All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 15, 2024 - Bannon's War Room
57:45
Episode 3394: Live Trial Coverage In Georgia
Participants
Main voices
s
steve bannon
09:27
Appearances
c
catherine englebrecht
02:30
Clips
j
jake tapper
00:08
m
mike lindell
00:08
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
This is the primal scream of a dying regime.
Pray for our enemies.
unidentified
Because we're going medieval on these people.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Here's how I got a free shot of all these networks lying about the people.
The people have had a belly full of it.
I know you don't like hearing that.
I know you've tried to do everything in the world to stop that, but you're not going to stop it.
It's going to happen.
jake tapper ▲ ● ▼
And where do people like that go to share the big lie?
unidentified
MAGA Media.
jake tapper ▲ ● ▼
I wish in my soul, I wish that any of these people had a conscience.
unidentified
Ask yourself, what is my task and what is my purpose?
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
If that answer is to save my country, this country will be saved.
unidentified
War Room. Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
We're gonna go back to Georgia in a moment.
It's Thursday, 15 February, Year of the Lord 2024.
Let's go to Rome.
The protest actually is ending early and kind of split into three parts.
Ben Harnum was there.
Why are the farmers now?
Why is this spread to Italy?
You had it in Holland.
You've got it in Germany.
You have it in France.
This is a populist revolt of the farmers in Europe.
What's going on there, Ben?
unidentified
See, there are about 20,000 people, according to the organisers, spread at three different protests across the centre of Rome today, and they're all saying the same thing.
They want an end to the globalized pressure, downward pressure on agricultural prices because they can't afford to make a living.
That's incredibly important, obviously, from the perspective of food security being a key element of national security.
And there's also the issue, Steve, against the zero carbon push on climate concerns, which is also in the regulation, which is hitting them very hard.
It's important to see this, Steve, for two reasons.
One, because it shows you a level of the latent anger that exists here and the huge support behind Dr. Farmer's as well.
But the second thing, Steve, this is the important thing I want to say here.
It's great to protest, to show your anger.
But in democracies, 2020, and the year after, we're going to have to deal with the fact 2020 aside, you don't manifest a desire to change by coming and protesting.
You need to organise yourself and come out and vote intelligently at election time.
That's the key point, Steve, that I want to make here in Italy, also seeing the French, the Dutch, the Belgian protest.
The important thing is that you have a choice of election and if you don't vote properly and intelligently, the agenda is not hidden.
It's a globalist agenda.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Ben, this is all teed up to the European Parliamentary elections in June, just like Brexit set up in 2016, set the plate up for Trump in November.
You have massive European Parliamentary elections.
That's why the farmers are out there right now, correct?
unidentified
Well, that's part of it as well.
And I think the interesting thing to see from, you know, there's an interesting article today, for example, in the Financial Times, teeing up the relationship between the huge anger here that is right across the European Union and the fact that the globalist elites coming into the June European elections, they don't know how to handle it.
The best thing that they're doing, that they're trying, and it has very little resonance on the streets, Steve, is that they're trying to suggest that these protests are either being organised by Putin or by the far right.
Now, that's obviously, and it's demonstrably not true, but it's the only response that they have at this point coming in to do, because they don't have a record on which to stand.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Same with MAGA.
Okay, Ben, where do people go to get all the content?
You're putting stuff up about this, the farmer's first test right now.
Where do they go?
unidentified
Thank you so much, Steve.
Simplygetto, which is my social media platform of choice, at Harnaral.
It's my surname, folks.
Thanks, Steve.
God bless.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Thank you.
Fantastic.
We've got Ralph Reed in Israel.
Katherine Agrobark is going to be on to refute this smear on her about she doesn't have any evidence against Raffensperger.
Big story last night.
We're going to make sure we drive the response.
Folks, this is one of the reasons, we're going to go back to, let's go to Wade's thing in a moment, hang on one second, CPAC.org slash War Room.
We need all the posse members that can make it.
Tickets under a hundred bucks when you go to War Room, go to CPAC.org slash War Room.
We're going to have a kickoff event in the run-up to it on Wednesday before the Wednesday night open.
We're going to have, I think, the Force Multiplier Academy.
You guys have been so absolutely amazing.
We're going to bring in some, how do I say, war room VIPs to spend the afternoon with you.
We're going to feed you lunch, all of it.
That's on Wednesday.
Of course, you get three days of CPAC, including President Trump himself coming back to the nation's capital.
As a preamble to the November, 5 November election and him returning to the White House as a legitimate President of the United States on the high noon on the 20th of January 2025.
Let's go in, let's dip into Wade before we go to Israel and to Catherine Erwin.
Go ahead and hit it.
unidentified
We're going pretty far field into divorce matters that don't have any direct relevance to anything that's pending before the court.
Alright, not seeing that being a proper grounds for impeachment sustained.
Let's talk about this December 22nd, 2023 verification.
I tabbed it for you.
Again, they asked you if you had any documentations showing proof of this relationship, proof of any relationship, correct?
I'm going to object to the phrasing of that question.
I don't believe that's an accurate read of the interrogatory.
Let's be precise, Ms.
Mergen.
Please read it.
I want to make sure I'm accurate.
Please read it.
Which number?
This one actually has a number.
