The Megyn Kelly Show - Bombshell New Details on “Star Crossed Lovers” Fani Willis and Nathan Wade, and Could Susan Rice Be the Secret Replacement for Dems in 2024？, with Michael Knowles, Andy McCarthy, Dave Aronberg and Mike Davis ｜ Ep. 724

00:00:00.480 Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at New East.

00:00:12.000 Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. It's Ash Wednesday, it's Valentine's Day,

00:00:18.480 and today we are going to bring you the story of two star-crossed lovers whose alleged deception could upend the 2024 presidential election.

00:00:27.840 We are, of course, talking about the Georgia election interference case against Trump and several others involving District Attorney Fannie Willis and her paramour,

00:00:38.080 Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade, who say they should not be disqualified from prosecuting Mr. Trump and the others,

00:00:46.540 notwithstanding the motions that have been filed to boot them off the case.

00:00:50.540 On Monday, the two sides were in court trying to get out of an evidentiary hearing.

00:00:56.880 The Special Prosecutor and Fannie Willis were trying that, about their alleged improprieties.

00:01:02.280 And before the hearing could really even get underway, Fulton Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee informed the two sides

00:01:08.580 there will be an evidentiary hearing this week.

00:01:12.160 They will not be wiggling out of it, and it happens tomorrow morning at 9.15.

00:01:16.420 He ruled that he will consider the defendants, in particular this defendant Michael Roman,

00:01:21.220 but now Trump has joined and some other defendants have joined, motion to boot these two off the case,

00:01:26.700 and they want the case dismissed.

00:01:29.580 But in particular, they want Mr. Wade, Ms. Willis, and her entire office disqualified from this matter.

00:01:36.500 In studying the law that's been filed up to this point, I think it's clear that disqualification can occur

00:01:40.820 if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one.

00:01:45.040 And the filings submitted on this issue so far have presented a conflict in the evidence that can't be resolved

00:01:50.120 as a matter of law.

00:01:52.520 Specifically looking at defendant Roman's motion,

00:01:55.520 it alleges a personal relationship that resulted in a financial benefit to the district attorney.

00:02:00.020 And that is no longer a matter of complete speculation.

00:02:02.600 The state has admitted a relationship existed.

00:02:06.420 And so what remains to be proven is the existence and extent of any financial benefit,

00:02:12.000 again, if there even was one.

00:02:14.460 So, because I think it's possible that the facts alleged by the defendant could result in disqualification,

00:02:21.320 I think an evidentiary hearing must occur to establish the record on those core allegations.

00:02:26.000 At issue, that personal relationships timeline, money received by Ms. Willis in some form as a result,

00:02:36.300 as well as they're making an issue of Ms. Willis' out-of-court statements,

00:02:40.260 which they say disparaged the defendants to the potential jury pool.

00:02:44.080 Okay, let's start with the affair and the alleged financial boon to Fannie Willis

00:02:49.220 as a result of her bringing her alleged affair partner in on the case against Trump.

00:02:54.380 He's a special prosecutor.

00:02:55.320 He didn't work for her.

00:02:56.340 She brought him in.

00:02:57.120 She's paid him over $650,000 of the taxpayer money so far.

00:03:01.000 And that is more than the other special prosecutors.

00:03:04.060 And now we find out that the two of them, Fannie and Nathan,

00:03:06.700 have been flying all over the country and beyond,

00:03:09.940 allegedly on his dime while she was paying his salary with taxpayer dough.

00:03:17.460 Fannie Willis has argued she never received any financial benefit 0.93

00:03:21.520 as a result of hiring her lover, Wade.

00:03:23.920 Not directly, not indirectly.

00:03:27.040 She also claims they were not lovers at the time she hired him in November 2021.

00:03:33.660 Mr. Wade has submitted a sworn affidavit.

00:03:36.860 This is submitted under the penalties of perjury,

00:03:39.220 claiming that expenses on their multiple lavish trips were, quote,

00:03:45.300 roughly divided equally between the two of them,

00:03:49.120 claiming sometimes he paid, sometimes she did.

00:03:51.340 As proof, he attaches one receipt, one, for a pair of plane tickets that Ms. Willis appears

00:04:01.660 to have purchased from Atlanta to Miami on December 30th, 2022, and then returning to Atlanta

00:04:08.420 on January 3rd, 2023.

00:04:11.560 That is one pair of plane tickets she allegedly bought him for one of their many trips.

00:04:21.460 And by the way, the defense, defendant Roman and the others,

00:04:25.000 they claim Nathan Wade actually paid for those tickets, too.

00:04:28.300 Don't know how they reconcile her receipt.

00:04:30.240 We'll find out.

00:04:31.500 But in any event, from October 2022 until May of 2023, seven months,

00:04:38.380 it appears this couple took at least five trips, five and seven months that we know about.

00:04:45.380 That's 10 plane tickets.

00:04:47.460 And the defense, again, these are the people being prosecuted by Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade.

00:04:52.140 They are alleging that Nathan Wade paid for all, all of the expenses virtually that they can find

00:04:59.680 in these trips, including cruise ship fees, hotel expenses, and other expenses, too.

00:05:06.020 Now, according to filings, over those seven months that we know about, this pair,

00:05:12.100 while they're prosecuting Trump and the other defendants, went on an international travel spree

00:05:15.780 to some of the most beautiful, romantic places on Earth.

00:05:19.080 They don't have to celebrate Valentine's Day.

00:05:20.980 Every day is Valentine's Day for these two.

00:05:23.660 October 2022, a Royal Caribbean cruise to the Bahamas.

00:05:28.660 He paid for their flights, their shared cabin on the ship, and other expenses,

00:05:33.180 totaling at least $3,500.

00:05:35.700 This is all in the defendant's pleadings.

00:05:38.020 November 2022, and they have receipts.

00:05:40.720 A trip to Aruba, where Wade spent over four grand on himself and his girlfriend.

00:05:46.200 Over New Year's, this is the trip that we just discussed, 2022-2023,

00:05:51.180 a Norwegian cruise to the Bahamas.

00:05:53.340 Remember, she alleges she at least flew them from Atlanta to Miami.

00:05:56.140 Then they got on a cruise ship, Norwegian, and went to the Bahamas.

00:06:00.560 That trip, and they've submitted receipts, cost him over $3,600.

00:06:05.800 Don't forget, they've got records, the defendants do, from his divorce proceedings.

00:06:10.200 So they've got receipts to back up a lot of these expenses.

00:06:14.760 March 2023, a trip to Belize.

00:06:17.840 My God, who got—have they been prosecuting Trump?

00:06:20.980 Who's running hurt on this case?

00:06:23.700 What lawyers have this much time to take vacations?

00:06:27.340 The trip to Belize, over $3,000 spent by him on food, lodging,

00:06:33.240 and something happened at a tattoo parlor as well.

00:06:35.860 Now, I'm just going to say that at this hearing tomorrow morning,

00:06:39.320 if Ashley Merchant, who's representing defendant Roman,

00:06:42.060 does not ask somebody to show us their tattoos, it's a fail.

00:06:45.600 It's a fail.

00:06:47.260 What happened in the tattoo parlor?

00:06:49.160 Is it like, get Trump?

00:06:52.140 Okay, let's move forward to May 2023.

00:06:56.280 That was a trip to Napa Valley,

00:06:57.900 one of the most beautiful and expensive places you can go in the U.S.,

00:07:01.500 the flights and hotel for this trip, so far as we know,

00:07:04.920 actually only totaled about $1,600.

00:07:07.000 That's a bargain.

00:07:08.060 Well done.

00:07:09.400 Again, the evidence that they divided the expenses, quote,

00:07:13.360 roughly equally, which he's now sworn to,

00:07:16.460 appears to be that one time when she claims to have bought him a round-trip flight from Atlanta

00:07:22.400 to Miami for a grand total of $697.20.

00:07:26.560 And even that is something that the defendants, in this case, dispute.

00:07:30.880 If Ashley Merchant, again, the attorney who first brought all this to light in her defense of former

00:07:35.180 Trump campaign official, Michael Roman, can prove this at the hearing tomorrow morning,

00:07:41.080 it would mean that Fannie Willis did absolutely benefit, quote,

00:07:46.840 directly or indirectly from her lover's special prosecutor money,

00:07:52.200 contrary to their representations in court.

00:07:55.020 But there's more.

00:07:57.380 The pair also claim they weren't lovers when Willis hired Wade as the special prosecutor for this matter

00:08:04.880 back in November 2021.

00:08:07.600 It was November 1st, 2021.

00:08:10.400 Nathan Wade swears to this.

00:08:11.980 He swears to it under penalties of perjury in his affidavit.

00:08:15.300 We were not affair partners then, and we were not affair partners prior to then.

00:08:19.280 Now, it just so happens that the very next day after Willis hired Wade on November 2nd, 2021,

00:08:28.360 by the way, Wade was a man with no experience with RICO cases,

00:08:31.740 like the one that she was pursuing against the Trump defendants, but she hired him anyway.

00:08:35.520 The very next day after she brings in her alleged lover, which they deny,

00:08:40.480 Nathan Wade filed for divorce from his wife of 26 years.

00:08:45.240 Okay.

00:08:46.300 So Ms. Willis hires her alleged lover. 1.00

00:08:48.140 The very next day, he files for divorce from his wife.

00:08:52.500 But again, they say they only entered into a personal relationship later in 2022.

00:08:59.300 But on Monday at the hearing on whether or not there should be an evidentiary hearing in this case,

00:09:05.620 which you heard the judge say we are having tomorrow morning,

00:09:09.020 Mr. Roman's defense attorney, Ashley Merchant,

00:09:11.640 raised serious questions about when this relationship started, too.

00:09:15.620 Mr. Wade has filed other affidavits in his divorce case, which contradict this affidavit.

00:09:23.120 So the state's response last week said they had a relationship that began in 2022.

00:09:28.820 In May of 2023, he filed in the Cobb County Superior Court a pleading that said specifically

00:09:35.900 if he had had any relations with a person other than his spouse during the course of the marriage and he responded none.

00:09:44.240 After we filed our motion in this case, he updated those and he pled privilege under the Fifth Amendment.

00:09:52.700 So we've got a filing under oath by Mr. Wade in 2023 stating he didn't have a relationship.

00:10:01.300 Then we've got a filing stating he did have one starting in 2022.

00:10:04.840 And then once that came about, he fixes the incorrect affidavit that was filed back in 2023.

00:10:11.680 So we definitely have a conflict, Judge, in the evidence as far as when this relationship started.

00:10:17.500 That's a bombshell right there, folks.

00:10:22.780 That's a bombshell.

00:10:25.040 She's claiming he said in his divorce proceeding he never had an affair at all.

00:10:31.300 And then when he was caught because of the motion in this case,

00:10:35.320 he went back and amended his sworn testimony in the divorce proceeding by pleading the Fifth Amendment.

00:10:40.800 This is the special prosecutor going after Trump right now.

00:10:45.580 One of the claims is lying, that he's lied, that the officials have lied in connection with their alleged election interference.

00:10:53.120 Ms. Merchant also says she's prepared to call witnesses, and the judge just greenlit it,

00:10:58.880 who will testify under oath that this affair has been going on for years,

00:11:04.340 well before Fannie Willis hired Nathan Wade in this case.

00:11:08.460 It did not start in 2022, according to Ms. Merchant,

00:11:12.220 who's going to call witness after witness tomorrow morning to prove this.

00:11:16.700 If that's true, what she's really proving is that these two lied to the court.

00:11:21.360 Not just Wade, Willis too.

00:11:22.940 I'll get to it.

00:11:24.340 So my takeaway, if the defense can prove this,

00:11:28.380 what we just heard her represent to the court she can prove,

00:11:31.480 then it does appear DA Fannie Willis and Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade

00:11:34.740 will have misled the court, Wade under oath,

00:11:38.500 Willis in her capacity as an officer of the court,

00:11:41.220 and misrepresented their inappropriate relationship to cover their own hides.

00:11:45.960 It's all extremely bad, extremely bad for both of them,

00:11:49.740 as attorneys, as prosecutors, and as the people pursuing this criminal case.

00:11:54.960 And if proven, they're toast, in my opinion.

00:11:58.740 Toast.

00:11:59.120 And they may even face other problems ranging from disbarment to prosecution.

00:12:05.440 Joining me now on all of it are legal all-stars.

00:12:08.600 Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article 3 Project,

00:12:11.700 and Dave Ehrenberg, state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida,

00:12:14.940 where Mar-a-Lago is located.

00:12:16.520 Mike, Dave, welcome back to the show.

00:12:19.080 And this is just, these are, this is bombshell after bombshell.

00:12:22.380 And, you know, Dave, when I actually got into the papers and started reading them,

00:12:25.800 I thought of you, because you're an honest broker, and what you said when the news broke

00:12:30.920 last time you were on about their alleged affair was, you know, we found out that

00:12:35.760 they were denying they had started the affair at the time she hired him.

00:12:41.520 And you pointed out that's legally significant.

00:12:44.700 You know, it does matter if the affair just developed later.

00:12:48.680 It's definitely more beneficial to them if she didn't hire her current lover. 1.00

00:12:52.680 And now we see, tomorrow, we're going to have his former divorce lawyer,

00:13:00.440 who started off as his friend, take the stand, according to Ashley Merchant.

00:13:06.260 His name is Terrence Bradley.

00:13:07.960 And he is going to testify directly, not with privileged information, but based on their

00:13:12.100 friendship, that these two are having an affair long before November 2021, when

00:13:17.880 Fannie Willis hired him.

00:13:19.460 And to that, you say what?

00:13:20.560 Well, first, it's good to be with you on Valentine's Day and Ash Wednesday.

00:13:24.820 Megan and Mike, I think it's a real problem twofold.

00:13:28.180 First, it does matter when the relationship began.

00:13:31.380 If it began before Nathan Wade was hired, that's a problem.

00:13:35.480 And then it's also a problem if they lied.

00:13:38.940 And if they lied, both of them have submitted information under oath, then there's no question.

00:13:46.000 I would agree with you.

00:13:46.760 They would be pulled off the case.

