Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 15, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

01:24:24

Fani Willis NOT Disqualified, with a BIG BUT! (Pun Intended) Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	There's no proof, but it also says it's not definitive, but there's no actual...
	It says Hitler's father, on the other hand, was the managing director of a subsidiary of Zurich-based engineering firm, Eischer Weiss.
	The history of Eugen's relationship with Nazism in general is complex, but there's no substantive, substantive evidence of ties to high-ranking German leadership, particularly Hitler.
	No evidence.
	Remember, people, what we talk about in compound phraseology.
	No evidence of ties to high-ranking Hitler Nazi officials.
	We've actually covered this very story on this channel a while back to show how the fact-check to show that Klaus Schwab's father was not affiliated with the Nazis was a total bunk fact-check, but now Rogan has James Lindsay on it, and they were talking about it, and I loved it.
	Check published by accredited German journalist DPA used denazification records to uncover that Eugen Schwab was a member of some national socialist organizations, but that alone does not prove any relationship to German high command or a belief in Nazi ideology.
	Wait a minute, but the German national socialist organizations back then essentially were Nazis.
	He wasn't a Nazi.
	I switched mics, by the way.
	He wasn't a Nazi, but he had ties to social nationalist groups.
	Sorry, national socialist groups, which many people seem to have forgotten is literally where the term Nazi is derived from, national socialist.
	Okay, carry on.
	Joe's having, he's had many red pill moments.
	This is a good one.
	By definition, Nazi.
	That's what it means.
	That's what Nazi means, right?
	National socialism, yeah.
	So this is a weird sort of...
	It feels a little glossy.
	It's a little glossy, but wait!
	There's more!
	Now everyone's going to go back and look at the fact check that says Klaus Schwab's mother was not a Rothschild.
	Outright denial of that fact check.
	And they're going to say, well, is that fact check also wrong?
	But let's let this one play out for a bit.
	As the crowd trickles in so that we can discuss the fanny.
	It's dodging, right?
	Yeah, and it says he doesn't have evidence of ties to high-ranking leadership.
	He was a member of organizations tied to the party, just not Hitler.
	But hold this.
	While the Escherweiss branch in Ravensburg, Germany, which Eugene managed, used prisoners of war and forced laborers, it's not clear whether the company was forced to do so by the Nazis.
	Or because of a lack of workers?
	I'm sorry.
	Which one is worse, actually?
	We're only doing it because the Nazis are making us do it, use slave labor?
	Or we're only doing it because we don't have enough workers?
	I actually, I'm not certain which one is worse.
	I think the one that you end up doing it by your own volition is worse.
	Although, being a coward and using other people as slaves is probably just as bad.
	It's unclear.
	Were they doing it because the Nazis were telling them to or because they needed the workers?
	And the Nazis provided free labor.
	Wait a minute.
	You just admitted 100% that he's a Nazi.
	Because that's what Nazis did.
	They used prisoners of war and forced laborers.
	So they ran prison camps with probably Jews.
	So what does that mean?
	That's what the Nazis did.
	Are we arguing over semantics?
	Yes, we are, Joe Rogan.
	Do you know why?
	Because wordsmiths of the devil is what fact-checkers are.
	You see, I actually have to invert that sentence because I started with the wrong word.
	Fact-checkers are the wordsmiths of the devil.
	I've been saying it for a while.
	And we're going to get into a lot of my, I believe, accurate insights and not so accurate insights in the context of this stream.
	Fact checkers are government spin doctors and they are the wordsmiths of the devil.
	I don't think we are.
	But that's an incredible argument to say that he managed a plant.
	He managed the branch that used prisoners of war and forced laborers, but we're not clear whether he's a Nazi.
	This is a weird article.
	It depends.
	It needs context.
	Depends on the context.
	Let me go ahead, everybody, and give you that tweet in a second.
	While I make sure that we are live across the interwebs looking at an ad, I just saw Don Jr. on my Rumble channel with an ad.
	We're live on Rumble.
	I know that we're live on VivaBarnsLaw.locals.com because they helped me out with the mic.
	By the way, people, the mic is good.
	I'm not touching it anymore.
	I need something to fidget with.
	Because if I can't fidget with my mic, what do I fidget with?
	I need something.
	I'm going to go with my gavel.
	A very fitting thing to fiddle with today.
	Many of you don't know that when I was in law university at Université Laval, I was, in my first year, given these words, they're called Maillet, Le Grand Maillet, the big gavel.
	It was an award ceremony at the end of each year.
	And, you know, they rewarded...
	Student contribution.
	In first year, I got Maillet Prometteur.
	Well, the first year, student Grand Maillet.
	Second year, I forget which.
	Third year, when I was the president of the Law Student Association, after having been editor-in-chief of the Law Journal, I got Le Grand Maillet.
	Well, there's a few up there.
	Oh, you can't see them because whatever.
	So I'll fidget with this thing so that I don't mess with the mic because the mic is good.
	Holy crap, people!
	First of all, that episode, I haven't finished it, is a great episode of James Lindsay on Joe Rogan.
	I think James Lindsay, we can get him on.
	We can get him on.
	It'd be amazing.
	And now let me see this.
	We'll get there.
	We'll get there.
	People, can you believe what happened?
	Okay, I'm sitting here last night at a PragerU event that I was...
	Delightfully invited to, and it was magnificent.
	I got to meet Kevin Sorbo.
	I got a selfie, which only our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community got with Sam and Kevin Sorbo.
	I met Ben Shapiro.
	Taller than me.
	Substantially taller than me.
	Then I met Kevin Sorbo, by the way, who's like 6 '4".
	And then I met, for the first time in real life, Jack Posobiec.
	I've known him for at least two and a half years.
	We've had at least a dozen online encounters.
	And I meet him for the first time.
	I'm like, you look familiar.
	And then it's like the digital world and the real world collide in the most amazing place.
	So we go to the PragerU event.
	And I see a tweet that says, Judge McAfee is going to issue his ruling on the Fannie Willis disqualification tomorrow.
	And I was giddy like a schoolgirl.
	I feel like I'm nerding out over stupid law stuff.
	I wanted to see if my prediction was going to come to fruition.
	I still stand by my prediction, and I still think that I'm right.
	I'm actually so right.
	The judge said that I'm right in his decision, but he just didn't have the cojones to come to that conclusion of law, despite agreeing with me on the findings of fact.
	We'll get to it.
	But long story short, I said he was going to disqualify Fannie and Nathan Wade, but not dismiss the indictment.
	He has...
	It allowed Fanny to potentially stay on the file if she fires Nathan Wade, who cannot remain on the file because of the appearance of conflict.
	And he had some choice words for Fanny in the decision.
	We're going to get to it.
	At some point, we're going to probably wind off YouTube and head over to Rumble and vivabornslaw.logicals.com.
	Let me give the link.
	So the pinned comment is there.
	We're live across the interwebs.
	And how's everybody doing today?
	We should all feel a bit...
	Nerd, nerdy, nerdish, nerdlingers to actually be so excited about going over a court case like this.
	It's a...
	Choice words are irrelevant.
	He's a wuss.
	We're going to get there.
	We're going to get there because we're going to walk through the decision.
	Look, people will accuse me of trying to spin the decision in a way that is more favorable to my prediction, which didn't come to fruition.
	I do not care about any of that.
	There's no ego when it comes to predictions.
	As I always said in the practice of law, you cannot guarantee outcomes.
	You can only guarantee a process.
	You can't guarantee a victory in the suit, but you can guarantee the process that you implement to get to the end of that lawsuit, to make sure that you cover all your bases, file the proper motions, etc., etc.
	So I can't guarantee predictions, but I can guarantee factual assessments in real time.
	I can make a mistake on a prediction that doesn't come to fruition, but the factual assessments in real time were damn good.
	And by the way, If they hadn't happened, we would not be able to understand why this decision is so outrageous on its face.
	I am waiting for the appeal and the new law Kemp signed to be implemented.
	Come on, new discovery.
	I don't know that you would get new discovery in an appeal.
	Okay, but before we even get into it, before we get into it, for those of you who are new to the channel, Viva Frye, David Frye, former Montreal litigator turned current Florida rumbler.
	I was on Benny Johnson earlier today with a short hit.
	To talk about the decision, we're going to get into the longer hit.
	We're going to read through this decision, at least the most relevant parts.
	Good ruling by the judge.
	I think Fannie will have more legal issues because of this ruling.
	I'm going to keep that in the back burner.
	We're going to come back to that.
	For those of you who like the work that I do, or like the work that Robert Barnes and I do, there are multiple ways to support the channel.
	These things called Super Chats, but YouTube takes 30% of those.
	Let me see this one.
	We got this one.
	Nate, okay.
	YouTube takes 30% of those.
	What we do here, because I am exclusive with Rumble, I like Rumble, I think Rumble is the free speech platform where people should be migrating with their feet, their eyeballs, and their dollars.
	Rumble has these things called Rumble Rants, and hold on, there's a ton, and we're going to get these right now before we even get into this.
	They have these Rumble Rants, and 100% of that goes to the creator.
	And even when Rumble goes back to taking their 20%, if they ever do that...
	Holy crabapples.
	We've got a bunch of new members.
	Rumble is the platform that fights the fight, walks the walk, talks the talk, and is the real deal.
