Am I a liar? | ||
| Like, hey, are you a liar? | ||
| Like, you're sworn into a court of law right now under penalty of perjury. | ||
| Are you a liar? | ||
| I don't know, man. | ||
|
unidentified
|
What? | |
| You're the guy's lawyer. | ||
| He's not the janitor. | ||
| He's the lawyer for Nathan Wade. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Ooh, baby. | |
| Oh, man. | ||
| So, have you lied? | ||
| Do you recall if you've lied? | ||
| Hey, lawyer for the accused here. | ||
| Do you recall that you've lied ever? | ||
| I mean, you're the lawyer, so you should, I guess, like, know the difference between truth and lie? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Mr. Bradley, when you spoke, when you communicated with Ms. Merchant, did you tell her any lies about Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis'relationship? | |
| Mr. Bradley, when you spoke, I was a little bit of a knife. | ||
| Did I lie to Ms? | ||
| That's a simple question, Mr. Bradley. | ||
| You're a lawyer. | ||
| Did you lie to Ms. Merchant when you told her facts about Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis'relationship? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Not that I recall. | ||
| don't recall I mentioned earlier that I speculated on some things. | ||
| I've testified to what I did know, so I can't recall whether or not I Mr. Bradley, speculation is kind of a weaselly lawyer word. | ||
| Let's speak truth here. | ||
| He calls him a weasel! | ||
| I know these clips are painful. | ||
| Like, I'm aware. | ||
| We're sitting here in the studio, like, cringing with you, watching them. | ||
| On our massive monitor, and we're, like, sitting here, like, we're watching this, just cringing. | ||
| Like, oh, man. | ||
| It's hard to watch. | ||
| It's like an accident. | ||
| A car being driven by the dumbest, most incompetent people. | ||
| People you're kind of rooting for. | ||
| Because you're like, oh man, it's so sad. | ||
| They just weren't given a high IQ. | ||
| For instance, let's say that you hired your boyfriend to prosecute Donald Trump so you could embezzle a million bucks. | ||
| Would you also then have sex with him at your office? | ||
| Well, apparently that's what they were doing. | ||
| Because that's what Terrence Bradley had to answer for. | ||
| How many times did Big Fanny and Nathan's Hot Dog get it on in their office? | ||
| You told me they were having sex inside their taxpayer-funded office. | ||
| Oh, come on! | ||
| Oh, man. | ||
| Somebody give the cleaning lady a bonus. | ||
| Let's go. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Did you learn from Mr. Wade? | |
| I would clarify that's where you learned it from. | ||
| about Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis meeting at the Evans office together. | ||
| I can't recall what the conversation was. | ||
| I do I do recall knowing that they would That he would go down to the office or had been down to the office, but I can't tell you in what capacity or when or any of that, no. | ||
| Mr. Wade told you that they had sex at the office, correct? | ||
| I don't recall him saying that, no. | ||
| You don't recall it? | ||
| No. | ||
| So it's possible he did say that? | ||
| You just don't remember one way or another? | ||
| I do not remember him saying that. | ||
| But that's what you told us. | ||
| Oh, man. | ||
| You'll remember, I don't know if we'll even get here, but you'll remember that Nathan Wade was regularly like, you mean that I have sex with her? | ||
| You mean that I have sex with her? | ||
| You're talking about me having sexual intercourse with her. | ||
| Like, he was the one saying that. | ||
| Okay, I'm not trying to be openly gratuitous here, but Nathan Wade was the one, like, barking back at the prosecutors and the petitioners, like, here, for the defense, like, saying, You're talking about sexual intercourse? | ||
| It's like, jeez, man, chill, right? | ||
| And then Fannie Willis doing the same thing. | ||
| I'm not going to emasculate a black man? | ||
| Like, Fannie Willis straight up being like, they're talking about grotesque, they're talking about sex acts, like when the lawyers are trying to be professional, and Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade are just going there, apparently. | ||
|
unidentified
|
This isn't great, obviously. | |
| For the legal system, those who are dependent upon the legal system for their careers, like some of our favorite legal scholars, Mike Davis is one of them. | ||
| Jonathan Turley is another on Fox News. | ||
| Jonathan Turley is like, they're going to, like, listen, take it to the bank. | ||
| They're getting disqualified. | ||
| We're going to watch it happen live today. | ||
| Watch. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Wow, I mean, it was a painful testimony to watch. | |
| It came off as sort of a Sergeant Schultz defense that I know nothing, nothing, including stuff that I knew with clarity just recently, and it did not go over well. | ||
| Is that case over, in your view? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, I can't imagine why these two prosecutors have not removed themselves because I think this judge is in a tough position to keep both of them. | |
| There's a chance that they both could be disqualified. | ||
| They have not helped themselves and they certainly have not helped the people of that state. | ||
| So Jonathan Turley saying that the offices are going to be disqualified, that's obviously aligned with Mike Davis, what he told us just moments ago. | ||
| Now, Andrew McCarthy... | ||
| Is also on Fox saying, hold up, like, it's not just Nathan Wade or Big Fanny. | ||
| They're going to rip the whole office. | ||
| They're going to fire the entire office. | ||
| The entire office is now done. | ||
| The entire office is smoked. | ||
| Because not only do you have this going on, you have federal whistleblower statutes that are applying, that Jim Jordan's investigating, Congress is investigating, Marjorie Taylor Greene is submitting criminal referrals. | ||
| As a member of Congress. | ||
| And now the Georgia Senate and House have now opened investigations into Big Fanny. | ||
| Well, well, well. | ||
| Andrew McCarthy is saying, trust me, the whole office is done. | ||
| They're just going to clean house. | ||
| Rats off a ship. | ||
| Go. | ||
| And, you know, with regard to that, this judge is going to have to make a decision in this case about whether or not he's going to remove Willis and Wade. | ||
| There's another hearing, I believe, on Friday in this matter. | ||
| Take us through how you think this is going to go at this point. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, I think he'll have to sort of segment it. | |
| So it looks to me like the strongest case to have somebody get out of the case is Wade. | ||
| Because you have all kinds of problems with some of his prior statements. | ||
| Then you have Willis, and then you have the entire office. | ||
| I mean, the ultimate argument they're making is that the whole DA's office has to be removed from this case. | ||
| Frankly, I think at this point, if your standard, as it should be, is the appearance of impropriety, at the very least, Willis and Wade should be off this case. | ||
| And then they should be able to establish whether... | ||
| She and he are so immersed in this that the whole office has to go. | ||
| Okay, so maybe you've hopped on the channel and you're like, okay, Benny, you're just playing two Fox clips. | ||
| What does that mean when they're on Fox News? | ||
| They obviously hate Fannie Willis. | ||
| They're set against Fannie Willis and they're just echoing the MAGA talking points. | ||
| All right, fine, I got something for you. | ||
| I got a little something for you. | ||
| How about this? | ||
| We watch MSNBC 2. We watch all the cables. | ||
| We even watch CNN, even though you have to, like, you know, pry our eyes open and put Purell in them. | ||
| Ladies and gentlemen, what does MSNBC have to say? | ||
| Maybe MSNBC is your favorite channel because it spews Democrat talking points into your face every single day, like a mother into her baby bird sitting in her nest. | ||
| Well, let's go ahead and tune in. | ||
| What does MSNBC have to say about the presentation for Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade? | ||
| Go. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's so legalistic-centric and yet so important and fascinating. | |
| Right. | ||
| Don't let the legalese fool you. | ||
| This is epic. | ||
| This is monumental. | ||
| If things are going in the direction we think. | ||
| If Fannie Willis lied to the court, it's game over for her. | ||
| She will be disqualified. | ||
| If they had a relationship prior to when they represented to the court, it's a huge deal. | ||
| I can't overstate it. | ||
| And do you feel the same way, Charles, based on the testimony? | ||
| So, wait a second. | ||
| Your precious MSNBC political correspondent and legal correspondent and expert is saying she will be disqualified. | ||
| She lied to the court and she will be disqualified. | ||
| I'm just going to rub a little bit of salt, a little extra salt in the back to MSNBC reporting and showing you that MSNBC themselves found the lie. | ||
| Here's MSNBC through the pouring salt inside of their studio, having to like punch the buttons and show you the evidentiary lies that are already piling up against Fannie Willis. | ||
| Again, ladies and gentlemen, we try and present both sides here. | ||
| So here you go. | ||
|
unidentified
|
When did your romantic relationship with Ms. Willis begin? | |
| 2022. | ||
| When? | ||
| In 2022. | ||
| Early 2022. | ||
| So you were appointed in November of 2021? | ||
| Yes, ma 'am. | ||
| And your relationship started early. | ||
| What's early? | ||
| January? | ||
| February? | ||
| Around March. | ||
| Around March. | ||
| But you two met at an October 2019 judicial conference, correct? | ||
| Yes, ma 'am. | ||
| That testimony directly contradicts earlier testimony from one of Willis' former good friends who said the relationship began well before Wade testified it did and predated his hearing by the DA. | ||
| You have no doubt that their romantic relationship was in effect from 2019 until the last time you spoke with her. | ||
| No doubt. | ||
| Did you observe them do things that are common among people having a romantic relationship? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Such as? | ||
| Can you give us an example? | ||
| Hugging, kissing, disaffection. | ||
| All before November 1st of 2021, correct? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| That was MSNBC having to show Fannie's best friend and roommate calling her a liar, saying her and Nathan's hot dog are lying to the court. | ||
| And ladies and gentlemen, well, we are just filling our cup. | ||
| We are filling our cup with the salty, salty richness of MSNBC having to play those clips with the giant rock salts that are flowing down the streets because so many of these cases are blowing up. | ||
| But more importantly, we have played you legal expert after legal expert after legal expert talking about how this case is doomed. | ||
| Soon, we will go to the start of the disqualification trial today. | ||
| But no! | ||
| No preview of this trial would be complete without our favorite guest on this topic. | ||
| Yes, we can play you legal experts. | ||
| Yes, we can play you people with long pedigrees and little diplomas on their walls from Yale and Harvard and whatever. | ||
| Columbia Law School. | ||
| Okay, fine. | ||
| All right? | ||
| Maybe you have argued before the Supreme Court. | ||
| Maybe you have appointed Supreme Court justices in the Trump administration. | ||
| But ladies and gentlemen, you do not have the capacity, the vigor, and the stamina to hold a comically large wine glass filled with multiple goblets of wine and present on your show, | ||
| Unwind with Tasha Kay, in the most humorous, delicate, And skewering fashion, the news of the day. | ||
| One of our newest favorite guests on this program joins us now, the great Tasha Kay, host of Unwine with Tasha Kay. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Benny! | |
| Tasha! | ||
| Oh my god! | ||
| I'm dumping the whole bottle. | ||
| We're done. | ||
| Benny the housewives, we're out. | ||
| We're upset. | ||
| We're embarrassed. | ||
| We are. | ||
| I am just floored at Fannie. | ||
| Go in. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Go in, Queen. | |
| Tell me about Fannie. | ||
| I do want to say on behalf of Fannie and Nathan, okay? | ||
| And this has to do with the black community as a whole. | ||
| We date completely different from the rest of the population, right? | ||
| So, there is testimony from, you know, her hater friend. | ||
| What's that lady name with that bad wig and them glasses, okay? | ||
| And then we got the lawyer, Terrence Bradley, who's Nathan Wade's friend. | ||
| And, you know, we tell our friends things, you know, when we meet somebody. | ||
| Oh, he cute. | ||
| Oh, she fine. | ||
| But let's be honest, Fanny ain't never been fine. | ||
| She just recently got fined because she been on that old Zampik, okay? | ||
| Let's just put that out there, okay? | ||
| Now, and that's what happens when you get some, that's what happens when you get some good, you know, some good D in your life. | ||
| You know, you want to lose weight, you want to... | ||
| She was trying to keep him. | ||
| Now... | ||
| There's a rule in the black community. | ||
| We don't go together until I say so. | ||
| So we can go out to eat, we can text, we can maybe even sleep together. | ||
| But that don't mean we together. | ||
| And I'm sure there's a lot of black folk in the comment section right now that can understand what I'm saying. | ||
| So when it comes to that factor, I do get that. | ||
| But here's what I have an issue with. | ||
| You as a district attorney out here dating married men. | ||
| Whether they've been separated for five years, ten years, it don't matter. | ||
| That's wife. | ||
| He can always go back and hit that when he want to because you're not wife. | ||
| So, which means you are a highly decorated district attorney and side bitch? | ||
| Previously fat bitch, but now she on that Osapic, like I said, like Oprah. | ||
| But! | ||
| Disqualifications? | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| The Georgia Senate has entered the chat, Benny. | ||
| It does seem like she is facing a large uphill battle today. | ||
| You are a former Georgia resident. | ||
| Surely you have lots of friends and family back there. | ||
| How is this playing, Tasha, in the local markets in Georgia? | ||
| Are people embarrassed? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Listen, if it's a scandal and if it's entertaining, we are with it, okay? | |
| And you around here sleeping with somebody's husband and you going to the black church to pray about somebody else's husband, we're eating it up. | ||
| We're drinking it up. | ||
| So, I do, it does, like, actually beg a question, which is, how do you go to the church and robe yourself in sanctity when you're robbing someone else of their husband? | ||
| I mean, we've covered this last time, and I guess there's, like, there's the legal questions here, but then there's also the moral questions, right? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, the church is the place to go. | |
| Have you not seen all the scandals going on within the church? | ||
| She felt it's a safe space to go. | ||
| We got pastors out here getting caught with transgenders and everything, getting caught with members, kings. | ||
| She felt safe. | ||
| She felt safe. | ||
| So, is this backfiring, though, like, really badly? | ||
| I mean, I haven't really seen anything sort of collapse like this before, and I think this is why people are so interested, is because it is sort of like a Judge Joe Brown, Jerry Springer situation where it's quite entertaining. | ||
| To just sort of see the collapse of this case. | ||
| Their friends are turning on each other. | ||
| It doesn't seem like his lawyer was really that smart when he was testifying. | ||
| And he even said, oh dang, in a moment when he was presented with the text messages proving that they've been lying to the court. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Lie. | |
| And that's what I'm saying. | ||
| It's kind of like, like I said, it goes back to a rule within the black community. | ||
| Could he have said he hit Fannie? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Does that mean that they're in a relationship? | ||
| No. | ||
| And so, you know, for Terrence Bradley, here's the thing. | ||
| He's not a credible witness anyway. | ||
| I mean, Nathan had to let him go because apparently and allegedly he was taking cooch from some of the clients and the staff members. | ||
| That's what we heard. | ||
| That's word on the block. | ||
| So when he lied about that, that would have been an automatic. | ||
| This witness is not credible. | ||
| But to keep him up there, I think in Trump's defense, in these defenders'defense, let him get up there, let him continue to lie under oath as a lawyer. | ||
| We're eventually going to get to the truth because the truth ain't nowhere in him. | ||
| Do you think they'll be disqualified, Tasha? | ||
| Do you think they'll have their own criminal cases brought against them? | ||
| Because the way that they are behaving is quite illegal if the facts play out here and they're lying to the court and they're taking bribes. | ||
| They could be facing their own RICO charges. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Most politicians take bribes anyway. | |
| So, I mean, hey. | ||
| You wouldn't be a politician if you didn't. | ||
| I personally... | ||
| Hold on, let me get my sip of wine. | ||
| Give me a second. | ||
| What's up, Benny McRae? | ||
| How y 'all doing in Wino? | ||
| Give me a second here. | ||
| I'm a housewife during the day, so I get to drink and work, okay? | ||
| My husband pays all the bills. | ||
| Hold on, hold on. | ||
| Hello, Wino's. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| What was the question again? | ||
| You know that wine gets in my head. | ||
| Mm-hmm. | ||
| So you're in Florida now. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes. | |
| And Donald Trump is facing another trial in Miami. | ||
| I don't actually know where in Florida you're located. | ||
| Is it Miami? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I'm in Fort Lauderdale. | |
| We're downtown Fort Lauderdale. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| So up the way. | ||
| So Donald Trump is facing a trial in Miami and he has people lining the streets up and down. | ||
| We just played a clip of somebody going through the hood and everyone in the hood saying, we want Trump, not Biden. | ||
| How is Trump playing in this election in 2024? | ||
| He's getting... | ||
| Some pretty historic numbers in the black community. | ||
| What do you see? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I see, you know, as long as they keep Trump on the balance in most states, he's gonna get it. | |
| I mean, we got Biden pretending like he liked black people, sitting up in educated black people's houses, eating fried chicken, but he bought a burger because he can't... | ||
| Digest the grease. | ||
| And now Trump's selling $300 gold sneakers. | ||
| But he been doing this. | ||
| This ain't nothing new. | ||
| I mean, I think it's just more authentic coming from Trump as opposed to the pandering from Biden. | ||
| So black people are more in favor of Trump. | ||
| And it looks like, like I said, if he can stay on these ballots in these states, he will be the next president. | ||
| I mean, who else do we have? | ||
| Well, that's what Donald Trump said in 2016. | ||
| What do you have to lose, right? | ||
| Things have been very bad inside of this community and inside of these neighborhoods for a very long time. | ||
| The Democrat Party hasn't served you. | ||
| And then once a week, we cover somebody from the south side of Chicago or Boston or Detroit or Minneapolis or New York in a black neighborhood saying, we can't believe how bad things have gotten here under Biden. | ||
| And it feels like with the open border. | ||
| Along with the economy, along with inflation, that things have gotten much, much worse for black Americans. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I wouldn't even say black Americans, just Americans as a whole. | |
| Yeah. | ||
| Everybody's getting hit left and right. | ||
| I mean, they're giving our money away. | ||
| Don't even get me started on the illegal immigrant issue. | ||
| Don't even get me started with them just sending millions and billions of dollars outside of the country, but yet we can't even get students graduated. | ||
| And once they're graduated, if they do graduate, can they really afford to pay back the degree that they got with low-paying jobs or us losing jobs? | ||
| Because everything is going on overseas. | ||
| Everything is becoming more digitalized. | ||
| I mean, the whole company... | ||
| Can we just shut the whole country down? | ||
| You know how we shut down businesses? | ||
| Can we just go bankrupt? | ||
| He would just bankrupt the entire country and just build it back up. | ||
| We just need to chapter 11, this whole shit. | ||
| It's just ridiculous at this point. | ||
| So, I think that there is a quote from Donald Trump in his first term. | ||
| I think we need to shut it down so we can figure out what's going on. | ||
| And I think America would be, most people would be really happy if America just shut down a lot of that foreign aid and focused on America first. | ||
| That seems to be a winning message. | ||
| There's a lot of things broken in this country. | ||
| Let's focus on ourselves first, right? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, who's sending us money? | |
| Who's sending us foreign aid? | ||
| Where's our foreign aid? | ||
| Where's our welfare? | ||
| Where's that? | ||
| Well, nowhere. | ||
| Nowhere. | ||
| In fact, well, we get the opposite. | ||
| We get some of the worst nations on Earth demanding that we pay their bills, and I think the American people are pretty sick of it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We're tired. | |
| We can't even pay our own bills over here. | ||
| Inflation is... | ||
| It's super high. | ||
| I mean, we got more vacancies in Florida than California or any other state, let alone. | ||
| It's just a sad time to live in. | ||
| And now they're saying prepare for war, possibly. | ||
| Get batteries. | ||
| Get you some canned food. | ||
| And hopefully you can survive three days with a flashlight and some batteries and canned dog food. | ||
| But they sending all the money out the country. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| I don't think it's going to play in 2024. | ||
| No, it's not going to play. | ||
| Biden pandering, not going to work. | ||
| Biden pandering, not going to work. | ||
| Kamala Harris, Kamala Harris isn't going to work. | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| Come on, now you know Biden only elected her or chose her just to pander to the black Americans because he don't even like black men, like I said. | ||
| I mean, look at his son. | ||
| We don't need to go back down that road. | ||
| I mean, he got a whole thing in his house. | ||
| Tasha, what do you, what is your, because you are from Georgia, and because you have a lot of friends there, and because... | ||
|
unidentified
|
I'm from Florida. | |
| I lived in Georgia 20 years. | ||
| Like I said, I still owe Georgia money. | ||
| So, final words of advice to Fannie Willis, because this is going to be a tough day for her, as we are heading into the trial, and the trial is going to open up here in just a minute. | ||
| So, final words of advice to Fannie Willis. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I think it was highly embarrassing for her to go in there with such an attitude, dress on backwards, upset, capping for a man that's just supposed to be an employee. | |
| If there is, my thing is you represent the people of Fulton County. | ||
| And if there's a conflict of interest, your job is to just focus on what it is that we need as a people. | ||
| Now, I'm no longer a resident, like I said, but for the people there and the fact that she's more willing to, and we see this a lot amongst Um, the black community now, because it seems as if black women just have to hang on to a man. | ||
| Just, just a man. | ||
| It don't matter if somebody, if it's somebody else's man, the idea of a man, the education behind a man, but the man in general. | ||
| And like I said, if Nathan really, really loved Fannie. | ||
| Like, she probably claims he does because she wouldn't be at the church capping for him. | ||
| She wouldn't be on stand time. | ||
| But I'm not trying to emasculate. | ||
| This is racial. | ||
| This is prejudice. | ||
| No, you didn't pull up the... | ||
| There she is. | ||
| And that's not even her husband. | ||
| I'm trying to figure out what are we doing. | ||
| Has she would have just fired him and moved the money elsewhere to another office? | ||
| To try this case, we wouldn't even be here. | ||
| But the fact that she's standing beside somebody else's man, somebody else's husband, in the name of who? | ||
| And what? | ||
| Like, who do you work for? | ||
| Do you work for him? | ||
| Or do you work for us? | ||
| This is our money at the end of the day. | ||
| Like I said, I'm still a taxpayer in Georgia. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Yeah, I mean, it does seem like it's embarrassing. | ||
| It does seem like it's total incomplete. | ||
|
unidentified
|
She up there like she Coretta Scott. | |
| Yeah, Fanny Willis is not a victim, although it is one of the greatest shows on Earth. | ||
| We're very, very excited for the trial to open up here in just a few minutes. | ||
| You can also see one of the most exciting shows on Earth by catching Tasha K live in Naples here in Florida. | ||
| I think we have the information, Tasha K, on tour. | ||
| You can go catch Tosha K with the wine glass. | ||
| Never did you carry the wine glass with you? | ||
| Do you bring it with you? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Everywhere did I go, I carry my wine glass and I got my boyfriend Teddy. | |
| Because I got a side nigga too. | ||
| I got my husband and I got my Teddy. | ||
| And the wine. | ||
| That's the only two men I need in my life. | ||
| Final important question. | ||
| You did mention Donald Trump's sneakers. | ||
| Would you wear a pair of these? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't wear sneakers. | |
| I barely wear shoes. | ||
| See? | ||
| Okay. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't want shoes. | |
| Oh, okay. | ||
| All right. | ||
| Okay. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I can't. | |
| I owe too many taxes to Georgia to afford shoes right now, so we've had budget cuts. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Our executive producer wanted to know. | ||
| ALX got himself a pair. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Did you get a pair, Benny? | |
| ALX got a pair. | ||
| I did not get a pair. | ||
| I did not get a pair. | ||
| ALX got a pair who produces the show, so we wanted to know. | ||
|
unidentified
|
But I keep me some fried chicken now. | |
| I don't know if that was the knock at Biden and his ridiculous campaign slogan or not, but you all saw the cringy video with Joe Biden carrying out fried chicken. | ||
| Well, we'll just let it be. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Tasha Kay. | |
| Black men that are athletes. | ||
| I said, you can't make this up. | ||
| Go ahead, go ahead, Benny. | ||
| Tasha K., you are always a breath of fresh air. | ||
| We say Godspeed with your wine. | ||
| We will have our popcorn ready. | ||
| Fanny Willis trial starts in about five minutes. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I'll be watching. | |
| Go see Tasha K. live. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| Bye! | ||
| you you you you you Ladies and gentlemen, we do our very best to hit all sides. | ||
| Right? | ||
| To, like, show all opinions of what's going on and also to obviously bring to the forefront people from varying backgrounds and degrees of, like, where they're coming from. | ||
| So we thought, like, it'd be really great to have Mike Davis from, like, the very, like, from the legal perspective and then have Tasha Caves become a great friend of the show from, like, the I'm a taxpayer in Fulton County perspective. | ||
| Like, how does this actually play? | ||
| How does this actually play for the people of Fulton County? | ||
| And so, ladies and gentlemen, we are doing our level-headed best to bring you the interviews, the information, the perspectives about what's happening here, and be balanced, right? | ||
| Be on balance. | ||
| Now, the trial of Fannie Willis and her official disqualification trial, the final arguments, begin in approximately seven minutes. | ||
| There is an interview that we did want to show you from somebody who is not able to join the show live, but we were able to get an interview with Marjorie Taylor Greene on this subject concerning the criminal filing that Marjorie Taylor Greene filed with the court and with the state of Georgia to go after Big Fanny for the obvious crimes, the lying to the court, the embezzlement, the bribery. | ||
| That she has engaged in. | ||
| What Marjorie Taylor Greene is asking is for an investigation to be opened into these crimes. | ||
| Seems super logical. | ||
| Seems like something that's going to be an obvious thing to do because this has become a laughingstock around the entire country. | ||
| And more importantly, this is something that has devastating effects on your legal system. | ||
| Because now, as Tasha Cage has talked about and Mike Davis, you look farcical. | ||
| You look stupid. | ||
| You look corrupt. | ||
| And you can't have that inside of a system that begins to erode the institution itself. | ||
| And so if you're going to be putting up mugshots of presidents, you better come correct. | ||
