All Episodes
Previous Next
March 3, 2024 - Lionel Nation
32:57
Fani Willis and the Destruction of What's Left of Faith in the American Judicial System
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
When uncertainty strikes, peace of mind is priceless.
Dirty Man Underground Safes protects what matters most.
Discreetly designed, these safes are where innovation meets reliability, keeping your valuables close yet secure.
Be ready for anything.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off today and take the first step towards safeguarding your future.
Dirty Man's Safe.
Because protecting your family starts with protecting what you treasure.
Disaster can strike when least expected.
Wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes.
They can instantly turn your world upside down.
Dirty Man Underground Safes is a safeguard against chaos.
Hidden below, your valuables remain protected no matter what.
Prepare for the unexpected.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off and secure peace of mind for you and your family.
Dirty Man Safe.
The storm is coming.
Markets are crashing.
Banks are closing.
When the economy collapses, how will you survive?
You need a plan.
Cash.
Gold.
Bitcoin.
Dirty Man safes keep your assets hidden underground at a secret location ready for any crisis.
Don't wait for disaster to strike.
Get your Dirty Man safe today.
Use promo code DIRTY10 for 10% off your order.
I have failed you.
I have failed you.
At least two of you.
Two of you.
I have failed you.
I'm wrong.
I'm sorry.
I...
I'm sorry.
I don't know what the hell that was.
I didn't explain this to you.
I didn't do a good job.
I didn't.
I thought I did.
I thought I was doing a hell of a job.
Let me...
Try.
This one comment popped up, and see if I can get this one comment.
Normally your comments are terrific, but I want to give you this one that just blows my mind, and I'm trying to think.
One of them says that I just don't get it.
Where is this?
Oh, my God.
Okay, here we go.
I'm not going to mention your name.
Love Lionel, but I don't agree.
If she, Fannie Willis, had told the truth, she'd have admitted to hiring an unqualified prosecutor for personal gain.
Yes, she wouldn't have committed perjury, but professional misconduct is serious too.
Thank you.
She would not have been disqualified.
There is nothing that is wrong with hiring someone, hiring someone for a job that is either unqualified or somebody that you've had sex with.
This may shock you.
That's not subject to any kind of problem.
Where is the law against that?
Write this down.
There was another one who said, I'm trying to find it.
I had it here.
That she did this for personal gain.
What personal gain?
What are you talking about?
First, the issue here is disqualification.
I don't care about whether she faces some kind of a problem in a bar hearing.
Do you understand this?
Does this make any sense to you?
We're not talking about a bar hearing.
We're not talking about her violating the rules of professional responsibility.
If she said, I hired somebody, if she actually, I hired somebody who was, quote, unqualified, is he a member of the bar?
Yeah.
That's good enough for us.
Yeah, but you don't understand.
I hired him because I was having sex with him.
Is he an adult?
Yeah.
Nothing we can do about that.
That's not against the law.
It's not against the rules.
What's wrong with that?
No, I'm dead serious.
What?
I hired someone from another firm just to spite them.
What?
What?
I hired someone else from another firm, not because they were qualified, but just to spite, just to poach him from...
Is that against the law?
No.
Is that wrong?
No.
Is that?
No.
Sorry.
I don't know what you think that is.
Maybe it should be.
Maybe you think that there should be a higher standard or something.
But what I'm trying to tell you is that there's no law against this.
And said, well, she hired Nathan Wade for personal gain.
What are you talking about?
For personal gain?
So what?
That's up to her.
There is no such thing as a standard by which people have to be hired.
None.
If she did something where she was using her position as boss to exact or exert pressure against somebody else, it's a different story.
It's a different story then.
You see what I'm saying?
It's completely different.
But that's not what we're talking about.
Do you understand this?
Everybody keeps saying, he's incompetent.
So what?
What does that mean?
Tell me what competence is.
Do you think all these people, there are folks she hires straight out of law school who've never tried a case.
They're completely incompetent.
She likes them.
She wants to mentor them.
It's her office.
Where do you people get off?