	We've got a bunch of new members.
	RXSTR13 is now a monthly supporter.
	Welcome to the club.
	We've got JRSHE45 is now a monthly supporter.
	Welcome to the club!
	LKRocky!
	It's now a monthly supporter.
	Welcome to the club.
	And then we got McAfee has shown himself to be a Kemp never Trumper.
	He knows he isn't going to win re-election.
	If he knew that he wasn't going to win re-election, this is even the worst decision.
	Although I understand what you're getting at there.
	Kemp just appoints him again somewhere else continued.
	I understand that he's buying political favor in the future.
	Interesting.
	That's from Mitt Snape.
	Mitt Snape.
	By calling it an appearance of impropriety, he allows the case to continue.
	He didn't call it an appearance.
	Oh, he did.
	He did.
	He called it an appearance of conflicts of interest.
	He allows the case to continue by giving them a choice on who to remove.
	He allows Fannie to step away.
	I agree when continued.
	In reality, she's still pulling her boyfriend's string and refunding him with cash when he takes her on five more vacations next year.
	I'm less worried about that.
	But I don't see how Fannie can even say I'm going to stay on the case and have people not laugh at the apparent impropriety of this prosecution.
	Joe...
	Is starting to see the man behind the curtain now that he has moved out of California.
	And we've got Arkansas crime attorney.
	Let's read the entire ruling.
	Come on, Viva.
	Let's do it.
	We're going to do it.
	I'm not convinced.
	Look, it's certainly not an exoneration of Fannie Willis, period.
	The whole problem is, I don't mind being wrong.
	But if I'm going to be wrong and the judge is going to say I'm not disqualifying Fannie, it has to be on factually...
	Justifiable premises within the decision itself.
	The whole problem with this decision, within the four corners of the 20-some-odd page decision itself, the decision doesn't make sense.
	The judge basically says, yeah, there might not have been an appearance of conflict.
	Sorry, no, no.
	There might not have been an actual conflict, but there was an appearance of conflict.
	Fannie Willis messed up over and over and over again.
	She, what was the word?
	Legally improper.
	Speech she gave in front of the church.
	And despite all of that, she's not out of the case.
	It doesn't make sense because it can't make sense because it doesn't make sense.
	So all that to say, order, motion to disqualify.
	Shall we step right into it, people?
	And for those of you who don't have all day to watch someone go through a 23-page document, it's shorter than that because we don't need to go over the facts, I will put out an evening summary or maybe a fishing summary this afternoon.
	For now, however, We're going to go through the highlights.
	There we go.
	Let's just zoom in here.
	And I'll get to the Super Chats afterwards.
	I won't interrupt the reading with Super Chats.
	And then we'll take the discussion over to Rumble afterwards.
	Order on defendant's motion to dismiss and disqualify.
	Okay.
	On January 8th, they filed a motion.
	We don't need to get into all of this.
	Among other allegations of disqualifying conduct, because remember there was, what do they call it?
	Forensic misconduct.
	Defendants contend that the district attorney obtained a personal stake in the prosecution of this case by financially benefiting from her romantic relationship with Special Assistant District Attorney, SATA.
	It's a terrible acronym.
	Nathan Wade.
	All right.
	She did derive a personal benefit.
	She just repaid him in cash, and that defense was not...
	What did he say?
	Was not undeniably implausible.
	Some idiotic terminology.
	All right.
	Roman alleges that a special attorney...
	They took multiple trips, yada, yada, yada.
	We don't need to go over the facts because we'll go over it as fast as possible.
	As alleged, the claims present a possible conflict of interest for the district's attorney.
	Defense motions and the state's response created a conflict.
	Here.
	More importantly, the defense motions and the state's response created a conflict in the evidence that can only be resolved through an evidentiary hearing and one that could not simply be ignored without endangering a criminally accused.
	Constitutional right to procedural due process.
	And then we go over that.
	Okay, fine.
	Skip it along here.
	This is where they decide whether or not the threshold is actual conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest.
	And even though they come to the finding that there is no actual conflict of interest, the judge comes to the conclusion that there's an appearance of conflict of interest.
	We'll get there.
	Highest courts have consistently remind us that prosecutors are held to a unique and exacting professional standard.
	In light of their public responsibility and their power, every newly minted prosecutor should be instilled with the notion that she seeks justice over convictions, justice over convictions, and that she may strike hard blows, but never foul ones.
	All right.
	They're expected to assume a rule of beyond a mere advocate for one side, I must make decisions in the public's interest.
	Oh, okay.
	This is all crap.
	That's what she's going to argue that she did.
	I'm not making decisions.
	This is in the public interest to prosecute a former president on a totally bogus indictment.
	Six of the charges relating to the phone call have now been dismissed by this very same judge.
	All right.
	Disqualification of a prosecutor due to a conflict of interest is thus not a creature of statute so much as it is a judicial remedy recognized by appellate courts since their formation, generally on the grounds of public policy as, quote, the administration of the law should be free from all temptation and suspicion so far as human agency is capable of accomplishing that effect.
	Okay.
	Then they've got to get into describing the conflict of interest.
	Georgia Supreme Court has most recently denoted conflicts of interest and forensic misconduct as the two generally recognized grounds for disqualification.
	Conflict of interest includes acquiring a, quote, personal interest or stake in the defendant's conviction.
	That's Williams.
	That was one of the arguments that Abate was arguing.
	She's got to have a personal interest, pecuniary in nature, in the conviction and not the prosecution alone.
	Okay.
	Scroll down.
	A determination of whether a prosecutor is laboring under a conflict of interest is a fact-driven one.
	This is how the lower courts assess fact.
	The appellate courts assess law.
	And so there's exceptions, or not quite exceptions, assuming that the system operates the same way it does in Canada and Quebec, and I understand that it does.
	The appellate courts have much more leeway in overturning findings of law of the lower courts as opposed to overturning findings of fact.
	And the reason is that the lower court judge...
	Is the one who has, not exclusive, but has had the privilege and has had the benefit of assessing witness credibility, as we're going to see in this case, and assessing the factual evidence.
	What they are not in a better position to do than any higher court is assess the conclusions of law that derive from their conclusions of fact.
	So it's interesting.
	Let me see here.
	Where are we?
	Whenever a private attorney like Wade is paid by the billable hour, a motive exists to extend or prolong the assignment.
	This, however, is a tension that the legal profession has long accepted.
	It is also the type of speculative, quote, status violation our courts have regularly denied as insufficient grounds for disqualification, absent solid proof of some other conduct.
	Which we also have in this case.
	So he's saying the argument, if it were the only argument, that you're conflicted in that You get paid more by the billable hour to pursue the prosecution irrespective of the conviction.
	That always exists in every case in which you hire external counsel to participate in a prosecution.
	So, absent solid proof of some other conduct, you can't just say, yeah, he's got a vested interest, a conflicted interest of prosecuting this case because he gets paid more the more he does it.
	No.
	You've got to have other conducts.
	Solid proof of it, like...
	Vacations, like illicit relationships that were lied about, like legally improper speeches given to a church improperly alleging racism.
	But it doesn't matter.
	All right, so let's see here.
	Do we do this?
	Thus, Nade's oath of office in combination with the supervision theoretically provided by neutral and detached districts should generally be sufficient to dispel the appearance of...
	That improper incentive.
	All right.
	Nor would a romantic relationship between prosecutors standing alone typically implicate disqualification, assuming neither prosecutor had the ability to pay the other as long as the relationship persisted.
	Oh.
	Which is the case in this one.
	But in combination, as is alleged here, by the defendants, a prima facie argument arises of financial enrichment and improper motivations, which inevitably and unsurprisingly invites emotions such as this.
	Okay.
	Then we get into the facts.
	Do we need to go over these?
	No, we don't.
	But we get into the trips.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Okay.
	With seemingly full access to Wade's primary credit card statements, the defendants did not produce evidence of any further documentable expenses or gifts, as if 20,000 indications wasn't enough, nor were any revealed through the testimony, as if that wasn't enough.
	Five cruises and trips within seven months, as if that's not enough.
	In total, defendants point to the aggregate documented benefit of, at most, approximately $12,000 to $15,000 in district attorney favor.
	As if that's not enough!
	District attorney...
	Oh, this is when it gets good, people.
	District attorney and Wade testify that these expenditures were not meant as gifts and not designed to benefit the district attorney.
	Oh, they say that because they were so credible.
	They weren't intended to be gifts, but they were.
	But they got repaid because otherwise they would have been gifts.
	So they didn't mean for them to be gifts, but they recognized that they could be, which is why they had to repay them in cash, allegedly.
	They were not designed to benefit the district attorney.
	It's very nice that the district attorney testifies in a wholly self-serving manner to cover her big fanny.
	Both testified that the district attorney regularly reimbursed Wade in cash.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	And if not reimbursed, the district attorney covered a comparable related expense.
	Okay, it's just...
	Hey, to believe, to even lend credibility to this testimony, given what he concludes as a matter of fact as to her credibility later on, this decision does not make sense on its own four-corners premises of its own.
	She further claimed that she reimbursed Wade for the entirety of the Belize trip and that she paid for the Napa Valley excursions.
	Finally, while Wade could have brought meals in 2020, which totaled more than $100, She would also regularly pay for his meals.