| Ladies and gentlemen, we asked Marjorie Taylor Greene while wearing a mugshot shirt of Donald Trump at a Donald Trump rally just two days ago about her criminal filing against Fannie Willis. | ||
| Here's how it went. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Please enjoy. | |
| Here with somebody that needs absolutely no introduction, Marjorie Taylor Greene talking about Big Fanny. | ||
| Oh, man. | ||
| We want to begin by saying this prayerfully. | ||
| I've considered this personally. | ||
| And I want to say thank you to Fanny Wills. | ||
| I know you weren't planning on me starting like this, but thank you for this. | ||
| Because we're at the Trump rally right now. | ||
| There are tens of thousands of people here, and about half of them are wearing Trump mugshot shirts. | ||
| Oh my gosh. | ||
| So thanks, Big Fannie. | ||
| We're embarrassed in Georgia, Fannie. | ||
| Actually, we'd like to get rid of her. | ||
| Benny, I filed an ethics complaint against Fannie Willis. | ||
| I don't call her Fannie, I call her Fannie as well. | ||
| And Nathan Wade, because they made a little boo-boo. | ||
| They did not file their reports. | ||
| When you're elected as a member or any kind of elected official, you have to file reports about your campaign funds. | ||
| And if you're a Nathan Wade and you have a contract with a government office, such as Nathan Wade has a contract with Fannie Willis'office, you have to report your financials as well. | ||
| He didn't register as a lobbyist when he was lobbying Fannie Willis, you know, day and night, so to speak, to get a job with her and became her top paid attorney on her staff. | ||
| So he made a mistake there. | ||
| There needs to be an investigation into that. | ||
| And then Fannie Willis didn't disclose all the gifts that she was getting from Nathan Wade in the form of dinners, luxury vacations, flights, and whatnot. | ||
| And she definitely perjured herself on the stand. | ||
| So I think we're finding that out right now. | ||
| We're finding out today, based on text messages from Trump's attorney, that there is now data, cell phone data. | ||
| Proving that they were in the same place at the same time that this relationship started. | ||
| And it started way before and that they've now lied to the court, as you just said. | ||
| Do you think that Nathan Wade got this job because he showed Fannie Willis his extensive knowledge of the penal code? | ||
| Maybe. | ||
| That might be why he got his job. | ||
| Sorry. | ||
| This is a serious topic, Congresswoman. | ||
| It is a very serious topic of conversation. | ||
| I can't even believe we're having this conversation. | ||
| It's kind of shameful that we should have this conversation. | ||
| But, of course, Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade brought this conversation on us. | ||
| And the fun things they were doing. | ||
| You know, anyways, yes, President Trump's attorneys, they do have this evidence, and this proves that Fannie Willis perjured herself on the stand. | ||
| There's another part of this, though, that is deeper and more concerning. | ||
| It's the collusion that took place between Fannie Willis, Nathan Wade, and the former January 6th committee. | ||
| The amount of evidence that was handed over to Fannie Willis in her persecution of President Trump. | ||
| The fact that they went to the White House on these trips. | ||
| Who did they meet with? | ||
| What were they told? | ||
| This is what's really concerning. | ||
| And it is very serious. | ||
| Seems like she's caught up in her own RICO case here. | ||
| She is caught up in her own RICO case, absolutely. | ||
| It's quite biblical, actually. | ||
| Like, the weapon that they formed to use against you will be actually used on you. | ||
| Yeah, it's pretty amazing, yet she keeps going back to church to talk about it. | ||
| From the pulpit. | ||
| Waiting for lightning bolts. | ||
| Yeah, we don't know what that's all about, but we do know that justice will be served, and I look forward to seeing this work out the right way. | ||
| Do you think she deserves to be disbarred? | ||
| I mean, should she ever practice law again? | ||
| Absolutely, she should be disbarred. | ||
| So should Nathan Wade. | ||
| It's much worse for them, though. | ||
| Perjury is serious. | ||
| There's jail time for that. | ||
| It's also, you can go to jail if you do not file your reports correctly in receiving campaign funds. | ||
| Fannie Willis also has serious problems there. | ||
| So the Georgia Ethics Board is going to be holding hearings this week, and I think this will be ongoing, so I look forward to seeing it. | ||
| Will you be seeking extremely hard time for Big Fannie? | ||
| You know, from the federal level, I can't be involved in that. | ||
| But I really want to see more from the state of Georgia. | ||
| I've been disappointed that we haven't seen the state of Georgia take a stronger stance into the Fulton County DA, Feeney Willis. | ||
| But I hope to see them step it up a little bit more. | ||
| Can you unpack that? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Why? | |
| Why haven't we seen that? | ||
| Georgia is a Republican state. | ||
| There are Republican supermajorities, as I understand it. | ||
| Yeah, it is. | ||
| It's a Republican supermajority. | ||
| There's no excuses to be given. | ||
| I'm not sure. | ||
| It's something that completely perplexes me and most people in Georgia. | ||
| Have you spoken with the governor about this? | ||
| I haven't spoke to the governor. | ||
| I have spoken with the attorney general. | ||
| I've spoken with the lieutenant governor. | ||
| They've set up a board, like it's an oversight board, to investigate. | ||
| I don't think that's even started yet, but this case needs to be dropped. | ||
| The reality is the case against... | ||
| Message of uplifting. | ||
| You've gone to these events. | ||
| You speak at these rallies. | ||
| You spoke at this rally. | ||
| There's so many people. | ||
| There's a line outside longer than Chris Christie's belt. | ||
| And so it's like really the energy. | ||
| I've never seen it. | ||
| I've been to hundreds of Trump events. | ||
| I've never seen it like this one. | ||
| I mean, this is next level. | ||
| This isn't 2016. | ||
| And this isn't 2020. | ||
| It's totally different. | ||
| No, and it's getting bigger. | ||
| These rallies are fantastic. | ||
| It's really amazing to me. | ||
| I used to be a rally goer, Benny, before I became a member of Congress. | ||
| So it's so much fun coming to these rallies as a... | ||
| A member of Congress. | ||
| Being a person that stood in the long, long lines. | ||
| But you're right. | ||
| These lines are much longer than they were in 2016. | ||
| They're longer than they were in 2020. | ||
| And I just think it shows all the enthusiasm people have to, like, President Trump. | ||
| Rock and roll. | ||
| We're going to win. | ||
| We're going to win. | ||
|
unidentified
|
All right. | |
| The only member of Congress that could beat me in a pull-up competition, in a push-up competition, and probably every competition. | ||
| MTG. | ||
| Strong. | ||
| All right. | ||
| All right, ladies and gentlemen, here we go! | ||
|
unidentified
|
Boom! | |
| We are live with the judge in the Fannie Willis case. | ||
| Perfect timing. | ||
| Perfect timing. | ||
| Here is the judge. | ||
| He is getting seated right now, right at 1 o 'clock. | ||
| 1 o 'clock was when this was going to start. | ||
| We got comments on screen. | ||
| We are ready to rock. | ||
| Right now, we currently do not have audio. | ||
| We are going to listen in here. | ||
| There we go. | ||
|
unidentified
|
All right. | |
| Oh, man. | ||
| Here we go. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Understood. | |
| Thank you, Mr. Stato. | ||
| All right. | ||
| On behalf of Mr. Giuliani. | ||
| Alan Stockton. | ||
| On behalf of Mayor Giuliani. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| On behalf of Mr. Meadows. | ||
| Your Honor, Jim Durham, on behalf of Mr. Meadows, he waves his appearance. | ||
| On behalf of Mr. Clark. | ||
| Harry McDougall, Your Honor, Mr. Clark waves his appearance. | ||
| On behalf of Mr. Roman. | ||
| Good morning, Judge. | ||
| Ashley Merchant and John Merchant on behalf of Mr. Roman, and he waves his appearance. | ||
| On behalf of Mr. Schaefer. | ||
| Good morning, Your Honor. | ||
| Good afternoon, Your Honor. | ||
| Craig Gillen, Anthony Lake, and Holly Pearson on behalf of David Schaefer, and he waves his presence. | ||
| On behalf of Mr. Flores. | ||
| Here we go, baby. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Do we have anyone joining us on Zoom on behalf of Mr. Floyd? | |
| Is that Nathan Wade? | ||
| That's Nathan Wade right there. | ||
|
unidentified
|
All right. | |
| Nathan Wade is in the courtroom. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Council had previously attended the prior hearings, and this one has been noticed. | |
| I'll find that they've waived their appearance for argument today. | ||
| Anyone on behalf of Ms. Latham? | ||
| Good afternoon, Your Honor. | ||
| Bill Cromwell on behalf of Ms. Latham. | ||
| All right. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Cromwell. | ||
| All right. | ||
| So I've been informed by... | ||
| Council collectively for the defendants that they were requesting a total of an hour and a half for argument to be divided amongst themselves as they've already agreed. | ||
| And so to effectuate that, I'll have the time queued up and we'll start the clock running and you all can see fit to divide that as you would like. | ||
| And obviously I've allowed the same amount of time for the state as well. | ||
| Before we get... | ||
| Into that, I believe there may have been a few things just to clean up as part of the record. | ||
| Specifically, since we last convened, counsel on behalf of Mr. Roman had submitted a defense exhibit 39. And if there are any objections that wanted to be placed on the record on behalf of the state, we can do that now. | ||
| But at a minimum, I think the intention was that I would be admitting that collectively as an exhibit, if nothing else, just for appellate purposes for the record. | ||
| Mr. Abadi, anything the state wants to add as it relates to Exhibit 39? | ||
| No objection to the state. | ||
| I have a copy for the court reporter. | ||
| I printed a copy out, and then I sent it off. | ||
| All right. | ||
| If you've got that marked in stand, we'll provide that to the court reporter. | ||
| All right. | ||
| And then, as I indicated as well on Tuesday, both parties, since the close of the de-evidence on the 16th, had followed up. | ||
| Now, I think both sides have made requests to reopen the evidence. | ||
| On behalf of the defense, there were some issues with cell phone records, and the state has found an additional witness that they would like to present. | ||
| And the instruction I provided on Tuesday was that for today, I think we've reached the point where I'd like to hear more of how some of the legal arguments apply to what has already been presented. | ||
| And it may already be possible for me to make a decision without those needing to be material. | ||
| So that's why we're here today. | ||
| I wanted to make sure we held this time because it is a bit of a logistical challenge to get everyone in a room together. | ||
| So, but recognizing that, again, in the interest of efficiency, if both parties want to reserve part of their time to argue as if those proffered exhibits had been admitted, feel free to make whatever arguments you would like. | ||
| And if, in fact, it turns out that I do need those to be part of the record to make a decision. | ||
| Then we'd have to come back, and we will do those in accordance with the rules of evidence. | ||
| Mr. Gillen. | ||
| We have not filed anything, but we also have a proffer of witnesses that we would like to call in the event the court does open the evidence up. | ||
| I can make an oral proffer as to who that witness is and what that witness would be saying, and I could do it, and I think in a fairly brief manner, if the court would permit me, so the court would understand. | ||
| Where I'm coming from, and I believe also Mr. Cromwell also has a brief proffer for a witness that he has talked with and does have an oral proffer. | ||
| So are these... | ||
| This is the first I've heard of it. | ||
| So are these things that have been discussed or shared with the state at all? | ||
| No, Your Honor. | ||
| Literally, my communication with this particular witness occurred... | ||
| This morning at about 10:10, along with Mr. Chris Noll, who's on the call with me. | ||
| I'm more than happy to invite the court as to what the witness would say, who the witness is, and a brief summary of what this particular witness would testify to in the event the court allows for evidence to be reopened. | ||
| And on the record, I would state that on behalf of my client, Mr. Schaefer, we do want the record to be reopened so that the court could hear. | ||
| But if they want to bring in someone from California, let them bring them in. | ||
| We believe that the court might want to hear the proffer and the evidence that we are prepared to at least proffer today. | ||
| All right. | ||
| So, Mr. Gillen, on that point to this and Mr. Cromwell's additional evidence, in my mind, in the interest of a fair notice to the other side. | ||
| I wouldn't want that to be part of the argument today, because the state has no idea what you're about to say. | ||
| And I think the purpose of a proffer, in large part in this role, in this context, is having them at least have the ability to make those initial counterarguments. | ||
| Now, I don't think that would prevent you from, after today's hearing, if you want to file it, make it part of the record, then I think that both parties have already elected that they are willing to use that mechanism. | ||
| But just for today, kind of showing up now without having shown this other side at all, even this morning, I don't think that would be fair. | ||
| I did not intend to use the proffer in the legal argument. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| I just wanted the court to be aware that we do have an oral proffer. | ||
| We can file it and we can supplement the record and file it for the court's consideration, literally. | ||
| Right. | ||
| Hot off the press. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| As we printed it out and wrote down... | ||
| Okay. | ||
| All right. | ||
| Well, Mr. Cromwell, is there anything you wanted to add to that? | ||
| No, Your Honor. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Mr. Abadi, anything you want to add to that? | ||
| I don't know what it is. | ||
| I don't know how to add to it. | ||
| No. | ||
| Huge deal right now. | ||
| The judge just said he's ready to rule. | ||
|
unidentified
|
From a procedural perspective. | |
| I mean, from a procedural perspective, I would submit to the court as you... | ||
| Said multiple times, evidence is closed. | ||
| This is beyond the scope of Your Honor's ruling on Tuesday. | ||
| So I guess we'd object at this point and go from there. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| All right. | ||
| Anything else by way of housekeeping? | ||
| Mr. Sato. | ||
| Apparently the state filed two supplemental exhibits, number two and number three, about 15 minutes ago. | ||
| We use those in there proper, talking about the same notice requirement. | ||
| I understand. | ||
| So as it relates to that, Your Honor, I believe you were very clear on Tuesday as well that in the proffers we could argue rebuttal evidence as it relates to evidence that was submitted by Defense Counsel after the evidence was closed. | ||
| That's really what it is, rebuttal evidence as it relates to the cell phone records or analysis that was done by the non-expert. | ||
| All right. | ||
| Mr. Killen. | ||
| As it relates to the proper evidence, our proper evidence would be in direct rebuttal to testimony given in the courtroom, particularly by Mr. Bradley. | ||
| So we would have a direct rebuttal of that. | ||
| That's what our proper will be. | ||
| I understand the court's ruling. | ||
| Just want to put that on the record. | ||
| So we know the context of it. | ||
| Is that similar for Mr. Cromwell as well? | ||
| It is. | ||
| It just solely relates to Mr. Bradley's testimony? | ||
| It does. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| All right. | ||
| All right. | ||
| Noted. | ||
| Anything else then? | ||
| Your Honor, the proper evidence is basically corroborate what admitted in evidence is Exhibit 39 chronological tax. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| All right. | ||
| The judge said he's ready to rule. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Nothing else. | |
| I'll turn it over. | ||
| To Ms. Merchant to begin on behalf of the defense. | ||
| Here we go, baby! | ||
|
unidentified
|
Here we go, baby! | |
| It's about to get real! | ||
|
unidentified
|
May it please the Court, Your Honor, John Merchant, on behalf of Mr. Roman, just by way of roadmap to give you some idea about the allocation of time and what I'm going to be covering. | |
| I've been charged with talking to Your Honor about the conflict issue and the appearance of the conflict and what we believe the evidence to show on that issue. | ||
| Mr. Sadow, Mr. Gillum will be talking more about the forensic misconduct piece of it. | ||
| Ms. Willis' church speech, statements made to the media. | ||
| Fraud on the court, frankly, and the book that she gave several interviews for. | ||
| So I won't be discussing any of those issues. | ||
| So if you'd like to ask me, certainly I can try to address them, but that's going to be the focus of their presentation. | ||
| And then towards the end, other folks may have issue-specific type arguments, either in follow-up to mine or the forensic misconduct. | ||
| But those are the two lanes that we're going to be covering, but I'm going to do the conflict piece of it for you. | ||
| And on that issue, Your Honor, This is a matter of first impression in Georgia. | ||
| I can't find a single case that's been published by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court that is based on these facts. | ||
| There are, of course, a number of different appellate court cases that deal with conflict-related issues and, more importantly, appearance of conflict-related issues. | ||
| Some of those are based in state law. | ||
| Some of them are based on the ethical rules that govern lawyers. | ||
| Some of them are based on the Sixth Amendment right to due process that's implicit in all of what we're doing here today. | ||
| I want to remind the court that we're here today on this motion to disqualify D.A. Willis and her office because of her judgment, frankly. | ||
| She is supposed to be disinterested under the Sixth Amendment, and she's anything but that. | ||
| The fact that these proceedings have taken this long and through the convoluted way we've made it here today explain that. | ||
| So as I present my arguments, I want the court to understand that this court... | ||
| It represents the guardrails for the Sixth Amendment in this context, and Ms. Willis has already been disqualified once. | ||
| So I would encourage the court to remember what Judge McBurney did and his order disqualifying. | ||
| The same argument was made in that case as to whether or not there needs to be an actual conflict of interest or whether or not the appearance of a conflict of interest might be sufficient under the facts. | ||
| The law in Georgia suggests and is very clear that we can demonstrate an appearance of a conflict of interest, and that is sufficient. | ||
| I'm going to be candid with the court. | ||
| There was a Supreme Court decision from 1996. | ||
| And then there are two Court of Appeal decisions after that that deal, frankly, in some dicta that suggests that an actual conflict is required. | ||
| But the Supreme Court of Georgia, since those decisions came down, has made quite clear that the appearance of a conflict standard still applies. | ||
| And the reason that's important is, I think, under the Sixth Amendment, which is where we're at, in order to preserve the defendant's rights under that... | ||
| Under that provision and under corollary provisions of Georgia law, you've got to consider the appearance of a conflict. | ||
| And the reason why the appearance of a conflict is so prescient here is because if this court allows this kind of behavior to go on and allows DAs across the state by its order to engage in these kinds of activities, the entire public confidence in the system will be shot. | ||
| And the integrity of the system will be undermined. | ||
| And so with those sort of public policy and constitutional principles... | ||
| I wanted to turn to the law in Georgia on disqualification. | ||
| And, Your Honor, I'm going to give you the law, and then I'm going to talk about the facts and how they apply to law at the end. | ||
| If you want to talk about the facts earlier, jump right in, and I'll be happy to do that. | ||
| I'm sure Your Honor is very well prepared and probably knows all the law that I'm going to cite to you. | ||
| But to give the skeleton outline, the original seminal case that deals with conflict of interest from the Georgia Supreme Court is Williams v. | ||
| State. | ||
| That's 258 Georgia 305. | ||
| And there are basically two methods by which you can disqualify a district attorney. | ||
| One of them is a conflict of interest, and I'll suggest to the court, that doesn't mean an actual conflict, that could mean an appearance of conflict as well, and then forensic misconduct. | ||
| Importantly, in the Williams case, though, in footnote four, and I think this is important for the court's analysis about the facts and which box it fits into, the court said there was no clear demarcation line between conflict of interest and forensic misconduct, and a given ground for disqualification of the prosecutor might be classifiable as either. | ||
| And I think that's important because... | ||
| We have facts that fit in both boxes. | ||
| So if a state stands up and says, well, there's no actual conflict here, Judge, that doesn't mean necessarily that it doesn't apply to the forensic misconduct. | ||
| Typically, forensic misconduct relates to statements of the prosecutor designed to impugn the character of the defendant before trial and to affect the jury pool, which we have here, which I'm not going to discuss, but the facts that we have here very much relate to that issue, and there's crossover. | ||
| Importantly, and I think this is important for the court's consideration of what effect the court's ruling may have, is if you deny this motion, there's a good chance, if it's reversed, that we would be granted a new trial. | ||
| So that means we're going to have to do this all over again. | ||
| In Amusement Sales v. | ||
| State 316 Georgia Appellate 727, that's a case that cites Whitworth, which is... | ||
| So that means if we show the court today, and I think we have through the proceedings today and before, that Ms. Willis has developed a very personal interest in this case, and Your Honor denies this motion. | ||
| We're coming back all over again if the appellate courts say you were wrong. | ||
| So what is that personal interest? | ||
| So the personal interest can be... | ||
| There's no definition of that under George law, and it could be a personal financial interest. | ||
| It could be a personal interest related to bias against a particular defendant, which sort of falls into the forensic misconduct box. | ||
| But we have here a very personal financial interest that's been laid out in terms of money received by Ms. Willis as a result of the scheme that she set up. | ||
| And, um, To get to the issue of the personal interest in the context of an appearance, I think that's important. | ||
| I do want to suggest to the court that there are a number of cases that post-date this actual conflict of interest language that's suggested in some of the cases from the 90s that you have to pay attention to what this looks like to the public. | ||
| I agree with all of the law, and I'm sure the state's going to stand up here and say it can't be a speculative or a conjectural type of personal interest. | ||
| We don't have that here. | ||
| We have something very concrete. | ||
| And as Judge McBurney put it, actual and palpable, not speculative and remote. | ||
| That's exactly what we have here. | ||
| We've demonstrated through the testimony of the witnesses, some of whom impeached themselves, that we have a very personal interest. | ||
| In the seminal United States court case that deals with prosecutorial impropriety is Young v. | ||
| U.S. That's a 41 U.S. 787 case. | ||
| In that case, it's the opportunity for conflicts to arise that created at least the appearance of impropriety. | ||
| And that's the case that requires that the prosecutor be disinterested. | ||
| Since a scheme injecting a personal interest, financial or otherwise, into the enforcement prospect. | ||
| Now, there are a number of Georgia cases that sort of repeat that theme. | ||
| Reeves v. | ||
| State 231, Georgia Appellate 22, that's a 1998 case, stated a potential conflict of interest existed and the appearance of impropriety existed. | ||
| Davenport v. | ||
| State, 157 Georgia Appellate, 704. | ||
| That's a 1981 case. | ||
| That was decided seven years before Williams. | ||
| When there is at least the appearance of impropriety, a defendant is denied fundamental fairness in the state's prosecution of the charges against him or her. | ||
| There are also rules that govern prosecutors. | ||
| Lawyers in general are bound to preserve and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. | ||
| That's Brown v. | ||
| State, 256, Georgia Appellate, 603-202, 2002. | ||
| Head v. | ||
|
unidentified
|
State, a prosecutor's close personal relationship with the victim in a case may create at least the appearance of a prosecution unfairly based on private interests rather than one properly based on vindication of public interest. | |
| ABA Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution Function Standard 3-1.2C. | ||
| A prosecutor should avoid appearance of impropriety in performing the prosecution function. | ||
| 3-1.7F. | ||
| The prosecutor should not permit the prosecutor's professional judgment or obligations to be affected by the prosecutor's personal, political, financial, professional, business, property, or other interests or relationships. | ||
| So the rules that govern her in her own profession say that this is wrong. | ||
| Because she's developed a financial interest in this case. | ||
| And at the very least, created the appearance of unfairness towards these defendants by setting up a relationship, a prosecutorial relationship with her boyfriend that she'd been dating for two years, according to the testimony. | ||
| So before I move, Your Honor, to the specific facts, you asked, you know, what's personal interest? | ||
| And I think, frankly, as I was trying to figure this out, I think you know it when you see it. | ||
| It's just like in the concurrence in Jacobellus v. | ||
| State of Ohio, the Supreme Court case from 1964, Justice Stewart, in his concurrent opinion, said, I know it when I see it, talking about obscenity. | ||
| I think you know it when you see it. | ||
| I think there's enough facts in front of you that you know it when you see it. | ||
| So I think that governing principle helps enlighten some of the facts here. | ||
| And also, I think it's not just financial. | ||
| In McLaughlin v. | ||
| State, I think the court's very familiar with that case, 295 Georgia 609 2014. | ||
| The Supreme Court essentially said that because the acting DA had become a witness in the case and developed a personal interest in the case due to his daughter's relationship with the victim, that he was disqualified. | ||
| And because he was disqualified, his entire office was disqualified. | ||
| So turning to the facts of the case, Your Honor, I think I've got, my role is 20 minutes, so I've got about eight minutes left. | ||
| So why, the relationship, why did we spend so much time on a relationship between these two people? | ||
| We frankly couldn't care less if they had a personal relationship outside of work. | ||
| That is not what the issue is here. | ||
| The issue is that they began this relationship in 2019. | ||
| They were dating for two years. | ||
| And then she awarded him a contract where public money, either from Fulton County or the state of Georgia, ended up in his pockets. | ||
| That decision alone was improper. | ||
| But what's even more improper is that then she and he used that money to go on personal vacations and trips. | ||
| If Your Honor will remember, Exhibits 9, 11, and 12 dealt with the expenditures by Wade. | ||
| On trips. | ||
| If you do the math on that, if you look at what he spent, and then you look at the testimony about what was paid back by Willis, because the cash reimbursement theory I'll talk about in a second, but if you do the math on what he actually paid for and what they testified she paid back in cash, you still have... | ||
| Over $9,200, $9,247 to be exact, is the amount of money they cannot account for in their testimony. | ||
| And as Your Honor Rule, remember, there was no mention of cash in Mr. Wade's affidavit when the best and first opportunity to raise that issue would have come up is when the state filed their response in his affidavit. | ||
| That is nowhere to be found in there. | ||
| The first time we heard about cash, Before we get into that, let me ask you this. | ||
| Let's say they couldn't have, let's say the theory wasn't even there that they had paid it back or that there'd been any exchange. | ||
| Should there first be a consideration of a materiality requirement? | ||
| No. | ||
| Have you seen that in this jurisdiction? | ||
| Well, it's not in this jurisdiction. | ||
| I haven't seen that, Judge. | ||
| And if it was $6, that would still be improper. | ||
| Would it be improper where it's a per se disqualification if someone buys their boss a stick of gum? | ||
| Is that per se disqualifying because there's no materiality requirement? | ||
| Well, no, I don't disagree that it may not meet a materiality requirement, but it's a personal benefit. | ||
| I won't say that giving a pack of gum is justification for disqualifying a disreturn. | ||