Making stuff up.
I say that kind of kiddingly.
But where is it that you just can say, well, the question you should be asking is, is this a violation?
Is this a violation of any kind of law?
No.
No.
And I got this one.
I'm trying to find this one.
Real nasty.
But kind of funny.
You just don't get it.
I mean, I don't get it?
You don't get it.
You don't understand this thing.
I'm trying to get this.
Oh, come on.
It was so good.
It was great.
I wanted to find I wanted to find this.
God.
Because this is basically you don't like her.
Yeah, I understand that.
Believe me, I understand that.
Here we go.
Yeah, same one.
Love a line, but I don't agree.
If she had told the truth, she'd have admitted to hiring an unqualified prosecutor for personal gain?
For personal gain?
She hires somebody for personal gain.
What does that mean?
Put that into law.
You cannot.
How about, well, a personal gain?
I hired this number one law student or whatever because it brings prestige to my family.
Well, that's okay.
Well, you just said personal gain.
Well, not personal gain, but personal sexual gain.
I happen to hire all of my lawyers or all of my women because I think they're all hot and I hire only hot.
I didn't put this in writing, but all my prosecutors are hot.
So I have the hottest prosecutor.
Is that okay?
Can I do that?
Oh, by the way, they're all incompetent.
You want to write me a law that says I can't do that?
Do you seriously want to do that?
Do you really want to do this?
There's no such thing as this.
I'm trying to find this one and I cannot find it.
It just drives me crazy.
This one was the best one.
Arrogant!
Love the arrogance.
The absolute arrogance.
You can't do that.
Let me say this again.
The issue is, first of all, disqualification.
What's the issue?
What's the issue?
The issue is disqualification.
The issue is disqualification.
That's the issue.
We're not talking about anything else.
Should she be disqualified because she has a stake in this prosecution?
Not that she's stooping somebody.
You understand what I'm saying?
I'm going to say it again.
That's not the issue.
You're wrong.
Sit down, Counselor.
Sit down.
But Your Honor, she hired somebody who's incompetent.
Sit down!
There's no such thing as incompetent.
What does that mean?
That's a subjective standard.
There's nothing wrong with hiring.
We can't enforce that.
Who says he's incompetent?
I don't think he's incompetent.
I guess the Georgia Bar Association thinks he must be incompetent.
They gave him a license.
He's worked before.
He was a municipal judge.
I'm sorry, you haughty folks.
Do you see what's happening here?
You can't stray outside of the issues.
You can't say, yeah, but I want to talk about...
Her being a liar.
Okay, she's a liar.
You mean a perjury?
No, just being a liar.
Okay, you don't like her?
No, I don't like her at all.
I really think she's rotten.
I think she's rotten too.
But is that going to be the standard?
Well, I don't know about the standard.
But she hired him because he was her boyfriend.
Uh-huh.
And what's wrong with that?
What's wrong with that in terms of the law?
What?
What?
Now, let me ask you a question.
Let's assume that is it wrong for Nathan Wade or just for her?
Did he violate any rule?
How about if you said that he basically gave it up so that he can get this job?
If you've got a traffic ticket and you seduce the judge and you have the case dismissed, who's at fault?
Who gets in trouble?
The judge!
The judge had sex with one of his or her, let's say, traffic ticket, speeding ticket cases.
You wouldn't be.
You'd be the seducer.
So?
Missing the point.
You're missing the point.
Did she commit perjury?
And if she committed perjury, do you not think?
That one of the reasons why she should be disqualified, or the case, is that the judge says, I cannot believe you.
I do not want you in.
I cannot believe you.
I'm going to either recuse myself or recuse the case for you.
You have perjured yourself repeatedly.
You have so contaminated.
By the way, this may not even be a standard.
This...
This is more of a violation than anything else where you can show that she went before the community in a black church.
Patricia Waskey, ladies and gentlemen, Patricia, give it up.
Have a piece of crumb cake, Patricia.
Thank you, Patricia.
Who doesn't understand this?
Who doesn't understand?