	Listen to this.
	How do you argue with this?
	This is what we call motivated reasoning, people.
	It's going to be very, very frustrating for people to listen to.
	But we have to do it nonetheless.
	Oh my gosh, I'll get to the Super Chats afterwards.
	I don't want to interrupt this.
	Such a reimbursement practice may be unusual and the lack of any documentary corroboration understandably concerning.
	Let me rephrase this for you, Judge.
	There is no evidence to support it.
	It's not just unusual.
	It's probably illegal.
	Probably.
	I'm not a criminal attorney.
	To repay in cash business expenses and then not have declared that as revenue, I'm sure the IRS has entered the chat.
	I've got to read it again because it's glorious in its motivated reasoning.
	Such a reimbursement practice may be unusual and the lack of any documentary corroboration, the lack of evidence.
	It's understandably concerning.
	Yet the testimony withstood direct contradiction.
	How do you disprove something that cannot be disproven?
	You didn't pay him in cash.
	Oh, you're right.
	Oh, we got her.
	We got her.
	We got our few good men moments.
	Yet the testimony withstood direct contradiction was corroborated by other evidence.
	For example, her payment of airfare for two of the 2020...
	No, that doesn't contradict repayment in cash.
	That doesn't contradict the dearth absence of any evidence to evidence repayment in cash.
	That shows that she paid for one of the trips.
	This is my favorite part.
	I highlighted this in my tweet.
	And the testimony was not so incredible as to be inherently unbelievable.
	What would it have required the testimony be to be inherently...
	Unbelievable?
	Yeah, I repaid him in cash.
	Well, you didn't pay him in bills?
	No, I repaid him in pennies.
	Well, that would be inherently unbelievable, Madam Fannie.
	Her testimony that she repaid him in cash with no corroborating evidence, it's understandably concerning, but it's not inherently unbelievable.
	I'm sorry, is the preponderance of the evidence in civil, is it preponderance?
	Sorry, the evidentiary rule.
	Is it beyond a reasonable doubt?
	Inherently unbelievable or is it preponderance of the evidence?
	I'm not sure.
	I'm not sure.
	I think it's preponderance.
	In order for her testimony to be believable, does it need to be not inherently unbelievable or does it need to be more plausible than not?
	And then if you're at that threshold, is her claim to have reimbursed in cash with absolutely no documentary corroboration, does that make it more believable than not?
	It's not inherently unbelievable.
	It's not impossible that she did it.
	However, the district attorney herself acknowledged no ledger exists other than a, quote, best guesstimate, end quote.
	There is no way to be certain that expenses were split completely or evenly.
	And the district attorney may well have received a net benefit of several hundred dollars or several thousand dollars or ten plus thousand dollars over the course of seven months.
	I mean, how does the judge come to this finding of fact right here?
	She may well have received a net benefit because she said so.
	And it's not inherently unbelievable.
	Despite this, after considering all the surrounding circumstances, the court finds that the evidence did not establish that the district attorney's receipt of the material financial benefit as a result of her decision to hire and engage in a romantic relationship with Wade.
	The defendants have not presented sufficient evidence indicating that the expenses were not, quote, roughly divided evenly, end quote.
	That's because Fannie Willis provided an explanation, an ex post facto explanation that can never be proven wrong.
	How do you prove that she did not repay him in cash when they have no way of evidencing it, no deposits, no withdrawals, no ledgers, no nothing?
	I saw Bigfoot.
	Oh my goodness.
	Or that the district was or currently remains, quote, greatly and pecuniarily interested in, quote, in the prosecution.
	Okay.
	In addition, and more important, the court finds largely based on the district's attorney's testimony, the evidence demonstrated that the financial gain flowing from a relationship with Wade was not a motivating factor on the part of the district's attorney to indict and prosecute the case.
	No.
	It was the decision to hire Wade to indict and prosecute the case.
	Thank you.
	I'm trying to actually just even try to make sense of that.
	The evidence demonstrated the district attorney, her testimony, that the financial gain flowing from her relationship was not the motivating factor on the part of the district attorney to indict and prosecute the case.
	No, I'm not misunderstanding it.
	That's right, Scott McAfee.
	The relationship wasn't...
	The motivating factor for her to indict Trump.
	It was the motivating factor for her to hire Nathan Wade to prosecute Trump.
	Oh my gosh.
	While a general motive for more income can never be disregarded entirely, the district attorney was not financially destitute throughout this time or in any great need as she testified that her salary exceeded $200,000 per year without any indication of excessive expenses or debts.
	Oh really?
	The lien on her house?
	Oh really?
	I believe in that book, the book that she was giving interviews for that was published at the time of this prosecution testified that she did In fact, she was, in fact, not Skid Row-ish, but was having financial problems.
	Whatever, whatever.
	Similarly, the court for the fines of defense have failed to demonstrate that the district attorney's conduct has impacted or influenced the case to the defendant's detriment.
	I...
	I...
	Should I skip to the end where he talks about the legally improper speech that she gave in front of the church?
	This is what I mean.
	I don't mind being wrong.
	I don't mind someone disagreeing with me.
	But their logic and their rationale and their justification has to be consistent.
	The court finds that the defendants have failed to demonstrate that the district attorney's conduct has impacted or influenced the case to the defendant's detriment.
	I gotta scroll.
	I just gotta go to this one.
	We'll come back to it in a second.
	Improper.
	Is it not going to let me find it?
	Can I not find?
	Oh, I can't search.
	Let's just go all the way to the end here for just one second.
	Just so you don't...
	Was it here?
	Here.
	The speech before the church.
	The dean...
	It did include defendant as counsel within the ambits.
	Whether intentional or not.
	Oh, I can't find the spot where it says...
	Here we go!
	But it was still legally improper.
	So, there's no evidence, but there's evidence.
	No evidence that the defendants were prejudicially impacted, but there's evidence because it was legally improper, which it did.
	Okay, it doesn't matter.
	Okay, so we go here.
	Let's move along here.
	Without sufficient evidence that the district attorney acquired a personal stake in the prosecution.
	We got this part already.
	Oh, yeah.
	Sorry.
	No, no.
	We'll do this.
	Without sufficient evidence that the district attorney acquired a personal stake in the prosecution or that her financial arrangements had any impact on the case.
	They had an impact on hiring Nathan Wade.
	They had an impact on what to do with the state funds, the federal funds that she was given.
	They had an interest on who she could charge.
	Okay, here we go.
	But he does come back to the fact that they didn't even charge all the people the special grand jury suggested that she could charge.
	But she did include someone who the special grand jury didn't even recommend, Michael Roman.
	Or her financial identity.
	The defendant's claims of an actual conflict of interest must be denied.
	This finding is by no means an indication that the court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment or the unprofessional manner of the district attorney's testimony during the hearing.
	Which, it's unprofessional, her testimony during the hearing, but they didn't contradict her, which means he believed her testimony.
	Unprofessional.
	Her demeanor was terrible.
	He had to reprimand her in real time.
	He has to judicially spank her in this decision, but he nonetheless relies on her testimony, and that it's not inherently unbelievable.
	Anyhow, so no real conflict of interest.
	Take that with a grain of salt.
	The appearance of impropriety that there is.
	Finding insufficient evidence of an actual conflict does not end the inquiry.
	Our appellate courts have endorsed the application of an appearance of impropriety.
	Okay, good.
	We don't need to go through all of this.
	While formally undefined in Georgia precedent, an appearance of impropriety is generally considered, quote, conduct or status that would lead a reasonable person to think that the actor is behaving or will be inclined to behave inappropriately or wrongfully.
	Well, we don't really need that.
	Because we have evidence in your own judgment, McAfee, that she was behaving inappropriately or wrongfully.
	Oh, but not vis-a-vis Trump and the prosecution, not vis-a-vis hiring her boyfriend that would pay for her trips, that she would pay them back in cash and have no records for it whatsoever.
	No, she's just behaved improperly and inappropriately in other contexts that doesn't create a sufficient conflict to get her out of the file.
	Black's Law.
	We don't care about the Black's Law.
	The appearance standard recognizes that even when no actual conflict exists, this is why I didn't think McAfee would find any way to get out of this.
	A perceived conflict in the reasonable eyes of the public threatens confidence in the legal system itself.
	What could be more true of this case?
	To quote McDougald, who I had on the channel the day before yesterday, Fannie has made the Georgia DA office the laughingstock of the international community.
	Let me just do one thing in the back here.
	Sweet, merciful crabapples.
	Hold on, bring it on here.
	Let's keep going.
	When this danger goes uncorrected, it undermines the legitimacy and moral force of our already weakest branch of government.
	Oh yeah, we're there.
	We're there, Scott McAfee.
	We've long since passed that moment of history.
	Then we get into this.
	It can vary.
	The appearance of conflict can vary.
	Our Supreme Court has previously analyzed disqualification under an appearance standard in a civil case using a continuum, recognizing that disqualification is not always the appropriate outcome.
	We don't need to go through that.
	Okay, skip it.
	Keep going.
	I have to go to my notes to see where I found the most outrageous elements of this judgment.
	With these principles in mind!
	The court finds that the record made at the evidentiary hearing established that the district attorney's prosecution is encumbered by an appearance of impropriety.
