All Episodes
Previous Next
March 4, 2024 - Lionel Nation
01:21:38
Fani Willis and the Corruption and Collapse of 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.
In 1988, during the George Bush race, George Herbert Walker Bush race against Michael Dukakis, there was a fellow named Willie Horton.
Willie Horton became a part of our collective psyche, our vernacular.
Willie Horton was a rapist, or excuse me, he was a violent criminal, who was allowed to be released on a furlough, then by Governor Michael Dukakis, who was George Herbert Walker Bush's running mate.
Mr. Horton went out, raped and assaulted people, and he became emblematic.
Of a situation, of a cause, that everyone knew was horrible, but did not really understand.
You needed a name, a face, something to connect it with.
It was believed that this was the work of Lee Atwater and others via perhaps a PAC.
Willie Horton...
He was an African-American man.
I believe he's still alive.
He's 72 years old.
He is currently incarcerated in Maryland.
And the picture that was used was his mugshot.
As you know, mugshots are not necessarily favorable.
They don't go out of their way to make you look better.
It was claimed that this was racist because he was black.
He is black.
That this heightened racial animus, that this reminded folks of this perception that black people are criminals, that black crime is the problem, that black...
And they were doing this then, when I mean they, the country, the media.
Now the fact remained that Willie Horton was...
The beneficiary of a stupid, stupid program that was theoretically envisioned and put into place by one Michael Dukakis, that he went out when he was furloughed and raped and almost killed people.
He was indeed a menace by virtue of his current incarceration, and his picture was scary.
Scary!
A most scary picture.
Was it racist?
It's in the eye of the beholder.
As you know, what is done today in particular, whenever you say something that may or may not be true, whenever you say something that is proved to be problematic, that is proved to be...
Dare I say, inconvenient.
You have to give it a word.
You have to give it a phrase.
That stops all discussion.
Dare I say, racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, misogynistic, sexist, racist, I already said that, white supremacist, MAGA, that's the way we go.
But Willie Horton, Became, at that moment, the personification of everything that was wrong with the system.
Were there racial components?
Tell me when there wasn't a racial component.
What does that even mean?
What does that mean?
What does that mean?
There's a racial component.
I don't know what that means.
It portended where we are today.
The inability to look at what's going on.
But to sit there and say, let me show you what is wrong with this system, and then you can tell me what's wrong with the example that I gave.
Okay?
Let me show you what's wrong with this system, and then you can tell me where I'm wrong by virtue of doing this.
Let me show you where I'm somehow a terrible person for bringing this person up.
Now, Fannie Willis is another example of everything.
Everything that's wrong.
Not just with the current system, but with competence, with the law, with the rules, with the politicization of things through lawfare.
She is the height, not the height.
Please, there's no T-H.
There's width and length or length.
L-E-N-T-H.
Length.
But there's no height.
I don't know why people say that, but they do.
But she is the personification of what's wrong with the system.
She is perfect.
Now, when you say this, you know immediately somebody's going to say, as did Fanny, as did Fanny, by going to a church and saying, I am a target because I'm a proud black woman.
There are some people who might think that.
But my friend, the words anti-Semitic and racist and the others have, as many have suggested, have suffered metal fatigue.
They have been used and utilized to such an extent over such a period of time that their elasticity and plasticity have evaporated and it just broke.
There's nothing to this term anymore.
We're just moving on.
We societally just reject it.
It's just over.
We're tired of it.
We've heard it before.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
That's okay.
Okay.
Next, is that all you got?
That's all I've got.
Is that all I've got?
That's all you got.
Now, what I've enjoyed so much about this, and let me thank you for this, because you are the best of the best of the best.
You are the best viewers, the best, the most fun.
The nicest, without a doubt, without a doubt, the nicest, the most cordial, I think some of the best thinkers I've ever seen.
And you are just, you are a delight.
And my day starts off by talking with you.
My day starts off.
And you light up my life, as the great Debbie Boone, so intoned.
You light up my life.
You give me hope to carry on.
You light up my life.
And I want to thank you for that.
And the thing that I find so interesting is that I learned so much from you.
And I learned how my version of the world is so...
Different than most people's.
And I take it for granted.
And you remind me.
You always make me say, okay, let me see if I can rephrase this.
Because I think that sometimes I'm right and sometimes I change my mind.
As far as opinions go, I change my mind when it comes to law and legal things.
No, I don't because there are certain things, certain applications here.
And I think I can train you.
I hope one thing I've taught you is the way to look at the law and to separate it from Other than from politics, from whatever.
You look at the law and you say, what does it say?
IRAC, I-R-A-C, issue, rule, analysis, conclusion.
What is the rule?
And we, and you in particular, have said to yourself, and it is not in any way far-fetched, it's not crazy, it's not lunacy, it's not any of that.
You have said that this Fannie Willis...
Hired this incompetent person and basically they were lovers, paramours, and by virtue of the situation at store or in store, by virtue of all of this, she has compromised.
She has done something which has to be illegal.
It has to be.
She must be...
Disqualified.
And those were the words that you used because that was the option that was given to you.
You said, okay, I think she should pay the ultimate punishment for this, namely disqualification.
And the reason why you're saying that is because you have said and you have understood, and I think very correctly, that she has compromised, absolutely compromised the office, The integrity of the system certainly violated the trust of the fine people of Fulton County and the like.
But here's the problem, and this is what you've been able to figure out, and you've been able to understand this, and this is why you're so great.
There is nothing under the disqualification laws.
There's nothing.
Nothing under the, listen to what I'm saying, nothing under the disqualification laws and nothing that has happened according to the facts, as we understand them, that would allow the judge to disqualify her for this, in my opinion.
And it is, you must understand that in this particular case, Ashley Merchant, It's basically saying, you know what?
I'll give it a shot.
And this case has evolved and just taken up.
You never know what's going to happen.
You never know what's going to happen.
Never.
I was involved in a case.
I never knew this.
It was a very, very, very serious case of attempted first-degree murder.
A man was shot at relatively close range.
Five times.
Not three, not four.
Five.
With a small caliber bullet, which normally is immediate death.
Shot this way.
Not only survived, but ran out of a bar, flagged down an EMS truck, and there he was.
Five times.
I represented the individual charged with that.
Our defense was simple.
Not me.
Okay.
During the course of this, during the course of this case, I'm thinking to myself, this is, this is, who knows what's going to happen?
Who knows what's going to happen?
