Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 16, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

08:13:42

Fani Willis DAY OF RECKONING! Trial Day 2 - Viva Frei Live WITH COMMNENTARY!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Oh, hello everybody!
	Okay, I heard myself somewhere.
	Hold on one second.
	Okay, let me get this on here.
	Oh!
	Good morning, everybody.
	How goes the battle?
	It's going to be one hell of another day here.
	Oh!
	I said I'm going to do part of this stream standing up.
	Let me just make sure.
	Are we good with...
	See, now I hear myself.
	Hold on a second.
	What the heck is going on here?
	Viva, where do I see you?
	Not there.
	There, I see myself in locals.
	Yeah, you heard the echo.
	Okay, let me put that on pause.
	Oh, and yeah.
	We're good.
	My ass is so sore.
	I called Gouveia up yesterday after the day.
	I was like, dude, how sore is your ass?
	He was sitting down for 10 hours.
	He did like a before and after.
	Not that anybody cares about my stupid first world phone problems.
	They fixed my phone at the Apple shop.
	It was under warranty, so they replaced the screen.
	Okay, cool.
	I had to go to AT&T.
	I'm not fighting with AT&T.
	They do good service thus far.
	AT&T switched the SIM card to an older phone, and apparently now I can't switch it back for a week because of some security issue.
	I guess I don't want people jumping around with SIM cards.
	Unless I go into the shop.
	All that to say is who gives a sweet bugger all?
	Holy cows!
	I'm watching the highlights from yesterday.
	And it's like, it's comic.
	It's comical.
	It's a movie.
	It's an eight-hour movie.
	It's an eight-hour.
	Britt Cormier, you changed your avatar.
	Unless that's another Britt Cormier.
	Nobody cares about the phone.
	What the hell was I just saying?
	What is that?
	I was not squeezing any pimples.
	What is this?
	Okay, whatever.
	It's a glitch.
	Listened yesterday while working.
	Viva, you're hilarious.
	Love it.
	Oh, I'm putting in the caption.
	It was like, shut up, Viva.
	If you don't want to hear someone making fun of this rampant idiocy in real time, this is not going to be the stream for you.
	Okay, just so everybody knows, there's more or less commentary.
	People give different commentary.
	Nate the Great Brody is live today.
	Robert, watching the Watchers Govea is live today.
	Good Logic, Joe Nierman is live today.
	Benny Johnson, I don't know if he's going to be live streaming it as well.
	He was live yesterday.
	And then you got the, you know, the brain dead commentary.
	Well, I say brain dead commentary.
	The brain dead coverage coming from MSM.
	I mean, I don't even want to share it right now because I don't want to steal copyright crap.
	Watching the MSM coverage of it.
	Is like, it's like, I mean, it's like Wag the Dog.
	If I have to maybe rewatch that movie.
	Wag the Dog, Bullworth.
	What are other movies where they grotesquely misrepresent reality via MSM?
	What are some of the best movies where they've done that?
	Oh, yeah, I want to get Barnes' take.
	Sunday Night Stream, absolutely.
	I mean, but this, look, it's predictive.
	It's a godforsaken shit show.
	I mean, that's what it is.
	Insanity.
	Hotdog.
	High-tech hotdog.
	That is a high-tech hotdog he got there.
	I mean, it's a joke.
	I'm trying to think, like, can you imagine the judge, after hearing all of this, says, we're all good?
	Continue on with this prosecution?
	I mean, if only for Fannie Willis' demeanor yesterday.
	She's an unhinged lunatic.
	I was thinking about it.
	I put out a summary.
	Oh, shoot.
	Are we...
	Hold on a second.
	I'm going to put the noise on in the background so I can hear what's going on.
	Okay, no, they're not live yet.
	I don't think so.
	Chat, tell me if...
	I've got the same network that we watched it on yesterday.
	AFN, Atlantic...
	Atlanta...
	ANF, Atlanta News...
	something.
	So let me know.
	It hasn't started yet.
	I think we'll know when it starts.
	I just lost my thought.
	Oh yeah, I put out a summary of the video of the eight hours of trial yesterday.
	And I realized as I was doing it, I actually feel bad for Nathan Wade right now.
	I feel bad for him.
	Someone said, and I think they're right, that he's a poor schmuck.
	I'll pull the Jamie Raskin poor schmuck because we're not talking about Ray Epps.
	We're talking about a dude who was, you know, probably working very hard, probably lonely in a broken marriage.
	Wants to get a booty call and gets it.
	And he gets some perk benefits out of it.
	And they're like, yeah, this is all great.
	And then the poo-poo hits the fanny.
	And then fanny throws Nathan Wade under the bus.
	And this guy, he's a southern gentleman.
	I'm sure he's a nice guy.
	But...
	He is, oh my goodness, he's screwed in every respect.
	I mean, in the way that he was looking for and in the way that he was not looking for because, oh my goodness, is his wife going to be getting a big fat check out of that marriage now?
	He's going to get in trouble in the marriage.
	He's probably going to get in trouble with the IRS.
	I don't care that, you know, he's a Democrat and he's on the goods.
	He's going to get, mm, because the IRS is money over politics.
	And I'm going to try to focus on the rumble chat today and the vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	ANF, Atlanta News first.
	Thank you.
	That is Alan Ribs in our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community.
	Well, let's see when we get started here.
	Oh!
	Is it on?
	It's on.
	It's on Right Let me know if the audio is too high or too low.
	For me, it sounds good.
	And then Mr. Floyd.
	I can't tell yet.
	I heard there is an amazing pushing update.
	All right.
	Not seeing Mr. Floyd present today or anyone on behalf of his counsel.
	Oh boy, Mr. Floyd is gone.
	He received notice that today would resume.
	And so I will...
	I think a finding that he's decided not to attend.
	Oh my god!
	Round two.
	Alright, anything we need to take up before resuming?
	We have someone from the gallery.
	Nathan Wade is not there.
	This is already off to a good start, people.
	Okay.
	And...
	And Mr. Floyd has decided...
	Not to come?
	What exactly?
	Mr. Floyd is halfway to Mexico right now.
	Oh, God, look at that.
	It was at that moment that he realized that he screwed up.
	It sounds like it's a deliberate choice for Mr. Morrison not to be present this morning, and the defendant was certainly here yesterday if he joins later.
	Otherwise, I think we can call that a voluntary waiver.
	Okay, I agree, and I haven't heard anything else from...
	Mr. Morrison or any other counsel?
	How is the audio, locals?
	Let me know.
	Is there anything we need to take up before resuming testimony here?
	Let me start with the state.
	I'm sorry.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	Yesterday, the state had asked that Ms. Yurdy be held in case we needed to recall.
	I let her attorney know last night after speaking.
	We don't intend to recall her.
	And as far as the state's concern, I know she'd already been released from the other side, so there was no reason for her to recall.
	Yeah, Ms. Yurdy.
	Ms. Merchant, can we be excusing Ms. Yurdy?
	I talked to her attorney last night and I said, hey, we had a different conversation, so I think she's still on standby.
	So your position has changed since yesterday?
	Well, based on the state's representation that they may have rebuttals.
	Come on over to Rommel.
	I don't know what that is.
	So if they present something in rebuttal that I need to call her to talk about, then I...
	All right.
	We'll address it as it comes up.
	What else?
	Anything else, Ms. Cross?
	Not from the state, Your Honor.
	Okay.
	Ms. Merchant?
	I know that we're still in the middle of Ms. Willis.
	Oh, we're in the middle of Ms. Willis.
	Do you want to do that now, or would you rather do that before Mr. Bradley?
	When you say address them, what do you mean?
	Well, there's a couple different issues, but we've got the privilege issues, one of them.
	But I also, what I did was I drafted all my questions, and I thought I could give those to your report, Six months of cash in your house people.
	The judge is not going to care about this.
	He's going to say, don't worry, I'll come to my decisions.
	I'm not swayed by what they say.
	And he said that he didn't tell Mr. Abadi any of that information.
	He doesn't know where Mr. Abadi got it from.
	Mr. Abadi says that he did.
	So, you know.
	If there's any clearing of the air that needs to happen, and if we need to get to that, I think the right time would be once we've actually seen all the evidence that comes out.
	Thank you.
	I just wanted to let the court know.
	And in terms of the privilege issue, if you're planning to recall Mr. Bradley and you've actually typed out some specific questions, then yes, I think that would be helpful and might allow things to proceed a little more efficiently through his testimonies.
	To the extent you've got those typed out and are willing to provide those to counsel for Mr. Bradley and the state, I'd encourage you to do that.
	And when we...
	Before we call, we can get into that as well.
	Okay, great.
	Thank you.
	I have one copy for Evans.
	I know Mr. Abadi was objecting to privilege yesterday, but I think it's actually Mr. Evans.
	So I wanted to say one.
	Mr. Evans is here.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Anything else from any council?
	We'll make sure it's still in place.
	The rule is still in place.
	All right.
	I'm not seeing anything else.
	If we could bring back in Ms. Willis.
	Actually, you know, the state has no further questions for Ms. Willis.
	All right.
	Shut up.
	Okay, Ms. Merchant.
	Next witness.
	She just said the state has no further questions for Ms. Willis.
	We are about to hit the privilege.
	There we are.
	Okay.
	Oh, that's answered.
	Council need a moment to take a look at her questions.
	I need to be louder.
	And then do we have Mr. Bradley somewhere in the whereabouts nearby?
	They just...
	Fanny's not coming back up.
	We'll hand in his client.
	Oh, shut the front door.
	We need you to notify yourself for the record, sir.
	They said they had five hours for Fanny.
	Are they going to get to that in...
	So apparently the government or the prosecutor...
	No more questions for Fannie.
	So Merchant's going to move on to her next witness.
	Nathan Wade is gone.
	Not there.
	Do you have a time estimate of when he's supposed to be here?
	Is my audio...
	Where's the doctor in relation to here?
	Compared to the audio of the...
	I can't.
	No, she's not resigning.
	He's currently driving here as we speak.
	He's at the actual doctor's office, as we speak.
	Fanny, fanny, bo banny, banana fanny, fanny, me, my, mo manny.
	And...
	See, that's a troll, and that's a legitimate...
	All right.
	I wasn't told 10 or 10.30, but...
	Sure.
	Ms. Merchant, other than Mr. Bradley, did you have any other witnesses?
	I can't believe it.
	They don't say this last night.
	They left everybody hanging overnight that Fannie's going to come back.
	I think we can use this time to do that.
	Why don't you all take a moment to look at the questions and then let me know when you're ready to proceed.
	My part of it does have to do with questions.
	I know these gentlemen are looking at the same time.
	I think you're about to maybe make a legal qualification here, so why don't we hear what you've got.
	Yesterday it sounded as if the witness was going to decline in the answer to any questions at all in relation to communications, observations, or anything, be an intended source or otherwise, that took place during the time of the alleged 25th privilege relationship, which is 2015, I think, before the press.
	I understood that as referencing not simply attorney-client privileges, but what we commonly refer to number 146 as competences and secrets, which are not covered by the attorney-client and are not barred from testimony or evidence in a courtroom.
	But it sounded as if the court was going to have to order Mr. Bradley to testify.
	And then Mr. Bradley will have to take a position of whether he's going to follow the court's order, heed the court's order, or whether he's not.
	If he does, then we'll be able to get in hopefully the questions that this merchant has prepared on Mr. Roman's behalf.
	If he says, I'm not going to comply, then theoretically we're in a position in which the court will have to hold him in contempt.
	And then, at that point, my guess would be that somebody would say, I would like him to keep him.
	I think that's a good thing to flag now, and I agree that yesterday during the hearing there was some intermingling of 1.6 in attorney-client privilege, and now having had the time to kind of parse through that, and it does seem that there is a distinction between the two.
	One is not covered by the evidentiary privilege in pulling the case of Tennant Healthcare Corp.
	273 Georgia 206.
	Supreme Court doesn't make that distinction.
	So to that end, Mr. Evans, as we work through these issues, I would say that when Mr. Bradley takes the stand, I would be directing him to respond and be responsive to any questioning that may be covered by Rule 1.6.
	That would be the order of this court.
	But that still reserves the issue of attorney-client privilege.
	So as you're reviewing those questions, we'll keep that in mind, and I'll be interested to hear your response.
	Like, does this judge ever blow up?
	He seems like he's just suppressing the range.
	Anything else you think we should clarify before we take a break to look at the questions?
	So what questions...
	Do you have a copy for me?
	Yes, I do.
	Oh, the questions that they had asked Bradley that might violate solicitor-client privilege, I think.
	The exhibit that I would want filing, would you like that as well?
	That's something I would like.
	So I have an objective of filing.
	Do you want to file it?
	No, that I'm going to use Mr. Bradley's testimony.
	help but wait and I can use it every trick but I gave them a friend yeah I realize I don't have my, uh, the right thing.
	Okay, so they're going to look over the questions that they're going to ask Bradley to determine whether or not...
	All right, and, uh, counsel for Mr. Bradley, I'm sorry, can I get your name one more time?
	I didn't write it down.
	Maybe I'm Ward.
	Mr. Ward?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	All right, Mr. Ward, if we could get some regular updates of where he is and how he is progressing towards the courtroom, and then when everyone has had a chance to read these questions in the interim.
	Let me know when we can take this up.
	Mr. McDougal.
	I have a text message from one of Mr. Floyd's lawyers.
	Okay.
	Is someone joining us by...
	Thank you.
	Is someone joining us by Zoom that wants to appear for the record?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Chris Kucherov for Mr. Floyd.
	All right.
	Thank you, Mr. Kucherov.
	And I think we had a legal assistant here announcing on Mr. Floyd's behalf, but I think it would be better to have counsel of record.
	Any announcement in terms of Mr. Floyd's presence this afternoon or, excuse me, today?
	Okay.
	I'm sorry, Your Honor.
	Did you ask a question?
	Yes, sir.
	So, Mr. Floyd joined us yesterday, but I do not see him here today.
	Do you have an announcement about his presence for today's hearing?
	He will not be present, Your Honor.
	All right.
	Okay, thank you, Mr. Couturro.
	All right, we'll be in recess without hearing from the parties.
	For how long?
	Okay, so let's see if we catch any hot mic here.
	Look for demeanor.
	Okay, there you go.
	That's Anna Cross.
	She does not like...
	She does not like...
	Anna Cross does not like Ashley Merchant.
	Okay, here we go.
	Thank you.
	like a bad bar mitzvah here.
	Like, what's the thought process of a camera person now?
	Oh, there!
	Hey, don't forget me!
	Listen, people.
	It's Dog the Bounty Hunter meets Steve Bannon a little bit.
	Oh, now they're muting it.
	Alright.
	Well, let's see.
	Yeah, there's a guy.
	He's channeling both Dog the Bounty Hunter and Steve Bannon in the good way.
	This is...
	Alright, so can we appreciate, I guess the biggest news of the day, is Big Fanny Willis...
	I'll take this out and bring it back if I hear anything.
	Big Fanny Willis is not taking the stand again today.
	That's how bad it went yesterday.
	If anybody...
	They don't want to ask her another damn question that might open her up to redirect from Ashley or Trump's attorneys.
	Wow.
	That's a shocker.
	And now they're going to go through some procedural thing to...
	Fannie's lawyers told her there's no way in hell you can get back up there.
	I mean, it's so bad.
	They've fled the country.
	They haven't, and I'm not spreading rumors.
	Fannie Willis doesn't get back up on the stand.
	Anna Cross is...
	No, that wasn't...
	Was that Anna Cross?
	I think it was Anna Cross.
	She's like, we have no more questions and we do not want to see her ever again or even...
	You recall what happened yesterday?
	All of the defendants had their questions.
	They ended the day.
	Yesterday, the judge asked, before they ended, how much time do you have?
	And I thought Anna Cross, or whoever it was, said hours.
	Let me see if I can pull that back up again.
	And they have decided not to call her back up.
	Holy cows.
	And Nathan Wade has absconded from wherever.
	Oh my goodness.
	Let me just go back to yesterday's stream and see if we can find that.
	As I do that...
	Let's see what's going on here.
	on Rumble.
	We're good on Rumble.
	That's what I remembered.
	And I remember saying like, oh, four to five hours, then we're going to get, then it's going to go into Monday.
	The judge is in on it, says leg day reps.
	No, I don't think so.
	The judge, dude, first of all, if you think the judge, I don't think the judge looks partial one way or the other.
	I think he looks wildly patient, but also very, very meticulous.
	I don't think he's in on anything.
	I think this judge gets it, and I don't know how after seeing this debacle, anybody can possibly say, yeah, this looks okay.
	This is how justice should be doled out.
	A bunch of freaking hacks is what's going on in there.
	Fannie's lawyer said there's no way you can go back here.
	So that's it.
	It's like a bad bar mitzvah, a bad wedding.
	Like, oh, let's all sit here.
	Nobody really wants to be here.
	Now we've got to talk.
	Except there's no alcohol.
	I mean, it's like, I always said, like, court is like Vegas.
	Without the drinking, without the gambling.
	It's just a sad, depressing place.
	You're in a windowless room.
	I mean, look at this.
	Look at this place.
	Who the hell wants to be there?
	I just think like the judge spends all day yesterday doing this.
	He's taking notes.
	And by the way, okay, so let's talk.
	In as much as I have a recollection of the practice of law, 13 years of trauma, people.
	The judge taking notes is always a good sign.
	I don't know if anybody remembers this anecdote.
	I shared it, but like...
	I'll share it again.
	When I was a young lawyer, and I had the propensity to talk fast, and, you know, you think, oh, you're going to rattle stuff off to the judge, and I'm there with my mentor.
	I won't mention his name, because he might get canceled just by association.
	No, I'm joking.
	And I finish my pleading, and I sit down like, ah, yeah, I nailed it.
	And then my mentor looks at me, and he's like, did you notice the judge put down his pen?
	I was like, I didn't notice that.
	He's like, if the judge puts down his pen, he's not taking notes, he's not processing anything that you're saying anymore.
	And so that's always been a number one lesson for young lawyers or lawyers out there at large.
	If the judge stops taking notes, chances are they've stopped listening.
	And this judge is taking a lot of notes, and he gets it also.
	He gets the points that he doesn't need them belaboring.
	So yesterday in the cross-examination, the examination of...
	Of Fanny Willis, who says Mr. Bigfoot might be too hungover from Grey Goose, because she likes Grey Goose.
	You know, he's like, I got that point.
	I don't need you to belabor it.
	I understand that there's a contradiction, if not a lie, on X, Y, and Z. So we don't need to go and belabor that point.
	So that's it.
	And now, so what's going to happen today?
	They have Yurdy, the woman who subletted her condo to Fanny Willis, on standby.
	They're gonna have Bradley, and then they had a number of other witnesses that they were gonna use to impeach, allegedly.
	Fannie, maybe Fannie, no, maybe Fannie had to go in and take some cash out, because you have to have, as a woman, you have to have, the whole thing, I was gonna play a drinking game whenever she said as a woman.
	Now we don't get to do that today.
	I feel deprived, actually.
	I feel denied of the joy I was gonna have.
	Actually, before we get started, I just wanna, I wanna...
	I want to show this off.
	This is what came in the mail yesterday.
	As we were ending, you all know who that man is.
	Take a stand.
	And I love this.
	So this is a podium.
	One is for me.
	I can use it for my computer when I want to stand up to stretch my legs out today.
	And the other one we're going to auction off for a charity.
	Do we do it here?
	I have to figure out the logistics of how to do an auction.
	Legally also.
	There might be some...
	There might be some issues.
	The other one is here, which we're going to auction off.
	Don't yell at me.
	They were playing the highlights yesterday.
	Oh, don't get cute with me if you don't want me to answer back.
	Holy crab apples.
	So that's it.
	We'll see what happens here.
	This might end today, actually.
	That might be the good news.
	I don't know who they have left on the witness stand.
	So Bradley is one of the partners of Nathan Wade.
	Campbell is the other partner of Nathan Wade.
	Bradley is also Nathan Wade's attorney, at least as of 2015.
	And was invoking solicitor-client privilege, which basically would preclude him from answering any questions, even as it relates to the business relationship, personal knowledge of when Wade started stooping the fanny, and so on and so forth.
	I predict this judge will break the internet.
	My prediction is in.
	The judge is going to disqualify Fannie and Nathan Wade.
	And I think he's going to have some...
	This is the same judge that said, Ashley, well done, or good job, counselor.
	Oh, oh!
	...a sudden recess moments after starting, really.
	This is mainstream coverage.
	Thank you for joining us as we continue to follow and take you out live through day two of a disqualification hearing for Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis and Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade.
	I'm Maria Moreau, joined by anchor Rick Fulbaum.
	Rick, yesterday was something that we couldn't take our eyes off of today.
	A lot of people expecting a continuation of that as evidence presented.
	But as we saw moments ago, The judge calling a recess, waiting for parties in this evidence hearing to arrive so that they can proceed.
	That's not what happened.
	Dynamite.
	Pull this mic up, people.
	I don't care to watch this.
	Listen to this.
	Yeah, well, apparently too many eyes and ears were on it.
	All right, look, I'm going to put this on mute.
	This is crap.
	Where is it?
	Nobody was anticipating any kind of combative back and forth like we saw yesterday, but another chance for her to take the stand and perhaps explain and defend herself against these charges that she has, you know...
	I'm already bored listening to this.
	But they didn't call her to the stand.
	So that was a bit of a surprise.
	I think people were expecting to hear from her.
	That was what we were anticipating.
	But then we found out right at the beginning of today's proceedings that she was not going to be testifying.
	What does that tell you, sir?
	The defense team is calling back to the witness stand someone who tested Okay, we're going to put that on pause because I don't want to just play their content and react and just watch crap.
	How are they going to spin this?
	She did so well yesterday that she didn't need to come back.
	Alright, let's see what's going on in the rumbles here.
	I don't know what we're going to do here.
	I'm not your buddy guy says, I heard the judge is still new and is up for re-election.
	I pray he does an honest job and further states that the current case against...
	Oh, I can bring this up.
	No, I'm not your buddy guy.
	Hold on one second.
	I can stop the screen here.
	I don't think...
	I'm going to check if the judge is up for re-election or if he was appointed.
	I thought he was appointed.
	I heard the judge is still new and up for re-election.
	I pray he does an honest job and further states the current case against Trump must be redone if not stricken as fruit of the poisonous tree.
	Hold on.
	We're gonna do something in real time here.
	Stop screen.
	And we're gonna see if he was indeed Scott McAfee.
	Scott F. McAfee, American judge, elected.
	I don't think they were elected.
	Scott Judge McAfee.
	Atlantic Circuit, he assumed office on February 1, 2023.
	Governor Brian Kemp appointed McAfee in December to replace.
	So I don't think he's up for election.
	I think he's appointed, so he doesn't have to worry about that.
	If anybody in the chat knows whether or not these judges...
	This is from Ballotopedia, for whatever that's worth here.
	Let's bring this up and just learn in real time how this works.
	I don't think I understand how the appointment versus election of judges works in America yet, but...
	So former President Donald Trump was indicted.
	What is this?
	He's presiding over that case.
	Noteworthy cases.
	McAfee received a bachelor's degree in music and political science?
	Is that a joint degree or are those two separate degrees?
	Emory University and a JD from the Georgia Law School in 2013.
	Prior to his appointment to the Superior Court, McAfee was the Inspector General for the state of Georgia.
	I'm telling you, this guy's a hard ass.
	In a good way.
	Nope, the dog has just walked into the office.
	The blind dog walks in, has no idea where he is, why it smells in here.
	Then he looks around and sees Pudge on the floor and then understands everything.
	So this is the...
	Okay, hold on, I'm just going to close the door here.
	Nope, that was too hard.
	Okay.
	Yeah, so I don't think the judge is going to mess around too much.
	I think this judge is going to get it.
	So stop the screen here, and let's go to locals and see what's going on there.
	Poli-sci majors are always leftists, says incognito984.
	I don't know if I agree with that.
	I mean, but the music also is not a music degree.
	Political propensity, I would go with more lefty than righty, but it doesn't matter.
	This is the thing now.
	This is the indication that we can all surmise from all of this.
	It went so badly for Fannie yesterday.
	It was such must-see TV yesterday.
	Drama.
	Days of Our Lives meets L.A. Law that they didn't want more eyes on this.
	Someone on Twitter today, in response to my tweet, you know, the trial continues today.
	I like the person and we're friends and I'm not saying this to make fun of them.
	You know, this is a distraction.
	What are they distracting us from?
	And I'm like, this is that from which they have been distracting us, and it now has got hundreds of thousands of eyeballs on it in real time.
	This ain't the distraction.
	This is what they are distracting us from.
	A corrupt, criminalized prosecution's office.
	Persecuting a president to try to indict and jail him and anyone in his orbit.
	And they've got too many eyeballs on it right now, so many eyeballs, that they say, holy shit, Fannie, pun intended, you're not getting back on that stand if you think you made yourself look good yesterday.
	Uh-oh, Florida dad is mad.
	My dad has two music degrees and sings in a quartet with John Ashcroft, not necessarily left.
	No, I know, we're joking, we're joking.
	But no, this is it.
	It was must-see TV yesterday.
	Oh, hold on a second.
	I realize I didn't have the audio off, but then I turn it on and all of a sudden my ears are ingesting MSM rubbish.
	But no, the other thing is the distraction.
	I hate the distraction trope or the distraction reflex because first of all, nothing is a distraction when you can focus on more than one thing at a time.
	And second of all, you can always say it.
	Oh, this is a distraction from this or that.
	This is what the media did not want people paying attention.
	Can you imagine what we saw yesterday?
	It's not just Trump, by the way.
	I mean, Trump is just the bullhorn that is making the world realize the degree of the corruption of prosecutors' offices across the country.
	How often have they just outright screwed people who don't have the means, who don't have the bullhorn, who don't have the political clout to fight back and expose the corruption?
	I was listening to Rogan, and Rogan had on, the guy's name is Dubin, Josh Dubin, who represents wrongfully convicted and people who get exceedingly excessive, unjustified, unwarranted...
	Sentences for certain crimes.
	And I gotta tell you, until January 6th came around, I never fully appreciated the degree of the corruption and the brokenness of the American criminal justice system.
	Both in terms of the incarceration industrial complex and the criminal prosecution process.
	I mean, criminal in the actual, it's...
	It's criminal, like coercing sentences.
	And they say, oh yeah, well, they pleaded.
	Yeah, they pleaded because you threatened to put them away for life on bullshit charges.
	So they plead down to these lesser charges.
	I've never fully appreciated it.
	January 6th woke me up to that in the States.
	Even if some of these people did break the law, sure as hell didn't break it in the way that would warrant ruining their lives and locking them up for the rest of their lives.
	And then in Canada with the Coutts Four.
	The Coutts Four, you know, four of the Coutts individuals, members in Coutts, Alberta.
	You know, you...
	Imagine you arrest, charge someone with conspiracy to commit murder against an RCMP officer, and then when they plead to an innocuous possession of a firearm in an area where you weren't supposed to possess one, that's justice after two years of locking you up and basically torturing you into a confession?
	The judge is up for re-election in four months.
	Newt Gingrich said that this morning on Fox News, says Jennifer Dawkins.
	Okay, so let's try to figure this out.
	Is Scott McAfee married?
	I don't care about that.
	Is Scott McAfee up for re-election?
	Oh, okay.
	So let's correct this in real time.
	Hold on.
	Bring it up here.
	Let's see which one it is.
	McAfee.
	McAfee is running for re-election to a full four-year term as state judge in May of 2024.
	There you have it.
	If we can trust Wikipedia.
	Let me just make sure I'm not missing the hearing.
	Don't shut the screen.
	Oh, what do we got here?
	Continued verbal diarrhea coming from MSM commentary.
	In August 2023, he was assigned to the racketeering case in which former President Donald Trump and 18 co-defendants are accused of conspiring to overturn the Georgia presidential election results.
	What a load of shit.
	Fannie Willis has overseen the prosecution.
	McAfee is running for election to a full four-year term as a state judge in May 2024.
	Okay, so I think we can rely on that.
	I think that's, you know...
	Scott McAfee.
	Scott McAfee has done for six months.
	He is now assigned to...
	The 34-year-old?
	He's 34?
	He's probably 35 now?
	Okay.
	So if we can trust Wikipedia, and I guess on that matter of fact, we can.
	So he's up for re-election.
	So here's the question.
	Which way do you think the politics is going to push him in this?
	I think the politics is going to push him to...
	That might be my own bias.
	I would say the politics would push him to disqualify Fannie and Nathan Wade.
	I don't think there's any way anybody looks at this and says they can stay on the case.
	And he can watch and say, look, I'm not going to interfere with the charges.
	We're going to disqualify counsel and the prosecutor and the external counsel.
	And if a new district attorney or outside prosecutor decides to maintain, pursue these charges, it'll be up to their better discretion.
	And then the political question will be on them.
	Okay.
	We'll see if I'm right or wrong.
	Viva.
	My blind dog just walked into the office and saw the other dog.
	Please explain.
	He sees with his nose and his ears.
	Even when my wife steps foot in the studio after eight hours of...
	Hot streaming with two smelly dogs.
	She walks in and she's like, mm-hmm, this smells like a locker room.
	This is why I can't host guests in my home studio.
	Smells like caca.
	And what do we say here?
	Okay, so I haven't missed anything there.
	In the vivabarneslaw.locals.com chat, we got Viva, you have to watch two documentaries.
	The Trayvon Hoax, Unmasking the Witness Fraud.
	Hold on, I just lost it.
	This was a tipped chat from Hum64.
	Viva, you have to watch two documentaries.
	The Trayvon Hoax, Unmasking the Witness Fraud that divided America and Europa, the last battle.
	I will.
	I remember enough about the Trayvon case to know that I would not...
	I would not trust or rely on any of my initial impressions of what happened at the time.
	I was not woke.
	I was not awakened yet to everything.
	I did not follow it in the degree that I now realize you have to follow things so that you do not get misled and misinformed by the media.
	Still nothing happened in the trial.
	And I wouldn't rely on anything that I ever thought I believed about that case.
	That's the disconcerting thing about the red pill.
	You go back and you're like, holy shit, how far back do I have to go and reassess what I just took for granted as facts?
	My entire family is in Atlanta and they are all pissed.
	They want the charges dropped.
	He should lean toward remover, says Billy Boy.
	I don't know how anybody who's from Atlanta could not be pissed about it.
	Because this is the thing.
	I'm not playing the race card.
	If you're a black defendant in Georgia, you should be outraged by this.
	These are incompetent.
	Corrupt nincompoops running a criminal justice system.
	And I think that's what's coming out of all of this.
	Anybody who wanted criminal justice reform cannot be looking at what they're doing to Trump and saying, well, that's cool.
	I'm sure they have never done this to other disenfranchised people who didn't have the means to fight back.
	You can't do that.
	And so whatever end of the political spectrum you're on, unless it's lock them all up, you have to be outraged by this.
	That and they come off as utterly incompetent, utterly unhinged, utterly entitled.
	Can you imagine?
	Six months of cash, by the way.
	So I was just trying to think of that.
	What does that mean?
	If you're a single, let's just say you're a single woman.
	Let's say you're a single person.
	You spend about $1,500 a month on, I don't know, rent food.
	So you should have, let me see, $9,000 at all times cash in the house.
	Are you out of your effing mind?
	And then let's just say, hypothetically, you're a family of five.
	I should have $45,000 cash in the house just in case the fanny hits the fan?
	I mean, it's delusional.
	I only drink Grey Goose.
	You're a prosecutor.
	You're a district attorney.
	Nobody cares about your proclivities and your propensities to find vodka.
	By the way, Grey Goose sucks.
	I shouldn't say that.
	I don't like vodka to begin with.
	An emergency fund is, you know, what do they say?
	Cash?
	Cash, guns, and a getaway.
	Something along those lines.
	No, but it's just so wild.
	And by the way, to pull out the pity.
	My daddy.
	Oh, he'd be so disappointed with me.
	They're rerunning clips from yesterday.
	Let's bring this up just so we can see some of these clips.
	My dad would be so disappointed with me.
	Playing the dad card.
	He'd be anybody to foot my bills.
	The only man who's ever footed my bills completely is my daddy.
	Unhinged.
	And again, some words from the Fulton County District Attorney.
	Oh yeah, look at her.
	He took you back out here.
	Oh yeah, was it worth it?
	Live to this courtroom, still in recess.
	Judge Scott McAfee saying he's waiting for parties to arrive in this evidence hearing.
	And that really is, his focus today is hearing evidence before making a decision on whether the Fulton County District Attorney will be allowed to stay on the case or if she's determined to be.
	You heard it there, people.
	That's the amazing insight.
	Of MSM.
	The job of the judge is to hear the evidence and decide the issue.
	I think the judge is going to be pissed that the witness is not there.
	So the only question is going to be, whose fault is it?
	If it's Bradley, and I think Bradley is the one who's not at court, somehow not showing up, maybe there's a bona fide miscommunication, but Bradley, in as much as he is Ashley Merchant's witness, I think would be qualified as a hostile witness.
	And so if he's not there, he's not cooperating.
	And judges don't like wasting court time.
	They don't like having their time wasted.
	And they don't like...
	The administration of justice...
	Do you guys understand how much this all costs?
	This is what...
	Another thing a judge told me once.
	And then you put a dollar figure on it.
	A day at court, administratively, ordinary circumstances.
	This is Canadian dollars, so it's like, you know...
	$5 American.
	It costs about $10,000 is what a judge told me.
	Between the judge, the clerks, court staff, real estate infrastructure, it costs about $10,000 a day for court.
	And so the judge says, at least said to me back in the day, he's like, you're going to come here for a 14-day trial for a $150,000 claim.
	You're going to run up $150,000 in court costs.
	Assuming that you're at $2,000 a day as a lawyer, which I was, I was pretty cheap.
	Cheap and can't do math.
	$2,000 a day is going to be $28,000 lawyer fees.
	That's just for one party.
	Then you get the other party.
	In this case, you've got however many defendants.
	They're not all there, but their counsel is.
	You've got the DA.
	You've got Bradley.
	You've got Yurdy.
	You've got Campbell.
	I don't know if he's there.
	The sheer squandering of taxpayer dollars over this on the administrative end.
	Is astonishing.
	And a judge doesn't like a witness who doesn't want to be there clearly.
	We saw Bradley yesterday.
	We'll see the first witness.
	Yeah, didn't want to be there.
	And if there's blame to be placed, the judge is not going to enjoy this.
	Now, Jeremiah's Dick Fitzwell.
	Oh, that last name is Dutch, eh?
	Whistlepig, 15-year-aged oak rye, worth the price.
	Let's just go see what that price might be.
	I know it's expensive.
	I remember Whistlepig.
	Whistlepig, 15-year.
	15-year, $750.
	$320.
	Well, there's a couple.
	15-year straight ride?
	Whistlepig 15-year is $350.
	Then you got the Boss Hog Commandments.
	Okay, that's not the right one.
	So Whistlepig 15-year straight ride looks to be between $3 and $350.
	Oh, I'll give it a try.
	I've been known to enjoy a snifter of port at Christmas.
	We've got a ton of Rumble Rants in the Rumbles.
	I'm going to put the audio on in the back and I'll hear it.
	You might hear my brain start to melt and drip out of my nose.
	Listening to...
	I can't, I can't.
	I'll have to go back.
	This is actually...
	It's actually...
	Oh, hold on.
	Any minute now.
	Okay.
	Let's do a couple of crumble rants, and then we're going to bring it on here.
	Wesley1924 says, Viva, you're still new to the States, so I'll tell you.
	Fanny is a very...
	I'm reading a chat.
	This is not approval or disapproval or commentary.
	She's a very typical African-American woman.
	She may be a bit more reserved than average.
	It's neither approval or condemnation or anything to read the super chats.
	The one thing I will say, I am new to the States, the racial tension in the States.
	I mean, it's bad in Canada, but we don't have the same demographics in Canada, but the racial issue has never been as pronounced in Canada as it is in the States.
	Everything, I see it, everything comes back to race in the States.
	And, you know, scene color.
	It's called racism.
	Nazi in color called racism.
	I don't know when it got this bad in the States.
	I suspect it was slightly with Obama because it got bad in Canada with Trudeau, oddly enough.
	So, yeah, there's that.
	All right, and then we got...
	Thanks for all you do.
	You have 400,000 followers now.
	Time to buy a chair.
	Here's some money to help.
	I'm getting a chair.
	If we had 400,000, by the way, yesterday, I said I'll shut up about the round number.
	Until we get to 499,998.
	But thank you all, by the way, for being here.
	I hate those tweets.
	Thank you all for the support and the tweets.
	No, I'll thank you personally live.
	Thank you all for the support and thank you for being here with this ongoing journey.
	But yeah, we hit that nice, beautiful round.
	400,000 subs on the Rumbles.
	And it's fantastic.
	All right, we've just got one.
	Crash Bandit on the top says, you have to give it to Soros to fund the people that would lock you up and then use them to go after your enemies.
	I also don't like the fact that this perpetuates a lot of stereotypes.
	You got George Soros.
	He's not doing it because he's Jewish, but he's an old Jewish man funding these corrupt EAs, and it perpetuates stereotypes on both ends.
	You can't ignore it, and you can't blame people for noticing.
	I mean, this is why my father always said, you know, whether or not I like it, I represent a group of people, thousands of years of history, and if I act badly, for right or for wrong, people might be wrong to generalize, but they will.
	And so you represent, and you should act accordingly, and act with dignity and righteousness, but I'm sure Soros in his twisted, demented mind thinks, you know, he is righteous for doing this.
	I gotta believe the IRS will be investigating Mr. Wade at the very least, and Ms. Fannie!
	Why does she have so much frickin' cash?
	Just a cool 10 G's.
	Just a cool 10 G's.
	Okay, nothing's happening yet.
	My left-wing ex claiming that Fannie killed it and was a boss lady yesterday.
	Did I imagine her in...
	Tails, she did so badly they didn't bring her back today.
	I mean, that's the end of it.
	She did so badly that her own attorneys didn't want to examine her.
	That's not doing good.
	I have someone who cannot be controlled and anyone who tries to spin it any other way is lying.
	She cannot be controlled and they did not want to open the slightest crack for any continued redirect or re-examination from Ashley and Al.
	So no, period.
	Anyone who says that is an idiot, a liar, wasn't watching or is trying to spin because hope springs eternal.
	I'm just going to keep going back and...
	Okay, we're still not there yet.
	We got Crash Bandit Tales.
	Viva, you're still new to the States.
	Okay, I got that.
	Thanks for all you do, 400K.
	Thank you.
	Oh, I'm not your buddy, guys.
	I was just telling you what I heard.
	No, so I think we've established that he's up for re-election, or he's up for election for a full year.
	I don't know how the system works, but Wikipedia might be rubbish for political stuff and opinionated stuff.
	But as a matter of fact, if that was factually incorrect, I mean, it wouldn't have made it there.
	Amonzine512 says, I could have listened to any number of live streams on Spaces on X today covering this hearing.
	There is no comparison.
	Your commentary is the BEST, capital BST.
	Thank you very much.
	Okay, I'm just going back to see what they're doing there.
	So they're waiting.
	Any minute now, people.
	Any minute.
	Whichever witness was supposed to be there.
	Transpose says, not showing up this morning shows me she doesn't have any respect for the authority of the court.
	It's a fair point because everybody's scheduled accordingly to her coming back tomorrow.
	That might be why they don't have a witness right now.
	Judges don't like it, but my goodness.
	It was clear that she didn't have respect for the authority of the court when she sat down.
	Give me those papers.
	Give me those papers.
	Give me these.
	Okay.
	We can come out now and just see what's going on with AFN.
	I want this.
	Screen to be removed from my computer here.
	No.
	Why am I seeing that?
	Okay, there we go.
	I got rid of it.
	Let's just see.
	Oh, oh, oh.
	Do we go back to hearing?
	Listen to this.
	Listen to this.
	Would be up to that prosecutor to decide how to proceed in pursuing former President Donald Trump and 18 co-defendants in a RICO case that really has rocked all of Georgia and captured the nation's attention.
	Can you believe they're still trying to save this bullshit case?
	Oh, it's rocked it.
	The only RICO criminality going on here is big Fannie Willis, Nathan waiting in the fanny, and...
	A corrupt Georgia district attorney's office.
	That's the only RICO that's been going on.
	They're really killing the momentum here.
	This might have been an attempt to kill the momentum of what was going on.
	Let's just see who else is...
	If I go to YouTube landing page.
	Ooh, ooh, ooh.
	Gouvet is on.
	Yeah, let's...
	Gouveia, let's see what he says.
	Oh, he's got a good ad coming up on his channel.
	Oh, he's got a good ad coming up on his channel.
	Alright, so we're still waiting.
	Let's go to locals and see what's going on there.
	In the chat, people.
	VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	Nathan waiting in the fanny is the quote of the day says Judas Priest.
	And it's early.
	And again, our team here at Atlanta News First are really keeping all eyes on this hearing, on any information that comes in.
	We have our reporter Rebecca Schramm outside the courthouse following closely what's happening both outside of the courtroom and inside.
	But I do want to play for you a piece of this interview.
	We spoke with an Atlanta attorney right here on how Thursday's hearing will impact the Fulton County District Attorney whether she does face disqualification or not.
	Here is what attorney Josh Schiffer had to say.
	If he doesn't say she does, he's a liar.
	Her performance and Mr. Wade's were easily considered evasive.
	I don't believe they answered the questions forthrightly and straightforward in a way that you would expect from people charged with such an important job.
	I was going to judge that guy hardly.
	...to ignore that when he considers whether to disqualify or not.
	Good.
	Fine.
	I agree with that guy.
	I like him now.
	Still in recess.
	Still waiting for Judge Scott McAfee to return and resume the court hearing.
	No, you're not waiting for McAfee.
	You're waiting for the witness.
	That would ultimately decide whether Fulton County District Attorney Fonnie Willis and Special Prosecutor...
	Okay, so let's take that off and take that out.
	And the other question was...
	Oh, going back to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	N. Spence Viva waiting in the fanny was too much.
	We could go there.
	So hold on.
	Let me just make sure I don't forget what I said.
	Nathan waiting in the fanny.
	Done.
	Viva, this is from Killer J. You gotta get the locals people to let me cast video from the app to my TV.
	Rumble.
	Love Rumble, but the two streams are out of sync a bit.
	Okay, interesting.
	I don't know what that means exactly, but I'll screen grab that.
	When there is a recession, do they get paid for that time?
	Oh, when there was a recess, do they get paid for that time?
	Dude.
	Nathan Wade probably billed Fannie Willis for yesterday's court hearing.
	Oh, I'd love to know if he did that, actually.
	That would be funny.
	Michigan Winter Days says, I haven't been this entertained with a court case in a while.
	That's what I was saying.
	This had the momentum of the Johnny Depp trial.
	I don't want to say the momentum of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, because there's nothing humorous about the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.
	At least there was something humorous or sheer entertainment about the Johnny Depp trial.
	This was gaining that momentum, and I think they might have put a little cold water on the momentum that had accrued and developed in yesterday's hearing.
	They're like, holy cows, Fannie, do you know how many people watched you live have a meltdown on the stand?
	I was just doing simple math between Gouveia and myself, 50,000 people watching.
	Nate, Joe Nierman, and Benny Johnson's got millions of followers.
	That was viewed by millions and millions of eyes.
	People could see the scope of the incompetence, corruption, entitlement, and rubbish.
	And they're going to have faith in that?
	You imagine, the judge is going to look at this and say, should these people be handling any prosecution?
	Forget the most important bullshit persecution in the history of America.
	Should these people have a job?
	The answer is no.
	The taint jokes yesterday were epic.
	I mean, jeez, Louise.
	For those of you who don't know what taint is, I'll just go to the...
	Do I do it?
	Let's go here.
	Taint Urban Dictionary.
	For those of you who don't know, taint, a slang used to refer to the perennium.
	For those of you who have never seen a woman give birth, you might not know what the perennium is.
	The part of the body between the anus and the genital organs overlying the pubo...
	Coccygeal muscle.
	Well, now I feel sick.
	I haven't eaten breakfast yet, so I'll just delay that for it.
	But that's what the taint means, for those of you who don't know.
	There's another word for it.
	The chode?
	What's the other word for it?
	Not that anybody really cares about this.
	Anyway, so the taint jokes write themselves.
	So do the names in this case.
	Fanny?
	And they have to make sure everyone...
	It's Fanny.
	Nathan Wave.
	There's nothing really funny about that name.
	What was some of the other...
	Yurdy.
	Yurdy is...
	I thought it was like one of those indigenous houses.
	Or is that a Yurdol?
	Anyhow, whatever.
	Pasha Moyer says, Viva, just in general, a judge can be both appointed and up for election if that judge is appointed to fill the uncompleted term of another judge.
	And that makes sense.
	And we've got Pasha Moyer, who always has the $5.14, which is the area code for Montreal.
	So I think that's a shout-out to the boys back home.
	And then we go, the left has weaponized race.
	That's why I left, says Dave Lara.
	The left has weaponized everything.
	Everything.
	IRS.
	Politics ruins everything.
	What shirt am I wearing today?
	I'm wearing Viva Frye.
	She's just listening to Barnes, never in writing, always in cash.
	Now what the problem is, she had some of it in writing.
	She did the cash app with Yerdi.
	Cash app for Yerdi.
	Cash.
	For Nathan Wade.
	You know why?
	Because she never repaid him for any of those gifts.
	Period.
	Full stop.
	End of story.