	End of story?
	Oh, no, but that's right.
	The spectrum, the continuum of sanctions, doesn't necessarily warrant the disqualification of the district attorney who has engaged in such egregious conduct that the appearance of impropriety...
	Is patently obvious.
	This appearance is not created by mere status alone, but comes because of specific conduct and impacts more than the mere, quote, nebulous, end quote, public interest because it concerns a public prosecutor.
	Even if the romantic relationship began after he was appointed in November 2021, bullshit.
	The district attorney chose to continue supervising and paying Wade while maintaining such a relationship.
	He further allowed the regular and loose exchange of money, loose is the operative word here, between them without any exact or verifiable measure or reconciliation.
	Do you know what that's called?
	The exchange of money with no verifiable method of reconciliation?
	It's called money laundering.
	I'm not accusing her of this.
	I'm just saying that that's what it is.
	When Hank, not Hank, when Mr. White got the car wash in Breaking Bad.
	It was specifically so that he could take that cash that he got from illicit means and then launder it through so that it would become very difficult for verifiable measure of reconciliation.
	I mean, so he billed expenses, got repaid in cash, and didn't declare that revenue because if he had declared it, they would have had evidence of repayment of cash.
	She allowed the regular and loose exchange of money between them without any exact or verifiable measure of reconciliation.
	Also known as money laundering.
	The lack of confirmed financial split creates the possibility and appearance that the district's attorney benefited, albeit non-materially.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	Scott McAfee?
	10,000 vacations?
	That's non-materially to these elitist institutional actors?
	I mean, if you listen to that guy there, what was his name?
	The Democrat who cross-examined Ashley Merchant during the state investigation.
	Well, the average family, American family, spends $4,000 on a vacation, so these weren't particularly opulent.
	Oh, no, no, except she took five of them in seven months, not one of them in a year.
	That's non-material.
	Hey, look, when your salary is, when your over-the-table salary is $200,000, and your under-the-table salary is whatever the hell, we can't verify it.
	Yeah, to people like that, it's non-material.
	All right.
	Most importantly, were the case allowed to proceed unchanged, the prima facie concerns raised by the defense would persist.
	Yep.
	Even if it's going to proceed the way you allowed it to, Scott, it's going to persist nonetheless.
	As district attorney testified, her relationship with Wade has only cemented after these motions and is stronger than ever.
	A way to use our words against her.
	Wade's patently unpersuasive explanation for the inaccurate interrogatories he submitted in his pending divorce indicates a willingness on his part to wrongly conceal his relationship with the district attorney.
	I agree with you, Scott.
	How the hell, then, do you lend any credibility to the equally untenable testimony that he was repaid in cash?
	I'm right.
	Scott McAfee's wrong.
	My prediction was right.
	He has all the facts here to support my prediction what it should have been.
	But he's either coward, either corrupted, either has four-dimensional chess strategy in mind here.
	Oh, yeah.
	His testimony is bullshit.
	He's got a propensity to lie.
	He's got a propensity to hide assets.
	But, you know, it's not totally unbelievable that when they say they got repaid in cash that they were.
	I mean, you can't trust a liar on some stuff and then admit that he's a liar on others.
	This is...
	It's untenable.
	It's unjustifiable.
	It's unsupportable on its own factual findings.
	But weighs in big trouble anyhow.
	As the case moves forward, reasonable members of the public could easily be left to wonder whether the financial exchanges have continued, resulting in some form of benefits to the district attorney, or even whether the romantic relationship has resumed.
	Put differently, an outsider could reasonably think that the district attorney is not exercising her independent professional judgment.
	Totally free of compromising influences.
	We have already established here, Scott McAfee, under your decision and under your words, that she doesn't have any professional judgment.
	She is a...
	I don't want to say criminal because you really let her off here.
	She engages in...
	You have said in this decision that her judgment was legally...
	That her conduct was legally improper and unprofessional.
	How then do you think anybody, having read your very judgment, could think anything else going forward?
	I'm sure they're going to think, yeah, okay, fine, she's legally improper behavior in front of the church, totally improper behavior in court, but I'm sure she's going to prosecute Trump with independent professional judgment that will be totally free of any compromising influences.
	How about her own stupidity?
	Oh, then listen to this, by the way, how he gets out of this.
	The testimony introduced, including that the district attorney and Wade did not put these concerns to rest.
	Okay.
	During the argument, defendants' focus largely pivoted from the financial concerns to disproving the testimony of district attorney, namely that her romantic relationship actually predated Wade a kid.
	On that front, the court makes a few observations.
	First, the court finds itself unable to place any stock in the testimony of Terrence Bradley.
	Oh, no, but you could place stock in the testimony of Nathan Wade and Fannie Willis, even though you just said they're liars and they hide assets from their wife and they lie under oath.
	Fine.
	His inconsistencies, demeanor, and generally non-responsive answers left far too brittle a foundation upon which to build any conclusions.
	Bullshit, Scott.
	Bullshit.
	He made a...
	Against his own interest in missions when he didn't think anybody was watching, he then allegedly, according to the voicemail left with Actually Merchant, had lunch with Terrence Bradley, Nathan Wade, that is, and the other guy, Ochan, I forget his name, five weeks before the trial, after which point Terrence Bradley immediately developed amnesia.
	Well, first he remembered his privilege obligations, and then he developed legal amnesia.
	Oh, but okay, fine.
	So you don't trust Bradley, so you don't even trust the...
	Against his own interests, admissions that he made when he thought he could be trusted.
	Fine.
	I mean, that's legally untenable, factually untenable in my mind, but I'm not the judge.
	How do we get past Miss Yurdy's testimony?
	Miss Yurdy didn't lie.
	Miss Yurdy's a credible witness.
	Miss Yurdy had no reason to testify what she did, knowing how vindictive Fannie Willis is.
	Let's see that.
	While prior inconsistent statements can be considered as substantive evidence under George's law, Bradley's impeachment by text messages did not establish the basis for which he claimed such sweeping knowledge of Wade's personal affairs.
	How about the fact that they were lawyers, partners, and friends, Scott?
	This is willful disbelief right here.
	Oh, it doesn't matter.
	Oh, then we get to Yurdy.
	How do you get past Yurdy?
	While Yurdy's testimony raised doubts about the state's assertions, it ultimately lacked context or detail.
	We watched the trial, Scott.
	It didn't lack...
	I mean, she wasn't offering more information than needed.
	It didn't lack context or detail.
	2019, right after they were judges in the municipal court.
	Everybody knew it.
	We saw them do it.
	Not sex, but, you know, express their relationship.
	Even after considering the proffered cell phone, how do you get rid of the cell phone number?
	The cell stuff.
	Along with the entirety of the evidence, neither side was able to conclusively establish by a preponderance of the evidence.
	How do you conclusively establish by preponderance of the evidence?
	Those are mutually conflicting terms.
	They were not able to establish, but conclusive is necessarily more than preponderance of the evidence.
	So you weren't able to conclusively establish by preponderance of the evidence.
	I mean, that's not a redundancy.
	It's not, I think the word is a neoplasma in French, you know, like a jumbo shrimp.
	It's a logical inconsistency.
	The evidentiary burden is either conclusive or preponderance.
	Or does it here have to be conclusively preponderance?
	Oh, but they couldn't establish when it evolved into a romantic one?
	Horse crap, Scott.
	We saw it.
	We saw it with our own eyes.
	The only two people with no reason to lie told the truth.
	And it started in 2019.
	The only people with no reason to lie because they would get...
	The wrath of Fannie told the truth.
	And the only two people who you've established have a propensity to lie and act unprofessionally and conceal their assets were the ones who contradicted it.
	Those are the only two witnesses versus two witnesses.
	Oh yeah, and set aside that cell phone data.
	How many criminals are now going to appeal for their convictions in the States?
	However, an odor of mendacity remains.
	Hold on, I always forget what that word means.
	Mendacity.
	I think it means, like, not believable, mendacity, yeah, untruthfulness, lying.
	The court is not under an obligation to ferret out every instance of potential dishonesty from each witness or defendant ever presented in open court.
	Such an expectation would mean the end of the day.
	Ultimately, hold on, yet reasonable questions about whether the district attorney and her hand-selected lead, SATA, testify truthfully about the timing of the relationship further underpin the finding of an appearance of impropriety and the need to make.
	Ultimately, dismissal of the indictment is not appropriate.
	That was never going to happen.
	Dismissal of the indictment is not the appropriate remedy to adequately dissipate the financial cloud of impropriety and potential untruthfulness.
	That's true.
	It was to bring someone else in and see if they want to prosecute this charge.
	Let me see here.
	We're skipping ahead.
	There has not been a showing that the defendant's due process rights have been violated or that the issues involved Prejudice the defendants in any way.
	Oh, okay.
	Well, can I bookmark that, McAfee, until we get to the church speech?
	The legally improper church speech?
	Remember this, people.
	Let me just screen grab this for later when I do this.
	There has not been a showing that the defendant's due process rights have been violated or that the issues involved prejudice the defendant.
	Defendants in any way.
	Nor is this qualification of a constitutional officer necessary when a less dramatic and sufficiently remedial option is available.
	Let's hear that.
	The court therefore concludes that the prosecution of this case cannot proceed until the state selects one of two options.