During the course of this, this individual was outside waiting.
The defendant was on bond, finally, waiting to go into court, waiting for the lunch, whatever.
When the victim, the person shot in the face five times, and I said the face versus the head.
I kept calling it the face.
The face is a different term.
The face...
You cut your face.
You have a zit on your head, on your face, not on your head.
This is your head, but this is your face.
President Kennedy was shot in the head.
It's a head shot, but a face.
It's just different.
It's true.
It's true.
And behind the face is the head.
Sorry, but language is powerful.
As the defendant was waiting, as the defendant was waiting to Go into the courtroom.
The victim shows up with the subpoena looking for the courtroom.
There were no numbers.
It was the weirdest thing.
I don't even think they had letters or a number.
Nothing.
The victim, who said, I will never forget the person that shot me, walked over, talked to the Defendant.
And said, do you know where this courtroom is?
And it said, da-da-da-da, versus da-da-da.
And the defendant did not notice the defendant's name on the subpoena.
They were both looking at the courtroom.
The defendant said, that's the courtroom.
And they sat down and talked to each other forever.
ever.
You can't script this.
Later on, the defendant brought to my attention I think we were I think I was talking to the neither recognized the other.
We walked into court.
The judge is calling the jury.
I said, just a minute, Your Honor.
We have a bit of a problem.
We have a problem in which I have a sneaky suspicion that Mr. So-and-so, the prosecutor, is going to ask Mr. So-and-so, the defendant, to point out the defendant, and this victim, as you call him, is going to point out the defendant.
Not because the victim remembers the defendant, but because the victim was talking to somebody, and the prosecutor will say, that's the person whose name is on the...
I want to do an oral motion to quash in-court ID because of this impermissible suggestibility.
That's the standard.
That was the case law.
Impermissible suggestibility.
If you have a lineup and you have four white guys all over 6 '4", And you have one guy who's 4 feet 11, Mexican, dark-complected.
That's him.
That's impermissibly suggestive.
That's the name of it.
I had the chance to voir dire, to question the victim.
I said, Mr. So-and-so, do you remember me?
Yes.
Do you remember?
Am I taking your deposition?
Yes.
Do you remember when I asked you this question and you answered?
And I'll show you right here.
May I approach the witness?
Always approach.
Never get near the witness.
Never, never, never!
Without asking permission.
Never get near the jury.
Don't get near them.
They go up and they say, oh, no, no, you can't get near them.
May I approach?
Yes.
Do you remember this?
And you said, right here, sir, I will never forget that person.
Yes.
Remember that?
This is your, yes.
And yet, you sat next to that person, did you not, for a good, what, half an hour?
45 minutes?
Talking?
Conversing?
And when Mr. So-and-so, the prosecutor, asks you today, do you see the person in court?
Who shot you in the face?
You're going to point out the defendant, aren't you?
It's reasonable, and I'm very nice.
It's not gotcha.
You always are nice to people.
They're not going to see anything if they're nervous.
Was he asked?
Is it because that's...
Thank you.
So the judge said, okay, what do we do?
Tell your story.
Tell your story.
Just don't point out the defendant.
I'm not saying this person wasn't shot.
I'm not saying it at all.
Not at all.
What does he mean?
He's not making it up.
In fact, what I did, which was really good, when it came time to cross-examination, cross-examination, I said, may, I did ask, I said, may the Mr. So-and-so publish his wounds To the jury.
Prosecutors should have done that.
What does that mean?
Anytime you give the jury anything, give them a piece of paper, you show them the contract, you show them the witness, you show them whatever it is you want them to see or consider and take into the witness room with them.
It's called publishing.
You want to publish it to the jury.
So I said, what does that mean?
Please go over and show the jury your...
Oh, any hadith at all?
Oh.
He went like this.
And you can't believe this.
Hear?
I said, thank you.
That was it.
And then later on, I made it very, very clear.
Did you see me hiding this from me?
No.
I was the one who showed you.
I'm not seeing this person.
I did it.
I told you.
I wanted you to see this.
And whoever shot.
Whoever shot this man committed a crime.
But if you find this person guilty, then two crimes will be committed.
But this one you can prevent.
It was, I say, maybe less than half an hour not guilty.
Because it was just...
Now, why am I saying that?
What's the purpose of this?
Because once these things start, once you go into trial, whether it's a motion hearing, whether it's anything, you say, okay, you had it saved before, now anything can happen.
The witness doesn't show up.
Remember on one particular point?
Remember Mr. Bradley?
He just didn't show up.
It was at the doctor.
At the doctor.
I have seen people, I have seen people taken into custody by the bailiffs in the courtroom because the judge is furious.
You got a subpoena, you're supposed to be here, and you went to a doctor.
You didn't call anybody?
You think you can just come in, take him into custody, put him in the house, saw him in the cell.
We knew it was like five minutes seems like an hour.
This is just incredible.
Nothing happened.
This was like the most unbelievable.
But had this, nobody would have ever thought, the point I'm trying to tell you, perhaps circuitously, nobody ever thought this case would go this far.
Nobody ever, ever, ever would have gone this far.
Nobody would ever dissolve a stupid motion to disqualify.
Nobody knew that Fannie Willis would get on the stand and start lying and talking about money and cash and nobody.
Nobody.
Who knew?
And the one who really didn't know this, more than anybody else, was Ashley Merchant.
Who knew this?
Nobody ever even heard Wade.
He was the worst.
And Bradley?
They didn't know this.
This is the beautiful part.
This is what happens.
This is why you want to avoid trial.
You never know what's going to happen.
Somebody gets upset.
Somebody doesn't show up.
Somebody doesn't remember.
Somebody has a second thought.
Somebody runs in the wrong way.
Some people can't testify.
Do you know how many times during court, do you know how many times?
I always made a point to say, make sure that when you, if we're going to go to trial, make sure.
Meet me.
I want you to see where the courtroom is.
You're going to come in here.
You're going to come in here.
That's the courtroom.
There's nobody there.
That's where the judge is.
That's where the jury is.
You're going to come in this way.
I'm going to be here.
You're going to be there.
Come here.
Let's go up.
You can walk up.
Because why?
Because there's nothing worse than when a victim or a victim or a witness walks into the courtroom like this.
You look stupid.
Do I sit down in the wrong chair?
No.
Plus, it makes it easier for them.
You want them to say that.
Many times, I can't believe it how people will walk into a courtroom for the first time and say, they've never been in a courtroom, and they're going to be on the stand?