	Here, let's see.
	New developments.
	To this courtroom.
	New developments.
	You can see the court reporter sitting there below, still waiting for Judge Scott McAfee and parties to arrive.
	Nothing's happening.
	If you missed the beginning portion of this live stream, we took you out to the hearing, which resumed at 9 a.m.
	Okay, we saw what happened.
	Nothing happened, except for the fact that Fannie's not coming back on stand.
	That's a massive, massive thing.
	Tain't nobody got time for that, says JPizzy40.
	That's a shout out to Sweet Mama Brown.
	What was his name?
	Sweet Sugar Brown?
	Maybe we can play that without getting copystruck.
	The First Scott, we're just going to have fun here until we get the hearing back going, but The First Scott says, don't forget to have a few empty Gatorade bottles handy for your pee.
	I haven't eaten, well I haven't eaten, I'm not going to get to eat for a little while.
	I may need another caffeinated, carbonated beverage with energy in it.
	Because I feel like there should be a Peter Griffin laugh every time the word says taint was used.
	Says I'm not your buddy guy.
	No.
	Peter Griffin only is for duty.
	Eh, duty.
	And I can't find that clip as easily anymore on YouTube, which is driving me mildly nuts.
	Okay, let's bring this out.
	See what's going on in our locals community.
	And get down to the bottom here.
	Viva Taint P. It was terrible.
	It was terrible.
	Imagine, like, the shit that Nathan Wade has gotten himself into, just in the marriage.
	I mean, they're going to settle that because that's not of any interest above and beyond the wife, Jocelyn, and the assets that Nathan seemed to have been not revealing to her.
	So that is a personal private matter.
	I mean, it's a public court hearing, but he's gotten himself into massive trouble there.
	Nathan Wade Campbell, who the hell is going to use him for anything going forward?
	I mean, maybe some people will.
	Another anecdote from the industry of the practice of law.
	For those of you who think I'm just a crazy person that's never done anything in life, I practiced law.
	I was sworn in in 2007.
	I did my internship at Borden Ladner Gervais back in 2006.
	I practiced at Borden Ladner.
	I was a student, did translation work, did research, stagiaire, was hired back as a young lawyer, worked there until mid-2010.
	Had my first kid, had my first midlife crisis, and quit on a sunny Friday afternoon.
	Nothing bad, nothing bad.
	I think the writing was on the wall.
	My mentor knew that I was not enjoying life.
	And I left thinking I would go back to commercial photography.
	They were disappointed because I was of the, what do they call it?
	Pedigree.
	I was partnership pedigree.
	And we see Ashley Merchant back in the house.
	Partnership pedigree, that's not to be arrogant or anything.
	It's probably a little bit of like what they perceived as, what's the word when your parents?
	Nepotism.
	My father was always rated one of the best litigators in Canada.
	He was at Stikeman Elliott.
	The name Freyheit.
	There's not very many Freyheights in Canada.
	There's probably, actually, of the 15 that are there.
	All right.
	Continuing to take you to this live look inside Judge Scott McAfee's...
	Nothing's happening.
	So, my father was a known, reputable, world-class lawyer at Stikeman.
	I think I was a good lawyer as well.
	Reasonably smart.
	Reasonably able to think quickly on my feed to catch people in...
	Damn lies.
	And so the firm, you know, we had a shared vision until I no longer saw myself practicing law in a decade.
	And so I left.
	Then, before I could even get rejected from commercial photography at Dawson College, people started calling me, Viva, we need a lawyer.
	How much do you charge?
	Like, oh, crap.
	Got no overhead.
	I'm in the basement of my parents' house.
	150 bucks an hour.
	Boom.
	Within a month, more files than I knew what to do with, rented an office, and then...
	2010 to 2000, until I wound it up in 2019, 2018.
	2016 was the official, like, no more taking files.
	Built it up into a good boutique litigation firm.
	And so the anecdote, I almost forgot where I was going with this, was that in the practice of law, you tend to have lawyers that have clients that reflect each other's zeitgeist, personalities, spirits.
	You don't really get straight, honest...
	I'm not saying bad cases.
	I'm saying shitty clients.
	Clients who are liars.
	Clients who will be deceitful.
	Clients who will want their lawyer to be a liar and deceitful.
	So you don't get that match.
	What you get are lawyers who you grow to know as being scoundrels that can't be trusted for the words they write on a paper.
	And they tend to have clients that reflect that personality because they need each other in life.
	So, you know, there might be some people that are going to go hire Wade, Campbell, and Bradley now that they know this is their M.O., but they're going to come with liability on a going-forward basis because of what the world has seen now.
	Weaponized taint is about the grossest thing I've ever heard.
	So that's the funny thing.
	They might have a long future in certain types of clients and certain types of files.
	But my goodness, nobody wants to see a district attorney's office working like this.
	Incestuous.
	Corrupt.
	Incompetent.
	Okay.
	The liberals ruin it all here and north of the border.
	And that's it.
	Okay.
	So that was story time with Viva Frye.
	Now if we're going back, attorney merchant.
	Canning some Georgia peaches says C-Wave Drive.
	And we also have to flipping appreciate what Ashley Merchant is doing here.
	I'm not putting any of the negative juju out in the universe.
	And there's no but.
	But!
	You've got to appreciate what Ashley Merchant has done here.
	She got something.
	Back in the early days when she made this motion and she was saying to the judge, look, I appreciate how serious this is.
	This is not something anybody does lightly.
	I didn't draft my motion to disqualify lightly.
	I drafted it with a heavy heart because this is serious shit.
	And not just that.
	Like, it's serious.
	It impugns the administration of justice as a system.
	But Ashley is ruining people's lives here and not criminal defendants whose lives are easy to kill, to ruin.
	I mean, she's effectively destroyed Fannie Willis' reputation.
	She's basically screwed Nathan Wade in the divorce, although that would have happened anyhow.
	It takes balls to do that.
	Proverbial, judicial balls.
	Not literal balls.
	Don't have any insider information about Ashley Merchant.
	So, that's it.
	She took a big risk by doing this.
	Imagine, you're going after a corrupt district attorney.
	Nuhurubadu, when you fight corruption, corruption fights back.
	Okay.
	What I love is at least we have that with which to distract us as we wait here.
	The court system is hurry up and wait.
	So at least the chats and the discussion is going to keep us entertained.
	I'm going to keep Loverboy entertained.
	Who knows what movies that's from?
	Oh!
	Who's going to be the first one to get what that movie is from?
	I'm going to stay here and keep Loverboy entertained.
	I want to see who gets this in the chat.
	Do I think Rumble's going to get it first?
	Or do I think Locals is going to get it first?
	Who's going to get this?
	Hold on, hold on.
	Let me bring this out here.
	And let me go to the chat.
	Oh, Steve!
	Steve, we are kindred spirits.
	Gary Oldman in True Romance.
	Gold Teeth Dreadlocks.
	Oh my goodness.
	Well done, sir.
	Let me screen grab that.
	Oh, okay, good.
	We got some...
	Oh, look at this!
	All right.
	Well, there's some good guesses, but no.
	And it might be from more than one movie.
	That's the other problem.
	So what the hell was I doing?
	I just distracted myself again.
	We're not back at court yet.
	Okay, that's good.
	Although there's somebody back at stage.
	Share screen.
	Back to the day of reckoning on Hrumble.
	I'm interested to hear your thoughts in a future show with Barnes on the sovereign citizen theories and how syntax theory also applies to written law.
	I can message you if you want clarification.
	Hachi, don't take this personally.
	I don't get into that.
	There are certain things which I will not believe.
	No amount of anyone trying to convince me is going to change it.
	I appreciate people believe thoroughly and...
	Passionately about the sovereign citizen not being subjected to the law of the land, Canada as a corporation.
	I don't.
	I know that I won't.
	And it's not a useful discussion for me to have with anybody.
	But not for lack of interest.
	That's it.
	It's like the flat earth discussion.
	I did it with Mark Sargent.
	I'll never do it again because I appreciate where we cross paths and where we lock paths.
	But, no, and I don't think Barnes is too much into it either.
	The sovereign citizen having their, you know, their sovereign courts.
	Okay.
	Don't have to pay taxes?
	Okay, see where that goes.
	Forrest Fisher says, looks like the corrupt district attorney had her dress on backwards yesterday.
	No, no, that would be too embarrassing.
	Hold on, let me see if that's true.
	This is great.
	I'm going to go get rid of the taint.
	Yeah, no, I don't think so.
	Let's see here.
	Okay, here, we're going to bring this up.
	Although, let me just make sure that we're not actually missing the hearing to see if Fanny Willis had her dress on backwards.
	If I accidentally kick myself from the stream, people, the FBI has not come.
	Here.
	What is this?
	What is this clothes?
	Okay, Fanny Willis.
	LOL.
	What the actual F?
	Think Fanny Willis is a hot mess.
	You ain't seen nothing yet.
	Check her dress.
	Okay, so it might sound petty, but you know what?
	Fanny Willis has more than earned a little petty from us.
	Forget that.
	She had her dress on backwards.
	Pretty?
	Petty?
	Maybe.
	Hilarious?
	Absolutely.
	I don't believe.
	I do not believe.
	Hold on, I gotta make sure that I don't have my DMs open.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Chat, we're going to decide if this is accurate.
	That's one picture.
	I don't see what that means.
	I've never worn a dress.
	Who am I kidding?
	I'm not seeing it.
	I'm not seeing it.
	I need to see it from the back.
	What am I supposed to see here?
	The bow.
	Seems like it would be on the stomach.
	It seems that there's room for the chest.
	Although, funny enough, I would not comment on it in real time.
	I did notice it looked like it was applying pressure on the chest area yesterday.
	All right, well, we'll see if that's the case.
	I don't know if that's...
	And the tweet or the article says, not a great look at testifying and defending her case.
	Oh, well, someone's...
	Oh, well, I see here.
	Hold on.
	Back to the article.
	Okay, that looks like the dress.
	No, no, no.
	So, hold on.
	Oh, my God.
	Yep, Fanny wore her dress on backwards.
	Was she rushing out of bed?
	No, she wasn't wearing it backwards.
	the bow was on the front I Oh, maybe she changed...
	Okay, I'm not wasting any more time with that.
	I don't know if she changed her dress.
	I thought I saw the zipper on the front at one point.
	Okay, it doesn't matter.
	It doesn't matter.
	Let me bring this up because I don't know what currency this is in.
	And I hope someone didn't just accidentally...
	Okay, I hope that's not a thousand...
	I know YouTube does not even let you...
	So I hope that wasn't a typo, but...
	Hey Viva, it's been a while.
	Been a bit hard to catch your streams lately, but I saw that you're live at a time that I'm awake.
	And I love your courtroom breakdowns ever since Rittenhouse.
	Peace from Taiwan from a fellow Canadian refugee.
	Matt, how's Taiwan?
	Never been there.
	I've never been...
	The furthest I've been is Egypt.
	And that was 30 years ago.
	Thank you for coming and thank you for being here and thank you for the super chat.
	The rumble, super chat.
	Yeah, Wade's ex-wife just found out...
	That he hides cash.
	That guy is going to be living out of a box.
	Yeah, I mean, it's wild.
	So Fannie's impeached.
	Does that mean the case is over entirely?
	No, no.
	Impeached means contradicted as a witness, not impeached like a president.
	So they've contradicted her.
	They've impeached her as a witness.
	But no, she's not out of the case entirely until the judge, after having heard the evidence, says, yeah, disqualified.
	At the end of court yesterday, defense lawyers still had questions for Fannie.
	Doesn't she have to answer those questions?
	No.
	Well, this is the thing.
	No.
	At the end of yesterday, unless I misremember it, the defense said, we're done, and now it's for the prosecution to ask questions that we may have some and redirect.
	Because any questions that the defense had, they had to ask before they turned over the witness to the crown or to the prosecutor.
	So I think they announced that they were finished with her, that they might have some in redirect, depending on her testimony, which we now know is not going to come.
	So that's it.
	Fanny said they're done due to his misogyny.
	LOL.
	And then we got back to the weaponized taint.
	Okay, so get this out of here.
	Let's go to...
	As we wait.
	Hurry up and wait, people.
	Back to Rumble.
	Fanny's zipper was supposed to be in the back, not the front, and also at the...
	At first, the flag apparel was upside down.
	True.
	Did she change her dress?
	I mean, if she changed her dress during the hearing, then that's bam.
	That's confirmation at one point.
	At one point, it was backwards.
	Unless it's one of those magical...
	What's the word?
	When you have a...
	Unless it's a reversible dress.
	It's the newest trend, you see, in Zoolander fashion.
	You can wear it front and back.
	They call it the fanny.
	The fanny flop.
	The fanny flip.
	Ooh, the fanny flip.
	That could work.
	Okay, it looks like the corrupt district attorney had her dress on.
	Okay, we got that.
	Oh, hey, on a side note, have we got any updates on the Trump ballot SCOTUS case?
	No, we're still waiting for a decision.
	I asked Robert on Sunday why, you know, if it's taking too long.
	He says it's definitely not taking too long, and chances are Roberts wants a unanimous decision, so he might be working the holdout Sotomayor.
	That was Barnes' thought.
	I defer to him on a great many things because I know where my knowledge of American law and politics does not match his.
	So he says, on the Trump ballot score, I thought it was going to be resolved fairly shortly after that public hearing.
	Yeah, I think two weeks is still fairly shortly.
	What was it?
	Was the hearing last week or the week before?
	I think the hearing was the week before.
	And now, did I miss anything here?
	Peter Griffin.
	MSM politics prosecutor Fannie Willis won't testify on Friday.
	Okay, so let's see what this article has to say here.
	Fat fingers.
	I can't navigate my own mouse.
	Okay.
	So Reuters.
	Let's see what Reuters has to say.
	Remove.
	Make sure we're not missing the hearing.
	Something's going on because this is long.
	Even for an unplanned break, like, the judge should be saying, like, get someone on the stand so we're not wasting a full hour of a seven-hour day.
	Oh, man, unless the judge just comes back.
	Okay, that's it.
	No more witnesses.
	Bam!
	DQ!
	Fannie DQ'd.
	Okay, so hold on.
	I wanted to bring up that article that our locals, a rumble.
	Trump prosecutor Fannie won't testify on Friday on misconduct claims.
	Okay.
	Let's hear how the media reports on this.
	The Georgia prosecutor overseeing the election interference case against Donald Trump will not take the stand on Friday in a hearing exploring whether her romantic relationship with another prosecutor posed a conflict of interest.
	Her office said...
	Let's see what their excuse was.
	Fannie?
	Hold on.
	Let me just see if I can just keep...
	Okay, we're nothing yet.
	Fulton County, she was expected to testify after forcefully rebuking defense lawyers on Thursday for delving into her personal life.
	A lawyer for Fannie Willis said she did not plan to ask the district's attorney...
	Sorry, a lawyer for Willis' office said on Friday that she did not plan to question the district's attorney ending her...
	Well, that's not what they said yesterday, though.
	That's the problem.
	Is anybody going to ask why they changed positions?
	Other witnesses, including a one-time lawyer for Willis...
	Colleague and former romantic partner, Nathan Wade, were expected to testify, including a one-time lawyer for Willis, Willis' colleague.
	The one-time?
	Are they talking about Bradley?
	Trump and his several co-defendants.
	Oh my God, listen to this.
	For anybody who doesn't understand what this is, if they're talking about Bradley, referring to him as a one-time lawyer for her colleague and romantic partner, it's a business partner who he used as an attorney.
	Nothing to see there either, by the way.
	Holy cow, you gotta love the way MSM covers it.
	Trump and several of his co-defendants in the election case are seeking to disqualify Fannie Willis and dismiss the criminal charges, arguing that her romantic relationship with Wade Bennett posed a conflict of interest.
	Yep, the accusations could upend the criminal case, accusing Trump and several of his political aides of trying to overturn the loss.
	Oh, we want to hear her.
	We want to hear her.
	Where is it?
	Yeah, you are, Fannie.
	I made that joke yesterday.
	I didn't sleep with him the first day.
	I waited.
	And then slept with him after I hired him.
	Has he ever visited you at the place you laid your head?
	It's a look of terror in her face.
	Let me tell you which one you lied in.
	Right here?
	I think you lied right here.
	No, no, no, no.
	This is the truth, Judge.
	It is a lie.
	It is a lie.
	Manic.
	Oh, jeez, Louise.
	I mean, it's a joke.
	It's making a joke of the system.
	They've made a joke of the system.
	I don't think we need to see that.
	I don't need anybody to foot my bills.
	Defense lawyers attempted to raise questions on Thursday about the cash payments, suggesting there is no record that Willis reimbursed the travel.
	Not suggesting there is no record to suggest that she reimbursed the travel other than her own lying word.
	Okay, winners.
	I talked about this all day in my summary yesterday.
	So that's it.
	That's how the MSM covers it.
	Like fawning propagandists.
	We're still not back up yet.
	Oh my goodness.
	Oh my goodness.
	Oh my damn.
	What's going on in the chat?
	We're going to go back to Rumble or we go back to Locals?
	Let's go to Rumble for a second and read some chats.
	SplatterRGB says, how can an attorney use their own definition of legally being married or not married?
	My marriage was broken, not legally divorced, then answer falsely on numerous affidavits under penalty of perjury.
	He can't until he gets caught.
	Try to establish an innocent framework.
	And for those of you who don't understand the question, this is how Nathan Wade got out of lying in his sworn statement that he did not have, especially under Georgia, by the way, because I think there's a nuance in Georgia law, divorce law, about having an affair.
	He says, oh, well, I answered, yeah, I had not had sexual relations with another woman during our marriage, because as far as I'm concerned, our marriage was irreparably ruptured as of 2015 when she cheated on me.
	But that wasn't even the question, because the question did say up until the present date, including separation.
	The guy lied under oath, but it's in another case.
	What impact is that going to have on this case?
	I mean, it's certainly going to affect character.
	But yeah.
	Okay, well we see a bailiff at the desk now.
	We see a bailiff, but thus far, man, we're still sitting here waiting for court torture.
	Viva, she was clearly doing an homage to crisscross with her backwards dressed.
	It's racist of you to have not noticed.
	You will be punished with the weaponized taint.
	Gross.
	The zipper was supposed to be in the back, not the front.
	Yeah, well, we noticed the lapel was upside down.
	People were pointing that out.
	And she definitely fixed that.
	There's that, yeah.
	Now, at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, where everybody is above average, and if you choose to support the world...
	By the way, Rumble Rants are...
	Well, Rumble Rants are fantastic.
	Super Chats are good, but bear in mind, if you want to support and not give 30% to YouTube...
	Come to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Yeah, we upped the monthly to $10 a month or $100 a year.
	And there's exclusive hush-hushes of the Robert Barnes.
	And if anyone had listened to his hush-hush on Taylor Swift and bet on the Super Bowl accordingly, they would have made some do.
	Some of that serious do.
	Who's going to get that movie reference?
	Got to make some do.
	Some serious, serious do.
	Let's see who gets that one first, if Buckley's going to get it.
	Back to the bottom.
	Some do.
	When we were kids, we used to play this game in the car.
	Movie quotes.
	But my movie quoting ability is now limited to the movies that I saw as of, you know, 20 years old.
	Who's going to get this one?
	Some do.
	Some serious.
	Uncle Buck, dude.
	Amazing!
	The aggregate knowledge of the interwebs is beautiful.
	I watch Viva and Gouveia.
	Those are two good choices.
	Gouveia has been covering this nightly in his streams.
	Like, he's been putting in the blood, sweat, and the tears to quote Fanny.
	And he knows it better than anybody.
	He's been going through the pleadings.
	He went through the 66-page response from Ashley Merchant.
	Dude, you know, I'll do the summary.
	I'm not walking through 66 pages of that unless there's a really, really good highlight to put on blast on the Twitterverse.
	Some do.
	Oh, oh, oh, oh!
	She's been talking to a reporter.
	And they expect court to resume.
	Standing outside of the courtroom.
	Just weighing in on the moment right now that everyone's waiting for.
	For this hearing to get underway.
	To hear from that last person who heavily tied to and involved in Nathan Wade's divorce.
	They're talking about Bradley, his lawyer and business partner.
	I can't listen to this.
	They're talking about Bradley.
	Yeah, he's got a little bit of knowledge, and it's an amazing thing.
	You know, here's a dollar.
	Solicitor-client privilege.
	You can't testify about anything I've ever said to you.
	It's an old joke.
	I don't...
	Oh, yeah, it was from Better Call Saul.
	Or Breaking Bad with Saul.
	But give me a dollar.
	Now everything we say is privileged.
	Nathan Wade pulled it.
	Oh yeah, here's my business partner who's representing me in my divorce that I'm working with, and I can understand that, but now can't testify on anything, any personal knowledge, because it would all be solicitor-client privilege.
	And that was the debate they were having yesterday.
	They pulled Bradley off the stand to say, okay, well, we'll get this from Nathan Wade, and they got Nathan Wade on the stand, who maintained his solicitor-client privilege.
	Yeah, greetings from Florida.
	Steven Mosher, I went for a jog with my wife this morning.
	I don't want to make any Canadians jealous.
	It was just perfect, perfect weather.
	We saw some of those birds with the orange bill, the curved bill.
	Didn't see any iguanas, didn't see an alligator, saw a turtle.
	It was just beautiful.
	I mean, I don't know why old people don't move to Florida.
	I can understand the summer's a little bad.
	But I don't understand how any old person decides to stay in the Arctic tundra of Canada when there's the option of Florida.
	I understand there's six months a year and then you've got to go back to Canada to avoid the sweltering summer heat here.
	But my goodness, it was beautiful this morning.
	Now, Viva, giving a dollar is on a lot of shows.
	Giving a dollar.
	Is on a lot of shows.
	What does that mean?
	Is that a person?
	Let's see what we got.
	Hold on.
	The suspense.
	I'll bring it back up because I don't have to hear her voice.
	Nothing wrong with her voice.
	I don't want to hear that vapid commentary.
	Back to...
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Killer J says...
	Oh, it just disappeared.
	I thought Wade claimed also, at least regarding certain questions.
	I thought Wade claimed...
	I don't know what that means.
	Okay, we got USA Now posts a meme and it says, facts.
	Emerald Robinson.
	Kevin McCarthy is not MAGA.
	He's a grifter.
	Tim Scott is not MAGA.
	He's a glitch McConnell guy.
	Michael Huatley is not MAGA.
	He's a Bushy.
	These are terrible choices to staff President Trump.
	Did anyone make an announcement of staffing yet?
	I haven't followed that, if that's the case.
	And what else do we have here?
	Oh, USA Now says boom.
	And again, still waiting for that final party to arrive into this courtroom.
	If you were with us earlier, we took you out to reporter Rebecca Schramm, who is outside of this courthouse, following closely every development as we bring that to you.
	That last party, by the way, Terrence Bradley, whose testimony is being compelled by the Fulton County judge presiding over this case, Scott McAfee.
	Bradley declined to answer any questions about the relationship between District Attorney Fannie Willis and Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade.
	Now he is being compelled.
	So it is a matter of getting him back into the courtroom to testify, to answer questions.
	Again, we heard a little bit from Terrence Bradley on Thursday that he said he'd been advised by the state bar to Listen to how they frame this in a forgiving way.
	He's a liar!
	Compiling him not having that answer.
	And now it is a matter of waiting for Terrence Bradley to return to day two of this disqualification hearing.
	And we will expect to take you live out there as soon as court resumes.
	Now, earlier there was...
	I'm visualizing like a Thelma and Louise right now, except it's...
	It's Fannie, Wade, and Bradley.
	They're like in a convertible Mustang holding hands, driving to the Mexican border.
	Yeah, they're trying to get Bradley back in.
	It's not a judge who compels him, by the way.
	He was subpoenaed by a valid subpoena.
	And a subpoena is an order of the court, yes, technically, but to try to make it sound like it's somehow the judge's fault for...
	Following the rule of law that allows a party to call the witnesses if they want and a witness doesn't decide if they get to show up or not.
	They can claim privilege and the judge is going to adjudicate on privilege.
	Are they going to drag him in?
	He can be held in contempt if he defies a subpoena.
	Wade, Fannie, Campbell, and Bradley are all frauds, corrupt cons.
	That is hashtag someone else's opinion.
	I think a great many people would agree with it and it is protected opinion.
	One that I think a great many people probably share.
	So hold on.
	Now going back and knowing what was...
	Okay.
	Now hold on.
	USA Now had a tip in our locals community.
	Let me see if I can bring this up.
	I don't know what the graph was.
	USA Now says, Steve Malloy, Junk Science, NOAA released this data yesterday.
	Not one media outlet reported on it.
	Yeah, let's bring this up.
	This is totally unrelated, but we can watch it while we kill some time here.
	I don't know who Steve Malloy is, but I'm going to go follow him now.
	The last eight years have witnessed global cooling despite 450 billion tons of emissions worth 14% of total man-made atmospheric CO2.
	CO2 warming is a hoax, according to this individual.
	But the media can't, won't walk back the CO2 hysteria.
	The funny thing is, like, we would all probably agree that pollution is bad.
	Humans cause pollution.
	Pollution is bad.
	Period.
	The great plastic garbage patch out in the ocean.
	Nobody's going to defend that.
	Clean it up.
	It's amazing.
	Minimize pollution in as much as possible.
	There you go.
	That's RFK Jr.'s environmental policy.
	We should make for a clean environment.
	No lead poisoning.
	No mercury poisoning in the water.
	No plastics in the ocean.
	Keep the turtles from getting bubble butt.
	Bubble butt as we wait for Fanny.
	Okay, we're still waiting.
	And that we all agree on.
	That we have to cripple...
	Our national and local economies so that we can allow China and India to continue polluting at levels that basically negate any CO2 emission reductions in Canada?
	You gotta be stupid.
	Put me on the list of climate deniers.
	And by the way, I called out that son of a bitch Stephen Gilboa in Canada.
	Anybody using the term climate denier, climate denialism?
	Anti-Semite.
	I'll say it.
	I mean, I don't really mean it just because I'm just going to play their game.
	They're dumbasses.
	To use the equivalent...
	Lexicon of Holocaust denial, Holocaust denialism for the climate.
	Go F yourselves, you damn bastards.
	So Stephen Gilboa, if you're watching, minister of whatever the hell you are, incompetent, corrupt nincompoop, go to hell.
	Climate denialism.
	Wade's lack of candor decided Bradley's fate.
	Judge should do the questioning.
	It'd be interesting, Stephen.
	Stephen Mosher, I don't know what the rules are.
	In America, under what circumstances would a judge be allowed to ask the questions?
	So they got the questions.
	That's what I presume was going on.
	I don't know why it's taken so bloody long, but they got the questions that they're going to ask Bradley, and they're going to see what would legitimately touch on solicitor-client privilege.
	Maybe they're looking over and what the judge is going to ask them?
	What case was that in?
	It was one of the televised cases.
	Where there were questions being asked.
	I forget.
	It doesn't matter.
	All of these trials are blending into one.
	My entire life is blending into one.
	One long day.
	Why haven't Wade's visit to the White House been addressed?
	By the way, the slit at the bottom of Fannie's dress was in the back, which is correct.
	But the slit was in the front at one point tonight.
	You also just can't tell.
	People are going to Photoshop images.
	I'm not getting involved in that.
	Who has not worn a dress backwards?
	Let the first one of us who has never worn a dress backwards be the one to cast the first stone.
	So, yeah, there's that.
	Now, let's have some more pontificating from the Rumble community.
	12,700.
	I love it.
	We're three times as many on Rumble as YouTube.
	Here, hold on.
	Let me give everybody...
	Now, I'm not giving the link to people on YouTube so that we can go do things on Rumble that we're not allowed doing on YouTube, but vote with your dollar.
	Vote with your foot.
	Vote with your eyeballs.
	JPizzy40 says, I think the bigger picture here is the prosecutors are going to highlight the fact that Fannie Willis is collaborating with other Trump prosecutors from around the states.
	I'm trying to think of how...
	I don't think that that came up yesterday, though, JPizzy.
	Okay, I'm not sure.
	I'm going to think about that.
	I don't think that that really came up.
	Vote with your taints.
	It says Tails22.
	Gross!
	Then we got a $10 rant from Fireman56, which just says 2. I agree.
	SplatterRGB.
	How can an attorney use their own definition?
	Oh, yeah, we got that one.
	Okay.
	So, look, I'm sitting here waiting, people.
	Let's see what's going on.
	Am I missing anything?
	Ah, yes.
	I can put it back up on the screen.
	Remember this was during Rittenhouse, where we were looking at the...
	Jeez Louise, it was Wisconsin.
	It was Wisconsin.
	We were looking at the seal of Wisconsin, and every time they ended, they would zoom in.
	At least leave it on for a hot mic.
	Boring!
	Okay, I'm going to go to Twitter just to see what's going on in Twitter.
	Something tells me she is not feeling her performance yesterday, says Malcolm Flex.
	Fannie Willis, I just tweeted, Fannie Willis not taking the stand again today.
	Yep, that's how bad it went for her yesterday.
	At least she knows she screwed up.
	I don't even think she knows she screwed up.
	Someone says at least she screwed up.
	I don't think she knows it.
	I think what her lawyer's like, you are not getting your Fannie back on that stand, Fannie.
	End of story.
	End of story.
	Okay.
	Oh, let me stretch up my legs a little bit.
	We're going to go back to vivabarneslaw.locals.com and see what's going on there in the tipped chat.
	What do we have?
	Evil manifest from Brett Weinstein.
	And it's a tweet.
	Let me bring this up.
	Copy.
	France has now criminalized objections to the mRNA platform, exposing those targeted to ruinous fines and imprisonment.
	It's obvious lunacy.
	I'm going to bring that tweet up in a second.
	And now we got, it's another USA...
	Alright, and as we continue...
	Court remaining in recess, but we just want to bring in some context, background, and continue this conversation as a lot of details have stemmed.
	I want to now bring in Atlanta News First reporter, Adam Murphy.
	Adam, you have covered court proceedings, court hearings, this one being historic all on its own, but watching this from a journalistic perspective, from being in Atlanta for so long, what comes to your mind?
	Stunning.
	I mean, like most people, I think, that saw the testimony yesterday, they were glued to it.
	I was glued to it.
	It was actually difficult to kind of do what I needed to do yesterday.
	I was working on a completely different story, but I was just enamored by what was going on.
	This is interesting, by the way, to watch MSM turn.
	It's historic in itself that a RICO case has been brought against a former president.
	Yeah, it's stunning.
	And now this.
	And this is just...
	One big giant mess, quite honestly.
	I think it's really interesting that we heard the testimony, obviously, of the lead prosecutor, Nathan Wade.
	And then out of the blue, we weren't expecting the district attorney herself, Fannie Willis, to actually come into the courtroom.
	But I think she was so disturbed and upset by some of the things that they said.
	She just marched into the courtroom and asked to take the stand.
	She came in.
	She was visibly upset, frustrated, somewhat at times I think I would say a little bit defensive, but yet she wanted to make a point.
	What was her point?
	That she's a defensive idiot.
	What's interesting about all of this is it's going to be a difficult decision for the judge.
	And I know the judge has said, well, we're not going to decide in the courtroom.
	I'm not going to come down with a ruling in the courtroom.
	But really what this all boils down to, it seems like, and there's a lot of, you know, details about the personal relationship.
	What does it boil down to?
	You know, it became center stage, I think, with a lot of the testimony yesterday.
	Yeah, the lies underage.
	But at the end of the day, this is really all about whether the money that they received, that Nathan Wade received, obviously, to do his job, was used for them to go on lavish trips.
	And what their story is between this money was reimbursed in cash.
	So what makes this interesting is there's really no proof.
	Okay, this is amazing.
	That's their story.
	They're sticking to it.
	One might argue...
	Not only no proof, it didn't make sense.
	You were in a relationship.
	You guys were going on these trips and you're prosecuting a former president.
	You would want to have some sort of receipts or documentation to show that you did reimburse money into the use of these tax dollars.
	But at the same time, we're talking about cash.
	And it's very possible that she could have paid back the cash.
	It's not possible.
	It didn't happen.
	This thing is not as big of a deal as one might think.
	And I think she continues with the case if that's true.
	But we just don't know.
	Okay.
	And that's what's so interesting about this movie.
	This is where I turn off the verbal diarrhea.
	It's going to be a 50-50 call by the judge, I think.
	I'll tell you one thing.
	I have to turn that off because it's going to melt brain cells.
	That's as critical as MSM, a forgiving propagandist MSM, is going to get.
	That's already a big problem.
	This guy, I don't know what his political leanings are, but that he will concede it's already 50-50?
	Holy shiot.
	That's bad.
	We paid her back cash.
	Of course, there's no evidence to support that.
	And I increased his salary after he was so good.
	He was so good that I had to give him a raise.
	There's so many jokes in here.
	I could do it all day long.
	That's what Nathan Wade said.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Okay, Brett Weinstein says, France has now criminalized objections to the mRNA platform, exposing those targeted to ruinous and imprisonment.
	It's lunacy.
	The madness must be defeated in France at the WHO everywhere.
	Now let's see what this says here.
	Gotta follow the chain.
	Don't trust anything you read.
	France, any criticism of mRNA is punishable after three years, 45,000 euros.
	Article 4 is central to the new law, which was first deleted but then reinstated.
	That's what they did in Canada, by the way, with their...
	Online streaming act.
	Exclude content creators only to eliminate the exclusion.
	This creates a new criminal offense and criminalizes the request to stop or refrain from therapeutic or prophylactic medical treatment, as well as the request to use practices that are presented as therapeutic prophylactic.
	This means that any resistance...
	So we've got commentary on commentary, and it might not be entirely accurate.
	Now we have to go see what the law says.
	Oh, okay.
	Well, I'm going to leave this open in the backdrop because it's already slightly more nuanced than I would feel comfortable retweeting with approval.
	So I'll have to double check that later on.
	Okay.
	Let's see what's going on here.
	I got a pee already.
	We haven't even had one minute of courtroom.
	Hold on a second.
	I need the phone that functions.
	I don't have the phone that functions.
	Look, when we get back to court, we're going to see what's going on.
	When she replied blood, sweat, and tears, I would have asked, does that make you so very happy?
	Oh, I can't bring up the avatar.
	John Merrick, the Elephant Man.
	I remember watching that movie with my brother.
	William Hurt, right?
	William Hurt or John Hurt?
	I forget what his name is.
	The Elephant Man.
	John Merrick.
	I am not an animal.
	I am a human being.
	And I remember...
	Oh, make myself cry just thinking about the end.
	Do I ruin it for everybody?
	I was sobbing like a little baby watching that movie.
	Of course, I was a baby.
	What kind of parents let an eight-year-old kid watch The Elephant Man?
	Sobbing like a baby with my other brother, Dan.
	Lie in law.
	I'll embarrass him.
	Unless this memory's, like, in an accurate memory.
	We're sitting there sobbing, and we're saying to each other, it's just not fair.
	It's not fair.
	Oh, well, now I'm gonna make myself cry again.
	David Arnold says, they admitted to scheme to conceal shared marital money from the wife.
	Yes.
	That might not be...
	I don't know how that could not be relevant for misconduct here, but whatever.
	Wade spends shared money on trips and then gets reimbursed for his half.
	That means the wife was paying for the trips.
	Oh, but there's also, like, setting aside the whole divorce stuff, there were accusations that he was spending money on the wife's credit card, and she was a single mother raising the kids.
	Oh, dude, it's just so bad.
	Keep your schmeckle in your pants, and if your marriage is broken...
	It's a debate whether or not maintaining a broken marriage, as if the kids don't see through that.
	is better than just getting divorced and not having kids grow up thinking that a loveless marriage is the way a marriage should look.
	Transpo says the bottom line is this.
	Fannie willfully hid the relationship.
	Yeah, well, that is the bottom line.
	Oh, no, no, they didn't hide it.
	They just weren't public about it.
	Bull effing S is what I have to say to that to keep it polite.
	A direct violation of policy in place to exclude any perceived wrongdoing.
	That's the other bottom line.
	It's the perception of wrongdoing, not actual conflict, but even the perception of conflict.
	Oh, wait, we just got another one here.
	SplatterRGB says, "Viva, do a survey.
	How many people online hand their significant other over $2,000 in cash for a payment for whatever?
	Because, yeah, I have $5,000 to $15,000 cash in my safety.
	Yeah, right, my feet are stuck in cow poop." I'll say the answer's zero.
	I mean, even when I went out with, even when I, like, look, I've been dating my wife for so long.
	We used to go on road trips.
	And, like, it was, it's such a wild world just to think back what it was like then.
	When we had, like, $600, $800 in our bank account.
	Debit card.
	When I got a credit card, it was like the best thing ever.
	And we'd go on road trips.
	There would be no giving you cash back.
	I mean, it would be okay.
	You got this meal.
	I get the next one.
	That's what Fannie Wade said.
	He's a world traveler.
	He's got his own agent.
	And then I pay him back.
	Do you know where my phone is?
	It's been delayed.
	They haven't gotten...
	Yeah, okay.
	Well, hold on.
	Maybe she'll come in here and she'll talk about our early days of romance and love and life.
	I'll do a survey.
	Do you remember when you want to talk about dating early on?
	Now?
	Someone waiting for me upstairs.
	Okay, she's got it on the computer.
	Okay.
	She says she got someone waiting for her upstairs.
	I'm like, I hope that means on the computer.
	Nathan Wade is in my house, people.
	Okay, let me go back here.
	Nobody does it.
	Nobody does it, period.
	They did not do it.
	I don't need anybody paying me.
	Then book your own freaking cruise ticket.
	Oh, but he's a world traveler.
	I just want to know, when did they get together to put that bullshit story together?
	When did they sit down and say, We're in big effing trouble right now.
	This is the story.
	You got it?
	You see now, you booked it, and I paid you back cash, yeah?
	Because I can't say I paid you back cash app, because I didn't.
	And you're going to say that I paid you back cash.
	Fanny?
	Not Fanny, Nathan.
	And that's it.
	And we get along just fine.
	Okay.
	Bring this one back up here.
	Add to stage.
	It's like waiting for...
	Election results to come in.
	The bottom line is this.
	Fleet Lord Avatar.
	For those who hear this, tax season in USA.
	Many get refund.
	A small bit goes a long way.
	Donating to Free America Law Center.
	Oh yeah, here we go.
	I'm going to read this one loud and proud.
	Donate to Free America Law Center.
	It's a corporation, so you don't get a tax receipt.
	It's Barnes' center that they use to defend the Amish from persecution.
	And Barnes has explained the benefits of doing an LLC versus a 501c3 or 501c4 in that for whatever minimal tax receipt you would get for a $100 donation, your email is not on a list that can be leaked and collected.
	So Barnes prefers it that way, and I think he's a smart guy for it because it avoids a lot of problems.
	Plus, you make a 501c3 for build the wall, and then you get indicted for alleged tax fraud.
	I mean, what a load of shit that prosecution wants as well.
	We've all forgotten about that.
	And then we've got Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade are the epitome of living in a paradoxical world.
	They just don't pass the smell test.
	And then we got Lake Lady.
	Sorry, Viva, but you are mistaken.
	Most children, given a choice, want their mom and dad to be together.
	Divorce is 95% a selfish choice where the kids suffer the most.
	Kids want parents at home being adults.
	Lake Lady, but I'll tell you this.
	I thought about this, and I absolutely appreciate that that's the rationale.
	It's very difficult.
	Oh my gosh, I almost kicked myself from the stream again.
	It's very difficult.
	For adults who are fundamentally not getting along to even feign getting along to a point where kids, through their observational skills, will not see right through it, on the one hand.
	Or the kids don't see right through it, and they think it's normal that parents, a husband and a wife, act in a way that is clearly, they don't like each other.
	And so, I mean, I think the kids either see through it consciously or they see through it subconsciously or they don't see through it and they're brought up thinking that this is what a marriage looks like.
	Loveless, where people are fighting, arguing, because it's very difficult to get along with a roommate that you used to consider a spouse.
	And so I understand the arguments.
	And I could steal men at both ways.
	I just say, like, there is an argument to be had both ways.
	So, yeah.
	And some of the married couples that I've seen throughout my life that could never stay married.
	And if they were to even figure out a way to do it, there's no way that that would not leave its own trauma on a kid.
	But yeah, there's no question divorce is tremendously difficult on children.
	Okay, now we can take that.
	We're going to take this out and just see, have we got anything yet?
	No, I don't want...
	I mean, I've got food now in front of me and I don't want anyone hearing me sloppily eat a...
	Oh, well, they're playing some highlights from yesterday, so we can enjoy refreshers from yesterday.
	Some might see it, though, as a bit defensive on certain things.
	But she is herself, and she was...
	She is herself, thank you.
	It is what it is.
	And it was really kind of, in my opinion, a bit of a contrast.
	To that of the lead prosecutor, Nathan Wade, I saw him a little bit differently than I saw her.
	Yeah, I feel bad for him now.
	You know, he, at times, just his body language and everything.
	Looked defeated.
	Looked maybe a little more nervous.
	Defeated.
	She seemed pretty confident.
	Confidence.
	All right, I'm done with you.
	Yeah, she seemed confident.
	That's what you call hysteria.
	That's what you call unbridled, frothing, insane rage.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Fanny was Fanny.
	Whoops.
	Fanny's good to fanny, people.
	All right, let's go to locals.
	See what's going on in here.
	In the chat, Mahartza says, I had a friend.
	His parents stayed together for the kids.
	They were each seeing other people for years and shocked him and his brother when they turned 18 and moved out that they were no longer keeping up the facade.
	Interesting.
	Divorce was unheard of when I grew up.
	Yes, I'm that old, says in the belfry.
	Dude, divorce was not unheard of when I grew up.
	But I mean, what's amazing is I won't name any names.
	Nobody's going to care.
	But three of my best friends' parents stayed married.
	And two other good friends' parents got divorced.
	And it was like 50-50 in my milieu growing up.
	Maybe not quite 50-50.
	It looks like I'm getting disagreed with on my take there.
	But maybe someone should pull the fire alarm, says in the Belfry.
	They couldn't make fake receipts because of the IRS, says Jake Jacobs, 62. Alan PTRK says, Viva, apologize to your bride immediately for even joking that Wade is in your house.
	I'm going to pee in my pants if we haven't even started yet.
	Dude, what the hell is going on?
	They might be having a problem dragging Bradley back to the stand.
	And you imagine being so corrupt as Fanny.
	Like, man, she must have everybody by the taint.
	Hmm.
	Okay, well, nothing's happening yet.
	More of the drivel from there.
	I have a guest coming on at lunch.
	Let me see if he wrote me back.
	I hope at 11, 12.30, but we're...
	Oh, God.
	Let's see what happens.
	I don't have my phone for like five minutes.
	Oh, my gosh.
	I've got so many...
	David, are you available today to come on with Owen Schroer?
	Depends on the time, comma.
	I'm live-streaming what we thought would be the trial today, period.
	Okay, we'll see if I can do that.
	Let's see, multitasking here.
	Okay, we got the thumbnail guy.
	I get wished a Shabbat Shalom from a neighbor.
	Thank you very much.
	Same to you, exclamation point.
	Okay, let's see this.
	I got...
	My wife wants me to share the episode.
	Hold on.
	So my wife, my wife, she did a podcast with Freeway Frank on neuroscience.
	Hold on, I gotta...
	I'm sharing this with everybody.
	And if everybody can go and give it a listen, but also, look, not just to support my wife, Freeway Frank does amazing work.
	If you don't know who Freeway Frank is, hold on, I'm trying to do this here, and I'm going to send this to myself via email.
	I'll give it to everybody, and it's about neuroscience.
	I think it's about child upbringing.
	I haven't listened to all of it yet.
	Freeway Frank does amazing podcasts.
	I'd say, like, mildly Montreal Canadian-centric, so, you know, there's a niche audience.
	But this is neuroscience for everybody.
	I'll give everybody the link to that.
	We're still waiting.
	Dude, this might be worth the wait because we might be getting into something extraordinary.
	Okay, inbox.
	Let me get rid of that.
	Let me see here.
	Rumble, rumble, rumble.
	Get some notifications there.
	Link.
	Copy link and everybody.
	Link to my wife.
	Okay, boom.
	This is the podcast she did.
	When you have tense, the time.
	Watch it.
	Share it.
	Drop a comment.
	Show some love.
	I'll share it with our locals community.
	Link to podcast PhD neuroscience.
	Boom.
	Shakalaka.
	Wade definitely came across as not very educated to even be an attorney and understand law.
	What do you imagine?
	He's like, he was a judge.
	A superstar.
	As Fanny Willis said in front of the church.
	A superstar who lied under oath because he played mental gymnastics with words to justify lying to his wife to conceal assets.
	Mother effer!
	How does that...
	These are the people in positions of power.
	I bet Fanny is dictating how Judge should proceed.
	Nah, man.
	I mean, it's a legit concern.
	I was happy my parents got divorced.
	I was 10. It was much calmer in the home without screaming and yelling, yep, Carl...
	I mean, this is like...
	The arguments go both ways.
	It would be an interesting debate.
	I've done the judging at these public speech and debate competitions.
	That would be one I'd love to hear.
	No comma was going to do that Sunday.
	Let me just take care of some housekeeping.
	When Trump said he was being spied on, he was right.
	Of course, when Trump said he was being spied on, he was right.
	Yeah.
	Don't know who this is.
	Oh, okay.
	I can't do that.
	Yeah, it's amazing.
	I didn't have my phone.
	I've been corrected on my pronunciation of perennium.