	District Attorney Fannie Willis may choose to step aside.
	It's like choose your own adventure.
	Scott McAfee's like, which one do you want, Fannie?
	Stay in?
	Kick Wade?
	Leave?
	Leave Wade?
	Kick Wade and leave and you know.
	Do the right thing.
	Election's coming up.
	The district attorney may choose to step aside along with the whole of her office and refer the prosecution to the prosecuting attorney's counsel for reassignment.
	We talked about that with...
	Who did I talk about that with?
	I forget.
	Alternatively, Wade can withdraw, allowing the district attorney, the defendants, and the public to move forward without his presence or remuneration distracting from and potentially compromising the merits of the case.
	What kind of effing order is that?
	Hold on one second.
	I'm going to screen grab that again.
	Unbelievable.
	After all of that, it's bad.
	People are losing faith in the system.
	There's an appearance of conflict.
	Her professional judgment is totally compromised.
	She's an idiot.
	Unbelievable.
	He's a liar.
	Hides assets.
	She can stay or he has to go.
	But after we say that, let's get to the forensic misconduct.
	The Georgia Supreme Court also recognizes that forensic misconduct is stuff that she does in the context of the prosecution publicly outside of court.
	Or improper comment made by the state as grounds for disqualification.
	One such forensic misconduct is expression by the prosecuting attorney of his personal belief in the defendant's guilt.
	May I ask an obvious question here?
	Do they not have forensic misconduct in the state of New York?
	When Leticia James was taking to Twitter with her two minutes of hate every day to plead publicly in the guilt of Donald John Trump and all of his assets, was that not forensic misconduct?
	Did she not publicly engage in expression by the prosecuting attorney of the personal belief in the defendant's guilt or only professional belief?
	But why are any politicians not going after Leticia James?
	For having done forensic misconduct.
	Potentially.
	Arguably.
	I'm going to skip this here.
	I guess we're going to skip this part here.
	This court has not located nor been provided with a single additional case exploring the relevant standard for forensic misconduct or an opinion that actually resulted in disqualification under Georgia law.
	Yeah, and we're not starting now, Scott.
	Thanks a lot.
	The defendants have exhaustively documented every public comment made by district attorney concerning the case in their motions and supplemental filings.
	Many of these have already been addressed through the pretrial challenge made on similar grounds brought by the defendants Trump and Latham.
	Okay, fine.
	Let's go.
	The court incorporates...
	Okay, fine.
	Let's get to this.
	Let's get to the statements.
	The court incorporates and adopts the sound reasoning of Judge McBurney and finds that any comments made by the district attorney prior to July 1st, July 31st, 2023, did not amount to disqualifying forensic misconduct.
	Okay.
	Public comments about the need for an importance.
	Okay, fine.
	The procedural posture of the case, the office's conviction rates and personal behind the scenes anecdotes are not disqualified.
	If you say so.
	This includes the district attorney's unorthodox decision to make on the record comments and authorize members of her staff to do likewise to authors intent on publishing a book I'll go ahead and respectfully disagree with you here, Scott.
	This right here, a DA doing that, is a modern-day lynch mob.
	Allowing her and her DA's office to give on-the-record comments to authors of a book while the case is ongoing?
	That's disqualified.
	I would argue as a pure matter of law.
	I'm going to screen grab that so I can talk about that later as well.
	In my view.
	But again, what do I know?
	I'm a Quebec civil attorney.
	I've only learned as much as I've learned in the...
	What year is it?
	2024?
	Seven years of doing this now, people.
	Of learning about American law and politics.
	I would argue, and I would say convincingly so, and I would say rightly so, that a district attorney...
	Authorizing her office and herself making public statements on the record statements for an author of a book being published about the prosecution of the case as it is in its pendency, disqualifying.
	And if you don't know why that's wrong, and now if Scott McAfee just set the precedent that that's fair game, my but that if a Republican DA had done this, I don't know, in another state, my fanny.
	They would not have been DQ'd, if not worse.
	But, but, but, but, but.
	Same can't be so easily said for district attorney's prepared speech delivered before the church.
	In these public and televised comments, she complained that the Fulton County Commissioner, quote, and so many others, questioned her decision to hire Wade when referring to her detractors throughout the speech.
	She used the word they.
	What do you mean they?
	Did she put it in three brackets?
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	By the way, Did she also lie about her relationship?
	Lie through omission?
	I think she did.
	I think I watched that speech.
	I think when she made that speech, I said it's going to come back to bite her in the ass.
	I'm 99% certain.
	You can check my tweet feed.
	The state argues that the speech was not aimed at any of the defendants in this case.
	And we're going to believe him.
	Because they've been so forthright up to now, right?
	Of course.
	Maybe so, but maybe not.
	Therein lies the danger of public comment by a prosecuting attorney.
	Forget the ones she gave to the book, the authors there.
	The ones she made in front of the church.
	By including reference to so many others, end quote, on the heels of defendant Roman's motion, which instigated...
	Did anyone listen to that speech and seriously think, in the context, as a response to the filing of that motion, she was not talking about the defendants in that case?
	Did anybody out there actually not think that?
	Maybe Rachel Maddow viewers, maybe MSNBC, CNN viewers are sufficiently low-level information that they didn't know that what preceded that speech was Ashley Merchant Michael Roman's motion to disqualify.
	Maybe.
	Anybody else who knew that did not hear that speech in any other way possible.
	By referring to so many others on the heels of the motion...
	The DA left that question open for the public to consider.
	The court finds, after considering the statement as a whole, under all the circumstances surrounding the issue, that the district attorney's speech did include defendant Roman and his counsel within the ambit, whether intentional or not.
	Didn't Scott McAfee say earlier on in this decision that the defendant's rights were not prejudiced?
	That their, um, that was the word, their due process rights were not prejudiced?
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	It seems to me, Scott, that you have contradicted yourself in fact and in law in this very decision.
	If compromising their rights of due process would have been grounds for disqualifying Fannie Willis, but you said it didn't happen earlier, but you're admitting it did now, disqualification of Fannie Willis, disqualifying Nathan Wade is not going to remedy this problem right now.
	You said it before.
	Defendants weren't prejudiced, and you're saying it right now.
	Her speech included them, and it necessarily had to.
	More at issue, instead of attributing the criticism to the criminal accused's general aversion to being convicted and facing prison sentences, the district attorney ascribed the effort as motivated by, quote, playing the race card.
	She went on to frequently refer to Wade as the black man, not the man that she's boning, while her other unchallenged assistant attorneys labeled one white woman and one white man.
	She never mentioned that she was boning Nathan.
	It's rape.
	I have no relationship.
	They're liars.
	They're liars.
	Merchant had no good faith basis for any of this, and they're only doing it because of race.
	My goodness.
	How much more does one need to undermine the judicial system than this?
	A race-baiting liar of a DA.
	How much more do you need, Scott?
	The effect of this speech was to create racial aspersions, was to cast racial aspersions at an indicted defendant's decision to file this pretrial motion.
	But their rights weren't.
	However, the speech did not specifically mention any defendant by name.
	It didn't mention them by name, but it did include defendant Roman.
	Can you get your logic together, McAfee?
	She didn't mention them by name, but she did include them.
	Okay.
	Although not improvised or inadvertent, it also did not address the merits of the indicted offenses in an effort to move the trial itself to the court of public opinion, nor did it enclose sensitive...
	We're confidential evidence yet to be revealed or admitted at trial.
	In addition, the case is too far removed from jury to establish a permanent taint of the jury pool.
	As best it can divine, under the sole direction of Williams, the court cannot find that this speech crossed the line to the point where the defendants have been denied the opportunity for a fundamentally fair trial, or that it requires the district attorney's disqualification.
	Did we just go from due process to a fair trial, or are we just saying that the only form of violating due process is to have an unfair trial?
	Because it didn't get to trial yet.
	The prosecution is not violating any of their rights.
	It didn't taint the jury pool, but it was race-baiting.
	It included the defendant, Roman.
	It was dishonest, but it doesn't require her disqualification, but it was still legally improper.
	Scott McAfee is playing intellectual tennis with himself.
	It's more like intellectual ping-pong.
	They didn't have their rights violated.
	Okay, they had their rights violated.
	The speech included Roman, but it didn't mention them specifically.
	It's not serious enough that it requires disqualification, but it was legally improper.
	Bing, bang, bing, bop.
	He's fighting with himself.
	It's like the devil on his shoulder is fighting with the angel on his shoulder.
	He listened to the devil.
	But it was still legally improper.
	Proving this type of public comment creates dangerous waters for the district attorney to wade further into.
	Oh, no, this is a warning.
	Don't do it again, Matt.
	Don't do it again, Fanny.
	The time may well have arrived for an order preventing the state from mentioning the case in public form.
	Oh, here, he's giving a little something to the defendants.
	Make a motion, a gag order, so to speak, for the state, for the prosecutor.
	She shouldn't have done it.
	It creates danger if she keeps doing it.
	And it might be time for the defendants to make a motion to shut Fannie Willis up.
	But!
	She gets to stay if she so chooses.
	Oh my goodness.
	But that's not the motion presented before the court.
	The defendant's motion is demanding disqualification and dismissal based on forensic misconduct are denied.
	Other grounds, yadda yadda.