I tabbed it for you so you should be able to open right to the page.
It's number 22.
The question specifically is if you have any tangible evidence of any nature in your possession or control or any other person or entity which relates to any manner of your activities to any person with whom you've had a sexual relationship during your marriage.
Tangible evidence is notes, parts, letters, photos, films, recordings, documents, tapes, video recordings, receipts, invoices, and other tangible evidence.
Yes.
Thanks.
And you answered that you did not have any documents to that effect, correct?
Correct.
And, um, that was on December 22nd, 2023?
Yes, ma'am.
You updated those responses again after the motion to disqualify was filed, though, correct?
When was the motion filed?
January 8th, 2024, when I filed the motion to disqualify you and alleged that you had a romantic relationship with Miss Willis.
Yes, ma'am.
After that, you updated these responses, correct?
Yes, ma'am.
And so your new responses, you now changed your answer from that you didn't have any of this to you're asserting the privilege under 24-5-505, correct?
Yes, ma'am.
Okay.
And both of these are under oath?
Yes, ma'am.
You also updated your response to the question about spending time with someone other than your spouse for dinner, drinks, things at restaurants, bars, hotels, or the other person's home, correct?
Yes, ma'am.
So in December of 2023, you said no to all that.
And then in January, after I filed my motion, you said privilege to all that.
Fifth Amendment privilege.
Yes, ma'am.
OK.
And just to be clear, was it?
I'm sorry.
I'm going to object the characterization of Fifth Amendment privilege.
I think it was a statutory privilege, and that's quite different.
That's why I was just about to ask him.
So that privilege covers infamy or Fifth Amendment privilege, correct?
So it was a privacy privilege is what I updated my response to do.
Once you filed your motion to intervene in my divorce action, I then figured that you were in talks with my former wife's divorce lawyer.
And because of that, I asserted a privacy privilege because I didn't want the proceedings of my divorce to bleed over.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
They're hammering Nathan Wade for perjury.
Let's go to Israel because I've got Ralph Reed.
I want to get an update.
We're going to come right back to this.
unidentified
Ralph Reed.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
You leave Georgia for a couple days to go to Israel to have their back, and things are exploding in Georgia non-stop.
Sir, get us up to date with everything you've learned on your incredible trip to Israel.
unidentified
Well, it's been a whirlwind trip, Steve.
We leave in a few hours, but I had some extraordinary meetings today in Jerusalem with members of the Israeli cabinet, including the five-member war cabinet.
And, uh, while I'm obviously not at liberty to share everything that I learned today, I can tell you, uh, that barring some unforeseen development that I certainly don't anticipate, uh, the idea, uh, the Israeli military is going to go into Rafa.
They're going to finish this job.
Uh, there's, uh, there's two, uh, remaining, uh, Hamas battalions in Rafa.
There are approximately one point.
One million civilians that have all moved south to the Egyptian border.
They're going to be given a safe exit strategy.
They're going to be given an opportunity to evacuate.
They're going to be given every opportunity to get out of the way.
And then the Israeli military is going to finish this job.
And as I shared with you last night, the gap between where U.S.
and So-called international community diplomats are, and where the populace is on the ground here and where the Israeli government is, could not be further apart.
It is a fantasy at this point to be talking about potentially unilaterally recognizing a Palestinian state.
They would be rewarding Hamas for the most horrific terrorist attack on Israel since the Holocaust.
The Israeli people don't want it.
They want this war won.
They want Hamas defeated.
They want their infrastructure dismantled.
And that's what's getting ready to happen.
And as Israel goes from being the victim on October 7th to being the victor after this military operation, we're going to see who their real friends are, including in this administration.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Ralph, I just want to be specific, because sometimes they count it different in different militaries.
As the IDF looks at it, when they say two battalions of Hamas top-line fighters, what are we talking about?
2,500 people?
5,000?
10,000?
What is the total amount that they say?
When they say battalions, what kind of number are they talking about?
unidentified
They're talking about roughly 5,000 to 6,000 in those two battalions, but they also think In the previous battalions that they've defeated, which means they've either killed or wounded 50% or more of the forces in those battalions, and they've done that to eight battalions.
Okay, so that's what that means.
That doesn't mean every one of those battalions was killed or wounded.
So they think, they assess that some of those people have now drifted down to Rafa.
So they think it could be as many as 8,000.
So it's going to be a real battle.
They also think that's where Sinwar is located.
They've come very close to him.
They need to achieve two objectives.
Number one, they need to defeat Hamas.
Number two, they need to destroy the tunnels and the infrastructure.
And number three, they need to take out the leadership.
They need to make sure that there's no leadership left to assert any authority or control over Gaza after this is over.
That's the only way they can have a living literally right next to them.
I mean, within, right now, within a kilometer and a half are Israeli kibbutzes and Gaza neighborhoods.
That's likely going to have to change, but they cannot have A terrorist organization that is committed to wiping Israel off the map and creating a radical Islamic caliphate.
That stretches from the Mediterranean all the way across the Middle East.
They can't have that.
It's not going to happen.
Doesn't matter how much pressure Washington puts on them.
And right now, Steve, what is needed is every friend of Israel and every friend of Western civilization, because this is truly a civilizational struggle.
Their fight is our fight.
Their struggle is our struggle.