	Perennium.
	Oy vey.
	But I didn't know that it was also known as the taint.
	Well, I've watched a woman give birth to enough babies.
	Fanny did Nathan's hot dogs.
	I'm not reading that.
	Okay, no, we got that.
	Is anything going on here?
	Oh, oh, oh, oh.
	Woo, woo.
	Awesome.
	Adam, thank you so much.
	All right, bring it on, people.
	out live now into this courtroom here as we continue to bring you live coverage both on air, online, right here on Atlanta News First Plus.
	Thank you.
	What'd I miss?
	What'd I miss?
	Okay.
	I didn't wash my hands.
	Now I'm using my dirty hands.
	I'm joking.
	I didn't pee on my hands either, so there's that.
	All right, now I got a carbonated caffeinated water.
	All right.
	2 p.m eastern now the question is this uh so i'm if i could do a double and it does appear that judge scott mcafee is now re-entering the courtroom you should hear his remarks here in a moment as he brings court back to session and we continue to you might hear the judge talk into this disqualification hearing you might hear the judge talk and the judge might listen to facts and adjudicate With us in person,
	however, there's a proposal to potentially move on to other witnesses.
	That should have been done an hour ago.
	Ms. Cross.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	Yes, in order to be efficient with the court's time, we have a witness here to take out of order, and it sounds as though there's no objection from the defense, so we can do that at the court's convenience.
	We don't know how many people came out of order, but it's our understanding that the government arms are based here to establish the team of the court's choice.
	How did they just waste an hour to come to this conclusion?
	Ms. Cross, did she say it was her first choice?
	Did she not say who was her first choice?
	I don't believe that the governor's name was mentioned.
	I think there are some facts and circumstances surrounding the search for someone to take over the lead of this investigation at that time.
	Now prosecution is something that, given the allegations in the case, is certainly relevant.
	All right.
	It doesn't sound like it would be all that long a witness.
	Anyhow.
	All right.
	So in that case, we can transition over.
	Ms. Cross, I'd like to call your witness.
	Thank you.
	The state would call.
	Why didn't they do this an hour ago?
	Sorry, I just talked over who the witness was.
	Sounds to me...
	Well, Ms. Cross?
	If you want to ask Governor Barnes about his qualifications, that's something you'd have knowledge of.
	I don't know what his basic knowledge might be, but I also don't think that opens the door to anything other than my understanding of what the testimony is.
	As I hear it, the issue of qualifications versus who was her first choice is going to be relevant to her intent, maybe, and perhaps that issue of the case in a whole.
	I don't think that necessarily opens the door.
	We'll see how it goes.
	She would have been sleeping with her first choice if she had gotten it.
	Let's see what Governor Barnes looks like.
	Let's see what Governor Barnes looks like.
	Oh, wow.
	I would so love to know what they're talking about.
	I'm almost done.
	late breakfast.
	It would have been fun.
	to be in the courtroom for this.
	bow tie.
	Alright, do we know who this guy is?
	Because this guy, he's, this guy...
	Looks like he's got stories to tell.
	The cameraman pans across the crowd.
	Everyone sits there waiting anxiously.
	What will the witness say?
	Who is the witness?
	What the hell just happened for the last hour of our lives?
	The man reaches over.
	Oh, they make a joke.
	Ms. Cross, assuming this may be a 10 to 15 minute witness, does the state have other witnesses on deck that they'd like to go forward with as well?
	Yes, we've called to gather everyone we could so we can go forward with another witness, I believe, after this.
	All right, appreciate it.
	Done.
	Now I'm gonna do exactly what I tell my kids not to do: use my shirt like a napkin.
	Why?
	Because adults are hypocrites.
	Adults make rules that they impose on children and don't even follow them themselves.
	If my logo was on anybody's computer, that would be damn hilarious.
	Hold on.
	I don't want to back up.
	Everyone keep an eye out.
	I didn't see that.
	I'm going to try to screen grab that if I see it again.
	And now I can have...
	Although I should mix it with vitamin C, but I'll save that one for the afternoon.
	125 milligrams of caffeine so I can have two of these a day after my morning cup of coffee.
	In comes a man who would clearly be playing golf as opposed to sitting on the stand.
	The cameraman needs to get the money shot.
	Are they doing some sort of offensive right-wing salute?
	I've never seen such a thing.
	That's a joke, by the way.
	That was literally what they accused someone of doing.
	R-O-Y-E-U-G-E-N-E, Barnes, B-A-R-N-E-S.
	It's fate, people!
	Good morning.
	Eva and Barnes.
	Can you tell the court a little bit about your background as it relates to your service in public service?
	I was first elected to the State Senate in 1974 from Cobb County, and I served 16 years there.
	And then in 1990, I ran for governor and was defeated.
	And two years later, I went back to the House of Representatives.
	I was elected to the House of Representatives for six years until I was elected governor in 1998, and I served in that position until January of 2003.
	And after serving in the position of governor, can you tell the court a little bit about what you transitioned into?
	I'm acting your public servant.
	I find this accent relaxing, soothing.
	I did exactly what I was doing before.
	I was elected.
	I went back to practicing law in Marietta, Georgia, with my daughter, who's now a judge of the state court, and my son-in-law.
	And now we have, I think, six or seven lawyers.
	Charlie Bailey back there was one of them at one time.
	Okay.
	And, Governor Barnes, would you consider yourself to be a trial lawyer?
	Yes.
	We don't write contracts or we don't write wills.
	All we do is try cases.
	And I want to direct your attention back to 2021.
	Were you approached by the District Attorney of Fulton County, Fonny Willis, about being a special prosecutor?
	I was.
	I don't recall the exact date, but I know it was sometime in 2021.
	And she asked me to come down, and I met with her and Nathan Wade, and there were several of them.
	And Nathan Wade, okay, interesting.
	She asked me, so they were beginning this investigation, and she asked me if I'd be interested in being special prosecutor, to which I replied.
	She met with Nath.
	That I had mouths to feed at a law office, and that I could not, I would not do that.
	And also, I just had a bad, well, I won't say bad because it happens from time to time, but I just had the FBI to report a fellow, a militia trainer, to me that said they were concerned that he was making threats against me.
	And because I was, I thought it was because of the flag, but I asked him and he said, no, it was because.
	I was "too close to the Jews" and I told DA Willis I've lived with bodyguards for four years and I didn't like it and I wasn't going to live with bodyguards for the rest of my life.
	Ultimately you.
	So he's making it out now that it's a thankless, risky job that doesn't pay out.
	I'm not interested.
	So Nathan Wayne did not profit from it.
	It was actually a sacrifice.
	That's what he's setting up here.
	Ms. Burns.
	Good morning, Governor Burns, how are you?
	Good, good to see you.
	You said it was sometime in 2021.
	Do you remember?
	I think it was.
	I don't remember the dates.
	They all go.
	I could look it up on my calendar.
	Probably should have done that before testifying.
	But I don't have that.
	Why didn't you do that?
	I want to ask you about some statements that Ms. Willis made March 28, 2021.
	She was talking about assembling a team for this case.
	Are you familiar with her work assembling a team for this case?
	Well, I assume that's what she was talking to me about.
	But besides that, I don't know.
	And I know you said you had a meeting with some folks and Mr. Wade was at that meeting.
	Sorry, I'm still stuck on that one.
	So he was with the district attorney interviewing you about taking this case.
	Well, of course, I know Nathan very well, as you do.
	And I exchanged pleasantries with him, but the conversation was with Ms. Willis.
	Okay, a little bit as well as.
	Were you aware at the time that her team consisted of Brian Watkins, Megan Vargas, Sonya Allen, Shannon Trotty, Sal Chan, and John Floyd?
	She had reported that was her team on this case.
	I know John Floyd was involved, and she probably told me the others, but...
	Listen, I barely remember what case I tried last year, much less...
	Not something you should publicize, sir.
	I understand.
	Fair enough.
	I don't know who you are or what I'm doing here.
	She said she was looking to hire more lawyers and investigators to work on this case.
	She told me, it was to me, she said, would you be interested in being special prosecutor in this case?
	And I gave the reply that I've already known.
	I mean, about hiring other lawyers or whatever, I don't know.
	All I can testify to is what she told me.
	Did she tell you at all why she wanted to hire special counsel and not use someone who is an ABA, not have an actual employee?
	Assistant district attorney.
	No, she did not.
	I mean, we did not discuss that.
	Breath smells.
	But I would assume it was because in a case as big as this, that you'd have to have some decision to help.
	I know John Floyd.
	Has been in some cases over the years out in Cobb County, for example, and others.
	Would you agree that an employee of her office, someone who was paid a state salary or a county salary as an ADA, could handle a case like this?
	I couldn't tell you that unless I knew the person knew their experience and really had been with them in a courtroom.
	All right.
	I have an opinion on that.
	Thank you.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Say no.
	Hello, Mr. Say now.
	Winston's getting the leftovers.
	I hope you're well.
	I'm doing fine, just getting older, but that beats off.
	That's true, but that applies to all of us.
	I think you indicated that if you had your calendar you'd be able to pinpoint a date for us.
	I would.
	Is there a way for you, for example, at a break before you actually leave to contact your folks to see if you can get a date?
	Just a minor, minor detail.
	Why didn't they ask Fannie Willis this?
	I don't know how far back we archived those, but I assume I could.
	Would you be willing to give that a shot for us?
	I mean, I'll do whatever the court instructs.
	So if I ask the court and the court says, go ahead and you can do it, that's all right?
	I believe I had email back in 2021.
	I hear you.
	And you should, too.
	I try to live by those words.
	I'm not always successful, but I try.
	If I pinpoint a date, for example, I think the record is clear that Mr. Wade was hired for the position on November 1 of 2021.
	Does that help you at all?
	No, it does not.
	Then let's go to the meeting.
	It sounds like it was just one meeting.
	Yes.
	And could you tell us where that meeting took place?
	It was in the conference room adjacent to the district attorney's office.
	So was it in this adjoining building?
	It was in the Louis Slayton building.
	District Attorney Willis was there, obviously, right?
	And Mr. Wade was there?
	Why was he there with Wade?
	I could be mistaken about that.
	It's like anything that far away.
	But that's my recollection.
	Do you have a recollection of anyone else being present?
	Yeah, there were some other folks, but I don't remember.
	Why was Wade there?
	Were you introduced to Mr. Wade by anything other than you already knew him?
	Oh, she introduced him as her boyfriend.
	So, at least as you're there, if I heard you correctly, Ms. Willis did all the talking, Mr. Wade did not.
	I mean, we exchanged pleasantries, but as far as the basis of the conversation, the reason I was there, Ms. Willis didn't talk.
	And would you be able to give us an estimate of how long this meeting lasted?
	Just rough.
	Probably an hour.
	And during the meeting...
	You made it clear, but it was the thanks for the offer, but no thank you.
	Oh, yes.
	I did.
	...who is now on the witness stand taking questions in the Fawney Willis disqualification hearing at the Fulton County Courthouse.
	The former governor is there because apparently he was asked by Fawney Willis, the DA, to be the lead prosecutor.
	He declined.
	That's a job that eventually went to Nathan Wade and leads us to where we are today.
	So we're going to continue streaming this coverage of this hearing.
	Live, in its entirety, on ANF+.
	You can find ANF +, streaming through Roku TV, Apple TV+.
	Oh my goodness, how dare you do that, you sons of beastings.
	How dare you?
	I'll find a better audio after this.
	We're not falling behind here.
	I've handled...
	Five, that's bullshit.
	I sued Syria one time for beheading a client of mine.
	I guess that's the best hypothesis.
	How's this audio?
	I'll try to find a better one later.
	Yes, I mean we regularly do mass torts, class actions, business torts, breach of contract, and most of those are high complex, our complex requiring many experts.
	I also, we are a lot He did a Syria beheading video?
	I did malpractice defense for about 25 years.
	But since I've returned from the governor's office, I try not to represent an insurance company anymore.
	And I just tried a malpractice case before Judge Edlin in November.
	And those are complex cases because of the type of, you know, medical knowledge that you have to have and also because of the many experts that you have.
	Thank you.
	Did Ms. Willis, and this is the last question, did Ms. Willis tell you why you had been her choice?
	No.
	I hadn't, but, you know, I get consulted fairly often.
	That's better.
	Sorry, guys.
	Would you believe, based on circumstances in which you were given the offer, that it had to do with the fact that you had handled complex and high-profile cases in the past?
	He does a beheading case, but he's scared to take this?
	I know her very well.
	I tried a case against her.
	She worked for the JQC, and I represented Judge Robert Crawford, Matt Crawford, and she prosecuted him and I defended him.
	She beat me at the trial, I turned it around to the Supreme Court.
	So you had some experience?
	Oh, I had plenty of experience with it.
	She's a very qualified young, well, everybody's young to me, but she's a very qualified young.
	After that one occasion, did you have any other contact with her in reference to the position itself or who she might be considering?
	You know, I had some conversations with her or Jeff DeSantis or some of those, but not really an in-depth, you know, about who she should hire.
	Did the name Nathan Wade come up in those conversations with her?
	No.
	Right?
	Yeah.
	Nathan was there, I thought.
	I could be mistaken, but I thought Nathan was there.
	For the conference?
	I think Nathan was...
	I'm positive.
	Nathan was there when I met with him.
	Right.
	And my question was probably poorly worded.
	But what I was asking is, after the conference, and whatever consulting you might have done, did Ms. Willis or Mr. DeSantis bring up the name Nathan Wade?
	I don't think so.
	I don't recall one.
	I mean, Nathan is a good organizer.
	Nathan can organize stuff.
	I've watched him over the years.
	So I wasn't surprised that he was acting as a special prosecutor.
	And Mr. DeSantis, for the record, who was that?
	Jeff DeSantis?
	Jeff.
	Jeff DeSimons.
	Do you know who he is?
	Oh, yes.
	Could you tell us who he is for the record?
	Jeff works in the DA's office.
	I knew him when he worked for Thurbert Baker.
	Do you know what his role in the DA's office is?
	I have no earthly idea.
	Is he in media?
	Does that sound familiar?
	He has done media in the past.
	Jeff has generally been...
	I like Jeff and I'm very close to him, but he's generally been on the other side of my campaign.
	The best of your recollection, conference, we don't have the date, I'm asking if you could possibly get it, but the conference you have, Mr. Wade could have been there.
	Yes, I'm almost sure he was there.
	And Ms. Willis, obviously, and Mr. DeSantis was there.
	I think Mr. DeSantis was, too.
	And as far as whether there's anyone else there, you don't have the present recollection?
	No.
	Okay, thanks, sir.
	Next time I'll take a picture, so I'll have an exact...
	Next time, hopefully, you won't have to be here.
	Well, hopefully not.
	Thank you, sir.
	All right, Mr. Stockham.
	No questions, Your Honor.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Durham?
	No questions, Your Honor.
	Mr. McDougal?
	No questions for the Governor, Your Honor.
	Mr. Rice?
	No questions, Your Honor.
	Mr. Gillen?
	I've been waiting for this.
	I couldn't give up a chance getting up here, Governor.
	Good to see you again.
	Good to see you.
	We've done some work in the past together, haven't we?
	I consider you to be one of my best friends.
	Crackerjack lawyer.
	Well, I will say to you on the record that I can understand why they came to see you because you're the finest lawyer that I've ever worked with.
	Thank you.
	I need to put you in the next day.
	Yeah, there you go.
	We'll get that.
	But one or two more questions.
	Okay.
	You and I working together when it's appropriate, we've had no qualms about filing motions to disqualify the DA, have we?
	No.
	Matter of fact, you and I successfully disqualified the DA out in Cobb County in the Brown case, didn't we?
	We did.
	So whatever needs to be done should be done.
	You represent your client.
	You got that.
	Thank you so much.
	Mr. Couturro, are you still with us by Zoom?
	I am, Your Honor.
	All right.
	Any questions?
	No, sir.
	All right.
	And Mr. Cromwell for Ms. Latham?
	No questions.
	All right.
	Any redirect, Mr. Abadi?
	Can this witness be excused?
	The question is you want the exact date that the meeting occurred?
	And I'm wondering if it's really material of the exact date rather than just its proximity to the November 1st hiring.
	Is that fair?
	If he knows whether it was far earlier in the year versus maybe closer, would that obviate the need for the exact date?
	Okay, let's start there.
	You may take care of it for us, just if we hold in place here.
	I'm not sure I have this.
	Well, let me try this first, Governor Barnes, before you do a deep dive in the email there.
	Do you recall what time of year it was when this meeting occurred?
	Okay.
	I mean, you know how this is.
	The cases and the days glued together.
	I had a fellow a few years ago who said I represented him in 1978, and I told him I'd take his word for it.
	I've got to ask, if you wouldn't do that, it was a question of him saying he just paid you.
	No, I would not.
	I will tell you, I believe lawyers should be well paid, Mr. Senator.
	All right, so sir, is that something you...
	I'll have to look.
	It didn't come up right.
	Okay.
	All right, we'll ask this witness to step down and submit to recall.
	And that might be something the state can present with stipulation as well.
	I've got to show you what my dog looks like.
	All right, thank you, sir.
	All right, so that was kind of a nothing burger.
	Do we have an update on Mr. Bradley?
	This is what Pudge is doing right now.
	The lawyer should be here.
	He's probably outside.
	Look at that thing.
	Look at that thing.
	The last estimation I heard was about 11.30.
	Okay.
	If that's still the case, then, Ms. Cross, do you have another witness available?
	Having brought over it, Mr. John Floyd, not the special prosecutor John Floyd.
	Which one is the one that works?
	Okay.
	And is he heading this way?
	Yeah.
	are Yeah, so that was uneventful.
	I mean, I would even say damaging because why the hell would Wade be at the meeting if he was Fanny's second choice?
	That doesn't make sense.
	Oh, I gotta take notes.
	Damn it.
	Hold on.
	Let me go to my inbox.
	What the heck is this?
	Okay, so I'm closing this down.
	I need to open up an email.
	So we just had Governor Barnes testified he was asked by Big Fanny to take the case.
	Was too close to the Jews.
	He had mouths to feed and didn't want the risk.
	But sued for decapitating someone in Syria and didn't think that was too risky.
	Okay, interesting.
	Sued for Syria decap...
	I mean, it was in Washington, not in Syria, but...
	Okay, those are my thoughts.
	Didn't think that was too risky.
	And that is it.
	So, but the bottom line of his point, his point was thankless job with risk that didn't pay enough.
	Reality, the guy's an 80-year-old octogenarian who has no interest in taking on a case like this at this point in his life, which is why people might want to respect Donald Trump for running for office, because at his age, he didn't need to do it.
	He had his golden years laid out for him, but he saw something bigger.
	This guy obviously didn't see anything bigger in that prosecution.
	To ruin the golden years of his life that he's worked so hard to achieve.
	That's my thoughts on that.
	And that's all I'll say about that.
	Yeah, and he's probably making a butt-ton of money.
	Probably making more money than Nathan Wade.
	No question about that.
	But...
	The question was this.
	Why the hell would Nathan Wade have been at that meeting if Nathan Wade were purportedly her second choice because this guy turned it down?
	That doesn't make sense anymore.
	That has been debunked.
	And that should be the clip and snip and show and share away.
	Let me do that right now.
	I'll do that when the next person says it's done.
	Mr. Ward, we're just holding in place for taking witnesses out of order.
	Do you have any updates on Mr. Bradley?
	Yes, so he is still in this point.
	It may last a few hours.
	However, he's going to make himself available for Zoom if that's possible.
	How do you swear in?
	I mean, I know you swear in on Zoom, but...
	Miss Merchant.
	I was outside looking for them.
	Sure.
	We found it.
	I'm sorry?
	So he is asked whether the defendants would accept his testimony by Zoom.
	As long as I can show him documents if he needs his memory refreshed, then that's fine.
	It is not refreshed.
	It is not.
	The state would have an objection to this, but it's not appearing in person.
	Understood.
	All right.
	Mr. Ward, I think we're going to need continual updates from you.
	Also, some kind of expectation of what this afternoon is going to look like.
	I was never informed of a medical appointment.
	And I think the notice in this hearing indicated it would last at least two days.
	Yep.
	So, right now, I think he's in violation of subpoena, of his subpoena.
	Ooh, she-at.
	Nobody cares.
	For goodness sake.
	That's a serious thing, what the judge just said.
	He's in violation of subpoena.
	Appointments start at 9:00, and it's out of control with regards to...
	No, sorry, you have to miss a doctor's appointment if you're subpoenaed to testify.
	You don't get to pick your schedule.
	I'm just trying to get more...
	I mean, we'd initially been told maybe it was going to be 9, 30, 10. Do we have any better idea of the realistic expectation of when we think we can have him here?
	The judge is getting pissed, as he should have.
	If his, your honor's, we will wish someone in and we have to go back.
	Is he, you know, without getting too much into the particulars, has he already been seen by the doctor and he's waiting for results?
	Or is he still waiting to be seen by a doctor?
	I'm just, you know.
	Where is he?
	Consulting with a doctor.
	And after he gets those results, he was supposed to have another meeting with him today as well.
	What the hell?
	But potentially that meeting could occur later.
	Dude, this is not appropriate.
	If you can get any kind of an update on...
	How much time they think that those results are going to take.
	If it's more than an hour or two, I think we would want to start bringing him here.
	And he can have that follow-up consultation.
	This judge is tremendously patient.
	They're talking about Bradley right now, right?
	I mean, that's who they're talking about.
	At this point, I think we've got something else that can occupy our time.
	I think we need to move forward with that.
	Chat, we are talking about Bradley.
	Yes, absolutely.
	The doctor stuff is bullshit, absolute bullshit.
	He just doesn't want to...
	Right, okay, understood.
	Did they say he had a doctor...
	Before I overreact, are they talking about Bradley?
	Mr. John Floyd.
	Mr. Floyd, if you could have a seat, sir.
	Chad, just let me know.
	They are talking about Bradley.
	If he had a doctor's appointment scheduled today and he didn't say it yesterday while they delayed his testimony yesterday, F that.
	Oh, no, I don't recall him saying he couldn't come back tomorrow after he delayed his testimony because of privilege arguments.
	I do.
	Please.
	A load of crap.
	Let me take that.
	My name is John Clifford Floyd III.
	Good morning, sir.
	Good morning.
	Can you tell the court, are you currently retired?
	Yes, I am.
	And prior to being retired, can you tell the court a little bit about, did you work in the legal career?
	I was an attorney.
	I practiced law.
	I've probably tried a thousand cases.
	About 50% of my practice was criminal law.
	25% of it was family law, and the rest was whatever walked through the front door could pay for it.
	Okay.
	And...
	Can we wait one second?
	I think the governor has come back.
	I do.
	My calendar shows it was October 26, 2021.
	October 26, 2021.
	All right.
	And would Defense Counsel accept it as a stipulation, or is there any follow-up questioning needed on that?
	Mr. Barnes is still...
	When did Fannie confirm she was phoning Nathan Way?
	Thank you, sir.
	You're excused.
	Sir, can you tell the court, are you from Atlanta?
	No, I grew up in South Central Los Angeles.
	I spent most of my legal career, I would say, in Washington, D.C. was kind of the circle, but I've tried cases.
	All over the country, and I tried the longest.
	I was the first lawyer to try an international criminal court.
	I was with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
	I was in trial there for four and a half years in Arusha, Tanzania, and Haig in the Netherlands.
	Okay.
	And when you weren't there, it sounds like your kind of center of gravity was Washington, D.C. Correct, but I've tried cases in West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, Florida, I mean, California.
	All over.
	Yes.
	Sir, can you tell the court, do you have any children?
	I have one daughter, Fonnie Willis.
	What?
	I want to direct your attention back to 2019, okay?
	Yes.
	Back in 2019, can you tell the court, did you move here to Atlanta?
	I was living in Johannesburg, South Africa.
	And unfortunately, for some reasons, I could not get an extended visa.
	When I retired from the practice of law in 2018, I moved to South Africa.
	And I had to leave South Africa, and I did then come to Atlanta.
	Okay, and do you, sir, remember about...
	The time period in 2019 when you moved in with your daughter here in Atlanta?
	It would have been the spring or summer of 2019.
	And after you moved here, did you get a driver's license to kind of confirm your residency in Atlanta?
	Well, my driver's license for the District of Columbia...
	was going to expire on my birthday which is in October and yes I did get a license here in the state of Georgia.
	I thought this was one of Nathan Wade's business partners, people.
	That's why I flipped out for a second.
	This is her dad.
	This is the guy who stayed in her house because he was so scared.
	Your Honor, if you don't mind, my eyes are very bad, which is one of the reasons I retired.
	And so I need a magnifying glass, so I'll be constantly playing.
	Thank you.
	Why would he think the judge would have a problem with that?
	Okay, so this is her dad.
	Dude, don't start a fire.
	It was issued on 9 /28 /2019.
	Okay, so before we get there, do you recognize Stasis Exhibit 2?
	Yes, just my driver's license.
	And is Stasis Exhibit 2 a fair and accurate copy of your physical driver's license?
	Absolutely.
	This time you're out of the state with tender.
	What's been marked as Stasis Exhibit 2 in evidence?
	No, thank you.
	Seeing no other objections, Stasis Exhibit 2 is admitted for the record.
	And for the record, Your Honor, the state is going to supplement states as a 2A with a redacted copy of the license.
	The current copy is not redacted with the address and things of that.
	Do we need to mark that differently in any way?
	I will mark it as states as a 2A.
	Perfect.
	Now, you talked about when your driver's license was issued.
	Can you tell the court when was that driver's license here, your Georgia driver's license issued?
	It was on...
	On 9, 28, 2019.
	Okay, so September 28, 2019.
	Now, when you moved into District Attorney Willis' home, who lived there?
	Well, my daughter lived there.
	I lived there.
	And from time to time, my grandchildren would come.
	From time to time, so would Nathan Wade.
	Were they at school coming and going?
	Exactly.
	I think they were in school in various jurisdictions.
	And during the time, how long did you live with Ms. Willison at her home here in Fulton County?
	She was forced to move after she was elected.
	I don't know if you want me to go through the whole thing, but Your Honor will indulge me.
	After she was sworn in, she was sworn in on January 1 of 2021.
	And on or about the 3rd of February, at probably 5, 5.30 a.m. in the morning, there were people outside her house cursing and yelling and calling her the B-word and the N-word.
	I mean, it was...
	Bizarre, okay?
	I mean, just...
	Mr. Arbani, here's the objection to you.
	I would say it's an effect on Mr. He was present while all these things were occurring.
	Can the cameraman like...
	Stop touching the camera.
	He was personally present to hear these things?
	Yes.
	Okay, overall.
	Okay, and fortunately, the neighbors called the police and disbanded.
	You know, disbanded the group and, you know, it was just, I mean, it was just, I hadn't seen anything exactly like it before.
	And after that happened, can you tell the court?
	Who was the group?
	And what ethnicity was the group?
	Yes, she was forced to leave.
	And can you tell the court after she was forced to leave?
	I hope they ask, like, what race were the people?
	Did you remain at her home in Fulton County?
	Yes, I stayed there really until 2022, I guess.
	But I thought Fannie said it was gang-related, so I'm wondering.
	Did you fear for her safety?
	Absolutely.
	I mean, not only did I do that, I mean, the South Fulton police, they brought somebody, a man with a dog, because there have been so many death threats.
	And they said they were going to blow up the house.
	They were going to kill her.
	They were going to kill me.
	They were going to kill my grandchildren.
	I mean, on and on and on.
	It just became, and I was concerned for her safety.
	And after those concerns came to your attention, and after what you heard and saw that day, you remained at the house?
	Yes.
	And can you tell the court?
	With what you just described, why did you remain living at the district attorney's home here in Folk County?
	I believe it's relevant based on a lot of the questions that were asked yesterday of Ms. Willis about the security threat and the fact that it was implied that those threats were not necessarily Well,
	these South Fulton police, first they put a car in front of the house that was there permanently.
	A police car, that was thing one.
	Thing two, they brought a person with a dog Sometimes more than once a day, twice a day, and they would circle the house to look for bombs.
	I knew that that was a house that my daughter had worked for.
	It was a brand-new house.
	She's the only one who would ever live there.
	It's a four-bedroom, brand-new house.
	Somebody needed to protect the house, and I stayed there to basically take care of the house, to take care of the yard, to take care of that.
	Also, somebody sprayed, again, the B-word and the N-word on the house.
	No cameras?
	I don't think my daughter even knew that.
	I cleaned it off and called the police.
	South Fulton Police, they have, I'm sure, the records of all the things that happened.
	I started believing this, but now I don't.
	And all the neighbors, I notified all the neighbors to look out and to watch out.
	And it was just, it was so crazy.
	I mean, it was just so crazy.
	We'd have people would show up and park car.
	There was a guy parked for probably eight hours out in front of the house.
	You know, it was just, and we'd call the police.
	This all predated the indictments, right?
	Now, at the time that you lived there with Ms. Willis, and I guess even when you remained, so during the time period of 2019 to the end of 2020, are you aware if Ms. Willis was dating someone?
	Yeah, she did.
	She had a boyfriend when I first got there.
	And did you meet her boyfriend?
	Yeah, I met him often.
	And did you know him by any specific nickname?
	Yeah, Deuce.
	And if you tell the court why you were living there, how often would you see him?
	Sometimes every day, sometimes every other day.
	He was a disc jockey or something, and he had all this paraphernalia that I'd have to move out.
	It was a thing with the keyboard, I mean things that played music and so forth.
	Now when you moved in in 2019 and then throughout the years in your 2020, I did not meet Nathan Wade until 2023, about a year ago, when a reporter by the name of Isikoff...
	You said that was in 2023?
	2023, right?
	Okay.
	So all of these threats came well before the indictment.
	What were the threats about?
	Absolutely not.
	How about in the year 2020?
	Absolutely not.
	Did you ever see Mr. Wade at Miss Willis' Fulton County house in the year 2021?
	Never.
	And is it your testimony that the only time or the first time that you met Mr. Wade was in 2023?
	Let me say something.
	Mr. Wade said that he remembers seeing me, and I do remember some banter.
	I remember a Kappa Alpha Psi fraternity, and there's kind of this thing that goes on between...
	Mr. Wade is a member of Alpha Phi Alpha.
	I do remember there was some kind of banter when my daughter was sworn in to be district attorney between me and a couple of guys.
	And he said he remembers me.
	I don't remember him.
	And prior to that experience that you're talking about, as well as your official meeting in 2023, had you ever even heard his name?
	No, never.
	I don't think I have any further questions, Your Honor.
	Dude, I got some questions.
	Fine, how are you, Counsel?
	I just got a couple questions.
	On Monday, we heard you were in California.
	Do you have a place in California?
	What's funny about that?
	What's taking so long?
	People always ask me about where do I live.
	I guess I live right here sitting in this seat right now.
	But yes, the answer is I have place in Los Angeles.
	What the hell is that supposed to mean?
	All right.
	Do you share time or split time between Los Angeles and Georgia?
	Actually, I'm working on a documentary film, and I'm supposed to be being filmed not for this trial, but I'm supposed to be being filmed right now.
	It was planned, and we had to stop it because they asked me to come here.
	Answer the question.
	The answer is I'm working on a documentary, and I'll be in...
	California until I finish the documentary if we don't have another actor's strike and we don't have another writer's strike.
	Too much information.
	So do you own property in California?
	No, I don't.
	I live with a friend of mine.
	You live with a friend of yours.
	Okay.
	And when did you first move?
	Let me qualify with the dates.
	Did you spend any time in 2019 in California?
	Who the hell moves to California?
	No, and the reason I didn't is that when I first came here, the answer is no, I did not.
	What happened was COVID.
	Once COVID hit, I mean, I was just paralyzed.
	I couldn't go anyplace.
	I couldn't go anything.
	I mean, I'm a theater buff.
	I used to go to theater at least once a week.
	But when COVID hit, I just couldn't.
	I couldn't go to the dentist, which I need to do.
	It was just a thing.
	So I was just stuck.
	I was just stuck there.
	I may be wrong, but I believe COVID hit in 2020.
	So I was asking about 2019.
	In 2019, did you spend any time in California?
	Before COVID was even here in the United States.
	Remember, I lived in South Africa and I've traveled the world.
	I knew COVID was coming.
	Before.
	Oh my goodness.
	I knew COVID was around before.
	They may have announced it in 20. Why did you tell us?
	But in fact, I knew about it and I knew what was happening in 19. This guy sounds like a conspiracy theorist.
	So let's walk through 2019 then.
	Let's walk through this.
	You said you moved here in September.
	No, I didn't say that.
	I moved here probably prior to September, and September is when I got the driver's license.
	I probably moved in the springtime.
	I'm sorry, you said spring, summer.
	I see that in my notes.
	So spring, summer 2019 is when you moved here.
	So up until spring, summer 2019, where did you live?
	I lived in Johannesburg, well...
	I lived in Washington, D.C. in 2018.
	I had planned to retire for the rest of my life in South Africa.
	I had worked for Nelson Mandela and the Free Mandela and someone I had gone to law school, he had located there after Mandela was freed from prison and became president.
	I was going to live there for the rest of my life, but unfortunately, because of political reasons, I could not stay in South Africa, and I was forced, in a sense, to come back to the United States.
	So let's just focus in on the period from, let's see, let's just start with October 2019, okay?
	We'll call that the relevant period.
	October 2019 until the end of 2019.
	Were you in Georgia every single day of that year?
	Absolutely.
	So now let's move to 2020, okay?
	And every single day...
	Before I move on, every single day in 2019, you slept at your daughter's house, correct?
	That's correct.
	So let's start in 2020.
	So 2020, the entire year, did you travel anywhere?
	No.
	You didn't travel at all that year?
	No.
	And I didn't go to the movies, which upset me also.
	So that entire year, 2020, you remained here in Georgia?
	Right.
	In 2021, did you do any traveling?
	No.
	So when did you move back, or when did you start this documentary film in Los Angeles?
	What I had been doing to occupy my time was I was writing my own memoir.
	As I delved into my family background, I discovered something, and that's what got me to working on the documentary.
	So I want you to understand what was going on in my life.
	I have a movie script called Bad Blood.
	I have a movie script we're trying to sell.
	So I tried to sell that.
	And I just happened to mention something that happened during the Civil Rights Movement.
	It's called the SNCC 5. The legendary Peter Fitzsimmons was interested.
	And so with Peter Fitzsimmons and Leah Smith, we're now doing the documentaries.
	I don't want to interrupt you, but what I was asking was when you moved to Los Angeles, not what you moved there for.
	Well, you keep saying moved.
	I haven't moved to Los Angeles.
	I spent more time in California, in Oakland, if you really want to just be, because Peter is basically San Francisco-based.
	So we're working on the documentary.
	Okay.
	I was in Los Angeles because I was going to the Pan-African Film Festival, and that's why we were there.
	And the way Hollywood works is, you know, when you make connections and film festivals are a place to try to sell ideas and meet people and organize things.
	You still own property in Washington, D.C., correct?
	No, I don't.
	You don't own property at 1467 Roxanna Road Northwest?
	That's where I used to live.
	That's where you used to live.
	Right.
	Did you own that property?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	When did you sell it?
	You owned that property when you moved here in 2019?
	Yes.
	And you owned it in 2020, correct?
	Well, now you talk about a very complicated issue.
	I left the property.
	There was a dispute between me and I had gotten a reverse mortgage company.
	And there was a dispute between me and the diver, and I just, I walked away from it.
	Okay.
	You walked away from it with almost $300,000?
	Yeah, what is the relevance of that?
	Where he lived and registered to vote.
	That's what they brought in, so that's...
	Why is the money he got from the sale relevant at all?
	It's the only proof I have that he owned that address, so I can move on now.
	Okay.
	When did you sell that property?
	Not the money, he said he sold the property.
	I didn't.
	The reverse mortgage company.
	Took it.
	Took it and gave you money.
	They bought you out.
	So in 2019, when you got your driver's license here, the next day you registered to vote, correct?
	In Georgia.
	I think it may have been the same day, but maybe it was the next day.
	I don't remember.
	But you didn't own property here in Georgia that day?
	No, I was living with my daughter.
	You said that you met Mr. Wade.
	That you remember you met in 2023, right?
	That was the first time you remember?
	Okay.
	And I wasn't really clear.
	You said something about meeting him.
	Was it with Mr. Isikoff or did Mr. Isikoff tell you?
	No, I was being interviewed by Mr. Isikoff.
	Okay.
	And he walked in and I met him.
	That was the first time.
	He walked into the office.
	Where were you being interviewed?
	At the district attorney's office.
	And Mr. Wade walked into that interview?
	Yes.
	So Ms. Willis had not told you about Mr. Wade prior to that?
	Absolutely not.
	So she didn't tell you anything about their relationship before you met him that day?
	No.
	But Mr. Wade remembers meeting you in 2020?
	He said that at my daughter's swearing in.
	I do remember that we're having some banner about fraternities, but other than that.
	Oh, at your daughter's swearing in.
	Right.
	That's all I have.
	Just one moment.
	Yeah, so the reverse mortgage, you borrow against your house, and then they take it from you.
	So he reversed mortgage, and then just abandoned the house.
	Morning, sir.
	Good morning.
	How are you, counsel?
	I'm fine.
	I'll try to ask you some specific questions if we could, okay?
	Probably better than general.
	And I'll give specific answers if I can.
	Perfect.
	Okay.
	The driver's license address I'm not going to publish.
	That is state's exhibit number two.
	But is the address on that driver's license the home that you're referring to as your daughter's in South Fulton?
	Absolutely.
	Okay.
	It was unclear to me, maybe no one else, but it's unclear to me, when did you stop living at what I would call your daughter's home in South Fulton?
	Things got so bad.
	And threats got so many, even against me, that the house became basically uninhabitable.
	But I inhabited it anyhow.
	You know, I got tired of sleeping in one room one day and not one that.
	I would say December of 2022, something like that.
	December of 2022.
	Right, that's about right, yeah.
	What did they do with the house?
	Nothing to change and go back for another date.
	You had indicated, and I didn't hear it.
	When was your daughter, Ms. Willis, when was she sworn in as district attorney?
	On January 1, 2021.
	Okay.
	And did you indicate that there was an incident, and I know you've described it, was that incident on February the 3rd, 2021?
	That's my best recollection.
	Okay.
	So my question then is, after February 3rd of 2021, how much longer did Ms. Willis stay at the house?
	Before she moved somewhere else?
	Very short period of time, and I cannot be precise, but I would bet all the money I ever made, it wasn't more than a month and a half if that long.
	Okay, so we're talking about, best of your recollection, end of February into the beginning of March.
	Give or take of 2021 when Ms. Willis would have moved to a different location.
	Exactly.
	You've got all the money he has in the house.
	And did Ms. Willis return to the house, that is the house that you were in, at any point in time that you can remember?
	From time to time, she and her security might show up for her to pick something up or take something.
	Load of crap.
	But she always would come with her security.
	Okay.
	My question was poorly worded.
	I apologize.
	Did she come back permanently?
	To her house?
	Oh, absolutely not.
	Absolutely not.
	So, as far as you're aware, that once Ms. Willis left the house, her house, South Fulton House, so the record's clear, in either late February or into March of 2021, best of your recollection, she's not returned to that home to live.
	No, it became uninhabitable.
	I mean, it just, you know, I mean...
	I would have to walk around that house looking out of every window.
	I made a habit of having to walk around the whole house.
	I got lights so that if somebody would come at night in the back so that those kinds of...
	Reflecting lights.
	I had those put up.
	Reflecting lights?
	I don't know.
	All I was interested in is whether she had ever returned.
	No.
	The answer is no.
	Okay.
	Now, when Miss Willis, when your daughter left the home, time period, end of February, beginning of March, give or take, 2021, do you know where she moved to?
	No, and I didn't want to know.
	I intentionally did not want to know.
	Oh, shut up.
	Because I was not, you know, if somebody stuck under my head and I could tell them I wasn't going to tell them anyway, I'd have made up something.
	But stay in her house, stay in her house, Dad.
	Would it be fair to say that if you didn't want to know, you never visited her at the place that she moved to?
	Oh, I never did.
	Never did.
	Do you know how long she stayed at the first place that she went to after she left her house before she moved to a second place?
	What I know, and this is hearsay counsel, is that my daughter has had to move something like four times.
	Do you know any potential?
	No, I don't know any place.
	I was taken one time for Christmas Day.
	I've only seen my daughter, and this is very hard for me to say, but...
	During the period my daughter left, I've only seen my daughter 13 times.
	13?
	Because I can't, and we've never seen each other more than maybe three hours.
	Why?
	Because of, you know, the nightmare threats against her and me.
	What the hell is he talking about?
	From the perspective of being a father myself, I understand what that means.
	So I'm going to move away from that.
	I was just trying to get an idea date-wise, okay?
	So let me try to get one more date.
	You can't meet with her because of security?
	When you were being interviewed by one of the gentlemen that wrote the book at the DA's office, and Mr. Wade came in, can you give us, other than 2023, what the date would be?
	I'm sorry, I can't count.
	How about spring, summer, any idea?
	I would guess spring or summer.
	With the kids.
	I can't.
	I don't.
	I'm sorry.
	And you've already indicated, at least to your recollection, that was the first time that you'd met Mr. Wade.
	Oh, absolutely.
	Okay.
	Absolutely.
	Not arguing with you about that.
	I want to go to Ms. Willis' boyfriend that you referenced.
	Okay.
	You met Ms. Willis' boyfriend, as you've characterized it, when you came here in 2019.
	Correct.
	And you met him on one occasion, several occasions?
	Oh, no.
	I saw him often.
	Oh, so you mean there was no secret that she was dating this man?
	Not from me.
	Not from you.
	And not...
	He was a...
	Again, he was a disc jockey of some kind.
	I think he had a government job during the day.
	I don't know what it was, but apparently he would do weddings and so forth and so on.
	He was a disc jockey, played music.
	So all his stuff was always in the way, and I was always having to try to push it aside.
	But, Ms. Wilson, your daughter didn't keep him from you, correct?
	No, but he kept waiting from you.
	There was no doubt.
	My daughter and I lived in the same house.
	I mean, you know, he came and went, you know.
	Right.
	Wow, this is a disaster.
	When did you learn that your daughter had a romantic, personal relationship with Mr. Wade?
	About seven weeks ago when it, as a matter of fact...
	Oh!
	Uh-oh, I just said something bad.
	I just found out when other folks found out.
	Oh my goodness, he doesn't realize what he just said.
	I understand it.
	Never told you one time in the year of 2022 that she was dating Mr. Wade, correct?
	Of course not.
	Why would she?
	They had to keep it secret.
	Until recently, you didn't know from anyone, including your daughter, that she dated Mr. Wade, correct?
	That's correct.
	That is, whatever the relationship is between father and daughter, she kept that a secret from you, correct?
	Correct.
	That's all I need to know.
	Well, how did that go?
	How did that go, Fanny?
	Not the way you thought it would.
	No more questions, Your Honor.
	Oh, my goodness.
	Put a fork in it.
	Good morning.
	Good morning, Carl.
	When your daughter moved or left the house that she owned, did she say anything to you about having a large savings of cash?
	Oh, no, she, oh, no.
	See, maybe, excuse me, and I, Your Honor, I'm not trying to be racist, okay?
	But it's a black thing, okay?
	You know, I was trained, and most black folks, they hide cash, or they keep cash, and I was, no, I trained.
	You always keep some cash, because I've been places.
	And just because of the color of my skin, for example, I took a fellowship at Harvard when my daughter was just, if I might, Your Honor, when I was just, she was just, you know, maybe three years old.
	And I remember going to a restaurant in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and I had an American Express credit card and maybe a visa or whatever.
	And I had a lot of...
	What they call traveler's checks.
	I don't even know if they still have traveler's checks, but traveler's checks.
	And there was a sign that said, you know, with the credit card, for whatever reasons, the man would not take my American Express credit card.
	So I pulled out my Visa card, and he wouldn't take my Visa card.
	So then I pulled out my traveler's checks.
	He said, we don't take checks.
	Now, these were traveler's checks.
	This was money.
	I had a $10 bill.
	I'll never forget this as long as I live.
	And he said, the bill for my wife at the time, Franny's mother, Franny and myself, was like $9.95.
	And I had a $10 bill.
	It was all that.
	I always remember that.
	But even before that, I've always kept cash.
	And I've told my daughter, you keep six months worth of cash always.
	For example, I had three safes in my house.
	I put some of my clients' stuff there, too.
	Things I didn't want other lawyers to be.
	I mean, because you're always in a firm, and I knew that there were special conditions.
	So some of my clients' things I would bring home, put them in the safe.
	But I've always kept safes.
	And as a matter of fact, I gave my daughter her first cash box and told her, always keep some cash.
	So is that a yes?
	Yeah.
	Oh, absolutely.
	That's all I got, Judge.
	Mr. Durham?
	No questions.
	Mr. McDougald?
	No questions, Your Honor.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Rice?
	No questions, Your Honor.
	Mr. Gellon.
	Sorry, guys.
	It's still morning.
	Good morning, sir.
	Good morning, counsel.
	How are you?
	Just fine.
	Just a few questions following up.
	You were talking about when you learned about Mr. Wade and your daughter, correct?
	Correct.
	Now, did your daughter tell you in around October of 2022 that she had gone on a Caribbean cruise with Mr. Wade to the Bahamas?
	The answer is I knew that my daughter had gone, but I did not know who she went with or what the circumstances were.
	So I knew that she had gone out of town, but I didn't know.
	With whom?