You never talk to them?
And if it's a kid, or if it's a young person, or an old person, you definitely have to do this.
With their parents, they're obviously saying, this is what it's going to look like.
This is the trial part.
Nobody, believe me when I tell you this, and this is the most important part, nobody, but nobody.
Ever expected Fannie Willis to come apart like this?
Nobody.
I mean, nobody.
Now, this is the most important part.
This is what I want you to say.
And listen to me carefully.
The issue that we would have to say, that I would bring up, because I love to concede, I love, would tell a judge, well, listen, you're right about that.
And when you've got a case that doesn't work, you tell the judge so that the judge trusts you.
If the judge thinks that you cannot be believed because everything you say proves you're good, no.
Sometimes you can say, well, that's a good point.
And the problem with this, what hurts my argument is this.
And as you know, as you know, Judge McAfee, The case law is pretty clear here as far as disqualification.
She has to have a stake in the case, and there seems to be nothing, no matter what people think.
It may be improper.
She might be subjected to problems with the Bar Association.
She may have problems with professional responsibility.
She may have problems with perjury, but as far as disqualification goes, no.
Much has been made of the fact that Mr. Wade doesn't know anything.
He doesn't know what he's doing.
Listen, they hired this fellow, I forget his name, John, somebody who is like an expert in this.
So they've got, and Willis has done this before.
Wade is not critical.
Wade is unimportant.
She hired Bradley to do these arraignments.
Listen, there's nothing that they did that was illegal.
There's nothing that they did.
However, Judge, let me pose this question to you.
And I defy anybody to answer this question.
Putting disqualification aside for the reasons of the relationship, let me ask you this question.
Let's say you have a witness who lies to you.
You have, for example, a trial.
One of the lawyers, not the witness, but a lawyer.
And it could be, let's say, it's the prosecutor.
But not just the prosecutor, not just the assistant district attorney, but the district attorney.
Not the ADA, but the DA.
Not the SAD, not the special assistant, but the DA.
And the DA happens to come to your court and lies about everything.
Lies about cash.
Lies about relationships.
Lies about when things happened, when things didn't.
Lies to you.
Shows a contempt, a disputatious, consumacious rudeness, a complete and total disregard for anything involving a respect for this court.
How are you going to be able to sit to look her in the face, to look the people of Fulton County in the face and say, I have not lost all faith in the, not the assistant.
If the assistant district attorney, you can remove the assistant, you can call the parties, and it's done a lot.
The judges will say, do me a favor, bring somebody else in but him.
In fact, we, People know this.
Sometimes they know that certain judges cannot stand certain people, and they are not a part of it.
Fine.
Fine, fine, fine, fine, fine.
Okay?
Terrific.
Great.
Great!
Okay.
Now, that's the angle.
She's lied.
She has shown a level of contempt.
Not only has she, but to an extent, you know.
Wade did, but he can be removed.
But you can't remove the DA.
How are you supposed to listen to her?
How are you supposed to listen to anything from her?
And, Judge, I know this may not be a legal argument, but to show you how Ms. Willis doesn't get it, she sat in the courtroom rocking back and forth with a look of...
I've seen defendants.
The defendant, Donald Trump doesn't look as rude and as obstreperous.
Can you explain this to me, Your Honor?
Can you possibly explain?
How do you expect, sir, to give the people of Fulton County a shake when their leader, their district attorney has basically told you, F you.
I'm not going to answer your stoop.
I'm going to go outside.
She, at one point, remember, she just, she didn't, is she going to show up?
She got up and left.
And then they invoked sequestration, the rule.
She was listening because she came in and said, well, I'm going to clarify something.
How could you clarify something if you were not listening as you were instructed to?
Ladies and gentlemen, Erin M. Fletcher, I believe bow-tied, she also tainted the dairy pool with her sermons at the church.
Well, Mr. Fletcher, an excellent point.
However, that is a separate issue.
That may be a change of venue.
That may be sanctions.
That may be to disqualify.
Remember, and this is a very good point, disqualification is not merely that you've broken the law.
Or that you've done something wrong.
But disqualification is that you have a stake in the matter.
You have a stake in it.
You want there to be a certain issue.
You want there to be an outcome.
You want there to be something.
And I'm not going to read to you these horrible, not horrible, but there's this wonderful case.
The case law is very, very sincere about what would happen.
Let's assume, I'll give you an example.
The stuff we're looking for is, remember, disqualification.
Disqualification.
Disqualification.
Let's assume that this, what you're talking about, is tainting the jury pool.
What does that mean?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Think about that.
If I stood up at a church, Mr. Fletcher, and I, and I mean that, if I stood up at a church and I said, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Fannie Willis.
I am your district attorney for Fulton County.
And I am standing right now in the hallowed halls of this tabernacle, this Christian consecrated tabernacle that has withstood attack and which has served as the glue,
the organizational communal glue of the African American community since Dr. King and before.
She's here.
Tell me when I start to taint the poll.
Stop right there.
I'm the DA.
They knew who I am.
Anything wrong with me doing that?
Anything?
I'm tainting it.
Am I tainting?
Am I tainting the pool?
Am I?
All I've said is, I'm a public servant.
I'm speaking to my constituency.
Am I tainting the pool?
Oh, that's that Fannie Willis.
Oh, I like her.
She's great.
Am I tainting it?
Sure.
You don't see Ashley Merchant up here, do you?
No.
What pool is she going to taint?
I have no idea.
Then I say, my goal is to protect the Constitution of the United States.
And what do we have here at the back of my Constitution?
I voted stickers.
The franchise.
And it is incumbent upon me and the great people of Fulton County.
To ensure that all aspects of the vote, the voting process, polling, the franchise at all are maintained.
Maintained.
And that you have a belief in the integrity of the system.
For far too long, African Americans fought against the rigors of racism.
And how?
How?
How were we attempted to be kept down and subjugated by affecting the vote and the franchise?
They wanted poll taxes.
They wanted literacy tested.
They wanted, I mean, they tried everything you can imagine because they realized that with the vote comes change.
Change that they cannot affect.
And under almighty God.
Now, I'm going on.
I never mentioned Trump.
I never mentioned the motion.
I never mentioned anything.
But let's say I did the same thing she did, but I never mentioned I'm black, you're black, they're white.
Never!
It's even more powerful.
It's even more effective.
Is that tainting the pool?
You're damn right.