| I think that's part of the issue, Judge. | ||
| I think it's a fact-based inquiry by you. | ||
| So there's a continuum involved here. | ||
| Yeah, but I think the continuum involves you looking at whether or not, in the grand scheme of things, it violates the Constitution. | ||
| And whether or not there's an appearance of a conflict, and the appearance suggests that she actually received a benefit. | ||
| And we know that she did. | ||
| They admitted it. | ||
| We don't have to speculate about that. | ||
| She said she got a benefit, and she said she paid back certain amounts. | ||
| So in that regard, Your Honor, I don't know. | ||
| Would $100 be enough? | ||
| Would $200 be enough? | ||
| I think you have to look at it globally and consider all of the witnesses, consider all of the facts, consider the credibility of the witnesses, frankly. | ||
| I mean, Your Honor sat here and watched everybody, so I haven't spent a lot of time going into the specific testimony because Your Honor is well aware of it, but you get to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. | ||
| Just from a legal perspective, though, you're saying we can't just say dollar amount, look no further. | ||
| There has to be a totality of the circumstances analysis. | ||
| I think it's fact-specific, Judge. | ||
| I don't really want you to pin me down on that because there's no law on it. | ||
| I can't give you a straight answer because I haven't seen anything like that. | ||
| And I think if we build a materiality requirement into the case law, then you're down a slippery slope then because then it's going to be very—the appellate courts are going to be deciding, well, is $50 enough? | ||
| Is $100 enough? | ||
| So I think it's not necessarily the amount of the money. | ||
| It's the fact that she received it, and it's not insignificant. | ||
| And I don't think your order has to say because she received $9,200, she's disqualified. | ||
| I think if we go back to the 20,000-foot level, what's the appearance here? | ||
| Is this fairness to the defendants? | ||
| Does it appear that she is interested in this prosecution, or does it appear that she's disinterested? | ||
| She took the stand. | ||
| You can tell she's not a disinterested person when it comes to this proceeding, but we also argue she's not a disinterested person when it comes to the prosecution as a whole. | ||
| I'm going to leave for—I'll resist the temptation to defend my wife, who I believe to be an excellent lawyer and a member of the bar for 20 years, in good standing. | ||
| But I will say this, Judge. | ||
| You don't just evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. | ||
| You evaluate the credibility of the lawyers. | ||
| And Mr. Abadi stood up here in open court in front of national news and the national public and called her a liar. | ||
| I need to address that for one minute. | ||
| The text messages that are now part of the record, which now are substantive evidence for you to consider, prove everything that she put in that motion, everything that she tried to elicit for Mr. Bradley was absolutely 100% true. | ||
| Not only was it true, she verified through the witness himself that the motion was accurate before it was filed. | ||
| So for the state to get up here and impugn her credibility... | ||
| It's not only improper, it violates Berger versus the United States, which is a case that says the state can't just get up here and make any argument it wants. | ||
| And I encourage the court to call him out on it when he steps up here. | ||
| We have to have candor towards the tribunal. | ||
| You cannot lie to the court, cannot lie to the public, cannot lie to the jury. | ||
| And I think that's what he did. | ||
| So there's other corroboration of our view that she was in this relationship. | ||
| I think... | ||
| Frankly, based on Mr. Bradley's testimony, Your Honor can separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to credibility, but Mr. Bradley had two chances to correct information that he suddenly developed amnesia about, and he just didn't do it. | ||
| How does the timing of the relationship impact financial interest? | ||
| Because it's part of the scheme she created intentionally in order to give benefits to her boyfriend. | ||
| So there's a reason why they fought so hard on this judge. | ||
| I mean, there's a reason that every single subpoena was objected to, every single question we asked Mr. Bradley was objected to, jumping up and down, all of the obfuscation. | ||
| There's a reason for that. | ||
| They know that if Your Honor finds that that relationship started in 2019, that the appointment of Wade itself was improper. | ||
| And if that was improper, then he had no business, as an average citizen, Along with the fact that they didn't have approval from Fulton County to appoint him in the first place, that undermines the indictment. | ||
| It creates a structural impairment in the indictment because he had no more business being in the grand jury room than I did. | ||
| So that's what they're worried about. | ||
| And the reason why it's important for the financial peace judge is it's how the money ended up going back to her. | ||
| She put her boyfriend in the spot, paid him, and then reaped the benefits from it. | ||
| She created the system and then didn't tell anybody about it. | ||
| She didn't even tell her dad about it. | ||
| So I think in the grand scheme of things, if you're looking at the totality of the facts, and I've got to sit down here in about two minutes to make room for my co-counsel, if you look at it, everything put together, judges, they did this, they knew it was wrong, they hid it, and even when they were called out on it, they tried to create an excuse for it by saying it happened after the fact. | ||
| We know now from the testimony, Ms. Yurdy confirmed that Mr. Bradley, his text messages were accurate, not his court testimony, but that fact was accurate. | ||
| The motion is accurate. | ||
| And so, also, I do want to point out, there's no paper trail here for the cash. | ||
| I know that this was a, I know she and her father both testified. | ||
| Both testified that they kept cash on hand, which, I mean, keeping cash on hand in and of itself is not a problem. | ||
| When you're a public official and you're required to keep track of gifts that you receive, then you need to keep track of it. | ||
| But there's no paper trail. | ||
| There's no deposit history. | ||
| There's no withdrawal history. | ||
| There's no receipts. | ||
| None of that. | ||
| So even assuming their testimony could be credible, and we don't think that it is, you still don't have enough information to track all that money that she received. | ||
| And this is just what we know about. | ||
| But does the lack of evidence fall on the state? | ||
| Does the lack of evidence fall on the state? | ||
| Isn't that where burdens come in? | ||
| Yes, I think they had an obligation to tell Your Honor, hey, this is where the money went. | ||
| And they certainly had the ability to do that if they could do it, since they didn't do it. | ||
| We have to assume they can't. | ||
| And if they can't, I just want to remind the court of a very important piece of testimony from Ms. Willis that I think goes to credibility of all of the officers of the court who testified. | ||
| She met with Wade, and they developed in 10 minutes after talking about the financial piece, I believe, this cash theory that could not be rebutted. | ||
| We have no ability to do that. | ||
| They did, and they chose not to do it. | ||
| So with that, Your Honor, unless Your Honor has more questions for me, I'm going to sit down and turn the podium over to my distinguished colleague, Mr. Sadow. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Merch. | ||
| Appreciate the court's time. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Good afternoon, Your Honor. | ||
| I'm going to speak to what I would call a subset of forensic misconduct. | ||
| And I'm going to assume that all the law that's been provided to you in pleadings as well as emails, you know, you don't need me to tell you what the law is. | ||
| So I want to just set up out the disqualification. | ||
| And then dismissal of the indictment should take place under the subset of forensic misconduct. | ||
| Roman's counsel, this merchant, filed on January 8th her pleading, her motion to dismiss and to disqualify. | ||
| We were in court that Friday of that week in which I made it known that we, that is President Trump, May adopt that motion. | ||
| I wanted to see what was going to happen before I did so. | ||
| That Sunday, which would be January the 14th, 2024, D.A. Willis took it upon herself to go to a historic black church in Atlanta, having not responded at all to the motion of... | ||
| Ms. Merchant's client, Roman. | ||
| And she made what we now call the church speech. | ||
| And Your Honor has reference to that. | ||
| You didn't necessarily want evidence on that, but you know what the church speech was. | ||
| It was videoed. | ||
| It was clear that Ms. Willis had notes. | ||
| She was reading from notes that she had prepared. | ||
| It was a calculated determination by Ms. Willis. | ||
| To prejudice the defendants and their counsel. | ||
| How so? | ||
| By making an issue out of the fact that the person that was challenged in the Roman motion was black. | ||
| Without telling the public or the church members or anyone for that matter that the reason that Mr. Wade was being challenged It was not because he was black. | ||
| It had nothing to do with race. | ||
| It had to do with the relationship that had been alleged and later admitted to by Ms. Merchant. | ||
| Ms. Willis took full opportunity to prejudice the defendants. | ||
| And then comes along later in a pleading and says it wasn't designed or intended to be at the defendant's at all or the defense counsel, which with all due respect is just nonsense. | ||
| The purpose of that was to get public sympathy, public empathy for what Ms. Merchant had already alleged in her motion. | ||
| Now, that was a violation of the professional rules of conduct. | ||
| It was a violation of 3.8 G. There's no question about it. | ||
| It wasn't in response to anything that was said. | ||
| It was a public statement, extrajudicial, for the purpose of making a comment upon the defendant. | ||
| It would be in response to a motion that was filed? | ||
| But it wasn't filed in a response, in a pleading. | ||
| It was filed in response to a motion. | ||
| And the motion were allegations made. | ||
| Ms. Willis wanted to respond at that point. | ||
| She could have said the facts of the matter. | ||
| Instead, she misstated what the situation was, took advantage of the opportunity, an ethical violation, and the ethical violation makes it clear that you must refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused. | ||
| Can you think of anything more? | ||
| That would heighten public condemnation of the defendants than alleging that defense counsel and the defendants were making their motion based on race and religion. | ||
| That's as bad as it gets in Fulton County, with all due respect. | ||
| That's exactly what Ms. Willis wanted done. | ||
| And remember, the state still had not responded. | ||
| So then what we get from the state... | ||
| Is we get an affidavit filed as part of their response. | ||
| And that affidavit says specifically, and the affidavit is Mr. Wade, says specifically in paragraph 26 and 27 that the relationship did not begin until 2022. | ||
| It acknowledges the relationship and says it didn't begin until 2022. | ||
| And the pleading that's filed, the state's pleading and response, indicates not exactly that, but it says there was no relationship as of November 1 of 2021. | ||
| And that's on page 7. So now we know that timing is the issue because Ms. Merchant made it clear That we alleged and had evidence that indicated the timing was before Mr. Wade was hired, not after. | ||
| So the state now has filed an affidavit and a pleading that claims post-hiring into 2022. | ||
| And then Mr. Wade will testify to the same thing, under oath. | ||
| Now, Ms. Yerty says it began in 2019. | ||
| Why would she know? | ||
| Well, she would know because she was a former friend. | ||
| I know the state's going to get up there and say you can't believe, essentially what they're going to say is you can't believe any defense witness because they're defense witnesses. | ||
| And only people that would tell the truth would be Wade and Willis. | ||
| I suggest to you that that's not accurate. | ||
| I suggest that the testimony that Mr. Wade gave and Ms. Willis gave, and I'm specifically dealing now with the timing issue, without getting into anything else, that that... | ||
| Brought forth a true concern about their truthfulness in being what is required of a lawyer in this state, which is candor toward the tribunal. | ||
| And that's 3.3 of the professional rules. | ||
| Specifically, small a, one, make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal. | ||
| So that's, as I posit to the court, that's the second ethical violation. | ||
| And then you also have 8.4 of the professional rules that says it's a violation of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyer 2, and that's A4, engaged in a professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. | ||
| Now, do you have to find that Wade and Willis lied? | ||
| No. | ||
| What you need to be able to find is that there is a concern, a legitimate concern based on the evidence in this case about their truthfulness. | ||
| A legitimate concern about the truthfulness, which equates to an appearance of impropriety. | ||
| Because once you have the appearance of impropriety under forensic misconduct, the law in Georgia is clear that's enough to disqualify. | ||
| So, why should you find there's a concern? | ||
| But their truthfulness. | ||
| ERT is the first one. | ||
| You have that testimony. | ||
| But then we go to what is the most obvious indication that Willis and Wade were not truthful on the point of timing. | ||
| And that's Bradley. | ||
| Defense Exhibit 26 came into evidence. | ||
| Defense Exhibit 26 comes in and says, and you know I went into this. | ||
| The last hearing. | ||
| It says that on January the 5th, 2024, at approximately 9.49 a.m., there's text messages that are exchanged between Ms. Merchant and Mr. Bradley. | ||
| And the text messages go, like, just date? | ||
| And that's from Ms. Merchant. | ||
| Ms. Merchant says, do you think it started before she hired him? | ||
| Bradley, who we now know from Defense Exhibit 39, has been texting with Ms. Merchant for a number of months. | ||
| This is not the first time. | ||
| This is months within the communications between the two. | ||
| Mr. Bradley says, absolutely. | ||
| Now, absolutely is not a speculative word. | ||
| That's not speculation. | ||
| That's a definitive statement. | ||
| Bradley then, unprompted, says this. | ||
| And unprompted is important. | ||
| It started when she left the DA's office and was a judge in South Fulton. | ||
| It goes on. | ||
| This merchant says she liked it started when she left the DA's office with the appropriate... | ||
| Emoji, or whatever one would call it, to say it was liked. | ||
| And then Mr. Bradley said they met at the Municipal Court CLE conference. | ||
| Again, unprompted. | ||
| He's now definitively telling Ms. Merchant when this relationship started. | ||
| Ms. Merchant said, that's what I figured when he was married. | ||
| And then Ms. Merchant says, and we're now talking about a couple hours later. | ||
| She texts and says, upon information and relief, Willis and Wade met while both were serving as magistrate judges and began a romantic relationship at that time. | ||
| And Mr. Bradley responds, no, municipal court. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Doesn't say it didn't start then. | ||
| He doesn't suggest that she's wrong other than magistrate court municipal. | ||
| Now we have that, and it's in evidence. | ||
| And what does Bradley do? | ||
| He knows that he's put himself in a position that if he testifies truthfully on the witness stand, your honor is in a position to be able to find, if you choose to, that both Willis and Wade lied. | ||
| So what does Bradley do? | ||
| Look, you were an assistant U.S. attorney. | ||
| You know how this works when you have witnesses in this situation. | ||
| Mr. Bradley did everything he could possibly do. | ||
| To evade answering questions. | ||
| No recollection. | ||
| Couldn't remember. | ||
| It was speculation. | ||
| Anything he could possibly say that would cause Your Honor not to believe that Bradley knew when this relationship started. | ||
| I suggest they were clear-cut-wise. | ||
| And the truth is in Defense Exhibit 26. And so if we take that view that he... | ||
| Thoroughly impeached himself, but he did not give truthful conduct. | ||
| What's left standing? | ||
| Generally, you would see someone who's impeached. | ||
| Perhaps we have some kind of core that you could point back to and say, that's the time he was telling the truth. | ||
| In these text messages, is it ever definitively shown how he knew this and that he actually did know it? | ||
| Other than just an assertion outright, absolutely. | ||
| Usually, if a state... | ||
| As a witness that goes sideways, they've got him locked in. | ||
| They've sat down with a detective, got a full statement. | ||
| We don't have that here. | ||
| But what you have is a text message, which is a prior statement of Bradley that he did on his own, that was not given to him by someone else. | ||
| The only thing that the court has just noted is, how do we know he wasn't speculating? | ||
| Because you don't have to accept the fact. | ||
| That he wasn't speculating. | ||
| The cases that I provided, I think, by email yesterday, the first dealing with that, you can disbelieve that testimony and draw a negative inference. | ||
| That's the Ferguson case. | ||
| On Lee, the other case, you can simply take the prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence. | ||
| It has the same value. | ||
| And that's what I'm asking you to do, to take what was the unprompted statement in defense exhibit 26 of Bradley and take that on its face, Face value that that is an indication that Bradley, in fact, knew and had said he did. | ||
| If you accept that, you have to have concerns about the truthfulness of Willis and Wade on the timing issue. | ||
| And I don't know if this is something maybe one of your co-councils were going to address as well. | ||
| We heard about the law that applies, how we're outside kind of the orbit of... | ||
| The core of cases we're used to dealing with here where it deals with side switching or where someone is in the relationship, the client relationship. | ||
| The proposition you're putting forward now is that if a representative of the state, a lead prosecutor, the district attorney themselves, says something that's untruthful on the record, that is something that immediately has to be proactively policed by the trial court. | ||
| Basically what I'm getting at is where in the law do we find the remedy? | ||
| And that's why I gave you the cases of Registe and Edwards yesterday. | ||
| While those aren't prosecutorial cases or dealing with prosecutors, they deal with counsel. | ||
| And in both those cases, the trial judge found ethical violations on the part of defense counsel or potential ethical violations. | ||
| Went through the ethical violations and said, based on that, You're disqualified. | ||
| You cannot be the attorney of record in this case. | ||
| What's good for the goose is good for the gander. | ||
| If defense counsel can be kicked off of a case because of ethical violations, I suggest the same thing can happen for prosecutors when the ethical violations deal with truthfulness, candor to the court, extrajudicial statements. | ||
| Those are the things that this court can rely upon and say. | ||
| Based on those, again, I find an appearance of impropriety. | ||
| Where would be the limiting principle? | ||
| The district attorney signs every indictment assigned to this courtroom. | ||
| Does that mean she's off every case? | ||
| No, it would be... | ||
| If I found that she's untruthful, is that what you're kind of suggesting? | ||
| You don't have to find... | ||
| Again, I'm not saying you have to find she was untruthful or that Wade was untruthful. | ||
| You don't have to make a finding of fact that they lied. | ||
| All you have to do is make a finding of fact that you have genuine, legitimate concerns about their credibility, about their truthfulness. | ||
| And once you find that, then you can apply Registe and Edwards. | ||
| Well, but it's the same principle, though. | ||
| If I have genuine concerns about her truthfulness on a particular occasion, how do those not spill over into every criminal case a district attorney brings? | ||
| Well, it's because she testified under oath. | ||
| And so did Mr. Wade. | ||
| They didn't have to testify falsely. | ||
| They could have testified truthfully. | ||
| They could have indicated that the relationship, the timing, was in fact before Mr. Wade was hired. | ||
| They chose not to. | ||
| And in that sense, that dishonesty, that constitutes a violation of their ethical responsibilities. | ||
| This is not signing an indictment. | ||
| This is not filing a pleading in which both sides have their own positions. | ||
| This is a requirement. | ||
| That every witness has to tell the truth under oath. | ||
| And if they don't tell the truth under oath, or there's a significant concern about their credibility, then they're violating their ethical rules. | ||
| And as anyone will tell you, as Your Honor already knew from when you were a prosecutor, prosecutors are held to a higher standard. | ||
| They're the ones that are supposed to be seeking justice. | ||
| They don't have a particular... | ||
| They're supposed to be disinterested. | ||
| When you have... | ||
| The lead prosecutor and the DA giving what I suggest to you is untruthful testimony based on what Yerty has said, based on what Bradley said in his text, based on the whole way it was presented to you. | ||
| Bradley didn't want to testify. | ||
| He first came up with his attorney-client privilege thing on that. | ||
| And Your Honor was, fortunately, went into that. | ||
| And then when Bradley knew he had to testify about it... | ||
| You saw what happened. | ||
| You can draw the inference, as I've suggested on Bradley, that what he said in the text message, defense exhibit 26, is true. | ||
| The relationship, in fact, started prior to November 1st of 2021. | ||
| The ERT says that. | ||
| And now, without getting into any detail, the cell phone records. | ||
| The cell phone records show. | ||
| That during that period of time from, let's say, April 1 of 2021 to November 1st, I'm sorry, November 30th of 2021, that there was a number, a considerable number of 35 or more occasions where it appeared that, based on the records, that Mr. Wade was down in the area where Ms. Willis was staying in the Air Chiefs Department. | ||
| But more important is there are two occasions. | ||
| And the state has not challenged those. | ||
| There are two occasions where the records reflect that it appears Mr. Wade spent the night at that apartment. | ||
| The state may say we don't accept that, but they didn't challenge it. | ||
| And even when they brought forth what they brought forth today, supplemental two and three, they didn't challenge it again. | ||
| So what does that suggest? | ||
| That's corroborating evidence of what Yerte had said, of what Bradley said in his text message. | ||
| It's also impeachment evidence as to what Wade and Willis said about how many times. | ||
| Is that a significant, in terms of just the times? | ||
| Didn't Mr. Wade testify that he was there at least 10 times during that time frame? | ||
| You've now found 35. Well, minimum of 35. Okay. | ||
| But never overnight. | ||
| He said he never spent overnight. | ||
| Put that to the side, though, just in terms of the fact that... | ||
| He did say he'd been over there, that he'd visited the place, and I presume he wasn't obviously keeping a very good accounting of it, but that wasn't something that was entirely denied. | ||
| If you're asking me, do we win on the point that he said more than 10 or around 10 and we say 35, do we win on that point? | ||
| No. | ||
| It's not determined. | ||
| The overnight rate might raise some more concerns. | ||
| It does. | ||
| And that's the reason why we highlighted it in the affidavit of Mr. Middlestad. | ||
| Because that is suggestive that they were not being honest to the court. | ||
| So then... | ||
| How much time have I used? | ||
| Have I? | ||
| I'm letting them use the hook. | ||
| Suggestive. | ||
| Again, raising issues. | ||
| I'm wondering about burden. | ||
| Is it we're dealing with a preponderance standard? | ||
| We are dealing with a preponderance standard, and it's our burden. | ||
| No question about that. | ||
| So does suggestive get us there? | ||
| No, but it is corroborating evidence of evidence that we did put up. | ||
| And that's the purpose of the cell phone records. | ||
| They corroborate what Yerty says. | ||
| They corroborate what Bradley said in Defense Exhibit 26. And they impeach, to that extent, Wade and Willis' testimony. | ||
| So if you find by preponderance of the evidence, so I can finish this up, if you find by preponderance of the evidence that what I call subset of forensic misconduct, ethical violations, has been shown, and that there is a significant and legitimate concern about the truthfulness of Wade and Willis, they're disqualified. | ||
| Now, obviously, factual findings are yours, but the law allows you to do that. | ||
| You don't have to do it through an actual conflict. | ||
| That's the other side of the equation. | ||
| And that's what I've argued, and I think that's what Mr. Gibbons can argue. | ||
| Before I let you go, though, this is an interesting classification. | ||
| You're saying forensic conduct isn't just... | ||
| Commenting publicly about the case indicating guilt. | ||
| You're saying forensic conduct is just anything a district attorney says falls under that box? | ||
| No. | ||
| I'm saying that... | ||
| Improper. | ||
| Forensic misconduct as a subset of that would include violations, ethical violations, which impact the ability of the defendants to get a fair trial, as well as impact the court's ability to have faith. | ||
| that the prosecutors, these two prosecutors, are acting in good faith in their own conduct. | ||
| Same idea dealing with, as I said, defense counsel in the two cases I mentioned. | ||
| Ethical violations can give rise to disqualification, and I suggest we have that here. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Sano. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Where's the shot clock when you need it? | ||
| Your Honor, I want to address very directly here. | ||
| What we have is a systematic, continuous pattern, a calculated plan, evidencing a design to prejudice the defendants in this case, in the minds of the jurors. | ||
| This is what we have seen. | ||
| This isn't the problem that the district attorney has. | ||
| It's not that the district attorney had some sort of brief off-the-cuff statement in an interaction with a reporter like in Williams. | ||
| That's not what we have here. | ||
| We have someone who sat down, wrote out her speech, wrote out her plan. | ||
| Who sat down for whether it's two, three, or six times with the editors of Find Me the Votes and told and got her message out about this case before it was supposed to be tried in this courtroom. | ||
| And so that is the problem that we have. | ||
| We have a pattern of forensic misconduct on behalf of Ms. Willis. | ||
| So, I mean, we have a pattern of public statements being made. | ||
| Take it you or your team has dived in and read the book. | ||
| I know she was asked about specific portions in it. | ||
| The only case that I can find actually talking about when someone crosses the line on public comments is that Williams case. | ||
| And it talks about there has to be an implication of saying a particular defendant is guilty. | ||
| And it even denied it, right? | ||
| So have you found any case in Georgia where they actually said that a prosecutor had gone too far in their public comments? | ||
| Does one exist? | ||
| Well, number one. | ||
| Thank goodness it doesn't happen often. | ||
| Sadly, it's already happened here. | ||
| Now, in Williams, the prosecutor had one response to an inquiry. | ||
| The court found it was improper but did not have this pattern. | ||
| Now, it doesn't necessarily mean a comment about the, quote, guilt or innocence, although that was the pattern in Williams. | ||
| It's the improper... | ||
| For example, in Williams, they cite the nature and consequences of forensic misconduct in prosecution of criminal case, a 1955 Columbia Law School article, and how... | ||
| Prophetic that was. | ||
| When William cites that case in that law school article, they talk about an awful lot more than simply comments about specific guilt, references to guilt. | ||
| What you have here, Your Honor, is a comment, and we can't look at it. | ||
| It doesn't apply only if a prosecutor said, I think the defendant is guilty in my mind. | ||
| No. | ||
| It's more pernicious than that. | ||
| What we have here is someone who sat down and drew up a plan for two reasons. | ||
| Drew up a plan for two reasons. | ||
| And what she did reminds me of what the court in STZ Texas talks about. | ||
| And that is that pretrial can create major problems for a defendant, indeed more harmful than publicity during a trial, for it may set the community opinion as to guilt or innocence. | ||
| That's what we have here. | ||
| That's exactly what we have. | ||
| And the court in Estes talks about the power of the television camera. | ||
| So what do we have and what did this prosecutor do? | ||
| What she chose to do is sort of what was criticized by the Supreme Court in Shepard v. | ||
| Maxwell. | ||
| Legal trials are not like elections to be won through the use of meeting halls, the radio, or the newspaper. | ||
| That's exactly what we have here. | ||
| What we have is a deflection. | ||