	I see.
	And did she tell you in November of 2022 that she had gone to Aruba and stayed at the Hyatt Regency Resort there in Aruba for three days with Mr. Wade?
	Did she tell you that?
	The answer was, again, I knew she went out of town.
	I didn't know where she went.
	I knew she was going out of town.
	She told me she was going out of town.
	I think she might have said she was going out of the country or something.
	She'd be gone.
	But other than that, that was all.
	Okay.
	And did she tell you?
	In March of 2023, that she was going to Belize for several days with Mr. Wade?
	Same answer.
	I knew she would tell me she was going out of town, and she may or may not have told me where she was going, but she'd be gone for a couple of days.
	Okay.
	Now, in 2023, in many days, you would be out in California, correct?
	Some days I'd be in California, correct.
	Okay.
	Well, did she tell you in May of 2023 that she was traveling to Napa Valley with Mr. Wade, so maybe y 'all could see each other when she visited California with Mr. Wade?
	The answer is no.
	And so the first time that you ever met Mr. Wade or learned about Mr. Wade, to your recollection, was in 2023?
	That's correct.
	That's all I have, Your Honor.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Kucherov, on Zoom.
	Yes, Ron, just a couple quick questions.
	Good morning, sir.
	I know I can't see you.
	I can't see you either, but good morning, council.
	We take a moment.
	Let's just pause, see if we can change the screens to show Mr. Kucherov.
	I'm on a phone, so it's kind of difficult.
	Can you turn your screen on?
	I'm trying to.
	Does that work?
	Just hold one more moment.
	All right, there we go.
	You can proceed, Mr. Kucherov.
	Sir, you seem to know about the issue of cash in this transaction.
	You said it was a black thing.
	How did you know that the cash was going to be an issue in this testimony?
	Because I was asked for it, and I was prepped by the lawyers, and they asked me about it.
	What else?
	Clip that.
	Clip that.
	And did you speak with Mr. Wade about your testimony?
	No.
	I spoke with Fannie about my testimony.
	Did you speak with your daughter about your testimony?
	Yes.
	It's complicated.
	She may have been present when the lawyers were.
	I just, I really don't remember.
	If Mr. Wade and your daughter were dating, you wouldn't have known that unless your daughter told you.
	Through family, through lawyer.
	Maybe I'm not understanding your question, counsel.
	So maybe you want to restate.
	What is it that you're asking me?
	Yeah, if it wasn't clear, I can re-ask the question.
	I'll rephrase it.
	If Mr. Wade and your daughter were dating, you wouldn't have known that unless your daughter told you.
	I did not know that they were dating.
	And what were you talking about the cash?
	I didn't know that...
	I don't know what you're asking me.
	What I told my child from the time she was a child is always have some money.
	Always have some money.
	You go on a date so that people don't try to stick you and you want to leave whoever.
	Always keep some cash, okay?
	Mr. Floyd, you answered the question that the attorneys prepped you for that, so that's all I wanted to know.
	That's it, Your Honor.
	All right.
	Mr. Cromwell.
	No questions, Your Honor.
	Mr. Abadi.
	No more questions.
	Mr. Floyd.
	Now, it wasn't common for your daughter to confide in you about her romantic life at all.
	No, and I didn't, I haven't confided in her about mine before when I had one, okay?
	And you wouldn't have known about her boyfriend, the dispatcher.
	The heck was that?
	That objection?
	I think that might have just been a still off mute.
	Okay.
	Let's keep going.
	You wouldn't have known about her boyfriend, the disc jockey, had you not been living with her, correct?
	That's correct.
	All out, overruled.
	Did he answer the question?
	He said that's correct.
	All right, my show of hands, any redirect on those points only?
	Ms. Merchant.
	I just wanted to know when you were prepped by the lawyers, when this prep session was.
	I just got off the plane on...
	What was it, Tuesday night?
	I think I was probably drooling at the mouth.
	I was so tired.
	So it must have been...
	I got in Wednesday.
	It must have been Wednesday.
	Okay.
	And did you talk about any of the testimony from yesterday or watching the news reports or anything like that?
	Oh, absolutely.
	You can't cut the TV on without seeing this.
	The first thing, and I listened to conservative radio a lot, and, you know, last night for five hours, all they talked about was this case.
	So you were aware of what the testimony your daughter gave yesterday was?
	Yeah, I mean, unless you don't cut the radio on, unless you don't cut the television on, unless you don't read the AJC or any other New York Times or whatever, which I do every day, of course.
	So is it fair to say nobody instructed you that you were under the rule of sequestration?
	Right, and I'm not under subpoena either.
	Thank you.
	Alright, anything else?
	Seeing and hearing none?
	Thank you, Mr. Floyd.
	Thank you very much, Your Honor.
	It's a pleasure to appear in front of you, Your Honor.
	Thank you.
	Alright, Ms. Cross, let me check in.
	Was the state planning to call additional witnesses?
	Not at this time, Your Honor.
	We're trying to accommodate if there's a license schedule to be able to this afternoon.
	Right now, that was our last request.
	Okay, so even if Mr. Bradley testifies to some extent.
	It's still the potential that the state has no further witnesses?
	I anticipate at least one more will be available this afternoon.
	Why can't I find the part where he said I met with the lawyers?
	Okay, so there are potentially more state's witnesses.
	All right.
	All right, so I think the rule is invoked and the instruction was for the parties to...
	Why would she want to strike that?
	I don't want to highlight that.
	Do we have an update for Mr. Bradley?
	Bradley's doctor is going to get back to him.
	Okay.
	Then what I think we should do is have these preliminary conversations about privilege.
	See if we can make any headway and then take our afternoon break.
	Yes.
	So to that end, Counselors, I don't know if you just want to argue in place there or go to the table, whatever makes you comfortable.
	But Mr. Chopra, I think maybe it was relayed to you since you weren't in the court earlier this morning.
	We've had some initial conversations about the distinction between the privilege and rule 1.6, and it sounded like you wanted to be heard on that.
	I'm trying to get a clip here.
	Hold on a second.
	It was my assumption, not polarized, but we don't have value.
	What do you need?
	Well, a copy of the case in front of me is not necessary it will just take me a second time to keep looking at my phone with a phone report.
	Whatever you need to do.
	Your Honor, I believe the case report in anticipation of pushing the rule 1.6 is the only 20 of the fiberglass versus American City.
	Is that correct?
	Pardon the Honor.
	It's difficult here in Council, could you?
	There's a microphone there at the jury box.
	You can try to lift that microphone up and speak in the jury box or make your way over to the podium or table.
	This is crazy.
	Is that any better?
	All right, and no, that was authority provided by Mr. Sadow over our morning recess, and I think that was indicated to go more towards a potential crime fraud argument.
	I don't think we've really gotten there yet.
	It's not crime fraud per se.
	It's the same notion.
	It's fraud on the court.
	Different proposition, but yes.
	The case that I had cited to this morning showing the distinction between the two was tenant health care.
	So that's where we were on the threshold issue.
	Did you have something that you wanted to address on that?
	I have not been able to review that, Your Honor.
	I was unfortunately...
	All right.
	Mr. Ward, your co-counsel with Mr. Bradley?
	Remind me where you are here.
	Okay, so you are co-counsel on this.
	Okay.
	That's what I was doing.
	Mm-hmm.
	Right, and the citation for that is 273, Georgia 206.
	I'll give you time to review that.
	In the meantime, what other things that you want me to know, and perhaps at this point we just take our break now, unless you also want to talk about the questions that are provided by Ms. Merchant, seeing if there's any, again, anything we can achieve.
	So that I can be clear, it is apparent that at this point we're going to go into whether or not 1.6 provides privilege for Mr. Wade, even though he has specifically stated.
	that he does not waive that privilege.
	What if waives that a psychologist?
	Maybe he's at a psychologist.
	In order to demand that Mr. Bradley, over and above the privilege of Ford That's right.
	That's what we covered this morning.
	We haven't gotten there.
	We haven't decided whether attorney-client privilege...
	I think there are some other things that we would have to do.
	We got held up yesterday on 1.6.
	I was waiting to hear from you whether we are now beyond that.
	And then, if we're in the land of attorney-client privilege, and only attorney-client privilege, so Rule 505, then I think Mr. Sadow has some arguments on crime fraud.
	I think there's also just the general arguments of...
	Does it exist?
	Were certain statements in furtherance?
	Does Mr. Bradley have any knowledge independent of this?
	Certainly.
	Can you hear me now?
	There should be a privilege according to Mr. Wade under 1.6.
	I had to clip those things at the same time.
	Try to convince the court that that should be overcome.
	So hopefully I can read this case in less than five minutes.
	All right, that's fine.
	Anything, I guess, as he reads that, let's do this.
	Assuming we do get beyond 1.6, if you can work with me here, anything we want to add to that?
	I'm afraid I would have to hear what the arguments were that got us past 1.6.
	I'm not here to insinuate to the court that we would do something else.
	But there was a line of questioning that Ms. Merchant decided to write out and share with the parties.
	Were there any initial thoughts, comments, reactions to that?
	Again, just trying to make sure we...
	Make the best use of Mr. Bradley's time once he arrives.
	I haven't changed my audio since the beginning.
	Get a haircut?
	That should block you.
	Yeah, I haven't changed the audio set yet.
	Anything he will say would be derived entirely from privileged communication with clients.
	Bull crap.
	Okay, so certainly the assertion the privilege is confirmed and for the record and I think again this is where we got held up yesterday is that I know you're asserting that Certain answers to these questions would be covered by privilege.
	I think there's still some boxes we would need to check before we can confirm that.
	And we'd have to check those boxes with Mr. Bradley before we can get there.
	Okay, if there's nothing else, then let's break until one o 'clock.
	One o 'clock.
	Thank you all.
	That'll give me enough time to do this interview.
	Okay, everybody.
	You may not want to leave.
	I'm not going to fill the air with my thoughts.
	on this trial.
	We're gonna leave it on just for a bit to see if we catch anything on the hotline.
	I've got a guest and it's Canadian law related.
	It's going to be amazing.
	And then we're going to get back to this trial at one o 'clock.
	Any hot mic?
	Dad, what the hell did you say?
	How did you know that the cash was going to be an issue?
	Because the lawyers told me!
	Oh my god, is that witness tampering?
	Witness Tamron, not witness identification.
	I meant that this is Tamron.
	Not getting anything to do with the post.
	LOL.
	All right, well, that's it.
	That does it.
	Holy crabapples, people.
	Well, that turned out to be a lot more fun than it started off as.
	What we're going to do, court's in recess till one o 'clock.
	Don't go anywhere because I've got a guest.
	And it pertains to the recent COVID developments coming out of Canada.
	Courts overturning left, right, and center.
	Overreaching government action.
	Resulting class action lawsuits in Alberta.
	Individual lawsuits out of every province against the federal government.
	Alright, so you just heard as our shot goes down.
	Goodbye.
	I'm going to put you on mute and take you out of the stream.
	So I've got a lawyer.
	I've never met him.
	We've talked.
	He does work with the law firm with whom I just did the interview who were...
	At the helm?
	Who were the attorneys in the Ingram decision?
	I hope I'm getting this right.
	Leighton, you'll tell me if I'm getting this right or wrong.
	And first of all, he's got a wonderful name.
	Leighton.
	Very political.
	He might be Prime Minister one day.
	Okay, Leighton, I'm bringing you in.
	And everybody, this is going to be an interview.
	It's a parentheses.
	It's about a Canadian class action lawsuit against the Alberta, the province of Alberta, resulting from the recent federal court ruling that...
	Psychopath McGee, Dina Hinshaw's public health orders were ultra-virus because she was deferring her authority to political jackasses.
	Sorry, I'll get all my swearing up before I get the guest in.
	And there's another amazing lawsuit coming out of Alberta.
	And let's do it.
	All right.
	Coming in in three, two, one.
	Leighton, sir, how goes the battle?
	It's going well.
	Thanks for having me on.
	It's a pleasure to be here.
	I follow your show closely, especially when you're covering lawfare.
	That's just amazing to watch.
	As a lawyer, it's mind-blowing to watch that stuff, really.
	Well, you've publicly admitted you follow me.
	Now you are on the list, sir.
	Let me just make sure the audio is good in our...
	Locals chat.
	So look, we've never met.
	You reached out and it's like, we gotta not just cover these things, but put them on blast.
	Tell everybody who you are, what's going on and what you're doing in the wonderful province of Alberta.
	Yeah, so I'm an Alberta lawyer who, from the very beginning, became very involved in, I guess, what we call COVID litigation now.
	And I represented through the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
	Some of the pastors who were in prison during COVID, including James Coates and Timothy Stevens.
	And then I was also brought in to work on a case that you covered recently on your show with Jeff Rath.
	He and I were lead counsel on the Ingram case, which you just described, the net effect of which was to declare all of the public health orders in Alberta illegal.
	And so after that decision came down last July, Jeff and I had a conversation and he told me that he was going to be filing the class action that he talked about on your show last week.
	And he invited me to get involved in that, but I couldn't because I've been very involved in representing the interests of the unvaccinated, especially workers.
	And so last fall, our firm has filed a class action against the Governor of Canada in the federal court.
	And it seems as though we find ourselves in a hurricane of litigation which is coming to bear against this awful government, this evil government in Ottawa.
	But our case is brought on behalf of people who were We're alleging violations of Section 2A of the Charter, that's freedom of religion.
	Section 6 of the Charter, mobility rights, because of course, no Canadian who rejected participation in an experimental drug trial was able to get onto a plane, a train or a ship in Canada.
	He couldn't leave the country.
	He couldn't travel.
	Section 7 of the Charter...
	Go ahead.
	Yeah, well, let me stop you there because I want to get into the details of that in a bit.
	Sure.
	But I do want to refresh everybody's memory on the pastors being locked up in Canada because it made the news, it made the Tucker the most popular, I guess the most famous, is Art Povlowski.
	You had James Coates, who was also locked up.
	You had the street pastor.
	I forget his name.
	Who were the pastors in Canada that were locked up under these idiotic edicts?
	It seems that they were mostly in Alberta.
	There was Pastor Hildebrandt in Ontario.
	I don't know if he was ever locked up.
	There were a couple in Manitoba.
	We represented them too.
	But the ones in Alberta were Timothy Stevens of Calgary and James Coates of Stony Plain, which is near Edmonton.
	And he was part of Grace Life Church, which actually was triple barricaded for months and turned into an RCMP barracks, which I happen to think ended the premiership of Jason Kenney in Alberta.
	People just couldn't.
	I believe that was the death knell for his political career, at least so far.
	And they were actually, I remember them, they were actually locked up.
	I want to say Coates was locked up for two weeks or was detained.
	It was longer.
	It was about 42 days.
	Son of a bitch.
	And so what are they suing?
	What's the status of their grievances at the time?
	Well, these are very godly men.
	And I've talked to them actually about filing suit, but they won't sue the government for money.
	They are very supportive and they speak out against government tyranny, but I don't believe that they are part of the suit that Jeffrey Rath is doing in Alberta.
	That case is more there for business owners and other people who lost, really, their livelihoods and sometimes their life savings because of government-imposed lockdowns, which we now know were totally unnecessary and completely discriminatory and illegal.
	So they don't want to sue.
	People are still saying my audio is low.
	I'm going to take the mic a little closer and maybe bring yours down.
	I can hear you.
	I can hear you just fine.
	No, I know.
	And it's like, it's weird because some people say the audio is perfect and others say Viva's mic.
	Like, look at this right here.
	Bam.
	Hold on.
	I can't even bring it up.
	Viva's volume is perfect.
	Viva's mic is low.
	Like, is it, is it?
	I don't know what the problem is.
	It doesn't matter.
	Well, I also disagree about the haircut.
	Speaking as a curator of a lost civilization of hair, I have nothing but envy for your co-ops here.
	Well, I say if I ever lost it, I think I would own the Bruce Willis look.
	But until that happens, I'll just somebody keep it.
	I like it.
	Okay, so they don't want to sue you.
	You represented them to get out of the...
	They're not facing criminal charges anymore, right?
	Not anymore.
	Not anymore.
	Those were taken care of because when the lockdown orders, which was sort of the foundation for all of the harm that was inflicted, when those fell, everything else fell like a house of cards.
	It took a while for that to happen, but ultimately the government of Alberta capitulated, and they also have promised to refund all of the fines, the COVID fines that people paid in Alberta.
	Sadly, that only helps people in Alberta, and as you know, in many other provinces throughout Canada, the picture is not as bright.
	Which is why many other lawyers now are taking aim at the federal government.
	Including the class action that we're bringing, which potentially applies to as many as 7 million Canadians, if you believe the numbers in terms of who rejected and wouldn't take the vaccine.
	Really, anyone who refused to participate in that drug trial is eligible to participate in our class action.
	It has two classes.
	One is the group of people who couldn't travel.
	The other are workers, apart from aviation workers, who are bringing their own class action.
	But federal workers, this is important to understand, the federal government does not have the constitutional authority, exclusive authority over health.
	And so as much as they wanted to, they could not impose a nationwide vaccine mandate.
	And so what they did is they did the next best thing, and Joe Biden tried to do a similar thing in the U.S., as you know.
	They have control over federally regulated workers, and that's about a million workers in Canada.
	And so what they did is they passed orders.
	And so all those workers were effectively put out of work.
	Unless they complied with these vaccine mandate policies.
	So this class action that we're bringing, that we brought against the Government of Canada, is on behalf of those two classes of people, which crossed over, actually.
	You could be in both categories in some cases.
	It is two separate class actions because they're two separate classes that cannot be...
	In terms of compensation, they're not similar.
	So it is two separate class actions?
	It's one class action with two subclasses included.
	And that's going to be, you've just highlighted one of the challenges that we're going to have, I'm sure, from the Governor of Canada.
	Where we are right now, we're in what's called the certification stage.
	I know you know what that is.
	But for the interest of your viewers and listeners, it's a phase where the court determines whether or not the case is one that has sufficient public interest and also has a reasonable cause of action.
	that can go forward and be heard at a trial.
	So that's the stage that we're at right now.
	And it's getting very crowded because as you know, there's a whole bunch of these class actions now that are being filed now.
	Correct, yes.
	Correct.
	Well, no, because the people who were involved in Jeff's suit wouldn't necessarily...
	It's not the same set of facts because our class action is specific to the federal government's policy regarding...
	And as you know, our federal government was, in a number of different ways, quite discriminatory towards the unvaccinated.
	We were called all manner of names by our Prime Minister.
	We were discriminated against, denied participation in federal employment insurance.
	People were not only kicked out of their jobs, but disqualified specifically from eligibility for employment insurance.
	So the whole number of different ways where people were discriminated against.
	And this also violates some aspects of international law because, of course, there's laws regarding genetic testing under international law that have also been violated.
	So all that is being pled as part of this case.
	Just to back up to the Ingram decision, you were one of the attorneys on that file.
	I was.
	People are saying, well, the summary is that all of the public health orders were declared ultra-virus.
	Is there any debate?
	Was it all of them?
	Was it some of them?
	Was it only temporally limited?
	Was there a class or a subclass of public health orders that were not declared ultra-virus?
	Arguably yes, but practically no.
	And here's why.
	What we were able to show, what Mr. Rath and I were able to show through cross-examining Dr. Dina Hinshaw, is that she was essentially a straw person.
	The whole purpose of vesting her with absolute power, and she was given absolute power, the statute actually reads that she could use any means necessary to fight the pandemic.
	Now, as a lawyer, that's really horrifying language.
	But in any case, what was revealed under cross-examination was that these orders were hers in name only, and that actually Mr. Kenney and his cabinet...
	We're making political decisions based upon polling and feeding her what was going to go in the order, sort of like the third base coach sending in signals to the batter.
	And, of course, that colors every single one of those health orders.
	So I think, effectively, it disqualifies every single one of those health orders.
	Now, I hypothesize that this was probably done in all of the other provinces or several other provinces.
	I don't know that the other provincial health orders had a similar...
	Do you know in the other provinces, were the public health laws drafted the same way and was the process the same?
	And Manitoba.
	In those provinces, sister actions were brought.
	The case in BC is called Baudouin.
	And in Manitoba, there's a case called Gateway.
	And in those situations, they lost.
	And the reason why is because in those situations, they did not declare a public health emergency.
	They declared a public emergency.
	And the reason why there was...
	The result was different in Alberta is because the government of Alberta did something unprecedented.
	They declared a province-wide public health emergency.
	See, normally what they do is they declare a local emergency.
	You know, if a certain town or city, there's an epidemic that breaks out and there's quarantining and things like that.
	But under COVID, remarkably, the Alberta government declared a province-wide public health emergency that made the chief medical officer of health essentially a health dictator.
	Now, implicit in that is that there was a necessity component.
	In other words, that we had to do that.
	We had to hand over all this power to a health expert.
	And the reason why it was illegal is because...
	The way that she conducted herself in relation to government defeated the entire purpose of vesting a health expert with absolute power.
	And that's why she was working outside the structures of the statute, what we say in law, ultra vires, outside the scope of her authority.
	I don't know the exact mechanism in Quebec as to how it worked, but when you basically had the public health order officer, what's his face?
	Horatio Arruda admitting publicly there's no science behind it, and effectively we now know it was political decisions based on polling.
	I don't know if a similar action could be brought in Quebec against the province of Quebec, but I presume someone's going to be looking into that.
	It won't be me.
	I hope so.
	And then the other question was this.
	Dina Hinchot got fired, right?
	I seem to have missed a piece of news.
	How did she get thrown under the bus at the end of this?
	Well, Jeff and I like to think that we had something to do with that because we cross-examined her for about four days.
	Is she a total psychopath?
	You're a lawyer and I don't want to get you in trouble.
	Is her testimony questionable, to say the least?
	Yes.
	In a word, yes.
	The way she presented was as somebody...
	Hannah Arendt wrote a famous book you probably know about, talking about the banality of evil.
	She was talking about Adolf Eichmann.
	And Eichmann was supposed to be this big, scary monster.
	Turns out he was this kind of pathetic little bureaucrat.
	And the people of Israel, you know, they put him on trial.
	And honestly, in some ways, they were disappointed because he didn't measure up to that.
	I would say that Dina Hinshaw had a similar sort of flavor to her personality in that she was very flat in her affect.
	She showed no sense of humor, incredibly arrogant.
	And simply, in answer to really tough questions, she simply spouted talking points.
	So that became one of the strategies.
	I did the bulk of the cross-examination of her.
	And that became my strategy, is to keep hitting her with tough questions over and over again.
	And she would just answer with essentially government propaganda, much the way our Prime Minister does during question period.
	And as you know, over time, that tends to do great damage to a person's credibility when they won't answer questions that people are really hungry to have answered.
	We just saw a full day of that yesterday, this Fannie Willis here, which is wild.
	And then what happens?
	Where is she now?
	Does she go back to private practice?
	This is an interesting story.
	You know, she never was much of a doctor.
	She was essentially groomed to be a public health bureaucrat.
	It's hard to believe that that is something.
	But she really didn't have what was revealed during the cross-examination.
	She didn't really have any knowledge specific to, you know, epidemiology or virology or anything relevant to the decision she was making.
	But what happened was she was let go.
	She was fired.
	Shortly after she was cross-examined, then she popped up in British Columbia as an assistant to the Chief Medical Officer of Health there, Bonnie Henry.
	And then, very interestingly, last May, when we had our provincial election, it was a very closely contested election in which Rachel Notley, our former Premier, lost.
	But the story broke that...
	Dina Hinshaw was actually being hired back as some kind of indigenous health director.
	And it turns out that the intention was if the NDP won in Alberta, they were going to bring her back.
	They were going to hire her back.
	And fortunately, good conquered over evil.
	And she wasn't brought back as an employee of our Alberta Health Services.
	And since then...
	Premier Smith has been very, very methodical about dismantling Alberta Health Services, which was sort of the health Gestapo that brought all of this harm to Albertans during the COVID-19 pandemic, or what was called the pandemic.
	I will not be putting words in your mouth.
	They were the Nazis and the Gestapo that Arta Pavlosky was telling to get out, get out.
	So did you say you were cross-examining her for four days or her testimony was four days?
	We cross-examined her.
	What happened was this was an application whereby she was able to give her evidence-in-chief in affidavit form.
	And so formally, it was a cross-examination upon affidavit.
	We wanted to have more time.
	We were denied that.
	We also wanted to have her attend in person.
	We were denied that as well.
	So you had to do four days by Zoom?
	Yes.
	The justice who was hearing the case had a mask up to here.
	She looked like Black Bart.
	And she told us that we could not have Dina Hinshaw in person because that would risk exposing her to, of course, the deathly virus.
	And so the entire hearing was done over Zoom in front of a judge who was alone in a courtroom with a clerk.
	Was the judge wearing a mask when she was alone in the courtroom with a clerk?
	I had to Google who Black Bart was.
	It looks like...
	Yes.
	He's got a lot of facial hair.
	Train robber.
	Train robber, yes.
	So, you know, and in the end, to her credit, you know, the judge made the right decision, most reluctantly.
	She decided the case, essentially her decision was about 5 or 10 pages or less, and she went on for about 80 pages, telling us all the reasons why...
	Our case survived a charter attack, which of course was completely irrelevant.
	It's superfluous.
	Yeah, superfluous.
	She says the public health order was ultra-virus, but I would have deemed it constitutional for the following reasons, and then goes along with that bullcrap.
	A useless obiter that is not binding, but certainly tells other people.
	But as you know, the judge is not even supposed to do that, because it confuses their decision and makes it less clear.
	And, of course, one of the things that judges are called to do in their decision making and the way they write them is to write them so that, you know, everyday people can read and understand them.
	Of course, that's rarely the case, as you know.
	So, coming off the heels of that success, and it's smashing, Danielle Smith says she's not appealing the decision, so it's going to attain the status of res judica?
	Yes.
	Shows Juge.
	And now you take that and you're suing for a class action on behalf of people who were impacted by these...
	But you're suing the provincial government, not the federal government.
	Well, Jeff is suing the provincial government.
	Our case is against the federal government.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	So this is getting interesting.
	Yes.
	And so at the certification stage, you've got lead plaintiffs, I presume.
	And what's the timeline on...
	An answer on the certification or denial by the court?
	Well, we have not yet had our first case management conference.
	There's actually been two judges appointed to usher this case through the court.
	We've got just an excellent representative plaintiff.
	His name is Chief Gregory Bork.
	He's a Métis chief, hereditary chief from Prince Edward Island.
	He's just a tough old Maritimer, tough as nails.
	He's going to be just excellent.
	There's a lot of time for people who are interested to get involved with the class action.
	It costs nothing to get involved with the class action, and we're not yet through the certification stage, and so people have a lot of time if they want to get involved.
	If anyone wants to become what we call a potential class plaintiff, they can contact us and we'll take their information so that they can join at the appropriate time.
	We have a crowdfunding initiative that is totally optional, just to help defer some of the costs, defray some of the costs of taking the case through the courts.
	But again, I want to stress that's totally optional, that there's no cause to participate in the class action.
	We expect we're going to get very strong resistance at the certification stage.
	The Government of Canada's go-to move in all these cases is always a motion to strike.
	Yeah, motion to strike and things of that nature.
	So, you know, they're going to pull out all the stops, all the tricks, and so we've got to fight on our hands.
	And now that I ask the question out loud, the Peckford, Maxime Bernier, I forget the other plaintiffs, their lawsuit challenging certain measures was dismissed, and it was confirmed on appeal as moot, correct?
	Right.
	Yeah, that's the Ricker case, I believe.
	How are you going to get past that precedent of an argument?
	Okay, well, you're going to say that this is for damages.
	But, I mean, I thought theirs was for damages as well to some extent.
	Well, you put your finger squarely.
	You hit the bullseye there.
	Their initial application did not seek damages.
	They were simply seeking a declaration that there were charter violations.
	And the damages issue is not moot.
	I don't think that the other part of the case was moot either.
	In fact, I think...
	We have to look very seriously at the way judges are applying things like the principle of mootness and also judicial notice.
	These are concepts that have been grossly expanded beyond any lawyer's wildest imaginations during COVID.
	But our case, of course, seeks damages which are not moot because, as you know, people have actually suffered damages and they're continuing to suffer them.
	This is not over in Canada, frankly.
	Let me bring this up.
	You're going to see a screen share.
	I wanted to get here.
	Matt Ride says, can I get involved in this suit?
	I wasn't able to travel back to Canada for my grandmother's funeral because of the mandates, even though Taiwan recognizes natural immunity.
	Absolutely.
	That person would be eligible because they suffered violation of their Section 6 mobility rights.
	Let me share the links.
	What links should I share and tell me where to find them?
	What do I go to put in the chat right now?
	If they visit gwsllp.ca.
	They'll find our newsletter and all the links.
	In Canada, we have to set up a dedicated website whenever there's a class action.
	And there's links there to the website as well.
	And they can also find out information there about the crowdfunding initiative if they want to participate in that.
	And we provide regular updates through the newsletter.
	So it's G as in Gordon, W as in Wednesday, S as in Stephen, L as in Leighton, L. Yep.
	P. Like pub.
	.ca.
	Grey Wow Spencer?
	Yes.
	Okay, so let me give that link right here.
	And that'll be the easy one, just the go-to.
	Link, go-to.
	Right.
	And you can get everything else from there.
	Yeah.
	They can also find more information.
	I have my own podcast in Canada.
	It's called Grey Matter, and they can find information there also about the class action.
	We have weekly live streams during which we provide updates about the case, and anyone can join on and listen and ask questions.
	Grey Matter with Michael Krasny?
	That is where Grey Matter...
	Grey Matter, all one word.
	We're on Miracle Channel in Canada.
	It's Grey Matter Return to Reason, but people will find it there.
	There's a few.
	I'm going to Google that and take a note of it as well.
	Return to Reason.
	Okay, here we go.
	Boom shakalaka.
	Let me put this here.
	And while I'm here, I want to ask you, I'd love to have you as a guest on our program.
	A thousand percent.
	A thousand percent.
	We'll see how well.
	I think this Fannie Willis trial is going to end.
	It looks like it might end today.
	Wow.
	Oh my goodness.
	She didn't show up for trial this morning.
	It's wild.
	Yeah.
	I don't know why a lawyer wouldn't just recuse herself.
	Any right-thinking lawyer would do that instead of going through this.
	No, it's the righteousness and the in-your-face of the corruption and the entitlement to it.
	It's wild.
	Okay, so I got the podcast.
	Hold on.
	I'm just going to take notes so I can put these in the pinned comments afterwards.
	I got the podcast, got a GWS LLP, and...
	What else?
	Before I forget, what else did I not ask you that I should have?
	I don't think you did.
	I just want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to come on on your program and speak to your audience and raise awareness about this case.
	I think that these cases are performing a very important function in terms of providing access to justice in Canada because we've been denied as Canadians, really we've been shut out of the political process largely, especially by the federal government.
	And I think that's why we're seeing such a rash of lawsuits coming forward.
	We're starting to see some daylight recently with a decision you probably know about, the Moseley decision in the federal court.
	And that's been a long time coming.
	And those of us who have been working in this space for three or four years now, we're starting to see a bit of daylight in football terms.
	We're scoring a couple of first downs.
	We've been pushed back to our own goal line, but we're starting to advance the sticks.
	About the Mosley decision.
	So Christopher Franklin comes up the next day, says we're going to appeal it.
	David Lamedi, the same time, deletes his Twitter account and then restores it.
	Set that aside.
	I need to keep reminding everybody that they're corrupt hacks.
	Have they filed a notice of appeal that you know of?
	Not that I know of.
	I believe that that was a false flag that was aimed at preventing the very thing that's happening right now, and that is an avalanche of lawsuits against the federal government.
	I think that's why they did it.
	Honestly, I've read the Mosley decision.
	It's by a very experienced 74-year-old judge, and he knew what he was doing.
	And you know this, a well-written legal decision is very, very difficult to appeal.
	He's correct on all the points as far as I can see them.
	So, I mean, at the best...
	Most of times, appeals are unlikely to succeed.
	But this one, I tell you, I don't see much chance unless the Federal Court of Appeal for Canada is truly politically captured.
	And I pray that that's not true.
	My issue with the decision is that I don't know why Mosley would have said what he said at the end.
	Had I been there, I'm not sure that I would have made a different decision.
	That's like, that's opening this up to, we can all agree on the statements of fact, but then as a matter of law, the court of appeal can come in and say, well, you were not there to substitute your judgment for theirs.
	I don't know why the judge would have said that.
	It seems to me that that gives a little bit of fodder.
	Like that's the...
	Yeah, it's kind of a throwaway comment.
	But you know, he also said this.
	He said, you know, coming into this...
	I was pretty much persuaded the other way.
	And so what he kind of said is that, you know, the facts and the evidence, once I heard them, it changed my mind.
	And I think that's pretty compelling.
	Well, the flip side to that, and I'll play Steel Man for the devil, is they'll say...
	Well, good.
	We didn't have the benefit of hindsight and the additional facts that you got to see.
	The problem is they knew everything at the time.
	They knew at the time it was a deliberate attempt to stifle a negotiated settlement.
	So they didn't know anything different.
	It just mostly gave them a very, very big benefit of the doubt that not only did they not deserve, I thought it was demonstrably proven they knew what they were doing and why they were doing it.
	And that it was a wild overreach.
	You make a valid point.
	There's no question.
	Although I'm of the view, I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth.
	In that case, that decision...
	It came to me like a bolt of lightning out of the sky because the federal court had just announced that they were going to require lawyers like me to go in there and declare my gender pronouns before I could be heard and to make me listen to Indigenous land acknowledgments, which, as an Indigenous person myself, I find deeply insulting and repulsive.
	I've got to ask you this.
	What Indigenous heritage?
	I'm a status Indian.
	My ancestors are from our Nakota Sioux or Assiniboine.
	I'm from the Carry the Kettle Band in southern Saskatchewan.
	Oh, wow.
	I had absolutely no idea.
	I don't lead with that because that's not my identity.
	That's part of who I am.
	In a world of identity politics, it's crazy not to have that.
	You should have that.
	I'm joking.
	It's a byline.
	Leighton as a name, though.
	I just presumed it was British.
	Yeah, well, that's a name that I got from my mother, and this is kind of funny.
	People are old enough to remember the Billy Graham Crusades.
	There was a preacher on there named Leighton Ford.
	I think my mother might have had a secret crush on him, or she just really liked the name, but that's where it comes from.
	Okay, and was Leighton, was his name spelled L-A-Y-T-O-N or L-E-I-G-H-T-O-N?
	L-E-I-G-H-T-O-N.
	His name was Leighton Ford.
	He's deceased now, but he was part of the Billy Graham Crusade back in the day.
	Okay, very cool.
	Well, Leighton, this has been, I mean, first of all, it's phenomenal.
	And by the luck of, you know, by the random haphazard, you got the biggest, like, second biggest day of the week in of a long time because the timing worked out perfectly even with the break for lunch.
	So you got a massive audience who now knows what you're doing, where they can go to help.
	I'm going to put the pin, the links up in the pinned comment.
	And you and I will obviously talk and schedule a podcast.
	Well, thank you so much.
	It's a pleasure to meet you and to speak to your audience, and I'm very grateful for the time that you spent with me today.
	Well, thank you for coming, and I don't know if you're going to follow the rest of the afternoon of the Fannie Willis trial, but...
	I'm going to have it on.
	There will be swearing.
	As soon as you leave, I'm going to go back to Party Mouth McFry.
	Leighton, seriously, thanks a lot, and we'll be in touch and we'll schedule it.
	Thank you, sir.
	All right, have a good one.
	All right, that's awesome.
	Thanks again, Mr. Gray.
	No, dude, it was like the timing was perfect because I thought the Fannie Willis hearing was going to be a morning, like maybe two, three hours.
	Then it's like, oh, crap, it went all day yesterday.
	And it's like, okay, well, we scheduled it for 1230, the interview.
	And I said, we just have to make sure to time it so that we do it during the break.
	And you're going to enjoy like, you know, one of the biggest audiences we have here because this trial is turning into the gong show that it is.
	Well, I'm going to do two things.
	I'm going to play a video for five minutes while I just go take a whiz and get another drink.
	We're coming back after lunch.
	We're coming back at 1 o 'clock.
	I just want to make sure that...
	Let's see what's going on here.
	We'll bring back our screen.
	Oh!
	I'm going to play something...
	Do I just play something real quick and pee and then come back?
	I think I'll do that.
	Then I'm going to read some super chats, rumble rants, and go to the tips.
	Share screen.
	What do we got going on here?
	Nothing.
	Now I'm going to have to tinker with the audio again afterwards.
	Okay, so let's break that out.
	Stop.
	Let's break that, Uri.
	And TMI, Viva.
	Dude, it's never TMI.
	Wait until I tell you.
	No, no, no.
	I'll stop with the TMI there.
	Okay, so we're coming back at 1 o 'clock for sure.
	We've got 20 minutes until it comes back.
	What I'm going to do here, I'll just play a little bit of yesterday's summary while I go do a couple of things.
	You can turn it off, tune it in, do whatever you want.
	And hell or high water.
	We're coming back after lunch.
	Not at lunch.
	I'm going to come back in five or ten minutes, read some chats, and Fannie Willis meltdown recap.
	Okay, here we go.
	Okay, let's get rid of the ad.
	Hold on one second.
	Oh, yeah.
	Good, I can do that.
	It'll give me a break.
	I hear the music in the background.
	Here we go.
	This one.
	Okay.
	And he's got the intellect of a scholar.
	All right, everybody.
	I'm going to do a very brief synopsis of the first day of the hearing in the motion to disqualify Nathan Wade and Fannie Willis from the Georgia RICO prosecution brought by Michael Roman defendant, one of the many defendants in that RICO prosecution case.
	The RICO prosecution alleging that Michael Roman, Donald Trump, Jeff Clark, and a slew of others conspired to overthrow the election.
	Michael Roman made a motion to disqualify Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade from the prosecution, alleging that they have an improper relationship from which they stand to benefit financially as a result of this improper relationship, that being that Fannie Willis...
	was having an extramarital affair with Nathan Wade, signing contracts, paying Nathan Wade so that Nathan Wade could then allegedly bestow gifts on Fannie Willis, take her on cruises, take her traveling, et cetera, et cetera.
	Take her out to meals, take her out to Napa Valley for wine takers, So that's the allegation.
	To be distinguished from the oversimplification of the mainstream media of the alleged affair.
	It's not the alleged affair, the alleged...
	Moral depravity of being a homewrecker, set that aside.
	That's one thing.
	That's not the crux of the issue, though the media's gonna pretend it is.
	The issue is not just that Fannie Willis engaged in an extramarital affair with Nathan Wade.
	Nathan Wade allegedly concealed some of his financial assets from his wife that he was divorcing.
	It's not just that!
	It's that Fannie Willis allegedly improperly financially benefited from that improper relationship such that they're all conflicted out of this prosecution where they're just sitting there bathing like Scrooge McDuck in cash from the state, from the feds, so they can...
	Bump uglies and prosecute Trump.
	So, don't get caught up in the oversimplification.
	This is beyond just an extramarital affair.
	This is the corrupt intent behind that.
	Let's line each other's pockets.
	I'm going to hire my boyfriend as external counsel to prosecute Trump, pay him so that he pays for lavish vacations, etc., etc., and I financially benefit, I being Fannie Willis.
	Okay.
	So, this was day one of the evidentiary hearing.
	The judge is Scott McAfee, and he is...
	He's got the patience of a saint, and he's got the intellect of a scholar.
	So some people are saying the judge was a little too permissive, a little too tolerant, a little too cowardly to intervene when need be.
	I don't think so.
	I think the judge got it.
	I think the judge gets it, and I think the judge is going to disqualify these two, but we'll get there in a second.
	So the day starts off with Michael Roman calling Bradley, who is the attorney and partner of Nathan Wade.
	Partner in that they had a law firm together, Bradley Campbell Wade, or Wade Bradley, whatever you want, whatever the order is.
	They were allegedly and seemingly business partners.
	At some point in that relationship, Bradley also became the attorney for Nathan Wade in the context of his divorce from Jocelyn Wade.
	And one of the prime issues at issue here was whether or not Bradley could testify or invoke solicitor-client privilege.
	Bradley was called to the stand as the first person because the actual first witness, Yertle, or Yertley, I forget her name all the time, but someone who allegedly subletted her apartment or her condo to Fanny Willis, and the idea is that that's where Fanny and Nathan were hooking up at Yertle's condo that she subletted to her.
	So that was supposed to be the first witness.
	She was a little late.
	And so they called Bradley, who didn't look too happy being there, didn't want to be there, basically was invoking solicitor-client privilege, even though he was the business partner of Nathan Wade, where they're sharing contracts that are being given out by Fannie Willis.
	I talked about this in the video on Tuesday, summarizing the motions to quash.
	Bradley...
	He plays multiple roles here.
	Nathan Wade's partner, he's got a contract with the prosecutor's office.
	It was either taint review or first representation, but bottom line, he's got a contract with the prosecutor's office, Fannie Willis, that he also divides one-third, one-third, one-third with Wade and Campbell.
	And he's playing the role, wearing the hat of Nathan Wade's divorce attorney.
	And so he gets to say, I'm not answering any questions about our business relationship.
	When they started, when Nathan Wade and Fannie Willis started bumping up, he says, I can't answer any of that solicitor client.
	I would violate my privilege that I have with my clients.
	And so there were some debates about that.
	And then what ended up happening, ultimately, Yertle, the woman who subletted her condo to Fannie Willis, took the stand.
	She showed up, she came there, and she didn't want to be there either.
	And it wasn't clear if she was going to be hostile to Ashley Merchant, Michael Roman, or Fanny Willis.
	And at first, she was tight-lipped.
	She didn't really want to get into it with Ashley Merchant.
	She basically said, yeah, you know, I lent them my apartment.
	I subletted them my apartment.
	Did she say that I ever saw them there together?
	It doesn't really matter, or it'll matter when we get into Nathan Wade and Fanny Willis, but bottom line, she testified for a bit, and then it ended up coming out in cross-examination that she resigned from Fanny Willis' employee because apparently she was underperforming, they had a falling out, and she was told you're gonna be fired if you don't resign, so she resigned.
	Okay.
	There was conflicting evidence as to whether or not...
	Nathan Wade and Fanny Willis cohabitated in Yertle's apartment.
	I know I'm messing up her name, but it doesn't matter.
	All right.
	Then Nathan Wade took the stand.
	And oh my goodness, this is where it got good.
	First of all, I now actually feel bad for Nathan Wade.
	I feel bad for Nathan Wade.
	He's still a scoundrel.
	Okay, I'll leave that in the backdrop in case we just need to kill a few more minutes.
	Stop screen.
	Who was LBJ's taint?
	A third, a third, a third, and no paper trail to prove it.
	IRS, incoming fire!
	All right, people, I've fallen behind on Rumble Rants, Super Chats, Locals, how we're doing?
	By the way, Locals, yesterday the stream got cut off because I exceeded my six-hour max.
	They have upped my daily max, or not the other.
	They've upped the max to 12 hours.
	So we can go half a day.
	I think 12 hours is the limit on any platform for live streaming.
	Okay, so let's go.
	Now I got vitamin C. I got vitamin C in there with a little caffeinated carbonated water, which itself has vitamin A, vitamin B3, B6, vitamin C. Have you ever listened to Dimitri Martin?
	It's like, I think when they were naming vegetables, not vegetables, I think when they were naming vitamins, they thought...
	Hold on.
	Viva must get a haircut the day Trudeau is removed from office.
	Not until then.
	Removed.
	It has to be not by election.
	By election does not count.
	I do not sacrifice my hair for that.
	Removed through ethics file.
	Ooh, yeah.
	So Dimitri Martin had a bit.
	He says, I think they must have thought there were going to be a lot more vitamins than there were.
	What are we going to call this?
	Vitamin A, B, C. Wait, wait, slow down.
	D. Oh, crap.
	Now we're done.
	Okay.
	B12.
	That's right.
	B1, B2, B3, B12.
	Okay, what the hell was I saying?
	I'm just distracting myself.
	Let's go here.
	I wanted to bring this up.
	Not suing does not make sense.
	The pastors could donate that money to their community initiatives or those in need if they don't want to take the money for themselves.
	I brought it up, and I think Leighton saw it.
	Fannie uses a debit card overseas.
	Reverse mortgage back home.
	Reverse mortgage back taxes equals broke family.
	So the reverse mortgage, by the way, I would have loved to have explored that a little more.
	Reverse mortgage is you basically borrow money against...
	The bank lends you money and they use your house as collateral.
	I mean, they're going to take your house from you at the end of the...
	to pay back the loan.
	You do it when you're on the verge of dying.
	Not sick, just old.
	You can't take your house too old.
	So I'm curious, did he...
	Do you have to maintain the house so that it maintains a certain value commensurate with the loan that the bank gives you under the reverse mortgage?
	And what the hell?
	The father just says, screw it.
	I'm leaving.
	I already got the money from my house that I used as collateral for the reverse loan, but maybe I'm not taking care of it.
	Maybe it's not worth it.
	I don't know.
	Just ran away with the money, it sounds like.
	I would have asked more questions on that, but I don't think the judge would have allowed it.
	But yeah, that sounds sus AF, as we say among the children.
	We got...
	Seems like regardless of Fannie and Nathan's relationship, there's a massive confidence of interest and misuse, possibly theft of money.
	Shouldn't that alone be disqualifying?
	Yeah.