Because everybody from that room, everybody from Fulton County, I think he's going to be hearing about this.
This case, every time she walks into a room, she is the most, she is more known around the world than Alvin Bragg, than Tish James, than Jack Smith, than I guarantee you.
This case was it.
Does that?
Are you going to disqualify me because I went and I spoke to people?
Well, you attended the jury pool.
So?
What am I supposed to do?
I'm their elected official.
They want to know what I'm doing.
Have you ever seen a guy named Grady Judd?
Grady Judd is the sheriff of Polk County, Florida.
Lakeland is the county.
Polk County.
I believe it's a lot.
Might be.
Anyway, I've been there a couple of times.
Polk County.
Grady Good.
You ever seen him?
He's the best.
And he stands up there and he says, now this genius came in here and he decided that he was going to rob the bank.
But what this genius said, he met with this genius.
And this genius.
And these geniuses were all arrested.
And when I found out that this man took that little girl, now he's going and he's telling everybody.
He's convicting this guy here and this man took this and abducted this little girl and did unconscionable things to her in the backseat.
Oh my God!
Kill him!
You're tainting the jury pool!
Man hasn't even been, haven't even pled guilty yet.
Not guilty, nothing.
No.
Grady was saying, no, I'm just telling people what I'm doing.
I'm their sheriff.
This is what happened.
Do you have to go into it that much?
Well, what's wrong?
You see what I'm saying?
Mr. Fletcher, you see what I'm saying?
I don't know.
Now, there is a particular rule.
The prosecutor, oh my god, the prosecutor is held to a higher standard than anybody else.
The prosecutor, you must understand something.
He is not merely an advocate.
He is something a little different.
You understand this?
This is it.
Under Georgia law, under Williams, there are two general 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.
Well, there's no allegation of that there where you're actually, you know, faking the evidence.
But a conflict of interest may arise when the prosecutor has, quote, and here is the language, Acquired a personal interest or stake in the defendant's conviction.
Further, quote, a conflict of interest requires more than a theoretical or speculative conflict.
An actual conflict of interest must be involved.
And it goes on and on and there's different types and there's different ways and there's different, you know, the relationships don't really matter.
But here is my question, and this is the thing which is the most important.
And everybody, everybody, and I'm sorry, and I don't want to say this, I don't want to bring up other people, but I'm going to tell you.
I've seen some other people who've been talking about this stuff.
There was a fellow, a nice fellow on Fox News going, oh, it's over.
I'm thinking, it's not over.
You're confusing this.
There is nothing that is over.
There is nothing that is over.
You're not judge.
Donald Trump cannot claim victory.
They haven't dismissed the case.
They want to dismiss the indictment for racketeering based upon what?
No.
It doesn't work like that.
You just move the case.
And what happens is, if the judge says, the judge cannot, here's the thing, I'm sorry, the judge is going to say, I'm going to disqualify you, not for your relationship with Mr. Wade, not for the law, but for the fact that I don't trust you.
You have not only, forget tainted the jury pool, you've tainted the court!
How many times can a judge be lied to, can be so disrespected where he says, listen, this isn't going to work.
I'm either going to recuse myself or put you out of the system, but you cannot do this.
This is the thing I'm trying to tell you.
You don't see these issues.
Sparky says, how about George Galloway's great victory?
He's an MP again.
Did you see him obliterate your boy from Sky News?
I certainly did.
And Mr. Galloway is an absolute ardent proponent and a brave voice regarding a group of people who are absolutely involved and just disgusted by what's going on in Israel.
Oh, this is a big deal.
Did you see also Mr. Sparky changing the subject just a little bit, well not a little bit, a lot, in Michigan?
The non-committals, the unaffiliated, they beat, there were more, I think it was in Michigan, than against Trump.
I mean, this is something which, of course, we're going to have to.
Let me also ask you something too, Mr., and not to, I love what people say, not to change the subject.
I'm not changing the subject, I'm adding to the subject.
Is there anybody here, Sparky, maybe you can explain it.
Is there anybody here who believes that all of these fires...
Now, I'm not talking about directed energy weapons.
I'm not talking about Rothschild blue lights.
I'm attributing nothing.
But do you believe that there's all of these lights?
All of these lights.
Do you believe...
What am I saying?
Excuse me.
Fires, fires.
And that isn't it interesting that the biggest fire in the history of Texas with so much cattle, when there has been an absolute determination to eliminate all that is beef and cattle and pork and lo and behold, it doesn't decimate the entire population.
Do you think there is nothing?
Nothing?
Do you think there is nothing at all that makes people say, wait a minute.
Hold it.
This is the strangest thing I've ever heard.
I don't believe for a moment that this is just some kind of a happenstance.
I don't believe this.
But ladies and gentlemen, I have to tell you this.
I need...
And want, and treat, and beseech you to get those likes up.
I need 9 million likes.
I know that's a lot, but it's a very simple thing to do.
Because the more that you like, and the more that people see this, the more that they become attuned to what we are doing.
Now while we are doing this, let me stop right now for this one second to say...
That we are very, very, very honored to be sponsored by some mighty, marvelous, and wonderful people.
And the best one, the one that I want to bring to your attention, is that great and grand, grand old man of American, American manufacturing genius.
His name is Mr. Mike Lindell, and the product is called MyPillow.
And if you use promo code Lionel, you get a free gift.
Oh, don't take my word for it.
Well, it is time yet again, my friends, to hail and salute our great friends at MyPillow.com.
And if you use promo code Lionel, you'll get a free gift.
No purchase necessary.
Yes, I know, a free gift.
It's a tautology, so sue me.
But first, please listen.
What are we talking about here?
Down Comforters, Flannel Sheets, Giza...
Dream bed sheets, MyPillow 2.0 sheets, slippers, percales, towels, quilts, bedspreads, mattresses, mattress covers, mattress toppers, linens, kitchen towels, bathrobes, name it!
Literally name it!
Items to help you luxuriate and relax.
And they're monster sellers.
Slippers.
My slippers.
That's right, slip-ons, moccasins.
Think about it.
What do they do at MyPillow?
They make things real soft and plush and comfy.
How perfect!
Here's the link.
MyPillow.com promo code Lionel or MyPillow.com slash solidus or virgule slash Lionel or call 800-645-4965 and watch how fast Mike answers the phone.
MyPillow.com promo code Lionel.
Promo code Lionel.
And absolutely the best.
Indeed, my friend, by the way, let me tell you something.