00:13:48.120 I think that as an initial matter, that Nathan Wade should step aside.

00:13:53.160 Fannie Willis should have someone else lead the charge. 1.00

00:13:55.940 They already have two other special prosecutors.

00:13:58.260 So just for the appearance, they should have Nathan Wade step aside.

00:14:02.320 But if it is proven that both of them lied and that the relationship, in fact, started

00:14:07.380 before Nathan Wade was hired, then they're going to be disqualified from the case.

00:14:11.540 And when you disqualify a prosecutor from the case, you would disqualify the entire office.

00:14:16.440 This was the issue with the Jussie Smollett.

00:14:18.100 Remember, Megan, where the prosecutor disqualified herself, but her office kept running the case. 0.99

00:14:23.220 That doesn't work.

00:14:23.940 That's not appropriate.

00:14:25.140 And then it would get assigned to a different district attorney.

00:14:27.580 But this case would not go away.

00:14:30.000 Yeah, I agree.

00:14:30.580 That's a that's a bigger stretch.

00:14:31.720 Although I've heard smart legal experts say it could.

00:14:35.700 It's not the smart bet, but it could.

00:14:38.080 But this is this is I just want to note for the audience, this is significant because you've

00:14:41.820 been defending her to the best of your abilities thus far.

00:14:44.660 And even you can see that if Ashley Merchant, the defendant, the lawyer for defendant Roman

00:14:50.980 can prove this as she's proffered to the court, she can.

00:14:55.340 You think Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade have to go.

00:14:57.560 Yeah, and Bradley is the key witness here, and you correctly identified the issue because

00:15:03.480 he was Nathan Wade's divorce lawyer at some point.

00:15:06.540 There are some issues of attorney-client privilege, but he can testify as a lay witness to what

00:15:11.040 he has seen outside of those confines, and he's the key witness.

00:15:14.140 And if they can prove not only that there was a relationship in advance of his hiring act,

00:15:18.960 by the way, that would be enough.

00:15:20.580 But if they also prove that they lied about it, then there could be more consequences than

00:15:25.980 just disqualification.

00:15:26.900 They could face bar disciplinary actions as well.

00:15:30.360 That's the thing.

00:15:31.040 So let me there's so much to go over, Mike.

00:15:33.200 Let me just get your overall take on on my opening talking points there.

00:15:37.560 I think it was spot on Fannie's toast.

00:15:40.500 I actually think that not only will Fannie get disqualified and Nathan Wade get disqualified

00:15:45.360 by this Fulton County judge, I actually think the case has to be dismissed.

00:15:50.980 And then a new prosecutor can decide whether he or she wants to refile this case, because

00:15:57.660 this case has been unethically tainted, illegally tainted since before its inception, right?

00:16:04.880 If these allegations are true, it's actually true.

00:16:07.040 I mean, she's admitted that their relationship started before she brought this indictment, right?

00:16:13.620 So she may have hired him.

00:16:16.300 You know, she could be lying about when it started. 0.99

00:16:20.040 She could have had this relationship going back to 2020.

00:16:23.460 And if that's the case, both Fannie and Nathan Wade are going to face perjury allegations

00:16:28.280 and maybe even prison time, they should go to prison if they like,

00:16:31.740 because they made misrepresentations to the court in response to Mike Roman's motion to dismiss.

00:16:39.280 You had both Nathan Wade file an affidavit, a sworn affidavit,

00:16:43.440 and then Fannie Willis relied on that affidavit in her court filing in opposition to Mike Roman's motion to dismiss.

00:16:51.480 So if they lied about that, they should be disqualified.

00:16:55.060 They should be disbarred.

00:16:56.520 They should be charged with perjury.

00:16:57.980 They should be put in prison.

00:16:59.280 And let me just jump in.

00:17:00.020 I don't want to, I'm sorry to interrupt your train of thought,

00:17:01.840 because I really do want to hear your overall thoughts.

00:17:03.680 But just to, for the record, Nathan Wade submitted a sworn affidavit.

00:17:08.220 He's under oath and he's subject to, subject to penalties of perjury.

00:17:12.100 She signed the brief representing to the court both what he said in his affidavit

00:17:18.980 and one presumes as an officer of the court that, I'll read it,

00:17:24.200 Attorney Willis and Special Prosecutor Wade have been professional associates and friends since 2019,

00:17:29.300 but there was no personal relationship between them in November 2021 at the time of Special Prosecutor Wade's appointment.

00:17:37.060 So she puts that herself in a brief that she signed.

00:17:40.300 That's not a perjury thing, but it's absolutely an ethical thing.

00:17:43.540 You cannot knowingly mislead the court as an officer of it.

00:17:46.880 So keep going, Mike.

00:17:48.420 Well, I mean, if she's aiding and abetting perjury, that's perjury. 1.00

00:17:50.800 But I would say this, remember, and technically she didn't sign. 0.52

00:17:54.220 She had one of her subordinates sign that brief, but her name's on the brief as the, as the, as the, 0.91

00:17:59.340 Her name's on the brief.

00:18:00.060 Yeah, so she would absolutely be liable for that filing, right?

00:18:04.660 So it's just, it's, look, if these allegations are true of this, I think this case has to be dismissed.

00:18:10.440 And then you bring in a new prosecutor, whether it's the, the state attorney general, Chris Carr,

00:18:15.200 maybe it gets assigned to another prosecutor elsewhere in the state,

00:18:18.580 and then they're going to have to make the independent judgment free from this financial conflict of interest

00:18:24.280 that Fannie Willis is making money off of this prosecution of President Trump and 18 co-defendants

00:18:30.700 based upon a bogus novel Rico conspiracy theory against political opponents.

00:18:36.300 A new prosecutor is going to have to come in and have independent judgment,

00:18:39.580 whether they're going to bring, recharge President Trump and these 18 co-defendants.

00:18:44.400 But I absolutely think this case needs to be kicked.

00:18:48.040 Okay, so here's what she's saying, Dave.

00:18:50.340 I mean, these are, this is huge.

00:18:51.960 These are very, very big stakes we're talking about right, right here,

00:18:54.840 because, you know, Trump's, he really needs to pull an inside straight to avoid all these charges.

00:18:59.940 And he's on his way to doing it is really how this is looking,

00:19:03.560 given there, there are delays in the Jack Smith federal trial in D.C.,

00:19:07.940 the New York case, people don't care about as much.

00:19:10.960 The Miami case based on the Mar-a-Lago documents, that's Dave's jurisdiction,

00:19:15.400 is slow rolled entirely because of all the classified documents thing.

00:19:19.440 And it's a friendly to Trump judge there.

00:19:22.320 So he's got that going for him.

00:19:24.360 And so this case is potentially very problematic for Trump.

00:19:29.060 And this is an amazing development for him.

00:19:31.280 So the Terrence Bradley is the former Nathan Wade divorce lawyer,

00:19:35.360 who Ashley Merchant, the lawyer, says she's going to call tomorrow.

00:19:39.040 And not just him.

00:19:40.540 She's got a whole list of people she's ready to call.

00:19:42.760 Um, in case, I don't know, he gets impeached.

00:19:46.560 I don't know, just to back him up.

00:19:47.860 We'll see.

00:19:48.680 But here is what the, um, defendant Michael Roman argued in his brief about Terrence Bradley.

00:19:56.020 They say, um, Willis and Wade claim they didn't have a personal romantic relationship

00:20:01.020 before Willis appointed Wade as a special prosecutor.

00:20:03.200 But Terrence Bradley will refute that claim.

00:20:06.960 Bradley is an attorney and member of the Georgia bar.

00:20:09.240 Bradley and Wade were friends and business associations, associates.

00:20:13.560 Bradley has non-privileged personal knowledge that the romantic relationship began prior

00:20:18.800 to Willis being sworn in as district attorney in January, 2021.

00:20:24.660 So well before.

00:20:26.760 Thus, Bradley can confirm that Willis contracted with Wade after Wade and Willis had begun a

00:20:31.960 romantic relationship, thus rebutting Wade's claim that they didn't start dating until 2022.

00:20:36.860 It goes on.

00:20:37.500 Bradley obtained information about the relationship between them directly from Wade when Wade was

00:20:42.780 not seeking legal advice from Bradley.

00:20:44.920 He obtained this information in a personal capacity as Wade's friend prior to Wade's decision

00:20:49.920 to file for divorce.

00:20:52.020 While Bradley would later represent Wade for a time in the divorce proceeding, the information

00:20:55.480 about the relationship was obtained prior to the attorney-client relationship beginning.

00:20:59.620 None of Bradley's testimony will relate to any privileged info or work product.

00:21:03.180 Bradley also has personal knowledge that Wade and Willis regularly stayed together at her

00:21:10.180 home until Willis's father moved into her home sometime in 2020.

00:21:14.980 And they go on to allege they'll be able to prove cohabitation of some sort.

00:21:20.660 So that's what we're going to hear from Terrence Bradley.

00:21:24.220 And then here, just flipping now, Dave, to Nathan Wade's sworn affidavit.

00:21:30.560 He says, while professional associates and friends since 2019, there was no personal relationship

00:21:40.240 between district attorney Willis and me prior to or at the time of my appointment as special

00:21:46.280 prosecutor.

00:21:46.840 Because I was thinking, Dave, maybe he could get out of it by saying he just alleged the

00:21:49.880 affidavit at the time of, you know, it was off again, on again.

00:21:54.260 Maybe that's how he wiggled out, you know, but no, he says never, not prior to, not at

00:21:59.240 the time she appointed me.

00:22:01.060 And it wasn't until 2022 that we developed a personal relationship in addition to the

00:22:06.320 professional friendship and on and on it goes.

00:22:11.480 Oh, and he also says, I have never cohabitated with district attorney Willis, which Ashley

00:22:16.640 Merchant is also going to take on through witness testimony tomorrow.

00:22:19.680 I mean, if this, if she can prove these are lies and look, the affair, when it began, like

00:22:26.660 that's the judge is going to be able to make a judgment call, Dave, on who's telling the

00:22:30.140 truth there.

00:22:31.420 Yeah.

00:22:31.600 And judge McAfee is doing a great job here.

00:22:33.640 I think a lot of this is doing well.

00:22:35.400 I agree with you just watching him at this hearing.

00:22:37.100 He seemed like a straight shooter to me.

00:22:38.540 I haven't seen much more, but what I saw in that hearing wasn't, was a fair, normal judge.

00:22:43.800 What's amazing about him is that I think he's only 35 years old, which I think belies his

00:22:49.880 gravitas.

00:22:50.940 And maybe it's because he has that receding hairline, but whatever it is, he's doing a

00:22:54.600 good job.

00:22:55.700 As far as this development here, I think a lot depends on what the personal relationship

00:23:00.260 is.

00:23:00.640 That's kind of a broad term.

00:23:02.280 Is it enough if they show that they had a sexual encounter before he was hired?

00:23:08.560 Is that enough?

00:23:09.760 And I think it's a sordid question, but Judge McAfee is going to have to delve into that.

00:23:15.500 What kind of personal relationship did they have?

00:23:17.700 So the devil really is in the details.

00:23:19.400 And as far as cohabitation, actually, I think that's their weakest argument, because according

00:23:22.820 to what I've seen, that Bonnie Willis is going to have a sworn testimony that there was no 1.00

00:23:28.020 cohabitation.

00:23:28.860 So I think it's going to turn on what was their personal relationship.

00:23:32.440 Did it really?

00:23:33.180 Are they trying to mislead the court?

00:23:34.680 Did they have a one-time fling?

00:23:36.080 Or did they actually have some sort of relationship that would disqualify them?

00:23:40.560 Okay.

00:23:41.180 But we've buried the lead in our discussion, though, not in my opening, which is, Mike,

00:23:47.500 why would an officer of the court go back and amend sworn interrogatories, which are written

00:23:54.320 answers that are provided under oath in any proceeding?

00:23:56.760 You know, you have to write down all your things and swear to them before the lawyers get to

00:24:00.580 depose you in which you say the things under oath.

00:24:03.000 He went back, according to Merchant, had to amend his denial of having an affair on his

00:24:11.040 wife and pleaded the fifth in his amendment in that divorce proceeding. 0.95

00:24:19.780 That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

00:24:22.620 When you go back and amend interrogatories, it's for like technical or clerical errors.

00:24:28.780 It's not for substantive testimony that you're completely changing your substantive testimony.

00:24:34.540 You can't just go back and amend a lie and then claim the fifth amendment and that you

00:24:39.520 think that that protects you from from false statements of the court or perjury to the court.

00:24:43.720 That's not how it works.

00:24:45.120 You know, but but isn't it that he did he admit there basically that the earlier answer

00:24:52.760 was a lie?

00:24:54.280 I mean, honestly, like I'm trying to dumb it down for myself and everybody else.

00:24:58.980 What reason would you have to amend your sworn interrogatory answer by pleading the fifth

00:25:04.440 other than you think telling the truth is going to get you charged criminally?

00:25:10.460 So what I like I'm trying to follow?

00:25:13.440 Does he think he's going to be charged criminally for lying in the original interrogatory answer?

00:25:17.060 Or does he think he's going to be charged criminally for something he's done in the Fannie 0.99

00:25:19.940 Willis case?

00:25:21.240 And I don't know why his lawyer would or maybe he just did this on his own.

00:25:24.760 You can't just come in and testify and then assert the fifth, right?

00:25:28.400 That you can't play that game with the fifth amendment.

00:25:30.340 With the fifth amendment, you either testify or you don't testify.

00:25:33.600 You can't selectively testify and then testify and then change your mind of an assertive fit.

00:25:38.740 That's not how the fifth amendment works.

00:25:41.400 What do you make of that, Dave?

00:25:42.680 Going back, originally saying in the divorce proceeding, I never had an affair.

00:25:47.480 Then this motion gets brought in this other unrelated case and he gets caught.

00:25:53.100 He knows he's going to have to admit that they did have an affair during the marital years.

00:25:56.620 And he goes back.

00:25:58.240 I can kind of see amending and saying there was one, but I don't get amending with the fifth amendment.

00:26:06.140 I guess if you file a sworn document that says that you did not have an affair, but then it's true you had an affair, then he's worried perhaps about a perjury charge.