	And I think their evasiveness and their dishonesty is, I mean, I don't think that that's a legal basis for the disqualification, but holy crap, they look like the absolute biggest jackasses on planet Earth.
	Okay, my audio's fine.
	That's fine there.
	We got up here.
	Oh, I didn't read that.
	The name was Ehef.
	We got Devin Knox.
	I want to see some evidence of the threats that pertain to this case.
	She says that the Trump case was the reason for her threats.
	That doesn't make sense.
	The timeline doesn't make sense.
	I mean, maybe because she was campaigning off indicting.
	Was that Fannie Willis or was that the other one?
	Leticia James.
	Okay, that's the other corrupt DA.
	The threats seem to have had nothing to do with Trump.
	They were 2019-2020.
	And, like, I think it's gang-related.
	I want to know what the threats were.
	They've got to have police reports.
	I would have been curious to explore that.
	I'm surprised they didn't.
	The Daily Man says, the dysfunctional things, strategies, etc., you hear in the father were likely passed down to his daughter.
	Oh, there's no question.
	I love how he conspiracy theorists knew COVID was coming.
	And I do appreciate a lot of people knew it.
	A lot of people who were overseas knew something was going on there.
	Get in.
	Let's go.
	Dog barks to leave, barks to come back in.
	Now he's sitting down in a bed.
	Oh, no, there's no poo in there.
	Okay.
	Yeah, the father...
	Oh, God, the father blew it, though.
	So she hid the relationship from you, that's correct?
	That is correct.
	You just blew your daughter's case.
	They use language to appear as if they're homeless.
	No, I don't think that.
	I just think they use language because they don't want to get pinned down on any given factual element.
	Nathan organized a cover-up.
	That's...
	Just found your stream.
	Oh, that was from John Coyle.
	And the one before that was CR.
	Who just found my stream?
	Just found your stream.
	Just found your live stream today.
	Love it.
	Well, these trials are fun.
	I mean, this is 1253.
	This is a fun...
	This is immensely fun to cover.
	It's politically important.
	There's a human element to it, but not a human element involving physical life and death.
	And the egregious levels of insane, idiotic corruption are through-the-roof sticker.
	Tim Finley, thank you very much.
	NinoNPC2023, will you and Robert have a show on this court case breaking into...
	We're going to go over it Sunday for sure.
	I don't know if we'll dedicate the entire show to it.
	We won't.
	But we're definitely, definitely going to dedicate a fair bit to this.
	I bet Fanny is dictating how the judge proceeded.
	Okay, I think I got these before.
	I did.
	All right, now, let me go back to the Rumble, baby.
	Hold on, give everybody the link to Rumble so that we can all go over to the place where we should be going.
	Rumble.
	And if you, I don't know, don't want to go to Rumble, come to Locals.
	And if you want to give a super chat but you don't want to give YouTube 30% of that, come on over to Rumble.
	Either join as a supporter, as a member.
	Locals here.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com That clock behind me is accurate February 16th.
	Is it February 16th?
	It is February 16th.
	Okay, good.
	That's accurate.
	I remember like neurotically waiting for the second to hit the minute so I could make it accurate.
	And somehow it's a minute fast.
	It's only 12:53.
	What the hell's wrong with that clock behind me?
	Now I gotta fix that.
	Okay, let me bring up the rumble rants so we can go over.
	There's a bunch over here.
	Close this.
	We got...
	The stream is not over.
	Rant status.
	Jarbot says, "Why can't they pierce client privilege with the potential fraud exception?
	Both Wade and Bradley were benefiting from Wade's personal relationship as business partners." It's an amazing thing.
	They respect...
	This judge, who's a good judge, respects the solicitor-client privilege.
	The entire...
	Is it the Florida case or the D.C. case?
	I believe it's the D.C. case.
	The entire D.C. case indictment is based on breaching, piercing solicitor-client privilege.
	They find the exception for Trump, and wrongly so, so I don't want to wrongly find the exception here.
	My whole problem is none of it is, or at least what they want to ask is not actual, bona fide, legit solicitor-client privilege.
	It's a pretext.
	We Laxton says, how is prepping a witness with a specific narrative about money not witness tampering?
	That's what I asked.
	Not just that!
	Unless I'm mistaken, and I hope I'm not because I have to go correct a tweet.
	It was Fannie's lawyers that met with him.
	And he thinks Fannie might have been present.
	It's corruption through and through.
	It's fun.
	Look at that face.
	Hold on.
	There we go.
	That's a little better.
	Long hair, very cool, especially on over 45 dudes with full head of hair.
	No haircut, says MX.
	Not to say that I care about image, but it does make me feel young.
	So when I pick up my daughter from school and the top is down...
	And I was like, hey, children, how's it going?
	Taka, taka, taka.
	And then she's like, Dad, stop embarrassing me.
	We've got another one up here.
	I'm coming back down.
	I'm not your buddy, guys.
	Says, I'd be willing to bet the threats are from gang activity.
	Absolutely, by the way.
	That's 1,000% my guess.
	So when they invoke someone using the N-word, it's a lot different dynamic if it's a black person using the N-word versus a gang of whites burning a cross using the N-word.
	And I suspect it's more the former than the latter.
	But I don't know.
	But I guess.
	The influence has increased massively, specifically cartel activity.
	Their influence has increased massively, and it shouldn't go without notice.
	Intel has utilized cartels to fund ops.
	Absolutely.
	Long hair, very cool.
	We got jbart1025, 400,000 followers.
	It's amazing.
	Subs on Rumble.
	It's amazing.
	And I don't care.
	I just like that number, that odd number, 399.
	And it was 399.3 on the app, and I could see that.
	It's like, oh, just kidding.
	Anyways, we're there.
	Nice, beautiful round, 400.
	We got King of Biltong.
	Good morning from Anton's in Roanoke, Texas.
	Free shipping for your Biltong using code VIVA on www.biltong.usa.
	No, Biltong, B-I-L-T-O-N-G, USA.com or Anton USA, A-N-T-O-N-S, Anton's USA.com.
	Please note, we have a new URL for Biltong.
	Get yourself some healthy snacks.
	And we got Matt Rides.
	Viva, seriously, thanks for getting me that info.
	Missing that funeral has been a huge regret for me.
	Don't get me started on that.
	Now let's watch some more of this debacle.
	Where are we now?
	Okay, we're still looking at a floor.
	Dude.
	Oh, hold on one second.
	Oh, I'll bring it up in a second because we might be able to see some.
	Let me screen grab that just in case there's anything relevant in there.
	Matt Rice, man, my pleasure.
	It was fortuitous timing for Leighton because this happened to be a good day to come on for a lunchtime interview.
	Can I get involved in the suit?
	Matt Rice said that, okay.
	Isn't it odd that her father listens to conservative radio, especially when his daughter is Democrat?
	Did I?
	I think I must have missed that.
	I got to go after this beer.
	It's 1 a.m. in Taiwan.
	By the way, Matt B on YouTube.
	And it's beautiful here.
	You should visit.
	Canadians get 90 days free visa.
	Also, this trial is wild.
	Oh, you're in Taiwan?
	You know what's funny?
	I have a family member in Taiwan right now, if I'm not mistaken.
	I have to double check.
	Yeah, I could go there.
	Wesley1924, so you never keep six months of cash at home in case you happen to be out at a diner and a racist won't take your credit card to pay a $10 tab, but will take your cash.
	Makes perfect sense to me.
	No, so that was, I think, yeah, with a family of five, you've got to keep $50,000 cash in it.
	Six months.
	Six months of food and lodging and whatever.
	How is that not witness tampering?
	Says WeClaxedIn372.
	I think that the internet's going to be on fire with whether or not it was.
	Hedda Broccoli.
	That sounds like me.
	I didn't know nothing.
	I don't keep track of my offspring, okay?
	We got Tails22.
	This guy lies like Walter White.
	Excitedly tells a story with too many insignificant details.
	Absolutely, that's what I picked up on.
	Just say two credit cards.
	Who gives what F?
	Who gives AF what types of credit cards?
	Viva, when he said yesterday he never was in a cabin with Fani.
	I bet it was cruise ship cabins from their cruises.
	He lied under oath.
	There must have been an entry or something about cabins.
	That was from Mother's Love One.
	Then we got Cooper True.
	Fanny's dad, founding member, and former chairman, Black Panthers.
	Is that true?
	Hold on.
	Screen grab.
	We'll do my DD.
	GOP Congress, 1467 Roxanna Road.
	What is this?
	No, no, don't do that.
	Wee Claxton, she knew daddy wouldn't approve dating a married man.
	Matt writes, I lived in China from 2015 to 2020.
	Nobody there knew about COVID until January 2020.
	And the only people who knew before were the CCP and the Taiwanese who tried to warn but were ignored.
	That is from Matt Rides.
	James of...
	TGA, the greater area.
	I bet that courtroom smells like dusty old communists.
	Grifter is always looking for a new grift.
	Nocturnal.
	How could so many people be so bad at testifying?
	Were they not given prep?
	By the way, the first thing about prep...
	Hold on, I got something on my eyeglass.
	That's driving me crazy.
	Oh, now I've made it worse.
	I don't think anybody understands how annoying it is to have dirty glasses if you've never worn glasses before.
	I am a dummy and I know you answer the questions asked and offer nothing.
	You're not that much of a dummy, Nocturnal.
	Snuggle Struggle says, wondering about these threats.
	It's the many victims that were denied any justice.
	Is it?
	Oh, it's the many victims denied any justice due to Fanny and restorative justice was implemented under Fanny and her ilk.
	Criminals were emboldened in Georgia.
	Transpo says, he said he met me referring to Willis, so he had access to Willis' attorneys.
	Transpo says, what needs to be recognized is Fannie took on the fight of her life.
	She knows if she fails, her career is over.
	Does anyone else feel sympathy for her and a laughing face?
	So I guess the answer to that is no.
	Viva, do you think the judge, up for re-election in four months, has any...
	Barring on this case.
	Barring.
	I don't know if it makes him more prone to dismiss this or more prone to grant it.
	I think it's more prone to grant it.
	People are fed up with this effing corruption is what's going on.
	And hold on, there's more rumble rants coming in.
	Air Damien says, no, they couldn't make receipts because of the perjury in the divorce.
	I think I got to these.
	I'm ex-law enforcement.
	Law enforcement is held to a higher standard.
	You don't have to prove our wrongdoing was done by law enforcement.
	You simply have to show the appearance of misconduct.
	Simple.
	And then we got to these on the bottom.
	Now I'm going to go back up to the top.
	King of Bilbon.
	Viva, send me your address to eat at AntonUSA.
	I'll do that right now.
	And done.
	And then we'll see if we work together formally.
	I'm not a hard man to...
	I'm not a difficult man to satisfy when it comes to beef jerky-like substances or anything beef.
	Let me just send you an email right now.
	Boom.
	This is Viva.
	Booyah.
	With the typo.
	You get a typo, King of Bilbong.
	And we got any chance more Viva Marco Bear vids just YouTube.
	You guys together are amazing, so funny, and perfect chemistry.
	Actually, the funny thing is, Grobert was texting me when the guy...
	Ah, I was too close to the Jews.
	And he's like, Jews in Georgia?
	I gotta look with...
	Hold on.
	Actually, I wanted to look that up.
	Not that I think there are no Jews in Georgia.
	Be curious about the population.
	Jewish population, Georgia state.
	I'm going to say, I don't know, 115,000.
	I'm going to say, I don't know, 115,000.
	No, and that's Georgia, Uzbekistan.
	Georgian Jews, not there.
	Jewish population in the United States, by state.
	Okay, here we go.
	Let me see.
	Wild guess, I have no idea.
	I'll just say 115,000 in Georgia.
	Let's see.
	Let's see how stupid or smart my wild guess is.
	Georgia?
	Georgia?
	Oh, I think I'm good.
	I think I'm good, people.
	Georgia?
	141,000.
	Oh, wait a minute, wait a minute.
	Jewish population in 1899.
	That's what you...
	Okay, 141,000.
	Not bad.
	Okay.
	California...
	Oh my goodness.
	California has 1.2345.
	1,234,500.
	Forget the last two numbers.
	That's a wild coincidence.
	Where's New York?
	New York, 1.7 million.
	And let's see if there's a state that has zero.
	No Jews.
	Let's see here.
	Idaho seems to have the least, but that's a small state anyhow, so it's going to be...
	Oh, Mississippi's got 1,500.
	Oh!
	North Dakota.
	What's the population of North Dakota?
	Seems that North Dakota is probably...
	Why would you live in North Dakota when you could live in Florida?
	Okay, so that's it.
	Are we back on yet?
	Let me see.
	I'm going to put the volume up here.
	The volume is up here.
	All right, now let's go to locals here.
	Those population numbers are bullshit, says 42 in our locals community.
	Now, the tips.
	Here we go.
	In our locals community.
	This is crazy.
	Sent a $5 tip.
	It says, I don't use credit cards because I don't appreciate people being able to monitor my purchase.
	I'll bet Fanny does the same thing.
	The only reason I don't like using credit cards is because the fee that it charges the merchant.
	But, I mean, I'm not carrying around cash.
	You drop cash out of your pockets.
	I don't think...
	Very rarely do I ever have cash.
	I don't like the idea of being able to lose the money that easily, but there's risks everywhere.
	Hold $15,000 or $50,000 in cash at your house, you can get robbed, the house can burn down, you lose your money.
	Keep it in the bank, the bank can go under, you lose your money.
	But no, I just don't like the fees they charge merchants.
	But who the hell carries cash?
	And Rockahora in Rumble says, congrats on $400,000.
	Thank you.
	It's fantastic.
	I don't think I get a new trophy for that, but at a million, maybe $500,000.
	Okay, we got Cliff Norman has a $1 tip.
	He says, am I correct that Fannie said she used funds from campaign for personal use?
	Someone else said that yesterday.
	I didn't hear that.
	I didn't hear that in yesterday's testimony, but I might have missed it.
	Cliff Norman, I'm going to see if the rest of the locals chat has anything to say on that.
	Okay, and we got Finboy Slick, one buck, says, weren't a large portion of federal employees actually exempt from those obligations too?
	The way I understood it, you were better off as a federal employee than working for a federally regulated company.
	I don't know.
	I should have asked that when I hadn't.
	But I asked my brother that.
	I didn't think so because a lot of federal employees were pushed out of work.
	But, you know, a lot of them were pushed out of work.
	Finboy Slick in another tip says, all right, let's set some things straight.
	You do not tell Viva to get a haircut in this chat.
	You tell him to get a mullet.
	Dude, one day.
	One day for a fundraiser.
	Liberty Clarga says, why strike that?
	Because it's devastating to my case.
	No, but the whole thing, I think it was Ashley Merchant that asked for it to be struck.
	Oh, oh, oh.
	What's going on?
	Dude, something's going on here.
	This is straight out of idiocracy.
	Like when they're watching the plants grow.
	Okay, someone might have just died.
	The cameraman is down, people.
	The cameraman is down.
	Well, seriously, now what the hell is...
	Okay, no, there's a...
	So while we watch this Stanley Kubrick-esque...
	Cinematography.
	Go back to the chat.
	Why strike that?
	You know, I thought it was Ashley Merchant asking to strike it, and I don't understand why she would have.
	We've got USA Now with a $1.4 tip.
	Says Acorn.
	Good look, Russian space squirrel.
	Oh my god, look, a Russian space squirrel.
	Acorn plus Russian nuke scare.
	Then we've got USA Now.
	That's the boom.
	Natural red meat is not...
	Red meat is not a health risk.
	New study slams years of shoddy research.
	Good, because I've got a tomahawk in the fridge.
	I had red meat last night, but it was lamb.
	I never feel good after the lamb.
	I think they put some spice in it.
	It's like some pre-seasoned lamb that we get from Publix.
	Then I had for Valentine's dinner, I had Easy Meats.
	Excuse me.
	Easy Meats on Glades.
	That's Easy Meats with S's, no Z. Best frickin' steak on earth.
	Maybe I'll ask the kid to bring in the tomahawk.
	What the hell is going on here?
	Is someone being escorted out?
	Oh, dude, it'd be really funny if we could...
	Oh, someone's talking!
	Okay, hold on.
	Let me just go see on another channel if we're missing anything that we should be seeing.
	This strikes me as odd.
	No, no, no.
	I will say that I do remember at some point it was myself, you, BC, and Bert there.
	But people were coming in and out of the courtroom, so I cannot sit here and accurately say that somebody else wasn't there at the time.
	I hear it.
	You hear it too?
	Good.
	Okay, we hear it.
	Who is this?
	Oh, this is Bradley.
	Okay.
	No, it wasn't an hour.
	Let's do it.
	And that's the only time we spoke in person about anything related to SNAP, correct?
	Correct.
	And based on that phone conversation, I told you I had been submitting open records requests and I'm going to continue to submit open records requests, correct?
	Based off what phone conversation?
	Based on our conversation.
	Oh, okay.
	Correct.
	You said that you were doing some open records requests, correct?
	Which open records requests are you talking about?
	Because I recall open records requests being made for other things and so I don't know which one that you're referring to.
	I guess it's called a county card and getting access cards and things like that for coming in and out of Fulton County for you, Mr. Wayne, and all of the access that you all have.
	Yes, yes.
	And you asked me, did I have an access card?
	And you are the one that told me that you and Mr. Wayne, or Mr. Wayne at least, had an access card.
	I told you that the three of us had an access card because we had a contract with the DA's office or the county.
	How much?
	I told you what those contracts were, and that we had an access card that would allow us to pick up the documents, go into a specific office, and leave out.
	Okay.
	And so we talked about that bad access card and asking for that, and I was going to ask for that, right?
	Correct.
	And then a couple days later, I sent you a text.
	And then when I say a couple days, so that was on September 12th when we had that conversation.
	Do you mind if I pull out my phone?
	Not at all.
	On September 14th at 6.38 p.m.
	I'm going to go to the next one.
	And what day was this?
	September 14th, correct.
	Yes, and I said, wow.
	And then...
	Wait, wait, wait, wait.
	And then you sent another text about a badge, and I did not respond.
	You sent another text about an entrance card.
	I did not respond.
	you sent another text about some other badges and with the circle around it and I did not respond okay all right if you could just respond to the question asking all of the questions okay the text messages are inconsistent with mr. Bradley's
	It's strange as he apparently is reading it off of his phone.
	So if I could ask Ms. Merchant, is it true, accurate, and complete?
	And perhaps we can see this on Mr. Brownstone.
	But more importantly, I am going to object.
	I understand, of course, the way that we're able to establish contact based on previous statements made.
	But I'm concerned about going into the content of the statements without putting things in the buckets that I've done.
	Sure.
	And so am I, Ms. Merchant.
	I'm not seeing so much the relevance of it back and forth.
	I'm allowing you to establish the content that was made in line with the outline you've provided me, and I think we're on track with that.
	Were you planning to tender these text messages?
	I was planning on discussing them with him now.
	If yesterday he said we didn't talk text about this case, so that was his testimony again today, then yes, I will at least already show them to him, to request some recollection or to impeach him.
	But their first part of their argument is foundation, is what I'm assuming.
	They're saying all of these.
	They're not all relevant.
	I can give you all of my texts, but they're not all relevant.
	And so they asked for screenshots, and so I took screenshots.
	If there's a way to submit my entire text history with Mr. Bradley, then that's fine.
	If they want us to read every single text, that's fine.
	I just don't want to be in a position where people are saying that I'm not.
	Well, I also want to avoid the situation where you as the Council of Record are having to...
	Testify.
	...lay the foundation and do that sort of thing yourself, so...
	I don't know how much further we can...
	Audio's good, everybody?
	Everything's good?
	Before we get into that, so...
	Sure.
	Why don't we just go with your next question and we'll see where we go from there.
	Do you think that's what happened?
	He deleted his responses?
	And I understand that, Judge.
	Well, apparently you don't, sir.
	Wait for her to ask a question and you'll have a chance.
	Oh, boy!
	Judge is losing it.
	The last thing I asked you was about September 14th.
	So those texts that you're talking about, those refer to the issue that we heard today Some texts did, yes.
	Apparently you don't understand.
	I do not recall that.
	I'm not sure.
	I do not recall.
	Your Honor, I appreciate the question as it is on the forum.
	The question is what she's going to read.
	I object to it.
	You may ask out loud without knowing the relevance of it.
	If the witness is going to answer the source of information, and I feel like it is so inflammatory as to say out loud.
	Oh, no, no, no.
	Where Mr. Bradley falls on that, I do have an adjustment of questions.
	Okay.
	All right.
	This is fantastic.
	Why is it that we're not allowed to ask a question?
	And then when the question is asked, there's an objection made either by the state or the lawyers for this particular witness.
	It appears that what the state would like to do is force us to tell you in advance every question we're going to ask.
	Yeah, basically, that's the Alex Jones show trial.
	They get to do that.
	We are obviously in the same position to say to them, tell us every question you're going to ask first.
	I realize it's a privilege, but that can be the questions asked, state objects, Chopra objects in the court rules, but not being able to put it on the record because it's inflammatory or it's somehow...
	Bullshit.
	I don't think that...
	And why are you calling him former?
	In the general sense of things, but in this situation, Ms. Murchin offered to provide essentially her list of questions in advance, giving us a preview of what she's going to say, and that puts us in kind of a different posture in that respect, where we can actually have some sense of what's going to come out.
	Ask the question.
	Ms. Murchin, I think, knowing what your next question may be, since usually we don't have that opportunity, does it presuppose some knowledge on his part that we have yet to establish?
	Is inside or outside of privilege?
	Sure.
	She's low now because of the court mic.
	Every single question.
	So I was hoping that we would fair that out ahead of time.
	So this is the first that I heard, that objection to the question that we gave the state office It's going to be completely transparent.
	I also I have to establish that his information there have been statements in this court that I lied multiple statements yesterday.
	I can tell you how many times that was said under oath yesterday, and that I did not get this information.
	And so I have a right to Which I've already said we can do and we can go over.
	And we've already started doing that.
	But the next question...
	How bad could the question be?
	has.
	Then let her ask the question, Judge.
	Let her most know.
	No.
	Well, I don't believe so, no.
	I mean, if we're going to talk about the privilege, I wanted to talk about it before that was why I gave all the people.
	I didn't know the state had objections on these structures privilege.
	If we're going to talk about the privilege, I'm happy to ask him the substance of the Sennheiser.
	What's the question?
	What could the question possibly be?
	I'll do my best.
	I understand, Your Honor.
	I'm going to leave it every time they do.
	But the problem in the context that Ms. Merton is closing the question is, this was our communication, this is what I asked you, this is what she told me, and here are the texts that are supporting it.
	I understand the court's ruling that based on how things have gone, if Ms. Merton feels like she needs to establish there is contact and communication, then I don't have the objection to that.
	However, number one, the text message that We're entitled to an accurate representation of what those are.
	This is how he's looking at his phone, and that's what he's got.
	He's under no obligation.
	This merchant provided this to us, and I appreciate it.
	But I can't tell as I'm sitting here to object to an incomplete or an inaccurate recycling of what you gave me to do.
	So a couple things come to mind.
	One would be that anything the witness is referring to on the stand, counsel at any point, has the right to inspect.
	And so if that's what you're asking for is Cross, then I think you have a right to do that, if you decided to do that.
	The other is, as I've seen it so far, I don't think these texts are coming in as substantive evidence, but more for impeachment, in which case extrinsic evidence would never be coming in to prove them up, and he either takes her answer or he doesn't.
	That's how it works.
	So I don't see the foundation issue or the completeness issue really playing into it as it comes to impeachment.
	I took that.
	He doesn't have an iPhone.
	I can't download the entire text message history.
	I told him they could go through my phone.
	Like, I'm hiding something.
	All right.
	All right, Ms. Merchant.
	Ask the question.
	At this point, I don't see anything extravagant about the next question on his face.
	I think we need to deal with it as it goes, so you can proceed.
	I asked you where I could get an activated from about the affair.
	And you responded, no, because you didn't think anybody would truly burn that bridge.
	If you say so.
	I mean, I don't...
	You have your text if you need a refresher memory.
	Damn it, I didn't hear what she said.
	She said, you know where I can get an affidavit?
	September 18th at 3.11 p.m.
	Tell me he didn't delete his replies to me.
	Can you repeat the question?
	The question is, did I text you asking you if you knew who I could get an affidavit from about the affair?
	No one would freely burn that bridge.
	No, her mic is not purposely cut.
	She's just not into the central mic that they have there.
	No, you asked me if...
	Under oath, he would testify.
	Can it answer the question yet?
	Well, since Mr. Campbell hadn't even been brought in to this proceeding at all, I'm also wondering about just the relevance of asking questions about Mr. Campbell.
	It's been objective that I'm not asking about all the texts, and I'm selectively asking, so I'm trying to go through all of them.
	I would much rather just ask the very relevant ones.
	Well, I have an objection to her asking...
	I can't tell if the statements or the testimony provided is consistent or inconsistent about a complete set of this text exchange.
	And it's not clear in the text exchange what the source of Mr. Bradley's information that he's providing is.
	And so that is...
	Sure.
	And again, I think you're focusing more on the merits than the impeachment value.
	Right.
	If the sole purpose this is coming in is under those grounds, then you being able to match him up word for word, I don't see that as being a necessary prerequisite.
	But as it relates to Mr. Campbell, he's not a witness yet.
	He hasn't come in.
	I don't think he's come up really at all other than passing and maybe the firm.
	So why don't we skip ahead to the next questions, and you could always come back to that if somehow he is.
	That's great, Judge.
	I needed some clarity because the state is objecting that it's not full and accurate.
	I'm keeping things out, and then they're objecting that I'm putting too much in.
	So I'm just trying to avoid every question having an objection, Judge.
	So on January 5th, 2024, we had a text exchange where we talked about that I had discovered that...
	Nathan took Fonny on a cruise and a trip and paid for it with the business card.
	You told me you were on a plane home from Dubai, but you would call me as soon as you got home.
	you remember that.
	This is the first time I was going to use the same thing.
	Let's get the lie.
	We've got to work it together.
	on a plane back from Dubai.
	I don't know how often that happens.
	Sir, what the hell's going on right now?
	If I were Ash, I'd say, excuse me, sir, what are you doing right now?
	You don't remember?
	So what I have is a text message from you saying, oh my God, Nathan took funny on a trip to Napa and paid for it with his firm.
	Okay, continue reading.
	And you said, is he that dumb?
	And I said, wow, I'm on a plane from Dubai, land at three.
	We'll call you as soon as I land.
	So that is accurate.
	That's what you told me.
	That I will call you as soon as I land and wow?
	I think you said wow.
	Yes.
	Yes, that is accurate.
	And then you told me that you weren't surprised because they took many trips to Florida, Texas, and California.
	Is she texting him as a friend or as an adversary?
	Okay, so I don't have that, but...
	Why not?
	And I can show my phone, but I don't have that in my phone.
	Why?
	So the question is just, do you recall?
	I do not recall.
	I do not recall.
	Do you recall telling me that it was when she had to move her daughter on a trip to California?
	I do not recall that.
	Judge, may I approach the witness?
	You may.
	So, I think I might have missed something.
	Did he say that he doesn't have some of his replies because he deleted them?
	chat, yes or no.
	Yes, I see this.
	He deleted the text.
	It does not.
	I mean, I see what's on the text chain, but Oh, okay, fine.
	You said this happened January 5th?
	I can tell you exactly when it happened.
	Gosh, I can't get the chat.
	I just want to stop scrolling.
	Here, this is what I want to do.
	There's no date and time stamp on that.
	Let's see.
	Trumpet in Rumble says, big distraction.
	What else is in the news today?
	How is exposing the corruption behind the prosecution of the President of the United States a distraction?
	Oh, sorry, I don't mean to get angry, but I can't say...
	Okay, how is that a...
	This is the show, people.
	Corruption, election interference, 2024.
	I was joking with my wife, like, a nuclear bomb could go up and say it's a distraction.
	It's not a distraction.
	This is the corruption that needs exposure.
	I don't mean to be mean.
	I have to answer it.
	If it was January 5th.
	To which question?
	To the current question.
	We still don't know the source of this information, whether it was privileged or how he obtained it.
	Thank you.
	I'm wondering now if there's a timeliness issue on their objections since he already...
	Well, he said he just doesn't recall.
	Sure.
	Well, his answer was he doesn't recall and his memory has not been refreshed.
	So I think it's time for the next question.
	May I first wait a second?
	Okay.
	Can I see what your Okay.
	She kind of just screen recorded it and sent it to the other parties.
	That's what I did.
	While they're looking at that, can I just ask you, did you delete any text messages?
	I have several messages in the phone with you.
	I've never deleted.
	I mean, there are messages about family and my health and things like that.
	Did you delete any text messages?
	We own some panel.
	Yes.
	And so I, you know, I think it's complete, but...
	Well, no, my question was, did you delete anything?
	No, I haven't deleted anything.
	Okay.
	I have not.
	That's a lie.
	And I offered them to look through my phone earlier if they are welcome to.
	Wow.
	Did you delete?
	Did you delete?
	It's the only phone I have.
	I never delete anything that's related to family or medical.
	Lie.
	Lie.
	There's two lawyers gossiping about information.
	And I'm concerned about it coming into the record.
	In this way, I know seeing impeachment is a thing, but if we could do it in a way that the substance of this gossip is not, that part is not.
	The contact is important.
	I don't think we've gotten to that point.
	Quite yet, Ms. Cross, but you can renew your objection if you think we have.
	So right now, the sole thing that Ms. Merchant is trying to do is hand him an object to refresh his recollection again.
	So we'll see where we get with that.
	Did you delete any text messages?
	I would never delete anything about family, health, friends.
	The point is a trier of that.
	You're going to be able to determine whether something that has come in that you choose to work.
	This hearsay, whether it's admissible, whether it's relevant, whether it's impeachment, you're in a position that if it all comes in, but you reserve the right, or all parties reserve the right to object, we can deal with it.
	This is not a jury.
	We don't have to worry about a jury hearing something that it will no longer consider.
	All we're doing now, with all due respect, and I understand there's a process.
	The state doesn't want something to be heard.
	I object to that.
	They've repeatedly attempted to stop questioning.
	Your Honor can hear it all and then decide what is and is not relevant.
	It's not like prejudicing a jury.
	We don't have to go through every single one of these.
	The only time we have to go through this is if it is in fact a communication and it's a privileged communication and an argument has to be made at that point as to whether or not it should be.
	elicited or it is subject to being stated in open court.
	Otherwise, all of this could come to the court and the court can then decide how it wants to treat it.
	That's...
	I appreciate that, Mr. Sedan.
	I think it's certainly accurate that we could have an approach where if it's a close toss-up on an evidentiary question, we can have it all come in and sort it out later on the record.
	I don't think we've quite reached the point where I need to do that.
	Still have time to get into these and it'd be my preference to keep the record as clean as possible and without questionable evidentiary issues.
	But we may not get to that point.
	So the question from Ms. Merchant was to approach the witness with an object to see if that would refresh his recollection to the last question asked.
	Yes.
	He should have used hammers like Hillary Clinton.
	I'm sorry, the state scrolled through it, so it's not right there again.
	No, I mean like it was on the screen.
	Hamatow!
	Has no one done that mashup?
	Like a Hillary Clinton...
	It's Hamatow!
	That would be funny.
	Rotten to the core.
	Yep, no, this is, um...
	Oh.
	Go to my Twitter feed.
	What was the point of Fannie Willis' dad's testimony was to show that his daughter was receiving threats, that he lived in the house when she left for her safety, and then he ended up admitting that Fannie kept...
	No, I can't find it.
	I'm going to move on to the next question that I actually can't find, and then I'll find that and come back to it.
	I sent you a statement and said, upon information and belief, Willis and Wade met while both were serving as a magistrate judge in...
	And begin a romantic relationship at that time.
	And you corrected me in saying no, it was in municipal court.
	Is that correct?
	I think that's pretty accurate.
	And is that based on your personal knowledge?
	What question?
	Was it municipal court or when they first met?
	My question was, is this accurate?
	Upon information and belief, Willis and Wade met while both were serving as magistrate judges and began a romantic relationship at that time.
	And you wrote...
	No, that it was municipal court.
	Okay, so Mr. Chopra has risen.
	Sorry.
	Your Honor, I do have one purpose here, and that purpose has now been met.
	Any information that Mr. Bradley may possess would, in fact, have come from his representation of Mr. Wade.
	Bullshit.
	Bullcrap.
	There's no way the judge falls in this.
	There's no pierce or shield associated with it, and so we would say that under Rule 1.6, we should not be compelled to give any further advice.
	There's no way the judge falls on this.
	Okay, and as we discussed before the break, Mr. Chopra, if I ruled earlier this morning that this witness is going to be directed to respond to any question to the extended falls outside of attorney-client privilege and only attorney-client privilege, meaning 1.6 is not going to bar his testimony in this case, what would be your response then?
	Mr. Bradley would have to consistently assess on his own, unless I'm jumping up and objecting for him, whether or not this came within his knowledge based on his representation.
	And I can say based on the phrasing of the question from Ms. Merchant, it would in fact come within information obtained from his partner /client at the time associated with the activity in question.
	All right.
	Mr. Evans.
	Same issue?
	I just want to reiterate that it's a compound question anyways.
	It sort of needs to be separated out.
	But we just reviewed the objection that it's still based on gossip.
	Either gossip or privilege communication.
	He doesn't ever cite the source of where any of this information is coming from.
	So I just want to remake that of there.
	Okay.
	Judge, as far as privilege, any privilege objection, it's been waived.
	Particularly for this issue because Mr. Wade...
	He did testify on this subject.
	He didn't testify as a communication with his attorney about any subject.
	He testified factually about what trips he took and events that occurred.
	He didn't testify, to my recollection, about any communication with his attorney.
	He testified about the subject matter of the question that was just asked, which was when apparently they first met.
	Furthermore, Judge, my client wasn't privy to that testimony.
	We have been under subpoena and therefore under the rule, so we do not know what was or was not testified to.
	Everything he says would be a violation of that privilege unless we know specifically what all has been waived.
	Unless I make a finding that there was an express waiver on behalf of the client.
	Per question.
	Okay.
	Sure.
	Got it.
	So for this question particularly, Judge, we would ask that you find that there has been a waiver of the attorney-client privilege because Mr. Wade testified to something directly different than what this witness, we believe, has been.
	Mr. Wade testified as to when they met.
	That is not the entire substance of the text message that missed and began a romantic relationship.
	He did not testify that they were serving as magistrate judges when they began a romantic relationship.
	He would testify differently.
	Okay, Ms. Murchin, I think you're going to need to establish whether this witness ever gained that knowledge independently or during the course of an attorney-client relationship.
	Did you have any...
	Thinking back to the source of your knowledge...
	It's so ridiculous.
	And let me just, before I do that, let me remind you of what is covered by attorney-client privilege.
	How do you ask the question to get him to answer it?
	It's communications that relate to matters in which legal advice is sought and communications that have been maintained in confidence and no exceptions to the privilege.
	So it's communications that are in furtherance of legal advice.
	Your knowledge that their affair began, that their romantic relationship, I'm sorry, began while they were both serving as municipal court judges.
	Is that from your personal information, your personal knowledge, or is that from...
	I'm going to overrule that objection, Mr. Chopra.
	He can answer that question.
	Oh, boy.
	State that question again.
	Yeah, state it again.
	Is any knowledge, if any...
	If any knowledge of Nathan Wade and Fannie Willis' relationship, romantic relationship beginning while they were both serving as judges, is any knowledge that you have from your own personal knowledge or something that was told to you in furtherance of legal advice?
	I have no personal knowledge of when...
	It actually happened.
	I was not there.
	I do not have any personal knowledge, so I would choose not to answer that question under 1.6.
	Mr. Bradley, we made a distinction earlier.
	Yes, sir.
	That it's a bit narrower than that.
	I have no personal knowledge, Judge.
	I apologize.
	That's not a problem.
	The issue is attorney-client privilege, and so what you learned, if anything.
	It was.
	Okay.
	And was it any knowledge that you had as to the truth of that statement, was it told to you in furtherance of legal advice?
	I'm going to object it.
	If that statement is true, and the witness has already testified, he has no personal knowledge.
	So whether he represented at one point it was true or not true, he has no personal knowledge about that, so could not testify.
	Prior inconsistent statement, judge.
	Do it all the time.
	That is what the state does regularly.
	They bring in, it's a prior inconsistent statement of another witness, judge.
	Which other witness?
	I'm sorry.
	Okay, Mr. Wade testified.
	That their relationship did not start.
	But you can't impeach him with a prior inconsistent statement that's privileged.
	And so we haven't gotten over the privilege journal.
	The privilege hurdle we've gotten over with fraud on this instance.
	That's the first time you've used that word.
	So if you want to make the argument of why that applies, you can do that now.
	Yes, Judge.
	The crime fraud exception, it applies because of the crime fraud.
	She should have done this a while ago.
	People in the chat were saying this.
	Which crime and or fraud was committed here?
	So there's a couple different things, and I want to just address them both because he's raised 1.6 and also raised a 3.5 privilege.
	The crime fraud exception says the privilege doesn't apply if it's...
	If the existence of it...
	Essentially, if he has to keep something secret to allow a fraud upon the court to continue.
	So we've got that.
	We've also got...
	No, it has to...
	The legal communications have to have done in furtherance of a crime or fraud.
	How has that been established?
	Again, what crime or fraud are we talking about?
	We're talking about forgery.
	Lying to the court.
	And the affidavit filed last month.
	Yes.
	And so what have you done to link the communications that he made maybe...
	I don't know, years ago, to the affidavit found last month.
	The communications he made years ago?
	It's proof of the affidavit being incorrect, being false.
	It may be, but the legal communication has to be in furtherance of a crime or fraud.
	Yeah, perjury under oath.
	Right, but he also can't protect, and I think it's more under...
	But if he had no idea, an affidavit wasn't even going to need to be filed until a month ago.
	These communications and everything happened well before that.
	How is anything that they communicated in furtherance of that affidavit that they didn't even know would have to be filed one day?
	It's just, that part's been waived, because he filed the affidavit.
	So you can't file something that's false, and then your lawyer know that it's false, and then say, oh, well, privilege, my lawyer can't correct that.
	When he waived the privilege.
	And he waived the privilege.
	He testified about this yesterday.
	Okay, Ms. Cross.
	I don't think that's even close to an accurate representation of what the law in this area is.
	And beyond the real kind of throwing out fraud and this and crimes, which what you held on it is a conflict in the evidence at this point.
	I know which way.
	The weight of the evidence appears to me that that's going to be for the court to judge.
	A conflict in the evidence, that is not a crime.
	That is not a fraud.
	No perjury is...
	So I agree with you there that you would have to first establish a crime or a fraud occurred by preponderance.
	Got it.
	And...
	Anything else?
	Just that she can't, under the guise of impeachment of this witness, you want to establish that?
	Number two, the witness has already said he doesn't have any personal knowledge of that.
	And there is no, the kind of specificity that is required to lay the predicate for a crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege is nowhere close to being met here.
	Okay.
	Anyone else want to be heard?
	Mr. Seda.
	Yes, Your Honor.
	This is what I said to the court earlier.
	This is not crime-fraud.
	I can understand both arguments here.
	Go for it.
	It's Owens Corning Fiberglass Corporation versus American Centennial Insurance Company et al.
	And it is 660-122-812.
	Trumpet says that depends on what is.
	Okay, so it looks like this guy's trying to argue for a more attenuated admissibility, not based on a crime fraud exception.
	The point in the case, or the holding in the case, if, to be a party or a witness, chooses to testify falsely an opposition in it.
	If someone chooses to testify falsely, Wade, testify falsely.
	To claim the relationship started in 2022.
	That if there are attorney-client communications in which the same individual witness has told his attorney something contrary to that, inconsistent with that, here that the relationship, the personal romantic relationship between Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis...
	began prior to november 1st of 2021 which would be the day that we retired that if that communication took place that is the attorney communication that the fraud upon the court is mr wade false lying under oath about the starting thing and the attorney client privilege under those
	material is pierced, and the attorney may be forced to testify to the contrary or inconsistent Because they have a commencement of proof as well.
	Good.
	This witness is testimony, and yet, before it may have to hear some of this ex parte camera to determine, but if this witness is able to testify that Mr. Wade told him, under whatever the circumstances may be, that the relationship with Fonny Willis began before and after, November 1st of 2041, then we know from the witnesses testified to Mr. Wade that he lied under oath to the court, and that's a fraud upon the court, and the attorney
	communication that that specific matter is pierced and needs to go into record.
	For that specific matter.
	How does to do that?
	The only way to do that, if it's not in writing and apparently it's not, is for the court to In camera, ex parte, what the communications were that are sought to be kept privileged.
	If the court deems that it is not inconsistent or contrary to what is testified, then you wouldn't pierce the privilege.
	If, on the other hand, this witness, honestly, that is, now we're talking about Mr. Bradley, actually testifies to what he has told in text messages to Ms. Merchant on behalf of Ms. Roman.
	That he absolutely knows that the relationship started before November 1st of 2021.
	Then he's testifying that his client took the stand and lied under oath.
	So my request in this regard is what's going to happen here from the counsel, that is counsel from Mr. Bradley, and Mr. Bradley to determine whether or not he actually said what he said.
	to Mr. Merchant and whether or not it was based on communications, whatever it took place with Mr. Wood.
	All right, Mr. Seda, I understand.
	Thank you for clarifying your argument there.
	So I understand this fraud upon the cart theory.
	And what I'd been going back and forth with Ms. Merchant on earlier was that, as I understood, crime fraud applied in Georgia was that the communications had to have been in furtherance of a crime.
	And to me that presupposes the existence of a crime at the time, or the forming of one, at the time of the communications.
	The theory you're putting forward is one where we go back in time and can reopen that box because it's now become relevant for something completely, potentially unconnected to the communications whatsoever.
	That falsity has occurred now by the very person.
	He lied under oath now, and his lawyer...
	Sure.
	Okay.
	And when I say crime fraud, it's a fraud waiver.
	That's what Millich calls it, essentially.
	I mean, Millich says that it doesn't offend the privilege to ask an attorney to testify to matters already freely discussed by the attorney and a client at another hearing or proceeding.
	Allowing a client to selectively waive and reassert the privilege as tactics dictates...
	Suggest that the client is using the privilege as a sword and not merely a shield.
	So I think it was quite explicit that Mr. Wade never waived anything regarding to communications between him and Mr. Bradley.
	He was willing to discuss the subject matter, but he was never willing to get into communications that occurred between him and Mr. Bradley.
	So as to Mr. Sedow's point of this fraud upon the court theory, my question is going to be, has it ever been applied in Georgia?
	And the answer to that is, it does not appear that it's been applied in Georgia.
	It's been applied.
	The cases that I have, the case that I gave you plus the case that cited in there, are the only thing I've been able to locate.
	Although, I think that the bar rules, we're going to go back to those in front of you, that a lawyer should not allow his client to commit a fraud upon the court.
	And I think that, along with this, gives the court the discretion to do that.
	And the only way to make the record, even if the court I suggest that this is the law of the courtship law.
	But even if the court disagreed, there's no way for there to be a record about it unless Your Honor does it ex parte in camera to determine the nature of the privilege.
	Which, of course, Your Honor knows, from earlier days, is how judges can do it with a fixed amendment privilege.
	They can do it with any privilege, as long as it's ex parte in camera.
	So what I'm asking the court to do is when I get up, I'm going to ask you directly.
	I'm not going to go through this that's going on now.
	To find out whether or not Mr. Wade has ever told Mr. Bradley, be it in his capacity as his attorney, or otherwise, that the relationship started earlier than what Mr. Wade testified to.
	All right, understood.
	So the big takeaway I'm hearing from that Mr. Sadow is that once again we're hearing the words, a matter of first impression here, and noted.
	Mr. Gillen.
	Yeah, very quickly, John.
	Number one, apparently Natalie's playing the which she certainly did not assert when he was communicating the text, Sure, but do we have any indication Mr. Wade waived it and allowed him to communicate by that text?
	So how is that an implied waiver?
	he should protect a communication.
	That's a pretty big assumption, right?
	Not all communications are protected, number one.
	Number two, let's not forget how we started on this journey with the state getting up and making very serious allegations against the courts, asking for sanctions, saying all of her representations This is a good point, too.
	They accused her of lying.
	and to prevent work access to show it until the truth which is exactly what she said was exactly the truth when they're trying to do if they're trying to say the court The 100% accuracy of Mr. Wade's declaration and of his testimony.
	And by the way, please, please, Judge, don't let Mr. Bradley tell you what he knows.
	Because what he knows is that this relationship, based upon what we see from the text and what we've seen in the context, we show that the relationship started in 2021.
	Wouldn't it have come out in the divorce proceedings?
	of crime fraud, Your Honor.
	The issue of crime fraud is whether or not, in any context, the communication would be not in ferverance of a crime at that time, but it could be for any particular crime committed by the client in the future as well.
	It doesn't have to be something that's being committed at the time.
	We'll also note that when you look at the attorney-client privilege, the law basically says, "Look." This is a privilege which blocks, blocks evidence from coming in.
	And so, in order to have that, they have the crime fraud exception, which is a very low standard once a prime official showing has been made, which I believe has been done by Ms. Merch.
	That's a good argument.
	All right, let me clarify one thing, Mr. Bradley.
	When you testified to personal knowledge, does that include anything you may have seen, heard?
	outside of communications with a client?
	When you say you lack personal knowledge, does that include anything you may have seen or heard outside of communications with a client?
	She could lay the groundwork, like, did you ever see them date?