Sometimes there aren't laws for things that we think there should be a law against.
What does this mean?
Side story.
When I was first a brand new prosecutor, we didn't have stalking laws.
Did you know that?
Didn't have them.
They didn't have them in the books.
The court said, you can't have a law that prevents.
What is it called?
Stalking.
Stalking?
You mean annoying somebody?
No, scaring somebody.
Scaring somebody?
They're scary?
What do you mean they're scaring somebody?
What the hell does that mean, they're scary?
You can't write a law that says they're scaring somebody.
Now we do.
We do now.
But there was a time when we said, you can't tell somebody you can't follow someone?
Is he committing a crime?
No, we want him to be able to commit a crime because he's standing there.
Sorry.
But now there's a law.
And if there's no law, you can point to all this stuff you want.
There's a law, statutory rape, you cannot have sex with someone, depending upon somebody 16, I think it's Arkansas, I don't know what the age is, who knows.
But let's assume it's 18, just for the sake of argument.
I always thought this was funny.
Okay, your birthday's coming up.
Let's say, technically speaking, it's five minutes to midnight, and midnight is going to be this date, and this is your birthday.
Technically speaking, you were born at four in the afternoon, but we're going to make it easy.
We're going to get a leeway.
Okay, can't have sex with you now.
Okay, it's two minutes to midnight.
Cannot have sex with you now.
One minute before midnight.
Cannot have sex with you.
It's against the law.
Midnight.
Happy New Year!
Does that make sense to you?
Ladies and gentlemen, Laurie Cuck.
How are you, Laurie?
Good evening.
That's the craziest law I've ever heard about.
What?
That's it?
Yes.
Really?
Yes.
Okay.
I used to have these...
I don't want to be...
I don't want to be in any way.
In any way.
Grotesque.
Needlessly.
But we used to sit around and ask about, there would be laws against necrophilia, okay?
And I thought to myself, who's, I mean, that's terrible.
That's a sick behavior, but who's, who's violated?
Huh?
Who?
What?
Huh?
We used to talk about, one time there was a guy, you're not going to believe this, I'm going to tell you this story.
Okay.
This was a case that I had...
This was years ago.
This was a, okay.
I can't mention the name of the guy, but there was a groom.
There was a groom.
One of the big racetracks.
And he was found in flagrante delicto with a horse.
And I talked about this case.
It was a morning drive.
I said, first of all, what's the crime here?
Now, I'm not trying to be corny, but somebody said, What is it called?
Animal abuse?
Yeah.
This is a horse.
A mare, I guess.
I don't know if it's...
Same sex?
I don't even know.
It's ridiculous.
I said, do you think a horse that would be, let's say, anatomically able to handle another horse?
Would be in any way harmed by some 25-year-old, and this was conventional, some 25-year-old, you know, groom?
I didn't want to bet into detail, but we talked about this.
Where is, is this like criminal mischief?
Is this tampering with, I mean, do you think the horse, other than being humiliated, I don't even know how the guy did it.
I said, but why is this against the law?
Who passed this law?
Was this a problem?
Did somebody say, look, this is my fifth guy this time.
We've got to have a law against this.
Folks, we've got to have a law.
And there's a law in the state of New York, I guess.
And we were talking about this forever.
And it wasn't the fact that I was going through zoophilia or equine more.
I'm asking the question, Okay, fine, we have the law, but how did this law, what is it exactly?
What is the law?
Can a horse consent?
Apparently not, but it's inanimate.
If he, no, Laurie, not to be confused, but you bring up a good question.
If I were to go up to, let's say, a woman I didn't know and kissed her against her without her consent, that's battery or assault, depending upon the, whatever.
If I were to go and I were to do this to a horse and I were to kiss the horse, Would they charge me with battery?
No.
Well, not.
Well, then why?
Okay.
Just saying.
My point is, I think about the law.
What does the law say?
Not should there be a law, but what does the law say?
What does it say?
What are we dealing about?
What are the issues?
Break it down for me.
What did Fannie Willis do to get her disqualified?
There has to be.