Pam Cornelia said a special prosecutor should be assigned to probe Fannie.
Oh, absolutely!
That will be done.
Not a prosecutor, perhaps, but maybe somebody from the Bar Association or the Grievance Committee.
Sparky says, you referenced that this is the most important trial in Fulton County history, but I want to remind people the Leo Frank trial was in Fulton County.
Ah, yes!
The Leo Frank case, one of the most notorious and publicized cases in the legal annals and the records in the history of Georgia.
A Jewish man in Atlanta was placed on trial and convicted of raping and murdering a 13-year-old girl who worked for the National Pencil Company.
Which he managed before the lynching of Frank two years later.
The case became known throughout the nation.
The degree of anti-Semitism involved in Frank's conviction and subsequent lynching was enough of a factor to have inspired Jews and others throughout the country to protest the conviction of an innocent man.
And do not believe for a moment.
Do not.
Ladies and gentlemen, do not think.
Do not think.
That because some people today may indeed be using the term anti-Semitic too much or too often or too incorrectly, that does not mean that it does not exist.
The Dreyfus affair and others will indicate that.
You see, that's the thing which is important.
And this is something which is important too, my dear friends.
I want you to think about this.
When you say that there is anti-Semitism, when you say that there is racism, I attribute it to somebody saying there is a, somebody has a fever.
You could be 98.7, technically febrile, you have a fever.
And then you can have 103.
Now that's a fever.
There's racism.
And they're racist.
They're a racist.
People say, you know, I don't like black people or Chinese people or Jewish people or fat people, whatever it is.
I don't like these people.
But my dislike never bleeds over into some type of administrative, you know, I'm not going to find somebody guilty or not guilty just because of this.
In this particular case, I don't know how you're going to claim racism with a Fanny says it's a hard time.
You were elected.
You were elected.
Your base is strongly democratic.
I don't know what the African American demographic is, but you can't see.
This is what happens when you keep saying something is racist.
Something is racist.
Recently, there's a lot of these shows.
Let me ask you a question.
There are a lot of these.
If ever you've had jury duty recently, anybody have jury duty?
They have these wonderful things about bias.
Bias.
And let me ask you a question.
Does anybody here have a bias so strong where you could say, don't put me on the jury?
Because if there's a black person in this jury, I'm going to vote against him.
I'm telling you right now.
What if there's two black people?
I don't know.
I don't know what I'm going to do.
But I'm biased.
Anybody?
Anybody here?
Anybody here?
Kimberly says she will go to jail.
She very well could go to jail if If she were President Trump, if she were Roger Stone, if she were Sidney Powell, those lies that she made, oh, would have been most prosecutable.
Absolutely.
I don't think she's going to prison, though.
Or did you?
Sparky says, Leo Frank's sentence was commuted a year or two after his lynching.
If that makes people feel any better, don't you love commuting?
Don't you love appealing?
After the death of her.
Just incredible.
That's still one of the reasons why.
Now let me ask you a question.
Let me ask you a question.
Listen to me.
Let's assume we have a case.
And the defendant's name is, dare I say, Sparky.
That's the defendant.
And Sparky killed these people.
Sparky killed the victim.
Assume this.
But Sparky's black.
And Sparky has a terrible, terrible, terrible defense lawyer.
His defense lawyer was picked by the judge because the defense lawyer is the judge's brother-in-law.
And he has no criminal law experience whatsoever.
He's a probate guy.
He does wills.
Trusts and things like that.
Nothing wrong with that, but...
But Spark, he's guilty.
He's guilty.
And he goes to trial and he's found guilty and he gets the chair or lethal injection or firing squad or whatever it is.
But he had the worst, the worst representation ever.
But he's guilty.
Does that make a difference to you?
Does that make a difference to you, the fact that he was guilty?
But he had terrible representation.
What if, for example, in this particular case, Sparky does not have...
He had a lot of things in his life.
PTSD from the war.
Let's say mild retardation, they used to say.
Mental issues.
They could have raised a number of defenses that could have at least mitigated the death sentence.
Maybe because, remember, a death sentence, it works like this.
You have the guilt phase and the sentencing phase.
The guilt phase is, did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sparky committed murder?
Yes.
Then, then the opposite thing is, okay, that being the case, okay, that being the case, did, now we're into the penalty.
Did the aggravating factors exceed the mitigating factors?
And then we're into the, well, what do you mean?
Well, is there anything about this particular case, is there anything about this particular instance where you're saying to yourself, you know, I don't know if this is going to be appropriate or not for him.
I really don't know.
He had some rough goes.
This is where the mitigating, you know, he suffered some brain trauma during the war.
He saw some terrible things.
He might have had PTSD.
I don't know.
But you know what?
That's that part.
What if the lawyer representing Sparky didn't do a good enough job to at least maybe, you know, not commit to sentence, but recommend life, you know, prison versus the death penalty?
I don't know.
See, to some people it's guilt or non-guilt.
They don't care anything about the sentence.
It's guilt or non-guilt.
It doesn't matter whether you did it or not.
So these are all these considerations that a lot of people don't even care about.
Let me go back to my original question.
What if you're biased?
Do you know if anybody is so biased?
Does this exist?
Are you going to go in?
Are you going to immediately?
I saw this recently.
There was a case where immediately, immediately, during a voir dire, the prosecution was obnoxious and they didn't like him.
They're asking people like, what?
How am I saying this?
Why do I say this?
I like this.
I am a conspiracy theorist and my pronouns are I told you so.
I like that.
I'm going to steal this and give you attribution.
I told you.
By the way, I am not a conspiracy theorist.
I'm a conspiracy analyst.
Gore Vidal said that.
I don't go out of my way looking for conspiracies.
But if they're there...
And by the way, let me also...
I'm so glad you brought this up.
Please don't use the word conspiracy.
I've got to tell you something.
I'm going to change tack a little bit.
Does anybody know who Fran Lebowitz is?
You know Fran Lebowitz?
Does anybody know what she does?
Does anybody know what Fran Lebowitz appears on, well, used to appear on TV.
She'd be on David Letterman.
She wears, you know, the clothes and the cowboy boots and whatever it is.
She does this stuff.
And I'm watching, well, before I begin, Philo T. Farnsworth says, if justice is blind, should the jury see the accused?
Very interesting.
By the way, this is justice, not the trier of fact.
Trier of fact must be able to see, know, hear, understand what's going on.