	Did you ever see them date?
	Try to rephrase it for me, James.
	I'm sorry.
	When you say you lack any personal knowledge, does that also mean that it can include anything you may have seen or heard outside of communications?
	Outside of communications, would you like that?
	That's correct.
	Okay.
	That's a lie.
	Communications that were made, if any, that relate to the subject that you were asked to, were there any other third parties present that may have resulted in a waiver of privilege?
	Oh yeah, I'm sure he's going to tender up that answer.
	Including texts.
	Am I answering your question or her question?
	Okay.
	any other third parties ever present with you and a client that would have resulted in a waiver of these privileges.
	Hmm, wow.
	No, Judge.
	I can't recall anybody being present.
	I mean, we ran an office.
	We had people around our office, but...
	No, I can't say that there were other people present.
	Alright.
	And did you ever receive any kind of a waiver from your client at any point?
	I have not received a waiver.
	And anything that you learned regarding the subject matter at all, if anything, was it in the course of legal advice, of receiving or giving?
	Oh yes, all of it.
	I never talked about anything outside of the mandate with a man that I've been working with for seven years.
	Never talked about his relationships.
	I'm standing up now.
	That's a broad question, Judge, to answer.
	What did you just call me?
	Because the advice was given, and then you have interaction.
	I mean, it wasn't, hey, this is for...
	to say specifically this is this was for that or yeah you know I can't sit here and say that but okay good so it wasn't specifically I don't know how to answer that question well the answer then is answer the question can't specifically mention it was a claim privilege and so this is this is boring it's atlanta coca-cola bottling company Dude,
	Let's get to the principle of the case.
	I'm not having the benefit of jeopardizing it.
	So, it's safe.
	I'm sure we have the minimum of opposing rules.
	It looks like it's reference to maybe head note number two.
	At least you know what I'm looking at on the computer.
	And language that is in the case, okay, is...
	Bless you.
	As the violation of the law or commission of fraud, the protection that is only to communication after the act or transaction is fixed.
	It does not cover communications respecting proposed infractions.
	The bad audio is from the court, not from me.
	The bad audio is from the court, not from me.
	There will not be a judgment today, even if they finish.
	in false testimony.
	A fraudulent act of court.
	A4, and the reason I would qualify that, since we're talking about candidate for the court, I need to do that.
	I believe this rule is regarding the conduct of advocates representing courts in court.
	It might not govern or control the situation where the lawyer has been put on the standard.
	It's adjacent to the point that you say that may be Alright, fair point.
	Okay, Ms. Trooper, anything you want to address on that?
	Briefly, Judge, and clearly there's a lot of smarts in this room, but this whole thing is a deductive balance sheet.
	Um...
	A deductive fallacy.
	of the argument necessarily follows from the truth of the premises given, when in fact the conclusion does not necessarily follow the premises.
	They call him a perjurist.
	He has officially succeeded in saying the thing itself is true, therefore we must have to Ask these other questions.
	And judge, it's a fallacy.
	It does not exist as such.
	Oh, terrible argument.
	Get out of here.
	All right.
	Sit down and be quiet.
	Thank you all.
	So I think here is what we need to do as I understand the law.
	As I find it, the crime fraud exception only applies when, by preponderance, we've found that communications made in the existence of a relationship or in furtherance of a crime or the client at the time knew or reasonably should have known.
	that a crime, the attorney was being used to further a crime.
	I don't think that's been established here.
	Maybe something happened afterwards, and that's something that can be argued during closings, essentially.
	So I don't think the crime fraud exception covers this.
	The objection is preserved for the record.
	Mr. Bradley has indicated also that anything he learned about this subject occurred during those communications.
	Bullshit.
	There's some uncertainty on that point.
	And so in order to preserve the record...
	At the conclusion of the hearing, I think I can go in camera with Mr. Chopra and Mr. Bradley and we can put in a sealed filing exactly what the extent of those communications were.
	Or they could just ask him if he ever went on a date with them.
	Excuse me, not relevant, but just what they were and those would remain sealed until some time if we're ever directed.
	Ask if they ever went on a date together.
	However, at this point, getting back to the question asked by Ms. Merchant, As asked, would be sustained on the issue of privilege, the premise.
	He may have told you something, but it does not appear that there's any evidence that the client ever waived and allowed that information to me to convey to you.
	Next question.
	That's a tenable argument.
	You can't blame him, even though the chat seems to be blaming him.
	Thank you, Judge.
	Ask if they ever went out to him.
	All right, let's see.
	Did you guys ever go out socially together?
	We talked about Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade coming to and from your office and security details following them.
	Do you recall that?
	Do I need to look at my phone?
	Just asking if you recall.
	Do I recall?
	I think I did, yes.
	Do you recall security taking Ms. Willis to your office?
	Does he recall Ms. Willis taking...
	But you can answer the question, sir.
	I do recall security detail bringing Ms. Willis to my office.
	Do you recall approximately when that was?
	I do not.
	And was that on more than one occasion?
	And why was that?
	Dude, more than one occasion.
	I remember two occasions.
	Okay.
	Very specific.
	Why?
	Can you tell me about those?
	Yeah.
	I can't remember when they were.
	Were they before she became DA?
	So, I don't know if she had security detail before she became DA.
	So, I mean, if she was sworn in, or I don't remember the dates, but I do remember...
	I think she was DA.
	Maybe during her transition team period, was that...?
	No, it wasn't.
	She identified as DA.
	I'm trying to remember.
	Don't try too hard.
	She would have had to have been the DA, I think.
	And I don't want to go on, I think.
	But I do remember.
	Twice.
	Her coming to our office.
	Correct.
	And she had a security team both of those times?
	There was a...
	Yes, she had a security team with her.
	And do you believe that it's a different security team than she has now?
	I don't know her security team now.
	However...
	I'm sorry.
	I don't...
	know her security team now.
	This guy's taking too long to answer every single bloody question.
	I don't know her security team now.
	You remember telling me that it changed at some point, her security team.
	Don't phrase it like that.
	Did her security team change at some point, as per the best of your knowledge?
	I told you.
	Yes, I think I recall saying that, yes.
	And that the most likely people that could testify or had seen things about them having a romantic relationship early on would be the original security.
	I don't recall saying that, no, but...
	Do you recall talking to me about other people that might have known about their romantic relationship?
	I recall...
	Yeah, I mean, objection based on, we all know the source, this is either based on privileged information or hearsay.
	Yeah, that's fair enough.
	It's neither.
	I asked if he recalls...
	You need to clarify it.
	If you're actually going to think, if you think that this draws on information from outside the relationship that we've already, he's already testified to, then you need to lay that foundation.
	That's sustained.
	Are you aware of other people that you believe would have known about when their relationship began?
	I object to the relevance of that.
	Again, the witness has testified he has no first-hand information of it.
	Anything he knows about the topic came from representation.
	Who he thinks might have been able to...
	Stop testifying for him.
	Okay, Ms. Merchant, I think we're getting to the point where...
	You know, the reason I thought this line of questioning was appropriate was to rebut certain inferences about why we were here in the first place.
	Right.
	But to go into it at the granular level, I'm not as wild about.
	So maybe you can ask more overarching questions, and if you have anything else you think that's relevant, then you can get to those as well.
	Isn't it true that I gave you a copy of the motion to disqualify in this case?
	I emailed it to you, and you read it, reviewed it, and emailed me back that everything in it was accurate.
	To your knowledge.
	That's the problem.
	You emailed me.
	He started to answer.
	Two ladies started answering.
	All right.
	So there are things contained within that, Ms. Merchant, which he has now said fell within the privilege and that he did not have the ability to waive.
	So that's where we have to leave it there.
	And I believe I still have to ask the questions and then if he wants to assert the privilege.
	Well, I think he's pretty much already established the privilege and the objection has been made, and I think it's a valid one at this point based on the record.
	So the answer was he did acknowledge that you sent him the motion, and I think we leave it at that.
	Let's see.
	Yeah, Ashley's getting a little caught off guard with this, it sounds like, but she's still doing great.
	And you had knowledge about an apartment, and I'm not asking what...
	Mr. Wade told you in furtherance of legal advice, but you had knowledge about an apartment in East Point or a condo in East Point that was owned by someone and Ms. Willis was staying there.
	I think in the way the question is phrased, she qualified that.
	I did not have knowledge.
	You did not have knowledge.
	I did not have personal knowledge at all.
	No.
	So no knowledge outside of what is privileged.
	That's correct.
	Did you have texts between yourself, Ms. Willis, and Mr. Waite?
	Do I?
	Have you ever?
	I have.
	Maybe once or twice, but...
	Ms. Waite.
	Did mr. Wade ever asked to use your credit card to pay for trips?
	Oh Why Just asking to use your credit card To go on trips?
	Furthering her divorce proceeding.
	Thank you.
	Not an answer to the question, sir.
	For travel.
	Oh, I see where she's going with this.
	Are you asking if I use my business card for travel?
	Would Nathan Wade use your business card for travel?
	Yes or no?
	The answer is yes.
	We already saw the records, dumb bum.
	Why don't you just say the answer?
	I recall...
	Oh my goodness.
	I recall a trip...
	But I don't know if that trip has anything to do with this case.
	So I do recall him using my card once.
	When was that?
	I don't even know when that was.
	And that sounds true.
	And what did he say?
	I recall him using my card once.
	But I cannot remember what that was for.
	I do remember it was a trip.
	Making progress.
	But I cannot actually state where it was and who it was with or anything like that.
	And he paid you back for that trip in cash?
	Oh!
	I can't remember how he paid.
	I think it was.
	I mean, I'm not certain if it was cash or a check.
	It only happened once.
	We routinely would use...
	My card for filings, for paper, for whatever stuff with the office.
	And so he would, whether he paid me back in cash or whether he wrote a check, you know, it was paid back to the business card.
	But this was the only time he had used it for travel.
	That I can remember.
	Let me access my memory bank.
	Oh, wait a minute.
	It's empty.
	Oh, my goodness.
	Dude, how long?
	This is painful, especially for someone with ADD.
	I cannot recall.
	I don't even have that business card anymore.
	That wasn't the question.
	I don't have that business card anymore.
	I do recall at least once for travel, yes.
	And he paid you back in cash.
	That was when you were still law partners with him, though, correct?
	That is correct.
	Do you recall approximately when that was?
	I do not.
	When were you law partners with him?
	You did not go on that trial with him, though, correct?
	No, I did not.
	And so he asked you to use your card for the trial.
	Yes, he did.
	I don't know if he asked or he had access to it, or if he just used it.
	I could answer for this guy.
	Yes, I mean, I'm assuming.
	I mean, he used a card for firm stuff.
	And so...
	It was a business card.
	Your business card?
	It was my business card, yes.
	The Law Office of Terrence A. Bradley, correct.
	Okay, so it showed up on your accounts?
	That is correct.
	Okay, wouldn't show up on his accounts though, correct?
	No, of course not.
	That would be accurate, yes.
	Do you know if this was before he became special DA in this case?
	Special prosecutor.
	I cannot recall.
	When did they stop being partners?
	Did you see he and Ms. Willis together?
	You said you were in and out of the DA's office.
	You saw them together, correct?
	In and out of my office or the DA's office?
	The DA's office.
	You saw them together in and out of the DA's office.
	Did I see them in and out?
	Yes.
	Yeah, that was the question.
	Well, if you preface it like that, no.
	I saw him in and out of the office.
	When I would be there doing my filter work for the taint team, he would come by.
	I rarely saw Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade together in the DA's office.
	So, you brought up the taint team.
	Let's talk about that for a minute.
	Tell me about, you did work as, you had a contract as a taint lawyer, correct?
	That is correct.
	Yes, I saw Fanny's taint.
	And that was an anti-corruption unit?
	Yes, I think so.
	Yes, correct.
	How did you get that contract?
	What do you mean?
	How did I get it?
	Public tender?
	Did you call up Manny and say...
	Did you apply online?
	Oh, no.
	It was proposed...
	By whom?
	We were...
	It was proposed by...
	I can't imagine not remembering my life like this.
	I just came from the district attorney.
	I mean, I didn't...
	I didn't speak directly with her.
	How did you know the district attorney?
	It was with Mr. Wade, and he asked if we would be interested in having a contract with the Fulton County.
	Okay.
	And I said what?
	I think so.
	I mean, I can't recall if he asked us both together or not.
	Rarely.
	We all handled different things for the firm, criminal, personal injury, things like that, family law, and so rarely were we together.
	They're at the same time for an abundance of time.
	Do you remember the question that we asked?
	He may have called me and then he may have called Chris.
	I can't remember.
	I can't recall.
	How you got the contract?
	How we got the contract.
	That's totally plausible.
	Was Mr. Wade, to your knowledge, part of the transition team for Ms. Willis?
	To my knowledge, he was part of the transition team.
	Did he spend a lot of time at that office during this transition period?
	He did.
	So from when Ms. Willis took office to when you left the firm, did Mr. Wade spend most of his time at the DA's office?
	You said most of his time, are you saying just working business hours?
	Yeah, working business hours.
	I would say he spent...
	This drives me nuts.
	This is where I become...
	I would probably say he spent...
	Majority of time, if you say over 51%, I would say yes, he spent over 51% of his time.
	And that was the entire time from when she took office to when you left the firm?
	I can't say that that was the entire time, but yes, it was majority of, it was a, I mean, I can't pinpoint specifically when the time that he would spend.
	I think if my memory serves correctly, getting to the majority of the time, it would have been whenever he started with this, maybe.
	As a special prosecutor?
	When you say majority of the time.
	Right.
	Okay, so let's talk about the time before he became a special prosecutor.
	Did he spend a lot of time at the DA's office then?
	He spent time.
	I mean, it depends on what you say is a lot.
	He spent time at the DA's office, correct.
	And so, just so we're clear, you were hired first on January 25th.
	Both you and Mr. Campbell were law partners, and you were both hired by the DA January 25th, 2021.
	Is that correct?
	Repeat the question, I'm sorry.
	You and Mr. Campbell both were hired on a contract basis by DA Willis January 25th, 2021, correct?
	Which contract are you talking about?
	The first one, the tank contract.
	Not the first appearance contract, the team contract.
	Well, you said the first one, and the team contract wasn't the first contract.
	Okay, so what was the first contract?
	To my knowledge, the first contract was the first appearance.
	Okay, so let me just mark these and see what number we have.
	Yeah, this is interesting.
	The first contract was the first appearance.
	Lower the camera, bring up the mic.
	This is this is this is painful for everybody involved people This is when
	they're done Oh I was I was trying to think of something that I was about to say.
	He was spending a lot of time with the DA before the special prosecutor contract.
	Interesting.
	Ask him if he ever saw them out together in social settings.
	Why hasn't Ashley accepted my request to be following her on Twitter?
	ask her these questions directly by DM if she did.
	Thank you.
	Ask if he ever saw them out together in social settings to get past any solicitor client privilege bullcrap.
	Wow.
	Did they ever go out for dinner together?
	Did he ever tell them he was going on a date with her?
	I want to know how his goatee grows that color compared to his mustache and why he shaves it down the middle unless it grows like that naturally.
	What else do I want to ask about the facial hair?
	I find it very curious when the facial hair on one part of your face is totally a different color than on another.
	This is the most exciting thing that I've ever done on a Friday afternoon.
	Watch a man read papers.
	Now that you've reviewed those, is it true that on January 25th, 2021, you got your first contract as a taint lawyer?
	Taint review team.
	As a taint lawyer, yes.
	I see the date on that as a taint lawyer.
	I'm also looking at this contract here.
	Who do you just look at right there?
	And there, you know, there must have been, I don't have it for me, but there must have been a contract before this.
	Why?
	So you think there's a fourth contract?
	I can't say that there is or isn't.
	What I do know is that we did first appearance during COVID.
	And it was before 2021.
	So I don't know.
	You know, if I had a contract, a written contract at that particular time or anything, but I do know, I think that the, I mean, you could look at the recordings because everything was recorded at that time as to when the first appearance contract started and the taint contract started.
	So when the three of you were partners, you had at least two contracts to do taint work, which is filter work.
	And then at least two contracts to do first appearance work.
	Pretty much throughout that entire few years, right?
	Well, it renewed.
	So, I mean, it just renewed.
	Yes, I mean, it was the same contract, but it was a renewal of the contract.
	So how did you, and you said you got these contracts through, Ms. Willis gave them to you, but it was through?
	Hard knowing Mr. Wayne, correct?
	It's funny how they started getting contracts at the same time they started.
	I didn't have a meeting with Ms. Willis or anything.
	It was...
	It was brought to the attention that a contract was going to be needed or awarded.
	And if we...
	Or if I was interested, because this was off of mine, and I said yes.
	And so Mr. Wade brought that to your attention?
	Contract.
	He asked if I was interested in doing the contract, correct.
	And then after that is when Ms. Willis would come in, or I think we actually came down here or something, and signed the contract.
	And so that is how you were paid from Fulton County, these contracts?
	From Fulton County government?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	And you shared your partnership, you shared a third of all your profits with Mr. Wade?
	At that time, yes.
	And so his contracts, he got a contract that same year, 2021, and he shared a third of all his profits with you, correct?
	Yes, that should be fairly accurate.
	So, during 2021-2022, you all had two filter-taint contracts, you had two first appearance contracts, and you had Mr. Wade's special counsel contracts, correct?
	My firm had what I have here, correct?
	But Mr. Campbell and Mr. Wade were part of your firm, correct?
	So...
	Oh, my God!
	We didn't, I don't think at this time we had established WBC.
	At this time, I think it was, I had mine, Chris had his, Nathan had his, and we operated in the same building.
	But if you asked me, did we fee share or, you know, without everything that came in, yes, that is correct.
	So you weren't actually partners, you just fee share?
	At this time, By the way, that makes you partners, just so you should know.
	At this time, we were not.
	We're not what?
	At this time, I had Law Office of Terrence Bradley, Chris Campbell, PC, and whatever Nathan's was, if I'm not mistaken.
	And all these, the Taint contracts and the Nathan's special counsel contracts, all of those were under the Anti-Corruption Unit, correct?
	The first appearance was not under that.
	The taint contract, if I recall, was under the...
	I don't think they called it.
	What are you calling it?
	You can take a look at your contract if you need.
	Okay.
	And I'm not asking about the first appearance.
	I'm asking about the taint contract and then Mr. Wade's contract, which has already been admitted in evidence if you need to look at that.
	I don't even know what to say anymore.
	This is just like having trouble keeping my eyes open.
	Let us all know when you're done with me.
	You don't remember your own business from two years ago.
	Well, I see on the first page where it says Taint Attorney, and I'm trying to go through, and I see where it continues to say Taint Attorney, but it always says Fulton County District Attorney's Office.
	Your question was specific as to the anti-corruption unit, and I'm looking for the verbiage of anti-corruption unit, so I apologize.
	Oh, no, take your time.
	Oh, no, take your time, please.
	Keep going.
	I mean, this is, what, two and a half, three years ago?
	Their entire business?
	I could tell you clients that I've had a decade ago.
	This is, and like, individual clients.
	And see, on both pages, I mean, it starts out Fulton County District Attorney's Office, and then it just goes to initials FCDA, unless I'm overlooking where it says...
	The anti-corruption unit, then the contract was with the FCDA.
	I mean, unless you want to show me something.
	I'm just asking you, and I didn't know if that would refresh your memory.
	Those contracts were for the anti-corruption unit, right?
	Well, they were for the district.
	I worked for the DA.
	Okay.
	I worked for the DA.
	Okay, so just in general, the DA.
	Correct.
	I worked for Fulton County District.
	Attorney's office as a contract person, as it says here.
	And when you did the taint work, you had to report to Sonya Allen?
	I did not.
	You did not.
	Who did you report to then?
	I can't remember his name.
	His first name was Brian.
	Okay.
	So I know you said you met with Ms. Willis when you signed those contracts, right?
	Yes, I know I met at least one time to sign these contracts.
	Ms. Willis.
	To sign when I signed the contracts, yes.
	Yes.
	Did you meet with her any other times?
	How long is this answer gonna take to process through?
	Did you meet the Fannie Willis more than once?
	I did not personally meet with Ms. Willis With Willis?
	Any other time.
	When you say meet, what do you mean?
	Did you talk with her?
	In the same room as her?
	I mean, I would see Ms. Willis in passing if I'm walking through the office and Something like that.
	You'd see her in your office?
	No, I didn't have any meetings with Ms. Willis.
	Okay, so the only times you met with her were when you signed those contracts?
	Clarify, meet with.
	What's your definition of it?
	This is a joke.
	It's just a painful one.
	I signed these contracts, so when I signed these, I met with her to say that I sat down and spoke with...
	Ms. Willis, are you saying in life, are you saying during this time, what are you asking?
	I mean, if it's voluminous, I can narrow down the times.
	But I didn't, I wasn't interested.
	Mr. Merchant, I haven't really heard a point in a while.
	Can we get along?
	That guy takes 50 minutes to answer a bloody question.
	So I had one more question about your text.
	Have you ever been in any group text with anybody other than, with me, and somebody other than Mr. Chopra and Mr. Merchant?
	You've got to narrow that down.
	I can look at my phone.
	No, no, with him.
	With Ashley and nobody else.
	And I think that the state had some rebuttal they mentioned, so I was just trying to clean that up before it got there.
	Try the question one more time for me.
	Isn't it true that the only texts that you and I have ever had have been between me and you, me, you and Mr. Chopra, or me, you and John Merchant, correct?
	Who's John Merchant?
	Can I look at my phone?
	Sure.
	Sure, go for it.
	Can you imagine not remembering your own life to this degree?
	Did I ever text you?
	Like, I'm texting an attorney in a case.
	What's the relevance of that, Ms. Merchant?
	They've said multiple times that there's this third party that we've talked to, and I'm trying to establish there's no third party.
	And I don't know why it was relevant, but the state's argued it, so.
	Well, if Ms. Merchant doesn't know why it's relevant, then maybe it might become relevant later.
	Ms. Merchant, I think I've...
	You've been able to show what maybe launched this and answer the state's initial claims, and so let's get back to the core of what we were here for for this hearing.
	Do you have anything else relevant to ask this witness?
	Yes, just a few more questions.
	After it became known that you were placed under Sampina, did you get a call from Gabe Banks?
	I did.
	And was he trying to determine if you were going to be giving information in this case?
	I don't know what he was trying to determine.
	He stated that it wasn't odd.
	I had not spoken to Gabe in a while.
	We are colleagues.
	We are friends.
	We are in the same fraternity, Gabe and I. And when he called, it was out of the blue.
	But he did call.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Okay.
	And you relayed that to me as well, correct?
	I did.
	And then you also got a call from your best friend who was relaying a message to you from Mr. Wade, correct?
	No.
	I got a call saying that he got a call.
	I got a call saying he got a call.
	Not that a message that was supposed to be relayed to me.
	The call was...
	I'm going to check if there's a hearsay, a response to the public hearsay.
	That's why it hasn't.
	Sure.
	So here's the objection as to the contents of the call, Ms. Murchin.
	I believe the contents of the call were to remember your privilege.
	I took that as a threat.
	I think Mr. Bradley took it as a threat, and I think he would testify to that.
	And...
	He hasn't testified to it, and he also said there wasn't any message relayed by Mr. Laver and Mia McCarty.
	Well, no, he didn't say it was by any party.
	So, assuming he did hear something from a party, what's the hearsay exception for that, Ms. Merchant?
	I believe that it was a threat, so it's a statement against interest.
	I'm sorry, it's a...
	If he took it as a threat to influence his testimony, then it's not hearsay, then it would be impossible.
	Alright, so...
	I did not take it as a threat.
	If you're saying it's to the effect on the...
	Listener, perhaps?
	Yes.
	Then we'll go from there.
	Were you told to remember your privilege?
	No, no, the witness just testified he didn't take it as a threat.
	Understood.
	I'll overrule the objection and the testimony will be given the weight it deserves.
	I didn't take it as a threat.
	I knew it was a threat.
	Were you told to remember your privilege?
	I was not.
	There may be a potential witness now in the courtroom.
	If that witness hasn't been told to testify, then I don't see any sequestration issues.
	I don't know who it is.
	Were you told anything to that effect, Mr. Bradley?
	Yes, I was.
	Repeat the question one more time.
	I was not told to remember my privilege.
	I was told not to forget my privilege.
	I do recall privilege being mentioned, but it wasn't remember your privilege or, you know, a threat of any sort.
	You immediately called me after.
	No, I called someone else after.
	You called me quickly thereafter then.
	I talked to you that day.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	Just sit down.
	Because this is a defense witness, is it the state's first cross?
	I think that's how we had been doing it yesterday.
	No, actually, we're doing it just this way.
	This is the first time he's gone, and then we go through all the defense, and then you'll have your chance.
	So now all the other members of the petitioning parties are going to have their way with him.
	Some foundation questions to begin with, please.
	This guy looks badass.
	Your testimony is you began representing Mr. Wade as his attorney.
	On what date?
	Or what approximate date?
	2015.
	I didn't have an approximate date.
	So when was it?
	Give me an approximate date when you began acting as Mr. Wade's attorney.
	Don't yell at me.
	2015.
	I can answer faster than this guy.
	I would say it was, you know, if I'm speculating.
	I really don't want you to speculate.
	I mean, you're the one that was the attorney, and Mr. Wade was the client.
	Correct.
	So give us the ballpark figure of when it was that you began acting as his attorney.
	To benefit from privilege.
	Maybe 2017, 2018, I think, maybe.
	And the purpose for which you were retained?
	His divorce.
	So, according to you, from that time period, your communications with Mr. Wade with regard to the divorce or any matters related to the divorce, is your position or confidential, I'm sorry, or privilege, correct?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Okay, good.
	Now, did you ever meet with Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade prior to, and everything I'm asking you is prior to November of 2021, okay?
	Keep that in mind.
	Why are you yelling?
	I don't think he's yelling, Mr. Bradley.
	He's just speaking up.
	Have they all been prepped the same way?
	Thank you.
	Prior to Mr. Wade getting his...
	Oh my goodness.
	...contract with Fulton County, which was November 1st of 2021.
	Please keep that in mind.
	November 1st of 2021.
	Right.
	Did you ever socialize with Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis prior to November 1st of 2021?
	I'm going to go ahead and do it.
	Look at this.
	I've never socialized.
	With Mr. Wade or Ms. Willis in any setting, if you're asking, have I ever met with them?
	The lawyer's not going to put up with this.
	Then I would say yes, but when you say socialize, what do you mean socialize?
	Have you ever gone out to eat with both of them?
	Good, this guy got my questions.
	Before 2021, I do not think...
	Or November 1st of 2021.
	Out to eat with both of them before...
	Okay, good.
	The lawyer heard me, people.
	When was she sworn in?
	I'm sorry.
	When was she sworn in?
	There was a dinner when she was sworn in that I attended.
	Shaquille O 'Neal was there, so it was like her inauguration dinner.
	So I'm thinking that's before 2021, so I would say yes.
	Let's assume for purposes of my question that that's in early January of 2021.
	That is early January 2021.
	So yes, I mean, it would be before November.
	So if it was January, yes, that dinner would have been in, I'm assuming, January.
	And any other time that you socialized, went out to eat, went to anyone's home?
	You know what socialized is.
	Exactly.
	So no, I did not socialize with Mr. Willis.
	I mean, with Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade.
	So, prior to November 1st of 2021, did Ms. Willis come to your offices?
	Your offices, I mean the offices that you shared with Mr. Wade.
	I think she came once or twice to our office, correct?
	And the purpose for which she came?
	Signing contracts.
	I don't know.
	We had separate offices.
	I do recall I do recall some type of meeting happening at our office, and I don't know what that was about.
	I wasn't a part of those meetings.
	There was a meeting.
	There were other people there.
	There were other people from the, I want to say DA's office there, maybe.
	I want to play this at 1.75.
	Let's go back to the basics.
	Let's go back to the basics.
	Miss Willis came to your offices, together offices, on a couple different occasions.
	Stop yelling at me.
	I recall Miss Willis coming to my office at least twice.
	And on at least one of those occasions, you tell us, did Miss Willis meet privately with Mr. Wade in his office that you observed?
	I heard.
	I can't recall.
	You can't recall?
	No.
	Did she ever meet with you in your office?
	Ms. Willis now?
	Privately in my office?
	No.
	I've never met privately in any office with her outside of signing this contract.
	Did Mr. Wade, prior to November 1st of 2021...
	Did he ever mention to you that he ate or went out to dinner with Ms. Willis?
	This is the way to get around the privilege.
	Again, time period before November 1st of 2021.
	Let me formulate my lie.
	Let me see how I'm going to fudge this one.
	I can't recall any time before November 2020.
	Did he repeat your question?
	Did Mr. Wade ever tell you prior to November 1st of 2021 that he had...
	Socialized, gone out to eat, visited Miss Willis in anything other than a professional setting.
	I'm sure he did, maybe.
	I'm sure he did, maybe.
	Any dinners, any...
	That's the answer, by the way.
	Now they're beyond privilege.
	Specific places.
	I mean...
	It's been three years ago.
	The time frame, but I do not recall at this time whether or not he ever mentioned any dinners or socializing.
	Mr. Wade mentioned to you that he visited Miss Willis at Miss Willis's then current abode, which would have been...
	A place, not her original house, but a place she was staying in the period of 2021 before November 1 of 2021.
	That's a convoluted question.
	The question is, did Mr. Wade ever tell you that he visited Miss Willis at her house?
	I don't think I can answer that.
	Why not?
	No bullshit, this is...
	Mr. Seidall, I'm going to try and rephrase the question if you can, but otherwise that would be sustained.
	Those grounds are just on a privileged ground.
	I didn't hear a second ground.
	It was a hearsay ground.
	That would be on privilege alone.
	Well, he's opened the door now.
	Did you talk to Mr. Wade at all about his relationship with Ms. Willis prior to November 1st of 2021?
	I think he's just middling a record, Mr. Wade.
	It's okay.
	And so on those same grounds, Mr. Seidall, on all subsequent grounds.
	Apparently the relationship with Ms. Willis in any way is covered by a privilege according to this witness.
	Well, I think the key words, respectfully, Honor, are according to this witness.
	So I'm trying to drill down to see if there are communications that are not within the privilege.
	Sure.
	So then we need to acknowledge the privilege in the form of your question, right?
	So other than that which might be the privilege.
	You're asking me to ask it as in a way of saying are there any non-privileged?
	Essentially.
	Did you ever communicate with Mr. Wade prior to November 1st of 2021 about Ms. Willis that was not privileged?
	He has to answer yes to this.
	I mean, we discussed this contract, but...
	This contract doesn't help.
	You have to give me a pivot number, please.
	You said before November 2021?
	Yeah, November 1st of 2021.
	Before November...
	This contract...
	For 125-21 is before that.
	So, I mean, we discussed this contract.
	Okay.
	And if I remember correctly, again, just give me that exhibit number so we can reference it.
	Exhibit 23. Okay, hold on one second.
	One second.
	On Exhibit 23, did I understand you to say that it was Mr. Wade that effect brought you and Ms. Willis together for the contract?
	That would be accurate, yes.
	Okay.
	And what did you understand was the relationship at that point between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade, or Mr. Wade to be able to bring you to Ms. Willis for the contract?
	Good question.
	How did he know her?
	It's not a hard question.
	No, I'm just going to state that again.
	Mr. Wade is the one that basically says to you, Go see Ms. Willis about this contract, right?
	That's a yes, correct?
	Yes.
	So Mr. Wade had to have some knowledge, you would assume.
	Yes.
	Right?
	That you going to Ms. Willis might bring you the contract.
	I never went to Ms. Willis.
	So I stated I never went to Ms. Willis.
	I was told that there was a potential contract, and I was asked by Mr. Wade, I would be interested in doing that contract.
	What was the basis that you understood Mr. Wade being able to offer you that contract on Ms. Willis' behalf?
	I'm going to object to that.
	That's a mischaracterization Mr. Reid offered it to him.
	I think he said he expressed interest.
	And also, I don't see the Relevance.
	Oh, yeah.
	You don't see the relevance.
	I see the relevance.
	So just in terms of relevance or phrasing, I'll overrule on those grounds.
	So the question that's standing...
	What was your understanding of his relationship with Fannie Willis when he brought you that contract?
	You've explained to us how the contract...
	Yes.
	...came to you, correct?
	My question is, what was your understanding...
	Of the relationship of Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis.
	At the time.
	For it to have been offered or whatever word you want to use.
	At the time he brought you the contract.
	Express to you whether you had an interest in the contract.
	Oh, well, they were dating at that time.
	All right.
	Mr. Evans is no privilege in my question.
	So, Mr. Sano, I think you need to clarify whether...
	Was it a privileged conversation that you had with Mr. Wade that you know about the contract?
	Or, you know, it was the relationship is the question you're focused on.
	Is the nature...
	No.
	I'm trying to do it in such a way, and I understand what the court said.
	Was the relationship that I asked you about just now between Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis that gave rise to the contract, did you know about that relationship as a result of an attorney-client communication?
	No.
	I knew of that through whatever work they did together.
	As municipal court judges.
	And how did you know that?
	Who told you about the work that they did together as municipal court judges?
	Mr. Wade told me that they did work at some conference.
	This would have been something that Mr. Wade said, put into your time period, at the time that you were representing Mr. Wade, correct?
	Say that again?
	Say that again?
	Mr. Wade would have told you what you just told the court after you had established an attorney-client relationship with Mr. Wade, correct?
	The lawyer just did separate privileged communications from non-privileged.
	Yes, but when he told me of them being at a conference, I mean, I'm not understanding how...
	I relate.
	I'm trying to understand your question.
	The question is basically, you had communications with Mr. Wade directly that were not attorney-client privilege, right?
	I've had conversations with Mr. Wade that were not attorney-client privilege, yes.
	That involved Ms. Willis, correct?
	Yes.
	I just stated that they were at a conference.
	I don't know whether or not that involved her or not.
	He's talking about her.
	That is, if Mr. Wade is telling you about Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade having met at a conference, then he's talking about Ms. Willis, correct?
	Yes, but he also told me about other people that he met at the conference.
	That's irrelevant.
	But he told you about Ms. Willis as well, correct?
	In a non-privileged context.
	Yes.
	I think so, yes.
	So there were communications in which Ms. Willis was at least a topic that was not covered by attorney-client judge, correct?
	Now we're getting somewhere.
	This particular instance, I was told about a conference.
	Oh.
	And when were you told this?
	I can't remember the dates of the conference, but it would have been after the conference.
	Well, no shit, it would have been after the conference.
	After the conference, I want you to understand from the record.
	I believe we've shown that the conference was sometime in October of 2019.
	So could you give us an idea, that being a fact, when you would have had this communication about Mr. Wade meeting Ms. Willis at the conference?
	If that's the conference that they were at, yes, then I don't know how many municipal court conferences there are.
	I do know that.
	At the time that I was in the firm, Mr. Wade had some position with the municipal court.
	Right now, my only question is time-wise.
	Assuming it's October 2019, when do you tend to remember?
	What's your best recollection of what Mr. Wade told you about?
	I can't remember because I didn't even remember that it was October 2019 until you said that.
	So you don't have a present recollection?
	I do not remember that, no.
	It had to be before the contract, though, in January of 2021, correct?
	Yes.
	That they met?
	No, no, that you were told about Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis meeting at the conference had to be before.
	Oh, yes, it would have been before that, yes.
	And it wasn't privileged.
	What other communications did you have with Mr. Wade about Ms. Willis that are not privileged?
	We know we have won.
	About the meeting at the conference.
	Are you suggesting that that's the only one you ever have about Ms. Willis that isn't?
	I cannot recall any...
	I cannot recall.
	I cannot recall whether there were any other communications that weren't privileged.
	It's such a sick joke.
	I'll be specific, and I understand there's probably going to be objections, but I want the record to reflect.
	Did you have a conversation with Mr. Wade prior to November 1st of 2021 about Mr. Wade dating Ms. Willis?
	Mr. Wade has risen.
	An objection is sustained for the record.
	Excuse me, Mr. Evans.
	Say that again?
	You don't have to answer the question, Mr. Bradley.
	Well, let him!
	I understand it's been...
	Objected to and the court has sustained the objection.
	Can you tell us the circumstances in which, that is, under which Mr. Wade may have told you about dating?
	What I want to do is try to figure out if we can, you tell me if you want me, if I can do this.
	I'd like to know how the communications themselves took place.
	where they took place, how they took place, under what circumstance, whether he was at the time providing advice or seeking advice.
	So those are the basics.
	I can ask you as to all those, but if the court's going to sustain the objection to those, then I don't want to waste your time.
	And that's something I'll cover in camera.
	So I'll note your question for the record, and I'll sustain the principle.
	All of this prior to November 1st, 2021.
	Okay?
	I'm going to show you two text messages.
	So basically, I mean, what the judge has done is basically made any question about the relationship a privileged discussion that he would have had with Bradley, his partner.
	So any question related to him.
	Now, what the lawyer did, which is good, is he got...
	This guy, Bradley, to admit, you know, to state the obvious, that they had discussions about Fannie Willis that were not in the context of anything privileged.
	But because this judge has already ruled that basically anything as relates to any relationship would be privileged, he can't get there.
	It's a load of crap.
	I'm going to set up a question.
	Yeah, the judge doesn't blow.
	The judge, he's made a decision.
	You may disagree with it.
	He might have made this decision because he's already come to his decision and doesn't need this evidence.
	Of course you're going to have objections.
	I want to be able to show it to him, and then I'm going to frame the appropriate question, and then you're going to object it.
	We'll see where we are.
	You may, sir.
	Oh.
	Oh.
	Thank you.
	And I'll get to all of the Rumble rants afterwards.
	Robert Gouveia gave you a shout-out today.
	Told everyone to check out your channel.
	Said he just talked to you on the phone.
	Thanks for this channel, buddy.
	Yeah, I talked to him...
	It was yesterday afternoon.
	After we respectively had just sat on our asses for an aggregate 18 hours.
	Yeah, Gouveia is amazing and has been covering this.
	I mean, he's going back and forth to, you know, the filings.
	I think we probably agree on all of this stuff.
	Especially the demeanor of the witness.
	I can't remember a damn thing.
	Yeah, he told me that he met her at a conference.
	That wasn't privileged, but anything about them having sex was.
	Did I ever see them meeting in my office for any reason?
	Defensive and dishonest.
	What do we got here?
	Arse being squeezing diamonds from his so tense.
	Yeah, you know what's coming.
	You must be a seasayer.
	Stop yelling at me.
	Mr. Bradley, I showed you two text messages.
	Stop looking at me, Swan.
	Both of those text messages occurred.
	And January the 5th of 2024 at approximately 11:56 a.m.
	Am I correct?
	11:56 a.m.
	And the text messages would have been between you and Ms. Merchant, correct?
	I didn't see.
	Yes, it should be.
	Excuse me.
	And I've shown the same two to prosecution, so we're talking about the same two.
	In the text message to Ms. Merchant, you indicated knowledge of some And
	it's your testimony that the information that you imparted to Ms. Merchant In these two text messages is based entirely on confidential communications between you and Mr. Wade, correct?
	He's referencing specific knowledge.
	The specific knowledge comes from Mr. Wade, which is regarding...
	The question, he didn't get into anything.
	He just said, are these two text messages about privileged communications?
	We haven't actually...
	I don't see any issue there.
	Yes.
	And is it your testimony that the knowledge that you have, which you imparted in these two text messages, came from Mr. Wade and Mr. Wade alone?
	Yes.
	Is that correct?
	Yes.
	Can you tell us when it was that Mr. Wade imparted this information to you?
	That's what you're going to do?
	And I'm going to introduce for the record, when we finish...
	These two text messages so that Your Honor has those back there so that you can...
	Sure.
	What would they be marked as?
	What do you have?
	I got a tweet from Dave Rubin in the back I'm going to bring up in a bit when we have a pause.
	I'm going to go ahead.
	This man's going to sink through the desk.
	Once I put a staple in it, I think it'll be defense exhibit 26. Oh, Bob, I'm so tired.
	It's sunny outside.
	There's the sun outside.
	I want to get some of that on my skin.
	All right, so this is marked in a carbon record as defense exhibit 26, but not necessarily for its evidentiary value.
	This is for purposes of the court conducting the in-camera review.
	Put a staple in it.
	Oh, well, stop it, Lynn Sage.
	Just found Viva today.
	Usually can't stand commentary, but yours is magical.
	I like to think I have the perfect timing.
	There was also reference, if I remember correctly, to some email correspondence in which Ms. Merchant sent you the motion.
	That she was going to file to disqualify Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade for your review.
	Is that correct?
	That's correct.
	Okay.
	And that was sent to you in an email?
	That's correct.
	That was correct.
	And did you respond to it in an email?
	Yes, I did.
	Privilege!
	I don't think I responded to her in an email.
	Ashley, do you know?
	You responded by text.
	I'm sorry, I mischaracterized it.
	You responded by text?
	If I can look at my text, I can...
	Dude, you don't remember it.
	I'm assuming I did it, but...
	Okay, I'm going to get it for you, because I don't want there to be any assumption.
	It's so implausible that a man doesn't remember such important events in his life.
	And is this going good or bad?
	I mean, it's boring the living bejesus out of me.
	There's no jury to bore.
	I think the judge gets it.
	So, I think...
	Look, maybe I'm biased.
	I think this guy looks like a total dishonest jerk.
	And I don't know how a judge can look at this and say this is what a forthright witness looks like.
	All right, so he might weasel out on the privilege.
	The issue is that he basically confirmed as accurate an affidavit that Ashley Merchant made, drafted, for the motion to disqualify, and he confirmed the accuracy of the allegations in there, but in so doing, basically disclosed information that he only got from...
	I'm going to show you if I might approach...
	...in their solicitor-client relationship.
	That's the argument.
	I mean, Reverend, you may have sent you about the motion she was going to find.
	The whole problem, the judge heard it.
	I see what you did there Mosher.
	I see it at the email, yes.
	That's the email that you received.
	Yeah, and he's going to say yes.
	Along with it, obviously.
	I should not have confirmed what I confirmed there because it was based on privileged information.
	Which it wasn't.
	Did you respond to that email within the text message that I just placed before you?
	Yes, I said looks good.
	The answer is yes.
	Oh, yes, I did.
	Oh, by the way, he just answered the question.
	Another exhibit for Your Honour to look at.
	Wow, he actually just answered without an objection.
	Yes, the affidavit looks good.
	They had objected to that before, and now he just got it in without objection, unless it's all under reserve.
	That's amazing.
	Okay, I'm going to have these marked as 27. Okay?
	Alright, so is it your position that what is reflected...
	when we hand it to you.
	Get into the truth.
	I will take it case by case.
	I think he's doing alright.
	Getting to the truth is like teeth pulling.
	Pulling teeth.
	Or they could say getting to the tooth is like pulling teeth.
	Is it your position that your response, which is the second page of Defense Exhibit 27...
	Was based on privileged information.
	...is based on a confidential or confidential communications that you had with Mr. Wade?
	I would have objected, asked and answered, but let's...
	Oh, jeez, nobody's objected?
	Are they going to let him answer this?
	They've got to object.
	Is it your position that your response was based on...
	Do you want me to read the response?
	Oh, my good God, answer the bloody question!
	I'm going to ask you whether or not the response...
	You actually already said what it said.
	I don't want you to read it again.
	Is that response, excuse me, based on confidential communications that you had had with Mr. Wade?
	Objection, this is privilege.
	The guy, I told you this guy should have been...
	All right, so now we're talking about the email, potentially referencing the motion as a whole.
	This guy's not answering and giving the...
	Confirm or denying specifics just to say whether his response is privileged.
	Forever to object.
	Just like we did with the text message.
	So you can answer that question, sir.
	Is your response based on privilege information?
	Is that your position?
	Was my response privileged?
	Was your response to the email of Ms. Merchant, which is on page one?
	Is your response which is...
	On page two, is that based on knowledge that you received from Mr. Wade pursuant to confidential communications?
	Yes.
	There you go.
	That took long enough.
	You dumbass.
	My God.
	Sorry, sorry.
	I shouldn't have said, use the Lord's name in vain, but dumbass.
	That one I don't feel bad about.
	It took him forever.
	To not answer the question.
	Have you discussed with the district attorney's office this case, your purported testimony?
	Of my testimony?
	Yes.
	No.
	At all?
	No.
	No prep, no conversations, no nothing?
	No.
	Have you given your attorneys, for this matter, did you give them permission to speak with the district attorney's office?
	That's kind of crazy.
	Is there a projection to be heard?
	Absolutely.
	Okay, sustained.
	Stay down.
	Next question.
	Do you know whether or not your attorneys share confidential information with the district attorney's office?
	No, I don't know what my attorneys shared or didn't share.
	I don't know if they even met.
	I don't know if they were to.
	Have you, last question, have you spoken to Mr. Wade prior to today?
	No, actually, it's wrong.
	You're no longer in the same partnership or fee-sharing arrangement with Mr. Wade, correct?
	That's correct.
	When did you leave that fee-sharing partnership?
	I don't remember when I just affected my income.
	I have no recollection whatsoever.
	Why would I be expected to remember that?
	I don't remember the hard date, but maybe sometime like July, August of 2022, I think.
	Okay.
	And what was the reason for the partnership or the fee-sharing arrangements?
	What caused the separation?
	I wanted to leave and go out on my own.
	And that's the only reason?
	I wanted to leave and go out on my own, yes.
	I understand, but that was the only reason.