Does she have a stake?
In the case, how is Donald Trump affected, or any of the other defendants, by virtue of what she's doing?
Tell me.
I don't know.
I don't know.
The judge could very well say, you know, let me see.
Let's see what this says.
Let me see.
Here's one for you.
And this is one.
I want to read something.
And this is a very interesting case.
This is from something, this is a piece that suggests that, let me see if I can summarize this.
This was a piece that was written, hang on a minute.
Okay.
As a matter of both common sense and Georgia law, a prosecutor, by the way, this is a piece from Just Security written by authors Norman Eisen, Joyce Vance, and Richard Painter.
And it says, as a matter of both common sense and Georgia law, a prosecutor is disqualified from a case due to a conflict of interest Only when the prosecutor's conflicting loyalties could prejudice the defendant leading, for example, to an improper conviction.
None of the factual allegations made in the Roman motion have a basis in law for the idea that such prejudice could exist here.
As it might where a law enforcement agent is involved with a witness or a defense lawyer with a judge.
We might question Willis' judgment in hiring Wade and the pair's other alleged conduct, but under Georgia law, that relationship and their alleged behavior do not impact her or his ability to continue in the case.
Now, my friends, I tell you there's something to this.
Under Georgia law, quote, there are two generally recognized grounds for disqualification of a prosecuting attorney.
This is from a case Williams against State, 258 Georgia 305, a 1988 case.
There are two generally recognized grounds for disqualification of a prosecuting attorney.
The first such ground is based on a conflict of interest, and the second ground has been described as forensic misconduct.
There is no allegation of forensic Misconduct in this prosecution.
A conflict of interest may arise when the prosecution has acquired a personal interest or stake in the defendant's conviction.
This thing, too, I've heard of.
Forensic misconduct.
Now, this is an interesting case.
Let's do this.
And by the way, this is very good.
We're doing some good research here.
You're my clerks.
What is...
Boom.
Forensic...
Forensic misconduct.
Forensic misconduct includes fabricated test results and misleading testimony can also be false testimony, exaggerated statistics.
I think it's in laboratory.
I think forensic, I think more of.
Forensic means of or obtaining to or applying to the court.
My indication right now would be there is no, there has been no evidence heretofore of, of, There's no conflict of interest under that first, no, there's no conflict, no stake in the litigation.
There's not improper, the improper activity is within the prosecutor's office, not between the prosecutor's office and the defense.
That make sense to you?
Does that make sense?
Makes sense to me.
However, however, what do you do to a judge, excuse me, to a, who, The district attorney, not an assistant district attorney, but the district attorney who repeatedly lies.
Lies!
To the point where people are saying, you've got to be kidding.
You've got to be kidding.
What are you doing?
This is the part which...
Absolutely kills me.
This is it.
This is the most fascinating case in the world.
The issue is not disqualification via conflict of interest.
I hope you understand that.
I hope I have made myself very, very clear.
I hope I have made myself clear.
I hope I have made myself clear.
Tell me I have.
Good.
But when the judge says, I don't believe anything you say, Mr. Wade says, anybody.
I don't, I can't, I have no faith in the case you brought, what you've said, what you plan, what you want to do next.
I have no faith whatsoever in anything you've done.
Anything.
Nothing.
What do you call that?
That's fascinating to me.
What in the name of God do you call that?
That's the part that fascinates me.
What is it?
That's the thing that just gets me.
Lori says, because she taints everything because she's a liar.
I don't know if tainting everything...
Again, these words are...
You're kind of getting there, but what kind of a standard is that?
She's a liar, so we're going to, I mean, let's assume somebody lies.
Let's assume somebody in the course of the case, or the defense, let's say the defense lies.
Are you going to disqualify the defense lawyer?
Are you going to, in essence, reverse, recuse?
This is really something here.
There has to be a way of this qualification through some other avenue of conflict of interest.
There's got to be something else other than that.
Does that make sense to you?
Because here is the thing, and let me go back to what my friend doesn't understand and some other original commenter who took great umbrage of me.