	I don't think we need to get into any of this.
	Yeah, we don't need to get into this.
	As for the remaining provisions and argument, the court has not been presented with any authority that such violations, even if proven, amount to an actual confidence of interest, nor that an appearance of impropriety can apply to any instance of inappropriate or wrongful behavior.
	This does not follow from everything else in this decision.
	In each case, applying the appearance standard, the impropriety was connected in some way to an allegation of a potential and previously recognized actual conflict.
	Let's see here.
	Do we even need to read this paragraph?
	In a separate motion adopting the arguments of her co-defendants, defendant Latham presents an additional theory.
	She asserts the right to call the DA as a witness in the trial to examine her biases towards the defendants.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	Let's see what he says here.
	Oh, you can do that.
	Actually reading the case and the authority of which it applies.
	And not simply quoting a headnote, reveals that the Court of Appeals' antiquated use of the word prosecutor referred not to the legal officer handling the criminal case, but rather the main witness of the state.
	Defendant Latham asserts a claim accurately categorized as one of selective prosecution.
	Instead, a claim of selective prosecution must be brought in the form of a motion asking the trial court to exercise its judicial power on equal protection grounds.
	Lacking such a showing here, or any foundation in law.
	Motion is denied.
	Oh, conclusion.
	Let's see.
	This is beautiful.
	Whether this case ends in convictions, acquittals, or something in between, the result should be one that instills confidence in the process.
	Too late, Scott.
	Well too late for that.
	And I think anybody watching Scott McAfee as a judge, whoever had faith in him, may no longer have faith in him.
	A reasonable observer unburdened by partisan blinders should believe the law was impartially applied.
	It wasn't.
	That those accused of crimes had a fair opportunity to present their defenses.
	They've been screwed, even by the wording of your own decision.
	And that any verdict was based on a criminal justice system's best efforts at ascertaining the truth.
	We now know that that's impossible because you've allowed a confirmed liar to continue prosecuting this case if the confirmed liar so chooses.
	Any distractions that detract from these goals if remedial under the law should be proportionally addressed after consideration of the record established on this motion, the court finds that the allegations and evidence legally insufficient to support a finding of an actual conflict of interest.
	of impropriety remains and must be handled as previously outlined before the prosecution can proceed.
	Defendant's motions are therefore granted in part and denied in part.
	It's boring.
	so All right, people, what we're going to do right now, get on over to Locals or Rumble.
	Here's a link to Rumble.
	That's the link to the decision that I just gave you.
	We're going to carry on the discussion over on Rumble.
	Free speech platform.
	You've got the analysis here.
	We're going to get the post-mortem link to Rumble.
	If you're so inclined, come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Come on over there now.
	Link to Locals.
	To be continued, we have graced YouTube with more of our presence than is warranted, justified, or tolerable.
	All right.
	So we're going to end it on YouTube.
	Come on over to Rumble.
	We're going to carry on with some more observations.
	And I'll see everybody on Rumble in five seconds.
	Let's just see that number go down one more time.
	It's at 5596.
	By the way, Viva Fry on Rumble.
	VivaFry.com if you want some merch.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	If you're not coming over to Rumble, and I will put out a short analysis, shorter, maybe 20 minutes this afternoon.
	Do I do it fishing or do I do it in my office?
	I ask the question as I look at that number and want it to go down.
	5596.
	Refresh number and go down.
	Do I do it fishing or in the office?
	Maybe I'll do it fishing.
	Actually, you know what?
	While that number goes down, we're at 5197.
	Let me not...
	Forget to do this.
	I didn't realize these are all here.
	I'm going to go through these, then we're going over.
	Do we believe Wade will go quietly?
	Viva, how can Wade be a liar but Fannie be credible when their testimonies were the exact same?
	Fannie wasn't credible.
	Even by the judge's own assessment, Fannie was not credible.
	Her demeanor on the stand was improper, unprofessional.
	She was not credible.
	But her explanation wasn't totally, totally unreasonable.
	Money laundering is okay now as long as it's not documented.
	God, it says Gemini writer.
	Don't do that, people.
	Sorry, that was from Mike Brown before.
	Mary Williams.
	We got Xanax.
	I thought that said Xanax for a second.
	And not confession through projection.
	I don't take any of that.
	Can I say the judge is cowardly pragmatic in this case?
	Cowardly pragmatic in this case.
	He's up for re-election, if I recall correctly.
	Yes, he's up for election right now.
	He's going to lose that anyhow.
	There's too much politics, government in our lives, and it'll suffocate us.
	He's going to lose his re-election.
	I'll make that prediction.
	Haven't been 100%.
	He's going to lose.
	Shabbat Shalom says Eyal Naaman.
	Thank you very much.
	Same to you.
	Fanny is 2-0 within the taint scale of justice.
	Douche Elias.
	Douche Elias.
	Yo, Fanny stank like mendacity.
	I don't know what that means.
	Jocko spilling.
	All right, and we got, does the defense, does the ruling give solid footing for the appeal to Trump Eyal's legality?
	That's what I actually, I DM that to, I texted that to Phil Holloway.
	I don't know.
	I mean, to me, that's where I'd say the judge is punting it and playing 4D chess.
	And that's what I said about the Colorado finding as well.
	I was right when I said about the Colorado finding, that the lower court, oh my goodness, thank you.
	I said this in the Colorado ruling, you might recall, where that judge said, no, you can't disqualify Trump from the ballot because Article 14 doesn't apply to the president, but he did engage in insurrection.
	And I'm like, why would she have done that?
	All that that does is open the door for the Court of Appeals to say, yeah, we agree with her finding of fact.
	Trump engaged in insurrection, and we now can disagree with her finding in law that Article 14 doesn't apply.
	That's exactly what they did.
	They ended up getting their asses handed to them by SCOTUS.
	But, ooh, dude, I might end up being even smarter than I might have thought I was even after being wrong.
	Scott McAfee reads, this decision reads like Scott McAfee saying, I'm giving you all of the finding of facts.
	Court of Appeal that you need to come to the proper decision of law to disagree.
	Overturn me in law.
	Fine.
	I was wrong.
	It's sufficient.
	The threshold has been met to disqualify because you can assume that my finding of fact was accurate.
	So that might be what he's doing.
	But then that's cowardice.
	And then who knows?
	Yeah, so that's interesting, Jason.
	Thank you.
	And then we got Basil Beshkov says, blah, blah, blah.
	You don't think the White House gave the judge a call?
	That's the story.
	Yeah, that's not totally unreasonable.
	Thanks for all you do.
	Oh, sorry, that was from Basil Beshkov.
	Beshkov.
	Thanks for all you do.
	Truthfully, the one thing demonstrated is that DA is in no way, in no way can stand up against the various defense teams at actual trial.
	This is an incompetent buffoon.
	Terry Zalecki.
	Will Dog.
	I think someone got to him, and that's why the time on this is hitting.
	The way it is.
	Yeah, I mean, no one can ever prove or disprove that.
	Definitely, counsel did not do enough with the cell data.
	11 months, 12,000 texts.
	How does that compare to monthly and other users?
	I don't text my wife that much, but we do also spend 24 hours a day in the same house.
	Given that they lied under oath repeatedly, how are they not getting disbarred?
	That's another thing.
	The judge did open the door for ethics complaints because the finding of fact in that decision can have extrajudicial, that is to say outside the scope of this lawsuit, consequences, in my view.
	That was from, who was that from?
	Mark P. The saddest thing is our courts do not follow the law, says Iron Wolf Timber.
	I am waiting for the appeal of the new law camp signed, implemented.
	Yeah, we'll get to that on Rumble as well, actually.
	And then we got this.
	Okay, good.
	That's it.
	Send it.
	Boom shakalaka.
	Coming off YouTube.
	Peeps, remove.
	Done.
	Come on over to Locals.
	It's too late now.
	Rumble.
	Whatever.
	Okay.
	Now what we're going to do is this.
	Okay, we're going to go into the Rumble Rants.
	Get this out of here.
	That's annoying to look at.
	And we're going to go through these.
	What's that first one?
	Another one of your subscribers were right about the judge jar.
	Yeah, there were a number of people.
	First of all, I think Dershowitz actually predicted disqualification of Wade, but not Fanny.
	So I'm 99% certain he did.
	So good on him.
	I didn't see that combination ever playing out because to me they're dissociable.
	They're not able to be dissociated.
	They're inseparable.
	One could not have lied and engaged improperly without the other.
	Certainly not Wade because Fanny's the one who hired him.
	So I just did not see this combination.
	But I'm especially peeved because this combination does not flow from the decision itself.
	But El Diablo, you are right.
	A number of our above-average community members predicted this very outcome.
	They might have been listening to Dershowitz's ridiculous, crazy, outlandish prediction that came true.
	You missed my secondary superchat question.
	Will Apiro courts support poisoning of other cases in flight?
	Jiminy Cricket.
	I'm not...
	I don't know.
	I couldn't venture a guess into that, but thank you for the crumble rant.
	Avalanche says, may the fleas of a thousand camels...
	Let me just read this here.
	Okay, fine.
	May the fleas of a thousand camels infest the crotch of those responsible for such an abuse of justice, and may their arms be too short to scratch.