00:26:19.320 And so that's why he could go back.

00:26:21.060 I'm viewing this in the divorce proceeding, in the divorce proceeding, a potential perjury charge.

00:26:26.640 Okay.

00:26:26.720 Yeah, right.

00:26:27.520 So it is possible that this doesn't relate to Fannie Willis.

00:26:30.160 I'm looking at this in the most positive light towards Fannie Willis.

00:26:33.580 That doesn't have anything to do with this current case.

00:26:35.320 Yeah, but I admit, look, this looks bad, but we don't know if he went back and amended it to protect himself from the current case involving Fannie Willis.

00:26:45.840 It may be just to protect himself against perjury the first time around.

00:26:50.960 Either way, he is in what we call in the law a shit ton of trouble.

00:26:57.000 Which is why he should step aside.

00:26:59.100 He should step aside.

00:26:59.820 Yes, this is terrible.

00:27:01.560 Mike, I'm sorry, but like, am I overreacting?

00:27:03.560 I've never seen such an ethical breach.

00:27:06.160 Okay, I had an affair.

00:27:07.180 This is bad. 0.99

00:27:07.760 The whole thing stinks.

00:27:08.980 Yes, you've jeopardized one of the biggest cases in the nation against Trump and the probably,

00:27:14.020 almost undoubtedly, the biggest case in Fulton County history ever.

00:27:17.200 But then you lie under oath to the court about it, like other lies are uncovered.

00:27:24.600 And we haven't even touched on, Mike, the alleged lies about the expenses that he says we shared them roughly equally.

00:27:35.840 And then I said, great, okay, this is kind of what Dave had raised this thing.

00:27:40.840 Maybe, you know, we don't know.

00:27:42.140 We know that he paid these numbers, but maybe she reimbursed him or maybe she paid for some.

00:27:46.720 So, okay, we were all open-minded to that.

00:27:48.980 So I'm like, great, that's what he's saying.

00:27:50.540 Let me see it.

00:27:51.040 And I look at his, I look at his exhibit, which he points me to.

00:27:58.080 Okay, hold on.

00:27:59.360 The airline tickets.

00:28:00.320 Okay, great.

00:28:00.740 He says it's exhibit four.

00:28:02.340 Here it is.

00:28:03.040 Exhibit four.

00:28:03.760 I get there.

00:28:05.420 And we got one page, which says Fannie Willis.

00:28:10.400 It's a November 30th purchase, 2022, Delta tickets from Atlanta to Miami and back, leaving Friday, December 30th, coming back Tuesday, January 3rd.

00:28:22.040 Two tickets.

00:28:23.000 One ticket here for Fannie Willis and one ticket here for Nathan Wade.

00:28:26.960 And the price is listed at, for each ticket, $697.20.

00:28:31.020 Okay, great.

00:28:31.940 That's one.

00:28:33.040 I'm looking for, you know, they took 10 trips.

00:28:35.140 I'm looking for four more, right?

00:28:37.460 Let's see.

00:28:38.000 She did five.

00:28:38.660 He did five.

00:28:39.160 I'm open-minded to you, Fannie.

00:28:41.160 It's not in there.

00:28:42.580 It's not in there.

00:28:43.600 What happens after that is nothing.

00:28:45.420 Other exhibits.

00:28:46.380 That's the only proof of roughly equal.

00:28:50.380 So this is another area in which his affidavit seems blatantly misleading.

00:28:57.480 I mean, isn't 10 to one, roughly?

00:28:59.700 I mean, is that not how we look at roughly?

00:29:02.380 I mean, this is very rough.

00:29:05.120 I mean, look, we all know that Fannie Willis is toast.

00:29:09.280 I mean, he is going to get disqualified.

00:29:11.780 Nathan Wade is going to get disqualified.

00:29:14.380 I don't know how they don't get disbarred if it's proven that they made these misrepresentations to the court, material misrepresentations of the court.

00:29:23.720 I don't know how they don't get charged criminally.

00:29:25.500 So this is going to get a lot worse for old Fannie and Nathan Wade before it gets better.

00:29:33.200 What do you make of that, Dave?

00:29:34.720 Because I have heard, it's not just Mike, who we know is a Trump fan, an advocate, say they could be facing disbarment and there actually could be a criminal prosecution and or dismissal of this case.

00:29:48.040 And it's interesting what Mike was saying.

00:29:49.680 He's not necessarily saying it's dismissed and it never comes back.

00:29:52.260 Like, it's dismissed.

00:29:53.380 And if there's another prosecutor who wants to try to bring it, OK, that could potentially happen.

00:29:58.400 Jeopardy hasn't attached.

00:29:59.400 They haven't picked a jury.

00:30:00.940 So can you speak to those three terrible outcomes for Fannie?

00:30:05.340 Like, all good for Trump.

00:30:07.340 But can you speak to those possible three?

00:30:08.900 Sure.

00:30:10.760 I don't think the case will be dismissed.

00:30:13.420 If this case were weak, then Judge McAfee could have dismissed it already, but he hasn't.

00:30:17.340 So because of that, this case will continue.

00:30:19.960 It may continue under a different district attorney.

00:30:23.180 Now, the way it gets reassigned, I think it goes to the attorney general in Georgia and then reassigns.

00:30:27.100 And we saw that in the Armand Arbery case.

00:30:29.440 But I think there's still a shot that Fannie Willis stays on the case. 0.72

00:30:33.560 I think Nathan Wade needs to be separated from the case.

00:30:36.260 I think he'll be gone from the case.

00:30:37.520 But as far as Fannie Willis, until you can prove, I think, that she lied, then I think she stays on the case.

00:30:44.000 Here's the thing.

00:30:44.480 But if he's gone because he lied in his affidavit, she's gone, too, because she signed the brief.

00:30:50.600 It's her brief.

00:30:51.940 And as you well know, the lawyer submitting the brief is the one working with the defendant who signs the affidavit.

00:30:57.320 As Mike points out, she's a co-conspirator, basically, on the lie.

00:31:00.800 And her brief retells the lie.

00:31:03.040 It's her brief.

00:31:03.600 She signed it.

00:31:04.240 And not to mention the underlying ethical breach of the affair and all the monies.

00:31:08.280 Like, we've just moved on to perjury here.

00:31:10.400 So there's no world in which he goes and she stays.

00:31:13.700 Well, if she lied because she submitted that brief with her name on it, then she would be gone because that's beyond the pale.

00:31:21.500 Now, when you say and you talked about, Mike, how it looks like they did not reimburse each other, wasn't halfsies, it wasn't roughly halfsies. 0.95

00:31:30.320 I have always thought that if the affair started after he was hired, then it doesn't have to be halfsies or roughly halfsies. 0.84

00:31:37.220 But the problem is now is that they've made a sworn declaration that it is a roughly half and half situation.

00:31:43.520 So because of that, if they lied, then they both have to be gone from the case.

00:31:49.180 And what what are you have any thoughts on the possibility of.

00:31:54.140 You know, losing your law license, facing criminal penalties.

00:31:58.360 Andy McCarthy's coming up right after you guys.

00:32:00.960 And, you know, he's a serious, sober lawyer who I'm sure you guys both know and respect.

00:32:06.260 In fact, he's been talking about how she could be she could face some criminal penalties here.

00:32:12.740 It's always possible perjury is a crime, although it's I got to tell you this from a prosecutor's perspective.

00:32:18.160 You don't see a charge very often because you've got to prove it's knowing and, you know, you've got to prove definitively that they lied.

00:32:25.260 It's not always easy to do.

00:32:26.340 You're going to have testimony and you're going to have testimony both ways on this.

00:32:29.600 And then you have to get into the granular issue of what a personal relationship is before they before Nathan Wade was hired.

00:32:37.940 It almost is what the definition of is is.

00:32:40.340 And because of that, if they were having sex, they're done.

00:32:43.400 I mean, that'll be that'll that'll amount to personal and by any measure.

00:32:48.100 I do think that it depends.

00:32:50.740 I think it depends.

00:32:51.620 If it was a one time thing, then I don't think that's enough to get him for perjury.

00:32:56.080 Stop it.

00:32:56.720 OK, so we're going to be taking testimony tomorrow.

00:32:58.940 And how many times?

00:32:59.900 How long were you in the sack for?

00:33:01.540 Good walk us through it.

00:33:02.380 Was it meaningful to you?

00:33:03.720 Were there flowers exchanged?

00:33:05.140 It's Valentine's Day.

00:33:06.560 Mike, I don't I don't believe any of that.

00:33:08.740 But, you know, there's going to be a come to Jesus moment tomorrow.

00:33:15.660 Fannie Willis did not want to have to give testimony.

00:33:18.120 Nathan Wade did not want to have to give testimony.

00:33:20.160 They're going to.

00:33:21.260 The judge has said it's happening.

00:33:23.040 And there we expect, at least based on how I understand it's going to go, there's going

00:33:28.500 to be a moment where Fannie Willis is asked under oath.

00:33:30.320 She hasn't been asked under oath yet.

00:33:32.300 When did the affair begin?

00:33:34.700 And if she says not until 2022, then it looks like this guy Bradley, Terrence Bradley, is

00:33:40.840 going to try to put the light of that among others.

00:33:43.020 And if she changes what she wrote in her brief and what Nathan Wade said in his affidavit and

00:33:47.480 says, actually, it was before 2022, she's in trouble for a whole host of other reasons.

00:33:54.600 So it could come down to a credibility contest between Fannie and Nathan on one side and Terrence

00:34:02.000 Bradley and I guess whoever else they're going to offer on the other.

00:34:05.980 Right.

00:34:06.200 It could could devolve into who does the judge believe, Terrence or these other two.

00:34:10.740 I mean, here's the problem for Fannie.

00:34:14.540 Both Fannie and Nathan Wade submitted their court filing on February 2nd and they included

00:34:22.280 Nathan Wade's February 1st affidavit that they knew was a lie.

00:34:27.520 Right.

00:34:27.980 And then they had eight other attorneys in the Fulton County DA's office put their names

00:34:34.020 on this February 2nd filing.

00:34:36.360 So you have 10 attorneys in the Fulton County DA's office submitting something to the court.

00:34:42.640 Two of them, at least two of them know what they are submitting is a lie.

00:34:47.300 That is not going to go over well with this judge.

00:34:50.860 That's why I'm saying that this case is so tainted that it's going to it should be dismissed

00:34:56.240 and bring in a new prosecutor with fresh eyes and independent judgment who does not have

00:35:02.120 a financial stake in the outcome in this of this case, like Fannie Willis and her boyfriend

00:35:07.420 Nathan Wade apparently do. 1.00

00:35:10.100 This I mean, this is just incredibly stupid, reckless behavior. 1.00

00:35:16.080 I mean, I don't know, Dave. 0.99

00:35:17.780 I know you're doing your best to defend her and I appreciate that because we like to get

00:35:20.720 both sides here.

00:35:21.620 But honestly, like tell us the truth.

00:35:23.740 Like if you had a lawyer prosecuting a case this big working for you and you found out

00:35:30.960 that she'd been having an affair with a special prosecutor that you had to bring in, getting

00:35:35.180 paid on the taxpayer dime, going all over the world with this guy, not disclosing it to

00:35:39.700 anybody.

00:35:40.140 And then you found out that the affair had been taking place prior to the date she brought

00:35:44.680 him on.

00:35:45.400 And then that she submitted an affidavit from the guy that she signed the brief for saying

00:35:50.600 that wasn't true.

00:35:51.740 And there was somebody about to take the stand on another officer of the court, a lawyer who's

00:35:55.500 going to say, those are lies.

00:35:57.180 I can tell you firsthand that.

00:35:59.020 Well, I mean, you know, you'd fire this person.

00:36:01.420 This is a massive ethical breach, if true.

00:36:04.880 Yep.

00:36:05.420 And it's different, though, if you're the boss, because who then fires the boss?

00:36:08.920 It's up to the court.

00:36:09.600 It is much easier to fire the boss than it is to file perjury charges.

00:36:14.060 I guess that's my point here, is that the granular investigation that they're going

00:36:17.780 to have to do in court is going to make it very hard, I think, to charge her with a crime

00:36:21.700 if they found out that Nathan Wade's affidavit was a lie.

00:36:25.700 But I do think that they would both get bounced from the case, and Nathan Wade should not be

00:36:30.200 part of the case anyways.

00:36:31.540 He should be separated from it.

00:36:32.780 And Megan, to your larger point, it has been difficult from the beginning to defend this,

00:36:37.540 because if you're going to go after the former president, you have to be squeaky clean because

00:36:42.560 all eyes are on you.

00:36:44.000 The spotlight is on you.

00:36:45.260 This has never been done before in the history of our country for a local prosecutor, other

00:36:49.540 than Alvin Bragg, to go ahead and file charges against a former president, especially with

00:36:53.560 an election looming.

00:36:54.680 So you have to make sure all your T's are crossed and your I's are dotted.

00:36:59.000 And apparently they didn't do so here.

00:37:00.580 And this just opens up so many conspiracy theories.

00:37:03.540 And although it doesn't jeopardize the ultimate case, in my view, it does look bad.

00:37:07.920 It could jeopardize the ultimate case, though, because you mentioned how the AG would have

00:37:11.840 to assign a DA to replace her. 0.99

00:37:14.680 The AG in Georgia is a Republican.

00:37:17.720 Now, I don't you know, and there's there are questions about which, if any, DAs would

00:37:22.780 be willing to pursue this wacky Rico case that she's brought, Fannie's brought. 0.86

00:37:28.160 So it's not a foregone conclusion that if she got bounced, it'd be super easy to just

00:37:32.700 pass the baton to somebody else.

00:37:34.860 Mike and Dave, great discussion, as always.

00:37:36.740 Thank you guys so much for coming on today.

00:37:39.280 Up next, we're going to continue the discussion with Andy McCarthy of National Review, who's

00:37:42.760 been up to his neck in all of this stuff as well.

00:37:45.140 And we'll talk about his take on these huge developments.