The same people who chant death to the Jews chant death to America.
The same Iranian radical mullahs who are seeking a nuclear weapon to aim at the United States are seeking to wipe Israel off the map.
It's the same enemies, the same fight.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Ralph, when you talk to the war cabin and they say, hey, look, here's the plan.
We're going to give these people every opportunity to get out.
But at a state and certain when they don't get out, we're going in and we're going to take out the two remaining battalions, which is between five or six thousand fighters.
Are they clear that they have the Biden regime's sign off on that?
Or have they got the approval of the Biden regime that the Biden regime will have their back on this?
unidentified
I don't know that that's clear.
You know, I really don't.
I certainly haven't talked to anybody in the Biden administration, but based on the published accounts that are in all the major outlets, including front page of the Wall Street Journal, front page of their website today,
All that the Biden administration is doing is expressing frustration, you know, referring to the Prime Minister of Israel with expletives, expressing views that would never be expressed about an ally when they're trying to deal with an enemy that has killed innocent civilians And engaged in the worst attack that this country has experienced since the founding of the modern state of Israel.
I mean, Steve, the estimates that the IDF has, that of the roughly 23,000 people who have been killed in this war, that over 13,000 of them are Hamas terrorists and fighters.
That's a virtual one-to-one ratio.
That was far better than we had when we went into Mosul.
When we were taking out ISIS.
So we're setting a double standard for Israel that no army, no military has ever had in fighting a war of this kind.
Particularly when Hamas deliberately uses civilians as human shields.
Deliberately.
they're now learning as they look at the intel that it isn't just a matter of them building tunnels and Hamas command centers underneath hospitals and schools.
It goes way beyond that.
After they built the tunnels, they then built the schools right over the top of the command centers.
They are literally using innocent children as shields to protect their military.
This is a war crime.
the human rights coalition.
And the administration in the United States of America right now needs to stand up and make clear they stand with Israel.
And if this administration doesn't, then shame on them.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Ralph, you're one of the most sophisticated guys when it comes to messaging and aspects of information warfare and all that.
Given the fact that, I would say that the Israelis are winning the kinetic part, but they're clearly losing just the reality, the information war from every angle, because they're coming on them and dumping them.
Given that the fight's only going to get tougher, When you talk to the War Cabinet and other people in Israel, do they have a plan B on the information warfare part to somehow get their case out and at least try to make it better or get more information out to try to make sure that the information warfare is as effective as clearly their kinetic part is?
unidentified
I think so.
I mean, they're leaning into this.
We met with some of the senior leadership of the IDF Uh, you've probably seen some of the people that they've had grand interviews to the dominant media.
The problem is, is that the dominant media has really moved on.
They're not really covering this anymore, except in the negative way.
And this sort of, uh, uh, back and forth between the Biden administration and the Netanyahu government.
They're not really covering the military action as much, but the answer is yes.
I think you can look to see more government officials getting out there and giving interviews.
I think you're going to see more people like me coming over here.
I fly back tonight.
I'll be serving as a witness doing media.
I'll be doing a media call, a briefing call.
Uh, for about 25 or 30 leading reporters in the United States to kind of give a download of my trip and what I've learned.
And I think you can also look, Steve, for the pro-Israel community in the United States.
You know, we've allowed these Palestinian sympathizers, the anti-Semites and the anti-Israeli elements to have all these protests and these demonstrations.
I think you're going to see a lot more activity from the grassroots.
Stay tuned, there'll be more to come on that.
But sure, they understand that this is a public and a messaging fight as well as a kinetic struggle.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Ralph, where do people go to follow you?
Because our audience is obviously quite interested in this and want to see how they participate, they assist, they augment.
So where do people go?
unidentified
They can go to my website at Faith and Freedom Coalition.
That's ffcoalition.com.
FF is in Faith and Freedom.
And they can also find me on social media, Instagram or Twitter at Ralph Reed.
That's at Ralph Reed.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Ralph, of all the different hits I've seen on all different medias, yours has been the most powerful.
So look forward to talking to you when you get back and can't wait till you get back over there.
Amazing.
Ralph Reed from Israel Incredible.
Let's go back to the courtroom in Georgia, some real activity.
unidentified
I believe it's been asked and answered.
All right, so say.
In let's see.
You also in this affidavit said that no funds paid to you for compensation as your role as special counsel was served with Willis, correct?
That's correct.
Okay.
Um, and that you never cohabitated with Willis, correct?
That's correct.
Um, by cohabitation, does that mean that you never spent the night with Willis?
I spent the night with her.
During travel.
Yes, ma'am.
Okay.
And, so when, so I just want to qualify your term, your use of the term cohabitation.
That means you didn't live together.
That's correct.
But you did spend the night together.
Yes.
When was the first time you spent the night together?
Your Honor, um... That's the subject of his affidavit, Judge.
Right, but it might not be the subject of this hearing.
So, the question is the nature and extent of the relationship.
And so, if they just spent the night on a single occasion, I don't think we're going to document in detail every single time that happened.
And I don't intend to do that, Judge, but I think what is relevant is when the relationship started.
And that's what you had indicated on your way.
Well, why don't we start with that question and go from there.
And that's what I asked, when the first time he spent the night with her was.
That's what I asked.
That's a different question, isn't it?