And by the way, before I begin, you haven't lived, before I get to Fran, I may or may not get to this, because she was saying stuff about vaccines.
She is so outdated.
She is so irrelevant.
It is the funniest.
I was thinking of you when she was saying it.
Anyway, do you know, Do you know that a while back, this is very important, a while back there was a case where when you go to a jury, especially if you spend any time in New York jury pools, you will see people show up who have absolutely, they can speak no English whatsoever.
And they're voters.
They're apparently voters.
Okay.
The funniest thing ever was, it's funny but sad, Chinese man shows up with I think his entire extended family.
When I say there might have been 20 people, in these little rooms, it's like a mob.
Who is this guy?
He shows up, and he's there.
He's got his hat, you know, and the family, and they have the youngest, I guess the grandchild, who speaks English.
He's more Western, I guess, whatever the phrase is.
And they're all standing there looking scared.
And the court personnel said, can I help you?
And they said, we're here to support him.
They said, what?
And she hands him the jury summons, and he said, yeah, this is room, whatever, have a seat.
As they were talking, somebody says, what did he do?
He said, what?
They thought he was in trouble.
They thought he was going before court because he's from China.
They thought they were going to murder him or something.
Or he goes, no, this is a jury duty.
A what?
What's a jury?
Had no idea.
I'm thinking, he was going to vote?
It's the only way you get your name.
We used to have these motor voters.
I don't think we had that in New York.
I don't think the guy didn't drive.
But it was kind of cute, though.
The family thought, oh my god, this is so terrific.
But he thought he was in trouble.
When you see jurors, oh my god.
But then there are these people who ask these stupid questions.
What newspapers?
Do you read newspapers?
Do you read them?
What difference does that mean?
When you could do voir dire or voir dire, it means French, it means to say or to speak, to say the truth.
It also is when you get to question a witness, but when you question the jury, they always ask this question.
Ms. Zena, do you promise to take all the facts into consideration and not form an opinion until the evidence is done?
No, I'm not going to do that.
No, why?
Because I'm a nut.
I'm a nut.
Of course they're going to say they're going to do this.
What are you doing?
Anyway.
So, what I like to do, and we have some jurisdictions are much more liberal when it comes to this.
You can say, Mr. Mr. Cochise, when you got your jury summons in the mail, did you say, what is this?
What is this, a tax notice?
Oh God, it's a jury summons!
Oh no!
Did I touch it?
And people started laughing.
Did you say to yourself, I gotta call somebody.
How do I get out of this?
I gotta know somebody.
Oh, I know what I'm gonna do.
I always heard this.
I'll go and I'll just say, hang him!
It's a civil trial.
Whatever.
Hang him!
And everybody's laughing.
You do realize that you go back into the jury pool.
You do realize, alright?
You don't go home.
You go back into the jury room.
They're not going to send you home.
I'm going to excuse you.
But not for a certain reason.
You've got to always ask that.
Can I leave?
No, you can't leave.
You're going to be here for two days, three days, whatever it is.
You're just not here for this one.
But you know what?
You might see there's some religion.
You might go back.
We're not going to let people just walk out and all of a sudden have this thing.
I one time walked into the jury room.
This room was awful.
They had games with, there's no newspapers, no nothing.
They had games with pieces missing.
And I would build about that.
I said, by the way, did any of you play the game, the puzzle?
I said, there's nothing worse.
You're trying to calm down.
You say, I'm looking for the sky.
I've got one piece more to go.
Where is it?
And it makes you angry.
They laughed.
We immediately, I want them.
I want them.
I'm theirs.
They're my friends.
They're laughing.
And if you defend somebody, and I forget, I said, you probably don't want to be here.
Be honest.
Be honest, nobody says jury duty.
Yes!
And I'm not sure if anybody would want somebody to sit there with jury duty who says, yes!
I said, there is one person there who wants to be here even less than you do.
My client.
Just want to let you know.
Now, what are we doing?
We're humanizing.
We're just getting to know each other.
And they love me.
And we're friends.
I got this stick in the mud over here that says, what newspapers do you read?
I don't read.
What?
The best question ever was, remember, if you're defense, ask yourself, defense, prosecution.
Let's make it easy.
It can be civil.
Civil can be different, too.
But I'd like to ask this question.
Mr. Solak, do your friend call you Lizzie?
Are you the den mother?
Ms. Solak, have you ever been accused of something you didn't do?
Yeah.
How'd that make you feel?
Ooh, that's great.
Everybody's been accused of something they didn't do.
Right?
What does it have to do with this?
How'd that make you feel?
How'd that make you feel?
Ms. Zola, did the police ever make a mistake?
Yes.
Oh, come on.
Yes, they do.
Now I'm challenging you.
No.
Oh, that's on TV.
Today?
Come on.
The police are good people.
They work, you know, the CSI and all that.
No, they can make a mistake.
Are you sure about that?
Are you sure about that?
Because I'm going to tell you something right now, just so that you know.
Our defense is that the police made a mistake.
I want you to know right off the bat, I'm hiding nothing from you.
What are they doing now?
I'm arguing the case.
Not supposed to do that, but I am, in a good way.
Kimberly Kennedy writes, Do you have an opinion that judges tell?
He seemed persuaded by Sado's closing arguments.
Seemed like the judge came off the fence.
I don't know.
It's a very good question.
And by the way, never, ever, ever, ever, ever listen to the judge seeming like he's agreeing.
That's the worst.
Ms. Kennedy, when a judge gives you too much time...
Ms. Kennedy, would you like anything else?
Anything else from your client?
Anything else?
You're going to lose.
You're going to lose.
Why?
The judge is making you look, so you can't say he's unfair.
I gave her all the questions.
If you really want to hear this, listen to oral arguments of the Supreme Court.
Forget what they're doing.
Ms. Zena, do you believe that the gravity of the case is, oh, she asked me a question.
They're just, they're wasting time.
They're convincing each other.
They're not, they don't, they've already made up their mind.
They've read the brief.
They know everything.
They know.
The judge knows everything.
You're not, you're going to, let me ask you something.
Do you know what you tell the judge?
What you do is you tell the judge, I'm going to give you a way out so you don't look like a complete comemied.
That's what I'm going to do.
I'm going to give you a way out.
Here is the case.
Georgia versus Solak.
235 Georgia 115, 1988 Supreme Court case.
Here it is, Judge.
This is how you say, don't look at me.
The Solak case said this.