| What this is all about is more insidious than just making the comments that she's made. | ||
| It's a deflection. | ||
| What she chose to do was to say, okay, I have done my best to hide the relationship with Nathan Wade. | ||
| And Nathan Wade has done his very best by filing false documents in his divorce case to hide his relationship with Ms. Willis. | ||
| Now, and so what did they do? | ||
| Well, when Ms. Merchant filed the motion to disqualify... | ||
| Now the game plan has to change. | ||
| The game plan, I call the deflection, begins to take place. | ||
| The deflection is when the district attorney sat down and wrote out, I'm sure the court has, when you look at that video, it's in evidence of her speech at church. | ||
| She has written out everything and she's reading from it. | ||
| She chooses to deflect. | ||
| The court asked earlier, wasn't she really responding to the motion that had been filed against her? | ||
| Would that she had. | ||
| Because if she had, she would have looked the members of that church in the face and say, I have been, there's been an allegation that I had a romantic relationship with Mr. Wade, and ladies and gentlemen of this congregation, it's true. | ||
| She didn't do that. | ||
| She chose to deflect and to do two things that are reprehensible. | ||
| For any lawyer, but particularly for a prosecutor. | ||
| She chose to pull out the race card and the God card. | ||
| That's what she did, and she wrote it out. | ||
| She went on to deflect away from the allegations in the Wade motion, and she's saying, why, in her talk, public discussion with God, why are they only attacking one in reference to Mr. Wade? | ||
| And then she goes on to say, God, isn't it them playing the race card when they only question one? | ||
| Now, if she had been truthful with that congregation, truthful with the community, she would have said, I had a relationship with him. | ||
| Good, bad, forgive me, whatever. | ||
| That's what she should have said. | ||
| But she chose to deflect and say, them, the reference to them and the others and they. | ||
| It's obviously a reference to the motion filed by Ms. Merchant. | ||
| They choose to go after the black man. | ||
| And she then goes on, again, deflecting away and deflecting to what I call the third rail in American society, choosing somebody on the other side of being a racist. | ||
| So-and-so is a racist. | ||
| They're racist. | ||
| She was the one playing the race card in a way to try to deflect from her own conduct. | ||
| She goes on to say in her discussions with the Lord, Is it that some will never see a black man as qualified, no matter his achievements? | ||
| Again, the deflection. | ||
| What is she saying? | ||
| The listener is not necessarily in that audience, in that church. | ||
| The listener is in Fulton County. | ||
| The potential jurors who will come into a courtroom and say whether or not they can fairly judge the evidence or judge the defense in this case. | ||
| She chose to inject. | ||
| Race into the minds of the listeners and virtually everybody in this community and literally everybody in this country has reviewed and analyzed her speech that she made in a premeditated way. | ||
| And in bringing in not only the race card, but also in bringing in the religious matter, this is exactly what Hammonds v. | ||
| State and our Supreme Court talks about condemning as an inflammatory appeal. | ||
| To the jurors' private religious beliefs. | ||
| Why would she do that? | ||
| To deflect. | ||
| But now, not only is she deflecting, but she is then going forward and, in a way, telling the community, telling the congregation that God is on her side, not on the side of these people. | ||
| God, she said... | ||
| And when she's talking and she's saying, guys, pray for their souls. | ||
| I, meaning God, qualified you. | ||
| I qualified your imperfect, flawed self. | ||
| I see you in every hour. | ||
| Do my work. | ||
| As though she's telling the folks in her very, very, very implicit way, injecting into the minds of the jurors, God wants me to win this case. | ||
| God wants me to prosecute this case. | ||
| And why are these others going after the black man? | ||
| Well, the answer is very simple, as we said in our brief. | ||
| We didn't mention Mrs. Cross, the white female, or Mr. Floyd, the white male, because there was absolutely no evidence, and is no evidence, of a personal romantic relationship with them in which she obtained these benefits. | ||
| That's the reason why we did not do that. | ||
| So she goes forward with the deflections. | ||
| That's exactly what she does when she goes forward. | ||
| And she talks about a planned interview time and time again with authors of a book, Find Me the Votes, where she's talking about a case that's going to be tried in this courtroom. | ||
| It's reprehensible. | ||
| So in that specific instance, setting aside the fact that she was willing to go on the record before a case had even reached the jury, what specific statements from that book do you contend cross the line? | ||
| Well, for example, she's saying, you know, she goes on to talk about all the calls that she gets from people calling her racial terms. | ||
| And, you know, all the calls are racist. | ||
| What she's trying to do, and I think there's a reference in there to MAGA people, whatever. | ||
| In that, what she's really saying is that those people calling me up and making those claims or those horrible racial slurs to me are really people on their side. | ||
| Of the fence. | ||
| That's what she's doing. | ||
| And there's no reason, Your Honor, ever for a prosecutor to sit down and go forward with this kind of interview. | ||
| She did it and fined the votes. | ||
| But then what really happened here is this hiding of the relationship. | ||
| Because in hiding the relationship, they have done such a good job. | ||
| Mr. Wade filed false documents in his divorce case on May of 2023, talking about, have you ever had sexual relations with a person during the course of the marriage or including the period of separation? | ||
| He's still married. | ||
| He doesn't have a divorce decree, but his answer is none. | ||
| Then he's asked whether or not, on any occasions, he's entertained or been entertained by a woman. | ||
| A member of the opposite sex, in this case a woman, from the date of the marriage to the present. | ||
| Talking about place and time and all that. | ||
| What is the answer? | ||
| None. | ||
| Why does he do that? | ||
| He does that because he doesn't want to tell about the relationship that he has with Ms. Willis and the benefits that he has gotten and that he gave to her. | ||
| And what these answers are are absolutely reprehensible that a member of the State Bar of Georgia would file these answers that are inaccurate. | ||
| What does Ms. Willis do? | ||
| Ms. Willis, on her financial report on whether or not she has gotten anything of $100 or more in value from a prohibited source, The court asked earlier about what a threshold it might be. | ||
| Well, for the financial report, it's $100. | ||
| That's it. | ||
| She doesn't report any of all of the benefits that she received from Mr. Wade. | ||
| All the trips, all the entertainment, all the three nights in the luxury suite in Aruba. | ||
| All of that, none of that is here. | ||
| And they say, oh, well, maybe it all balanced out, even though I can't prove it with the cash. | ||
| Well, that's like saying, did I give the court a Christmas present? | ||
| Well, maybe I gave the court a Christmas present, and the court gave me one back. | ||
| The court has to fill out a form whether you got a Christmas present from anybody. | ||
| You say, I got one from Mr. Gillen. | ||
| You don't say, nah, well, I gave him one back, so it really evens out. | ||
| They're false reports. | ||
| And because they're false, what they had to do is they had to say, uh-oh, Ms. Merchant has caught us. | ||
| And so what we're going to do is we're going to get, in our response, we're going to get Mr. Wade to file a false declaration, which he does. | ||
| His declaration, in this case, is false. | ||
| And the evidence showing that that is false as it relates to the timing, you know, and the court asked earlier, why does it matter? | ||
| You know, if the relationship was before or after November 1, 2021. | ||
| The answer is, they think it's important, and frankly, I do too. | ||
| Because when she's hiring somebody and she's not telling the people who are going to be paying the tab up to $700,000, hey, I just hired my boyfriend who's taking me on a trip to the Caribbean and taking me down to Aruba and taking me to California. | ||
| Hope you don't mind. | ||
| No disclosure whatsoever. | ||
| And the money flows off. | ||
| But because they got caught, they then commit what I think is an additional component of forensic misconduct, and that is fraud on this court. | ||
| When they filed that affidavit, and now it's been proven, I think, beyond virtually any doubt, any doubt, that the relationship occurred prior to November 1, 2021, and the benefits. | ||
| We don't have to run around. | ||
| We've got all the records showing from Mr. Wade about the payment for these trips, for the cruises, for the flights, all this stuff. | ||
| What's the only way, as they sat around and met together before they testified and came up with their story, what's the only way that they can save themselves? | ||
| Pay no attention to the records. | ||
| Pay no attention to the airlines and to the flights and vacations and cruises. | ||
| I paid him back in cash. | ||
| Show us your receipts. | ||
| Where did you take cash out of the bank? | ||
| Ever. | ||
| Oh, I don't have any. | ||
| Well, show us the deposits that he had. | ||
| Well, never. | ||
| We don't have any. | ||
| What we have here is a fraud on this court, which has been shown. | ||
| I think overwhelmingly by the evidence and overwhelmingly through not only the testimony of Yuri, the testimony of the emails and the text from Mr. Bradley to Ms. Merchant, as well as all the documents that they had no answer to other than the just trust me, I gave him money, it evaporated, I don't know where it came from, and he doesn't know what he did with it. | ||
| Please trust us and believe us because it's our only way out of the trap that they set for themselves. | ||
| These people, sadly, and I hate to say it, as the court knows, I was a prosecutor for about three and a half million years, it seems, in the federal building, and I was an assistant DA beforehand. | ||
| Prosecutors don't act like this. | ||
| Lawyers don't act like this. | ||
| These people, Your Honor, it's a systematic misconduct. | ||
| And they need to go. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Your Honor, I'm going to cover a few factual details without overly rehashing what has already been said. | ||
| During the pendency of this investigation in this case, Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis basically lived Robin Leach's lifestyle of the rich and famous. | ||
| And they did this riding on the backs of the defendants, in this case, funded by the taxpayers of Fulton County and the state of Georgia, with the money that was paid to Mr. Wade through the contract that Ms. Willis got him. | ||
| That money flow, that is the personal interest that you asked about. | ||
| She was personally benefiting. | ||
| From the position, from the job, from the scope of the investigation, from the scope of the indictment, and how they conducted it. | ||
| And we know this. | ||
| We know from the records that have been submitted before the court that Mr. Wade paid at least $17,095 towards this relationship. | ||
| That does not even include the various dinners. | ||
| The day trips that both Wade and Willis admitted to. | ||
| So that number is likely even higher. | ||
| We know from the documents that Ms. Willis only paid $1,394 for an airline ticket. | ||
| We know from Ms. Yurdy, who was pretty much uncontested. | ||
| There was no... | ||
| Evidence presented by the state disputing her time frame that that relationship started in 2019. | ||
| She saw them kissing. | ||
| She saw them hugging. | ||
| Now, whether or not they had sex before January of 2022, I do not know. | ||
| They admitted sometime in early 2022, and I found it curious that they both, Wade and Willis, The relationship predated that. | ||
| The relationship started in 2019. | ||
| The relationship continued through 2020. | ||
| The relationship continued through 2021. | ||
| Looking at the cell phone communications, just in the first 11 months of 2021, over 2,000 calls, almost 9,800 texts. | ||
| I don't even think lovestruck teenagers communicate that much. | ||
| But November 29th and November 30th, Escapade. | ||
| Phone call from Ms. Willis, between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade, 1132 that night, shortly after midnight. | ||
| The phone starts traveling down from where Mr. Wade lives. | ||
| It ends up where Ms. Willis is staying, and he's there until roughly 4:55 a.m. | ||
| None of the excuses, none of the explanations that Mr. Wade gave going to the Porsche experience, going to dinner, going to the airport. | ||
| None of that explains that. | ||
| I'm pretty sure the Porsche experience isn't open in the middle of the night. | ||
| I'm pretty sure that there weren't any restaurants that he drove 30 to 45 minutes to go eat at in the middle of the night, right after he talked to Ms. Willis. | ||
| Teenagers have a name for those kind of calls and those kind of expates. | ||
| I won't go into it. | ||
| But the documentary evidence, the objective evidence, undercuts everything that both Wade and Willis said. | ||
| When you look at Ms. Yurdy, again, she unequivocally said that relationship began in 2019. | ||
| She saw physical evidence of a romantic relationship. | ||
| Mr. Bradley, in the text messages, which are substantive evidence, said that that relationship began in 2019. | ||
| Again, his January... | ||
| You know, temporary amnesia that somehow was triggered temporarily after Gabe Banks called him. | ||
| We can question that. | ||
| But we do have statements from him that specifically said that relationship predated Mr. Wade's appointment by Miss Willis. | ||
| You asked, well, and Mr. Wade, you asked what the materiality would be. | ||
| How much is enough? | ||
| Well, clearly $17,000 is enough. | ||
| But Fulton County has told us, has told Mrs. Willis what the materiality is. | ||
| It's $100 in a year. | ||
| She twice signed declarations, certifications that she did not receive any gifts. | ||
| And even under her strained explanation, There were monies, there were gifts, there were dinners, there were excess contributions flowing her way that exceeded $100. | ||
| Her excuse, or I'm sorry, her explanation, well, I just paid it in cash. | ||
| That just does not stand to reason. | ||
| It does not hold up to the light of truth. | ||
| Anyone that has ever been in a money laundering trial, a forfeiture trial, If that's the explanation we give the state, they laugh. | ||
| Oh, I just gave cash. | ||
| I have no records for it. | ||
| I have no source for it. | ||
| The only thing that she could say that was a source for the money, because at times she said she was down to $500 to $1,000. | ||
| The only explanation she had is, well, sometimes I go to Publix and I may get an extra $50. | ||
| That shows up on your debit card. | ||
| Or your credit card. | ||
| Did they bring those records in? | ||
| No. | ||
| Did they bring her bank accounts in? | ||
| No. | ||
| Did they bring any documentary evidence in? | ||
| No, they did not. | ||
| And why is that important, Judge? | ||
| Yes, the burden is ours. | ||
| But under OCGA 24-14-22, if a party has evidence in such party's power and within such party's reach, by which he or she May repel a claim, and they had that power. | ||
| Ms. Willis had that power. | ||
| Mr. Wade had that power. | ||
| That they can repel the claim that we have made against them, but they admit to produce it, or if they produce weaker evidence, then you, as the fact-finder judge, it is in your power to disregard that, and a presumption arises that that documentary evidence that is in their possession that they failed to produce supports our claim. | ||
| And that is something that the state relies on regularly in criminal trials. | ||
| And that is something that the court should rely on in this case when formulating its factual findings. | ||
| And we know that both Mr. Wade and Miss Willis have some difficulty expressing the truth when it comes to their relationship in these cases. | ||
| We know Mr. Wade lied in his interrogatories multiple times. | ||
| We know Miss Willis... | ||
| Falsely certified that she hadn't received any gifts from anybody. | ||
| And Mr. Wade clearly was a prohibited source. | ||
| He was someone doing business with Fulton County. | ||
| Anything over $100 in a year, she had to put down. | ||
| And she put zero. | ||
| And it defies imagination that she could somehow forget about all these trips, all these dinners, all these day trips, and not put that money down. | ||
| You had asked, I think it was Mr. Gillen, did she say in that church speech or anywhere else that the defendants were guilty? | ||
| And I think she did in that church speech. | ||
| She said in that church speech, and she was talking about a conversation that she apparently had with God, talking about herself. | ||
| She said, this leader has a trial conviction rate of 95%. | ||
| She said, the trial team this year put together has a conviction rate of 95%. | ||
| I do not see how anyone, and I think that was purposefully intended by Ms. Willis, I do not see how anyone can listen to those two statements and not take that Ms. Willis is telling everyone in that church and everyone that's going to hear that in the media afterwards that these defendants are guilty. | ||
| That is what she was saying. | ||
| She is a prosecutor. | ||
| She's familiar with the U.S. v. | ||
| Berger. | ||
| Every single attorney that's ever been a prosecutor is familiar with the dictates of that U.S. Supreme Court case. | ||
| That is a foul blow. | ||
| That is improper. | ||
| And she violated pretty much every tenant a prosecutor must abide by to seek truth and justice in a particular case. | ||
| So, Judge... | ||
| When you're looking at this, the uncontroverted evidence shows that they had a relationship prior. | ||
| The uncontroverted evidence shows that Mr. Wade lavishly spent on Ms. Willis. | ||
| The uncontroverted evidence shows that the money that he was spending on Ms. Willis came from this contract that he had. | ||
| And I'm not just talking about the contract as a special prosecutor. | ||
| But there's also those other questionable contracts that, no matter whom his partner seemed to be, they also got. | ||
| There is a direct financial benefit that Ms. Willis received from this. | ||
| And Judge, looking back at what Judge McFernish said, if merely hosting a fundraiser for a political opponent of a putative defendant... | ||
| It creates not only the appearance, but an actual conflict. | ||
| And what Ms. Willis has done since then, in this case, creates an actual conflict. | ||
| But again, as prior counsel has stated, we only need to show the appearance of the conflict. | ||
| And we have done that by a preponderance of the evidence. | ||
| In fact, I believe we've shown an actual conflict. | ||
| But nonetheless, the result should be that Ms. Willis and her office should be disqualified from this case. | ||
| We still have a few more minutes. | ||
| I think Mr. Cromwell may have something to say. | ||
| Thank you, Your Honor. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Good afternoon, Your Honor. | ||
| Harry McDougald for Mr. Clark. | ||
| I'm going to talk further about conflicts, and I'm going to assume the most difficult standard for us to meet. | ||
| Which is actual conflict. | ||
| But before I begin that, I want to add just a little bit to what has already been said about the standards that apply to prosecutors. | ||
| Our appellate courts have said often the administration of the law, and especially that of the criminal law, should, like Caesar's wife, be above suspicion and should be free from all temptation, bias. | ||
| Or prejudice so far as it is possible for our courts to accomplish it. | ||
| The first occurrence of that that I can find is Nichols v. | ||
| State more than 100 years ago, 1915. | ||
| The most recent, Registe v. | ||
| State in the Supreme Court in 2010, although they don't refer to Caesar's wife. | ||
| That requirement is also embedded in the prosecutor's statutory oath, 15-18-2. | ||
| Which requires impartially and without fear or favor discharge my duties as district attorney and take only my lawful compensation, so help me God. | ||
| The general rule on conflicts of interest for lawyers is in Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7. | ||
| And we all know, it's all drummed into us, that we cannot have a conflict of interest. | ||
| And if we do, we have to withdraw or we will be disqualified. | ||
| The basic idea is that a conflict of interest impairs the lawyer's independent professional judgment. | ||
| That's the test of a conflict and whether it can be waived and whether it's disqualifying. | ||
| And that conflict is not just financial. | ||
| It can be any conflict that impairs your independent professional judgment, and you see that in McLaughlin v. | ||
| Payne. | ||
| The court asked what was a personal interest for purposes of disqualification. | ||
| It's anything that impairs professional judgment. | ||
| That's reflected in the ABA standards that were quoted by Mr. Merchant. | ||
| Which lists the prosecutor's personal, political, financial, professional, business, property, or other interests or relationships. | ||
| And that's really embedded in the prosecutor's oath to act impartially. | ||
| And the earlier disqualification order by Judge McBurney was based on political interests, not financial. | ||
| What my colleagues have described as forensic misconduct is also cognizable as a conflict of interest based on that footnote in Williams' case. | ||
| The root of all of the problems that we see in this court right now is a conflict of interest arising from their individual personal interests in perpetuating and concealing their relationship. | ||
| That's the original sin from which all of the other problems flow. | ||
| There are six different actual conflicts of interest in this case, any one of which warrants disqualification, but collectively, practically compelling. | ||
| First, the financial conflict that's already been covered. | ||
| Second, the personal ambition, political ambition. | ||
| Third, there's a dovetailed or complementary pattern of deceit and concealment of the relationship and the money. | ||
| Fourth, the speech at the church. | ||
| Fifth, the motion for protective order that the DA filed in Mr. Wade's divorce case. | ||
| Sixth, the way the state has conducted the defense of this motion to disqualify especially the hearing. | ||
| On the financial piece, the court asked for a limiting principle. | ||
| And asked about materiality. | ||
| The limiting principle is whatever impairs the independent professional judgment of the lawyer that is applied routinely. | ||
| We have a county code section that flatly prohibits gifts from contractors. | ||
| Period. | ||
| We have, by analogy, the federal bribery statute, which has a threshold of $5,000. | ||
| 18 U.S.C. | ||
| 666. | ||
| The court asked about burdens and inferences. | ||
| The court can draw a negative inference from the state's failure to produce evidence to support the invisible magic cash balancing theory based on State v. | ||
| Thomas, 311 Georgia 407, particularly footnote 19. As to the timing question that the court asked about, There were two contracts for Mr. Wade executed after they acknowledged the relationship began. | ||
| Each one of them afflicted or conflicted under county and common law. | ||
| The second conflict is her political ambition, for which she was previously chastised by Judge McBurney. | ||
| And that's also present in this book. | ||
| The inside flap of this book says, That they were given, quote, exclusive access to thousands of secret documents, emails, text messages, and audio recordings. | ||
| The court has twice denied defense motions to unseal special purpose grand jury materials. | ||
| She helped herself to get the glory of this book. | ||
| I introduced certified copies of a number of county code sections. | ||
| I'm not going to walk through those, but I'll tell you why they matter. | ||
| The stack of law from the state constitution down to the county ordinances imposes a regime on the DA under which she has three obligations. | ||
| She has to go to the county commission to get approval to pay him like she did. | ||
| She cannot accept gifts from a prohibited source. | ||
| She has to disclose the gifts that she received. | ||
| She evaded all of those requirements. | ||
| Section 2-69 of the County Code prohibits gifts from prohibited sources, which he was. | ||
| There is no boyfriend exception. | ||
| The disclosure forms, the evidence is sufficient for you to find that her disclosure form for 2022 is false, and that it is a false writing. | ||
| That's an actual conflict of interest between her duty... | ||
| Legal duty of disclosure, her legal duty of candor as a prosecutor, and her private and personal interests in concealing the relationship, concealing the gifts, and keeping the gravy train rolling for as long as possible. | ||
| His part in the pattern of concealment is a story you see in many divorce cases. | ||
| The husband is hiding things from his wife. | ||
| How much money he's making the other woman. | ||
| And what he's spending on the other woman. | ||
| And he got on that stand, lied in his interrogatories, and he got on the stand and he lied about lying in the interrogatories. | ||
| And the lawyers for the DA, the DA's office, they just sat there and let him do it. | ||
| They did nothing to correct obviously perjured testimony. | ||
| In and of itself, that warrants disqualification of every one of them. | ||
| The reason they lied and covered it up was to avoid the trouble they're in right now. | ||
| That served their personal interests to the detriment of their public duties as prosecutors. | ||
| The speech at the church. | ||
| I want to focus on why she did that. | ||
| Mr. Gillen talked about that. | ||
| She did it to deflect attention from her own misconduct and that of Mr. Wade. | ||
| She violated her public duty as a prosecutor to serve her personal interests and the personal interests of her boyfriend. | ||
| That is a disqualifying conflict between her personal interest and her public duty that is actual, operational, and materialized, and it rests on undisputed facts. | ||
| The next thing that she did that was a disqualifying conflict of interest was the emergency motion for protective order. | ||
| That she filed in the divorce. | ||
| I filed a certified copy of that as Exhibit 37. She saw a protective order under the Apex doctrine on the grounds that she's the DA. | ||
| The whole filing is expressly predicated on her status as DA. | ||
| In fact, she never lets you forget it. | ||
| She says it 27 times in 12 pages. | ||
| In that filing, speaking as DA, she said, The circumstances, quote, suggest that defendant Joycelyn Wade is using the legal process to harass and embarrass District Attorney Willis, and in doing so is obstructing and interfering with an ongoing criminal investigation. | ||
| In the prayer for relief on page 11, she asked for six months to, quote, complete a review of the filings in the instant case, investigate and depose relevant witnesses. | ||
| With regard to the interference and obstruction this motion contends, there's no sugarcoating it. | ||
| That's a clear violation of rule of professional conduct 3.4H, which prohibits lawyers from making threats of criminal prosecution to gain advantage in a civil case. | ||
| She abused her power. | ||
| She abused her position to threaten her boyfriend's wife with criminal prosecution to gain advantage for herself and her boyfriend in her boyfriend's divorce. | ||
| She violated her public duties not to make that kind of a threat in order to serve her private personal interests and those of Mr. Wade. | ||
| Another actual operational conflict. | ||
| The last category. | ||
| It's the conduct of the defense of this hearing. | ||
| There are a lot of objections made based on attorney-client privilege during Mr. Bradley's testimony. | ||
| Most of those objections were made by the state. | ||
| But the privilege being asserted does not belong to the state. | ||
| It belongs to Mr. Wade. | ||
| That shows. | ||
| That the DA's office is serving the personal interests of the DA and Mr. Wade in carrying out further concealment and cover-up of their relationship and not the cause of justice they are sworn to serve. | ||
| That is a conflict of interest. | ||
| It's a continuation of the wrongful pattern of concealment and cover-up that they've engaged in. | ||
| Since the beginning, but now they've enlisted the entire office in the enterprise. | ||
| In the written response to the motion to disqualify, they said this, and I quote, should be absolutely clear, there is no evidence that DA Willis derived any financial benefit from Mr. Wade. | ||
| That's on page 15. Flat out false. | ||
| Ten lawyers in this case put their name on that, starting with the DA. | ||
| So throw another log on the bonfire of conflicts of interest. | ||
| The problem here is the DA cannot distinguish between her personal interests and ambitions on the one hand and her public duties as a prosecutor on the other, and apparently neither can anyone else in their office. | ||
| Of the six conflicts I've identified, only one is subject to a conflict in the evidence. | ||
| This is a case study in what happens when you operate under a conflict of interest. | ||
| It's put an irreparable stain on the case. | ||
| Think of the message that would be sent if they were not disqualified. | ||
| If this is tolerated, we'll get more of it. | ||
| This office is a global laughing stock because of their conduct. | ||
| The case should be disqualified and the case should be dismissed. | ||