Okay, so let's not talk about when you spent the night.
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.
And describe your relationship at that point, then.
Which point?
2019.
So I was at a judicial conference to teach a course, if you will, to newer judges.
I did that in 2019.
As I was exiting the conference, Another judge was standing outside who was a friend of mine.
I stopped and exchanged pleasantries with her.
And standing, talking to her at the time was then Judge Willis.
She introduced us at that time.
We shook hands, exchanged business cards, and I got into my vehicle and left the conference.
So that meeting was probably Three minutes.
Okay.
When was the next time you talked to her?
Didn't talk to her again probably maybe a month or a month and a half had gone by.
Okay, so you talked to her November maybe?
Maybe.
On the phone?
On the phone.
Okay.
How regularly did you speak with her in 2021 on the phone?
In 2021?
I'm sorry, 2019.
I'm so sorry.
2019.
How frequently did you speak with her on the phone?
2019, after the meeting, I probably talked to her two or three times.
She would have questions.
I was the district rep for the particular district that I sat in.
Okay.
And the judges would, when they would have questions, they sometimes would go to the rep.
So she was outside of my district, but she would call me.
She felt comfortable calling me to ask me the questions.
I don't know if you know the racial makeup of certain benches, but it wasn't very diverse.
So she felt comfortable calling me for advice.
And she did that.
And we had also in common that she was starting A private law practice at the time, and I'd already had mine up and going, and we talked about balancing the demands of the bench with that private practice.
So we didn't talk that often, but when she had questions of mostly legal issues that would come up, she would call me.
I just want to make sure, because my question was just how many times, and you said two to three times, right?
And in 2022, how frequently did you speak in 2022?
This is before you were appointed.
I'm sorry, perhaps as much as your timeline, 2022?
I'm sorry, 2020.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
2020.
unidentified
How frequently did you speak in 2020?
2020, it was more frequent than 19, obviously, but... More frequent.
Can you tell me approximately a month, how often you think you spoke with her on the phone?
I'm going to object to the granular detail.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
We're going to come back to this.
He's already admitted.
Look, Trump's lawyer is destroying these people right now.
Okay, we're going to come right back to it.
Just bear with me for a second because another explosive story.
Let's bring in Katherine Engelberg from True the Vote.
Katherine, if I'm reading the Associated Press, the Washington Post, the Journal of Constitution, every media outlet, That's mainstream media is saying that Katherine Engelbeck and Greg Phillips got nothing.
That Raffensperger is dancing on your grave.
That in a federal court, you sat there, a judge asked you, where's your evidence?
And you guys had nothing.
Are those news reports correct, ma'am?
catherine englebrecht ▲ ● ▼
No, they're not.
This is an orchestrated hit, largely to deflect from what you were just showing.
I mean, largely to deflect from the absolute chaos and lack of leadership all across the state of Georgia.
And so we are, you know, ready fodder for those that would want to change the subject.
But no, it's absolutely not true.
We've tried in earnest and repeatedly for three years to get Georgia to investigate.
They've done nothing.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
But wasn't, this is what's confusing about the news reports.
Are they asking you what you have?
Are they blocking an investigation?
Because Rothenberg is coming, he's a big part of these stories, saying, hey, we give him every opportunity, the 2,000 mules, all this, and they don't have any evidence.
Do you have evidence now, or you need a further investigation where you say, hey, the evidence is right there, but you're blocking us?
catherine englebrecht ▲ ● ▼
This is a multi-tentacled story.
We began by providing information to the Georgia Bureau of Investigations in 2021.
They declined to do anything with it.
Then we filed complaints with data in the latter part of 2021 to the Secretary of State.
They did nothing with it For approximately two years, and at that point we had begun spinning down much of the live data, but the summaries and all the things that had been provided, all the information they needed, certainly was still available.
But now the state election board has sued us, and it really boils down to one thing.
They are trying to hang this entire investigation, this entire program and project, up on our willingness to give one whistleblower name when they have 272 other names or other device IDs that they could have been investigating for years.
So they're, you know, they're trying to take the easy way out and point at something that's irrelevant.
And they're trying to make headlines with it and doing a great job because of course, you know, the Washington Post and AP are just willing lapdogs to repeat this kind of nonsense.
So, well, you know, we're going to keep pushing back.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
I tell you what, we'll have you and Greg.
We've got to go back to the trial.
As you know, they wanted to deflect from Fannie Willis' trial.
We're going to go back to that hearing.
We'll get you and Greg on, hopefully tonight, if this thing's over.
And I want to go into more depth because... Love it.
I can see an organized media hit.
I know an organized media hit when I see one.
unidentified
Oh, and let me just... Absolutely, yeah.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Go ahead.
catherine englebrecht ▲ ● ▼
I know it's organized because my inbox, my cell phone are blowing up with death threats and this is just how the left operates.
We're their latest talking point and they're going to come all at us.
People should not be surprised for the hits on us to keep coming because we're being effective.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Where do they go?
I know you're putting up information.
Where do people go right now to catch up on everything you're working on?
catherine englebrecht ▲ ● ▼
TrueTheVote.org online, our socials TrueTheVote on Truth and on X, and we are going to go live on Patriot Games on Rumble at noon central.