00:37:52.980 Joining us now to continue the legal analysis on the Fannie Willis case is Andy McCarthy, former

00:37:58.080 federal prosecutor and contributing editor at National Review.

00:38:02.120 Should definitely check out Andy's writings at National Review.

00:38:04.940 Join, sign up for NR Plus, but also check out his weekly podcast.

00:38:08.500 It drops on Fridays, and it's well worth your time.

00:38:11.340 I love it.

00:38:11.760 Gets me through the weekend other than the sports talk.

00:38:14.200 All right, Andy.

00:38:15.020 So good to have you by phone.

00:38:17.320 Bye, Megan.

00:38:18.100 So this is a bombshell, what she dropped yesterday, Ashley Merchant, that he alleged in his divorce

00:38:26.360 proceeding that he did not have any extramarital affair during the time of his marriage, and

00:38:31.960 he didn't file for divorce until November 2nd, 2021.

00:38:35.220 And then when this whole issue came up in the Trump case, he went back and amended that

00:38:41.720 interrogatory, that sworn interrogatory answer to plead the fifth, to plead the fifth.

00:38:47.240 I mean, just that alone seems like a rather significant development.

00:38:51.820 What do you make of it?

00:38:53.560 Well, it's a very significant development.

00:38:55.360 Mike Davis was right when he said that to you that you don't get to play games with the

00:39:02.720 court like this, like you don't get to make a bunch of representations, and then you say,

00:39:07.560 I think I'm going to take the fifth, right?

00:39:09.520 So what a court will normally do, Megan, I had this come up one time in a criminal case

00:39:16.220 where we had a defendant who took the stand and decided to give his whole side of the story.

00:39:21.340 And then when we got up to cross-examine him as the government, he took the fifth.

00:39:25.700 Um, and the court, you know, the idea was he was, uh, he knew that it was one of these

00:39:32.180 long, complicated trials that we weren't going to get a mistrial in the middle of it was a

00:39:36.220 month's long trial.

00:39:38.260 Um, so what the court ruled is that he had waived his fifth amendment privilege.

00:39:45.180 And therefore, every time he tried to take the fifth on cross-examination,

00:39:50.440 the court held him in contempt.

00:39:52.000 So I think by the time cross was over, it was somewhere between like 75 and 150 times

00:39:58.580 the court had found him, uh, in contempt.

00:40:01.860 Um, and I think what you would have if you had a, you know, a real judge would be something

00:40:09.420 akin to that.

00:40:10.200 I think, uh, Nathan Wade is going to be told if he's pressed on it, and we'll have to see

00:40:15.020 how all this testimony shakes out tomorrow, that by the disclosures he's already made in

00:40:20.320 connection with that form, he waived his fifth amendment privilege.

00:40:24.300 Um, and he's got to testify.

00:40:26.780 And if he tries to testify, right.

00:40:28.820 Because he, he tried like the divorce proceeding is wrapping up, I'm sure because of all this.

00:40:34.360 So, you know, he's not being cross-examined in the context of the divorce proceeding.

00:40:38.580 It's in the context of this proceeding where he's now found his tongue.

00:40:41.620 Now he's like, oh, I swear it didn't happen before November, 2021.

00:40:45.680 So I don't know.

00:40:47.060 It's, it's more like just an anomaly and a weirdness.

00:40:49.700 I don't think he's going to plead the fifth amendment.

00:40:51.400 I think it's just something to point out.

00:40:53.220 You misled under oath in your earlier proceeding.

00:40:56.340 Why should we believe you now when you're changing your story again?

00:41:00.480 But, but I do think that the fact that she's Ashley Merchant is going to call, call this

00:41:05.200 witness is Bradley who was representing the guy, but was also his friend and is going to

00:41:09.740 testify in his capacity as the friend.

00:41:11.340 Look, these guys were together long before November, 2021.

00:41:15.780 And unlike Fannie and Nathan has no dog in this hunt could be devastating.

00:41:22.340 It could be, um, it should be, especially though.

00:41:26.900 And this is the thing that drives me nuts about this.

00:41:29.220 This is so it's salacious.

00:41:31.240 It's interesting.

00:41:32.340 Uh, it goes to the ethics and honesty of these people.

00:41:36.360 It calls into question the origins of the investigation.

00:41:39.920 All that's true.

00:41:40.880 It's so far afield from what's wrong with this case.

00:41:44.780 I mean, you know, if you think about it, it's related to what's wrong with this case

00:41:48.900 in the sense that there's, well, there's allegation after allegation after allegation in this case

00:41:54.580 that Trump and the people around him made representations that they knew to be untrue.

00:41:59.260 And now we have prosecutors who, in the things that are more, that are of importance to them

00:42:05.720 in their own lives, they look you in the eye and say one thing, and it turns out that it's not true.

00:42:10.780 Um, so I don't know how they credibly carry a case like this, but, you know, just big picture

00:42:16.360 wise, as I was listening to your discussion, um, a few moments ago, it just occurs to me that,

00:42:23.380 you know, she's already, Fannie Willis has already been disqualified from prosecuting one 0.99

00:42:29.920 subject in this investigation for conduct that isn't even close to as serious as the kind of

00:42:36.160 stuff that we're talking about now.

00:42:37.940 Um, I think the allegation was she headlined a fundraiser for this guy's democratic opponent

00:42:45.980 in the lieutenant, uh, governor race in Georgia.

00:42:51.260 For that, she got disqualified from being able to prosecute this guy.

00:42:55.480 We're talking like dimensions more serious, uh, at this point.

00:43:00.240 But to me, the important thing is this case has been like catastrophically ill-conceived

00:43:09.020 from the first.

00:43:10.400 And now, if I'm looking at this as a federal prosecutor, you, you mentioned before that

00:43:15.740 I was thinking of this in terms of like, is she, does she have criminal liability?

00:43:19.540 I wasn't even thinking about perjury.

00:43:22.160 What I was thinking about was fraud, basically, you know, there's a federal statutes that basically

00:43:28.940 say if you have a, uh, a state, uh, agency that's funded even modestly by the federal government.

00:43:36.360 And if you make misrepresentations or confer, can convert property to your own use, um, that's

00:43:44.960 prosecutable fraud.

00:43:46.680 So if, for example, she went to, uh, Fulton County and said, I need money to clear up the,

00:43:53.680 the, uh, backlog from COVID, and then she slices off a piece of that to pay this guy who is

00:44:00.640 her, turns out to be her boyfriend with whom she's having an affair.

00:44:03.780 And then they go traveling around the world on the money.

00:44:07.020 That's fraud.

00:44:08.300 You know, that's a, that's a big misrepresentation.

00:44:11.340 Um, there's, there's federal statutes that apply to that.

00:44:15.320 There are state statutes that apply to that.

00:44:17.140 And what I, what I can't, uh, avoid saying is delicious about all of it is those statutes

00:44:22.780 for the most part happen to be RICO predicates in federal law.

00:44:26.060 Oh, wow.

00:44:26.520 Um, wow.

00:44:27.300 You know, I think that a competent federal prosecutor would look at it and say, well,

00:44:31.660 we're not going to turn this into like the RICO of all time.

00:44:34.580 We prosecute it as a fraud case, but that goes to everything wrong that she's done in

00:44:38.700 this case.

00:44:39.540 She doesn't, you know, she tried to come up with a conspiracy. 0.87

00:44:44.300 That she could charge all 19 of these people with, because she's got 19 people.

00:44:50.040 They're all disparate little groups of people, right?

00:44:52.240 The only thing they've ever done together is get indicted.

00:44:56.040 I think most of them don't even like know each other.

00:44:59.100 Right.

00:44:59.660 So it's not exactly like, uh, the Gambino crime family, like working together to make sure 0.82

00:45:04.440 that the family business stays intact.

00:45:06.660 That is exactly the point.

00:45:08.700 I mean, what she tried to do, she has this thing where the one thing you could arguably

00:45:13.940 say they all agreed on is that they want to undo the result of the 2020 election.

00:45:20.080 The problem she has is that's not a crime. 1.00

00:45:22.340 Like every state has a procedure where you can challenge the election, right?

00:45:26.160 So, well, and then not only that, but then if that's the standard, Maria Bartiromo should 1.00

00:45:29.600 be indicted.

00:45:30.280 You know, like we could go down the list of Trump supporters who had questions about the

00:45:33.940 election who could get indicted if that's all that was required.

00:45:36.640 All right.

00:45:36.760 Wait, I want to steer back to the, this case though, because we're, we're spending some

00:45:40.720 time today on the alleged lies told in the pleadings for good reason, but the, you know,

00:45:45.040 the underlying problem is the financial benefit that she received.

00:45:48.520 And I do think it matters that it, it appears to have been a 10 to one share at best with

00:45:55.400 him paying for her rides and so on her vacations.

00:45:58.380 Is there, do they wiggle out of this by saying money?

00:46:02.280 You know what?

00:46:02.800 It was, it was my money.

00:46:04.140 Like I, how do you say it's the taxpayer's money?

00:46:07.060 I had money coming into this.

00:46:09.120 It's not necessarily taxpayer money and she paid for some meals here and there.

00:46:13.860 So what's the problem?

00:46:16.500 Yeah.

00:46:16.680 I think what a judge would tell a jury is that what the sharing arrangement is that they

00:46:22.800 refer to, you know, the niceties of how they characterize it are not, don't have to

00:46:30.240 be accepted by a jury, right?

00:46:31.840 You get told, don't check your common sense at the door and you take testimony about exactly

00:46:38.380 what the arrangement was.

00:46:39.760 And if it looks like what happened here substantially is that she took money that she represented to

00:46:46.580 the county was going to be used for one purpose.

00:46:48.760 She paid this guy six, was it 300,000 plus a year?

00:46:52.680 $650,000, yeah.

00:46:54.020 Yeah.

00:46:54.440 She is the boss. 0.97

00:46:55.820 $650,000.

00:46:57.420 Right.

00:46:57.880 But she only makes like 200,000, right? 0.93

00:47:00.820 So she's paying him more than she even makes.

00:47:04.040 And what ends up happening is they, after she brings him on and they're paying him this,

00:47:08.240 what's an astronomical amount of money in that office, they start to go here, there,

00:47:13.520 and everywhere.

00:47:15.060 Cruises, California, Florida, the Caribbean.

00:47:18.060 Oh my God.

00:47:18.960 Napa. 0.79

00:47:19.760 I want to have an affair with Nathan Wade.

00:47:21.740 You get to see the world. 0.84

00:47:26.220 Just kidding.

00:47:26.900 Happy Valentine's Day, Doug.

00:47:30.680 Right.

00:47:31.200 I can't be any part of this, man.

00:47:34.260 Yeah, yeah, right.

00:47:36.300 But, you know, a jury's going to look at this and say, are you kidding me?

00:47:40.460 And they're not going to get hung up on whether this was a nine to one or eight to two sharing

00:47:44.920 arrangement. 0.98

00:47:45.680 They're going to say, this is frigging fraud. 0.99

00:47:47.600 What are you kidding me? 0.99

00:47:48.360 All right.

00:47:48.540 So I have 60 seconds left before the hard break.

00:47:50.800 Quick question.

00:47:51.740 Is he going to disqualify them just based on an appearance of impropriety?

00:47:56.540 Or do you think they're going to have to prove an actual conflict?

00:47:59.320 Or does it not matter because you think they've got it either way?

00:48:03.420 I think he has to disqualify them.

00:48:05.800 I think, you know, that they should do the honorable thing and just recuse themselves.

00:48:09.580 Because tomorrow could get it could get very, very ugly and it could get in terms of increased

00:48:16.500 jeopardy on them, depending on how they testify.

00:48:18.760 You know, when you get two people who think they're smarter than everyone else and they

00:48:22.980 try to knit something together that's going to get through the, you know, the different

00:48:27.400 areas of impeachment that come up, that could be a catastrophe for them.

00:48:31.040 And there's at least some chance that one or both of them plead the fifth in this proceeding,

00:48:36.340 which would be earth shattering.

00:48:38.900 Andy McCarthy, you're the best.

00:48:40.560 You're the best.

00:48:41.220 Thank you so much.

00:48:42.500 Thanks, Megan.

00:48:43.280 Great to be with you.

00:48:44.220 Okay.

00:48:44.560 Up next, Michael Knowles joins us and we'll ask him about the New York Times' piece,

00:48:49.200 Why the Case Against Fannie Willis Feels Familiar to Black Women. 0.82

00:48:52.540 What?

00:48:53.160 It's a race thing?

00:48:58.060 Here with me now, The Daily Wire's Michael Knowles, host of the Michael Knowles Show.

00:49:03.420 Michael, we love having you on the show.

00:49:04.820 We would never limit you to just the one hour, but we had such hot stuff we had to do with

00:49:10.000 the lawyers, so thank you for sticking around.

00:49:13.120 This is crazy what's happening with Fannie Willis here.

00:49:16.360 I mean, it appears if the lawyer for Michael Roman can do what she says she's going to do

00:49:21.920 tomorrow, we're going to hear testimony that it's a lie under oath by this pair that their

00:49:28.100 affair only began in 2022, that in fact, according to his good friend and eventually

00:49:33.800 divorced lawyer, they were having an affair long before she hired Nathan Wade as special

00:49:39.260 counsel in November 2021.

00:49:42.240 And we're going to be going through all these receipts that prove his sworn testimony that

00:49:46.920 they roughly equally shared expenses looks like a 10 to 1 split where he paid for virtually

00:49:54.100 everything as they went twice to the Bahamas and to Aruba and to Napa.

00:49:59.980 I could keep going.

00:50:01.460 Belize.

00:50:02.380 I mean, I don't know when they have time to prosecute cases because back when I was a

00:50:05.580 lawyer, there were no vacations.

00:50:07.460 So let me get your reaction to that before we talk about the New York Times ridiculous 0.62

00:50:11.540 piece I'm going to go through with you.

00:50:13.560 Well, Megan, it's wonderful to be with you here on St. Valentine's Day, and there's no

00:50:17.740 apology needed.

00:50:18.720 I think it makes perfect sense to have had Andy McCarthy on to go through the brutal legal

00:50:24.180 details here because, you know, Valentine's Day, it's a romantic holiday, sure.