	I remember growing up having heard that one of the primitive torture methods was to tie someone up outdoors, cut their tongue out, and let mosquitoes bite them to death.
	But having camel fleas in your crotch with enough ability to scratch them is a problem as well, yeah.
	Viva, I just want to point to this.
	This is Zerosifer.
	I want to point out, I called it during the trial.
	The judge always looked upset when Fannie's team got smacked down.
	The impartiality was an act to protect his ruling, which was already made.
	Yeah, maybe.
	But look, first of all, everyone is playing a little bit of ex post facto interpreting their own predictions.
	And, you know, it's like, had it gone the other way?
	Well, you could interpret every prediction.
	Yeah, the donation wasn't big enough to affect the outcome.
	Whatever.
	There was evidence to go both ways, and the evidence can now be not rehashed, but cited as support for the outcome that we actually just witnessed.
	Then we got Mitsnave says, is this an appealable decision?
	A lawyer friend of mine thinks it should be, but I am doubtful.
	I think it is.
	Let me see if I can't find...
	Let me see here.
	The Fannie disqualification.
	I think it is appealable.
	Actually, hold on.
	Let me see here.
	I'll just see if they've...
	Trump lawyer, Fannie, well, it's okay from the Hill.
	Appeal.
	Okay, if we...
	Let me see here.
	I think there's going to be a possibility of an interlocutory appeal.
	Interlocutory.
	I don't know if that requires permission of the court or it's an appeal of right.
	I will ask Phil Holloway.
	Barnes and I will talk about it Sunday night, so stay tuned.
	Sunday night's going to be one hell of a show.
	Cottage Gypsies.
	If she stays on the case, hire someone new.
	Can all the new testimonies be introduced then, like a start over?
	No, they're not going to toss the work that Nathan Wade did, I presume.
	My joke was...
	If they're disqualifying Wade because of the improper nature of the relationship, does he not have to reimburse all of the funds he was paid in the context of that improper relationship that was so improper it required him getting yeeted from the file?
	Barbisa Ariane has a great expression.
	I forget who said it.
	I think it was Camus.
	We deserve what we tolerate.
	We deserve what...
	That's not how you get it.
	We...
	Deserve what we...
	I think it was Camus.
	Tolerate who said it.
	Mark Graben?
	No, that's definitely not who said it.
	It's an existential...
	It doesn't matter.
	I'll find it afterwards.
	But you're right.
	Battle Crow says, he's never winning that judge seat back.
	Should have just done the right thing instead of splitting the baby like a coward.
	Yep.
	One of my insights of the day.
	When you split baby justice, you kill baby justice.
	There's no splitting of the baby when it comes to this.
	There was never any splitting of the baby, period.
	When the judge in King Solomon's story, whatever it is, threatened to split the baby, it was specifically to ensure that everybody knows everybody loses.
	And sometimes, you know, when everybody's unhappy, you've made the right decision.
	Horse crap.
	Sometimes when everybody's unhappy, it's because you made the wrong decision.
	He split baby justice.
	And in so doing, he killed baby justice.
	That was from Battle Crow.
	Then we got GOP Congress.
	Dave, it doesn't matter how incompetent Fanny is, a Fulton County corrupt jury would convict Mother Teresa of child trafficking if Mother Teresa were MAGA.
	I agree with you on that.
	Then we got L.K. Rocky.
	Take a page from Shakespeare, Judge McAfee.
	Beware of the Ides of March and skip the Caesar salad.
	He's losing his seat.
	He blew it.
	Let's read the entire case.
	Come on, Vivo.
	Okay, we got that, and then we're going to go back up to the top.
	Did Scott just establish a precedent for legalizing bribery?
	If a lobbyist takes a congressman on a trip, the congressman can say, I paid them back in cash.
	Based on the decision itself, we've gone through it.
	I don't think he thought everything through.
	Viva!
	Judge calls out Wade's lies, but not with fannies.
	Identical testimonies from both.
	How does that lead to Wade and not both being disqualified?
	MB of LAF.
	He called up both!
	Hold on!
	He called out both.
	Georgia Assembly.
	Did I close the window?
	I did close the window.
	Hold on.
	He called out both.
	He called her demeanor unprofessional, legally improper when it came to the speech.
	He criticized her.
	I don't want to share.
	I want to open up a window and get to the decision.
	He called her out.
	I'll find the passage again, but no.
	So that's it.
	Lordy, lordy, lordy.
	Let me see here in my highlighted...
	I forget.
	Let's just get the decision one more time.
	Document cloud.
	It bothers me that it's not searchable.
	That's the problem.
	I have to actually go read.
	Motion to disqualify here.
	Get rid of this original PDF.
	Okay, so we go here, go here, go here, and we're in it.
	And let's scroll down.
	It was somewhere around page eight.
	Okay, now these are all the facts.
	Thank you.
	Okay, I think it was somewhere around here.
	Let me just let me just see if we can find it in real time.
	Impropriety, so it was a little further.
	Appearance of standard.
	Okay, we're still in this.
	Okay.
	Okay, here we go.
	Okay, that's Wade.
	The testimony induced, including that of district attorney and Wade, did not put these concerns to rest.
	He's telling her that her testimony was not credible.
	But then he said it was even worse.
	He said it was mistake after mistake.
	Hold on, I know that I highlighted that part.
	Hold on one second.
	That was...
	That doesn't really matter.
	Yeah.
	No, so that's it.
	It's not even that he said, I trust her.
	It's like, I don't trust her testimony either.
	Unprofessional.
	Improper.
	Okay.
	That's the decision, people.
	What's going to happen now, we're going to see.
	But it's terrible.
	Gizto.
	Gizto.
	Not Gizto.
	With a super chat.
	Says, if Wade is improper, does that automatically mean Fanny is as well?
	No, it means the whole freaking system's improper!
	I had this pulled up.
	I wanted to start the stream with this.
	Hold on one second.
	This!
	This came to mind.
	I've never even seen the movie.
	I just know the quote.
	You're out of order!
	You're out of order!
	The whole trial is out of order!
	They're out of order!
	That man, that sick of crazy, defrayed man, raped and beat that woman there, and he likes to do it again.
	He told me so.
	It's just a show.
	It's a show.
	Let's make a deal.
	Let's make a deal.
	Hey, Frank, you want to make a deal?
	I got an insane judge who likes to beat the shit out of women.
	What do you want to give me, Frank?
	Yep.
	The whole freaking system is out of order.
	Oh, let me go to our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community and see what's going on.
	Viva Control F. No, the Control F doesn't work on the PDF.
	It wouldn't let me.
	All right, we got Crash 105 sent a $1 tip.
	One of the greatest things about America after the First and Second Amendment is the concept of innocent until proven guilty.
	Unlike the way Nancy Pelosi would like it to be.
	As she said, he'll be able to prove his innocence at trial.
	My comment here is, at what point do normal Americans start feeling that the American justice system is no longer a viable option to resolve things?
	They just start taking justice into their own hands because isn't that the ultimate consequence of what these judges are doing?
	I'll get to that in a second.
	Victor Cardone, how long will it take for the McAfee election Marxist challenger to withdraw?
	If that happens, shit, Victor Cardone.
	No matter how cynical you are...
	It's tough to keep up.
	In our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community, Victor Cardone, how long will it take for that Jesse Jackson Rainbow Push Coalition challenger to withdraw from the race?
	If that happens, it's just corruption for all to see.
	I'm just going to look for one more thing here.
	How do I...
	Do this here.
	This.
	Okay, there we go.
	can't even navigate Yeah, I can't find it there.
	Okay, it doesn't matter.
	We'll see what happens.
	And as to the earlier question, this is what I talked about with Benny Johnson earlier today.
	It's like...
	It's fun and games when people say, oh, the system's corrupt.
	What's the point of...
	This is how systems collapse, but it's worse than that.
	Coming from Canada, we trust our legal system to work, but I don't think many people feel that way anymore.
	The idea in Canada, we always used to say, you know, America is a highly litigious society, an overly litigious society, a society in which...
	An 80-year-old woman driving with coffee between her legs sues McDonald's when she spills it and gets $10- $50 million.
	That, I happen to have done my deep dive into that case, was an MSM fake news oversimplification of that particular case.
	But in America, elsewhere in the world, we laugh at how overly litigious American society is.
	But you know what that litigious society does, or at least a society reliant on court systems to resolve differences does?
	It avoids those fights.
	Spilling out into the streets or never making its way into the court system, people are going to say, there's no point having recourse to a corrupt court system, so let's take our fights out to the street.
	Let's take them to a duel at high noon.
	That is the real risk of what happens here.
	People don't settle their differences in court.
	They settle them out of court.
	Or people know that politics will govern the court system.
	Sussman gets acquitted in D.C. Steve Bannon gets convicted in D.C. Trump gets found liable in New York.
	Bill Clinton never sees the inside of a courtroom.
	So it's how systems collapse and it's how things go very, very, very bad.
	And then speaking of things going bad, you see what's happening in New York.
	Hochul is deploying the National Guard to the subway cars.
	Because of the violence after they persecute and prosecute Daniel Penny.
	That was his name, right?
	Forget if it's Daniel Penny.
	It was Perry out of New York and Penny out of Texas and Penny out of New York.
	Yeah.
	For doing what needed to be done because the authorities are not doing it.