So for people that want to hear from both Greg and I just letting it go about all the stuff that has not made the headlines, we're going to be doing that today at noon central and look forward to being back with you guys again tonight.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
Perfect.
Thank you, Catherine.
Let's go back to Brother Wade's testimony at the hearing.
unidentified
The flights that you see here are the flights that she would have booked with her own resources, with her own car.
And there's one flight, correct?
One flight that she actually booked with Ms.
Merchant.
Let him finish and then you can redirect him.
One flight that she actually booked, yes.
The other flights I booked, she paid for.
So, the affidavit, you submitted one flight that she booked and paid for.
Yes, ma'am.
I'm going to object to the phrasing of that question.
The line in the affidavit is not as Mrs. Merchant is representing it.
It said, examples of the district attorney Willis purchasing plane tickets for she and I with her personal funds were attached as an exhibit.
It certainly did not represent that it was the only example of the district attorney purchasing flights for Mr. Wade, or for compensating other travelers.
All right.
I understand, Ms.
Cross.
I think that's something you can... It's now on the record, but also something you can take on for us.
Thank you.
And just so everybody is clear, all I asked you is your affidavit.
You submitted proof of one flight that she paid for and boarded.
That's all I'm asking.
Correct?
With the explanation, yes, ma'am.
Okay.
That's all I needed.
Um, you said in the affidavit that you roughly shared travel though, correct?
Yes, ma'am.
Okay.
So this roughly sharing travel, you're saying she reimbursed you?
She did.
And where did you deposit the money she reimbursed you?
Oh, it was cash.
She didn't give me any checks.
So she paid you cash for her share of all these vacations?
Mr. Schaffer, you'll step out if you do that again.
Yes, ma'am.
Okay.
And so all of the vacations that she took, she paid you cash for?
Yes, ma'am.
And you purchased all of these vacations on your business credit card, correct?
Yes, ma'am.
And you included those in deductions on your taxes, correct?
No, ma'am.
No, you did not?
No, ma'am.
Okay.
We'll get to that in just a minute then.
Let's see.
So the only thing that you have actual documentary proof, not cash, is this one receipt that you attached to the affidavit, is that correct?
Your Honor, I object to that question.
That is a mischaracterization of the assertion that is in the affidavit.
I'm asking... So then he can deny it.
I think he can fend for himself.
Ms.
Merchant.
Is this the only written proof that you have of a trip she paid for?
That I have?
Yes.
Yes, ma'am.
Okay.
So, you submitted the one piece of written evidence that you have that she paid for something.
Everything else is in cash.
Is that accurate?
No.
That's not accurate.
Okay.
Please tell me, what other receipts do you have then that show that she paid for things?
I don't have them.
Okay.
So, this is the only receipt that you have to show that she paid for travel?
That I have.
Yes, ma'am.
Thank you.
In your divorce case, you filed a domestic relations financial affidavit, correct?
Yes, ma'am.
The first one you filed was in January 2022, right?
Thereabout, yes, ma'am.
And those are under oath?
Yes.
And you also filed corporate taxes in 2022, correct?
2022 correct? Yeah. Okay.
Do you have a partnership or are you a solo practitioner?
As it stands today?
Yes.
So today, I have a separate PC.
My law partner has his own separate PC.
But we're under the same umbrella, under the same roof.
So we share expenses.
We share income and we split it.
So are you a partnership?
We are a partnership in the sense of we share expenses, we share income.
Are you registered with the state of Georgia as a partnership?
So the WBC firm that included myself, Terrence Bradley and Christopher Campbell We were registered with the Secretary of State as a partnership for a short period of time.
That was dissolved though, right?
In 2023?
I'm going to object to the witness answer this question.
Mr. Wade, did you have something else to add there?
I did.
When things happened and we excused Mr. Bradley from that partnership, It left Christopher Campbell and myself.
So now you have two separate PCs under the same umbrella, sharing expenses and income.
Okay, so let me just narrow down my questions then.
Are you registered?
And have you been registered at any time in the state of Georgia as Wade and Campbell?
Wade, no ma'am.
You've never been registered as a partnership?
As Wade and Campbell, no ma'am.
Wade and Campbell, yes, thank you.
But as Wade Bradley Campbell, yes ma'am.
Wade Bradley Campbell was...
Registered on April 1st, 2021 and administratively dissolved on September 8th, 2023, correct?
Yes, ma'am.
Other than that partnership, you have always been registered as law office of Nathan Wade.
Yes, ma'am.
Not with Chris Campbell.
Correct.
Thank you.
So the affidavit that you filed in your divorce case, the first one in 2022.
I think I'm up to number 7.
I'm going to just show you, give you a group of exhibits so we don't have to go back and forth.
I'm marking the 2022 as 7.
I'm marking the 2024 as 8.
I'm marking the 2024 as 8.
I'm marking the.
The credit card statements as 9.
And your taxes is 10.
I object to taxes, apart from the relevance of them at this point.
The relevance of this entire business structure doesn't seem clear to me as either impeaching or relevant to the issues under the court's consideration.
But insofar as we're talking about tax returns and other things like that, certainly that should be redacted, and I would object to the relevance of it.
I agree they should be redacted.
I don't agree to the relevance, but I haven't tried to tender them yet, Judge.
I'm just marking them right now so that everyone can follow.