Give the judge something to hang his hat on, especially in a case involving something as serious as this.
That's what you do.
That's the evidence.
That's how you help him out.
If he's asking you too many questions, I say, oh, that's very interesting.
He knows this.
There's nothing that this guy is saying.
There was a fellow who had, I did not catch his name.
He was very good.
He was pointing things that were wrong.
But I'm thinking to myself, I would have said, what does this have to do with disqualification?
What does this have to do?
And it wasn't, okay, it wasn't disqualification, okay.
You're asking, you're confusing sanctions against the prosecutor with disqualifications.
What exactly did She do.
Here's some good stuff, too, which is important.
And by the way, I so appreciate the fact that you are interested in the law.
Let me see.
There is a...
Hang on.
I want you to read this.
I got some good law for you here.
Thank you.
Oh, by the way, financial compensation doesn't mean anything.
Because they're all being...
Anna Cross, she's being compensated special.
The lawyer who is, I forget, the one who has the racketeering experience, he's very, very good.
I want to show you something.
This was very good, this wonderful piece.
So the arguments come down to this.
The romantic connection between Fannie and Nathan.
You got that?
That's number one.
Number two is the compensation that he received.
That's the worst.
They're paying everybody.
It doesn't mean anything.
And the third is travel with Willis and Wade.
They took together.
That's the weakest.
These are the weakest for disqualification.
This is the most important thing.
Here we go, for example.
This is some cases.
A conflict of interest would arise if, for example, here's some classic cases, okay?
Classic.
This is from Frazier.
A conflict of interest would arise if a defense attorney were to switch sides and prosecute his former client.
That's a good one.
A prosecutor may be disqualified if he is a fact witness in the case against a defendant.
That's a good one.
I call the defendant Fannie Willis.
What?
She's our witness?
Wait a minute.
She's the prosecutor.
Well, yeah, but she knows something about it.
Wait a minute.
Third is, if the conflict of interest may arise due to a prosecutor's relationship with a victim?
Let's say this was the prosecutor is prosecuting a man who killed her daughter.
No.
No, no.
You talk about having a stake in the outcome.
And then a conflict of interest leading to disqualification exists when a special prosecutor is compensated by a contingency fee that is paid only if a conviction is secured because the arrangement creates, quote, at least the right to obtain compensation for a sentence.
That's the best.
Contingency fees.
Okay.
We're going to let you do this, but you have to make sure that you win.
If you don't win, you don't get paid.
Wait a minute.
Now that's going to be tough because this guy is going to start bending some rules.
T says, question line, if prosecutors Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade are willing to lie, cover up an affair, should they serve as prosecutors in these cases?
Well, yes.
And the reason why is simply that that has nothing to do.
With having a stake in the case.
Nothing.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it just shows that we find out that Fannie Willis has entered into, she has tax problems.
She didn't pay income tax.
Let's assume that she currently is involved in an affair.
Let's assume that she gets very jealous of Joycelyn.
And currently threatens Nathan's wife, Joycelyn Wade.
And she's arrested.
Now that may be tough because, now, that has nothing to do with Trump and the defendants, but arguably I could say that has nothing to do with it.
That doesn't disqualify her.
You don't have to be a great person to be a prosecutor.
You don't have to be cleaner than a household.
You could be going through some problems as it is.
Disqualification.
Two cases.
Conflict of interest and forensic abuse.
You've thrown the case.
Conflict of interest.
Conflict of interest.
What's the conflict?
They lie together.
How does that show a conflict?
Just shows they're liars.
What I'm saying is that the judge could say, I don't think you need, I don't think you should frankly be in my quorum.
Why?
Because I don't like you.
And I can't promise the great people of Fulton County that I'm going to be fair because you keep lying.
It's not that you're a conflict.
I just think you're a liar.
And I can rule as a matter of law that everything you have not only tainted the jury, you've tainted the evidence.
You are conniving your attitude, your disputatious, consummations, rude, brazen, disrespectful, contemptuous.
You sit just your attitude every time I see you.
No, no.
This has nothing to do with your conflict.
That's the way to go.
I don't believe you.
Now, that's going to be a different one.
But I think that would be...
And I want to make sure that I...
See, the thing is, is he want to recuse himself?
Get away from that piece of dough as far as you can run.
And the thing, too, is he's a Republican for the most part, right?
Because Kemp appointed him.
If he grants it, he is solid.
With Republicans.
Solid!
What's his hesitancy?
And I would have said, excuse me, we're going to have these arguments, but I want you only to talk about conflict of interest.
Don't tell me about the fact that they lied and they did this in the cash.
What does it have to do with anything?
The judge could have said, excuse me, what does this have to do?
Let's assume they're having affairs.
Ms. Merchant, you and your husband.
Or on this case, does that pose a conflict?
You're both on the same side.
You're married.
What does being married or having a relationship with your co-counsel have to do?
How does that in any way affect this?
Were you lied about it?
Okay, so what?
Remember during the OJ case, it was shown that Christopher Darden and Marsha Clark, they got it on a couple of days.
Working late nights, you know how it is.
You don't see anybody for a long time, you're working on the case.
You know, I mean, it just happens.
That's a different story.
So that's what I want you to understand.
Remember this.
I want you to leave the day remembering this.
Just because she lied, that's not the issue.
Conflict of interest.
Conflict of interest.
If that doesn't work and you want to get her disqualified, come up with something else.
It doesn't.
I'm telling you, it's not.
Conflict of interest is, and they're not going to dismiss the indictment.
That's ridiculous.
It's ridiculous.
But what this does is this absolutely stops the momentum.
It helps Trump innumerably, immeasurably.
And let me tell you something.
Ashley Merchant is the god or goddess of Georgia criminal law.
She did it.
This thing just stopped everything.
And it shows.
Remember, during the course of this, remember what she said.
Remember when Fannie said, you know, this cell hawk thing, that doesn't mean anything.
Doesn't mean anything?
You've been prosecuting how many people in this?
But when it affects me, it doesn't mean anything.
The stories were ridiculous.
Remember how she said, I had to go to Hapeville.
I had to move out of my...
My home.
Why?
Because of all the threats.
And her father stays there?
None of me...
These lies were so stupid!
They were so...
I don't know.
I only went there...
You're in the 22,000 tax...
And still, remember what I'm saying.
Bradley's the biggest oaf.
What are you doing?
What in the name of God?
Now, remember one thing, too.