00:50:29.240 So we can talk about the torrid love affair between Fannie Willis and her paramour that

00:50:33.780 she hired to prosecute Trump. 0.90

00:50:35.120 But don't forget, St. Valentine was a martyr.

00:50:38.200 OK, St. Valentine's Day commemorates a very, very bloody event.

00:50:42.980 And I think that's what we're focusing on here as well, because I think that this prosecution

00:50:47.380 is about to be decapitated.

00:50:49.040 It looks like they have got Fannie Willis and her lover dead to rights.

00:50:54.520 And I am very, very eager, not just for what happens on this Wednesday of Valentine's Day,

00:50:59.840 but Thursday and Friday, because it appears that the judge is ready to hear all of the

00:51:05.720 brutal evidence.

00:51:07.420 Yeah, he said, look, they kept saying, oh, this is when the affair began.

00:51:11.680 We don't need a hearing.

00:51:12.440 And he was like, if this is a matter of a fact that needs to be tried by me and hear witness

00:51:19.100 testimony, you can't get rid of this just by asserting to me this is how it is.

00:51:22.920 I need to hear the witnesses.

00:51:24.700 And it, you know, it's going to come down to credibility.

00:51:27.200 This guy, I don't know.

00:51:28.280 Maybe Terrence Bradley is a terrible witness.

00:51:30.200 Maybe the other witnesses that she's going to call aren't going to be persuasive on all

00:51:33.320 the expenses.

00:51:34.380 We'll have to wait and see.

00:51:35.440 That really is what a trial is for you with your eyes and your ears.

00:51:37.780 And the judge has a YouTube channel where he's putting everything out.

00:51:40.160 So I think we will be able to see it with our eyes and ears.

00:51:42.920 You know, Megan, the irony of all of this is they're prosecuting Donald Trump as though

00:51:47.780 he were a member of the mob.

00:51:49.180 They're going after him using RICO statutes.

00:51:53.020 And the irony, of course, is that it is the Democrats.

00:51:55.860 It's the liberals who are behaving like the mob.

00:51:58.380 They are wielding the power of the state unjustly to attack their political opponent

00:52:03.000 on totally bogus, trumped up charges.

00:52:05.160 And and as with a lot of mob actions, you're getting all of these nasty little personal

00:52:11.780 relationships here.

00:52:12.780 They really did mob up.

00:52:14.360 I mean, frankly, we should turn the RICO statutes on them because you've got this woman 1.00

00:52:18.280 clearly profiting.

00:52:19.980 Yes.

00:52:20.380 Yeah.

00:52:20.640 I can't wait.

00:52:22.260 Yeah.

00:52:22.560 I mean, that the what bitter irony, right, that she tries to find some innovative use for 1.00

00:52:26.900 the RICO statue and it winds up potentially getting used against her. 0.94

00:52:31.060 Oh, and then Trump walks out.

00:52:33.360 Trump walks potentially free as she potentially.

00:52:36.080 Oh, my God.

00:52:36.900 Can you.

00:52:37.440 All right.

00:52:37.740 So that brings me to The New York Times weighing in on the controversy.

00:52:42.460 Why the case against Fannie Willis feels familiar to black women.

00:52:47.500 Of course, we've got to make it a race issue. 0.88

00:52:49.640 And I actually looked after I read this absurd piece.

00:52:52.000 I'm like, who wrote this?

00:52:53.720 Clyde McGrady is the lead reporter.

00:52:56.620 Clyde's job is to report on how race and identity is shaping American culture.

00:53:02.480 OK, that makes sense because this is not a factual piece.

00:53:06.520 This is an imagined piece by somebody who only sees the world through the racial lens.

00:53:11.560 And I'll give you a couple examples.

00:53:12.640 So he starts off.

00:53:14.400 He's got a co-writer, too, named Katie Gluck.

00:53:17.280 OK.

00:53:19.180 That's it.

00:53:19.580 OK, he repeats that Mr. Wade is defending the accusations by saying he and Ms. Willis

00:53:26.660 have divided roughly evenly the expenses between themselves.

00:53:33.060 Now, apparently, Clyde did not take the time to actually go and look at the exhibits that

00:53:37.800 were attached to Nathan Wade's affidavit in which he asserted that because I'll educate

00:53:43.120 you, Clyde.

00:53:44.100 There's only one.

00:53:45.080 There's one little document that has one pair of airline tickets allegedly paid for by Fannie

00:53:51.980 Willis out of the five trips in which there were 10 airline tickets and cruises and hotels

00:53:58.220 and other expenses, which the defense alleges only he paid for.

00:54:03.320 And so now you get Nathan Wade weighing in under penalty of perjury to, OK, let's big swing.

00:54:08.200 Show us all the stuff she paid for one of his airline tickets, just the one.

00:54:14.300 But does The New York Times point that out when they report that, well, he says they

00:54:18.100 were divided roughly evenly?

00:54:19.620 No, it does not.

00:54:20.680 They want to get back to the race thing.

00:54:22.580 That's what's most important, Michael.

00:54:24.380 So he went and interviewed.

00:54:26.520 Oh, yeah.

00:54:27.480 He interviewed, listen, a dozen black women at various stages of their careers, and they

00:54:33.240 are painfully conflicted, I tell you, about Ms. Willis's situation and her treatment in

00:54:38.480 the public eye.

00:54:39.240 To many, quoting here, there is something galling about watching Mr. Trump and his allies attack

00:54:45.160 Ms. Willis over a consensual romantic relationship when he has faced accusations of sexual misconduct

00:54:51.440 and assault.

00:54:52.740 And then they talk about the E. Jean Carroll case as if that's what she's being as if Fannie 0.88

00:54:58.360 Willis just found a boyfriend who has nothing to do with this case.

00:55:02.300 And that's why she's being raked through the mud.

00:55:04.540 Michael, the heart wants what the heart wants.

00:55:07.100 I kept an open mind on Fannie Willis when this accusation first came up.

00:55:11.820 I assumed all these people are very corrupt, but I kept an open mind.

00:55:15.780 The moment that I knew for certain that they had her dead to rights was when she went to 0.97

00:55:20.220 the black church and she played the race card because these corrupt politicians only play 1.00

00:55:26.840 the race card when they have no other card to play. 0.92

00:55:29.660 The fact now that they are trying to mount this pitiful defense that one time this woman 0.99

00:55:36.760 paid for a roundtrip airplane ticket, the roundtrip airplane ticket was from Atlanta to Miami.

00:55:42.900 That flight is about three minutes long.

00:55:45.020 Even with these inflated airline prices, it's very inexpensive compared to all of the other

00:55:50.040 trips they were taking.

00:55:51.260 By this point in this process, we would have heard the best evidence for the defense of

00:55:58.620 this relationship.

00:55:59.980 And we have heard the best evidence. 0.93

00:56:01.800 And the best evidence is one time she bought him a short flight and also she's black. 0.84

00:56:08.120 That's the best evidence.

00:56:09.300 And I don't think it's going to hold up well in court.

00:56:11.800 And a woman. 0.52

00:56:12.360 Don't forget that.

00:56:13.320 And a woman. 0.52

00:56:13.920 That's, I think, important to Nathan Wade.

00:56:16.960 Here's the Times goes on.

00:56:18.700 Some lamented Ms. Willis' conduct as a mistake, but not one that should remove her from the

00:56:25.400 case against Mr. Trump.

00:56:27.360 Others, thinking about their own experiences in the workplace, suggested another concern.

00:56:31.240 They feel that black women are held to a different standard and that Ms. Willis should have known 1.00

00:56:37.120 that her identity, along with the enormous political stakes of the case, would create a

00:56:41.220 white hot spotlight on her personal conduct.

00:56:43.860 You see, she is being persecuted because black women are held to a different standard where

00:56:50.580 they get torn apart, they get attacked in personal terms and so on.

00:56:54.660 That sounds a lot to me like what's happening to Jack Smith.

00:56:59.620 What's happening to Alvin Bragg?

00:57:01.700 Oh, wait, he's black, right? 0.80

00:57:02.860 Like as if Trump wouldn't have gone after this woman tooth and nail. 0.97

00:57:06.760 And P.S.

00:57:07.200 It's not even Trump pushing this motion against Fannie.

00:57:09.180 It's Michael Roman, the other defendant, if she had been white or a man.

00:57:14.440 Public servants and even corrupt politicians like Fannie Willis are held to a higher standard.

00:57:20.580 That's true.

00:57:21.080 They do face more scrutiny.

00:57:22.720 Their personal lives are put under the microscope.

00:57:24.560 That's true.

00:57:25.000 Whether they're black, whether they're white, whether they're men, whether they're women, 0.78

00:57:27.640 that's all absolutely true.

00:57:29.020 That's what's going on here.

00:57:30.080 It is so deeply funny to me that in this case, the nearest thing to an argument they seem to be

00:57:37.880 making other than the identity politics is that Nathan Wade is a bad boyfriend.

00:57:43.100 It's actually the same argument, one of the same arguments that Bill Clinton made when his

00:57:47.780 personal love life was brought under the microscope in the 1990s.

00:57:51.760 One of the ways that Bill Clinton was able to argue that he didn't perjure himself is that

00:57:56.280 the definition of sexual relations entailed giving pleasure to the other person.

00:58:01.700 And so he could have argued that he was just a bad lover.

00:58:05.640 And here, Fannie Willis appears to be arguing that Nathan Wade was just a bad boyfriend.

00:58:09.700 And if that's the best they've got, I almost feel pity for them, except that the stakes are

00:58:15.360 so high.

00:58:16.040 You know, we're making light of this little love affair.

00:58:18.700 But first of all, it does involve taxpayer money. 0.57

00:58:21.540 Second of all, it's deeply corrupt.

00:58:22.940 And third of all, let's not lose the forest for the trees here.

00:58:26.580 We're talking about an unprecedented political prosecution of the leader of the opposition

00:58:32.980 to say nothing of a former president of the United States.

00:58:36.600 This very case is presenting a major upending of the American constitutional order. 0.97

00:58:44.140 The fact that it's being done by these clowns with all of this manifest corruption is just 0.97

00:58:49.880 the cherry on top of of this awful Sunday. 0.98

00:58:53.940 And so, yeah, she should obviously be thrown off the case.

00:58:57.340 The case should just be thrown out, though.

00:58:58.880 The whole thing stinks from beginning to end.

00:59:02.400 Well, we'll find out whether it looks like they committed perjury.

00:59:06.640 She still hasn't been sworn in to give these allegations under oath, but she signed the brief.

00:59:11.280 She's an officer of the court.

00:59:12.160 He swore that the affair did not begin until 2022, and his own friend and lawyer, we are

00:59:17.960 told we have to wait to see, is going to take a stand tomorrow and I think testify something

00:59:21.740 very different.

00:59:23.580 Back on this piece, you'll love this.

00:59:25.380 All right.

00:59:26.000 So Leah Daughtry, a veteran Democratic strategist, who I guess they thought was an appropriate

00:59:32.540 person to talk to about this, says to the Times, Trump has faced many accusations of misconduct,

00:59:41.440 including from E. 0.95

00:59:42.880 Jean Carroll.

00:59:44.280 Quote, no one made that a disqualifier.

00:59:47.480 But for Fannie Willis, the fact that she's in a consensual relationship with another adult

00:59:51.160 person somehow makes her disqualified or unqualified to continue the work she's been doing.

00:59:56.880 In that sense, there's a double standard.

00:59:59.300 Okay, so talk about not like this is the New York Times, like this is something you might 1.00

01:00:06.140 see on a stupid blog post from a moron who doesn't know how to, you know, frame issues. 0.99

01:00:10.280 This is the New York Times trying to say, because Trump has been sued by E. 1.00

01:00:14.900 Jean Carroll with a civil lawsuit, that he should be disqualified ethically or legally from running

01:00:22.340 because what's happening to Fannie Willis is she's a prosecutor and an officer of the court 0.95

01:00:27.060 who have higher ethical obligations to the general population, and in particular to the

01:00:31.260 defendants they pursue, than just some random citizen.

01:00:34.480 It's not about an affair.

01:00:36.460 She could have an affair with anybody.

01:00:38.060 Just don't make him the special prosecutor in your case.

01:00:40.920 Pay him on the taxpayer dime and create for yourself a financial incentive to keep this case

01:00:47.220 going longer than potentially it should, because you really want to get back to Belize. 0.99

01:00:52.820 You just compared, Megan, this New York Times piece with a stupid blog, and I think that 1.00

01:00:58.980 is very unfair to stupid blogs. 1.00

01:01:01.680 Stupid blogs are held to a much higher journalistic standard. 1.00

01:01:04.460 Obviously, the New York Times is not sending its best, but we've known that for many years 1.00

01:01:08.640 now.

01:01:08.860 This paper has been in decline for a long time, and their resident historian is a woman who

01:01:13.100 just completely reinvented American history, even by the admission of academic historians who

01:01:18.700 are on the left.

01:01:19.280 I'm speaking, of course, of Nicole Hannah-Jones.

01:01:22.220 So yes, the logic here doesn't hold up.

01:01:24.440 I don't even really know how to engage with the argument that this woman is making, because 1.00

01:01:28.680 there is no inner logic to it.

01:01:31.440 It's just, much like this whole prosecution, frankly, it's just a political cudgel to beat

01:01:38.220 down someone that they fear as a political opponent to the president of the United States.

01:01:42.260 It really is their only trick. 0.98

01:01:43.080 If you rip on Kamala Harris, oh, you're a racist. 0.99

01:01:46.100 Michelle Obama, same thing, racist. 0.98

01:01:47.980 Even some of the Joe Biden criticism, you're an ageist, you're an ableist.

01:01:51.380 This is their, this is what they do.

01:01:52.980 Like, you're an ist, whatever it is, because they've run out of actual principled arguments. 0.99

01:01:57.860 All right, I'm not done with this piece, because I, there's two other things I've got to talk

01:02:01.200 to you about it.

01:02:02.180 Okay, number one.

01:02:04.120 You know who they wanted to go to about whether Fannie Willis may have reached an ethical principle?