	There wasn't any suggestions or allegations of any form of misconduct.
	On either part, either on your part or Mr. Wade's part, correct?
	Misconduct of what?
	I don't want to try not to get into specifics.
	Is there any allegations made of suspected misconduct on your part or on Mr. Wade's part?
	That's a fairly simple question.
	What just happened to the audio?
	The audio just changed.
	Did he accuse you of doing anything?
	Did you accuse him of doing anything?
	Without getting into what it is.
	Were there any accusations made by you or him against each other?
	We had a disagreement, yes.
	Did that disagreement have anything to do with Ms. Willis?
	Oh, no.
	Did it have anything to do with your conduct?
	No.
	Did it have anything to do with his conduct?
	Hold on, wait.
	So, we had a disagreement.
	Whether the disagreement was...
	We disagreed.
	And so we dissolved.
	Well, I left the firm.
	And was the disagreement having anything to do with alleged or supposed misconduct by either one of you?
	Yes.
	If you define misconduct, I'm telling you we had a disagreement and we...
	Just tell me what the disagreement was.
	The disagreement is mine to know.
	I mean, I don't see the relevance of the disagreement that I had.
	It had nothing to do with this Trump case or any other case.
	I'm simply getting a question asked, what was the disagreement?
	It's not privileged, correct?
	No, that is privileged.
	Oh, it is privileged.
	Why is that privileged?
	Because it's privileged.
	I can tell the court in camera, but it was privileged.
	Ask a few questions further to see if this is actually something that does fall within that privilege.
	We can take it from there.
	Did it have anything to do with you representing Mr. Wade in any capacity?
	Excuse me.
	It would fall in that line, yes.
	But your testimony is that it has nothing to do with your representation of Mr. Wade in connection with Ms. Willis?
	Is it in connection to Ms. Willis?
	That's correct.
	Trying to find one with better audio.
	The matter for which you were hired by Mr. Wade?
	I wasn't hired by Mr. Wade.
	I thought you were the attorney representing him in the divorce.
	Oh, I apologize.
	I thought you were saying something else.
	Oh, yes.
	So will it apply as to whether I was hired during the divorce?
	Yes, that's correct.
	I'm not sure what this correct means under that.
	We kind of got lost on it.
	We asked the question.
	It later did not relate.
	To your representation?
	It did relate to my representation.
	In the marriage case?
	It does.
	And this was a...
	Whose decision was it?
	At that point, did you stop representing Mr. Wade?
	It wasn't at that point, no.
	Was it before that?
	No, it was after that.
	And how much longer did you represent Mr. Wade in the divorce action?
	I would have to see the divorce proceeding to see Mr. Wade...
	I represented Mr. Wade for a time after that.
	He represented me in a construction case for a time after that.
	And I'll have to look at the filings.
	I ended up hiring a new counsel for my construction case.
	He ended up.
	But it wasn't right at that moment.
	It wasn't in a matter of weeks.
	It was...
	I don't know.
	You continued representing him in connection with the...
	Divorce case after you had the separation that you've made reference.
	And he continued to, yes, and he continued to represent me on a construction case.
	But the separation, at least in part, if I heard you correctly, please tell me if I'm wrong, had something to do with your representation of him in the divorce case.
	Very interesting.
	That is correct.
	Now, Mr. Wade has testified that he did not have a relationship, a personal relationship, a romantic relationship.
	Ms. Willis until sometime early 2022.
	Okay?
	I'm leaving that as the premise of what I'm about to ask you.
	Do you possess information that counters that, consistent with that.
	Ooh, no objection information.
	Mr. Bradley has would be privileged.
	Your honor.
	Okay.
	Let's say that I think we would such information be privileged.
	Ooh, looking at the judge.
	uh dermis merchants direct so we're covering the same ground so i'll sustain that so i can't get an answer to whether he possesses information which is inconsistent without getting into the information itself i think the issue would be that we've already gotten an answer on that yeah the answer is yes question again miss merchant asked some variation of that and he already answered i think the variation your honor is referencing whether or not he had What would be personal
	information, independent source information?
	He wasn't going to get away with that question.
	Mine is, I'm asking him point blank whether or not he has information from whatever source, including Mr. Wade, that is inconsistent with Mr. Wade's testimony.
	Yeah, he's asking him if his client lied.
	can't you can't ask if it includes mr wade it is privileged communication so therefore the answer is it's privileged if it excluded mr wade that would be a different appropriate question and i just want to say the answer is either it came from privileged information or hearsay that's it he's already tested by the event personal knowledge Unless it's for impeachment at this point, but Mr. Sado, I think that might be too fine a distinction for me to be the need for the question.
	I think I'm failing to see the difference.
	I'm not asking respectfully.
	I'm not asking to see the difference.
	I'm asking whether I can ask that question and elicit a response which doesn't elicit the actual communications, which is what I'm attempting to do.
	And if Your Honor says I can't, then I'm finished.
	And I think that we...
	This is another aspect of what came up before, which is, in my mind, even confirming the existence of the information.
	yep goes into privileged communications whether he does or does not possess information if it came from that relationship that's part of the privilege as well so if i make that clear then um that you're sustaining what the objection would be that's right it'd be sustained on privilege and of course all the questions that we're talking about as far as the foundation about when things are said and what it said you're going to go into if i understood correctly ex parte in camera with the two exhibits we talked about that's right my intent would be to Make
	a record of the knowledge of when it was obtained and the extent of it and the different sources and that'll be sealed.
	And what was actually said?
	That's right.
	So I guess my question before I sit down is if you learn through this in-camera ex parte examination that The information that this gentleman has through the attorney client privilege is in fact inconsistent with what Mr. Wade testified to under oath.
	Then the court is going to then make a determination of whether it can be used here or whether it just remains in the record sealed.
	So my intent would be to make the distinction of from the in-camera hearing.
	If I still determine that everything is covered by a privilege, then anything else that is said cannot go into the factual determinations or credible determinations that need to be made.
	And so just the issue of whether the privilege did or did not exist is preserved.
	So, again, just to follow through to make sure.
	So if the court knows that there's been a fraud upon the court through the lie of Mr. Wade, none of us are going to know that that in fact occurred and the court's going to be in a position...
	Of making a determination on the motion, even though the court knows that it doesn't have all the information, fruitful information.
	I'll take a closer look at the case law you provided to see if that is actually a variation of the crime fraud exception.
	And I'll apply the crime fraud exception as I see it.
	And again, I'm not suggesting it is a variation.
	It is totally separate from crime fraud.
	It has nothing to do...
	Okay.
	Using the legal advice of the attorney in order to commit a crime.
	It's, you go ahead and commit fraud or lie to the court when you fully know that someone, your attorney, has information which is counter or inconsistent with what you've testified to.
	And to that end, Mr. Seidout, that is something that you can, I mean, I've got this case from Ohio, but if you can find something more on point in Georgia before we schedule this for argument.
	The 1935 case.
	The Atlanta Bottling Company?
	I don't think it went that far.
	I think it just kind of said the sword and shield language, and it didn't go so far as to say that there's this alternative theory about fraud upon the court, but we can flush that out in our research.
	I appreciate it.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	Mr. Stockton.
	Okay, let me...
	Mr...
	I'm going to do this, because this one had better audio.
	...say that there's this alternative theory about fraud upon the court, but we can flush that out in...
	I appreciate it.
	Mr. Stockton.
	Mr. Durham.
	Mr. McDougald.
	Mr. Rice.
	Not much.
	Apparently Trump was just found liable for $345 million in the New York case.
	It continues.
	Mr. Bradley, your counsel from Mr. Wade in the divorce case.
	When the interrogatories were initially served on opposing counsel on or about December 27th of 2021, correct?
	That's correct.
	And you were also counsel for him when the amended interrogatories were served on May 30th of 2023, correct?
	That's incorrect.
	So you ceased representing him sometime before May 30th of 2023.
	That's correct.
	At any point during the divorce proceedings was a pleading filed with the court or a paper served on opposing counsel that purported to have your signature that you were not the one that signed or authorized your signature on?
	Say that again?
	Did anyone sign your signature without your authorization on any pleading or any other paperwork served on opposing counsel in the divorce proceeding?
	Don't think so.
	If you have the documents, I can authenticate my signature.
	And you have testified that you also practice criminal law and divorce law and perhaps other types of law as well?
	That's correct.
	And are you aware that OCG 16-6-19 defines adultery as a misdemeanor crime in the state of Georgia?
	If you say so, yes sir.
	Go ahead.
	Judge, I would ask the court to take judicial notice of that.
	For what relevance?
	Judge, I think it does go directly to the crime fraud exception.
	Because if, before we draw objection, because if Mr. Wade was providing information to him, to his counsel, about his intent to either commit adultery or that he was committing adultery, then that would be a misdemeanor crime.
	It would implicate crime fraud exception.
	And additionally, as we know from yesterday's evidence...
	Isn't adultery as a statute just on its face been found unconstitutional?
	You can't actually charge anyone with adultery anymore?
	It is still current.
	Then it can't be a crime.
	It is still a current charge.
	Let's move on to that next argument.
	Additionally, Judge, with regard to the interrogatories, we have three different sets of interrogatories that were filed that came into evidence yesterday, 21, May of 23, December of 23. We also have the January of '24 that contains the invocation of privilege.
	So to the extent that this witness has information, both with the original interrogatories that were filed in December of 2021.
	And, frankly, with regard to the later ones, even though he wasn't counsel, that would be a false swearing and fraud on the court, which, again, is a criminal offense.
	He's not going to get to this now, so you may as well move on to something else.
	Okay.
	Understood.
	No further questions.
	Okay, Mr. Gillen.
	Oh.
	Good afternoon, Ms. Bradley.
	Good afternoon.
	Been a long day.
	Long, boring.
	When did you sign your engagement letter with Mr. Wade to represent him in divorce proceedings?
	Can you imagine not having such a little mastery over your own business?
	It would have to be 2017, 2018.
	Same time frame, 2017, 2018.
	So did you sign or have signed an engagement letter to represent him or are you just speculating?
	Did you sign a retainer?
	I can't recall.
	I mean, we were in a...
	You know, we shared space.
	I can't recall if...
	You can't recall if you signed a retainer agreement with your client?
	If there was a contract or if there is a contract, I haven't.
	I think there is a contract, but right now it would be speculation.
	Right now, sitting here, you do not know whether or not you had a signed engagement letter with Mr. Wade discussing the parameters of your legal representation of him.
	Isn't that correct?
	That's not correct.
	I mean, I can't say.
	I don't have my files or anything with me.
	Sitting here, you do not have specific recollection or knowledge that you even had an engagement letter to represent him.
	Isn't that right?
	I think I had an engagement letter, but I do not know specifically if I had an engagement letter.
	Well, when did you open a file?
	When you represent someone, you open a file in your office.
	And when did you open the file on Mr. Wade?
	I'm going to object to the relevance of this line of questioning.
	There has been no dispute by the attorney or the client that there was an attorney-client relationship.
	Well, you don't need an engagement letter.
	the circumstances under which that's a that uh engaging campaign because it's mr. Gillen knows that's not a factor Well, I see his point, but the judge is going to tell him you don't need...
	Well, Your Honor, it's not just up to Mr. Wade and Mr. Bradley.
	It's up to the court.
	I agree with you there, Mr. Gillen, and so I'll give you a little bit of leeway, but I don't think we could spend too much time on this.
	No, okay, Your Honor.
	Now, did you or did you not open a file in your law practice with Mr. Wade's name on it, yes or no?
	Yes, I had a file with Mr. Wade's name on it.
	When did you open that file?
	I'm assuming 2017, 2018.
	I can't tell you the exact date.
	I've said that three or four times.
	Well, let's approach it from another angle.
	When is the first invoice that you sent to Mr. Wade for your legal representation?
	I never invoiced.
	If he says that, I don't recall ever invoicing him.
	I didn't send him an invoice in that capacity.
	So what we have here is you're not knowing whether you even have an engagement letter.
	You don't know whether you actually even billed him, correct?
	I represented Mr. Wade.
	Did you bill him?
	I signed the documents that we filed.
	I filed the documents.
	There's depositions that I had with the divorce attorney that was representing his wife.
	I'm sorry, sir.
	That's not my question.
	Okay.
	My question is...
	Did you bill him in your capacity as the lawyer that you're telling him?
	I don't recall.
	As a matter of fact, did you have any invoices where you billed him on an hourly basis?
	I don't recall.
	He never billed the guy for anything.
	This is a load of shit.
	I don't recall.
	And the reason why it's no, isn't it, is because what happened is that you and Mr. Wade were in a law practice together, and it was a very small work environment, correct?
	It was a work environment, yes.
	A work environment where you and him would meet and talk literally every day, correct?
	Not every day, no.
	Well, almost every day.
	Not almost every day.
	I stated earlier that I ran one side of a practice.
	Mr. Wade did, and we rarely were there at the same time.
	I stated that earlier today.
	Well, just give us totally how much money you got for representing Mr. Wade.
	In this, since 2017 or whenever you told us, up until you dropped off the case in 2023.
	Because Wade was using the letter?
	I don't recall.
	Would the answer be zero?
	I do not recall.
	Well, you would know whether you got paid or not, wouldn't you, sir?
	I do not recall.
	You don't recall if you got paid from Nathan Wade.
	You got a single dollar to represent Mr. Wade, correct?
	That's correct.
	Because you really did it as a friend, didn't you?
	No, I did.
	Nathan Wade was probably drafting the documents himself and using his letterhead.
	So I'm going to sustain that, Mr. Gillen.
	I think the law is clear that money doesn't even have to change hands for that relationship.
	I'm making a finding based on the items that's already been presented, namely the fact that he signed pleadings, intended depositions on Mr. Wade's behalf, that attorney-client relationship did exist.
	I was just laying the foundation to the circumstances in terms of...
	The non-billing from the 2017 period and whether there was really an attorney-client privilege there.
	That's what I was trying to do.
	Okay.
	If the dispute is just when it occurred, you can try to hone in on that, but the questions I've heard so far are more from a, you were never paid ever, from an overall angle.
	Well, from 2017 until November of 2021, you didn't receive a dollar from Mr. Wade for your I don't have the file in front of me and I do not recall.
	The reality of it is, as I mentioned or asked you a few minutes ago, is that it was a small firm and you were doing him essentially a favor as a friend and as a law partner, correct?
	No, I was representing him as an attorney.
	Were we in the practice together?
	Yes.
	And were we, or are we friends?
	I mean, we were friends at the time.
	Yes.
	Well, you were friends and law partners, correct?
	Yes.
	And in a small firm, and I know because I'm in a small firm, people will sit around the office and talk about their social life and what they're doing, correct?
	Correct?
	If that happens in your small firm, yes.
	Well, does it happen or did it happen in your small firm?
	I think I'm going to...
	The witness has been asked very specific questions about conversations about socialization.
	I'm telling you...
	I'm going to answer this one question, overruled.
	Repeat the question.
	Did you, in your small firm, have occasion to where people would sit around and socialize and talk about what was going on in their lives as opposed to merely talking about the law?
	Yes.
	And you had those conversations with Mr. Wade as a friend on a social basis, didn't you?
	Not yet, but it might.
	I assume, yes, we've talked about sports.
	We talked about, you know, sports a whole lot.
	He talked about life and about what was going on in your life and what was going on in his life, right?
	Right?
	Sometimes, very rarely, yes.
	Very rarely, yeah.
	And that is what you do in a small work environment when you know people very well and you do favors for them.
	That's what you do in a big work environment.
	This is painful.
	This is painful.
	Next question, Mr. Gillen.
	Now, in that capacity, didn't you have discussions with Mr. Wade about what was going on in his social life?
	Personal life.
	That had nothing to do with him asking you legal advice.
	The thing is, the judge has already ruled on this.
	I think he's just asked whether he socializes outside of legal advice, so I think he can answer that question.
	I did answer the question.
	I said we talked about sports a lot.
	And I'm just asking, you know, sports is one thing, the social life.
	Did you talk about each other's social life, like Mr. Wade, and who he was dating?
	All right.
	So that'll be sustained on privilege.
	Your Honor, just for the record, I would state that my objection would be that the privilege only protects communications in furtherance of seeking out illegal advice, not talking about something that might be personal or confidential.
	And that's the distinction that I would draw.
	I think that's an accurate legal point.
	However, I think the witness has already been questioned and testified on this point.
	Thank you.
	Next question.
	You got into the fact that you were the initial attorney on the divorce case, correct?
	That is correct.
	Now, did you and Mr. Wade, without getting into discussion, did you and Mr. Wade together prepare his responses to the interrogatories which were filed initially in the divorce case?
	I'm assuming we...
	Objection.
	He's asking about the eroticoid responses, the preparation of the cases.
	I wonder if there's another reason why they didn't want the...
	Mr. Gell?
	I don't think it's the attorney-client.
	Did they meet together, and when interrogatory answers were filed, did he file them, and did he do that in concert with his client?
	There's nothing privileged there.
	Did they meet and work together in that work, taking the form of...
	I'll change it a little bit.
	Did you review yourself the interrogatory responses given in the divorce case?
	I did.
	And whatever knowledge that you had when you were involved in the interrogatory responses, you had the knowledge of all that material or information that you had had without getting into the content.
	You had all of that knowledge and information.
	I'm sorry, let me get my question out before he objects.
	And when you filed those interrogatories, you had all the knowledge and information that you had obtained from Mr. Wade from 2017 up until the date the interrogatories were filed, didn't you, sir?
	Okay, so that's...
	The follow-up question to that is going to be incorporating knowledge learned during communications.
	I'm not going to have a follow-up question.
	I just want to know whether, is that the case?
	When he filed the interrogatory forms, he had all of the information that he had discussed with Mr. Wade from 2017 up until the time.
	That's it.
	That's my final question.
	Okay.
	In which case, without doing that extra assuming link that he based his answers on those communications, it has no relevance.
	Well, it does in the sense that it shows what knowledge he may have had when he, the attorney, is filing interrogatory responses.
	That's what it shows.
	Okay.
	I'm still not seeing the relevance of his knowledge as the attorney filing the responses, unless you're linking this back to Mr. Wade.
	It's back, Your Honor, to whether or not, if you're filing, if you're an attorney and you're filing an interrogatory response, which you have reason to believe, or specific information.
	To know that certain responses are not accurate, then you shouldn't be filing them.
	So that's where I was going with that.
	So if he's got a body of knowledge over here that's built up from his communications with Mr. Wade, that everyone so dearly doesn't want everyone to know about in spite of the allegations made against Ms. Merchant.
	So what if the question was, did you...
	When you signed your name to the interrogatories, did you commit any knowing, fraudulent statement?
	How do you think he's going to answer that?
	Would there be a problem with that statement or that question?
	Well, I mean, I think that is a conclusion that others could draw, like the court.
	I just want to know that he had all that information.
	At the time that he, as the attorney, filed the interrogatories.
	That's it.
	We would object.
	This does fall under an attorney client, and he is making presumptions about when information may have or not have been disseminated to Mr. Bradley in his capacity as attorney.
	He didn't have to know about anything at the time of, in the middle of, at the end of.
	He may never have had that information.
	There's too much presumption associated with it.
	The whole matter is covered under privilege.
	One comment on that, Your Honor.
	We have spent almost a day talking about trying to block the dissemination of what Mr. Wade said, either as an attorney or in any capacity, about his relationship with Ms. Willis prior to November 1, 2021.
	And questions about discussions in 2019 all objected to.
	Claiming the privilege.
	And now to say, well, that doesn't mean that he learned something after.
	I'm talking about, what did you know at the time the interrogatories were filed?
	And everything that you, now they're claiming privilege, well, that's fine.
	The court will address that in chamber and in due course.
	What did you note?
	I'm sorry, Mr. Gillen, I really don't see the distinction.
	So your question is noted for the record and your objection as well.
	All right, and I'll follow up with this.
	Now, you're removing yourself from the divorce case, correct?
	You withdrew from the divorce case, correct?
	Correct.
	Did you do that as a result of your concern about any of the accuracies?
	Or representations which have been made by your client in the divorce case?
	How are they going to let him answer this?
	No.
	You're too late, man!
	Okay, so that's going to cover communications during the relationship?
	Well, Your Honor, hypothetically.
	Not saying this is the case.
	Hypothetically.
	If Mr. Bradley, knowing, let's say hypothetically, that...
	He, speaking with Mr. Wade, was aware that the intimate or personal relationship, romantic relationship, existed prior to November the 1st, 2021, and started in 2019 or 2020.
	If he's armed with that information that he's obtained from Mr. Wade, but Mr. Wade...
	Would want to insist on responding to interrogatories which were contrary to the information that Mr. Bradley would have, then I'm asking him whether he took steps as an attorney to say I cannot be a part of that or countenance that, therefore I'm withdrawing from the case.
	Sure.
	I still see that as covering their communications.
	So I'll sustain that objection.
	All right.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	That's all I have.
	Thank you, Mr. Gill.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Kucherov, are you still with us?
	Still with us.
	Anyone on behalf of Mr. Floyd still joining us?
	All right, moving on.
	Mr. Cromwell.
	Two brief questions, Your Honor.
	I think we've been...
	Everybody's exhausted, but it's my impression of life.
	I'm going to go, Mr. Bradley.
	When did you withdraw from Mr. Wade's divorce case?
	I don't have it in front of me.
	I don't have to file.
	Was it sometime in 2023?
	No, it would have probably been...
	Probably.
	Well, 2023.
	Let's see, I left in 2022.
	It could have been anywhere between...
	July of 2022 and maybe December.
	I don't have the accurate date, but it wasn't when I left.
	I'll make it easier for you.
	You were not his divorce lawyer at the time.
	The interrogatory responses were filed in May of 2023.
	Oh, no, I was not.
	As of today's date, Mr. Wade is still a married man.
	Would you agree?
	I haven't kept up with the divorce proceedings, but I think they're still open.
	And if they're still open, that means he's still a married man?
	Yes, that's correct.
	So the fact that in a pleading, there is a reference to the marriage is irretrievably broken, that doesn't mean the marriage ends, does it?
	I guess you have to ask the judge to sign the case.
	Well, it doesn't end until there's actually a divorce decree signed by a judge.
	Would you agree?
	I would agree.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	Ms. Cross, were you taking the...
	I am your honor.
	I'm going to have a minute.
	My cross-examination might be a long one.
	So we can go for an hour and a half.
	Can I have just a five-minute break?
	Sure.
	All right.
	We'll be back in five.
	I don't actually think I...
	they're gonna go an hour and a half with They're gonna go for an hour and a half.
	Oh my goodness!
	That's the most painful thing I've ever watched in law.
	Oh my...
	Goodness!
	I don't even know how to...
	What sense do you make of that?
	That's painful.
	But now we've got to wait for an hour and a half.
	No, sorry.
	We've got to wait for them to come back in five minutes.
	It's going to be more than five minutes.
	So that...
	I fell asleep.
	Internally, I fell asleep.
	Let me just go to YouTube and just see where the...
	Atlanta News.
	I'm going to leave them back up in the back because their audio, for some reason, just glitched out randomly.
	It's 3.35.
	That was the most painful waste of time ever.
	I don't know what I'm going to say.
	Guys, you're going to watch this for 30 seconds.
	I'm going to play it in a loop.
	And then I'm going to go pee.
	And then I'm going to come back.
	And we're going to subject ourselves to more torture.
	I'll give you my thoughts on whatever the hell it was that we just witnessed.
	But the judge has already come to a finding that basically anything that relates to the relationship is going to be covered by solicitor-client privilege because he'd only know it but for.
	Here.
	Enjoy this on loop.
	See how many times it plays, and that'll tell you how fast I pee.
	Three, two, one.
	Do whatever the hell they want.
	I guess I should clear my mind here a little bit and not say what I'm really thinking.
	Do whatever the hell they want.
	I guess I should...
	clear my mind here a little bit and not say what I'm really thinking, but do whatever the hell they want.
	I guess I should clear my mind here a little bit and not say what I'm really thinking, but do whatever the hell they want.
	I guess I should...
	Clear my mind here a little bit and not say what I'm really thinking.
	do whatever the hell they want.
	I I I I guess I should clear my mind here a little bit and not say what I'm really thinking.
	How many times did it play, people?
	Alrighty.
	How many times did it go?
	How many times did it play?
	It was muted?
	No, it wasn't muted.
	Five times, a minute, 15 seconds.
	The only reason that took so long is because I was embarrassed and shy and my bladder wouldn't...
	Okay, so we're going to go into the rumble rants in a second.
	Get this out of here.
	That was painful.
	That was useless.
	It's impossible that someone cannot be ashamed of being such a godforsaken liar.
	The judge ruled that anything that relates to what his knowledge was of the relationship was privileged.
	The judge is right, technically, that as far as it goes under Quebec law, I presume it's the same everywhere, that you don't have to have a...
	You could do pro bono work, money doesn't change hands.
	You don't have to specify it's a pro bono mandate in order for it to be a mandate.
	You don't have to sign a retainer agreement, an engagement letter, for there to be the existence of a mandate.
	The fact that he couldn't just say, I never billed them?
	What's wrong with that?
	Yay!
	He's got such a guilty conscience.
	The bottom line, my humble opinion, I'll stand to be corrected on this.
	Nathan Wade was just using Bradley's letterhead so that it would look like he was represented by counsel.
	And Nathan Wade was drafting all of his own proceedings to save money.
	And Bradley was just signing off on it.
	And so that's the reality of the relationship.
	That's what I think happened.
	And then Bradley's like, what the hell?
	You're putting my name on shit that's a lie?
	Demonstrably false?
	No.
	We're not doing that anymore.
	And you're right, you can't really have a lawyer throw his client under the bus for no better reason.
	That he perjured himself?
	Okay, maybe.
	That was torturous.
	That was absolutely torturous.
	That witness was good, not dumb, just shameless.
	No, because if he were good, he would have just answered, no, I didn't bill him.
	There wasn't that much work.
	I was doing it.
	It was an understood agreement.
	I would be helping him as a friend.
	And I don't need to have a retainer agreement.
	I don't need to bill him.
	I don't remember if I billed him.
	I've had hundreds of clients.
	There's not one client that I don't remember if I billed.
	And there's not one client who stiffed me on a bill that I have forgotten.
	I'm looking at you if you're watching.
	I'm joking.
	That only happened a couple times.
	But no, there's no question.
	Bradley was just, and I've seen this happen in real life, especially in nominal partnerships.
	They use the letterhead so it looks formal, so that the other party is intimidated.
	They think they got counsel, or the other party knows that they have counsel that they're not paying.
	It's like, I've been involved in files, and I will never, you know, it's all public record anyhow, but I've been in...
	Goddamn, you hear things.
	I've been involved in files where we knew because of the arrangement between the parties that the plaintiff or the defendant was not paying his or her attorneys.
	We knew it.
	None of my business.
	Can't do anything about it.
	They don't want to charge him?
	Who cares?
	He wants to do the free legal work for free rent?
	Who cares?
	It's none of my business.
	But say the bloody answer, man.
	For God's sake, man.
	You're killing me, Stimpy.
	That witness was not dumb, just shameless.
	Who do you think is soon right now?
	Who do I think?
	No, Jeffrey White.
	Oh, hold on.
	Let me just make sure that we're going to get the, that I haven't muted, muted the audio in the back.
	Okay, I still have it in the back.
	They're going to, the cross is going to go, Anna Cross is going to go for an hour and a half with that guy?
	Did I have breakfast today?
	I do not recall.
	Have you ever even had breakfast?
	I do not recall.
	I know that sometimes in the morning I put food in my mouth, but what is it?
	A breakfast.
	To break the fast?
	What if I have a glass of water in the middle of the night?
	Have I broken my fast in the middle of the night?
	Was that glass of water in the middle of the night my breakfast?
	Inquiring minds want to know.
	Alright, let me bring up the rumble rants so that I can not let these get two out of hand.
	Viva.
	I was shocked when the lawyer brought up the crime of adultery, which is still a crime and still used in divorce, so you lose privilege if crime is committed.
	But what the judge said is right.
	It's technically on the books, but it's not enforced.
	I mean, look, I'll defer to the judge.
	Again, I'll ask that to Barnes on Sunday.
	Unless Wade submitted that he had legal expenses.
	True.
	And then Wade would want to...
	But then this would be fraud for the tax fraud, not for the...
	This wouldn't be relevant to Fannie Willis.
	But now, that's what I'm thinking about.
	Did Wade pretend to pay expenses?
	Of legal fees, and then Bradley did not include it as income because he wouldn't want to pay taxes on income that he wasn't receiving, but Wade would want to deduct it.
	Who knows?
	These effing scoundrels wouldn't put anything past any of them.
	But one thing is for certain, Wade was, guarantee you, he was drafting his own proceedings, and when they needed a corpse to sit in a seat during a deposition, an interrogatory, yeah.
	Bradley was the sack of meat and flesh that they needed to fill a seat.
	Only Viva can make this fun to watch.
	Dude, I think I actually failed during that last one.
	I failed so hard because I felt myself falling asleep.
	I'm just thinking I could be fishing.
	I could have just gone fishing today.
	This better end today.
	I need either carrots.
	Or arugula to eat and not fall asleep.
	Let me see something.
	Let me see if my wife, if there's an arugula in the house.
	Granny.
	The amount of texts I've gotten.
	Where's my mother?
	Do we have arugula?
	Arugula is like the natural energy drink.
	Or the natural, yeah, energy drink.
	Because you eat arugula raw, that'll put some hair on your chest.
	Except me.
	I have no hair on my chest, people.
	No hair on my chest, never grew wisdom teeth.
	I consider that to be a sign of evolution.
	Let me bring up here what I'm trying to get to the chat.
	This, okay, here we go.
	Viva, further on the Michigan ballot issue.
	Can I screen grab this?
	I can.
	I just sent the link of the court ruling in NGORON.
	I posted that in our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community.
	I mean, there's no surprise because the judge had already found fraud on the summary judgment.
	Now it's just quantifying it.
	$350 million.
	So considering that Mar-a-Lago is only worth $18 million, that's going to leave Trump with another $300 and...
	What the hell's my problem?
	$332 million to pay.
	Oh, back on the record!
	Hold on, I hear it.
	You guys think I'm crazy because I'm hearing voices, but I hear voices.
	Where is it?
	It's this one.
	Okay, we hear this.
	This is AFN or ANF.
	I hope the audio's better.
	ABC or NBC or whatever the hell the other one was is not right back.
	I'm going to put that out.
	Do we all hear this?
	The audio is good.
	Okay, you guys hear the audio?
	Good.
	And if I hear it better on the other one.
	We'll handle that with housekeeping.
	Okay.
	Ms. Cross.
	Thank you.
	Ah, NBC's not bad yet.
	Mr. Bradley, have you still got the exhibits 23, 24, 25 there in front of you?
	I do.
	And 23. That's one of the contracts for your personal LLC, your PC, your personal legal entity, right?
	That is correct.
	Yes?
	Yes, that's correct.
	Okay.
	And I understood your testimony to be that any income that came into the partnership, my anti-partnership, let me be more specific.
	You had an individual legal entity.
	Mr. Campbell had an individual legal entity.
	Mr. Wade had an individual legal entity.
	But y 'all had a partnership agreement, right?
	I'm going to go back to the other one here.
	Hold on.
	It's taken him a long time to answer anyhow.
	Don't worry, we didn't miss anything.
	Oh, an ad?
	When you get in your car, you just need to put your location in the trip liner.
	It recommends where you need to stop.
	Partnership.
	Let me be more specific.
	You had an individual legal entity.
	Mr. Campbell has an individual legal entity.
	I love how she gets to qualify the relationship.
	Y 'all had a partnership agreement, right?
	Yes, but we didn't have that the entire time.
	There was a period of time that we had talked about in 2022 prior to leaving the firm that there was an actual entity for the three of you, correct?
	That is correct.
	And that was roughly during the time period where y 'all brought some...
	Bought a building together?
	Yes, correct.
	And it made things simpler for whatever reason.
	You decided at that time that a joint entity made sense to own that.
	What does a joint entity mean?
	Correct.
	But those contracts there, they're not with the joint entity, correct?
	No, they're not.
	But you split the profits.
	Those are all with you individually, is that right?
	Can you take a look at 23, 24, and 25?
	Individually, but you split the profits three ways?
	That's called a partnership.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	23. What's the...
	Hourly rate that you were being compensated?
	150.
	23 is the...
	He's still pretty slow.
	No, 23 is not the first appearance.
	23 is the taint.
	Is the hourly rate on that contract?
	150 an hour.
	So the $1.50 an hour, the way I understand you all shared profits was you get $50, Mr. Campbell get $50, this is the way you get $15 and you don't pay expenses.
	That's what $1.50 divided by $3 is.
	Correct.
	what about exhibit number 24 Wow, he's still not answering fast.
	It seems to be the same.
	Same amount?
	I don't know if it's the same amount.
	I'm interested in the amount.
	Oh, no.
	The amount was $65 an hour.
	$65 an hour?
	What was that for?
	Was that for the first review?
	That's not a particularly high rate for an attorney in the Atlanta metro area.
	Dude, a paralegal gets paid more than that.
	No, it's not.
	Was that a government rate that you were willing to accept at that time?
	Well, clearly.
	Yes, that is correct.
	All right.
	And so the $60 you're getting for that contract, again, that split three ways.
	You, Mr. Wade, and Mr. Campbell, correct?
	That is correct.
	Minus expenses and stuff like that.
	Exactly.
	That was the income, and then expenses come from that, and then profits, whatever's at the end, correct?
	Correct.
	All right.
	So when you were being asked questions about Mr. Wade, I think the phrasing, I object to you, but I think you might recall the question.
	Mr. Wade brought you this contract, or Mr. Wade got you this contract.
	Do you remember those questions?
	Yes, I do.
	All right.
	So we're talking then about a split among the three of you of about $20 a piece, right, for that particular contract?
	For this one, yes.
	All right.
	What about $24?
	You got $24?
	I'm sorry, $25.
	And a plumber is actually useful.
	It's $150.
	$150 on that one, too?
	And the same sharing went through the business the way you handled that contract as well, right?
	That's correct.
	Who is Austin Dabney?
	He was a probation officer that passed the bar and we hired him and another individual.
	can't aid the other person didn't stay long.
	And did Mr. Dabney and the other legal associate that you all had working for you at that time, did they do some work on these first appearance?
	Yes.
	And that was a pretty good position for a younger lawyer to be sent to get some courtroom experience, correct?
	That is correct.
	2020, you're aware that Mr. Wade had a serious illness?
	I'm aware.
	And you and Mr. Wade, I think you described your relationship in a lot of details earlier about specific circumstances.
	You were business partners up until the time you left in summer 2022, correct?
	That is correct.
	You were business partners up until that time?
	Yes, I said yes, that is correct.
	Okay.
	And while you didn't socialize together frequently, you considered yourself a friend of Mr. Wade at that time?
	Yes, we were friends at that time, yes.
	All right.
	You are no longer business partners?
	That is correct.
	You are no longer friends.
	I mean, if he's saying that we're not friends, then yeah.
	I want to know what you think, Mr. Bradley.
	Do you consider yourself a friend of Mr. Wade?
	I would consider...
	It goes to potential bias, Ms. Cross.
	Would I consider myself a friend of Mr. Wade?
	I would.
	You were asked questions, Mr. Bradley, about the circumstances under which you left with the firm.
	Do you recall those questions?
	I do.
	All right.
	And you left the firm.
	The firm remained the same as far as other employees, Mr. Wade, Mr. Campbell, as the main partners of the firm.
	You were the one who left, correct?
	That is correct.
	And you termed it as a disagreement.
	Do you recall answering questions as though you left due to a disagreement?
	Yes?
	Yes.
	And that disagreement was that there was an allegation of sexual assault by an employee made against you, correct?
	That is incorrect.
	There was not an allegation that you assaulted Oh, it's getting interesting.
	that you sexually assaulted one of the employees in the firm.
	That is incorrect, but...
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Yes, there was an allegation that you sexually assaulted a member of the firm, correct?
	Yes, there was an allegation, yes.
	And as a result of that allegation, you left?
	I did.
	You were no longer business partners with Mr. Wade?
	That is correct.
	The firm remained intact, and in fact, the employee involved remained with the firm, correct?
	I'm not certain of that.
	They did leave the building, of course.
	And I don't know.
	Some of the employees did leave.
	We'll see if he's a little more open on cross now.
	Mr. Bradley, you in fact paid that employee $20,000, correct?
	That is...
	That is...
	That is incorrect as far as what was...
	No.
	On or about the time that you left the firm?
	sexual assault was made against you.
	Wow.
	Can you pay the person who had named the allegation of sexual assault any amount of money?
	There was money left in an escrow that belonged to me.
	I don't know what that amount was.
	I never signed any.
	I never gave any money.
	I never...
	I left the money in the escrow account.
	What happened to that money?
	How are they throwing this guy under the bus?
	I don't know what happened to him.
	For what purpose did you leave the money in the escrow account when you left the firm?
	I left the money in the escrow account.
	For what purpose?
	Don't let me forget my thought.
	He admitted they were friends.
	You just left the money in the escrow account?
	Yes.
	If there's no connection to the money you left in the escrow account and the allegations of sexual assault that an employee of your firm made against you, why was it that you brought to my attention?
	Why'd you respond the way you did about money in an escrow account when my question was, did you pay this employee any money?
	I didn't hand any money.
	It was money from my escrow account.
	To my knowledge.
	To your knowledge, where did the money in the escrow account go?
	To the employee.
	To that employee.
	This guy might be a little more chatty on redirect.
	Oh, by the way, he admitted that they were friends now.
	Was there one allegation, one incident of sexual assault with this employee, Mr. Bradley, or was there more than one?
	What does this have to do with anything?
	But go on, please.
	To my knowledge, there were not two incidents, no.
	I'm asking for incidents that you have been involved in.
	Were there two incidents where you sexually assaulted this employee?
	Allegedly.
	I didn't sexual assault anybody.
	Was there another occasion where you paid any money as a result of an allegation of sexual assault against you?
	No.
	Did you sexually assault any clients of your family?
	Allegedly.
	No.
	Never.
	Never.
	Who's Anna Rodriguez?
	Oh my goodness, this is going to be...
	Hey, dude, hey!
	I don't even know that name.
	You just protected the wrong person.
	Anna Rodriguez?
	No, I do not.
	No honor among thieves.
	Never met him.
	I do not recall the name Anna Rodriguez.
	Yep, this is woe, damn, and shit!
	What does it have to do with kids?
	No, dude, let him do it.
	Let him do it.
	He'll talk.
	He'll talk and redirect.
	Well, this clearly goes to the bias that the witness has towards Mr. Wade.
	In what?
	He was protecting Wade, you dumbass.
	Look at his face.
	He's like, I was protecting him.
	All right.
	At some point, though...
	No, no, let him go.
	By the way, if Ashley...
	If you're a little bit harassing, then is Mr. Bradley going to be excused from his privilege because...
	Dude, that's what I just said!
	That's what I was going to do.
	Don't do that yet.
	Dude, shut your face.
	Sit down.
	She's already done that.
	She's already done it.
	Hey, dude, if you're listening, they were friends.
	They talked friendship stuff.
	Based on the answer right now, I think now we've opened up a whole area.
	What he has just responded to.
	He previously said it was privilege.
	That doesn't sound like privilege to me.
	We'll have to address that when we go back through the run.
	Holy shit.
	No, but what did Anna Cross just do?
	Keep going, Cross.
	Keep opening your big mouth.
	Okay.
	Mister, stay down.
	Oh, is Anna Cross done?
	Did she realize that she just blew her own frickin' case up?
	I so want to know what- You were accused by Mr. Wade of misconduct.
	In the course of your representation of Mr. Wade, correct?
	I was not accused by Mr. Wade, no.
	No, that's what he said.
	Did Mr. Wade not, based on the questions we just asked, did Mr. Wade not bring to your attention these sexual assault allegations?
	Oh my goodness!
	That's wild.
	Answer that again, please.
	Mr. Wade brought to your attention the sexual assault allegations that you've been asked about by the prosecutor, correct?
	Correct.
	And at that time that Mr. Wade brought those allegations to your attention, you were still the attorney for Mr. Wade, correct?
	Correct.
	And therefore, your conduct as an attorney, and the attorney at that time for Mr. Wade was called into question by Mr. Wade's...
	Passing along to you allegations of misconduct, correct?
	I object to that.
	I don't think that's...
	Oh, you better sit down, Anna.
	You've done more than enough damage.
	The attorney-client relationship is of a matter.
	It is not...
	Oh, she realizes she has just...
	It was at that moment that Anna Cross realized she screwed up.
	I'm not sure that that's accurate.
	He was accused...
	She totally fucked up.
	There's no question about it.
	Do you mind if I speak?
	I allowed you to speak.
	Don't yell at me!
	Mr. Wade accused this gentleman of misconduct in the performance of his duties and attorney working with Mr. Wade and representing Mr. Wade.
	Those allegations of misconduct open up the question of whether or not he can defend himself by now discussing his...
	Confidential communications with Mr. Wade in connection with the representation as well as the allegations.
	That's the position of the defense.
	Understood.
	So what is the question you're putting in?
	My question I'm going to ask you now is, tell us what Mr. Wade told you about when he began his relationship with Ms. Williams.
	All right, so where I think we are with this is that...
	Mr. Bradley previously testified that the reason he left the firm was totally and completely covered by privilege.
	When asked by the state, he went into a factual scenario that, to my mind, I don't see how it relates to privilege at all.
	And so now I'm left wondering if Mr. Bradley has been properly interpreting privilege this entire time.
	And I think the only way I can cure that is by having that in-camera conversation with him.
	May I suspend my redirect for you to have that conversation?
	I think that makes sense.
	Is there anything else, though, that you were going to cover other than this issue?
	Yes, he admitted they were friends.
	He said we were friends.
	I thought he was my friend.
	Only to you, Your Honor.
	The premise of Mr. Sadow's question was that Mr. Wade accused Mr. Bradley of the sexual assault.
	That was not my question, and I don't believe that's factual.
	There was an employee who accused Mr. Bradley of sexual assault.
	Regardless, though, the point is that the circumstances of his departure from the firm, from what I've now heard, had nothing whatsoever to do with his representation of a divorce.
	Is that fair?
	My question, I wish they heard me.
	My testimony has been that the circumstances of Mr. Bradley leaving the firm were related, I can't say how much, but certainly in a large part, based on the allegation of sexual assault that was made against him.
	And his previous testimony was that that was totally covered by Brett Lynch.
	Yes, he lied.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Other than this issue...
	He just said they were friends.
	He said, are you friends?
	And he says, I thought so.
	Which I think we covered at length.
	So if he said they were friends...
	Was there any other questions based on Ms. Cross's...
	They surely had discussions of friends.
	Examination from the other defense counsel.
	Ashley, listen to what I'm saying.
	All right.
	With that understanding...
	Don't do it.
	Don't do it.
	Can this witness be excused, Ms. Merchant?
	Yes.
	All right.
	So, Mr. Bradley, I would ask...
	I don't know if we may be able to do it today.
	Right.
	What I'm about to say just logistically is I'm trying to do this if we can conclude this hearing with the exception of that in-camera hearing.
	We end for today.
	And if as a result of that in-camera hearing that I learned that we need to reopen the evidence, then that's what I'll do.
	So to that end...
	But when are they going to do closing arguments?
	I can give Mr. Bradley instructions that he's to report back upon order of the court.
	But otherwise...
	They missed an opportunity here.
	Is there anything further the parties need from him today?
	I'm just going to make sure I have no food in my tea.
	I know there's other housekeeping things and things we need to do.
	And based on a testimony, we do have another witness, Your Honor.
	It doesn't involve Mr. Bradley requiring him to be here.
	Okay, so now the state does have another witness?
	I do.
	Okay.
	All right.
	In that instance...
	Okay.
	Mr. Bradley, you can step down, sir.
	However, I'm giving you the order to stay in touch with your attorney, and that we're going to have to find a time to meet again and go into an in-camera session.
	Do you understand, sir?
	I do.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Thank you, sir.
	You can step down.
	Who's the next witness?
	Mr. Chopra, do you have a card for me?
	I do.
	Who's the next witness?
	Look, it's very easy to play Monday morning quarterback and what they should have done.
	What's his face?
	The guy Bradley just answered, we were friends.
	Are you guys friends?
	Yes, we were friends.
	Okay, well, thanks.
	I'm the worst lawyer on earth.
	I usually just tag bus stations with Monday.
	You can write down your contact information for us.
	I will.
	All right.
	Murchin, do you have any further witnesses?
	They should have said, "Well, you admitted your friends, "if you have any friendly conversations with him." And I think he would have been a little bit more amenable to now throwing the weight under the bus.
	that MF are just scoundrel.
	How does it feel, Bradley?
	You defended the wrong scoundrel.
	Enjoy your weekend.
	The Foundation is working for the chart.
	It's officially an evidence and we can just use the chart during argument under a 6/11.
	And any objection to this entry as a demonstrative miscross?
	No, given the parameters we discussed earlier.
	Okay.
	Can we go ahead and mark that in exhibit and make it part of the record in advance of arguments?
	I don't know when we're going to be able to have that scheduled.
	Oh my goodness.
	I can't believe what just happened.
	That's amazing.
	I think this would be defense exhibit 28. Let me...
	Let me go down the order just so we're staying organized.
	Ms. Merchant does not have any further witness.
	Excuse me.
	Ms. Merchant on behalf.
	Mr. Roman has no further evidence.
	None of the defense.
	Mr. Stay down.