The bottom line is simply this.
Ash, not Ashley.
Fannie Willis and her crew appeared at the White House I don't know how many times.
At one time, was it eight hours, I think they said?
Edgegaller says defense only needs to show perception under the law.
Not really.
Not, again, conflict of interest.
Where is the If there is a perception of a conflict of interest, if there is an actual, where is the conflict of interest?
I gave you an example.
Where is there evidence that she had a stake in the conviction?
Not that they lied about an affair.
That doesn't mean anything.
Where is this?
But understand something.
This is about getting Trump.
Get Trump.
No matter what.
Get Trump.
Stan Lipman, ladies and gentlemen, remember, whenever you see the name Stan Lipman on any ballot, vote for him.
Stan Lipman, just write the name in.
She promised to get him.
That's per se interest.
No.
Because you know who did that, too?
Alvin Bragg promised to get Mr. Trump.
Letitia James promised.
Letitia James said, if you vote for me, I will get Trump.
That's my...
Not I'm going to keep...
That's really crummy, but that's not a stake.
All prosecutors want to win.
I mean, that's a stake.
You want to win.
You know what I mean?
That's your goal.
The defense wants to win their case.
But remember, it's about getting Trump.
Who was it?
They went to the White House?
How many times?
They had their operative there?
If he had more help than you can imagine, it was GetTrump by every stretch of the imagination.
And the people who have been enlisted to write articles and to respond in favor of Fannie are some of the highest.
Meanwhile, we don't talk about Hunter.
We don't talk about anything else for that matter.
And as we speak, do you see all the stuff that's coming out?
All the stuff from James Biden regarding Hunter?
Okay.
I've been with you an hour and 13 minutes.
You've been too kind.
You've got things to do, dear friends.
Thank you for spending this time with me.
I appreciate that.
T says, by the way, for your answer about lying prosecutors, unrelated, so why are police allowed to lie to suspects?
Oh.
All the time.
All the time.
They can lie about co-defendants that may or may not have ratted them out.
You understand this?
They can...
Oh, it seems rather unfair, but the police are under.
No, they can lie to you about other people who are flipping.
That's why you have the right to remain silent.
Stanley says, no, it's prejudice.
Read the statutes.
No.
Again, I give you a very long dissertation, and I told you, I said specifically, let me see this, Georgia courts have resoundingly rejected romantic relationships between attorneys as a basis for prosecutorial disqualification.
Blumenfeld against Borenstein.
Jones against Jones.
There is no per se rule of disqualification based on marital status.
Absolutely showing that special circumstances exist which prevent the adequate representation of the client disqualification based solely on marital status or whatever.
Doesn't matter.
Georgia Supreme Court said even married attorneys on opposing sides do not suffer.
From a conflict of interest per se.
Quote, we have no authority and none being cited to us for the proposition that married lawyers who are involved in active litigation on opposite sides.
So they do not...
Let me see.
The opportunity for a conflict and potential impropriety between spouses and opposing sides of litigation are greater than those of the same side.
So there is no argument.
There is no perception.
There is no perception of, how do I say this, of any kind of conflict of interest merely because they're lying about that.
None.
Remember, perception of conflict of interest.
Where is the stake in it?
Not that you lied.
Not that you were deceptive.
And I understand, believe me, many of you fine folks are saying, Why is lying not a distinction?
Why isn't that per se?
It's a very good question.
Under this case, though, it means to remove this is a different story.
Sparky weighs in and says, Governor John Slayton commuted Leo Frank's sentence from death to life imprisonment.
People today commonly think Frank was wrongfully accused.
If you read the trial transcripts, Seems he was guilty.
Do you believe that the Scotchboro boys were innocent?
No.
Here's one for you.
Do you believe that the Central Park 4 or 5, do you believe they were innocent?
Do you believe there was nothing involving that?
It is just presumed.
But I know many, many people who are far more involved in that particular case than I, who adamantly, adamantly disagree with innocence and the like.
So it's a different story.
Dear friends, let me just take this opportunity to thank you.
Your questions are wonderful.
I would be honored to have you on my prosecution or defense team.
Sparky, also thank you for bringing up the case of Leo Frank.
Thank you for that.
You have sparked my interest.
Stan Lippman, ladies and gentlemen.
Remember, if you see his name, Stan Lippman, on any ballot, vote for him.
T, just one letter T. Thank you, Mr. Ormisty.
Edge Dweller, thank you.
Kimberly Kennedy, thank you.
Philo T. Farnsworth.
Sparky, of course.
Pam Cornelius.
And Aaron M. Fletcher.
And I do think that is a bow tie.
Remember, I'm not suggesting otherwise.
Never use a pre-tied bow tie under any circumstances whatsoever.
Never.
You understand this?
Never, ever, ever.
Sparky says, those transcripts have gone missing.
My brother, who was a deed dog, read them while they were still available.
Stan Lipman says, collateral motions against Fannie, Alvin, Leticia, nothing to do with sex.
Well, as long as they have something to do with, again, this is important, conflict of interest.
Where is there a conflict of interest?
Sparky writes, although Governor Slayton appeared in JFK's book, Profiles of Courage, was coincidentally connected to Frank's defense team.
Interesting.
Interesting.
I still, for the most part, believe I'm adamantly against the death penalty for reasons just like this.
You can't appeal the death penalty.
All right, dear friends, thank you.
You are incredible.
Remember, if there is a God...
I never got to the Fran Leibowitz.
Maybe I'll get it later.
She is so...
She thinks she is so...
You've got to...
I'll make a reference to it.
Anyway, it doesn't matter.
An hour and 19 minutes.
Wait a minute.
Sparky's not done with us.
He says, it was still a courageous move by Governor Slayton.
Oh, I think so.
Even after the fact.
Absolutely.
Might have been moot.
Or as one lawyer called it, mute.
No, it's moot.
All right, dear friends.
Have a great and a glorious day.
Thank you.
Thank you.
You are just terrific.
Did we have fun today?
Did we have fun today?
That's all I want.
I want you to say, you know, that was good.
I feel good about that.
Learned some stuff.
Met some great people.
We talked.
We chatted.
It was interesting.
An hour and 90 minutes on a rather arcane subject.
Don't tell me that long-form platform or long-form stuff doesn't work.
In any event, tonight, my friends, see you.
See you.
7 p.m.
Don't ever change me that sincerely.
And until then, remember, the monkey's dead.
The show's over.
▲
Export Selection