| Your Honor, there's not much oxygen left in the room. | ||
| We delineated the times based on the whole presentation. | ||
| Would Your Honor consider some time for us in rebuttal? | ||
| No. | ||
| Okay, well then, could I reserve what I had five minutes for rebuttal? | ||
| Sure, that's fine. | ||
| All right, thank you, Your Honor. | ||
| All right, let's take a quick five. | ||
| And we'll be back at 2.40ish to hear from the state. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Here we go! | ||
| Here we go, man. | ||
| That judge was... | ||
| Probably should be wearing a pair of Joe Biden Depends. | ||
| It sounds like he is rushing off to the restroom. | ||
| We are certainly not going to be rushing off anywhere. | ||
| We'll be sticking with you. | ||
| We are here for you. | ||
| And having done a lot of these lives... | ||
| We keep our mouths shut. | ||
| We know that sometimes it's hard to hear inside of these little courtrooms. | ||
| Sometimes the mics aren't that great. | ||
| And so we're not trying to be cute over here. | ||
| We are trying to take questions and, like, keep interacting. | ||
| We do this for you to be watching it with you. | ||
| We find it as interesting as you do. | ||
| And so, like, we're doing, you know, we're like, just pay no attention to us if you don't want to. | ||
| But that's what we're about. | ||
| We're not going to, like, talk over what's happening here because it is particularly fascinating. | ||
| And it's really interesting. | ||
| I guess we'll start with the most important thing happening right now, which is our poll. | ||
| I don't know if we have a recent update on the poll, or if we have the judge, Royce. | ||
| I'll take either one. | ||
| You got the judge saying he's ready to disqualify. | ||
| Alright, so, ladies and gentlemen, the judge began today, and a lot of the comments are about the judge. | ||
| A lot of the comments are about, like, hey, this guy, is he going to be biased? | ||
| What's he going to do? | ||
| His background's kind of, like, weird. | ||
| It's kind of, like, half and half. | ||
| He's been kind to Fannie Willis and I think he's worked with her. | ||
| He's also donated to her. | ||
| So that in of itself is like a conflict of interest. | ||
| But also the guy got his job because of Trump. | ||
| So I don't know. | ||
| It's going to be tough. | ||
| Like it's going to be a tough one. | ||
| You saw some of Trump's lawyers and some of the lawyers for those who are being accused here just absolutely going ham on the testimony of Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade. | ||
| What they're going to have to overcome, obviously, is precedent here. | ||
| And this ruling, obviously, is going to have big repercussions. | ||
| And this is what the judge ultimately said, which I thought is going to be probably the biggest hurdles for them to overcome, which is, is Fannie Willis now disqualified from everything? | ||
| Because she is a liar. | ||
| Like, the judge sort of, like, couching that, yes, she lied, and that's obvious. | ||
| So does that mean she's totally disqualified? | ||
| Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to... | ||
| Obviously, make sure that the feed's up and we're not going to miss anything. | ||
| We'll jump right back into the feed as soon as it restarts. | ||
| Here's what the judge had to say when he sat down and started giving orders, obviously, to both sides. | ||
| He said, I'm prepared to rule. | ||
| So what we may see yet today is the judge ruling. | ||
| Both sides are like, can we call more witnesses? | ||
| He's like, I'm prepared to rule. | ||
| This is huge. | ||
| This is monster. | ||
| Here, have a listen. | ||
|
unidentified
|
And the instruction I provided on Tuesday was that for today, I think we've reached the point where I'd like to hear more of how some of the legal arguments apply to what has already been presented. | |
| And it may already be possible for me to make a decision without those needing to be material to that decision. | ||
| So he's saying I may not need to hear more witnesses. | ||
| Now, Nathan Wade's physically there. | ||
| We've been sort of keeping track of the court watchers. | ||
| Nathan Wade's sitting there. | ||
| So could they, like, have potentially, like, brought Nathan Wade up? | ||
| Could they call Nathan Wade back to the stand? | ||
| I mean, they absolutely could. | ||
| We're not exactly sure. | ||
| What we do know is that the state, who's having the unenviable job of representing Big Fanny and Nathan's Hot Dog, are not very verbose, right? | ||
| They haven't questioned Big Fanny. | ||
| They waived their right to, like, question Big Fanny. | ||
| They have very few questions for Nathan's Hot Dog. | ||
| Very few questions for Terrence Bradley because they know the more these people talk, the more incriminating it all gets. | ||
| The more awful it gets for the case. | ||
| Well, here's the poll, ladies and gentlemen, from what we have seen so far. | ||
| It looks like 98% of people who have voted want the disqualification of Big Fanny. | ||
| 2% saying no. | ||
| We do not want the disqualification of Big Fanny. | ||
| I don't know who the 2% are. | ||
| I don't know if you... | ||
| Fanny Willis sitting there, clicking as many times as she can in her office. | ||
| If you're Fanny Willis' father or not. | ||
| My goodness, is Fanny Willis in the court? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Wow! | |
| Okay, here we go. | ||
| Fanny Willis is in the court. | ||
| There she is. | ||
| Is her dress on correctly? | ||
| Not something I ever thought I'd find myself asking on a live stream. | ||
| I certainly don't want to inspect for myself. | ||
| But, well, last time she wore her dress backwards. | ||
| Wow! | ||
| Fanny Willis is in the house. | ||
| And Nathan's hot dog was there just at the beginning of the last round. | ||
| Fanny Willis. | ||
| Oh, there they are, Fanny and Nathan. | ||
| Ooh, boy. | ||
| What's going to happen here? | ||
| We didn't expect them to be here, but here they are. | ||
| Are they going to speak? | ||
| Are they going to comment on their behalf? | ||
| This is going to get interesting. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Wow! | |
| Hot diggity dog! | ||
| Are they going to actually, are they going to speak on, like, in their own defense here? | ||
| Because obviously what you just heard was the argument on behalf of all of the Trump attorneys and on behalf of all of Trump's lawyers. | ||
| And this is a live shot. | ||
| I believe that's the judge. | ||
| There's a live shot of Big Fannie Willis in Fulton County. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Oh, baby. | |
| It is about to get spicy. | ||
| It's about to be some heat in the kitchen. | ||
| Nathan Wade was sitting through the last round of argument for Trump's side. | ||
| And now... | ||
| Fanny Willis, with sort of that same smirk on her face, same smug smirk that she had when she stormed like a bull up to the stand. | ||
| Here's the judge. | ||
| All right. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Here we go. | |
| Here we go. | ||
| Time for popcorn. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Alright, we're back on the record. | |
| Stay ready. | ||
| Yes, Judge. | ||
| I've just been trying to get to where I can share my screen. | ||
| We need to add you as a host, then. | ||
| What's your profile name on the Zoom? | ||
| Your screen name on the Zoom. | ||
| Adam Abadi. | ||
| Just making sure. | ||
| Bear with us. | ||
| Do you need it right away? | ||
| No, I can start without. | ||
| All right, floor is yours. | ||
| Good afternoon, Your Honor. | ||
| I want to start with some of the things that were addressed over the last hour and a half. | ||
| First, beginning with something Mr. Merchant referenced as it related to the comments that the state made in regards to the good faith basis. | ||
| And which was submitted to the court in which defense counsel claimed the evidence would show. | ||
| And I would strongly bring to the court's attention that the claims that were made were material misrepresentations. | ||
| And what I will say to the court and why I say that to the court is because the representations that were made by counsel was that Ms. Dacia Young, Ms. Sonia Allen, Mr. Dexter Bonds, Investigator Hill, Investigator Green, Investigator Ricks. | ||
| All of these people would be called and Mr. Bradley would be able to impeach their knowledge by saying that he specifically in his presence or to him said that Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade We're in a romantic relationship and that Miss Willis and Mr. Wade were cohabitating, that they all knew that. | ||
| And I would submit to the court, we didn't hear from any of those individuals. | ||
| Mr. Bradley impeached no one. | ||
| And I say no one because he did not impeach Mr. Wade. | ||
| In order to properly impeach a witness, you have to confront the witness with the specific statements. | ||
| Mr. Wade, and you can look back at the YouTube of the entire hearings of the last couple days, Mr. Wade wasn't once confronted with a statement that he claimed or said, or that is claimed that he said to Mr. Bradley. | ||
| The way you properly impeach somebody, you have to confront the witness. | ||
| Here would be Mr. Wade. | ||
| And once he makes a statement that you believe to be inconsistent and you have a witness who can prove That inconsistency, that's when you call that witness. | ||
| And when Mr. Wade was on the stand, not once was he asked, did you tell Mr. Bradley this in a confidential conversation in your conference room, that was not covered under attorney-client privilege. | ||
| That was not asked. | ||
| The specifics of that conversation was not asked. | ||
| So any testimony that Mr. Bradley testified to is impermissible. | ||
| It is improper impeachment because they did not confront Mr. Wade with it. | ||
| So that's where the state would begin with the comments that Mr. Merchant made about me referencing his wife as lying. | ||
| I never called Ms. Merchant a liar. | ||
| I never used those words. | ||
| I don't know why she made the material misrepresentations. | ||
| It could be because Mr. Bradley lied to her. | ||
| I don't know the reason. | ||
| But I can submit to the court. | ||
| That those were material misrepresentations that were made to this court on the day a few Mondays ago, as everyone was arguing the motions to quash certain subpoenas. | ||
| I'd also bring to the court's attention that during that motion to quash subpoenas, certain subpoenas, Ms. Yurdy's attorney appeared, Mr. Partridge, and he made very clear on that Zoom. | ||
| That Miss Yurty had absolutely no knowledge of a romantic relationship and absolutely no knowledge of cohabitation. | ||
| Those were the specific references that he made. | ||
| So what I would submit to the court is those are considered adoptive omissions that his client has made based on the statements he made because of the representations she made to him. | ||
| So, and I know that sounds convoluted, but what I would say to the court is, Ms. Yurdy told Mr. Partridge, because Mr. Partridge told the court that she had absolutely no information about romantic relationship, and she had absolutely no information as in regards to... | ||
| So, but wait, are you making an argument I should make inferences based? | ||
| Now, these would be attorney-client privileges, or communications then. | ||
| She's communicating with Mr. Partridge about what her upcoming testimony is. | ||
| That's why she's hired him, and you're telling me I should infer things based on her communications to him? | ||
| Absolutely, because they're not attorney-client communications anymore when he discloses them to the court and everybody else as they watch the Zoom and attend the hearing. | ||
| The difference is there was no request to go in-camera. | ||
| There was no request to go or to have a private conversation with you. | ||
| Was done with Mr. Bradley. | ||
| That would have been the proper procedure. | ||
| So, yes, I'm asking you to infer that, 100%. | ||
| I'm asking you to infer that her testimony was, at best, inconsistent. | ||
| Because the testimony of Ms. Yurie, when she testified, was vague, very little description, when asked in a very leading manner. | ||
| Is it true or do you know that Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade were in a relationship from 2019 into the time you were forced to resign from the district attorney's office in March of 2022? | ||
| She said yes. | ||
| And then further when pressed by Mr. Sedow, he talks about why she believed they were in a relationship. | ||
| And what was interesting from Ms. Yurdy's testimony that they were pretty close friends up until she left the DA's office, that she asserted to the court that on a yearly basis, Ms. Willis said, I'm in a relationship with Mr. Wade in 2019. | ||
| Oh, by the way, I want to tell you again in 2020, because we're in a new year, I'm still in a relationship with Mr. Wade. | ||
| And again, in 2021, the assertion is... | ||
| Ms. Willis then went back to Ms. Yurdy and confirmed, hey, I just want to reconfirm me and Mr. Wade are still in a relationship. | ||
| It's absurd. | ||
| It's absolutely absurd. | ||
| More importantly, when Mr. Sadow asked her about why she believed that they were in a romantic relationship based on her own observations, she said something. | ||
| He said, he actually asked her, do you see him kissing or hugging? | ||
| She said yes, but there was no... | ||
| A description or qualification about when it occurred, what she actually saw, or saw, excuse me, was it a kiss on the cheek, things of that nature. | ||
| So I would ask you to frame her testimony from that standpoint when you're addressing her credibility, as the court is going to do with each and every witness that you heard during the testimony of all the witnesses during the hearing. | ||
| I'm going to see if my screen will share. | ||
| Bro. | ||
| Bro, are you gonna cry? | ||
| It sounds like you're about to cry. | ||
| You sound like you're about to cry. | ||
| You can do it. | ||
| That's fine. | ||
| There's enough salt on your side. | ||
| Look at how salty they are. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's salt. | |
| Give me salt shakers. | ||
| Let's give him some salt. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| about the standard and the burden here in this instance as it relates to defense counsel and the claims that they have made in the motion to disqualify. | ||
| And as I was doing a whole lot of research, I came upon this law review article from Cornell scholarship reading or publication. | ||
| And they made very clear that courts have been relatively reluctant to exercise their power to disqualify prosecutors for any reason. | ||
| And that goes along with the standard what state would submit to the court is that the defense has to show an actual conflict. | ||
| And in this instance, they have to show the actual conflict would be that Ms. Willis received a financial benefit or gain and did it based or got it. | ||
| Based upon the outcome of the case. | ||
| It doesn't make any sense. | ||
| It makes absolutely no sense. | ||
| And during the three days of the extensive testimony of all of the witnesses and the prolonged examinations of the witnesses by multiple of the defense counsel, they still got nowhere. | ||
| We're in the same position we were in on Monday. | ||
| The same assertions that were made on Monday have no answers today as before your honor. | ||
| They were not able to provide any evidence as to the contrary of Ms. Willis and Ms. Wade's assertions of when their relationship began. | ||
| There's absolutely no evidence that contradicts that the relationship did not begin later than or around March of 2022, Your Honor. | ||
| I'd further submit to the court, because of this failure, that their assertion or their request that, one, the indictment be dismissed. | ||
| There's absolutely no evidence that the defendants in this case, their due process rights, have been harmed in absolutely any way. | ||
| There was zero evidence. | ||
| Not a single shred of evidence was produced through any of the exhibits or the witness testimony showing how their constitutional rights, their due process rights, were all affected by the relationship that began in March of 2022 with Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade. | ||
| And because of that, the motion to disqualify should be denied. | ||
| And Ms. Willis, as the 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 to the end, Your Honor, until the trial is set by the court and is to begin. | ||
| Now, the issues, obviously, you've heard a lot from defense counsel as to what... | ||
| The issues are for you to, I guess, determine. | ||
| And here would be the state's contention is that you must find that there's an actual conflict if you were or are to come to the conclusion that you should disqualify Ms. Willis and the District Attorney's Office. | ||
| And looking at... | ||
| I think you're talking about Business Ventura? | ||
| It's McGlynn v. | ||
| State, M-C-G-L-Y-N-N v. | ||
| State, 342 Georgia Appeal, 170. | ||
| It's a 2017 case. | ||
| In that case, it talks about the standard of proof that the defense or the burden that the defense must show and go to show an actual conflict. | ||
| They say it's a high standard of proof, which is definitely not a preponderance of the evidence, which is a much lower burden. | ||
| For any party who's trying to meet that standard of preponderance. | ||
| But it's very clear that what the standard is is that it's a high standard of proof for both when determining whether there's an actual conflict and when there's forensic misconduct that is found, Your Honor. | ||
| And I want to go through some of the cases that defense counsel has referenced as they argued here today and in their And I guess the bright line standard or the standard and the grounds for which disqualification is appropriate for your honor to be determining in all of the cases as it relates to disqualifying the elected district attorney is that you | ||
| either find that there's a conflict of interest or that there's been some sort of forensic misconduct. | ||
| Those are I guess the two areas that, Your Honor, that is in your purview when you are looking to resolve an issue regarding disqualification. | ||
| Now, in a recent case, Levy State, which is 224 Georgia. | ||
| I'm sorry, Lexus 31. It's February of 2024. | ||
| Case here out of our appellate courts. | ||
| And in that case, Justice Pinson wrote that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to disqualify an assistant district attorney absent an actual conflict of interest. | ||
| And that is a case that was ruled on by the Georgia Court of Appeals about a month ago, Your Honor. | ||
| Now, the cases in which defense counsel And what I would say to you is that the defendants, | ||
| in many instances, combine language from the multiple cases and kind of what I would say is misstates the law. | ||
| As it relates to what the law, what is required in order for an elected district attorney and their office to be disqualified. | ||
| And what I would submit to the court is... | ||
| Let's go back to that. | ||
| Show me how. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Show you how. | ||
| So I think the first one they cited was battle versus the state. | ||
| Certainly a conflict of interest or the appearance of impropriety. | ||
| be the grounds of disqualification. | ||
| Well, Well... | ||
| There are a number of these cases that seem to exclusively rely on the appearance of impropriety. | ||
| Right. | ||
| They acknowledge that there's some ambiguity here, that sometimes Whitworth gets cited to Ventura, and we've got this quote that comes up where it's just they only cite to an actual conflict that must be involved. | ||
| They acknowledge the ambiguity. | ||
| You're saying there's no ambiguity whatsoever. | ||
| I am saying that, and why I am saying that, why I would submit that to the court, is in all of those cases, they do reference the appearance of an impropriety, but they reference that because they also find there's an actual conflict in each one of those cases. | ||
| So your position would be your review of the case law. | ||
| There's never been an appellate opinion that relied... | ||
| Only on an appearance of impropriety. | ||
| As it relates to a prosecutor or district attorney, yes, that is what I'm saying. | ||
| What I would say is in those cases, they do reference the fact that there is an appearance of impropriety, but they reference that fact because when you have an actual conflict, there's always an appearance of impropriety. | ||
| And those are what those cases stand for. | ||
| And I guess that is the main example of what I reference as they kind of combine. | ||
| The language from separate and different cases and tell you that the standard is an appearance of impropriety. | ||
| And I would submit to the court that is not the standard. | ||
| And in my first reading, like Your Honor, I did notice that the cases each referenced the appearance of impropriety, but also that that appearance arose from the fact that the court found an actual conflict in each one of those cases. | ||
| So I won't belabor the point in going through All of the cases that the defense had cited, but what I would submit to the court in reading those cases is that I found that they kind of fell into five categories, that some that didn't concern disqualification at all, | ||
| some that determined or that were about, I call it divided loyalty, which is a conflict that arises from representing a, becoming a prosecutor and then having represented the defendant. | ||
| Prior to becoming a prosecutor, and then whether there's an actual personal interest in the outcome, and then others talk about whether the defendant was denied a fundamentally fair trial at the conclusion of the case after conviction. | ||
| And these are some of the cases that defense counsel had cited within their brief that had absolutely no application to The issue that we're here before, Your Honor, today. | ||
| The first McIver v. | ||
| State has nothing to do or has nothing related to the disqualification of anyone. | ||
| I think some of these are just relating to kind of aspiring for broad language about standards to prosecutors. | ||
| So point taken there. | ||
| But if there are more... | ||
| All right. | ||
| Keep going. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| So, as it relates to one of the cases that was referenced here earlier, and is also referenced in some of the briefing by defense counsel, is the Registri v. | ||
| State, which is 287 Georgia 542. | ||
| And all of the cases that fall under this, what I would call category, is about an attorney who formally prosecuted a defendant in I guess the same type of case or the same case or similar charges. | ||
| And that would be why the courts found that disqualification would be necessary because of the relationship that existed between the former client and the now person who's being prosecuted, Your Honor. | ||
| The next series of slides just goes through what has been addressed as it relates to the standard that is required when dealing with the issue of disqualification and the state would contend and submit to the court that the defense must show an actual conflict in order to have the district attorney disqualified and that actual conflict It has to be in the | ||
| form of showing that Ms. Willis, in this instance, received a financial benefit or gain in relation to the outcome of the case. | ||
| Unlike many of the cases that involve personal interest, Your Honor, it's all based on a contingency fee, where how much they're paid, or a bonus, for example, is dependent upon the outcome of the case. | ||
| One is to show that there's a personal interest in the case. | ||
| We have none of that here. | ||
| And I would submit to the court, we have absolutely no evidence that Ms. Willis received any financial gain or benefit. | ||
| The testimony was that Ms. Willis paid all of the money back in cash as related to the trips, and it didn't pay back in cash. | ||
| All right, let me explore this one a little bit. | ||
| So in addition to, you know, you're saying it's only an actual conflict, are you also saying that it's only if a financial interest is affecting The final result, the outcome, that's the only one we should be worried about? | ||
| Or is it that the prosecution as a whole is what we should be looking at in terms of a stake? | ||
| So what I'm thinking of, I'm just going to try and come up with some hypos here. | ||
| What if ADAs are given a bonus for every motion to suppress they win, $1,000 per Fourth Amendment claim they win? | ||
| Well, now they've got an incentive if one of their officers is lying not to tell you about it, because they want to win that motion to suppress. | ||
| Maybe that doesn't affect the outcome, because you can win a motion to suppress or lose, and that doesn't decide whether it's going to be a guilty or not guilty verdict. | ||
| But doesn't that affect the prosecution of the case, if not the outcome? | ||
| Yes, I would definitely agree that that would be an instance where disqualification would be necessary and appropriate, because it's a situation that involves a contingency fee, and I would submit to the court that it actually does end up affecting... | ||
| It could, based on how important the motion to suppress it is, right? | ||
| But if it's some immaterial, you know, I don't know. | ||
| But I guess, so you're saying it's maybe not so much just the whether it's a guilty or not guilty dismissal null process at the end of the day. | ||
| It is actually the conduct of the prosecution that should be looked at throughout the course of the prosecution. | ||
| Correct. | ||
| As it relates to how it affects the prosecution, which I would submit the court ultimately is going to affect the... | ||
| The end outcome of the case. | ||
| If you have a contingency fee based on winning or how, you know, if you win a motion to suppress and it's, you know, if you win, you get, you know, a certain, a bonus, as Your Honor referenced. | ||
| I think that that is ultimately going to affect the end outcome of the case because, as Your Honor just said, if there's an instance where an officer's lying or that where there isn't a good faith to go forward with that motion. | ||
| The prosecutor would go forward regardless because of the contingency fee, which not only affects the prosecution at that point of the proceedings, but ultimately is going to affect the entire case. | ||
| Because if they were to win a motion to suppress, or I guess the motion would be denied and the evidence wasn't suppressed, knowing that they didn't have a good faith basis to go forward, affects the ultimate outcome of the case. | ||
| So I think it's twofold, as Your Honor has referenced. | ||
| I think it's at that. | ||
| Part of the, I guess, the procedure or the proceedings would definitely qualify for a reason necessary to disqualify a prosecuting agency. | ||
| But ultimately, that action during the procedure will lead to the ultimate outcome of the case being or hinging upon a contingency fee like the ones in the cases referenced by counsel and the state that are on the screen. | ||
| So, getting into the language again, would you just head up there with greater amusements and amusement sales? | ||
| Greater amusements is one of those. | ||
| You refer to the appearance of conflict as dictated. | ||
| Why do you think that's dictated? | ||
| I think the quote from that one is, "It guarantees at least the appearance of a conflict of interest." Why is that dictated? | ||
| It seems very central to the holding in the case. | ||
| Because in... | ||
| I don't disagree with your honor, but in... | ||
| They didn't find that. | ||
| I would disagree with your honor. | ||
| My reading of the case is that an actual conflict was found, but because of that actual conflict, an appearance of impropriety was seen. | ||
| And that's the reference, or why the state referenced that case. | ||
| in relation to the argument that an actual conflict is required. | ||
| In the series of cases, Young, that was referenced by defense counsel as well as Nichols, these state are both instances where there's a personal interest in the case due to the And | ||
| what do you make of Nichols' reference to, you know, it's an older case? | ||
| Sometimes the language can be what we're not accustomed to seeing, but they refer to the metaphor of Caesar's wife, and generally when that's used as an ethical standard, that's something that goes beyond just an actual conflict, right? | ||
| Isn't the beyond reproach getting more into appearance world? | ||
| Is it getting beyond? | ||
| No, it isn't getting into the appearance. | ||
| I think it goes beyond that based on the language of the holding in that case, where it literally says that the individual had a personal interest in obtaining a fee by forcing a settlement in the civil case and using the criminal case as leverage. | ||
| So that's not an appearance of impropriety. | ||
| That is an actual conflict of interest in which arises because of the individual's personal stake in the end outcome. | ||
| of the case, Your Honor. | ||
| So that's how I would differentiate, I guess, the representations of Defense Counsel as it relates to the standard or the burden that must be shown and why the state would submit to the court and the most recent ruling out of the Georgia appellate courts that an actual conflict is required to be shown. | ||
| So I'm going to skip through these series of slides. | ||
| You've heard I'm all about Whitworth. | ||
| So I go back to what we referenced earlier, what's been referenced by all parties, that the grounds in which a district attorney can be disqualified is where a conflict of interest is found and where there's forensic misconduct. | ||
| that is found. | ||
| Those are the two grounds that are to be, I guess, are within the purview of the court as it relates to the issues here. | ||
| I think the language there is very clear, and I think it's very controlling. | ||