01:02:09.260 Donna Brazile.

01:02:12.640 Donna Brazile.

01:02:15.240 Can't make it up?

01:02:17.000 No, you cannot.

01:02:18.100 Okay, quote.

01:02:19.520 This is from Donna.

01:02:20.600 I can't sit in judgment of her as a human being, but I can say in terms of her role as a public 0.99

01:02:25.440 prosecutor, yeah, she showed bad judgment, said Donna Brazile, adding that she had always

01:02:33.260 kept a clear separation between her own personal and professional life with a bright red line.

01:02:41.800 Oh, my God.

01:02:44.540 In fairness, Donna Brazile cannot sit in judgment of this woman. 0.99

01:02:48.660 That's true.

01:02:49.260 I guess that's the one truthful statement in this entire article.

01:02:52.040 I just love, I love the logic.

01:02:54.160 They say, okay, we're going to write a race baiting piece here.

01:02:56.240 So we've got to interview a black woman. 0.99

01:02:57.760 And the subject of the piece is a corrupt politician. 0.99

01:02:59.840 So let's turn to another corrupt politician.

01:03:02.040 And the subject here is someone who's committed fraud and deception. 0.96

01:03:04.580 So let's turn to another infamously fraudulent and deceptive politician.

01:03:08.040 Okay, I guess I'm starting to understand their reasoning.

01:03:12.080 They didn't exactly close the loop on it.

01:03:14.140 It's unbelievable that they would ask her about whether there's been an ethical breach.

01:03:18.620 And she's trying to say her own personal and professional interests never intertwined.

01:03:21.840 Just as a refresher, she gave CNN's debate questions to Hillary Clinton when she was a CNN contributor. 0.96

01:03:30.340 She got access to them because she was at CNN.

01:03:32.640 And she gave them to John Podesta via email for Hillary to have the cheat sheet before the debate. 0.98

01:03:38.660 Then she lied about it publicly, including to my face, and tried to accuse me, again, of being, I don't remember the word she used for me, something insulting of majority of, which I persecuted her.

01:03:50.820 That's what she said.

01:03:51.320 I was persecuting her.

01:03:53.260 Right?

01:03:53.900 Anyway, it's fantastic that they went to her. 0.93

01:03:55.940 And here's my last point about this ridiculous piece. 0.53

01:03:59.500 Yet another fact check for the New York Times. 0.92

01:04:01.860 This is so good.

01:04:02.640 Okay, so the piece is dated.

01:04:04.080 What dated is this?

01:04:04.700 Is this today, you guys?

01:04:06.240 Yeah, February 14th.

01:04:07.100 They went to Sonny Hostin of The View.

01:04:12.000 The co-host, Sonny Hostin, who is Black and Latina.

01:04:17.800 Oh, Clyde, I have another fact check for you.

01:04:21.640 Check, check.

01:04:23.820 Sonny's episode just the other day at her appearance on Henry Louis Gates' show.

01:04:28.740 Her mother was not Latina.

01:04:30.960 Her mother was white.

01:04:33.540 She was not Puerto Rican.

01:04:34.480 Not just white, a descendant of slave owners. 0.96

01:04:38.040 Yes, exactly.

01:04:39.300 She's a descendant from slave owners. 1.00

01:04:41.460 She admitted she's European.

01:04:43.740 She's not Puerto Rican.

01:04:45.980 So in any event, that's what they say.

01:04:47.960 She set her up.

01:04:48.600 Clyde, you got to do your homework.

01:04:49.620 You got to watch The View.

01:04:50.440 This is like your half of the aisle.

01:04:52.360 My initial reaction, she says, oh, wait, is this her still?

01:04:57.560 No, this is, they've moved on from Sonny.

01:05:00.440 This is, yeah, yeah.

01:05:01.140 Okay, let's see.

01:05:03.140 My initial reaction was, no, now they've moved on to another person, Faith Udobang, 25, president

01:05:09.600 at the University of Chicago, black law students, saying my initial reaction was that it seemed

01:05:14.540 to be kind of a half-hearted attempt to get the entire case thrown out, which I thought

01:05:19.000 was just an incredible stretch.

01:05:21.400 But now Faith is worried that the misconduct accusations against Ms. Willis could delay

01:05:26.380 the outcome until after the election.

01:05:28.960 And let me tell you something.

01:05:29.780 That is the only smart piece that is in this New York Times article.

01:05:34.380 Faith is right.

01:05:35.680 This thing, at a minimum, could delay the outcome of this case.

01:05:38.980 That's the best case scenario right now for the people who want to hang Trump, that it

01:05:45.480 gets delayed and not completely killed or, you know, the whole thing thrown out because

01:05:50.240 of Fannie's behavior.

01:05:51.260 And we haven't talked about that piece of it, Michael.

01:05:53.640 Delay in all four of these cases is working incredibly well for Trump.

01:06:00.160 I had Andy McCarthy, of all people on, he's been doing such a good job of covering the Supreme

01:06:03.180 Court arguments and all that.

01:06:04.400 Trump's getting another delay, potentially, on the immunity case.

01:06:06.780 He's managed to keep all these balls in the air, and the only thing he needs to do is

01:06:12.240 keep them in the air close enough to the election that these judges don't feel comfortable actually

01:06:16.860 starting a trial in October of 2024 because they realized, you know, DOJ policy would be

01:06:22.800 don't interfere with elections.

01:06:24.060 That's why we didn't have prosecution of Hillary Clinton, right?

01:06:26.440 And he's doing a brilliant job of it.

01:06:28.880 It's a good strategy for Trump, obviously, to push for these sorts of delays.

01:06:32.240 But the delays are absolutely warranted for two reasons.

01:06:36.760 One, because in a lot of the cases, you've got amateur hour over here like Fannie Willis,

01:06:41.320 who can't even control her personal behavior. 0.97

01:06:43.660 She can't even rein in her own personal corruption enough to try to save face in this case.

01:06:48.240 I mean, you just think of the irresponsibility, the recklessness to engage in this sort of thing.

01:06:53.040 This is the case of your career.

01:06:54.780 This is an historic, unprecedented case in the United States, and you decide you're going

01:07:00.080 to double dip and go on some fancy trips when you hire your totally unqualified boyfriend

01:07:04.420 to be the prosecutor here and then fly all over God's green earth.

01:07:08.660 I mean, just completely insane.

01:07:10.300 But on the flip side, even with the more serious prosecutors in some of these cases,

01:07:15.160 you have events conspiring against these prosecutions.

01:07:19.040 So, you know, they think they've got Trump dead to rights on mishandling classified documents.

01:07:24.400 And then whoopsie daisy, they open up Joe Biden's garage and they find many more classified

01:07:29.280 documents and in more places, at least from a time when Joe Biden did not have ultimate

01:07:33.880 declassification authority when there was a crackhead in Joe Biden's home.

01:07:37.320 So it seems as though every time they think they've got Trump on something, the world conspires,

01:07:44.400 the news headlines show up to undercut their case.

01:07:48.460 And so at the very least, it would be my preference that we not live in a banana republic

01:07:53.360 tin pot dictatorship where we throw the opposition party in prison.

01:07:56.600 That would be my ideal.

01:07:57.700 Call me old fashioned.

01:07:58.680 But even if you do want to prosecute Trump on one or any of these cases, at the very least,

01:08:04.240 one should push this until after the election, because even if you're a liberal here and

01:08:10.360 you hate Trump and you want him to wear an orange jumpsuit, it just looks so transparent.

01:08:14.720 They've come to a conclusion.

01:08:15.780 They've come to a verdict, which is Trump is guilty and must be banished to St. Helena.

01:08:19.900 And they're trying to backfill the justification for that with now four different cases.

01:08:25.060 And it's so scattershot. 0.82

01:08:26.860 It's so haphazard that they're filling it with a lot of clowns and they're ignoring evidence 0.95

01:08:32.280 of the same crimes that against the Democrats.

01:08:34.920 At the very least, even for their own sake, they should try to push this thing off unless

01:08:39.280 they really believe they don't have a case whatsoever, in which case the whole point of the prosecutions

01:08:43.460 is just to convince people not to elect Trump.

01:08:46.700 Yeah, it is electoral interference, as Trump has been saying.

01:08:49.660 OK, you mentioned it's Valentine's Day and we've got a couple of Valentine's Day presidential

01:08:55.160 messages coming out.

01:08:57.120 Here's Trump.

01:08:58.120 Trump comes out and says a Valentine's Day letter from Donald J.

01:09:02.640 Trump.

01:09:03.000 It's a fundraiser.

01:09:05.400 It's a fundraiser.

01:09:07.600 This is a Valentine's Day letter to my wife.

01:09:10.640 He reads, he writes, I love you, dear Melania.

01:09:13.620 I love you.

01:09:14.800 Even after every single indictment, arrest and witch hunt, you've never left my side.

01:09:20.000 You've always supported me through everything.

01:09:22.220 I wouldn't be the man I am today without your guidance, kindness and warmth.

01:09:24.960 You will always mean the world to me, Melania.

01:09:26.760 From your husband with love, Donald J.

01:09:29.340 Trump.

01:09:29.660 And then a fundraising request.

01:09:33.020 Send her your love by clicking.

01:09:37.220 I'm getting all warm and fuzzy on the inside, Knowles.

01:09:40.460 And then but listen, not to be outdone.

01:09:42.620 Former President Bill Clinton decides to weigh in on his weird marriage.

01:09:48.960 OK, so Hillary Hillary Clinton, she tweeted out something appropriate. 0.82

01:09:53.240 Happy Valentine's Day to my forever Valentine.

01:09:56.020 Fine.

01:09:56.740 So I got a little hard at the end of it.

01:09:58.000 Then he tweets out, where did the time go?

01:10:01.940 There have sure been a lot of happy Valentine's Days.

01:10:05.540 Here's to one more.

01:10:09.000 Wait, what?

01:10:11.440 What's he got planned afterward?

01:10:13.320 Frankly, of all of the Valentine's tweets that Bill Clinton could have sent, that's probably one of the better ones.

01:10:18.380 You know, hey there, honey.

01:10:19.780 I sure am looking forward to dinner later.

01:10:22.600 I have a bad.

01:10:23.600 Oh, whoops.

01:10:24.320 Wrong.

01:10:24.840 Didn't mean to send that to you.

01:10:26.640 Wrong person.

01:10:28.420 Please ignore it.

01:10:29.360 That's very sad.

01:10:30.080 I really like Trump's, actually.

01:10:31.420 I think Trump's is better than both Bill and Hillary's.

01:10:34.120 I think it's right up there with Shakespeare's sonnet, 118.

01:10:37.040 It's getting my heart to go pitter-patter.

01:10:39.580 And maybe that's the same one that I'll send to my wife, sweet little Elisa, tonight.

01:10:43.180 You know, dear honey, you know, even with all of the haters and the losers coming after me, you know, you've stood by me.

01:10:50.000 Please give me some money.

01:10:51.220 I love you.

01:10:52.640 For the modern age, there's something really charming about that.

01:10:55.800 Do you guys celebrate Valentine's Day?

01:10:58.580 We do.

01:10:59.300 Although this year, Megan, you know, I'm a mackerel-snapping papist.

01:11:02.560 And this year, Valentine's Day coincides with Ash Wednesday.

01:11:06.400 I haven't received my ashes yet.

01:11:07.580 We're not supposed to.

01:11:08.680 This totally let me off the hook because you can't go to dinner if you're not allowed to eat.

01:11:15.380 So I blow it on—

01:11:17.400 Every year, every year I blow it on Valentine's Day.

01:11:19.760 And so this year, even chocolates I don't have to get, as long as I manage to show up at home with a bouquet of flowers, I will have made it through at least one more year as an unfortunate, hapless husband who can't buy his wife a nice gift.

01:11:34.800 All right.

01:11:35.360 Now, you probably know, I'm a Catholic, and I do go to church every Sunday, but I don't really understand half of it.

01:11:41.000 I really don't.

01:11:41.560 I don't understand the catechism.

01:11:42.960 I don't understand the stations of the cross.

01:11:44.680 I really need to do better.

01:11:46.160 Some of it's in Latin.

01:11:47.200 It's tricky.

01:11:47.680 I didn't know we were supposed to be—

01:11:48.200 I didn't know we were supposed to be fasting on Ash Wednesday.

01:11:52.960 The whole day?

01:11:55.020 Megan, we were just talking about the law, and ignorance of the law is no excuse when it comes to civil matters.

01:12:00.380 But when it comes to mortal sin, it actually is kind of an excuse.

01:12:04.540 That's true.

01:12:05.060 If you had a breakfast, you might get a little bit off the hook.

01:12:07.820 Can you not eat at all, like the whole day, or like you can break fast at dinner?

01:12:12.420 So a fast typically would be you don't eat, right?

01:12:16.060 But sometimes we Catholics are attacked for being a little bit indulgent on occasion.

01:12:21.600 And so the official rules from the bishops are you have to fast and you can't eat except for one small meal and then two little snacks that can't equal the size of that meal.

01:12:31.940 So you actually get to—if you get a little peckish, it's not the end of the world.

01:12:35.200 But still no meat.

01:12:35.980 This is like the Harvard fast that they were just doing.

01:12:40.300 Did you see the students at Harvard?

01:12:42.020 They decided to go on a hunger strike to support Palestine.

01:12:46.220 It was 12 hours long.

01:12:49.340 That's called sleeping.

01:12:50.160 That's called—12 hours is called I Forgot My Lunch on Tuesday.

01:12:55.000 You know, I'm sure the Gazans were very appreciative of the show of support because that would mean that these 30 Harvard students, they would have had breakfast, then they would have gone out with their signs or whatever they had.

01:13:06.740 And they would have been willing and eager to show their support for the Palestine liberation cause.

01:13:12.000 But then around 5 p.m., those decadent little fatties would get a little peckish, and then they'd treat themselves to a sumptuous feast. 1.00

01:13:19.060 Sorry, Palestinians, you're on your own from here. 1.00

01:13:21.760 Right.

01:13:22.340 Sorry.

01:13:22.700 But we really—I love you, mean it.

01:13:24.020 Bye.