	Your Honor, we are in a process of support to allow us to retain certain phone records and we lack the record kept open for the introduction of those phone records.
	We have them in draft.
	We have them informally.
	We do not have certification.
	And they will deal with And is it your intention that you would want to introduce these solely as an exhibit or you think that this should reopen and bring us back for an entirely new evidentiary day with witnesses?
	What we believe is there, based on our preliminary research, is there.
	We'd like to reopen and be able to introduce the records and someone to explain with it.
	I'm screen grabbing that.
	I think we certainly have an objection to that.
	This hearing has been set.
	We haven't seen the records.
	I don't know if I have any objections.
	Um, but the day has been set for quite a while, and we've jet-sorting him the evidence.
	When are they going to do the closing arguments?
	Okay.
	And Mr. Seda, when did you first go about trying to obtain these records?
	I wasn't listening, I was...
	Oh, Monday's a holiday, you're right.
	Under the plus!
	Self-inflicted comedy gold.
	Can you...
	Can we just appreciate how dirty they just did, Bradley?
	He lied about what was covered in privilege under one case and lied about it in another too.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Any further exhibits that are self-authenticating?
	If council are able to...
	Provide those, obviously serve those on opposing counsel, and then before sending them over to us, let us know whether they would be tendered with or without objection, just purely on authentication or hearsay issues or relevance.
	We can make those part of the record and all reserve whether this reopens a full hearing format.
	But the exhibits themselves, I'm willing to come into the part of the record, but there will be a cutoff point very soon, as soon as we schedule argument.
	All right.
	Any other evidence, Mr. Sada, then?
	No, Your Honor.
	So that would be cell records.
	Mr. Stockton, any evidence?
	All right.
	Mr. Durham, if you still will.
	How dirty would they just be?
	No, Your Honor.
	All right.
	Mr. McDougald?
	Certified copies I mentioned to your honor yesterday, then.
	Okay.
	and why don't you lay those out for the record Hey.
	They are marked, but not yet numbered.
	I believe our next exhibit would be 29. 28, I just said, was Mr. Gillen's.
	Just so I'm keeping it straight.
	And so I've previously provided these to the prosecution.
	29 would be a certified copy of County Code Section 2-68.
	30 is a certified copy of County Code Section 2-68.
	31 is a certified copy of County Code section 2-79.
	32 is certified copy of County Code section 10-114.
	33 is a certified copy of County Code Section 10-115.
	I have no idea.
	34 is a certified copy of County Code Section 102-464.
	This is all housekeeping, but we'll keep it going.
	35 is a certified copy of County Code Section 102-465.
	Oh my goodness.
	No honor among thieves.
	36 is a certified copy of County Code Section 102-466.
	And 37 is a certified copy of a...
	Emergency motion by non-party deponent for protective order filed on behalf of D.A. Willis in the Wade divorce case.
	Okay.
	Ms. Cross, objection to defensive limits 32 through 37. I object to their relevance, and I will take Mr. I will take the Supreme Council's representation that the pleading is complete and accurate as it was filed.
	And object to the relevance of that as well, but not the authentication.
	Okay.
	All right.
	We'll note the objection for the record, and we'll admit them for whatever weight they're due.
	So defense exhibits 32 through 37 are admitted.
	If you could hand those to Madam Court Board.
	Any further evidence, Mr. McDougal?
	Okay.
	Mr. Rice?
	Mr. Rice.
	Mr. Gillen?
	The demonstrative 28?
	Okay.
	And do you have a physical copy for us already?
	Great.
	Alright, do we still have Mr. Kucherov with us on Zoom, or anyone else on behalf of Mr. Floyd?
	He's not on any longer?
	Alright, I'm being informed that he dropped off Zoom, and so I'll make a finding that he voluntarily has absented himself from this hearing.
	Mr. Cromwell?
	No evidence, yeah.
	Okay.
	Ms. Cross, back to you.
	If the defense presentation of evidence is done, I'd ask that all of the witnesses who had been subpoenaed but not called now be released.
	I think that's fair.
	Ms. Merchant, any reason to hold on to any of those witnesses?
	Okay.
	The state has two short witnesses, and that's it.
	Okay, you may call your next witness, Ms. Gross.
	The next witness for the state is Austin Dabney.
	These witnesses are going to be impeached.
	Did they impeach the testimony, Mr. Dabney?
	I'll call out all my group mates.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Yes, my name is Austin.
	Dabney, that's A-U-S-T-I-N-D-A-D-N-E-Y.
	Good afternoon, Mr. Dabney.
	Where are we going with this?
	Good afternoon.
	I want to direct your attention.
	First of all, how are you employed?
	I am employed right now at my own firm.
	You're a lawyer and you've got your own law firm?
	That's correct.
	I can make my hair look like that, people.
	I want to direct your attention to 2021-2022.
	What was your employment at that firm?
	Yes, I was employed with the Wade Bradley Campbell firm.
	And that's Nathan Wade, Terrence Bradley, and Chris Campbell?
	That's correct.
	And what did you do in that firm?
	I was an associate attorney.
	And you don't need a whole lot of detail, but generally speaking, who in the firm did you work for?
	What kind of matters did you handle?
	Well, I believe I worked for all of them equally.
	They would all give me tasks to do.
	Which court dates to go to, what cases to work on.
	it.
	I want to direct now your attention, Mr. Dabney, to a particular instance.
	Did you have occasion at any time to go to a club with Mr. Bradley?
	Could you repeat the question?
	Did you have any occasion to go to a club, a net club or a bar situation with Mr. Bradley?
	Yes, I have.
	More than one time?
	More than one time, yes.
	Oh, is this going to get juicy?
	The time that I'm going to direct your attention to.
	We spoke about a little earlier today.
	Do you recall any instance, Mr. Dabney, where Mr. Bradley...
	Where you witnessed Mr. Bradley sexually assaulted him.
	Okay.
	Sure.
	All right.
	How is this not extrinsic evidence of a collateral matter, Ms. Gross?
	Maybe ask a better question.
	No, I would have just let him ask.
	My question will be if this witness witnessed Mr. Bradley sexually assaulting another employee of the firm.
	Exactly, but same subject matter.
	How is that not issued on a collateral matter for impeachment?
	I think it's not a collateral matter.
	You're under witness, denied it.
	I think it is highly relevant.
	I think that it goes to the witness's credibility and his denial here this afternoon that he committed the assault.
	There's a witness, I will proffer to the court, who has firsthand knowledge and witnessed the event.
	so i think that's highly relevant to both mr bradley's credibility and to the proceedings that we've had for the last few days i'm still objective i understand mr attempted impeachment bradley uh they they have to live with whatever answer uh a they can't have a subtrial uh that is if
	you can strip it i can't i get the down back here 24-6-608.
	Yeah.
	Miss Cross, I'm your 608.
	I don't see how this isn't well beyond the core facts at issue.
	I think you confronted with him.
	I think he answered them as he saw fit.
	An argument can be made as a result, but to go down a hole.
	I don't see how that gets past 608.
	I'd like to make it clear that the sexual assault I'm referring to was the same employee that I asked Mr. Bradley about.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Understood.
	Anything else that is relevant to this witness?
	Given the court's ruling, no.
	All right.
	Questions from Defense Council?
	Good afternoon, sir.
	Good afternoon.
	When did you start working at the law firm?
	I believe I started working, to my recollection, in March 2021.
	Okay.
	And at that time, do I understand that there was what I would call a three-way partnership or sharing arrangement at the law firm?
	I'm not aware of any sharing arrangements that they had, but it was the Wade-Bradley& Campbell Law Firm.
	And did you work in the law firm office on a daily basis?
	I did.
	And during the time period, you were there for the remainder of 2001?
	You worked from March of 2001 at least to the end of 2001, correct?
	I didn't even have a bar license in 2001.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm sorry.
	2021.
	A little late.
	From March of 2021 to the end of 2021, correct?
	That's correct.
	Okay.
	During the time period that you were working at the law firm, did you see Fannie Willis?
	During my time, because you repeat the question.
	In that time period between March of 2021 and November 1st of 2021, did you see Ms. Willis?
	I may have recalled one instance where I saw her in passing.
	And when you saw her, was she at the law firm?
	That would be correct.
	And do you know who she went to visit?
	I do not know.
	You didn't see her go to Mr. Wade's office?
	I do not recall.
	Did you ever talk to Mr. Wade about Bonnie Willis?
	Could you repeat your question?
	Did you ever talk to Mr. Wade about Fonnie Willis during the time period of March of 2021 to November 1st of 2021?
	No.
	Did you know they were dating?
	No, I did not.
	Did you see anything between...
	Did you ever socialize with Mr. Wade?
	As far as being an employee, yes.
	Well, I don't mean...
	I don't know what that means exactly, but did you ever go out to eat with Mr. Wade?
	On occasion, he would take the office out to lunch.
	Beyond that, did you ever go to a nightclub or drinking or any of that with him?
	No, I did not.
	Okay, so whatever relationship Mr. Wade had with Ms. Willis during this time period, you don't have personal knowledge, correct?
	I do not have any personal knowledge.
	Thank you very much for being here.
	Thank you.
	Any other questions from defense counsel?
	Mr. Stockton.
	When you started in March of 21, was that just you gave him a resume and started working there?
	I don't understand your question.
	When you started working there, is it a situation where your first day on the job is the first day you may have met him or shortly before you met him?
	Again, I don't understand what you're asking.
	Let me back up.
	Did you know Mr. Wade?
	Or any of his partners prior to March of 21?
	Yes, I did.
	How did you know them?
	In a professional capacity.
	I used to be a community supervision officer with the Georgia Department of Community Supervision.
	And where would that have been out of?
	Fulton County?
	Cobb County.
	How long did you know Mr. Wade prior to that?
	I didn't see Mr. Wade in my professional capacity.
	I thought you were asking about all partners, but if you're only asking about Mr. Wade, if you could please clarify.
	Okay, so you went to work for Mr. Wade in March of 21, correct?
	I went to work for the Wade Bradley Campbell firm.
	Okay.
	Prior to that, how long did you know Mr. Wade?
	I did not know Mr. Wade prior to that.
	At all?
	At all.
	No further questions?
	Any other counsel?
	All right, seeing and hearing none.
	This is going nowhere fast.
	Any redirect, Ms. Cross?
	No, Your Honor, subject to the court's ruling.
	All right, can this witness be excused?
	Yeah.
	All right, thank you, sir.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	Next witness, Ms. Cross.
	As much as I criticize you or you make fun of the hair, it's much more convenient than having a kid.
	I believe I know the court's ruling, so let me proffer that the next witness the state would call would be Anna Rodriguez.
	Oh, they're bringing up Anna Rodriguez, the alleged victim.
	The sexual assault of Ms. Rodriguez.
	Bring her up.
	A client of the firm.
	We denied knowing her or recognizing her name.
	Back in the olden days, in middle-year times.
	The testimony would be impeaching of Mr. Bradley.
	They used to stick red-hot pokers up people's buttholes to torture him.
	All right.
	Thank you, Ms. Cross.
	And so, based on that proffer and the subject matter proffered, I still believe that the outfall under 608B is extrinsic evidence of collateral matter.
	And so I don't think it's allowed under our rules of evidence.
	Understanding that, I just make a proffer on the record that Rodriguez would testify that Mr. Bradley sexually assaulted her.
	She was a client at the time.
	And that would be in teaching of his testimony.
	All right.
	Understood.
	Any further evidence or witnesses, Ms. Cross?
	No, sir.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Then at this time, for now, I'll consider the evidence closed.
	Oh, they missed it.
	Subject to any certified submissions by counsel.
	They missed it.
	I'm not done with my hot poker-up-the-butt analogy.
	I'll tell you where I'm going with that.
	We will coordinate with all counsel to find a date to come back for summation.
	And to that end, again, using Ms. Merchant as kind of running lead on this, I'd like you to consult on whether that's going to be a collective response on behalf of the defendants.
	If not, then we're going to have to get into time allotment.
	And if it's, you know, more than a handful of counsel, it'd probably maybe be 10 to 15 minutes per side.
	And so...
	We're done early.
	That's the silver lining.
	Like, in the last hour...
	We'll follow up by email so we can coordinate with everyone's schedules.
	I want to make sure we have our same court reporter as well so that the record is all in one place.
	And I know we have a lot of schedules to coordinate, but looking at...
	Either late next week as in next Friday or the following week.
	Would we at least have the opportunity to get a transcript before we do that?
	I think that's probably highly unlikely.
	Oh, let me stretch my legs.
	We'll see.
	It's just that would require a rush.
	And I know, again, we're at a shortage of court reporters.
	But I think there are other means you can refer to the evidence with confidence as to what was said.
	We're not going anywhere for a bit.
	I can't believe what we just saw.
	Ms. Merchant.
	Okay.
	Like I said, we're going to follow up with scheduling.
	Mr. Gillen.
	Any other claims brought in any of the filings regarding forensic misconduct, this whole line of questioning?
	All right.
	Any other questions from Defense Council?
	Move up the poker.
	Anything from the state?
	You don't want to hear it.
	We just asked that we be allowed to submit a brief as it relates to the rulings that you just made as it relates to...
	Absolutely.
	They missed it in redirect.
	By the time they see my tweet, it'll be too late.
	...that contradiction, which the state's understanding would allow the use of expensive evidence to impeach this specific testimony here, Mr. Bradley.
	So we're just asking for leave to provide a brief and have the court to further...
	Well, if you still got your witnesses here and you think you've got a better legal argument, I'm willing to hear it.
	You said 607 and 608.
	7 621 Okay, I see 621, I see 608.
	And in both of those instances, they allow testimony related to the testimony of another witness here, Mr. Bradley, that we can use his patented thoughts as he testified that he didn't commit a sexual assault and that he didn't pay off witnesses and things of that nature.
	Okay, and how do you get around 608B's prohibition on extrinsic evidence of collateral matters?
	Both 607 and 621 allow the use of extrinsic evidence to specifically impeach Facts known to be false.
	That took an insane turn.
	That made up for the lukewarm beginning.
	Okay, well, if they're going to do that, I'm going to try to get the flicking clip.
	I don't know why my phone stops recording.
	Put it on.
	Do not disturb.
	Here's what I'm fine with.
	Mr. Avati, if you want to submit that brief on purely legal argument, you can.
	But I don't want to have this as a vehicle.
	Leave a fry.
	To essentially put forth an extended and long-winded proffer of what you expected the evidence to be.
	So if you think I've made a legal error on that point, feel free to brief it, and we can reopen the hearing if that's legally invalid.
	Okay?
	All right.
	All right.
	Mr. Chopra, is your client still here?
	I believe so, Your Honor, but I'm sorry.
	That's fine.
	If he is still here, let's relocate to the jury line.
	Okay.
	We will be...
	Adjourn for today.
	Thank you all.
	I'm going to get the clip, are they out?
	Oh yeah, okay, hold on.
	See if we give me hot mic stuff.
	Ashley, you should go thank Anna Cross.
	Hey, well done, Anna.
	You just destroyed a man's life.
	Do you think it lost battery?
	I don't know.
	I mean, I don't need it now.
	Where are you going to put you guys?
	Okay.
	This stream has been concluded.
	Holy shit, people.
	I'm going to hear something in the back.
	I'm screen grabbing that part.
	How do I get this clip off?
	I wanted to take this off because I just didn't want to see the NBC logo.
	Now I'm hearing some...
	Okay, apparently Navalny died in a Russian prison and the left are up in arms.
	But Gonzalo Lira dying in a Ukrainian prison.
	Well, he got what he deserved.
	Hypocrites through and through.
	Chris Furlow.
	We've just witnessed a murder.
	This is the dirtiest thing I've ever seen.
	I was going to say something about a dirty video that I've seen on the internet, but I will not even get there.
	This is the dirtiest done dirty I've ever seen in my entire life.
	That guy, Bradley, spent the last two days trying to get out of incriminating Nathan Wade.
	Trying not to throw Wade under the bus.
	Protect his ass at all costs.
	At the expense of his credibility, his reputation.
	And pleading, and by the way, the depths to which they prodded to get him to say everything we ever discussed was solicitor-client.
	I never went out with him.
	I never was friends.
	We didn't have a social life together.
	We never went out for dinner.
	The things that they got him to say so that Anna Cross could come out there and ask him, you guys consider him to be a friend?
	Yeah.
	You're no longer business partners.
	Okay.
	You're no longer friends.
	I mean, someone's got to loop in the Ralph Wiggum from the Simpsons episode where, like, Lisa says, you know, yells at him for the Valentine's Day.
	It's like, you can actually pinpoint the moment his heart rips in half.
	So you're no longer business partners.
	You're no longer friends.
	If you say so, I thought we were friends.
	Oh, you thought you were friends with the man you just spent two days trying to protect?
	Oh, well, here's how friends do each other friends.
	Let me get that hot poker.
	Make sure it's, like, red hot.
	And we're going to forcibly intrude it into your rectal sphere.
	Oh my goodness.
	Oh yeah, you didn't leave voluntarily.
	You were forced out because of, not like sexual misconduct, not sexual harassment, sexual assault, for which you paid allegedly, directly or indirectly, 20,000 bucks to the employee and then left.
	Oh, I'm sorry, you thought we were friends, biatch?
	What did you learn?
	Oh, I'm doing my rant summary tonight.
	This will be in my summary.
	What did you learn?
	Oh, that's right.
	You thought you were defending scoundrels.
	You thought the scoundrels would not...
	They just effed that guy.
	His life, his reputation, his future career.
	Hard.
	And for what?
	For what?
	To impeach his credibility?
	You wanted him to be credible, you stupid idiot.
	Anna Cross?
	It's only his credibility.
	That allowed him to defend Nathan Wade.
	I thought we were friends.
	Why can't we be friends?
	They just took him and eviscerated him, drawn and quartered him, disemboweled him, like William Wallace having his intestines removed to discredit him and impeach his credibility so that now the judge says, yeah, maybe he didn't.
	Have all of this solicitor-client discussion.
	Maybe he was lying there, too.
	Maybe I'll let him come back and ask some questions, answer some questions.
	And they missed it.
	I mean, I think they missed it.
	Someone will tell me if I'm wrong.
	Once that they opened that door to them having been friends, not that they were no longer friends.
	Remember, what's-his-face?
	I don't remember the name.
	I'm listening to myself as I make this clip.
	Asked him, you know, did you hang out with him socially?
	Nope.
	Did you go for dinner?
	Nope.
	Did you know what he did in his personal life?
	Nope.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	Didn't Anna Cross just ask you if you were friends and you said yes?
	All right, so as friends, surely you had discussions as friends that exceeded the limits, the parameters, the boundaries of your privilege.
	Yeah, we did, actually.
	All right.
	Did he ever talk to you about boning Fanny Willis?
	Yeah, he said he met her at the conference and slept with her on the first night.
	Woo-hoo!
	I think they messed it, but...
	I think they missed it, but that was wild.
	Yep, wow.
	Get him to defend and then bury him.
	So everything he said could be taken as perjury.
	It won't be taken as perjury, but, you know, oh yeah, you're right, you're right.
	I made a mistake.
	It wasn't in the...
	We had...
	He represented him for free.
	Put his name on the letterhead.
	I'm just listening to this because, dude...
	Can you imagine what that guy feels like right now?
	This is where I say, like, it's called hot empathy.
	And it's actually a mental disorder.
	It's not an asset in life.
	I feel sick for Bradley.
	Where is he going?
	If I'm Bradley, I'm going right to the bathroom and vomiting.
	By the way, I'm never going to be Bradley because I don't get out of the house to even be the object of false accusations of a certain nature.
	If I'm Bradley, I literally go to the bathroom and throw up and I contemplate my life.
	I can't believe that.
	Viva isn't a hearsay.
	I think the judge excluded the evidence, but they said it.
	The world has seen it.
	Bradley was bending over backwards to protect Wade.
	And then as he's bent over backwards, they took the Harry Keery knife and cut him right in half.
	He's drunk by now.
	Dude, I would not be drinking if I were in that.
	Let me see, I'm just going to make sure I get this.
	Bradley should have stayed in Dubai.
	Bradley should have stayed at the doctor.
	I don't, but I swear to you, I try to be objective and I'll try to steal men.
	What the hell was Anna Cross doing?
	You want to impeach the witness of the man whose reliability of testimony you're relying on to protect yourself via privilege.
	I don't get it and someone's going to have to explain it to me.
	Let me see here.
	Maybe we got this.
	Viva, they can now submit all texts and emails of him saying Wade lied, but now will be regarded as lies.
	Hold on.
	Viva, they can now submit all texts and emails of him...
	Oh, God, this stupid effing thing.
	I'm just going to have to pull it when I get the video.
	They can now submit all texts and emails of him saying Wade lied, but it'll now be...
	First of all, it won't be, because I don't think the judge is going to place much weight on this from an evidentiary perspective.
	From a life-ruined, red-hot-poker-up-the-butt perspective, Bradley is destroyed.
	So, no, I don't think...
	No.
	They can now submit all texts and emails of him saying Wade lied, and it will be regarded as a lie.
	No, because he didn't lie.
	He didn't lie...
	Oh, did he lie about the context in which he left the firm?
	Okay, that was wild.
	Now, what I did forget to do.
	So that's what I think.
	I mean, I do not know what she did.
	If that's the best of it, it wasn't worth it.
	They pissed him off right before he goes in to talk to the judge about what he was hiding behind the privilege.
	Wonder how that will work out.
	No shit, Potter.
	I mean, you're right.
	And I think the only way is to say, yeah, okay, well, when he says Wade lied, he's lying.
	Okay.
	A, they didn't need to do that.
	And B, they should have kept him as...
	Quiet as possible and as credible as possible because now you're right.
	Your Honor, I lied about privilege.
	I was protecting this scoundrel and look what he just did to me.
	By the way, this is how they run their business.
	Oh my goodness.
	Oh my goodness.
	They piss him off right before he goes in.
	Okay, I got that one.
	Just blended up some arugula radish to see if it like coffee.
	Bottoms up.
	So, yeah, someone had asked, I typically don't put salad dressing on arugula because I'm neurotic and don't want the extra calories, although I will put extra virgin olive oil.
	Typically, I just put salt and pepper and chew it because the spice wakes me up.
	The spicy flavor, but arugula is amazing.
	Taint privilege took control of this case.
	Viva taint privilege.
	Wow!
	For the attempt at that bitch...
	For the attempt at that bitch biscuit.
	I don't know what that means.
	I'm going to have to go to the Urban Dictionary.
	Brian Clark, thank you.
	Viva, are the dog balls kid.
	Black tie event.
	Are the dog balls kid.
	Viva, you are the dog's balls kid.
	Okay, black tie event.
	Oh, the dog's balls.
	Now I got to go look what that means in the Urban Dictionary.
	Can you tell me what happened after the break?
	That happened.
	That's what happened.
	Oh my goodness.
	Lay down with dogs, you get fleas.
	No question about that.
	Alright, let me bring up the Rumble rants.
	I cannot believe what we just saw happen.
	Can Bradley go tell the Dutch behind Glouzer since they are steamrolling him?
	Oh, come on now.
	Oh, tell me I didn't just lose all of the rants that have been built up.
	Oh, cripe.
	They're all gone.
	Wait a minute.
	No, that's from yesterday.
	Day two.
	I literally just screwed up everything.
	I don't even remember what window that was in now to go for.
	Here?
	Here, maybe?
	Please go back to the rumble with the rants.
	Otherwise, I've just lost all of them.
	Why would I do that?
	Okay, okay.
	Fingers crossed.
	fingers crossed Oh, okay, good.
	Wow, that was lucky.
	Okay, can Bradley go behind closed doors?
	Don't make the same mistake, Dave.
	I think he's going to be a lot more chatty behind closed doors.
	Bradley needs to jump on the Trump train before the Georgia train gets to him.
	That was from TBlueUSA, or TBlueSA.
	GaryMay46, Bradley needs to get on the Trump train before the Georgia train gets to him.
	Transpo, I believe they are seeking to discredit Bradley with the idea of showing Wade as credible.
	None of them are credible.
	They are all scoundrels.
	Can he tell the judge all he knows behind closed doors now that they rolled him under the bus?
	I think he will.
	Transpo says, honk honk.
	MSMOCPA says, Viva, explain what just happened.
	That's what happened.
	I don't understand why she did it, and I think it's the dumbest thing I've ever seen.
	What just happened?
	Six foot four midget says.
	GaryMay46 says, I was right earlier.
	He said something that wasn't supposed to be said, so they began messing with the lie feed and now the defense is going after him.
	Now, yeah.
	They are trying to make Wade look moral by firing a sexual predator.
	Pfft.
	Pfft.
	I mean, if that's the best of it, but they've impeached the only witness who was protecting Wade.
	I'd love to hear the re-ask if they are still friends after this line of questioning.
	Why is she...
	That was from Tails.
	Why is she burning him?
	Says, we laxed in 3721.
	Allgoodguy says, David, SCOTUS 539, US 538, Lawrence v.
	Texas ruled that two consenting adults did in privacy of their own residence was covered by privacy, thereby making law governing sexual acts invalid.
	Yeah, I remember that's the same thing with...
	The butt...
	Butt sex.
	What's the technical legal word for that?
	Sodomy.
	I believe that was the same rule for sodomy.
	Unless Wade submitted that he had legal expenses that we got to.
	I was shocked when the lawyer brought up the crime of...
	Okay, we got that.
	I think I've got everything else in here.
	Holy cow.
	That's wild.
	Well, that was an exciting end to an otherwise painfully boring day.
	I am curious.
	I'm going to call Govea after this and see.
	So now, hold on one second, because now I see two more chats, or crumble rants, and I'll get to the locals before we wind this up for the day, because my butt, speaking of painful butts, is very painful.
	Oh, this is Gouveia's.
	No, this is mine.
	I can't see.
	Can someone lay out the part?
	Okay, I don't even know what we're looking at here.
	What window is this?
	Okay, I'm losing it, people.
	Didn't Ms. Doublecross lie to the judge when she said they have no further witnesses, but then they actually had premeditated this Bradley demolition?
	They clearly prepped the two witnesses.
	Can someone lay out the parties in this case?
	Is it a criminal?
	Dude, okay, that's going to require too much catch-up.
	Wow, I can't believe that.
	That's wild.
	All right, well, what does everyone say about that?
	That was fun.
	So, it's Monday's a holiday.
	I forgot.
	Kids are off school.
	That's going to be fun.
	Tuesday, I guess they're not coming back.
	They're going to schedule, what do they call them?
	Summations instead of closing arguments.
	Bradley's going to spill it everywhere.
	Spill it to the IRS.
	Spill it to the potential criminality.
	Of course, who's going to prosecute Nathan Wade?
	Is it going to be Fannie Willis?
	I don't think so!
	They are going over, as far as I understood now, the in-camera review.
	And the judge might come back and say, You're right.
	Bradley's a liar.
	It's not privileged at all.
	Boom shakalaka.
	I'll live to be wrong on this.
	I don't think the judge is compromised.
	I don't think the judge is corrupt.
	I don't think the judge is even necessarily substantially wrong on his rulings of law.
	So maybe I'm wrong and time will tell, but I think the judge is going to get this right.
	And I think the judge probably already has enough.
	To get it right without having to potentially cross the line by admitting inadmissible evidence, thus giving potential better grounds for appeal.
	Hypothetically, I'm just saying.
	I'm thinking out loud.
	So, I don't think...
	I think the judge is smart.
	I think the judge gets it.
	I think the judge doesn't necessarily...
	He might not need to violate, potentially violate...
	Solicitor-client privilege if he has already what he needs.
	A bunch of corrupt nincompoops stooping each other left, right, and center.
	I'm stretching my legs out here.
	Oh!
	Stooping each other left, right, and center.
	A bunch of incompetent buffoons who have given, if not evidence of corruption and impropriety, at least the semblance of it, I don't need to get into solicitor-client privilege.
	I can't believe.
	I can't believe that.
	Thank you.
	I do enjoy nothing more than being told I'm right.
	Big Pete, what's up?
	Viva, all of the things going on to get Trump, shake my head, it's crazy.
	So, the judge in the New York case, I mean, that's no surprise.
	I mean, that has to get overturned in appeal.
	But there's no surprise there because the judge had already found on summary motion that Trump was guilty of fraud.
	Now it was just putting a price on it.
	Whatever that song is.
	Viva, if...
	Assessed as not privileged info, will they bring him back for questioning?
	Maybe.
	But we'll see.
	I think that window is definitely open because they get to ask him all the questions on it.
	Also, maybe they don't need to.
	If it's not privileged, they can get it in that he lied under.
	I have to think about how that works.
	Because we don't really know what the questions were, some of them.
	It was his personal knowledge.
	Of what he affirmed in that affidavit that Ashley Merchant sent him.
	So yeah, they bring him back, I imagine.
	The last 30 to 40 minutes was like the end of the Super Bowl, made up for the three quarters of this fraud of a trial.
	Super Bowl was fixed.
	I'm joking.
	I don't actually believe that.
	So that's that.
	Oh my goodness.
	I don't know what we just saw.
	Oh, hold on.
	I just saw name that reference and I know that I didn't get to that because I would have seen that before.
	Here, hold on one second.
	Name that reference since we're playing movie games.
	Let's see here.
	I must have missed a couple of crumble rants.
	So just expand the screen.
	Don't do it again!
	Don't do it again, you idiot.
	Me.
	Tales22, name that reference.
	It's a simple question, Doctor.
	Would you or would you not eat yourself if you were a hot dog?
	Just say yes and we'll move on.
	I was here earlier to listen to the trial, but now Fry's commentary is the most entertaining, says Laura Ann.
	Biden comparatively has a photographic memory.
	What is this ad right here?
	This is not a pimple-popping ad.
	That's gross.
	That's a pickle.
	That's not skin.
	It goes to show you where my moan goes.
	Biden has a comparatively photographic memory compared to this clown.
	Can you remember when I started the sentence?
	I don't recall.
	How could people show up to testify and not know their timeline?
	That's the...
	Fannie's friend was the most credible witness so far.
	Short, concise, and no pausing.
	Fannie's friend.
	Who was Fannie's friend?
	Who did we see a man?
	I forgot who...
	We got Bradley.
	We had...
	Oh, Fanny's dad today.
	That was funny.
	Oh, let me hit send on my email so that I don't lose my notes by some catastrophic...
	Another hint that my former mentor said, never put in the email address until you're ready to hit send because you might accidentally send it.
	A, to the wrong address and B, by accident.
	So you add the email address.
	At the end, only when you're ready, definitively, to hit send.
	Okay, Fannie hired Nathan Mills to work on the Trump case and hired the rest of his office to work on the taint team, so this guy is not stupid.
	He is covering up.
	Yeah, they say the taint contracts weren't in relation to the Trump stuff, but who the hell can trust any of these goddamn liars?
	We'll be watching to see how long it takes for Biden to appoint this judge to the federal bench.
	This is typical...
	No, I think the judge is fine, Maxie.
	Tales22, check out the big brain on bread.
	Check out the big brain on bread.
	Pulp Fiction.
	GaryMay46, this is clown, is a good distraction from anyone realizing that there are tens of thousands of terrorists from all over the world are facilitated into our country by our own government.
	Well, nobody's ignoring that, GaryMay.
	Nobody's distracted from that.
	Thanks for covering the hearings.
	Says Hosoi, reclaiming my time.
	Stop yelling at me.
	Re, stop yelling at me.
	Re.
	That's JBart1025.
	The judge is sticking to the case of removing Fatty and letting another judge deal with the lies and criminality of these scumbags.
	He already has the pressure of his own career.
	The judge is sticking to the case of removing Fanny.
	Yes, I think she's removed.
	I think it's a done deal already.
	They work for the state, paid for by our taxes.
	Everything is relevant, should be handed over to FOIA.
	Something tells me they do not comply.
	Subpoena private communications, fire them all and prosecute their crimes.
	Snuggle struggle.
	I'm not your buddy, Guy.
	The evasiveness is truly annoying.
	And can we take a moment to appreciate how this just exemplifies the absolute scumbaggery that is happening throughout the judicial system?
	This taints previous all cases.
	I agree.
	Taint.
	Yeah.
	Do you think Fannie is going to be kept on at this point or no?
	I say no for sure.
	What's your opinion so far, Viva?
	Jules Verne?
	I say definitely not.
	I think the judge has his decision already made and doesn't need questionable evidence to come to that conclusion.
	So that's my prediction, and may I be wrong, and may it be tainted by my own optimism.
	It probably is, but I think I'm going to be right.
	Okay.
	He sounds like Cain being interrogated after the stone murder in Menace to Society.
	I haven't seen that movie in a long time.
	Transpo, I've been trying very hard to watch this with objectivity, but those witnesses are making it very difficult.
	Painful.
	How about you call her law firm, Viva, Mr. Alien?
	I tagged her in my tweet.
	I think she'll get it.
	Fannie Willis' politically connected father knew COVID was coming up to the year before.
	There's more there.
	Don't let that die.
	Yeah, they did.
	Judges showing his cards by appearing to be siding with the state.
	He's definitely going to take Willis down.
	He'll be labeled racist and he knows it.
	No, at this point, I don't think...
	Dude, we were watching MSNBC or MSM.
	Rubbish.
	Oh, you haven't seen all of them.
	We've been watching even the rubbish MSM before this, and they're like 50-50.
	If they're saying 50-50, it's because they know damn well.
	So he'll have the blessing of the MSM when it's time to do it.
	We've been going for eight hours.
	Oh my gosh.
	What time is it?
	4.45?
	I might still be able to do a radio piece for...
	Let me see if they found...
	Still, if we...
	Is the slot still open?
	That has nothing to do with the Fannie Willis case, people.
	That was to go on.
	I think it was to go on...
	Jeez, I don't know who this was.
	I presumed it was for Richard Sirrett, but I don't know who I just said yes to.
	Is this for Richard Sirrett?
	I hope I just didn't say no to somebody I don't know.
	So...
	Thank you very much.
	No, I love these things.
	I mean, I don't enjoy sitting on my ass all day.
	This is part of the reason why I went crazy as a practicing lawyer.
	Like, I'm sweating just by sitting in place.
	I'm sure there's a medical condition for that name.
	But this was wild.
	In other words, I'm glad it's over now.
	I thought it was actually going to extend to Monday or Tuesday.
	Viva, I thought Bradley was very unhelpful for the defense.
	Enters, cross, hold my beer.
	I get mistaken between who's defense and who's plaintiff here, but holy shiot.
	I mean, it's wild.
	Viva, contact Bradley for an interview.
	I mean, where am I supposed to...
	I don't know where to find people.
	If they're not on Twitter...
	Oh, wait a minute.
	Bradley's a lawyer.
	What's his first name?
	I'll call him.
	This is entertaining.
	Man, this end made up for it.
	The last hour made up for the entire day of boringness.
	Okay, now I'm going to scroll all the way up to the top.
	Can Bradley go tell the judge behind...
	I'm going to refresh, and I know I'm going to screw myself by refreshing this.
	What we're going to do now...
	I think I did just screw all of the rants.
	Yeah, I can't see them anymore.
	Well, I'm an idiot.
	Oh, wait.
	No, there's two more I can see now.
	What did I just do?
	Oh, no.
	Okay, so...
	Oh, no.
	Okay, so those are the same ones.
	Let me go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com because I haven't been there in a while.
	We've still got 273 people there.
	This is fantastic.
	Let's see what we got.
	Do you think the judge had any idea that the hearing would turn into a clown show?
	Would he have agreed to it if he did?
	This is from Bobby84094 with a $5 tip in vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I think if the judge knew where they were going, there's no question he had no way of seeing that.
	That was like a demon pulling off their friendly face.
	Like the clown takes off the clown mask and it's a satanic hellraiser of a demon underneath.
	There was no way the judge could have seen that coming.
	And I'd love to see what's going on behind closed doors.
	Cliff Norman says the judge will punt and send to another district or review the Attorney General for Georgia.
	Well, I don't know what you mean by punt, Cliff Norman.
	No, I think the judge is taking them off the case.
	And he'll bring in a district attorney from another county.
	I don't know exactly how it works.
	That's my thought.
	Cliff Norman, thank you very much.
	We got Ursula G in the house.
	How's it going?
	Viva, when he gets suicided tonight, will it make sense?
	It will all make sense, right?
	I don't even like making those jokes.
	I'm not trying to shame or guilt.
	Part and parcel of the hot empathy of OCD and neuroses.
	I don't even like making those jokes.
	But dude, I mean, this would be one of those cases where someone goes and chugs a half a bottle of vodka and does something stupid.
	They just ruined that man's life.
	And I'm not being hyperbolic or exaggerating.
	They just convicted that guy in the absence of a trial.
	He might be innocent of this.
	No one's ever going to believe it.
	They just ruined Bradley's life.
	His personal life, his private life, and his professional career, and his future career.
	Ruined.
	That guy, he can do something bad to himself, or he can do something bad to Wade.
	That's a dangerous thing, what they just did.
	They ruined a man's life.
	It's one of the reasons why I always hated being a lawyer.
	It meant even destroying the life of someone who deserved it.
	I still felt guilty doing it.
	Cliff Norman.
	Viva, clarify.
	It seems that the prosecution had a plan to wreck Bradley.
	Bradley seemed to be doing his best to defend Wade Willis.
	Now they seem to be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
	I don't know what he said that might have turned on them, but they clearly had the witnesses lined up.
	I mean, the dude with the bun was prepared.
	Or prepped, I should say.
	He knew what he was going to be asked about.
	You don't just have the victim of alleged sexual assault.
	And I'll say alleged, which they didn't.
	You don't just have the victim of alleged sexual assault on standby without knowing that you're going to do this in advance.
	So this didn't just happen this morning.
	They didn't just call up the woman halfway through the testimony and say, hey, he said something we don't like.
	Can you come in and ruin this man?
	So I agree.
	They had to have had this.
	My thing is, my thought is maybe they had this set up.
	Thinking that Bradley's testimony was going to go south, and they were going to need to do this, but it never actually did, and they still did it anyhow.
	Incomprehensible to me.
	Let me just see if anybody were, you know, get, oh, oh, oh.
	I can do it, period.
	All right, I just booked Richard Surrett.
	My wife's going to kill me.
	The kids are going to kill me.
	So let me see here.
	Done.
	So now we're going to get out of here in like nine minutes so I can prep.
	Holy shit, I can't believe the way that ended.
	No hair on your chest.
	This is Finboy Slick.
	Couldn't you tell me that before I made the AI images?
	I was just going to pull up my shirt and show you that I have...
	I'll show you from the top down.
	Hold on, let me just make sure that I'm not...
	Couldn't you tell me that before I made the AI images?
	Now I need to go back and make a bunch of new, more accurate, sexy pictures.
	Not that anybody wants to know.
	I have no hair on my chest.
	I mean, maybe like a few...
	You can't really see them, like little straggly things.
	No hair on my chest.
	Minimal hair on my arms.
	Very little hair on my back.
	Very little hair on my toes.
	It's all up here, baby.
	I get hair on my earlobes, which doesn't make sense.
	And it drives me crazy.
	TMI.
	You want to know what the TMI is?
	I hate the hairs in the corner of my mouth, so I need to get a tweezer to get them out because I don't like...
	Feeling them with my tongue.
	That's crazy.
	You want to know what it's like being in the head of this?
	But yeah, no, that's it.
	And I never grew wisdom teeth for some reason.
	When they did the x-ray, they're like, when did you have your wisdom teeth removed?
	And I was like, I never had my wisdom teeth removed.
	I've also got a very small pinky.
	A toe pinky.
	Not my hand pinky.
	My toe pinkies are very small.
	So...
	10% Hobbit, someone said.
	Alright.
	I pluck my earlobes nightly.
	Yeah, you get into the habit of it.
	It's like, you have a lot more hair on your nose than my father does.
	How nice of you to notice.
	I'm a kid.
	That's my job.
	Movie?
	It's Uncle Buck again.
	So what was I just about to say two seconds ago?
	I forgot what I was about to say.
	This was fun, ladies and gentlemen.
	I didn't kill the stream on YouTube because I think that's...
	Dude, I think the...
	Best advertising for Rumble is YouTube, actually, these days.
	It's quite fantastic.
	Remember, they know what he's going to tell the judge.
	They're gambling on tainting his impression before he actually hears it.
	Dude, the judge already knows it!
	I mean, the thing is this.
	If that was the gambit that they're taking, they've blown it.
	They did not need to do that damage.
	They didn't need to do that damage.
	To do that.
	They wanted him to be credible.
	They're gonna go see the stuff in camera.
	I'm thinking this through.
	They're gonna go see the stuff in camera.
	It's going to show that he said, yes, the affidavit is accurate.
	Okay.
	He's gonna say, I only knew that because of what Wade told me in the context of a professional relationship.
	But he spent his entire testimony saying that he had no personal knowledge of it.
	So he could just say, yeah, I made a mistake.
	I mean, would have been...
	I had no business affirming that affidavit.
	I had no business doing it.
	Okay, so I mean...
	Here's a quote.
	Get a rat to gnaw that thing off your face.
	Good day to you, man.
	I didn't like that line because I found that line to be vengeful and mean and totally out of character for Uncle Buck.
	And as much of a crotchety old lady that that teacher was...
	She's only six.
	I hear that every day and that is not an excuse.
	I thought it was still too mean of a line that I did not believe Uncle Buck as a character would say to that movie.
	Her assertion about the cash handlings better match what she reports to the IRA, the IRS.
	Oh, maybe the IRA.
	I don't know what it's called here.
	They knew the privilege thing was going to go down with the judge inquiry, so they decided to tank it themselves.
	Dude, that's a bad sacrifice then.
	Bradley said that the motion to disqualify looked good.
	One, Bradley said the motion to disqualify looked good.
	Two, they must have concluded that the meeting with the judge was going to go against them.
	Bottom line, the judge didn't even accept it.
	You have no idea.
	I try to hide it.
	No idea.
	Let me think of the things I haven't actually disclosed yet.
	That's it.
	There was a comment up there that I wanted to bring up somewhere about job well done today.
	Thank you very much.
	I do not get tired of hearing that.
	I want to be value added.
	Let me see here.
	I like this one.
	God acts in mysterious ways.
	This was a godsend.
	It was just unbelievable.
	Here we go.
	This is what I wanted.
	John K., thanks, Viva.
	You made the boring event a drama and entertaining.
	And hopefully, hopefully insightful.
	So after that, everybody, eight hours and ten minutes, I'm going to go prep for a live with Richard Surrett on Saga 960 or Saga 690.
	I forget which one it is.
	I love Richard Surrett.
	Oh, no, hold on.
	I wasn't done with Locals.
	No, no, no.
	We're not done with Viva Barnes Law.
	This is crazy.
	He says, I don't use credit cards because I appreciate that people are able to monitor my purchase.
	Maybe Fanny doesn't.
	Okay, so I got that one.
	Locals, this has been phenomenal.
	I don't know how, like, dude, I don't know how you have sat with this.
	You can come in.
	You want to say hi to the world or no?
	No, you can't.
	You're not wearing a shirt.
	Get out of here.
	All right.
	I don't know why he's not wearing a shirt.
	I'd better go.
	People, enjoy the day.
	This was phenomenal.
	I mean, this was wild.
	I'll do the summary tonight.
	I'll do the summary after I have a little snifter of port.
	And by that I mean, I got some fancy vodka from my parents and they didn't like it because it's too toxic.
	So I'm going to drink it myself.
	Thanks for the interpretation.
	That was weird.
	Heather Whelan, I hope you meant wild because that was wild.
	Pete, what did you say?
	Pete, are you coming to go fishing this spring?
	I'm not going to New York ever, Pete.
	So we might have to do that down here.
	Everyone's asking about a Viva Barnes charter fishing.
	Dude, we can absolutely do that.
	The charter boat carried...
	Okay, now you can come say hi.
	But we're live.
	Once it's on the internet, it's on the internet forever.
	Hold on.
	You don't want it?
	Okay, get out of here.
	Don't leave a daddy hanging.
	Hold on.
	There you go.
	Get the hand in there.
	Boom!
	Okay, get out of here.
	I'm going to come and party in a second.
	Right now.
	What are you doing?
	You're up to no good, aren't you?
	What did you break?
	I can cross-examine my child.
	He broke something.
	You're eating candy.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	He's eating candy.
	I knew that he was up to something that was mildly no good.
	Do you want to tell the world what candy you're eating?
	Skittles.
	He's eating Skittles.
	Let me smell your breath.
	Yep.
	He's eating Skittles.
	All right.
	We're out of here, people.
	Go and enjoy the day.
	Stay tuned for the summary tonight.
	Richard Surratt, 518.
	Yeah, you can say, Guy.
	Can we get over here?
	Hi.
	That's a wrap, folks.
	You know what?
	You want to know how neurotic I am?
	I'm waiting for that clock behind us to go to 1700 hours on the nose.
	And one last shout out.
	I opened it.
	Yeah, the kid opened up my mail.
	That's a federal offensive.
	Get out of here.
	Oh, and we got the Betsy Ross flag that someone sent us.
	I'm trying to figure out where we put it.
	Betsy Ross flag.
	Look at that framing.
	That's beautiful.
	I'm going to find a place to put that.
	Keep it nice and set.
	Take a stand.
	We're going to auction one off, and I'm keeping one.
	Just going to wait for that clock to end in the back and end at the time it hits 17. How long is this minute taking?
	This is the longest minute ever.
	Look at that.
	This is how you make time stand still.
	There you go.
	Boom.
	Good night, everybody.

▲