| I think it's purposeful, I would submit to the court, because an actual conflict of interest is what is required in order for a district attorney to be disqualified, because the cases make very clear, and through the precedent relating to this issue, that a disqualification of a district attorney is the last, for lack of better words, ditch effort that should be exercised as it relates to the court incurring. | ||
| Certain conflicts that may arise. | ||
| I think the case law is very clear that every effort is supposed to be made in lieu of disqualifying the district attorney unless an actual conflict of interest is what's found, Your Honor. | ||
| And it can't be cured. | ||
| So, what I would reference to the court. | ||
| As was brought up earlier in Lyons v. | ||
| State 271, Georgia 639, a 1999 case where it talks about a theoretical or speculative conflict will not impugn a conviction, meaning that speculation, conjecture, things of that nature, assumptions are not enough for anything to arise to an actual conflict. | ||
| That goes to the fact that what has to be shown is an actual conflict. | ||
| If it's speculation... | ||
| Is there any qualifier there, though, that's in a post-conviction context? | ||
| We're talking about, you know, competent evidence. | ||
| We're obviously in a pretrial phase here. | ||
| I've wondered how much important to give that sentence when we're in a pretrial realm. | ||
| That's assessing whether to overturn a conviction, and usually that's... | ||
| You know, kind of an entirely different standard where we assess as a totality, was there a fair trial? | ||
| Is there harmless error? | ||
| I know there's no harmless error when it comes to disqualifications, but just a thought, if you have any reactions. | ||
| Well, I think what Your Honor said is pretty on point in the sense that if it's found that if the trial court either applied the wrong standard or should have disqualified the district attorney, Leads to an automatic reversal, like you said, and it goes back to the trial court. | ||
| And I think that is very enlightening in the sense that that's only done if an actual conflict is shown. | ||
| And the fact that it can't just be theoretical, speculative, or assumptions that would lead to the appearance of impropriety, the appearance of a conflict that would lead to that. | ||
| I'm borrowing kind of from, as we've been doing in the other pretrial motions, special demurers seem to get different treatment pre-trial than post-trial. | ||
| Post-trial, they get more of a pass unless you can show some issues, and I'm wondering if that same principle applies here with disqualification. | ||
| But I don't have the answer to that. | ||
| Well, what I would also say, and I don't remember the exact line, but I know in Judge McBernie's order, he does address some of the concerns as it relates to the standard as it's applied post-conviction. | ||
| Versus pre-trial, during pre-trial issues. | ||
| And what I would say to the court is that... | ||
| So you're signing that in support? | ||
| Because I didn't think the state was all that pleased with the analysis. | ||
| Well, what I'm signing... | ||
| Legal analysis, that is. | ||
| Well, I'm citing what you specifically referenced as to the standard that is to be applied pretrial and post-trial, whether it makes a difference. | ||
| And what I would say to the court is the answer is no, as it relates to the speculative nature of the allegations or the claims made by defense counsel as it relates to whether a conflict actually exists, Your Honor. | ||
| What I can't do at the moment is point exactly to the page. | ||
| At the end of the state's argument, I can give you the page number as it relates to Judge McBurney's order. | ||
| I think I know what you're talking about, the footnote where he references the appearance standard. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Further, in Lamb v. | ||
| State, 267 Georgia 41, on page 42, it's a 1996 case where the court says, nevertheless, the conflict must be palpable and have a substantial basis. | ||
| In fact, a theoretical or speculative conflict will not impune a conviction which is supported. | ||
| By competent evidence. | ||
| Now, I understand as it relates to the post-conviction factor or the status of the case being in post-conviction based on Your Honor's earlier inquiry, but I would submit to the court that as it relates to the issue of disqualification, that the standard is the same whether it's post-conviction or pretrial. | ||
| Bloomfield v. | ||
| Bornstein, which is 247 Georgia 406, the 1981 case. | ||
| In that case, it says the appellees have not shown us a case where a per se rule was applied to disqualify an attorney on the basis of an appearance of impropriety alone. | ||
| Georgia cases cited by the appellee do not stand for the proposition that a trial judge is authorized in Georgia to disqualify an attorney solely on the basis of an appearance of propriety, which further goes to the state's submission to the court that the standard is that An actual conflict must be shown, | ||
| and that conflict that arises shows there's a personal stake of the district attorney as it relates to their personal financial gain that's being alleged. | ||
| So in the case that's been referenced by all parties here today, Whitworth v. | ||
| state 275 Georgia appeals 790 to 2005 case. | ||
| In that case, it says Whitworth's complaints are largely based on speculation and conjecture. | ||
| Applying any evidence standard to the record, it is clear that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and denying Whitworth's motion to disqualify Morgan based upon his personal interest in his conviction. | ||
| Are we past the speculation and conjecture aspect of this? | ||
| I mean, the original and the core of the financial allegation was that There is a relationship and that money has changed hands. | ||
| There's maybe still an open question of where the ledger stands, but I think it was conceded that that balance could run in one way in the district attorney's favor. | ||
| Is that contested? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| What's not contested is that a relationship did develop. | ||
| And that purchases were made back and forth. | ||
| That's the state's That it's the state's position. | ||
| But they were made back and forth. | ||
| The purchases were made back and forth, either to equal the money that was spent by one party or the other. | ||
| And if that wasn't done, cash was exchanged in order to equal the costs that were paid by either one of the parties. | ||
| Right. | ||
| But that's a facted issue, whether it was split even or whether it goes... | ||
| A little bit one way or another, or whether it's all the way $10,000 one way or another. | ||
| That's a fact and issue as a result of the hearing, but it's no longer just the theory that money changed hands is no longer speculation or conjecture. | ||
| Well, I agree that money actually changed hands is not speculation and conjecture, but whether that money that changed hands had any... | ||
| I would submit to the court. | ||
| Absolutely all speculation and conjecture to harass and honestly embarrass the district attorney based on some of the questions that were asked that had absolutely nothing to do with the proceedings that we were here. | ||
| For example, the lien on her alleged house that was highly irrelevant, had nothing to do with the proceedings and the exchange of money between the district attorney and Mr. Wade. | ||
| The point of that line of questioning was to, again, embarrass and harass the district attorney in a way that was very public and 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 as it unfolded. | ||
| And the language in... | ||
| Whitworth I would again submit to the court requires that an actual conflict must be shown which is why the reference to speculation and conjecture is again a reference because speculation and conjecture leads to or equals an appearance of impropriety not necessarily an actual conflict which I submit to the court is what is required based on the case law. | ||
| So, in State v. | ||
| Sutherland, which is 190 Georgia, Appeals 606, 1989 case, and it says, while the prosecuting officers should see that no unfair advantage is taken of the accused, if he is not a judicial officer, those who are required to exercise judicial function in the case are the judge and the jury. | ||
| The public prosecutor is necessarily a partisan in the case. | ||
| If we were compelled to proceed with the same circumspection as the judge and jury, there would be an end to The conviction of criminals, which goes to the premise that the appearance of impropriety is to apply to judges, not prosecutors. | ||
| Because if that standard was to be applied in the manner in which the Sutherland case is referencing, then there would never be a criminal prosecution because the state is always going to appear biased as it relates to... | ||
| Getting justice for the victims or righting the wrong as it relates to the crimes in which the defendant has been indicted or accused of. | ||
| so | ||
| So I want to move into I guess the evidence that Your Honor saw and heard during the last couple of days, three total days of testimony as it relates to the witnesses. | ||
| You heard from Ms. Yurdy, who the state would contend is a disgruntled former employee. | ||
| You heard from Terrence Bradley, also someone who is a disgruntled former partner. | ||
| The text messages in the state's opinion. | ||
| Show that he is vengeful. | ||
| You heard from his own testimony here sitting before the court that all he did was speculate and any information that he had and garnered and then passed on to Ms. Merchant was mere speculation. | ||
| I believe he said that over and over again when asked if he had personal knowledge. | ||
| My recollection is Around 15 times, he said he had absolutely no personal knowledge of a romantic relationship between the DA and Mr. Wade. | ||
| You also heard from the special prosecutor, Mr. Wade, a former judge. | ||
| You heard from the 80th governor of the state of Georgia, Roy Barnes. | ||
| You heard from the first female elected district attorney of Fulton County. | ||
| And you heard from her father, who was a 40-plus year practicing attorney in good standing when he... | ||
| Left the practice of law. | ||
| And what I would submit to the court is that Ms. Gertie's testimony was nothing more than inconsistent at best, based on what I referenced to the court earlier as it relates to the representations that were made by her counsel prior to. | ||
| Are those in evidence? | ||
| Would his responses during a motion to quash? | ||
| Which weren't subject to cross-examination by defense attorneys. | ||
| Weren't even part of the evidentiary record of the hearing. | ||
| Again, I'm just kind of puzzled by that. | ||
| You didn't ask the question of, Ms. Yerdy, what did you tell your attorney before coming here? | ||
| And then we could have dealt with privilege issues and whatever else. | ||
| I would agree with the court. | ||
| It's not an evidence, but it was a statement by an officer of this court to the court during a hearing related to Her testimony and how we would proceed with her testimony in this hearing. | ||
| It's clear that what was represented as to why she would not, I guess, be an appropriate person to testify was that she had absolutely no knowledge of the romantic relationship. | ||
| That was the basis of why her counsel was saying that she Shouldn't have to testify. | ||
| So then under that theory, if accepted, where did the incentive arise between Monday and Thursday for her to completely change things around? | ||
| Where did the incentive arise? | ||
| She was fighting so hard to avoid the, if we're going down that road you proposed, she was fighting to have, not to come in here and testify at all. | ||
| And then she comes in here and testifies. | ||
| Why would you testify the way she did if she didn't want to testify so strongly? | ||
| If we're going down this road of trying to just gauge her interests and these kind of things, I don't know if I'm quite following that theory. | ||
| And I can appreciate that, but I would say the reason she didn't want to testify amidst the court is because this is an incredibly public forum where she would have to testify against a former friend and a former boss. | ||
| And I think the change, I wouldn't qualify it as an incentive. | ||
| What I would qualify it as is... | ||
| Ultimately, when she was forced to testify, right, a motive and a bias as to why she testified in the manner in which she did. | ||
| When asked by Ms. Merchant as to the reasons for her leaving, she kind of danced around the issue. | ||
| And then as Ms. Cross asked her about whether she resigned or forced to leave, she was fired. | ||
| She came out and said she was given the choice, you can either resign, but either way you're leaving. | ||
| You're fired, or you can resign in a manner in which she wouldn't be officially fired when she's trying to get future employment and things of that nature. | ||
| So I would submit to the court that there's actually no incentive. | ||
| An incentive is not why Ms. Yurdy's testimony changed, or the state would contend her testimony changed, but it was... | ||
| The reason she testified the way she did was because of her bias towards the DA, which gave her motive to what the state would contend is be less than honest before the court. | ||
| But if we're going to draw inferences based on her fighting the subpoena, why would she have fought it if she had such a bias and wanted to say these untruths? | ||
| She didn't want to come on national television and have to be exposed to the things that, | ||
| I don't know anybody who wants to testify before a court in a normal trial, a normal proceeding, but one of what I would qualify in this high-profile nature where everybody would be able to watch and learn what she has to say as it unfolds in the courtroom, and I'd further submit to the court. | ||
| Reference to she left the DA's office and the text messages that were submitted in, I believe, what is it, Defense Exhibit 39, that it's because she released confidential information in the DA's office, from the DA's office that led to her firing, that she wasn't. | ||
| And I know I'm, just because it's more conversational, which I appreciate, I know I might be getting you off script, so I don't want to use up all your time if you need to get through some other things. | ||
| Next, Terrence Bradley, and I believe the one thing that the State and Defense Council can agree on, that he was less than honest at times during the proceeding and during his testimony. | ||
| He, when pressed or asked by Mr. Sadow why he was fired, he basically chalked it up to a dispute between partners in a business. | ||
| But when pressed by Ms. Cross, it was clear that that wasn't the reason. | ||
| And what I would submit to the court, what has been referenced by defense counsel as baffling as to why the state would go into such a topic area. | ||
| The state, as all counsel has, when appearing before the court, has a duty of candor. | ||
| When Ms. Cross knew she was going to have to cross Mr. Bradley, she knew he lied. | ||
| And she had a duty of candor to the court and the state's opinion to expose that. | ||
| More importantly, it goes to his credibility and the statements that had been represented by defense counsel that he allegedly had made in the past. | ||
| So it was important to bring that to the court's attention because when a witness is testifying, the court is assessing their credibility and determined whether to believe the veracity of the statements made by the witness or not. | ||
| So that is the most important factor when determining whether somebody is telling the truth or a lie. | ||
| Furthermore, he reluctantly, when press finally admitted that he paid off the assault victim, you know, eventually got started with an escrow account and led to he did pay off the victim in that case. | ||
| He testified over a span of three days, and like I referenced to the court, he must have said 15 times that he had no personal firsthand knowledge as it relates to the relationship. | ||
| Between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade. | ||
| More importantly, when pressed by counsel, he could not pinpoint a time in which he knew that the relationship occurred. | ||
| There were many instances in which he described that very well could have fallen within the time frame that was testified by both Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade. | ||
| As it relates to the relationship beginning or transitioning into dating in March of 2022 and into the end of the relationship in August or the summer of 2023. | ||
| And as I referenced to the court, the statements that Mr. Bradley made the state would contend are inadmissible hearsay as it relates to the statements that he was pressed and asked about. | ||
| What Mr. Wade told him, because Mr. Wade was never confronted with those statements. | ||
| And in order for impeachment to be proper, he must be confronted with the specific statements that are alleged to have been made in order to impeach him. | ||
| Again, Mr. Bradley had every motive to lie. | ||
| I believe the text messages are kind of clear, are very clear, as it relates to his disdain towards Mr. Wade, which Due to the fact that, you know, he was expelled or exiled from a thriving law practice and it was clear of the practice and Mr. Wade sided with the alleged sexual assault victim, which is clear he assaulted her due to the fact that he paid her off. | ||
| And as I referenced earlier, you know, Mr. Merchant represented to the court. | ||
| That Mr. Bradley had personal first-hand knowledge, basically of it all, of everything, and that he would be able to basically be in a peaching machine. | ||
| I think your honor referenced him as the star witness when you were addressing the claims that were made by Ms. Cross in relation to Ms. Merchant's representations to the court. | ||
| And what I would submit to the court is that all... | ||
| Mr. Bradley's representations as it relates to whether or when the relationship between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade began and whether they cohabitated because that was a promise that was also made that he would be able to impeach the investigators as it relates to cohabitation was mere speculation, gossip, and innuendo. | ||
| And this is your honor. | ||
| The impression I got, and we can correct this while we're all here together, is that they, Mr. Bradley, directly overheard a statement from each of these individuals that they could be impeached with. | ||
| Ms. Murchin, is that accurate? | ||
| Directly overheard? | ||
| Which ones are we talking about? | ||
| Well, essentially, that kind of seemed to be all of them. | ||
| You had said Allen, Vaughn, Young, and then the investigators, Hillgreen and Ricks, could all be directly impeached by statements overheard by Mr. Bradley. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| In reference to your question, the unequivocal answer was yes. | ||
| And when Your Honor is looking through the text messages, I would submit to the court that the text messages don't even say or indicate what was represented to the court in relation to the good faith basis for this motion to disqualify as it relates to the testimony of and the ability to... | ||
| Impeach witnesses through Mr. Bradley. | ||
| What's been referenced by all counsel is Mr. Bradley's assertion of absolutely as it relates to whether the relationship existed prior to Mr. Wade's hiring. | ||
| And the question in itself involves speculation because it asks, do you think it started before she hired him? | ||
| And he says absolutely. | ||
| He doesn't say he knows. | ||
| He doesn't provide any context as to how he knows. | ||
| And in these text messages and through his testimony with the court, the source of his information was unclear, what I would say to the court. | ||
| As to a lot of things, other than the one conversation that allegedly occurred between Mr. Wade and Mr. Bradley, and I would submit to the court that that conversation never occurred. | ||
| That would be the state's contention. | ||
| And how do we know that? | ||
| We know that because that conversation was not confronted, or Mr. Wade was not confronted with that conversation. | ||
| And that is evidence circumstantially, and I'd even say direct, as to that conversation non-existing. | ||
| Based on the representation made by defense counsel, it would be clear that that would be a conversation that would have been relayed to, because it wasn't privileged, as Your Honor found, that would have been relayed to Ms. Merchant. | ||
| And if that conversation happened, you better believe that would have been a conversation that defense counsel would have confronted Mr. Wade with and against. | ||
| And the reason they didn't do that was because it didn't exist. | ||
| Again, you heard from Mr. John C. Floyd III, the district attorney's father. | ||
| As Your Honor heard, he was a well-respected member of the legal community for over 40 years. | ||
| But the importance of his testimony was to provide the court with corroboration as it relates to the years leading up to the relationship that... | ||
| He transitioned into dating between the district attorney and Mr. Waite. | ||
| What he testified to is that he moved into her South Fulton home in 2019. | ||
| The evidence of his moving into that home at that time was his Georgia driver's license, a government, official government document. | ||
| He further testified that not only did, it wasn't that just Ms. Willis and himself live at the South Fulton home, But that he often would see on numerous occasions the significant other of Ms. Willis that was not Mr. Wade. | ||
| He referenced that that person had a nickname of Deuce and that he kept a lot of his belongings in the garage of Ms. Willis. | ||
| He specifically said he kept a lot of his disc jockey equipment. | ||
| Is how he referred to it before the court. | ||
| He made very clear that he had never seen Mr. Wade at the South Fulton home that is owned by Ms. Willis. | ||
| He made clear that he lived in that home with Ms. Willis and Ms. Willis alone, other than her two daughters, who would occasionally visit that home and chill. | ||
| After February of 2021, but what precipitated the soon move of Ms. Willis to what I would reference as safe houses for her protection was a protest that occurred before her home in February of 2021. | ||
| He then expressed to the court that Ms. Willis moved in the spring of 2021 and that due to these threats that were taken very seriously, he had only seen his child 13 times. | ||
| He said, in reference to the questions by defense counsel that were in a... | ||
| I'm just going to be straight up with the court. | ||
| They were trying to make Ms. Willis a liar, is how I would submit to the court, in the sense that she testified that she was concerned for her safety and her family's safety, which included her father. | ||
| and her daughters and that Mr. Floyd remaining in that home kind of rebutted all of that made it so it wasn't true but he testified that he stayed in the home because it was a home that she had put her blood sweat and tears in and was able to buy and that he stayed in the home because there were there was constant officer presence he told the court that he bought extra security equipment he even went as far to tell the court that He slept in different rooms | ||
| on different nights because he felt his safety was in such a concern. | ||
| So I would submit to the court that that line of questioning was done in an attempt to discredit Ms. Willis but failed, how the state would characterize it. | ||
| Then he testified about the first time that he did meet Mr. Wade, which is in 2023 here at the district attorney's office. | ||
| And he talked about how he kept cash in his home and why Ms. Willis kept cash in his home. | ||
| And what the court should take note of is the state didn't ask Mr. Floyd about the cash in his home. | ||
| That came out through the cross-examination of the defense counsel. | ||
| There was, I guess, an implication that Mr. Floyd only did so due through his preparation with the state and his hearing and seeing news articles and clips related to the testimony that had occurred prior to him. | ||
| But I would submit to the court that it's telling that that information came out through questions that were asked by defense counsel, which gives credibility. | ||
| To the statements that were made. | ||
| And he further explained as to why he taught his daughter to keep cash in the home as it relates to financial independence and having a safety net. | ||
| It was further testified that he had multiple safes and that he gave Ms. Willis his first lockbox, or her first lockbox, for situations as she described when she was testifying. | ||
| And what I want to make clear... | ||
| Is during Ms. Willis' testimony, it was pressed about the cash and where she kept it, did it follow her, where she laid her head, and things of that nature, trying to further discredit the practice that she had as it relates to keeping cash in her home and why she had the ability to pay cash to Mr. Wade and other people and for other situations. | ||
| And what the court should take note of... | ||
| is that there was no evidence that controverted that at all. | ||
| Where was the evidence that controverted Miss Willis's claim and practice of keeping cash in her home? | ||
| There was none. | ||
| In fact, the only evidence was is it was substantiated through the testimony of her father, Mr. Floyd. | ||
| Furthermore, you heard from Governor On this point, and I think you might have had a more recent opportunity to review his testimony than I have. | ||
| You say on the slide that she was the first choice to lead the prosecution. | ||
| Was that actually his testimony? | ||
| Or was his testimony that he was asked to come aboard? | ||
| Did he use the words that he was asked to lead? | ||
| Yes, that's my recollection, that he was asked to lead the prosecution. | ||
| He was asked to fill the position that Mr. Wade is currently in, which is the lead prosecutor. | ||
| It was said in that way as well, as it relates to the testimony of Mr. Barnes. | ||
| So I think it would be very clear. | ||
| My recollection is that he said lead, but what I can submit to the court, I know he also said that he was asked to fill the position that Mr. Wade is currently filling for the state of Georgia. | ||
| At that time, as special grand jury prosecutor, right? | ||
| Yeah, the special, I guess, yeah, as the special prosecutor to lead the investigation, which led to the ultimate prosecution that we're here before, Your Honor, today. | ||
| He also indicated that the reason he turned that job down was because it didn't pay enough. | ||
| He said he had mouths to feed at his law firm. | ||
| And that he also didn't want to live the rest of his life with bodyguards because he had lived that for the years in which he was the governor of Georgia. | ||
| Furthermore, he confirmed the qualifications of Mr. Wade, which I still find it quite interesting and confusing as to attacking. | ||
| Mr. Wade's qualifications in that it's almost as if Mr. Roman's counsel is asking that the state put a prosecutor on the case that she sees to be more qualified to attempt to convict her client. | ||
| It's an interesting argument and it's one that makes no sense. | ||
| Furthermore, if you were to believe The claims and allegations as it relates to Ms. Willis' personal stake in the prosecution, the receiving of financial benefits and gains, then you'd have to believe that she was also dating Roy Barnes, | ||
| the former governor, and Gabe Banks, in addition to Mr. Wade, if she has this grand plan scheme in order to profit off of the prosecution of this case. | ||
| Because that's what they're saying. | ||
| Or they're saying that she telepathically or prophetically was able to know that Mr. Barnes and Mr. Banks would turn down the position so she could then hire Mr. Wade. | ||
| It's ridiculous. | ||
| It's absurd. | ||
| And it's desperate. | ||
| It's a desperate attempt to remove a prosecutor from a case for absolutely no reason. | ||
| Your Honor, other than harassment and embarrassment. | ||
| This slide, and we've been through a lot of the testimony. | ||
| And I should be clear there, it was not introduced in evidence that Mr. Banks turned her down, right? | ||
| How's that part of the record? | ||
| Well, I'd ask the court to take judicial notices, has been asked repeatedly. | ||
| Unless the district attorney had testified to that, I don't recall offhand. | ||
| I will be frank with the court, I don't recall it. | ||
| Ms. Willis testified to that exact fact, but I know that Mr. Banks represented that to the court during Monday's hearing as it relates to the allegations that were made. | ||
| I understand your honor's position as it relates to that. | ||
| I'm just trying to make sure we know exactly what is in the evidence and is not, but regardless, I think your point is made. | ||
| I think it's an evidence of the record as it relates to, I guess, the issues that led up to the actual hearing of this case. | ||
| So I understand your honor's position, but it did come out during a proceeding that was prior to the actual hearing. | ||
| This slide is just a chart showing kind of the testimony of both the district attorney, Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade, as it relates to how they met, how or when Mr. Wade became the special prosecutor, when their relationship evolved into a romantic one. | ||
| Talking about the trips in which they took after their relationship evolved into one that became romantic and when it ended. | ||
| And what, again, I would submit to the court is that those facts were consistent. | ||
| And the only person who contradicted that when the relationship started was Miss Yurdy. | ||
| And what I would bring to the court's attention is that it was represented to the court that Miss Yurdy... | ||
| Was a witness, other than Mr. Bradley, who could bring to the forefront this issue of cohabitation. | ||
| And when pressed and when asked about it, Ms. Sherry had absolutely no information as it relates to this alleged cohabitation. | ||
| It was false. | ||
| She said she had no information. | ||
| She was asked about trips. | ||
| She said she had no information about the trips. | ||