	And so it's just a full-on manufactured disaster, manufactured crisis.
	If people no longer rely on the court system, well, that's another problem created by the government that the government can further empower itself to resolve.
	Excuse me.
	Oh, that's the case.
	Here, then I had my highlighted sections, but I think we've covered this.
	Simply put, the defendants have not presented any evidence into the hearing.
	Oh, that's stupid.
	Okay.
	Then we got, rather, the undersigned opinion that Georgia law does not permit the finding of an actual conflict.
	Simply, I'm making bad choices.
	Here we go.
	That's what I wanted to get to.
	Rather, it's the undersigned opinion that Georgia law does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad decisions.
	He's talking about Fannie.
	Even repeatedly.
	And it is the trial court's duty.
	Eh, duty.
	Repeated bad decisions.
	Okay, get that out of there.
	We've done it with the Fanny decision.
	We'll get to that later.
	But I brought this one up.
	I just brought this one up just to highlight.
	This is Fanny Willis before her soul got sucked out of her.
	Compare her face there, young.
	Still has a little of energy in her eyes.
	Compare her to when she was on the stand.
	But let's hear what old Fanny had to say.
	You say...
	Ms. Willis, Judge Willis, what law did he violate?
	Judge Willis?
	A few, but let's...
	Judge Willis?
	Remember when Phil Holloway was on?
	He said, you know how they call it?
	They don't call her Fannie.
	They don't call her Fannie.
	You know what they call her?
	Madam District Attorney.
	Judge Willis.
	Petty tyrants who love positions of power.
	You say, Ms. Willis, Judge Willis, what law did he violate?
	A few, but let's try this on for size.
	OCGA 4511.5, extortion.
	Subsection A. As used in this code section, the term extortion means an unlawful taking by a public law officer under color of his office from any person of any money or thing of value that is not due to him or more that is due to him.
	Any public officer shall be by himself His deputy or his agent or other in person employed by him be guilty of extortion and receiving other and greater fees than by law or allow him shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and repeat this part for me and shall be dismissed from office.
	Not maybe shall be dismissed from office.
	You say, Ms. Willis, Judge Willis, what law did you buy?
	Ms. Willis, oh, I forgot.
	I'm the authority.
	Judge Willis.
	Not exactly on point, but it's amazing how they have principles until they no longer have principles.
	You can go look up the video of Justin Trudeau talking about firearms until he decided, until he was told.
	No more of that.
	Now, the question is this, and this is the last question.
	Whether or not that law that Kemp, that bill that Kemp just signed, is going to resolve the issue.
	Kemp signs legislation for Prosecuting Attorneys Qualification Commission.
	Okay, fine.
	This is brand new.
	Kemp and First Lady Kemp.
	Senate Bill 332 provides legislative fixes that will allow for the Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission to move forward with commencing operations.
	The commission will have the power to discipline and remove prosecutors from cases in Georgia.
	Kemp signed the legislation last year creating the Prosecuting Attorneys Qualification Commission.
	Hey, what do you do when there's corrupt DAs?
	Give the government more power.
	I'm just noticing a trend.
	I think if it's a good thing to get rid of corrupt attorneys, because who will go charge the district attorney?
	I think Phil Holloway answered the question.
	Nobody?
	So create a commission.
	Create a tribunal.
	Do you know the word Soviet?
	I think it meant tribunal.
	It meant administrative?
	Administration?
	I'll find out what Soviet derivative of the term is.
	But create a commission.
	All right.
	The commission could open an investigation to Fulton County District Fannie Willis over her handling of the election interference case against Trump.
	However, Republicans deny that the measure is directly aimed at Willis, citing instances of prosecutor misconduct, yada, yada.
	Oh, what was that?
	Including occasions in the past when Democrats supported the idea of prosecutor oversight panel after the killing of Ahmaud Arbery.
	Georgia's law is one of multiple attempts nationwide by Republicans to control prosecutors they don't like, like DeSantis did in Florida.
	Republicans have...
	Invade.
	Dude, what's up with words today?
	Invade.
	What does that mean?
	Look up invade.
	Speak or write about something with great hostility.
	I've never heard that word before.
	Against progressive prosecutors after some have brought fewer drug possession cases and sought shorter prison sentences arguing Democrats are coddling criminals.
	Well, unless it's Trump, by the way.
	And so that's the essence of the law.
	And then if we just pull off the bill, it's actually quite short.
	Because it's an amendment.
	Georgia Assembly, this is it, I believe?
	A bill to be entitled, an act, to amend the section of the Georgia Code relating to prosecuting attorneys' qualifications commission, authority membership, ex parte communications, governance, disciplinary actions, confidentiality, etc., etc., etc.
	That should be amended.
	Section 1. The Georgia Code.
	Annotated.
	Relating to the prosecution, etc., etc., we did this.
	They struck that.
	I guess they don't want that anymore.
	Such standards and rules shall allow for a full investigation of a district attorney or solicitor general only upon majority vote of the investigative panel.
	When a commission member receives information relating to the conduct of a district attorney or solicitor general, such members shall provide such information to the commission's director for appropriate action.
	This act shall become effective upon approval.
	The question is this, though, that I would ask is, would this apply retroactively to acts that have been committed before that amendment was enacted?
	Just asking questions out loud.
	So, to be determined.
	All right, people, let me see.
	Do I have anything more on the backdrop here?
	I think we've done it.
	We've got the news.
	I'm not taking credit for having been more right than wrong on that prediction.
	I'm actually just disappointed.
	The judge had it.
	The judge drafted it.
	And then the judge did not have the judicial courage to follow through on it.
	Whether or not he's compromised, whether or not he's playing 4D chess, whether or not it's politics, whether or not it's good politics, bad politics, it's bad for justice.
	We all saw that trial.
	We all knew what the outcome should have been, and we are all shocked and dismayed by the outcome.
	Now, Rumble, link to Locals for the after-party.
	And we'll talk...
	Oh, sorry.
	Link to Locals.
	Thank you all for being here.
	Stay tuned for the shorter version summary coming this afternoon.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com on Locals if you're not coming.
	He didn't have the balls, says Becca Tuo.
	So stack the commission with Democrats and there will be no surviving conservative prosecutors in the state of Georgia, says Madcatter.
	That's a good point.
	Attention!
	Mel Gibson is on...
	You're out of here forever.
	Let me see.
	Are we really that shocked?
	Hypnagogic monk?
	I'm disappointed.
	It was a no-brainer to me.
	Ambient Lux says thank you.
	It was a no-brainer to me.
	And it's still a no-brainer because it's in the decision.
	If he had just said I disagree with my findings of fact, fine.
	He got it all and then just didn't...
	Okay, it doesn't matter.
	I can complain all day long.
	But that's it.
	This is a partial victory.
	The judge seems to be outright defending corruption because she paid for two flights and proper nouns weren't used in her speech.
	Oh, proper nouns, yes.
	By the way, we can't be sure if I was referencing...
	To McAfee in the comment above.
	Under the context, we know.
	That is Recovery with Carson.
	Then we got Ciprian T. March 12th Live is off YouTube.
	The one about the class action lawsuit.
	March 12th Live is off YouTube.
	The one about the class action lawsuit.
	I'll look into it.
	I don't know what that is.
	I'm going to talk about something exclusively on Locals that happened to one of my videos and see if my appeal gets overturned.
	Flying Fireman playing legal ping pong with himself.
	That is hilarious.
	McAfee is the captain.
	Of Atlanta Lawn Tennis Association.
	Makes sense.
	Well, if anybody wants to feel free to clip the illegal ping pong, that was kind of funny when that came out.
	That's from Flying Firemen and we got Outdoor Nobles.
	Outdoor Nobles!
	I remember now.
	I remember names.
	Judge seems to be setting the stage to have her removed by the bar to wash his hands of it.
	Yeah, I agree.
	I've seen judges do this where they open a path for an easier filing and defer by ruling.
	That's the only 4D saving grace chess that he's playing here is the factual findings lend themselves to ethics complaints.
	And there are judicial findings of fact.
	So unless, you know, there are judicial findings of fact.
	So that's the only silver lining to what I believe is the judicial cowardice that has been engaged in by the ping pong playing Scott McAfee.
	All right, everybody on Rumble, if you're not coming to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, I will see you Sunday night, if not earlier, but come on over to Locals here.
	$10 a month.
	If anybody wants to support, I don't work very...
	I'm not very good at pushing the conversion of supporters, but $10 a month, $100 a year if you get the entire thing for a 12-month thing, and tons of exclusive content for supporters, but...
	Non-paying members, we have 117,000 members of our community, get a ton of stuff as well.
	So it's not like it's all behind paywalls.
	There's a ton of stuff in our open community for everybody.
	And then there's some perks for those who choose to support the work that Robert Barnes and I do.
	Choking on my own tongue here.
	So that's it.
	With that said, we are ending on the rumbles and going over to the locals.
	Thank you all for being here.
	I will see you soon.
	And locals, here it comes.
	VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	End live stream now.
	Yes.
	Locals.
	All right, what's up, people?
	Let's get into the chat here.
	How long will it take for Mac?
	What do I see?
	I see three tipped chats, and I only see two when I go here.
	View all.
	View tipped.
	Oh, here we go.

▲