All right.
And what is the eventual relevance that you're getting at here?
Well, I'm going to ask him because one of the things that we have to show in this case is a personal and financial interest.
And he's talked about how he was reimbursed for these things, and so I have a right to go into the veracity of those statements.
All right.
So let's see.
Let's see, seven, eight, nine, and then 10.
All right, so right now I'm just gonna show you what I've marked as these exhibits.
That's my check?
Mm-hmm.
Can I see what you're showing me?
Oh yeah, of course.
They're all from the USB drive, I gave you.
Let's get this.
Okay.
Thank you.
Can I approach, Judge?
You may.
I'm going to show you what I marked as 7, 8, 9, and 10.
a minor attack. So you have them here Robert because I asked you some questions. Alright.
So these are sworn, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, So these are sworn...
I'm first going to ask you about the domestic relations financial affidavit.
These are sworn.
They're filed under oath, correct?
Yes, ma'am.
And the most recent one that you filed was filed on January 26, 2024?
Yes, ma'am.
So a few weeks ago.
Yes, ma'am.
And in that one, you said that you made $9,500 each month, correct?
Yes, ma'am.
You said that in 2022... Well, in 2022, in this case alone, isn't it true you were paid $303,000?
Over $303,000.
I was paid?
Yes, in this case.
Fulton County.
Isn't it true you were paid $303,000?
Over $303,000.
I was paid?
Yes, in this case.
Fulton County, by Fulton County.
I see where you're going.
So... And, Judge, I just asked him to answer the question.
If he wants to explain it, I've got no problem with that.
Mr. Wade, just listen to the question asked and just answer the question I asked.
In 2022, isn't it true you were paid over $300,000?
No, ma'am, that is not true.
You were not paid over $300,000 by Fulton County?
No, ma'am, I was not.
Okay.
How much were you paid in 2022, then?
So, what I was beginning to explain was Fulton County wrote a check to my firm.
Okay.
What happens at that point is the checks are then deposited, as you have the bank statements, you see that, and then they are dispersed between the three of us.
So there was Mr. Bradley, there was Mr. Wade, and there was Christopher Campbell.
A third, a third, a third.
So, when you ask me if I was paid $300,000, the answer is no.
I got a third of that that went to my personal firm.
Now, once the money was distributed to my personal firm, obviously the expenses come out of that, and I get, at the end of the day, whatever the profit is.
So, I did not get $300,000.
No ma'am.
And let me just clarify.
My question was not, did you put in your pocket $300,000?
My question was, was the law firm of Nathan Wade paid over $300,000 in the year 2022?
Again, a third of that came to the law firm of Nathan Wade.
So you're saying that the law firm of Nathan Wade did not receive checks from Fulton County government over $300,000 in the year 2022?
That's a different question.
A third of the 300,000 came to Nathan Wade.
Again, I'm not asking what went in your pocket.
I'm asking Was the law firm of Nathan Wade paid over $300,000 in 2022?
I know, but I think you're dancing around the point there.
So, final time.
That's fine.
I can move on, Judge.
Thank you.
So, you said that they were dispersed amongst all of you or put into an account with all of you.
So, it's your testimony that for 2022, every check you received from Fulton County government went into an operating account with you, Bradley, and Campbell.
No, no, no, no.
That's not what I testified to.
So the way Bradley and Campbell firm established an account when we decided to purchase a building in 2022, at that point, every piece of income that came into the entity went into that account.
And then, after expenses were paid, it was split a third, a third, a third.
Right?
Once that was dissolved, then the funds would go into a different account.
My account.
One of my accounts.
And then I would disperse the funds between, now, Attorney Campbell and myself, one half and one half.
Make sense?
It does.
Let me be more direct then.
So, the Synovus operating account that you have for Wade, Bradley, and Campbell.
Yes, ma'am.
The checks from Fulton County from January of 2022 until June 17, 2022.
Those checks were deposited in that operating account.
Yes, ma'am.
Starting on July 15, 2022.
The checks you received from Fulton County up until May 26, 2022, all went into an escrow account that you had at Fifth Third Bank, correct?
No, not all of them.
Some of them?
Some of them, yes.
So it's your testimony that some of your checks from July 15, 2022 up until May 26, 2023, some of them went into an account outside of Fifth Third Bank?
Your Honor, I don't have a check to the relevance of the financial transactions.
How much money he made is highly relevant in this case.
It's the personal financial business and where the money was.
And I mean, it's just a follow up on other things that he's testified to.
And why is how much money he made relevant?
Because he represented, it's very relevant, he filed an affidavit with the court saying, with another court, he told another judge that he made $9,500 a month.
That's what he swore to.
Alright, so this entire inquiry is just to establish that prior and consistent statement?
Yes.
Alright.
I'll give you a minute or two more to try that, but we're going to have to move on.
Thank you.
I know you're saying that you only got a third of the $300,000, but the firm was paid over $300,000 in 2022, correct?
Ms.
Merchant, it's not what I'm saying.
They're numbers.
They're there.
It's the truth.
The funds were paid.
They were divvied between the three of us, going into an operating account.
Expenses paid out of it.
At the end of that, the 9,000 figure is what you have.
So that's where you got the 9,000 figure from?
Yes, ma'am.
And let's see, let's.
Prior to when you filed for divorce in November 2021, you would use Mr. Bradley's credit card to pay for things Willis, correct?
And then pay him back in cash.
I've never used Mr. Bradley's credit card.
You've never used his credit card?
Never.
For transactions to anything with Ms.
Willis?
Out to dinner, anything like that?
Hotels?
I've never used Mr. Bradley's credit card.
I've never used anyone else's credit card.
Not even my father's, and we have the same name.
Um, and you'd pay back, if you ever did use someone's credit card, you'd pay back in cash though, correct?
Ma'am, I've never used someone else's credit card.
Um, can you take a look at the bank records that I gave you?
That's the largest tab you have.
For the record, which exhibit is this?
Um, it is exhibit, hold on, Judge.
It's exhibit nine.
It should be the largest section you saw.
Your Honor, before there's any questions from the others, the exhibits haven't been tendered and I maintain my relevance objection.
All right, let's see what the next question is and maybe then that objection is going to be highly relevant.
Okay.
Is that an accurate copy of your Capital One statements that you provided in discovery to Is that an accurate reflection of your Capital One records?
That I provided in discovery to whom?
Um, to your divorce lawyers.
Or that you provided in the divorce proceeding.
Is the question, does he recognize it by sight?
I'm asking if it's his statement.
I think that is the question.
Well, I mean, it's a thick document, but I believe you if you say that this is what my wife's divorce lawyer gave you, I believe it.
Your name's on every page of that document, correct?
On every page?
Pretty much every page.
It's not every page.
No, it's not on every page.
No, ma'am.
They're all Capital One bank records showing that.
They are.
Okay?
Just take your time.
Look through it.
Tell me if there's anything that you think is not yours.
No, no.
They appear to be.
Okay.
Um, and those bank records show that you paid for travel with Miss Willis.
Yes, ma'am.
You know, I'm going to object the relevance of these documents and the... Well, I think... Are you tendering Exhibit 9?
I'm going to, Judge, and they're highly relevant to the... Well, you've asked them a question about the contents of them and they haven't been admitted yet, so why don't we start there?
Thanks.
Those show travel that you and Ms.
Willis took.
Well, so you're asking about the contents of something that hasn't been admitted yet.
Well, I'm asking if that's what it shows, because I know that they're going to object on relevance.
Well, first we've got to see if you've authenticated it, perhaps.
And before we get into other details of what's in it, I think it needs to be admitted.
I can tell you, that's fine.
I move to admit them.
All right.
Object on relevance.
On relevance.
All right.
And on that, overruled.
Ms.
Merchant.
Thank you.
Those records demonstrate that you paid for travel with yourself and Ms.
Willis, correct?
They should.
Okay, and let's just talk about that travel.
Okay.
The first trip is Belize in March 2023.
Is that a trip that you took with Ms.
Willis?
Are you asking?
Did you take a trip with Ms.
Willis in 2023 to Belize?
I did.
Did you take a trip to California with Ms.
Willis in 2023?
I did.
Did you pay for those trips on that credit card?
I used the credit card to book the travel, but understand... She paid you back cash.
Well, let me say this.
Let's take the Belize trip, for example, since you started there.
That was a birthday gift to me, so I paid nothing for that trip.
Zero.
Okay.
So the charges that are on your card, she gave you cash for?
She did.
Okay.
So all of the charges... Oh, did you have more?
I did.
Okay.
I wanted to get into the charges on the car because traveling with her is a task.
You can probably imagine the tension that happens.
For safety reasons, she would limit her transactions.
I mean, imagine trying to walk through an airport or sit at a restaurant or do anything.
There's no attempt to conceal.
It's a credit card.
Everything is here.
And that's not what I asked.
Okay.
What I asked was the charges for Belize in March 2023 on that credit card.
Those are things you purchased to go with Ms.
Willis to Belize.
Those are things that we booked with my card that she paid.
Yes.
Yes.
So those show up on your credit card?
They do.
And you're saying that she paid you cash to reimburse you for all of that?
And she paid you cash for both of your portions or just hers?
Both.
Okay, so that trip, Belize, just Belize, she paid you for everything on Belize?
The entire trip.
Okay.
So the food, tattoo parlor, all that stuff, she paid for?
I'm gonna... I'm sorry, do you have a question?
There was no tattoo parlor in Belize.
The charges, there's a tattoo parlor on the charges.
I'm not getting into what it was for.
I'm just asking if everything that's on that card related to Belize, she paid you back for?
She paid for, yes ma'am.
Okay.
Let's talk about California.
In May 2023, you all went to California together?
Yes.
And you booked plane tickets?
Yes.
And her name was on those plane tickets?
They were.
And so, I know you said that you were worried about security and things like that, but that was in her name.
When she traveled, she had to use her name.
Oh, so the plane tickets?
Yes, ma'am.
Okay.
And you paid for those plane tickets, and you paid for a hotel.
So, again, the card, yes.
You used your credit card, and I'm not asking about after what happened, I'm asking, did you use your credit card to book your flight and hotel to California?
I did.
And, um, There's a lot of Ubers on there as well for California.
Did you pay for those Ubers as well?
Yes.
We were in Napa.
And you're saying that Ms.
Willis, are you saying that Ms.
Willis paid you back for that?
Yes.
Did she pay for the entire trip or did she pay for her half of the trip?
The Napa trip?
She paid for the excursions, so the expenses sort of balanced out.
I mean, there was never, let me be clear, there was never a time when I would say, hey, I bought dinner.
Dinner costs $25.
You need to give me $25.
If you've ever spent any time with Ms.
Willis, you understand that she's a very independent, proud woman.
So she's going to insist that she carries her own weight.
And it actually was a point of contention between the two of us.
She is going to pay her own weight.
So let me re-ask the question to make sure that you answer it.
A California trip that you paid for, saying that she did not pay you back for cash.
Instead, she paid for excursions and you believe that was roughly half.
She gave me some cash, yes.
But what I'm saying is that everything that we did when we got into Napa, she paid for.
The trip that she booked on her credit card in Miami, did you pay her cash back for your half of that?
No.
So you never paid her back for the ticket she bought for you?
No, no.
I would say I did pay her back because there were times when I would pay for dinner, she would pay for dinner.
It would balance out.
But in a relationship, ma'am, you don't, particularly men, we Don't go asking back for anything.
So you're not keeping a ledger of things that you pay for versus the thing that she's paid for.
Which is why I said that it was a point of contention because she was very emphatic and adamant about this.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
By the way, Elizabeth, the telegram, we now have it up there.
We've got it on Getter, the Rumble, our Rumble audience, very special to us.
We're going to cover it.
I'm going to jump in for commentary.
This is mesmerizing.
Trump's lawyer just taking this apart.
You obviously see tax issues.
You see perjury, all of it.
This is the type of person that's coming after President Trump.
That's Trump's prosecutor right there.
That's Trump's prosecutor.
Look, look how he dissembles on his answers right now.
And he he's very sophisticated.
Okay, he's put this in a whole act.
He's dissembling to try to deflect from President Trump's lawyers pre direct questions.
This is a it's even shocking.
I think that people have been pretty hardened through this process, but this is how they comport themselves when they're coming after President Trump.
So this is incredibly important.
We're going to cover it on all our channels live streaming.
A couple things.
HTL, make sure you go to HTL.com.
HomeTitleLock.com.
Don't expose yourself.
We need you up on the ramparts, so don't expose yourself to the combination of cyber and artificial intelligence.
HomeTitleLock.com.
Put in the promo code BANNON for your special deal.
So HomeTitleLock.com.
Promo code BANNON.
So check that out right now.
Also, obviously, Birch Gold wants everybody to talk to Philip Patrick and the team.
We're going to have a lot of capital markets tomorrow, although we may have to cut big swaths of the show to make sure that we focus on this because it's quite mesmerizing.
Very important.
I think it looks like the case in Georgia is going to be blown up here because, man, oh, man, oh, man.
Talk about what we've heard this morning.
Birchgold.com slash, make sure you go to slash Bannon.
Also again, promo code Bannon.
Make sure you talk to Philip Patrick and team at Birchgold.
CPAC.org.
War Room is the promo.
CPAC War Room.
Got to get there.
The Force Multiplier Academy plus three days of CPAC.
We're going to be all over it.
And our good friend Mike Lindell is going to join us.
Mike, we've had to drop a bunch of guests today because this testimony has been Uh, mesmerizing as you see exactly the type of person and the scams they're pulling who are coming after President Trump.
Also, President Trump today gave a masterful, uh, a masterful statement to the media that they cut away from about the hellhole of New York when we, uh, when he just came out of the New York court.
A trial date set for 25 March.
Mike Lindell, tell us about the specials, brother.
unidentified
Yeah, everybody, we're running that real President's Day sale, our real President.
We're running a pre-sale for the War Room Posse.
Everybody's responded.
This is our toppers, our mattress toppers, 100% made in the USA.
It's got all the technology that other toppers don't have.
The Myfield proprietary foam.
We've got the temperature regulating fabric.
And then we have this coil, the coil foam combination.
There's nothing like it in the world.
You get free shipping, exclusive to the War World Posse, as low as $99.99, and your whole order will ship for free.
Not just with the toppers, but it turns every single bed into the best rejuvenation station you've ever slept in.
And we've got some of the Plano sheets left.
We've got the Giza Dream sheets on sale, everybody, for $59.98 for the Queen, $69.98 for the King.
That's also exclusive to the War Room Posse.
mike lindell ▲ ● ▼
Now, the War Room Flash Sale, the $29.98 2.0 MyPillows and the King's $5 and more, that's good.
unidentified
That's exclusive to the War Room Posse.
As of an hour from now, the price is going up everywhere except for the War Room Posse.
You guys get all the great specials because you guys have had my pillows back.
This employee-owned company that they've been constantly getting attacked because I'm out there trying to help secure our elections for this great by brand and I just want to thank all of you.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
800-873-1062.
The operators, it's War Room, is the promo code.
Make sure you tell the operators that we have their back.
Mike Marlago looks magnificent.
I'm sure the President's looking forward to getting back there and hanging out with you.
Thank you so much.
See you this afternoon.
Okay, we're continue- Charlie Kirk's next.
We're continuing the coverage of this hearing in Georgia.
It's mesmerizing.
Make sure you don't miss it on all our channels.
▲
Export Selection