01:13:24.760 I'll tell you, Doug and I, it depends on the year.

01:13:27.340 Like, we don't really make Valentine's Day a thing.

01:13:29.900 Abby, I confess, Abby, you know, my assistant, she's great. 0.93

01:13:32.400 She's very on top of my life in a great way, which I need.

01:13:34.920 And she's like, I know you guys don't really celebrate Valentine's Day, but I bought a bunch of cards from you to Doug if you want to fill one out on your desk.

01:13:42.120 I think that that might undermine the, you know—

01:13:45.680 That's romantic.

01:13:46.260 But honestly, I'm not going to—I'm probably not going to give him one, and he's probably not going to give me one, which is—it depends.

01:13:51.240 Like, one year we did it up big, we got balloons and the whole thing.

01:13:54.820 Usually we do nothing.

01:13:56.420 We're just kind of, you know, we're in love every day, Michael Knowles.

01:13:59.140 We really do treat each other very well, no matter what the day.

01:14:01.900 Every day is Valentine's Day.

01:14:03.280 You actually bring up an important point here, Meg, and I got into a little lover's spat with my beloved wife last night, which is, I said, I can't wait for my Valentine's Day present.

01:14:13.280 And she said, Meg, what are you talking about, Valentine's Day present?

01:14:15.920 This is a woman's holiday. 1.00

01:14:17.000 How dare you suggest that I should—and I did—I actually got—I did get her a present.

01:14:21.560 I did better this year than I usually—

01:14:22.280 Is she from Alabama? 0.93

01:14:23.760 She—I know, you know, maybe my impression's slightly off.

01:14:26.680 I think it gives the right—the right flavor, though.

01:14:29.380 And she was very upset about this, and she said, listen, we're not living in some feminist utopia here, okay?

01:14:35.740 Men and women are different.

01:14:37.960 Valentine's Day is for me.

01:14:39.740 You've got to get me flowers.

01:14:41.120 You've got to get me chocolates.

01:14:42.260 You've got to get me a gift.

01:14:43.560 I'm not going to pretend to be the man here.

01:14:45.120 And frankly, I kind of respect it.

01:14:46.960 Oh, my God, I feel like Michael—like our friend Matt Walsh is having a meltdown over that right now.

01:14:53.600 He's probably going to do a whole show on that. 1.00

01:14:56.640 Michael's wife is an asshole. 1.00

01:14:58.800 It has to be even. 1.00

01:15:00.280 You're not allowed—okay, if you want to do that, then you have to be a feminist woman. 1.00

01:15:03.960 Yeah, look, what can I say?

01:15:05.120 If I'm going to be old school and a patriarchist on all of these matters, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

01:15:12.860 My wife does not need to get me a present. 1.00

01:15:14.860 That's true.

01:15:15.380 Yeah, I don't know.

01:15:16.700 Like, I confess I do have a present for my husband, but it's not Valentine's-related.

01:15:21.940 It's just because I love him, and I haven't shown it to him yet.

01:15:25.560 So I will explain to all of you what I did for Doug, and I'll show you a picture of it later.

01:15:30.360 But for right now, Doug, stay out of the basement.

01:15:32.140 Continue to stay out of the basement, and we'll find out later.

01:15:35.300 So, okay, enough about those weird marriages, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.

01:15:38.920 One more.

01:15:39.960 Here's one more.

01:15:41.420 It's my favorite.

01:15:42.000 And let's move on to what happened in New York 3, because there's a bit of political news this morning.

01:15:47.360 It's very interesting, and I've heard all sorts of different takes.

01:15:49.920 So this is the George Santos seat.

01:15:52.020 New Yorkers won it.

01:15:53.500 It had been long held by a Dem, and they won it. 0.99

01:15:56.060 But unfortunately, they won it with a complete loser who's a pathological liar named George Santos. 0.95

01:15:59.960 And nobody really did a deep dive on this guy until after he won it. 0.97

01:16:03.860 And Republicans decided to boot this guy.

01:16:06.520 They voted to oust him.

01:16:08.060 Meanwhile, the Democrats did not vote to oust Menendez from the Senate, right?

01:16:13.240 They don't do this kind of thing to theirs.

01:16:15.380 Or Elizabeth Warren for lying about her ethnicity. 0.98

01:16:16.900 Oh, she flies a lot. 1.00

01:16:18.140 Yeah.

01:16:18.680 You know, this is what I did.

01:16:19.980 It drove me so crazy. 0.99

01:16:21.300 Because to your point, Megan, yeah, George Santos is a total weirdo and probably a criminal. 0.92

01:16:26.280 And so, yeah, there's no love lost or anything. 0.98

01:16:29.100 But they went after him because he allegedly engaged in weird sex stuff and lying about his ethnicity and financial deception.

01:16:38.760 Okay.

01:16:39.060 And his mom being a victim of, like, 9-11 and somebody else in the Holocaust. 0.59

01:16:43.200 And, like, he picked all the fates.

01:16:45.060 There's all this stuff.

01:16:46.080 But I just think, okay, so if weird sex stuff is a disqualifier, well, there goes half of Congress.

01:16:50.920 If lying about your ethnicity is a disqualifier, then, you know, Chief Laya Watha over there with her powwow chow and her high cheekbones at Harvard, she's got to be booted out of the Senate. 1.00

01:16:59.960 And then financial deception and chicanery. 1.00

01:17:02.960 Okay, well, there goes the rest of Washington, D.C.

01:17:05.100 Are you kidding me, Republicans?

01:17:06.640 So you stand up on some dubious principle that is really nothing more than a concession to the Democrats.

01:17:13.940 You've already got a razor-thin majority.

01:17:15.560 Now you've got an even thinner razor-thin majority, such that when Steve Scalise needs to go get medical treatment, you don't have enough Republicans to vote to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas.

01:17:25.660 That should have been a slam dunk.

01:17:27.200 And all for what?

01:17:28.500 So that a Democrat who previously held that seat in Long Island will obviously retake the seat?

01:17:35.100 So what?

01:17:35.620 You're going to get a pat on the head from the Democrats in the New York Times?

01:17:38.540 You're not even going to get that.

01:17:39.920 You get absolutely nothing.

01:17:41.840 And Republicans like this, who needs Democrats?

01:17:43.960 It's really a good point.

01:17:46.420 I have to say, I have absolutely no sympathy for George Santos. 0.99

01:17:50.260 I mean, I do think the guy's a pathological liar. 0.92

01:17:52.860 But you have to think strategy. 0.99

01:17:54.720 The Democrats aren't doing it.

01:17:56.120 I mean, you could go if you could do the list that Joe Biden, the lies he's told.

01:17:59.580 They would never oust one of their own under these circumstances.

01:18:02.860 So it's, you know, the Republicans have lost a seat in what was already a very slim, narrow majority.

01:18:10.020 It was a seat they could not afford to lose.

01:18:12.140 It was predictable.

01:18:12.800 There was a special election and there was a Republican running against the Democrat who

01:18:17.440 used, as you point out, used to hold the seat anyway.

01:18:19.820 And now it's clear he won.

01:18:21.240 He beat the Republican.

01:18:22.500 He beat her by a lot.

01:18:23.780 And I do think that this is interesting.

01:18:25.480 So Simon Rosenberg used to come on my show a lot at Fox and he's a smart Dem, very smart Dem.

01:18:29.660 And he's been he feels really good about Joe Biden in 2024.

01:18:36.300 And the reason he feels good is because he's been watching trends for the Dems kind of since Dobbs.

01:18:43.560 And they've really been going the Democrat way.

01:18:47.120 Abortion is just a huge motivator. 1.00

01:18:48.900 Used to be a huge motivator for the right.

01:18:51.080 You know, that would make people get off their couch and go vote to protect the right to life, try to get things changed.

01:18:55.480 And now that Dobbs has been over Dobbs was handed down and overturning Roe, it's a huge motivator for the left.

01:19:01.640 So this is what he tweeted.

01:19:04.380 There's been a basic fundamental dynamic, in my view, in our politics since the spring of 2022 when Dobbs happened, which is that Democrats keep overperforming expectations and Republicans keep struggling.

01:19:16.660 It's showing up in every kind of race.

01:19:20.020 I don't think there's anything untrue about that.

01:19:22.820 And I do wonder.

01:19:24.940 What, if anything, does it tell us about November?

01:19:27.800 Because, you know, Trump was not on this ticket.

01:19:30.960 Biden was not on this ticket.

01:19:32.200 This is a local congressional race in New York's Long Island.

01:19:36.780 They have very different feelings about the top of the ticket versus, you know what I mean?

01:19:40.580 Like there wasn't a huge turnout.

01:19:42.140 Well, this election is going to be redone in November because this is like a special one to fill the seat after the loser was kicked out.

01:19:48.760 So all these weirdnesses about it.

01:19:50.680 But I wonder, do you think this bodes badly for the Republicans in November or do you see this as just an anomaly?

01:19:57.860 Nah, it's an anomaly.

01:19:58.860 With respect to your Democrat friend, it might well be the case that Joe Biden wins in 2024.

01:20:05.120 But none of these little races that have taken place since the 2020 election are really going to predict it.

01:20:10.000 But least of all, the New York three race with George Santos having been disgraced, you know, he was only replaced by the guy who for, what, three terms, four terms had already held that seat?

01:20:24.540 I mean, it's just not predictive of anything.

01:20:27.880 I agree with you.

01:20:28.480 There's a penalty built in, you're saying.

01:20:30.040 There's a penalty.

01:20:30.780 Like Republicans are going to be forced to pay a bit.

01:20:33.160 The Democrats took a chance on a Republican.

01:20:34.620 It turned out to be this guy.

01:20:36.180 Yeah.

01:20:36.340 So that's totally anomalous.

01:20:39.120 But even when we're talking about some of the other races around the country, I agree with you.

01:20:42.880 Abortion does motivate some voters in certain places.

01:20:45.680 Republicans behaving like eccentric weirdos versus Democrats who put on a nice facade of normality.

01:20:51.260 I think that can affect races, no doubt.

01:20:53.540 But the thing that one has to remember is that the top of the ticket drives the election.

01:20:59.620 Donald Trump has not been on a ballot since 2020 when all of the rules were changed because of the excuses of the COVID lockdown and the elections were conducted in a very different way.

01:21:10.820 But Trump is Trump.

01:21:11.640 And some people totally despise the guy.

01:21:13.720 And a lot of people really like the guy.

01:21:15.820 And he's going to decide that election.

01:21:17.720 And 86 percent of Americans now don't think that Joe Biden is fit to be president.

01:21:21.460 I'm not saying that it totally destroys his chances of being reelected.

01:21:26.120 But it's going to come down to those two guys.

01:21:29.000 And Joe Biden is odd because he's a walking cadaver.

01:21:33.260 And Donald Trump is odd because he's Donald Trump.

01:21:35.480 And he's an American original.

01:21:36.760 And he remade the Republican Party after his own image.

01:21:39.380 And there's just really no one that you can compare to him.

01:21:41.720 So, look, if it makes Democrats more complacent to think they've got 2024 in the bag because George Santos blew it in New York's third, that's fine by me.

01:21:50.840 Please keep telling yourself that.

01:21:52.320 But I don't think it's true at all.

01:21:54.940 Okay.

01:21:55.920 On the subject of politics and Biden v. Trump, the spin masters are still out there with their plates on that special counsel, her, H-U-R, report.

01:22:05.140 Such a weird thing.

01:22:05.940 Like, her said, it just sounds like bad grammar, but it's a proper name.

01:22:12.060 We're very confused about pronouns these days.

01:22:14.400 So, that doesn't help.

01:22:16.540 Her is getting attacked nonstop.

01:22:18.580 Her is being dismissed as a partisan hack.

01:22:21.000 I don't like it.

01:22:21.660 It rubs me the wrong way.

01:22:23.380 So, it continues today.

01:22:25.200 And I actually think it's very interesting.

01:22:26.640 I'm going to play you a butted soundbite we put together.

01:22:28.640 And keep in mind, as you listen to this, I listen to the New York Times, the daily podcast,

01:22:32.560 because I just feel like it's my obligation to keep a tab on what the left is saying, too.

01:22:37.480 And even the New York Times, the daily, with Michael Barbaro and Peter Baker, their White House correspondent today,

01:22:44.740 they were saying, this guy, Robert Herr, is not a partisan hack.

01:22:50.200 Yes, he's a registered Republican, but he was chosen because he was believed to be very fair

01:22:55.460 and someone who could not be dismissed in this way.

01:22:57.640 And indeed, no one had launched preemptive attacks against him.

01:23:01.780 Like, well, we know that fixes in because they went and they got Steve Bannon to investigate Joe Biden.

01:23:06.940 You know, of course, like nothing.

01:23:08.160 There wasn't any of that.

01:23:09.220 So, clearly, the left was expecting this guy to be a truth teller and only changed their minds

01:23:14.380 because he added the stuff about elderly man with a poor memory and has frailties.

01:23:19.160 But, you know, any of that, again, this is admitted by the Times.

01:23:23.040 Wouldn't know any of that from what you'd see on cable TV right now.

01:23:26.940 Watch.

01:23:28.100 The comments that were made by that prosecutor, gratuitous, inaccurate, and inappropriate.

01:23:35.380 Hackery by Mr. Herr.

01:23:37.140 The guy knew?

01:23:39.060 He's a Trumper who knew. 0.94

01:23:40.940 You are not to put a finger on the scale of politics.

01:23:45.080 That report showed that Merrick Garland again made the classic Democratic mistake,

01:23:51.000 which is, I know, I'll appoint a Republican, a Republican partisan to investigate, and that will give us credibility.

01:23:58.660 This one who was appointed by Donald Trump wanted to make sure that he got his licks in.

01:24:04.120 By the way, Michael, just to put a point on it, the RNC tweeted this out yesterday.

01:24:12.140 January 12th, 2023, just about a year ago, 13 months, Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois,

01:24:19.280 special counsel Robert Herr is a distinguished prosecutor, having served as a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney

01:24:24.500 who was confirmed on a bipartisan basis, defending the guy.

01:24:29.000 Now, because he came, he's not prosecuting Joe Biden.