| Yet, she's such a good friend that Ms. Willis confirmed each year that Mr. Wade and her continue to be in a relationship. | ||
| 2019, 2020, 2021, until their relationship ended due to her forced resignation and the splintering of their friendship, Your Honor. | ||
| I guess several exhibits obviously were tendered in. | ||
| Most of them were exhibits that came from the sealed divorce of Mr. Wade. | ||
| Ms. Jocelyn Wade, contracts for legal services, trip itineraries, and the text messages. | ||
| And I would specifically reference prior to today, the only text messages that were before your honor were defense exhibits 26 and 27, which it's the assertion of defense counsel that what those show is that Mr. Bradley was an informator, was... | ||
| had information as it relates to the relationship starting prior to March of 2022, and that's just false. | ||
| Those text messages do not contain that. | ||
| It does not pinpoint, just as Mr. Bradley couldn't, when the relationship actually started. | ||
| And furthermore, you have the testimony and the evidence of the text messages that it was mere speculation. | ||
| If you, as Your Honor, reviews the full chain of text messages, it is clearly Ms. Merchant and Mr. Bradley going through what I can describe as nothing else other than a mere fishing expedition about certain members of the DA's office who would have information as it relates to specifically, for one, Ms. Young. | ||
| It is asked whether she would have information, and he had no idea. | ||
| He said he assumed he was speculating. | ||
| And that is the same as each person that was subpoenaed in reference in the text messages. | ||
| All of that was speculation. | ||
| And you know it was speculation because not a single one of them testified. | ||
| That's telling. | ||
| Because if it wasn't mere speculation, if it wasn't mere gossip, and if it wasn't mere conjecture, each one of those people who were subpoenaed would have been called to testify, like District Attorney Willis was, like Mr. Wade was, in order to be confronted and then impeached by Mr. Bradley. | ||
| You've heard, obviously, about the phone records. | ||
| I have a maybe, because whether it comes into the purview of Your Honor as it relates to the determination Your Honor is to make as it relates to the disqualification of the district attorney. | ||
| You also have the affidavit from the employee who worked at the winery who confirmed that Ms. Willis did, in fact, pay in cash, up to more than $400. | ||
| I understand that this is part of the proffer of the state, but it's important because that is a witness who the state didn't go find. | ||
| That is a witness who went to CNN in order to confirm what Ms. Willis testified to, further giving her statements credibility and credence before the court. | ||
| You heard about... | ||
| Before we move on from that one, other than the foundational concerns... | ||
| Would you have a response to the proffer of the cell phone records? | ||
| I'll get to that now. | ||
| I was going to get to it later. | ||
| But I have several foundational concerns as it relates to the cell phone records. | ||
| I don't think I've ever, as Mr. Sadow's motion makes very clear, the state uses cell phone records routinely. | ||
| And I would agree with that. | ||
| We use them routinely. | ||
| But we use them with an expert. | ||
| And they're always challenged. | ||
| Like I said, in the interest of time, setting aside the foundational concerns. | ||
| Oh, I thought you were asking about them. | ||
| No, no, no. | ||
| Focusing on the substance, I'm assuming that it would be admissible in the guise that he's proffered. | ||
| Maybe you have that further up, but what's the reaction to that? | ||
| So, what I would say initially is that due to the fact that they were analyzed by someone who was a non-expert, The analyzation of those cell phone records were not properly peer-reviewed. | ||
| It's clear from the state's review that the normal practices that are used to check the use of which kind of data is being used. | ||
| In reference to the two specific dates, I believe it's September 10th and 11th and November 29th and 30th. | ||
| The affidavit that is used to say that Mr. Wade remains in the area of Haightville, because again, during the hearing, the address for the Yurdy condo never came out. | ||
| It was just that it was the Haightville condo. | ||
| The actual phone number for Mr. Wade? | ||
| It was never established. | ||
| And the documents that were provided to the state that were certified business records did not have a subscriber page. | ||
| So we have no idea that the number belongs to Mr. Waite. | ||
| Now, I understand Your Honor wants to look past the foundational issues, and I can appreciate that. | ||
| But the foundational stuff is very important as it relates to the accessibility of the records. | ||
| No doubt about that. | ||
| But if somewhere how they were able to survive those foundational concerns, do you have any reaction? | ||
| Yes, I do, and I will skip forward so I don't... | ||
| So, what's interesting is that the records that were provided were for, they start in January of 2021, and they go, I believe it's to... | ||
| November 30th, I think is what the, of 2021, the span of the records. | ||
| And you heard from all of the witnesses, including Miss Yurdy, that Miss Willis did not move into the hate bill address until April of 2021. | ||
| That was the testimony from all of the witnesses, April of 2021, and that she lived in her South Fulton home from when she met Mr. Wade in October of 2019 up until when she had to move. | ||
| And the assertion by defense counsel is that Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis began a relationship right after they met in October of 2019. | ||
| What's interesting and what's telling is that Mr. Wade's handset doesn't once appear in anywhere near the area of her South Fulton home. | ||
| But they're dating. | ||
| But they're in a serious relationship. | ||
| And if you were to believe what the defense counsel says, that they have been in a relationship from October of 2019 up until she moves. | ||
| April of 2021. | ||
| So, you know, a year and a half or so. | ||
| But he never once enters the area of her home. | ||
| But they want you to believe that that's a lie, which is why Council for Defense continued to press District Attorney Willis and Mr. Wade as to whether he had ever been to that South Fulton home. | ||
| Well, this corroborates that that was not a lie, that he had never been to that home, and it's... | ||
| More than suspect if you've been in a relationship, as they claim, for all this time, but never once, never once went to the House. | ||
| So I think that's telling. | ||
| What I would also bring to the court's attention in the state's initial review of the records, that from January of 2021 to March of 2021, those times when Ms. Willis did not live, again, at the hateful address, she didn't move there until April of 2021, that his handset appears in that area. | ||
| 23 times. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| How do you reconcile that with this testimony that was alluded to, I think, by opposing counsel, the reasons he gave for being in the area? | ||
| Would those line up to 23 times? | ||
| I think, you know, I think you have too many reasons for being there, right? | ||
| Well, I think that's the point. | ||
| I would say, yes, that is the point. | ||
| He referenced that that's an area that he, it was not uncommon for him to be in. | ||
| Clearly, that is the case because Ms. Willis didn't live in that area. | ||
| So, again, it's further corroboration as to what Mr. Wade indicated to the court. | ||
| And when, I guess, after Ms. Willis moved into the condo in April of 2021, they appeared 35 times. | ||
| Now, I want to make clear to the court, both Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade never denied that he had been to that condo before. | ||
| The specific testimony that was elicited by Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade was that he had never laid his head was the direct quote at that condo, which these records don't prove that he laid his head anywhere. | ||
| If you were to believe the analysis or if you were to give credence to what the non-expert says as it relates to Mr. Wade's handset, In September and November for the three to four hours that the phone is alleged to have remained, that doesn't disprove anything that was testified by both Mr. Wade and District Attorney Willis. | ||
| It was that he visited there. | ||
| The specific hours of their visits was not something that was pursued during the questioning of both of the parties. | ||
| Also submit to the court is that if you look at the days as it relates to in September and November, the type of information that is used to make the plots for the longitude and latitude of the handset is data records. | ||
| It's not voice records. | ||
| It's not SMS or text messages. | ||
| It's data records. | ||
| It is not uncommon for an expert to testify as it relates specifically to AT&T records that that actual data record is unreliable as it relates to the location of the handset due to the type of information that it is, that it's data. | ||
| It's not the voice and the SMS, which I know Your Honor, as has been referenced, is... | ||
| Was a prosecutor not only here in this county, but for the federal government where this kind of information is commonly used. | ||
| So in the comments that were made by the court, it was clear that you understood and understand the use of cell phone records as it relates to put somebody in an area. | ||
| And again, not in a specific location. | ||
| I'd also bring to the court's attention as it relates to the validity of the affidavit and the analysis done by... | ||
| The expert that was hired by Mr. Seydal is that not once does it reference the fact that AT&T records commonly have duplicate and triplicate entries within the call detail records. | ||
| That is something that is commonly seen, and that is something that is seen in these records. | ||
| And that is something that leads to the incorrect number of times that has been alleged that Willis and Mr. Wade were in communication through text and voicemail and I'd also submit to the court that that number doesn't prove anything again, doesn't prove that anybody's in a relationship. | ||
| It proves that they were in communication with each other and I think Your Honor can use your own life experience as it relates to people you work with or friends that you are close with and the number of times that you make calls to Any of those people. | ||
| I can submit to the court that I have a friend who I've been friends with for 15 years and she worked in the office previously with me and based on our professional relationship and our personal relationship, the friendship that we had had and still have, that we talk 30 times a day. | ||
| So that doesn't mean we're in a relationship. | ||
| So the assertion that the number of times that miss Willis and Mr. Wade have spoken to each other, whether it's through text message or phone. | ||
| It has no validity as it relates to them being in a relationship. | ||
| What I would submit to the court is that what was shown through all of the evidence was that there's been a true cost to Ms. Willis as it relates to her life, that she had additional expenses that she had to endure because of her position in the sense that she... | ||
| told the court that she had a mortgage, but on top of that mortgage and a house she didn't live in anymore, she had to pay for a safe house, that her home was vandalized, and there were racial epithets and sexual bigotry that were spray-painted onto her house. | ||
| Her safety in her life is something that was testified to. | ||
| And the fact that this job has led to the isolation and separation of her from her family and friends, which was given credence and the credibility of those statements were provided by her father, Mr. Floyd, that he had only seen his daughter 13 times since all of these instances occurred. | ||
| The full nature of the statements and the falsehoods that For example, in these text messages that were purposely leaked to the media as it relates to Ms. Willis' daughter, subjecting her position in school, that she flunked out of college, which isn't true, which in fact she has graduated from an HBCU. | ||
| But what's been leaked to the media is the fact that she flunked out of school and someone other than her father moved her, which again, the validity of which was never And all the while, Ms. Willis facing these costs has been able to continue to do the work unrelated to this case, which is shown in the fact that Atlanta's murder rate and violent crime rates have decreased while she has been in office. | ||
| What was shown through the testimony of all of the witnesses and through the evidence that Your Honor heard was that There wasn't an actual conflict, that the defense failed to provide any sort of actual conflict in relation to Ms. Wade's relationship that transpired from the relationship between her and Mr. Wade, | ||
| and that there was actually no evidence of a financial benefit that she gained as it relates to the prosecution of this case and the ultimate outcome of the case. | ||
| The corroboration of all of that is the things that Your Honor is very much aware that she could have, I guess, financially benefited from stretching out the case, for lack of better words, by the special grand jury recommended that 39 individuals be indicted. | ||
| But through her sifting through the special grand jury's report and all of the evidence with the team that indicted the case, they only went with 19 of the defendants, which... | ||
| Had she gone with all 39, based on the defense counsel's assertions, would have given her the opportunity to certainly find these financial gains that are claimed through the allegations of defense counsel. | ||
| More importantly, why would Ms. Willis repeatedly ask this court to set a trial date as soon as possible if her motive in prosecuting this case Was to continue to financially gain, as alleged, from the prosecution of this case. | ||
| It doesn't line up. | ||
| It doesn't make sense. | ||
| And it doesn't make sense for a reason, because it doesn't exist. | ||
| More importantly, this office has multiple RICO, as well as large-scale cases like this one, and much larger. | ||
| And also, there's a lot of high-profile prosecutions. | ||
| Ms. Willis' ultimate goal by hiring Mr. Wade was for her financial benefit, then she would put Mr. Wade on every single one of those cases, though she could certainly revel in the riches and lavish lifestyle that has been referred to by Defense Counsel, which there's been absolutely no evidence of. | ||
| The evidence was she stated a double tree in Napa, a double tree. | ||
| I don't know that to be a lavish 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. | ||
| Absolute joke. | ||
| As it relates to what you heard and the secondary issue. | ||
| Is the forensic misconduct. | ||
| And for lack of better words, what has to be shown is that the statements that were made by here, Ms. Willis, related to the prosecution of the case and ultimately the guilt or innocence of the defendants. | ||
| We have none of those statements. | ||
| There's been no evidence. | ||
| Nothing has been provided to your honor as it relates to Ms. Willis' specific statements made. | ||
| About any of the defendants and in relation to the guilt or innocence of any of the defendants. | ||
| I forget which defense counsel referenced the fact that she said she had a 95% conviction rate. | ||
| Well, what Ms. Willis' job is to instill confidence in the community as to how well she is doing as it relates to her constitutional duties. | ||
| And that was exactly what was done when she referenced that she had a 95% conviction rate in the previous year. | ||
| That she was serving as a district attorney. | ||
| More importantly, it's been the allegations about race and religion being imputed in her speech. | ||
| And those comments were directed at the defendants at this table. | ||
| And if you listen to the speech, those comments are directed at two elected or political officials. | ||
| I believe it was Marjorie Taylor Greene and Ms. Bridget Thorne, who is a member of the Fulton County Board of Commissioners here, she specifically used their names. | ||
| I don't know that they, my knowledge is they're not supposed to be sitting at the table, and I haven't seen them in my work as it relates to this case, Your Honor. | ||
| So those allegations that Ms. Willis committed a forensic misconduct are... | ||
| Again, there's no validity to them. | ||
| There's no evidence of them as it relates to any of those comments, which this is an issue that Judge McBurney has previously ruled on when these same allegations were alleged as it relates to extrajudicial statements made by Ms. Willis, and it involved a statement that the words fake electors were said by Ms. Willis, and he found there was absolutely no... | ||
| a conduct that was impermissible as it relates to forensic misconduct. | ||
| And I guess to drive home the point, at no point in any of the statements that were made and that are alleged here as it relates to the speech that she made at the church At no point did she mention the guilt or innocence of any of the defendants. | ||
| She, again, was merely responding to comments made by Marjorie Taylor Greene and Bridget Thorne, two other political officials, therefore making her comments not even close in the realm of any sort of forensic misconduct. | ||
| What I find interesting is that defense counsel wants to Make these allegations that Ms. Willis committed this forensic misconduct by the statements that she made in her defense as two unrelated, in this case public officials, criticized the job that she was doing. | ||
| I find the hypocrisy interesting in the sense that we've had video proffers released to the media by defense counsel, emails between counsel released to the media by defense counsel, statements have been made. | ||
| By Defense Counsel in relation to this case, we had the unredacted version of the cell phone records of Mr. Wade released to the media by Defense Counsel with his private and personal information causing the threat of harm to both Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade to increase. | ||
| The most recent instance was the text messages that Your Honor hadn't ruled on their admissibility prior to their release and it was It made clear during the hearings that the ability to get the full chain was something that they were unable to do. | ||
| But they figured a way, and the minute they figured a way, they released the information to the media simultaneously with turning it over to the state and the court. | ||
| For all the reasons obviously stated before, Your Honor, that this motion should be denied because the legal requirements that are required in order for the district attorney to be disqualified have not been satisfied. | ||
| The defendants have failed to raise any issue legally or factually to satisfy the legal standard for disqualification. | ||
| They must show an actual conflict. | ||
| They've been unable to show that the prosecution of this case was at all a result of political bias, which has been accused or accusations have been made, as well as demonstrated that the prosecution of this case was motivated by any means or any way because of malicious prosecution. | ||
| And they haven't been able to prove that this case was one of selected prosecution for political benefit or gain. | ||
| All allegations that have been made during the course of What I would leave the court with and how the state started the argument is that courts have been generally unreceptive if not hostile to attempts to disqualify prosecutors based on pervasive and institutional conflicts which makes clear That the burden, | ||
| the standard is very, very high that must be met in order for an elected district attorney to be disqualified. | ||
| And that burden, that standard has not been met. | ||
| An actual conflict has not been shown. | ||
| And more importantly, in conjunction with that, there's been absolutely no evidence that the district attorney has benefited financially at all, but benefited financially in conjunction with any That's | ||
| what it says. | ||
| Mr. Cromwell. | ||
| I'm going to do rebuttal, specific rebuttal. | ||
| One, state somehow makes an argument that we should have asked Mr. Wade questions about his relationship and his communications with Mr. Bradley. | ||
| When they objected over and over and over, and Wade's counsel objected over and over and over, claiming that everything that Bradley was told by Wade was attorney-client privilege. | ||
| Your Honor made determinations thereafter to Bradley. | ||
| We didn't get the opportunity to call Mr. Wade back to the stand. | ||
| So the claim that you can't impeach him because you didn't ask him when they objected to us asking him is a obviously is a false position to take as disingenuous as it can be. | ||
| Now, if the court wants to open it up, we'll be more than happy to call Mr. Wade back to the stand. | ||
| But as the record stands, there could be no confrontation of Mr. Wade when both his counsel and the state are arguing that it shouldn't be done. | ||
| Second. | ||
| Let's use a little common sense here. | ||
| Forensic misconduct received about two minutes worth of discussion. | ||
| The rest of it is all on conflict. | ||
| Forensic misconduct dealing with the way the state wants you to have is if you don't accuse someone or you don't say that someone's guilty. | ||
| Assuming you can impugn someone's character to the degree that constitutes forensic misconduct. | ||
| Why is that? | ||
| I'm sorry. | ||
| Assuming you can impugn someone's character to the degree that it constitutes forensic misconduct. | ||
| I think that, I guess, the state's primary position was that they weren't talking about you at the church. | ||
| Right. | ||
| And if you go listen to it and watch it, it starts off by saying, why does Commissioner Bridget Thorne and so many others And then it refers to they attack him for being black. | ||
| They attack him, not anyone else, just they attack the black man. | ||
| They're not talking about Miss Thorne or Marjorie Taylor Greene. | ||
| They're talking about us. | ||
| And you know how everybody knows that? | ||
| Because not a single story from the media reported anything other than Fannie Willis accused the defense and defendants of being racist. | ||
| Now here's the common sense part of this. | ||
| If you follow the state's position on forensic misconduct, Bonnie Willis could all day long talk about race. | ||
| She could say the defendants, I'm not saying they're guilty or not guilty, but they're racist. | ||
| They're racist. | ||
| They're racist. | ||
| And according to the state's position on forensic misconduct, that wouldn't be a problem. | ||
| Obviously, that makes no sense whatsoever. | ||
| The issue here that we've dealt with on forensic misconduct is not simply the church speech. | ||
| It's why she did it. | ||
| How she did it, calculated, and all the other things that we talked about with the testimony of Wade and Willis in this case. | ||
| Let's go to the relationship issues in the cell phone briefly. | ||
| No one knew that there was a relationship between Wade and Willis, according to Wade and Willis. | ||
| Not a soul was ever told that they were dating or that there was an intimate relationship. | ||
| Ever. | ||
| They concealed it from all parties. | ||
| From daddy. | ||
| Daddy didn't even know they had a relationship. | ||
| Suggest that somehow, in the beginning of 2021, January, to whatever it was, into April, that they couldn't have met in Hapeville. | ||
| They didn't meet anywhere that would allow the public to see them. | ||
| That's the reason why. | ||
| They were meeting at Yerties because no one else was ever there. | ||
| Remember the testimony? | ||
| Who else was there besides Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis? | ||
| Both of them agreed. | ||
| No one, no one ever went there except them. | ||
| They didn't go to where Daddy was in Ms. Willis' house because Daddy was there and Daddy would know. | ||
| No other prosecutors knew. | ||
| No one knows, except who. | ||
| The one person that knew was Bradley and Yurti. | ||
| Yurti was best friend at that time of Ms. Willis, and Bradley was the partner of Wade. | ||
| Now, the only way that Wade can walk, I'm sorry, the only way that Bradley can walk away from the very little time. | ||
| I'll skip that. | ||
| Let's go to something. | ||
| Motive. | ||
| That's it. | ||
| An issue. | ||
| Whose motive in this case is the strongest? | ||
| Bonnie Willis. | ||
| Nathan Wade. | ||
| Because if they, if they testify truthfully on every point, what happens if the relationship started before November 1st? | ||
| They get disqualified. | ||
| Who has the best motive of anyone to lie? | ||
| They do. | ||
| Who has the most at stake to lie? | ||
| They do. | ||
| Who wants to stay on this case for whatever the financial reason may be? | ||
| They do. | ||
| And more. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Sano. | ||
| There it is. | ||
| All right. | ||
| Thank you, everybody. | ||
| I think it's been very much made clear by the argument. | ||
| I made today is that there are several legal issues to sort through, several factual determinations that I have to make, and those aren't ones I can make at this moment. | ||
| And so I will be taking the time to make sure that I give this case. | ||
| Full consideration is due. | ||
| I hope to have an answer for everyone within the next two weeks. | ||
| Until that point, If there are any other issues that come up, counsel can reach out, and we'll have an order posted on the docket. | ||
| Thank you all. | ||
| We're off the record. | ||
| Wow! | ||
| Wow! | ||
| Well, baby, there it is! | ||
| Thank you, Mr. I cannot believe that they went to Costco to get a lawyer. | ||
| I cannot believe they went to rent a lawyer. | ||
| At the local public defenders. | ||
| And got the Bud Light soy latte version of some type of defense for Fanny Wallace. | ||
| I can't believe this. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Look at this guy. | |
| Oh, there it goes. | ||
| Enough! | ||
| Enough! | ||
| We're done! | ||
| We're done! | ||
|
unidentified
|
We got more popcorn to eat! | |
| Could do this all day. | ||
| Man. | ||
| Man. | ||
| We love all y 'all. | ||
| This was such an epic day. | ||
| Let me do my best recap here because this has been too much fun. | ||
| This has been amazing. | ||
| We just freaking love the brigade. | ||
| If you're a brigader, we just love you. | ||
| We thank you for watching. | ||
| We know there's some people that have been with us for the last... | ||
| We've been live for 5 hours and 15 minutes covering all of this. | ||
| We went right through from the morning show. | ||
| The judge started the day by saying he could rule today. | ||
| And that he thought he was ready for all the facts. | ||
| And then the Trump attorneys went and just absolutely... | ||
| Plowed through. | ||
| I think some stronger than others, but just effectively locking up the fact that you can't come before this court and lie. | ||
| You can't come before this court and take bribes and use... | ||
| Clearly, you've effectively soiled your ability to make this case in the public arena. | ||
| You've destroyed your capacity to make this case. | ||
| What almost two hours of argument from the Trump attorneys made is that because of their lies to the court and because of their indiscretions and because of the abject humiliation of Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade, what they've done to their office, that they're not going to be able to bring this case. | ||
| Now, I'm not a good enough read on judges. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| We look forward to having a bunch of legal experts in here to sound off on. | ||
| But I'm not, like, I think that this judge, I think the judge went pretty hard when then the state was able to take the podium. | ||
| Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade came rolling through, sat down, and... | ||
| Guys, eat your testosterone. | ||
| Like, soy is not a great diet. | ||
| Like, the Bud Light of lawyers got up there to whimper and to cry. | ||
| His voice was cracking. | ||
| He said, um, more times than I've ever heard. | ||
| Like, I don't know. | ||
| I don't know who could possibly. | ||
| If you had, like, a repeater and it just said, um, like a Simon Says that just said, um, again and again. | ||
| I've never heard so many ums. | ||
| I can't believe that this guy was allowed 90 minutes. | ||
| That's why it felt so long. | ||
| They gave him the full 90 minutes to give Fannie Willis' defense. | ||
| And what was his defense? | ||
| Well, I mean, the judge blew holes in it left and right. | ||
| The judge was like, what are you talking about? | ||
| That doesn't apply here. | ||
| This doesn't apply here. | ||
| Like, what? | ||
| Obviously, if somebody is financially benefiting, and this was the big moment, if somebody is financially benefiting from what's going on, then we are going to see that as a problem in the court. | ||
| If a defender, if somebody is a prosecutor, sorry, a prosecutor on the state level is making monetary compensation for what they're doing, then that's a big issue. | ||
| Just the judge asking that question is going to make them sweat bullets, okay? | ||
| So it's really, really... | ||
| I don't think this was a great day. | ||
| I say no Doomers, no Black Pillars. | ||
| I don't think this was a great day. | ||
| For them, there are these clips... | ||
| Have you loaded sort of what was sent? | ||
| Okay, so I kind of want to like... | ||
| I kind of want to like recap here really quickly, okay? | ||
| Not a great showing, obviously. | ||
| Fanny Willis and Nathan Wade didn't run up to the stand and scream that they want to testify, so I guess there's that. | ||
| I guess they got that under lock. | ||
| Fanny Willis' dress was apparently zipped on the right way, but who knows? | ||
| I'm no expert in these things. | ||
| But I am an expert in sort of reading body language and understanding who's compelling. | ||
| We do a lot of interviews on this show. | ||
| You're able to, like, really judge a person's timber based on, like, how they're carrying themselves. | ||
| And this is... | ||
| Really embarrassing, okay? | ||
| let's do clip one of Fannie Willis'lawyer. | ||
| Go. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Let's clip one. | |
| ...of which was never shown. | ||
| And all the while, Ms. Willis facing these costs has been able to continue to do the work unrelated to this case, which is shown in the fact that Atlanta's murder rate and violent crime rates have decreased while she has been in office. | ||
| What was shown through the testimony of all of the witnesses and through the evidence that Your Honor heard was that there wasn't an actual conflict, that the defense failed to provide any sort of actual conflict in relation to Ms. Wade's relationship that transpired from The relationship between her and Mr. Wade and that there was absolutely no evidence of a financial benefit that she gained as it relates to the prosecution | ||
| of this case and the ultimate outcome of the case. | ||
| The corroboration of all of that is the things that Your Honor is very much aware that she could have, I guess, financially benefited from. | ||
| Stretching out the case, for lack of better words, the special grand jury recommended that 39 individuals be indicted. | ||
| But through her sifting through the special grand jury's report and all of the evidence with the team that indicted the case, they only went with 19 of the defendants, which had she gone with all 39, based on the defense counsel's assertions, Would have given her the opportunity to certainly find these financial gains that are claimed through the allegations of defense counsel. | ||
| More importantly, why would Ms. Willis... | ||
| Okay, look at the faces! | ||
| look at their faces look at the hot dog Zoom it up! | ||
| Zoom in on Nathan. | ||
| Oh, no. | ||
| We done fucked up. | ||
| Oh, no. | ||
| He knows it. | ||
| And then you go over to Fanny. | ||
| You go over to Big Fanny. | ||
| And Big Fanny's like, what have we done? | ||
| Look at even the person over the shoulder of Big Fanny. | ||
| He's like, oh, please, no. | ||
| Stop talking. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Stop talking! | |
| *coughing* | ||
| So the guy's name is Nathan Wade, and her name is Fannie Willis. | ||
| But their stupid-ass lawyer called her Miss Wade as though they're married. | ||
| It's too good! | ||
| Let's go! | ||
|
unidentified
|
As well as large-scale cases like this one, and much larger, and also there's a lot of high-profile prosecutions. | |
| If Miss Willis' ultimate goal by hiring Mr. Wade was for her financial benefit, then she would put Mr. Wade on every single one of those cases. | ||
| though she could certainly revel in the riches and lavish lifestyle that has been referred to by defense counsel. | ||
| Um, okay. | ||
| Okay, so, again, do you even know how to refer to your clients? | ||
| There is so much to, like, rip this guy. | ||
| Like, I just, I couldn't believe we've slapped a Bud Light logo on him. | ||
| We put Morton Salt on him. | ||
| We put Fannie Willis covered in cash and Nathan eating a hot dog on him. | ||
| We even had Joe Biden sniff him. | ||
| We hope that you found all that funny. | ||
| As funny as we did, we were... | ||
| I was screaming. | ||
| I mean, I was howling. | ||
| Howling in the studio. | ||
| I thought that was really, really funny. | ||
| Okay, so the Trump defense lawyer, obviously. | ||
| Steve Sadow is his name. | ||
| And he is a total pit bull. | ||
| He decided to end the day. | ||
| He was the last guy who spoke during the day. | ||
| And he decided to end the day with a wrecking ball, right? | ||
| Donald Trump hasn't made an appearance today. | ||
| If Donald Trump had made an appearance or spoke to anyone, we'd certainly play it for you. | ||
| Just ALX, make sure that we get an absolute check on that. | ||
| But to our knowledge, Donald Trump has made no appearances today. | ||
| So we haven't missed anything necessarily other than watching Trump roll into the courthouse in Miami this morning. | ||
| Trump's lawyer, though, decided to be in person today in order to drop this wrecking ball on the court. | ||
| Let's go. | ||
|
unidentified
|
No one knew that there was a relationship between Wade and Willis, according to Wade and Willis. | |
| Not a soul was ever told that they were dating or that there was an intimate relationship. | ||
| Ever! | ||
| They concealed it from all parties, from Daddy. | ||
| Daddy didn't even know they had a relationship. | ||
| Suggest that somehow, in the beginning of 2021, January, to whatever it was, into April, that they couldn't have met in Hapeville. | ||
| They didn't meet anywhere that would allow the public to see them. | ||
| Daddy didn't know. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Okay, so we're, like, very excited about the way that this goes. | ||
| I'm not, I'm not, I'm not the least bit worried. | ||
| The judge, at the end of the day, um, the judge at the end of the day was looking, like, he was about, he's gonna have to do something very uncomfortable. | ||
| Like, he's gonna, like, he wasn't looking great. | ||
| Let's get a screenshot of him at the very end. | ||
| Like, the judge was looking peaked. | ||
| At best. | ||
| He's not... | ||
| He knows. | ||
| He was probably coming in today thinking that he was gonna let him off the hook. | ||
| And then he witnessed this and knows that the entire world is watching. | ||
| And he's gonna disqualify him. | ||
| I really do personally believe that. | ||
| I mean, I really, really do. | ||
| The judge looks not... | ||
| The judge did not look great. | ||
| The judge looked bad. | ||
| And he says he's gonna take a couple weeks. | ||
| Ah! | ||
| Like, let me tell you a little something. | ||
| That's not a good thing, right? | ||
| Like, that's not a good thing. | ||
| The state should have been able to win this one, like, pretty easy, walking away. | ||
| And if the judge is going to take a couple weeks to, like, maul over what profound implications this ruling is going to have on the legal and judicial system inside of the state of Georgia, you know that that means he's going, like, he's now, like, he came in thinking he wasn't going to disqualify. | ||
| Now he's like, I'm going to disqualify. | ||
| These guys deserve it. | ||
| I'm going to disqualify him. | ||
| There were some pretty profound arguments. | ||
| This is what the judge looked like. | ||
| Man, he looked bad at the end of the day. | ||
| This guy looked rough. | ||
| ALX, let me know if we can get that really super-based Trump lawyer that just went in hard. | ||
| That's the one clip that I think was the strongest for certain. | ||
| The pitbull Trump lawyer. | ||
| If we cannot get it, just let me know, ALX. | ||
| That guy was my favorite, and I think we could do a recap. | ||
| I certainly want to establish that there is a major sea change here, and there is a, what's the right way to say this, momentum change in this case. | ||
| There's a lot of people paying attention, and that's obviously demonstrated in record viewership for this program. | ||
| And for that, we just, from the bottom of our hearts, we say thank you. | ||
| We do our very best to, one, like, present an entertaining and fun viewer experience, and then, two, to, like, not talk over what's actually happening. | ||
| We try our hardest to, like, be complimentary to the information and maybe even have a little bit of fun, but ultimately not try and step on anyone. | ||
| We have done our best, though, to go and to speak to people about this case, including somebody who may or may not be Donald Trump's vice president. | ||
| On every single docket, there's a name that pops up when it comes to who people believe should be Donald Trump's vice president. | ||
| And we got a chance at a Trump rally a few days ago to speak with Byron Donald. | ||
| Who is a rock star congressman from the state of Florida. | ||
| About Fannie Willis. | ||
| And about what Byron Donald is doing in Congress. | ||
| In order to hold Fannie Willis accountable. | ||
| Because things are getting kind of hot for Big Fannie. | ||
| We wanted to play you this clip. | ||
| We haven't actually aired this before. | ||
| So we wanted to play you this. | ||
| And ladies and gentlemen some final thoughts. | ||
| Before we sign off. | ||
| But without further ado. | ||
| Somebody who a lot of people are saying would make a great VP candidate. | ||
| We'll see. | ||
| The great Byron Donalds. | ||
| Congressman from the state of Florida. | ||
| Ladies and gentlemen, we're here at Byron Donalds. | ||
| Why are we back inside of the tunnel at a stadium? | ||
| Because you can't talk with Byron Donalds without having him being mobbed out there. | ||
| We had to step away from his adoring fans. | ||
| But we are here at the Trump rally. | ||
| Believe me when I say there are tens of thousands of people. | ||
| The line outside is longer than Chris Christie's belt to get inside of this building. | ||
| And Byron Donalds is in the building. | ||
| He's going to be warming up for Donald Trump. | ||
| Is that big pressure for you? | ||
| Yeah, it is big pressure because, you know, when Donald Trump hits the stage, everybody's going to go ballistic. | ||
| But there's a reason for that. | ||
| It's because they miss the man that actually had this country in the right place. | ||
| So the lines are long outside. | ||
| The crowd is energetic. | ||
| Look, Section 102, those people are crazy. | ||
| They're out of control. | ||
| Not crazy in a bad way. | ||
| Stop it, Democrats. | ||
| Crazy in a good way. | ||
| They want real leadership. | ||
| That's what they desire. | ||
| Donald Trump brings it. | ||
| So I'm just a part of the event. | ||
| Donald Trump is the whole show. | ||
| Everyone's like, everyone's sitting there saying, like, the energy is back. | ||
| It feels not like 2016. | ||
| It doesn't feel like 2020. | ||
| This is a different level of energy. | ||
| It's different. | ||
| I think in 16, there was an excitement energy. | ||
| This is a craving energy. | ||
| This is when people say, I know it. | ||
| I knew it when I had it. | ||
| I didn't realize how much I was going to miss it. | ||
| I gotta have it again. | ||
| That's what we have going on right now. | ||
| And look, you're starting to see people show up in these arenas, in these rallies who weren't here in 16. They weren't here in 20. But they're here in 24 because Joe Biden's a disaster. | ||
| The world is on fire. | ||
| The border's a mess. | ||
| Inflation's out of control. | ||
| We want sanity. | ||
| Don't even start talking about the judicial system because that's insanity. | ||
| It's not what the country was based upon. | ||
| We have real leadership. | ||
| It's right there in front of us. | ||
| People need to go make their voices heard. | ||
| Vote for Donald J. Trump here in South Carolina, but throughout the rest of the United States. | ||
| You mentioned judicial insanity. | ||
| They try to make you unable to vote for Donald Trump in some states, which is bananas in the name of defending democracy, which has got to be a little wild as a member of Congress to even, like, consider that we live in a nation that that's even possible. | ||
| Well, look, the Democrats don't care about democracy. | ||
| They care about power. | ||
| The radical left isn't concerned about a republic. | ||
| They're concerned about their agenda. | ||
| And we got to understand in our country, they've wanted their agenda for 30 years, 40 years, 50 years. | ||
| And right now they're at the precipice of having all of it. | ||
| And then what happens when they actually get most of it in place, the people reject it because they're like, this thing sucks. | ||
| What the heck's going on? | ||
| You know, you got ladies in Chicago talking about, you know what? | ||
| I've been voting Democrat my whole life. | ||
| It's about time I start voting Republican because these people aren't listening to what's going on and they're making it worse. | ||
| And so now they have to go to the law fair, going after President Trump in all these jurisdictions with bogus I mean, look, what happened in New York, an absolute travesty. | ||
| Violation of the Constitution. | ||
| Benny, we fought a revolution to stop the government from taking the property of citizens. | ||
| And that's exactly what they just did in New York. | ||
| So we need to fight that. | ||
| And I believe President Trump's going to be vindicated and he's going to come out victorious. | ||
| And by the way, the Supreme Court does need to weigh in on that case because it's not just about state law. | ||
| This is about any citizen having their property taken from them. | ||
| Just because you have a judge and a radical attorney general who want to bend the law to their will to get. | ||
| I mean, come on. | ||
| Listen. | ||
| If you're gonna go after a big dog, and President Trump's a big dog, but if you're gonna go after a big dog, don't be messy. | ||
| Don't have side business going on that you know is unethical. | ||
| Fannie knew what she was doing. | ||
| She knew what she was doing the entire time, but what she thought was she would be protected by the press and the Democrat Party. | ||
| But people see trash when they know it, and she's about to get kicked off this case, in my opinion. | ||
| That case was garbage from the beginning, but it's all about distracting America from the problems caused by the Democrat Party, and we're not going to allow that distraction. | ||
| We're going to elect President Trump. | ||
| Breaking right now is the attorney in the case, the Trump attorney in the case, saying, we got the call records. | ||
| You've been lying to the court. | ||
| We know that you and Nathan's Hot Dog have been doing weenie rollers since 2021. | ||
| And Big Fanny is, I think, going to get spanked hard by this court and this judge. | ||
| What's your prediction in this case? | ||
| I mean, is there any way she can stay on? | ||
| Well, I'm not going to talk about... | ||
| I'm not going to talk about it in the way you just talked about it, but what I'm going to say is, I think any judge worth his salt is going to remove her from this case. | ||
| Because obviously with Nathan Wade, there's a conflict of interest. | ||
| She was paying her man on the backside in order to be able to luxuriate off of the fact that she's prosecuting Trump. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That's wrong. | |
| That's highly unethical. | ||
| To me, it's not just about her being removed from this case. | ||
| She should be disbarred. | ||
| If you're an attorney, the ethical standards for being an attorney are incredibly high. | ||
| This kind of stuff right here, let me tell you right now, if this was a Republican attorney, if this was Rudy Giuliani, oh man, they would have tried to disbar him in every state in the country. | ||
| And they might actually have a point. | ||
| You can't have this kind of stuff. | ||
| We're joking, we're being a little glib. | ||
| You cannot have this stuff in our legal system. | ||
| The legal system has to be consistent for everybody. | ||
| If you can't have that, you can't have a country. | ||
| If you can't have a country, you're going to have chaos. | ||
| I do want to take a moment here. | ||
| Here we go. | ||
| Back up. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Royce, I gotta be on camera to do the show, Royce. | ||
| Poor Royce. | ||
| We've been here for almost six hours. | ||
| We, um, we have a, uh, well, we have a, uh, agreement. | ||
| We have a pact that we are in a movement together and we are fighting for you and with you and alongside you. | ||
| So we will stay here, um, until the job is done and we will continue to bring light to this, uh, very important, like this, this issue, this issue is the future of the Republic. | ||
| How are some of the smarter names in the legal system talking about it? | ||
| Well, this was the snap takeaway on Fox. | ||
| We thought it was very, very entertaining. | ||
| One of our favorites, Leo Terrell. | ||
| Leo Terrell is himself a lawyer, big-time supporter of Donald Trump, and here was his snap reaction to Fannie Willis. | ||
|
unidentified
|
He's trying to play by the rules and say, like, we're going to wrap it up today. | |
| Yeah, Leo, perhaps this will be the final thought as Fannie Willis, as you can see on the screen there, has entered the room, taken her seat, and the judge said they'd be returning at 2.40. | ||
| Quick thought before we get back in here. | ||
| No question. | ||
| The fact that she's in the courtroom, Sandra, John, Shannon, Kelly, she's going down with the ship. | ||
| She's not going to drop out. | ||
| She's going to go down with the ship and force a judge to make a ruling. | ||
| Her presence there is a sign of defiance. | ||
| You know, as we just wait for court to start back up again, maybe we can put this up. | ||
| This was called for number one of the text messages between Terrence Bradley and Ashley Merchant. | ||
| Terrence Bradley says, doesn't surprise me, they took so many trips together. | ||
| Ashley Merchant writes back, he says Florida, Texas. | ||
| Merchant says in Napa, Bradley, California. | ||
| Merchant, yep, Bradley, when she moved her daughter there. | ||
| Merchant says, I can't believe they were so carefree. | ||
| And then says, I am trying to anticipate her response when I blow this up. | ||
| Sandra. | ||
| Ladies and gentlemen, speaking of getting blown up, we're here. | ||
| We're here. | ||
| We're doing it. | ||
| We are applying the pressure, all of us, together. | ||
| And some of the results of that are really profound. | ||
| We had over 500 Super Chats today. | ||
| We did our very best to get to all of them. | ||
| I want to just highlight one or two here that I thought really moved me and really, like, present what this audience is all about. | ||
| First, Benny, this is my first time I ever vote in my life. | ||
| Because you made me care and that I matter. | ||
| I love you and your channel, MAGA President Trump. | ||
| This is a movement. | ||
| This is a movement in order to save our country. | ||
| And you can't save the country unless you can say what the problems are. | ||
| First steps, right? | ||
| First step, 12-step program. | ||
| Alcoholics Anonymous. | ||
| I have a problem. | ||
| You have to be able to talk about the problems. | ||
| And so that's what we do. | ||
| But we also do it in a way that like... | ||
| And thank you, AAO. | ||
| We do it in a way that hopefully brings a little bit of joy and light and a little bit of, like, uplifting to you so that you can see that it's not just all doom and gloom. | ||
| That's the easiest thing to do is doom and gloom. | ||
| Fanny means an emoji in the UK. | ||
| Love your show. | ||
| We have had comments from all over the world, actually, today. | ||
| And we're excited about that. | ||
| And we really, like, thank all of, like, again, we thank everyone. | ||
| We thank everybody for... | ||
| From watching. | ||
| My son loves you. | ||
| He's nine. | ||
| I said, Benny's daddy? | ||
| Okay, well. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| I mean, that's heartwarming. | ||
| And we're here for all ages. | ||
| And we say thank you. | ||
| We're doing our, again, we're doing our very, very best to tell the truth. | ||
| And at the very least, to give you a little pep in your step. | ||
| Because you should be able to laugh at this stuff. | ||
| Because it's actually hysterical. | ||
| It's actually really funny. | ||
| Here's from Lori. | ||
| Here's to you, Mr. Nervous, Clammy, Suttering Fanny Lawyer. | ||
| Bud Light salutes you and your inability to practice law without a pair of depends. | ||
|
unidentified
|
*laughter* | |
| Oh, yeah, baby. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Oh, yeah. | |
| And we had our popcorn out. | ||
| We got our popcorn and our salt. | ||
| So we will wait. | ||
| Ladies, it stays 10 dementia alert. | ||
| Yes, we saw a lot of that today. | ||
| Oh, man. | ||
| Our audience does know. | ||
| We called it. | ||
| I hate being right. | ||
| Well, here we go. | ||
| We'll see. | ||
| We shall see. | ||
| The lawyer, in his closing remarks, said, I have a lot to think about here. | ||
| And I need to, like, I need to see. | ||
| I need to wait and see. | ||
| It's going to take me two weeks to figure this one out. | ||
| Which is never a great sign. | ||
| Certainly, if you are trying to defend something. | ||
| Have a listen to this. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I think it's been very much made clear by the argument and the, uh, Made today is that there are several legal issues to sort through, several factual determinations that I have to make. | |
| And those aren't ones I can make at this moment. | ||
| And so I will be taking the time to make sure that I give this case. | ||
| Full consideration is due. | ||
| I hope to have an answer for everyone within the next two weeks. | ||
| Until that point... | ||
| If there are any other issues that come up, counsel can reach out, and we'll have an order posted on the docket. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| He says, I've got a lot of things to figure out. | ||
| That's the look of a man who was prepared to effectively let him off the hook today, I think, maybe. | ||
| And a guy who's saying, well, actually, you know what? | ||
| I have given this a second thought. | ||
| So I want you to do something. | ||
| I want you to pray for Judge McAfee. | ||
| I want you to pray that he sees the light and that he sees the truth and the truth shall set you free. | ||
| Julie says, I'm disappointed that there was no ruling today, as expected. | ||
| I hope he does follow through with dismissal. | ||
| That's exactly correct. | ||
| Final quote of the day. | ||
| The lawyer you had as a guest just said that the dude was the worst he's ever seen and was a horrible lawyer. | ||
| It says Hugh. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes, the guy was a horrible, horrible lawyer. | |
| And Sarah says that he's dancing around like he pooped his pants. | ||
| So, ladies and gentlemen, save Trump, save America. | ||
| United we stand. | ||
| Certainly we do. | ||
| We have had a record-setting day today. | ||
| That record-setting day is because of our production team. | ||
| He's going to hate me for it, but here's Rolls-Royce on screen. | ||
| We say thank you. | ||
| Here's ALX. | ||
| Oh, yeah, I know. | ||
| They didn't know they were going to be on screen. | ||
| Here's Robbie. | ||
| And you're not even seeing half the team. | ||
| It helps us produce this programming for hours and hours and hours on end. | ||
| By supporting us, just by watching, we are so deeply thankful. | ||
| I don't think you'll find a more thankful team for their audience on the internet. | ||
| We deeply appreciate all of you. | ||
| Like, profoundly. | ||
| Simply by watching us. | ||
| By joining the Benny Brigade at BennyJohnson.com for the price of actually less than the bag of the popcorn, frankly. | ||
| You can support us and support our programming. | ||
| And we say thank you to all brigade members. | ||
| We do our very best as brigade to ensure that we have a community that we're actually building here. | ||
| And that we can have actual real connection with our audience. | ||
| We do that and we try our very, very hardest. | ||
| And to all of you who made this a record-breaking day, ALX, I mean, right? | ||
| On every measure, this was a massive, record-breaking day. | ||
| We say thank you, and profoundly thank you. | ||
| ALX, what say you, sir? | ||
| I think it was quite an entertaining day. | ||
| That 90 minutes of that lawyer dude was just brutal, and the comments really, really showed that. | ||
| We could not get any words out. | ||
| I can't believe they gave him the full 90 minutes. | ||
| At least... | ||
| At least Team Trump split it up, and they all had very direct, targeted arguments. | ||
| And this guy just kept droning on, and the judge is like, I don't even know what you're talking about at this point. | ||
| And then there was these awkward silences, where it's like, are you done? | ||
| And then he would just pick back up, and we're like, where are you going with this, dude? | ||
| Yeah, the comments were not liking that guy. | ||
| I'm surprised people tuned in for that long during that guy. | ||
| God bless your ears during that, but thank you for tuning in and sticking it out with us, listening to that guy. | ||
| The team, to make this all entertaining, we decided that this guy was so embarrassing, we put a Bud Light sticker on him. | ||
| What else did we put on, Royce? | ||
|
unidentified
|
We put Joe Biden sniffing him. | |
| And then we had Nathan Wade dressed as a hot dog with Joe Biden sniffing him. | ||
| And then we also had a salty lib sign pointing at him. | ||
| We had salt pouring on him. | ||
| We were just having fun, basically, for the past almost six hours. | ||
| And I don't think, you know, with Fanny's lawyer, I don't think I've ever heard someone who's supposed to be composed and collected say, um, so many times. | ||
| I wish we had a counter going. | ||
| That's what we were missing, was an um counter for that lawyer. | ||
| I think that would have been the icing on the cake there. | ||
| He's paid in cash. | ||
| They're paying their lawyer in cash, okay? | ||
| What else can you get? | ||
| He's the dollar general lawyer. | ||
| Some in the comment section are screaming for Jerry to come on. | ||
| Jerry has solidly refused. | ||
| Jerry does make the memes for our program. | ||
| We do have a special meme to send you off with. | ||
| We say thank again. | ||
| We say thank you. | ||
| We just profoundly appreciate this audience. | ||
| 2023 was the year of people who betrayed their audience. | ||
| You'll never get that from us. | ||
| The Bud Lights, the Disneys, the people who effed around with the movements they had built and rejected their audience and disrespected them. | ||
| We will never disrespect you. | ||
| We're here for you. | ||
| We are you. | ||
| And we say thank you. | ||
| Obviously, for watching and making this possible. | ||
| We are living our dream. | ||
| We're glad that you are living it with us. | ||
| And with that, I think we have a meme to send us off. | ||
| ALX, have I forgotten anything? | ||
| Good to go, baby. | ||
| Do you want to take an Ask Benny question? | ||
| Oh, do we have a brigade question? | ||
| We can't talk about how great the brigade is without an Ask Benny question. | ||
| Let's do one question from the brigade, and we'll obviously incorporate more into this. | ||
| From the brigade, Joseph McDonald. | ||
| Hey, Benny. | ||
| Just an idea. | ||
| It'd be awesome to have a link on your website for all the great memes. | ||
| Oh, Jerry, come on! | ||
| Also, question for ALX. | ||
| What's your most prized bottle of bourbon? | ||
| I'm a big collector myself. | ||
| What's he got? | ||
| What is that? | ||
| This is the most prized bottle of bourbon. | ||
| Oh, we gotta make ALX. | ||
| Can you make ALX a little bit? | ||
| Let me unbox this for the full effect. | ||
| There you go. | ||
| The Boss Hog. | ||
| The Boss Hog. | ||
| This is the most prized bottle of bourbon. | ||
| ALX, you deserve a glass of that after today. | ||
| Oh yeah, for sure. | ||
| You deserve a glass of that after today. | ||
| ALX, the Boss Hog. | ||
| That's not half empty, my friend. | ||
| That is half full. | ||
| The profound... | ||
| Unbelievable and inspiring joy of this family is second only to my own family. | ||
| I'm going to go see my kids now and say hi to my three little kids. | ||
| Ladies and gentlemen, we thank you. | ||
| Obviously, this is a family. | ||
| We see you as a family. | ||
| We do everything in our power to make this kind of stuff entertaining and to lighten your day. | ||
| We need more of that, actually, as a country. | ||
| We do our verse of the day here. | ||
| Royce, make sure that I want to make sure I'm not missing that screen. | ||
| Let's go. | ||
| Here we go. | ||
| Our verse of the day. | ||
| We'll never, ever forget the verse of the day, no matter what we're doing. | ||
| No matter what we're doing. | ||
| Romans 12 and 19. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave that wrath to God, for it is written, vengeance is mine! | ||
|
unidentified
|
I will repay, saith the Lord. | |
| Why do you think we're so light in spirit? | ||
| The left is so miserable. | ||
| Final thing, final thing, final thing. | ||
| You see Fanny Willis? | ||
| You see these, like, twisted expressions from Fanny Willis and Nathan Wade and their, like, weaselly little lawyer, a little salt. | ||
| Morton Saltfield lawyer, Bud Light lawyer. | ||
| These people, they have so much power. | ||
| They own every institution. | ||
| They own all of Congress. | ||
| They have the White House, right? | ||
| They have all the financials, every publicly traded company, every law firm. | ||
| Everyone is like a leftist, all of Hollywood, all the entertainment. | ||
| Do they seem happy? | ||
| Do they seem joyful to you? | ||
| Are these people happier? | ||
| No. | ||
| They're more miserable than ever. | ||
| It's important to have happiness that isn't actually... | ||
| Tied to something that is mortal, that is like of this world. | ||
| It is so important to have your happiness grounded in something that is, well, rust or moth can't go eat and destroy. | ||
| And that's where our joy comes from, obviously, in this program. | ||
| In a verse like that, it's like why we can be so confident. | ||
| Is that like God's justice, God's revenge? | ||
| Like, that's for God, okay? | ||
| It's for us to, like, go about life as happy warriors. | ||
| And that is what we do on this program. | ||
| We march. | ||
| We march alongside you. | ||
| And we say, thank you. | ||
| We're fighting right alongside you. | ||
| It's your boy, Benny, along with the entire brigade and the entire team here. | ||
| Have a great weekend. | ||
| And this, the greatest country on Earth. | ||
| Here's a meme to send you off into the weekend. | ||
|
unidentified
|
My God, I... | |
| Actually, pity those poor bastards we're going up against. | ||
| My God, I do. | ||
| We're not going to just meme those globalists. |
Export Selection