Had she told the judge, and let's excuse, let's forget the part where he says, oh, and yes, and he's very unqualified, and they only hired him because I was having sex with him, okay?
Please, please, okay?
Let's do this.
And look at this.
Lori Cox has a very good point.
It's the DA's case.
Absolutely.
It's her case.
And everybody else is an assistant to her.
She's the firm, so to speak.
But here we go.
It goes something like this, and this is important.
How is it, dear friend, how is it that in this case something can be done specifically regarding the blatant Contempt for this court.
But going back to what I said, had she said, Your Honor, for the record, we are still having a relationship now, and he was hired after our relationship began.
And she would probably say, but no, sir, I did not hire him because of our relationship.
It just so happens that...
He is a licensed member of the Georgia Bar.
He has had experience.
You may not think it's enough, but he's had experience.
But I hired him because of that.
And whether we're having a relationship or not is really of nobody's interest.
That's it.
I have no stake in the prosecution other than I want to win.
But Mr. Wade's hiring has nothing to do with this.
That would have been the end of it.
We would have heard nothing from Mr. Wade.
Nothing.
Because she said it.
We would have heard nothing from Terrence Bradley because she said it.
She brought it up.
Kim Griffith says extrajudicial comments that taint the jury pool.
You know what?
You're on to something, Kim.
However, we don't have a jury yet.
We don't even have anything.
They didn't pick a jury yet.
This is pre-trial stuff.
This is motion for DQ, I believe.
And here is the story.
Kim, what if I were to tell you, and thank you by the way, what if I were to say, the media have tainted the jury pool?
Thank you.
The jury, every jury, from here to the rest of The media have tainted the jury pool, a potential jury pool.
Not Ms. Willis.
You, the media, with your coverage.
You, with your YouTube channels.
You have.
You've tainted the jury pool.
Not me.
You did.
What are you supposed to do?
How about O.J. Simpson case?
How about...
Any case.
How about any case that is of any interest to anyone?
Good luck with that one.
Tainted the jury pool?
And what degree of taint?
Taint misbehaving?
And I know the taint jokes.
You're dying to...
What is it?
You know, by the way, there's a taint council.
There's a taint...
When you do a grand jury testimony, how much of the information has been used?
For example, when Oliver North testified before the House, I believe, and he was granted immunity, and then later on they prosecuted him.
The question is, he was granted use immunity, not transactional use.
They could not use the testimony against him.
They could not use the testimony against him.
That's called use immunity.
Do you understand this?
Good.
Now, here's the issue.
And this is what's critical.
When he went before the...
How do I say this?
When they indicted him, they had a taint hearing to determine how much of the information that the prosecutor used was obtained by virtue of his immunized testimony.
Was the prosecution tainted by?
Did they tap into that information which was normally immunized, which was granted under immunity?
They told him.
They said, Mr. North, testify before Congress.
We're not going to use anything you say against you.
It's for other reasons.
And sure enough, they charged him.
Okay.
But the question is good.
Let me tell you something.
Should there ever be a change of venue?
A change of venue.
When should we have a change of venue?
Think about this.
When should there be a change of venue?
Ladies and gentlemen, I say to you right now that we are going to continue this tomorrow.
Your questions have been fantastic.
I want to thank you for this.
I want to thank Laurie Cook, Kim Griffith, Patricia Waska for your thoughts and comments, for your genius regarding this.
I want to thank you.
Please keep your questioning at the level of genius that I have seen.
You make me so proud.
So proud to be associated with you.
And I mean that.
I'm not just saying that.
You are incredible.
And I thank you for that.
We're going to continue tomorrow.
I am going to call an early termination to tonight's soiree so that I may attend to a particular event.
But I want to thank you.
Again, not for what you do, but for what you appear to do.
You are wonderful.
I love you madly.
Thank you so much.
And until tomorrow morning at 8 a.m., my friends, I remind you of this.
This valedictory.
This.
This.
Sayonara.
The monkey's dead.
The show's over.
Sue ya.
▲
Export Selection