01:24:32.640 He just had observations about why he's not really convictable in front of a jury.

01:24:37.780 He's too sympathetic and sort of sad a witness to bring the charge.

01:24:42.540 Hack.

01:24:43.060 He's a hack.

01:24:43.660 The irony, of course, they're all projecting because this news story, this issue, more than any other, I think, reveals the hacks.

01:24:54.060 And it's the ones who are still trying to defend Joe Biden.

01:24:57.260 And some are trying to do that because their political careers depend upon it.

01:25:00.660 Kamala Harris, of course, or Adam Schiff.

01:25:03.080 Do you really think that Kamala Harris is not happier than anybody over this HER report?

01:25:08.440 This is HER, H-E-R, best shot of becoming president. 0.91

01:25:13.580 So, you know, of course, a lot of these people, I think, privately acknowledge that the report is accurate,

01:25:19.000 and they're praying that Joe Biden does not run again because they know that he's in deep trouble.

01:25:25.120 I mean, there was that White House cybersecurity czar who was caught on hidden camera with James O'Keefe not too long ago,

01:25:33.360 who admitted, he said, oh, privately, we all in the White House, we recognize he's lost a step.

01:25:37.740 He's senile.

01:25:38.480 A lot of Democrats don't want him to run.

01:25:40.780 Frankly, I think this is why CNN ran a four-minute segment last week just eviscerating the spinmasters

01:25:48.020 and the flax at the White House for not taking the HER report seriously.

01:25:53.260 The big takeaway from all of this for me is two things.

01:25:56.620 One, the Democrats really, really want to replace Joe Biden because they think that he's weak.

01:26:00.660 They know that he doesn't know which end is up, and they think that he actually could lose to Trump.

01:26:04.400 But two, Joe Biden really is the president.

01:26:07.960 There have been some conspiracy theories going around that Joe Biden is just being led around on marionette strings.

01:26:13.560 No.

01:26:14.200 When Joe Biden gave that press conference after the HER report was released and after Tucker's interview with Vladimir Putin,

01:26:22.360 unbelievably, Joe Biden decided to go out there and give that disastrous press conference.

01:26:26.500 No White House staffer would have allowed him to do that,

01:26:29.120 certainly not if they had his political interests at heart.

01:26:32.160 Joe Biden is the president, and he doesn't want to give it up,

01:26:34.880 and he doesn't care if every Democrat politician in this country wants to push him out.

01:26:38.400 That guy, you are going to have to either drag him out of the White House kicking and screaming,

01:26:42.940 or you're going to have to drag him out stiff as a board.

01:26:45.100 He is not going to go willingly, no matter how many Democrats want him to.

01:26:50.080 Toe tag first.

01:26:51.060 That's what we used to say in my law firm.

01:26:52.800 I know they're going to take me out of here.

01:26:54.120 Toe tag first.

01:26:54.900 Yeah, his possession is nine-tenths of the law, and he's not going to give it up, not without a fight.

01:27:00.160 All right, stand by, because there's more and more musings about a possible sub-in for Kamala Harris,

01:27:07.340 and I'll bet you haven't heard this name yet.

01:27:10.800 So we'll talk about that right after this.

01:27:12.280 I'm Megan Kelly, host of The Megan Kelly Show on SiriusXM.

01:27:17.300 It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations

01:27:20.680 with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today.

01:27:25.360 You can catch The Megan Kelly Show on Triumph,

01:27:27.380 a SiriusXM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love,

01:27:32.700 great people like Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey,

01:27:36.920 and yours truly, Megan Kelly.

01:27:39.180 You can stream The Megan Kelly Show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are, no car required.

01:27:45.800 I do it all the time.

01:27:46.860 I love the SiriusXM app.

01:27:49.440 It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more.

01:27:55.140 Subscribe now.

01:27:55.860 Get your first three months for free.

01:27:57.920 Go to SiriusXM.com slash MKShow to subscribe and get three months free.

01:28:03.580 That's SiriusXM.com slash MKShow and get three months free.

01:28:09.960 Offer details apply.

01:28:11.040 All right, Michael.

01:28:17.180 So there's some buzz behind the scenes that, given Joe Biden's problems,

01:28:25.100 you know, they don't want to get rid of him because they don't want her, right?

01:28:27.820 They just like, they're going to have to weaken at Bernie's him.

01:28:30.340 Somebody said weaken at Biden's him and get him across the finish line. 0.89

01:28:34.060 But the fear is that she's going to take over because they don't really want her.

01:28:36.720 So now there's some feel that a possible replacement for her that might be acceptable

01:28:43.940 to the Democratic base, largely comprised of Black women, that's a key, key voting group 1.00

01:28:48.940 for Dems, would be Susan Rice. 1.00

01:28:52.380 Now, this, we've been hearing this just sort of off the record from people in the know and

01:28:56.780 in like Politico types.

01:28:58.520 But now it's interesting because Axios just did a piece two days ago that's kind of all

01:29:04.800 about her and they're talking about how she emerged as a central and controversial coordinator

01:29:10.560 of the administration's approach to the border.

01:29:14.180 Some officials found her needlessly combative.

01:29:16.780 They're talking about how she didn't really much like HHS Secretary Becerra. 1.00

01:29:22.660 She referred to him as a bitch ass and privately called him an idiot, according to multiple 1.00

01:29:27.380 sources. 1.00

01:29:28.740 Her ire for him stemmed from his failure to secure additional sheltering spaces for child

01:29:33.800 migrants.

01:29:34.740 Now, one could argue this sounds like Susan Rice planted this or an advocate of hers did.

01:29:38.800 She sounds tough.

01:29:39.900 She wanted to protect the poor children at the border.

01:29:42.660 During one meeting when Biden was tearing into Becerra, Susan Rice passed Mayorkas, the 0.99

01:29:47.100 now impeached, a note that read, don't save him, according to two people familiar with meaning.

01:29:53.520 She's tough.

01:29:54.400 She's in control, Michael.

01:29:55.540 That's how I read this as a member of the press.

01:29:56.960 This is what they're trying to style here.

01:29:58.960 Then they write about her tension with Kamala Harris.

01:30:02.220 It had origins in the summer of 2020 when both were being vetted for vice president.

01:30:08.280 Rice later told people she thought Harris and her team were partly responsible for oppo

01:30:13.340 research that resulted in negative coverage of Susan Rice.

01:30:17.920 A spokesman said she categorically denies that reporting, or at least the reporting on her

01:30:22.940 relationship with Becerra.

01:30:24.280 Oh, and Harris.

01:30:24.960 So both.

01:30:25.320 So what do you make of the possibility of Susan Rice of the old, remember, Benghazi fame?

01:30:32.380 It was spontaneous violence at the embassy or the consul.

01:30:35.580 It was just spontaneous violence, not a planned terrorist attack, as a potential sub for Kamala

01:30:41.840 Harris.

01:30:42.700 It's so juicy, Megan.

01:30:45.040 It's got all the makings of great political fan fiction.

01:30:48.860 I just don't see it.

01:30:51.100 And the reason is they already had the chance to do this.

01:30:55.920 Joe Biden openly said in 2020 that he wanted a black woman to be his VP. 0.75

01:31:01.800 And there were basically three options.

01:31:03.720 There was Kamala Harris. 0.81

01:31:04.860 There was Susan Rice.

01:31:06.340 There was Karen Bass.

01:31:07.860 The last one is an actual communist, member of Congress, turned LA mayor.

01:31:12.900 Susan Rice was the fall guy for Benghazi and had her political career totally tarnished 0.99

01:31:17.180 because of it.

01:31:18.220 And so the last one standing was Kamala Harris. 0.99

01:31:19.980 And now they've discovered, what do you know?

01:31:21.540 Kamala Harris is not all that talented a politician, at least as a public facing politician.

01:31:26.820 That's true.

01:31:28.220 But they already went through the choice.

01:31:29.860 And so if they if they want to swap her out, I don't see any evidence that Susan Rice, who 0.98

01:31:34.840 is personally much more impressive than Kamala Harris, but I don't see any evidence that

01:31:39.160 she could win an election or a national election like this.

01:31:42.140 I don't know that she would be any better on the trail than Kamala is.

01:31:44.680 It's hard to imagine that anybody would be worse, but still, I don't see a lot recommending

01:31:48.800 her for that.

01:31:49.720 Plus, you've got all the baggage for Benghazi.

01:31:51.940 Plus, you've got the weakness of swapping out your VP.

01:31:56.040 And what are they going to offer Kamala Harris to do it? 1.00

01:31:58.500 Maybe they offer her a lot of money.

01:31:59.900 Maybe they offer some organization to lead.

01:32:02.140 I still don't really see her taking it.

01:32:05.280 And she should be the president of Harvard. 0.95

01:32:07.860 She said she's got a more impressive academic record than the last one. 0.82

01:32:12.100 But they said it has to be a black woman. 1.00

01:32:13.620 All right, there's one.

01:32:15.320 And so there's one more black woman, though, that we haven't brought up.

01:32:17.560 And this is usually the subject of the political fan fiction.

01:32:20.500 They say, well, Michelle Obama, she could show up at the convention.

01:32:24.140 She could be crowned the nominee.

01:32:26.020 It's just not going to happen, folks.

01:32:28.000 She's expressed no interest in doing it.

01:32:30.000 She's expressed a lot of opposition to running that sort of a campaign.

01:32:34.780 I think Democrats are eager to find some kind of alternative to the terrible ticket that they've

01:32:42.040 currently got.

01:32:42.840 But none of the alternatives really seem all that much better, certainly not to justify the

01:32:47.740 risk of actually taking it.

01:32:49.340 And then the Republicans are always waiting to figure out the next big thing that's going

01:32:53.380 to happen, the conspiracy behind the scenes.

01:32:55.480 I just don't think there really is one.

01:32:57.940 Maybe Gavin Newsom could be a much better candidate, but you're not going to skip over the first

01:33:02.160 black woman vice president for the guy from American Psycho.

01:33:06.060 OK, Governor Patrick Bateman is not going to be the nominee this time either. 0.81

01:33:09.360 So I think they're basically just stuck with who they got.

01:33:12.340 OK, I've got to end with this terrible, terrible story on Valentine's Day.

01:33:16.020 I'm sorry, but I have to.

01:33:16.940 Chaya Rychik, the woman behind Libs of TikTok, she interviewed this 90-year-old woman. 0.93

01:33:24.740 She'd been volunteering for the MS Society, MS, like multiple sclerosis, for 60 years.

01:33:31.500 And she just got fired from her volunteer position to help those with MS because she didn't understand 1.00

01:33:38.980 why they wanted her, a 90-year-old, to add her pronouns to her email.

01:33:45.800 Listen to this.

01:33:47.840 I was confused.

01:33:49.340 I didn't know what it was, what it meant.

01:33:52.380 And I'd seen it on a couple of letters that had come in after the person's name.

01:33:58.720 They had the pronouns, but I didn't know what that meant.

01:34:02.680 And so finally, when I was talking to her, I thought, I'll ask, what does it mean?

01:34:08.560 And, you know, let her tell me.

01:34:11.140 And so she said that meant that they were all-inclusive, which didn't make sense to me because it sounds

01:34:18.940 like you're labeling for females and not males if you're just putting in she, her.

01:34:27.160 She said that she was just asking her what it meant to have a conversation.

01:34:32.120 So as a 90-year-old who didn't know what it meant, you know, she's not street savvy to

01:34:37.180 find out what it meant.

01:34:38.720 I got an email from her saying that they were sorry, but they had to ask me to step down.

01:34:45.600 She didn't abide by their diversity, equity, and inclusion.

01:34:49.760 So they have to ask her to step down. 0.99

01:34:54.880 Unbelievable.

01:34:55.560 That's Shia's new podcast, by the way.

01:34:58.200 Unbelievable.

01:34:59.080 You're not DEI friendly.

01:35:00.580 Sorry.

01:35:01.660 This woman is sort of the opposite of Joe Biden.

01:35:04.700 Joe Biden is confused by reality.

01:35:07.300 You know, who's the president of Egypt?

01:35:08.820 Who's the president of Mexico?

01:35:10.040 That kind of thing.

01:35:10.740 This woman is just confused by fantasy and absurdity. 0.81

01:35:14.380 Right.

01:35:14.980 You say, why do you have the pronouns there?

01:35:16.420 You say, well, grandma, it's because today a man can be a woman and a woman who looks

01:35:22.180 like a woman and knows that she's a woman.

01:35:24.160 We have to pretend we don't know that she's a woman. 0.99

01:35:26.320 So you got to tell me your pronouns, grandma.

01:35:28.300 What are they?

01:35:28.960 And, you know, she's looking at these people cockeyed, which makes a lot of sense to me.

01:35:33.620 That's that's where we are.

01:35:34.880 And the sad thing is that we now elevate the people who are extremely confused by reality

01:35:39.420 all the way up to the presidency, apparently.

01:35:41.240 And we fire the people who prefer reality to absurdity.

01:35:45.560 Not a good state of affairs for a charitable organization where she has 60 years of experience

01:35:50.600 in helping them.

01:35:51.560 And I'm sure there are older people close to her age or around her age who would really 0.95

01:35:55.900 like to talk to somebody like this woman and don't give two shits about the fact that 0.97

01:35:59.940 she doesn't want to call herself. 0.96

01:36:01.100 I openly she her because it's obvious a note to trans people, too.

01:36:05.660 If you're doing it right, it's obvious.

01:36:07.440 You, too, should not need the pronouns.

01:36:09.540 Michael Knowles, a pleasure as always.

01:36:12.120 So fun talking to you, Megan.

01:36:13.980 Thank you for having me.

01:36:14.880 Happy Valentine's Day and to you.

01:36:19.260 Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show.

01:36:21.160 No BS, no agenda and no fear.

The Megyn Kelly Show - February 14, 2024

Bombshell New Details on “Star Crossed Lovers” Fani Willis and Nathan Wade, and Could Susan Rice Be the Secret Replacement for Dems in 2024？, with Michael Knowles, Andy McCarthy, Dave Aronberg and Mike Davis ｜ Ep. 724

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript