The Megyn Kelly Show - Explosive DA Fani Willis and Nathan Wade Testimony - What Happens Next？ With Dave Aronberg and Mike Davis ｜ Ep. 726

00:00:00.540 Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at New East.

00:00:11.820 Hey everyone, welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. I'm Megyn Kelly, live from the Bahamas today.

00:00:17.320 We're on vacation for this President's Day holiday, but what's happening with this Fannie Willis case was just too amazing to miss.

00:00:23.780 So coming to you live from south of Dave Ehrenberg's border, he's here with us today.

00:00:29.560 He, of course, is the DA and the prosecuting attorney for Palm Beach County.

00:00:33.420 And also with us, as usual, on these big days is Mike Davis, who's the founder and president of the Article 3 Project.

00:00:39.640 And there have been massive and explosive developments in the Fannie Willis case, as expected, because the hearing went on all day yesterday, Thursday.

00:00:47.760 And it has resumed this morning, less explosive today, though they're in the middle of a lunch break.

00:00:51.880 And when they come back, we expect some interesting testimony from the lawyer and friend of Nathan Wade, who tried to get out of testifying yesterday.

00:01:00.660 And under threat of violating the subpoena and possibly having the sheriff track him down, we understand he's coming back after lunch.

00:01:09.560 So in any event, we'll get to what happened yesterday.

00:01:11.260 Guys, thank you so much for being here.

00:01:14.880 Thank you for having us.

00:01:16.020 Yeah.

00:01:16.520 Thank you.

00:01:16.900 All right.

00:01:17.500 So here I am down in the Bahamas.

00:01:20.700 I was on the Delta flight.

00:01:22.080 I had my headphones on.

00:01:23.560 I was able to get Wi-Fi.

00:01:24.780 God bless Delta.

00:01:26.160 Didn't know you could get really active, good Wi-Fi.

00:01:29.480 Listened to the whole thing.

00:01:30.440 Did not miss one minute of yesterday.

00:01:31.980 Sitting here poolside.

00:01:33.060 It was actually a lovely way to take in the hearing.

00:01:35.260 And I couldn't believe, I'm just giving you my overall impressions and then we'll get into everything that happened.

00:01:42.120 Couldn't believe what I was watching.

00:01:46.300 Number one, I found Nathan Wade to be a nice man, but a complete liar.

00:01:52.020 I did not believe his testimony on the difficult things at all.

00:01:56.300 Not even a little.

00:01:57.000 Number two, I thought Fannie Willis got up there and I gave her some points for being extremely entertaining. 0.87

00:02:06.600 All I could think was, God, part of me really would like to see her cross-examine Donald Trump because nobody would miss it.

00:02:14.180 It would have ratings like the Super Bowl.

00:02:15.480 So, but, and she was sort of like this cross between, you know, poor me, I've got the death threats and my daddy and all the stuff where you're like, oh, she's humanizing herself.

00:02:27.720 And F all of you assholes.

00:02:30.460 You're like, I'm here to set the place on fire.

00:02:32.600 I hate all of you.

00:02:33.240 You're liars.

00:02:34.540 So that made for a lot of entertaining moments.

00:02:37.020 But again, I have to admit, I did not believe her on the core points at all.

00:02:41.900 And before I get to you guys and we talk about the specifics, I will tell you, I consulted Phil Houston.

00:02:48.720 He's literally a human lie detector.

00:02:51.220 He invented the deception detection program for the CIA that's being used right now by the CIA, by the FBI, by the Secret Service, by law enforcement, coast to coast.

00:02:59.980 He's the guy.

00:03:01.780 Spent half of his time at the CIA interrogating bad guys and the other half trying to figure out whether our own agents had gone double agent for somebody else.

00:03:08.360 So he knows, he knows how to detect deception.

00:03:11.300 And I've been going to Phil for years on the slide just saying, hey, did you see this?

00:03:15.760 Did you see Hillary Clinton?

00:03:16.460 Do you believe her?

00:03:17.260 Did you see Tom Brady?

00:03:18.120 Do you believe him?

00:03:19.220 And so on.

00:03:19.760 You could pick.

00:03:20.120 And it's nonpartisan.

00:03:20.960 Phil does not care about that.

00:03:22.180 He just likes to be right.

00:03:23.480 And I asked him whether he thought Fannie Willis was telling the truth.

00:03:27.480 And I'll give you the headline and won't bury the lead.

00:03:29.900 The answer is no.

00:03:30.980 He found huge indicators of deception on her part.

00:03:34.520 So that always helps guy.

00:03:35.860 He's never guided me wrong.

00:03:37.020 And nine times out of 10, the person actually later gets outed as having lie.

00:03:40.160 It's not scientific per se, but I'm just telling you what I know coming to air today.

00:03:48.060 Let's go through it.

00:03:50.340 Let's do the sound bites in particular.

00:03:52.040 But first, let me just get your overall take the way I just gave mine.

00:03:54.520 I'll start with you on a mic.

00:03:55.360 I think Fannie Willis' testimony yesterday was an unmitigated disaster for Fannie Willis and her prosecution against President Trump.

00:04:07.080 And frankly, this anti-Trump lawfare and election interference.

00:04:10.860 It was stunning to me how she first it was stunning that she testified at all.

00:04:16.000 And apparently it was her decision to testify.

00:04:19.120 She was pretty angry and rearing ready to go in this testimony. 1.00

00:04:24.540 And she came out there very defiantly, very angrily.

00:04:29.240 And she did not have her story straight.

00:04:34.440 The problem with Fannie Willis' testimony is she has to have all of us believe that she hired her secret boyfriend, not so secret now, who was not qualified for this job.

00:04:49.400 She paid him $250 an hour, $700,000 almost.

00:04:54.660 She paid him more than others who are actually qualified.

00:04:59.460 She took these trips with her secret boyfriend who was married to the Caribbean and Napa.

00:05:07.500 And now we learn about Belize and maybe elsewhere.

00:05:10.540 But she says that these were not illegal kickbacks and she did not illegally profit or make money off of this criminal prosecution of the leading presidential candidates and 18 others,

00:05:26.880 which obviously would be absolutely illegal for a prosecutor to take kickbacks and or profit from a prosecution.

00:05:35.460 And the reason we're not supposed to believe she took kickbacks or profited from this prosecution is because she paid back Nathan Wade in cash.

00:05:46.700 But she has no documentation whatsoever how she paid him back in cash.

00:05:52.000 She used Cash App to pay her rent.

00:05:54.480 And just to jump in, because I confess I wasn't really familiar with Cash App, but it's like Venmo.

00:05:59.860 It's one of those apps that allows you to make person-to-person cash transfers.

00:06:03.680 Keep going, Mike.

00:06:04.200 Yeah, so she used Cash App to pay her rent, but she didn't use Cash App to pay back for these trips, which you would obviously do to cover yourself because you're dealing with issues of bribery and violation of public oath and illegal gifts and many other potential crimes under both federal and Georgia law.

00:06:27.860 And then when they dug in to ask her, where did she come up with this cash, she came up with this story about how her daddy told her to have six months of cash and she just had cash laying around over the years.

00:06:40.640 You know, you know, when she went to a grocery store, if there was $50, she would just throw it in her drawer.

00:06:46.320 I mean, it was just a completely non-believable story on her part.

00:06:52.040 And I guess the question would be, after she spent these thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars on these trips with her boyfriend while she's prosecuting Trump and paying him $250 an hour, $700,000, did she ever replenish that cash that she was using?

00:07:07.500 Did she ever go to the bank or the ATM to replenish these thousands of dollars that she supposedly used to pay for half of her trips with her boyfriend?

00:07:16.860 And of course she didn't.

00:07:19.340 Certainly no evidentiary proof of it if she did.

00:07:22.180 They didn't offer anything yesterday.

00:07:23.640 All right.

00:07:23.900 That's your overall take.

00:07:25.060 Dave, what was yours?

00:07:26.760 Well, first, it's good to be with you.

00:07:27.960 I'm so impressed you can install a sound system at your pool cabana there at the Bahamas.

00:07:32.120 There's a great little studio, actually.

00:07:34.520 So I've done it once.

00:07:35.680 We did it here when the Chauvin verdict broke.

00:07:38.760 Everything breaks while I'm in the Bahamas.

00:07:40.560 Anyway, keep going, Dave.

00:07:41.860 Okay.

00:07:42.760 Well, let me start where I agree with Mike and with your comments, Megan.

00:07:47.280 And that is, I also am suspicious of Nathan Wade.

00:07:51.380 I didn't think he was completely credible when he said that, yeah, she just paid me back in cash.

00:07:57.940 The reason why that's important is that he submitted an affidavit under oath that said that they went Dutch, essentially, that they were roughly, they roughly split the cost, the expenses.

00:08:08.080 And so once you say that to the court, if you're proven to lie, then it is game over.

00:08:13.400 And that's why all this is important.

00:08:14.860 And Fonnie Willis, even though she didn't submit a sworn affidavit, she did attach his sworn affidavit to her response.

00:08:21.520 And so that's why this matters.

00:08:23.120 Now, I must say this, when I saw Fonnie Willis up there, similar reactions to you, Megan, in that the fire and the brimstone I thought was more compelling than Wade's testimony.

00:08:34.720 Actually, I found her to be more credible than him.

00:08:37.460 Now, as far as whether it's enough to save the day, it'll be up to Judge McAfee.

00:08:40.780 But mind you this, I talked to my Democratic friends, and they had the same impression.

00:08:46.820 We all see things through our own lenses.

00:08:48.860 And my Republican friends, they all trashed both of them.

00:08:52.080 But Fonnie Willis, I thought in her defiance, in her righteous indignation, in her explanation that her father, who was a former Black Panther, told her not to be relying on men and to hide cash, you know, it's a story that has more credibility than him, than Wade's.

00:09:09.340 And in the end, I think it's still going to be tough for Judge McAfee to find that there's an actual conflict.

00:09:15.980 If he wants to find that there was a perception of a conflict, sure.

00:09:19.260 But since the standard is, is there an actual conflict?

00:09:22.400 I don't think it's proven that she lied.

00:09:24.520 I don't think it's proven there's an actual conflict.

00:09:26.400 So I think there's a decent chance that she wins the day.

00:09:30.940 Okay, that's very interesting.

00:09:32.800 I don't know.

00:09:33.160 So I think once this judge decides that Nathan Wade lied to him in the sworn interrogatory and that Fannie submitted that affidavit, she would also know it was a lie.

00:09:44.100 If the lie, if the affair didn't begin until 2022 is outed and the judge thinks Wade lied with that, then he thinks Fannie lied because she said the same on the stand and she submitted the brief with his sworn answers.

00:09:58.000 So they're both done.

00:09:59.300 You cannot, I don't agree, Dave.

00:10:01.280 You lie to the judge under oath as the sitting DA.

00:10:04.600 You're done.

00:10:05.760 You cannot try this case.

00:10:07.340 And the people who want to see Trump burned should want that.

00:10:11.720 They should not want somebody like this trying this case because they've lost all credibility.

00:10:16.700 If this case is to have any chance of having the belief or the trust of the system.

00:10:22.420 Yeah, what were you going to say, Dave?

00:10:23.160 Yes, Megan, I agree with you that if it is shown, it is proven, if it is proven that Nathan Wade and or Fannie Willis lied, it's over for both of them.

00:10:31.800 You can't say one, not the other.

00:10:34.120 They're tied in together.

00:10:35.340 But when I said that I didn't find him credible, I thought she rehabilitated both of them with her testimony.

00:10:41.940 And it reminds me of Brett Kavanaugh.

00:10:44.440 You remember when Brett Kavanaugh took the stand in front of the Senate and he had this righteous ignignation, this fire and brimstone, he tried to save himself after the accusations from Dr. Blasey Ford.

00:10:56.460 And my Democratic friends thought he was terrible.

00:10:58.780 He was just rude.

00:11:00.380 He was obnoxious.

00:11:01.480 And my Republicans' friends bought into it.

00:11:04.220 They believed it.

00:11:04.840 And he won the day.

00:11:06.200 I see the same thing happening here.

00:11:07.920 It's all in the lens you see it.

00:11:09.880 Ultimately, it's not up to a jury.

00:11:11.040 It's up to this really impressive judge, Judge McAfee.

00:11:14.600 But I think because it's a relatively high standard to disqualify a state attorney or, in this case, a district attorney, I think more likely than not that she stays on the case.

00:11:24.240 Okay.

00:11:24.840 Let's go through the specifics because that's what's most telling.

00:11:28.520 And we'll get to her.

00:11:30.000 I mean, I think my feeling is she was trying to look indignant and sort of violated and tough and in control.

00:11:37.120 My own impression was she seemed angry.

00:11:40.880 She seemed haughty.

00:11:42.580 You know, like, I am above it all.

00:11:45.440 I shouldn't have to answer questions from you losers.

00:11:49.860 I'm angry that I'm even sitting here.

00:11:52.180 Well, why was she sitting there? 1.00

00:11:53.580 Because of her own choices.

00:11:55.620 She has no one to blame but herself.

00:11:58.200 This is not a normal thing.

00:12:00.060 This is not something we're seeing in any of the other Trump prosecutions.

00:12:02.760 This isn't a way that, you know, sometimes angry defendants use to go after DAs.

00:12:07.440 She's sitting there because she did this.

00:12:10.080 By her own admission, she started having an affair with her special prosecutor.

00:12:13.400 They went on several lavish trips all over the United States and beyond.

00:12:17.260 She didn't disclose it.

00:12:18.920 And it appears very clear to me that her affair partner and special counsel, at a minimum, lied under oath in his divorce proceedings.

00:12:29.260 So we know we're dealing with a liar.

00:12:30.640 I mean, that's her jury. 0.99

00:12:32.360 So, okay, let's go through it.

00:12:35.540 First things first.

00:12:36.760 She tried, Ashley Merchant, who's the defendant for Michael Roman, who's really been pushing this whole thing.

00:12:41.620 She tried to call Terrence Bradley, who used to be law partners with Nathan Wade and was friends with him.

00:12:48.500 And she thought she could ask him about what she posited to the court were going to be admissions by Nathan Wade that the affair had begun with Fannie Willis long before when they admit it began in 2022.

00:12:59.760 Bradley was there under subpoena and under protest.

00:13:03.840 He wouldn't give two words.

00:13:05.940 He claimed everything that they had ever exchanged, Mike, was attorney-client privileged.

00:13:11.860 And he's going to be recalled today because the judge has already said that's not true.

00:13:16.300 Obviously, not everything is privileged between a lawyer and a client, especially when you were friends and you were law partners long before you'd ever even filed for the divorce.

00:13:25.060 And so the fact that they are fighting so hard to keep him off the stand, Mike, tells me something because I feel like if he was with Nathan Wade in 18, 19, and 20 before they filed in 21, that's when he filed for divorce, he would take the stand and say, I never saw a thing.

00:13:41.880 But that's not what's happening.

00:13:43.000 Yeah, I mean, attorney-client privilege, as you know, Megan and Dave knows, applies to confidential communications between an attorney and a client related to legal advice, right?

00:13:55.400 It's not the observations made.

00:13:57.780 If you saw your client who happens to be your friend with his girlfriend, that would not be covered by attorney-client privilege.

00:14:05.280 And so this blanket assertion of attorney-client privilege is just not going to fly.

00:14:10.200 So that's how we kicked it off yesterday.

00:14:13.320 Then, because Ashley Merchant was running up against Terrence Bradley saying, you know, privilege, privilege, privilege, he's obviously good friends with Nathan Wade.

00:14:20.660 She moved on from him and she called Robin Yurt, I don't know, I can't remember her last name.

00:14:27.400 What is it, Yurtly?

00:14:29.320 Yurti, Yurti, Yurti.

00:14:31.440 So as far as we can tell, Robin Yurti has been friends with Fannie Wade since law school, since Fannie's, or since college.

00:14:38.160 I don't think Yurti is a lawyer.

00:14:39.500 We did look, but it looks like she was just a court employee.

00:14:43.320 Anyway, they went to college together in the early 90s, stayed friends on and off over the years, close friends, but not best friends, according to both of them.

00:14:52.160 And then she worked for Fannie in the DA's office and ultimately got fired, allegedly because she improperly handled something, 0.87

00:15:01.100 though there was some dispute about how much of it was you're pushed out and how much of it was I'm leaving and I don't like you people.

00:15:06.880 But clearly there's some bad blood there at the ending of her professional time working under Willis.

00:15:11.940 So she got up there and this is the money soundbite where, you know, she said, basically, not without, not with these words,

00:15:18.740 but she said Nathan Wade's sworn positions in his divorce proceeding and in this proceeding, both submitted under oath that the affair didn't begin until 2022 are lies.

00:15:27.900 Take a listen.

00:15:28.300 Do you understand it, that their relationship began in 2019 and continued until the last time you spoke with her?

00:15:37.680 Yes.

00:15:38.080 So from everything that you saw, heard, witnessed, it's your understanding that they were in a romantic relationship beginning in 2019?

00:15:49.040 Yes.

00:15:49.740 You have no doubt that their romantic relationship was in effect from 2019 until the last time you spoke with her?

00:15:56.660 No doubt.

00:15:57.520 Let me be very specific.

00:15:59.400 Did you talk with Ms. Willis about her romantic relationship with Mr. Wade?

00:16:06.720 Yes.

00:16:07.200 Did Ms. Willis tell you on more than one occasion that she was engaged in a romantic relationship with Mr. Wade prior to you leaving the district attorney's office?

00:16:20.100 Did she tell me or did I observe?

00:16:22.940 I'm straight right now with the tell me.

00:16:27.160 Yes.

00:16:28.200 Did she tell you that in the year of 2020?

00:16:31.360 Yes.

00:16:37.200 Yes.

00:16:38.100 In the year of 2021?

00:16:41.620 Yes.

00:16:42.600 Are you certain that Ms. Wade told you, I'm sorry, Ms. Willis told you about the romantic relationship with Mr. Wade prior to November 1st of 2021?

00:16:54.340 Yes.

00:16:54.860 Now, did you also have observations of Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis together prior to November 1st of 2021?

00:17:04.700 Yes.

00:17:05.480 And are those observations, were those in a social setting?

00:17:09.860 Yes.

00:17:10.360 And did you observe them do things that are common among people having a romantic relationship?

00:17:19.980 Yes.

00:17:20.660 Such as?

00:17:21.500 Can you give us an example?

00:17:25.980 Hugging, kissing, just affection.

00:17:29.700 All before November 1st of 2021, correct?

00:17:34.140 Yes.

00:17:34.980 That's all I have.

00:17:38.780 Dave, that, I think it's fair to say, was the lowest moment for Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade yesterday.

00:17:44.420 What did you make of it?

00:17:45.500 Yeah, that was a bad moment.

00:17:47.740 Now, they'd have to overcome this by showing that she's a disgruntled employee who was lying. 0.99

00:17:53.080 The best information for Fannie Willis is that Nathan Wade, sadly, had to undergo cancer treatments and had cancer in 2020, so he could not be part of a relationship.

00:18:04.920 He didn't go out.

00:18:05.540 They didn't do anything together.

00:18:07.500 And also, there's no evidence that they took any of the trips before 2022.

00:18:15.120 And so, that also tells you that, for Fannie Wade's, excuse me, Fannie Willis' standpoint, that there is some dispute about it.

00:18:24.960 But no doubt that this testimony was the most damaging for both of them.

00:18:29.320 You know, I was thinking about that, Mike, that there are no trips prior to 2022, which is a helpful fact for Fannie and Nathan.

00:18:35.720 But the other piece of it is, he wasn't making $700,000 from the state prior to 2022.

00:18:43.080 I mean, this is part of the theory.

00:18:45.020 Nathan Wade came into some money, like a lot of money.

00:18:47.860 And before you knew it, they were traveling the globe together.

00:18:50.920 Back in 2021 and 2020 and 19, that wasn't the case.

00:18:55.820 They were living, it sounds, paycheck to paycheck.

00:18:59.720 And during COVID, nobody was traveling.

00:19:02.920 I mean, it was nearly impossible.

00:19:04.020 I'm not sure the testimony that they never saw each other, they never went out or saw each other at all, is as solid as Dave suggests.

00:19:11.300 It seems like they did see each other.

00:19:12.520 They just weren't globetrotting.

00:19:13.620 But what did you think?

00:19:14.840 Well, first, you guys have both called her Fannie Willis, Fannie Wade.

00:19:18.280 And I think you're getting the cart before the horse.

00:19:22.040 So, let's just see how this relationship blossoms before we go there.

00:19:26.300 But I would say, number two, you're exactly right, Megan.

00:19:28.820 And the fact that they didn't take these lavish trips until 2022 proves that this whole prosecution of President Trump and 18 others has the appearance of corruption.

00:19:40.340 It has the appearance that Fannie Willis has a financial stake in a criminal prosecution, that she's taking illegal kickbacks from her boyfriend.

00:19:50.860 She's paying $250 an hour, $700,000 to prosecute a former and likely future president of the United States.

00:19:59.340 And as you all of us know, that is absolutely illegal for a prosecutor to have a financial stake in a criminal prosecution.

00:20:07.820 I have to say, I did find Ms. Yurti credible.

00:20:13.000 I thought her simple one-word answers actually worked.

00:20:17.080 Like, that's what a truth teller sounds like.

00:20:19.360 You know, you guys ask me, did you have an affair with Nathan Wade?

00:20:23.480 The answer is no.

00:20:25.420 Did you ever have him over at your house?

00:20:27.240 No.

00:20:27.460 Well, I don't feel the need to convince you or elaborate.

00:20:30.440 I'm a truth teller.

00:20:31.620 I'll just answer the questions asked.

00:20:34.320 And I thought it was interesting.

00:20:36.540 Like, she needed to be dragged in there by subpoena, too.

00:20:38.840 So I know they're going for disgruntled, and I'll play you that soundbite.

00:20:41.620 But if I were disgruntled against Fannie Willis, I think I'd run to the courthouse to say the bad things about her. 0.97

00:20:47.800 I'd probably elaborate on them.

00:20:49.160 I'd probably sound angry a little in talking about what a terrible person she is.

00:20:55.240 This woman didn't do any of that. 1.00

00:20:56.620 She was there under protest, but she wasn't going to lie.

00:20:59.180 It was how I read it.

00:21:00.040 But here's the disgruntled sort of cross-examination as Fannie Willis' lawyer comes after Robin Urte.

00:21:06.360 You were disciplined several times in the district attorney's office during your employment there, correct?

00:21:12.760 No.

00:21:13.480 You weren't written up ever for poor performance, Miss Urte.

00:21:18.480 Once, not several.

00:21:19.660 One time you were written up for poor performance.

00:21:22.280 Were you counseled several times about your performance in the district attorney's office that was subpar?

00:21:28.940 No.

00:21:30.880 Did the district attorney tell you that your performance was insufficient and that you were going to be fired?

00:21:38.400 No.

00:21:39.320 That never happened?

00:21:40.080 Maybe when we were at the end.

00:21:50.180 What's the question?

00:21:52.540 The question, Miss Urte, was did the district attorney ever counsel you on your poor performance in the district attorney's office prior and inform you that you were going to be fired?

00:22:02.860 I don't really know how to answer that.

00:22:14.060 I'm looking for the truth.

00:22:18.240 I don't really know how to answer that.

00:22:20.280 I mean, a situation happened that wasn't my fault.

00:22:25.240 And I either was going to resign or he let go.

00:22:30.800 You understood that that was the situation.

00:22:32.860 You could resign or you could be let go.

00:22:35.380 Correct.

00:22:35.940 Yes.

00:22:36.420 You were not welcome to stay.

00:22:38.380 No.

00:22:41.080 Okay.

00:22:41.480 So just to add to that, this is what the MSNBC type coverage has done with this witness, Robin Urte, as a result of that exchange you just saw.

00:22:52.780 We have it queued up in SOT 22.

00:22:54.940 They're going with disgruntled.

00:22:56.880 But they started with testimony from a disgruntled former employee, Robin Urte, who was let go from the prosecutor's office.

00:23:05.440 The one witness who testified today, Caitlin, to talk about and conflict what they had said and contradict the story of the romantic relationship was somebody who appeared to be a disgruntled employee with an ax to grind. 0.55

00:23:17.240 Earlier that she's being described as perhaps a disgruntled employee.

00:23:21.620 She came out and just refuted everything that Ms. Urte said. 1.00

00:23:25.280 Ms. Urte came off as a disgruntled employee. 1.00

00:23:27.620 And she also left the office where she was working, the DA's office, under a clap.

00:23:33.600 Oh, she was clearly a disgruntled employee. 1.00

00:23:36.420 And the defense oversold this.

00:23:38.020 There was no evidence other than the woman who was a former friend and a former employee.

00:23:42.080 That's their evidence.

00:23:45.080 By the way, it's a personal pet peeve.

00:23:47.220 Refute gets overused.

00:23:49.160 They use it exchangeably to rebut or respond to.

00:23:53.020 No, refute means you have proven the other thing is wrong.

00:23:56.200 They're claiming that Urte was refuted by Fannie Willis' testimony later.

00:24:00.480 That's absolutely not true.

00:24:01.860 What we have here is a she said versus a he she said over here.

00:24:06.980 That is not refuting.

00:24:08.120 Refuting is you have proven it is false and you've won.

00:24:11.240 Okay, sorry.

00:24:11.920 It always irritates me.

00:24:14.160 So disgruntled, that's what they're going with.

00:24:16.320 I don't know.

00:24:17.040 I mean, Dave, she definitely got pushed out of the DA's office under terms she didn't seem to like.

00:24:22.940 This is a judge looking at this, not a jury.

00:24:25.300 So how do you think all that plays?

00:24:27.320 If they had more corroboration, it would help the defense.

00:24:31.180 But this is what they got.

00:24:33.560 And the question is, does she have motive to lie?

00:24:36.020 The answer is yes, she does.

00:24:37.840 Disgruntled or not, she does have a reason why she would lie.

00:24:41.600 Now, it is up to the judge to make a determination on credibility.

00:24:45.020 If they had more, it would be better for them.

00:24:46.600 But I'm not sure that her testimony sitting alone is enough to prove that the relationship existed before Nathan Wade was hired as a special prosecutor.

00:24:54.800 And it does matter because they both swore in a sense that he was hired after the relationship.

00:25:01.340 Excuse me.

00:25:01.840 He was hired before the relationship began.

00:25:04.160 So that is very key here, as much key as the reimbursement of the expenses.

00:25:12.000 Yeah, those are the two issues.

00:25:13.680 So two things on that.

00:25:15.280 Number one, they said yesterday when they closed the hearing that they, the Fannie Willis team, is going to be calling at least a couple of witnesses, they said, to attack Ms. ERT and her credibility.

00:25:26.000 So, you know, we're taping this, it's like 1230 on Friday.

00:25:29.460 Maybe that's going to happen later today.

00:25:30.920 Maybe they're going to tear this woman apart with some new evidence that we haven't seen about how she's got a history of lying. 1.00

00:25:35.160 We don't know.

00:25:36.320 Right now, we haven't seen any of that.

00:25:37.960 They certainly didn't do it on cross.

00:25:40.940 So secondly, what about that, Mike?

00:25:43.560 Because I will say, if I had Ms. ERT on the stand, I would have let her talk more. 0.73

00:25:50.260 I would have said, okay, you, she told you repeatedly, Fannie Willis, that they had an affair, that they were together.

00:25:57.340 What did she say?

00:25:58.500 Be specific.

00:25:59.940 Was it just, he's my pal, we're going to the movies?

00:26:03.480 You know, and when you say hugging and kissing, did you see hugging and kissing the way, if I saw you two guys at a, at a charity event, I'd come over, we'd have a hug, we might do the air kiss.

00:26:12.900 So like, they didn't flesh any of that out.

00:26:15.420 And it made me like a little frustrated.

00:26:17.880 Yeah, I agree with you.

00:26:18.960 I mean, I think she gave pretty convincing testimony, but I would have liked to have heard the specifics, like you said.

00:26:25.900 But I think it's important for us to remember that, yeah, this point is important for purposes of perjury, because Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade did not want to admit that the relationship started sooner than it did for purposes of their, of Nathan Wade's sword affidavit to the divorce court that Fannie Wade relied upon.

00:26:47.100 When she submitted that affidavit to the, in response to Mike Roman's motion to dismiss.

00:26:53.880 So they're going to have a lot of problems with perjury there, if, if that ends up being false, what they swore to both courts.

00:27:00.860 But I think if we step back, the more important point is this, that for purposes of disqualification and purposes of dismissing this case, we have to remember that everyone admits this, this relationship between Nathan Wade and Fannie Willis started before Fannie Willis brought the indictment against President Trump.

00:27:21.840 What was the date of the indictment again?

00:27:24.300 I'd have to pull this up.

00:27:26.080 My team will look it up.

00:27:27.120 But you're saying he wasn't indicted until 22, and they're admitting that they began the relationship, they're admitting, in early 22.

00:27:34.680 But the investigation started well before that.

00:27:37.380 Yeah, yeah, yeah.

00:27:37.880 And he was hired well before.

00:27:40.080 So Mike's point is, if you take them at their word that it was going on for all of 22, for sure they were having an affair at the time they indicted him, which, I don't know, why is that relevant to whether they should be booted, Mike?

00:27:51.260 Well, that's when the case technically begins, right?

00:27:54.980 For purposes of these laws on disqualification and motions to dismiss, she had a financial stake in the outcome of this case before the indictment, right?

00:28:05.520 Then they brought the indictment.

00:28:06.760 They brought a very novel legal theory, a RICO theory, with a lot of facts they have to prove.

00:28:13.960 And, you know, 19 defendants, Trump and 18 co-defendants.

00:28:18.180 That's going to be a very expensive case if you're paying your boyfriend $250 an hour to prosecute this RICO theory, this novel RICO theory against your political opponents.

00:28:30.180 And he has spent a lot of money.

00:28:32.060 He spent, he billed for 24 hours in one day.

00:28:35.400 He billed for trips to meet with the Biden White House, including the Biden White House Council.

00:28:41.240 He's billed $700,000.

00:28:43.940 And Fannie Willis, who was not used to these luxurious trips before, you know, she, she talks, she testified on the stand about Nathan Wade having his, you know, two, two travel agents, one for cruise ships and one for plane rides.

00:28:57.620 And, you know, she, she was enamored by that on the stand yesterday.

00:29:01.280 And, you know, that started after she started paying Nathan Wade for this prosecution of President Trump.

00:29:09.020 She had a financial stake in this prosecution of President Trump and 18 others.

00:29:13.720 She was, it looks like she was taking illegal kickbacks. 1.00

00:29:17.420 All right. So just to put a point on it, if, if the judge believes that they did start the affair prior to 2022, I, I think we all agree they're done.

00:29:26.680 They're getting booted because it means they lied in the affidavit and the supporting brief.

00:29:30.580 And then yesterday on the stand, this would be the judge saying, I don't find those denials credible.

00:29:34.680 Uh, and I believe Ms. Yurty, uh, and therefore not only were you romantically involved when you hired him to work on this case, but then you lied to this court about it.

00:29:44.780 So I just think if he believes Yurty, they're toast. 0.99

00:29:48.180 They better call some witnesses to undermine Yurty today.

00:29:51.100 That would be the smart thing to do if they've got it.

00:29:52.980 Okay. But let's move on because there's a couple of other key points.

00:29:55.820 Did, did she line her pockets some way through Nathan Wade, thanks to all these lavish vacations, or did she pay her own way?

00:30:03.260 They tried, they were swimming furiously yesterday with like the ducks beneath the pond to try to convince us that she did pay her fair share on these vacations. 0.98

00:30:14.120 And then there's the matter of whether Nathan Wade, separate and apart from the affidavit he submitted in this case, is already lying under oath, has already lied under oath in his divorce proceeding, which would go to his credibility in assessing points one and two.

00:30:29.440 So we'll take them in those orders.

00:30:30.420 So secondly, on the point of, did Fannie Wade, this guy keep doing it.

00:30:35.800 By the way, my team points out, they reminded me, they said they broke up.

00:30:38.960 So there, there will be no Fannie Wade. 0.96

00:30:42.020 That cart is not, the horse is not never going to go before the cart because I guess it's over.

00:30:46.480 Anyway, let's talk about the money and whether she did in fact reimburse him because this, the court's going to have to make a finding on this.

00:30:53.080 Once again, it's very unclear.

00:30:55.960 They, they, he took the stand first, Nathan Wade yesterday.

00:30:59.660 And for the first time, Mike, we heard this business about how they split all the costs because she gave him wads of cash on these multiple vacations and Bahamas and the Bahamas again and Aruba and Napa.

00:31:14.980 She just kept giving him wads of cash. 0.96

00:31:17.760 And, um, then she, he was asked the obvious question.

00:31:21.980 Can I see a receipt?

00:31:23.500 Did you ever, you know, you two understanding that you're both prosecutors and in a potentially compromising position where this kind of issue could come up, you know, do you have a receipt?

00:31:31.960 You could show that she gave you the cash.

00:31:33.320 And he, I'll just front for the audience.

00:31:36.760 What's going to happen here?

00:31:37.880 He's going to say no.

00:31:38.960 And then he's going to talk about credit cards and it's important.

00:31:42.520 So take a listen to the whole thing, especially the very end in SOP 4.

00:31:46.400 In that interrogatory, they asked you if you had any receipts for travel with someone of the other sex up until the time you were answering.

00:31:56.160 Is that correct?

00:31:57.180 Yes, ma'am.

00:31:58.540 And you said that you didn't.

00:32:00.360 You've already testified to that earlier.

00:32:01.820 But in this affidavit, you said, you swore that you had travel expenses and shared expenses on travel with Ms. Willis.

00:32:10.340 Again, during the course of my marriage, I had no relationship or receipts.

00:32:17.660 I'm not asking about during the course of your marriage.

00:32:19.340 I'm not going to ask the wits.

00:32:20.640 Are you allowed to answer the question?

00:32:22.780 Continue.

00:32:23.560 I have no problem.

00:32:24.300 You can answer.

00:32:25.700 Um, as it relates to receipts today, I don't have any receipts, ma'am.

00:32:31.820 So you don't have any travel receipts available to you for any travel that you did with Ms. Willis?

00:32:38.240 I don't have any receipts, no ma'am.

00:32:40.440 Um, no receipts that, so, so you're, you used your business credit card for these trips, correct?

00:32:47.940 I use my business credit card for everything.

00:32:49.860 Okay.

00:32:50.300 I guess.

00:32:51.820 Um, you used it for your kids' tuition?

00:32:53.640 Yes, ma'am.

00:32:54.820 Used it for personal travel with Ms. Willis?

00:32:56.900 Yes, ma'am.

00:32:57.620 And you have receipts from those business credit cards that you have to file with your taxes, correct?

00:33:03.300 No, ma'am.

00:33:04.080 No.

00:33:04.680 I, I, I filed this statement.

00:33:06.920 I turn over the statement and whatever's there on the statement, the accountant looks at it

00:33:10.920 and the accountant says, okay, this is personal.

00:33:13.360 It goes over here.

00:33:14.140 This is business.

00:33:14.900 It goes over here.

00:33:16.180 Here are your taxes.

00:33:16.860 So, you have those statements.

00:33:19.720 We'll call them statements instead of receipts.

00:33:21.220 You have those statements, correct?

00:33:22.340 I have the statements, yes, ma'am.

00:33:23.660 Okay.

00:33:24.320 But when you answered the interrogatory under oath, you said you did not have anything to

00:33:28.540 show the records of travel with Ms. Willis.

00:33:32.520 I answered the question.

00:33:33.940 I had no receipts, ma'am.

00:33:35.280 You had no receipts, but you had statements.

00:33:37.480 I ordered the statement, yes, ma'am.

00:33:39.860 Okay, Mike.

00:33:40.580 So, this is one of those weaselly lawyer tricks that people use to get out of saying, I, I

00:33:49.500 didn't turn over the documents that I was asked for because I didn't want to.

00:33:54.520 I didn't want to show the receipts of my affair to my ex-wife.

00:33:57.960 And he's trying to weasel out of it by saying his credit card statement isn't a receipt.

00:34:05.420 Here's, here's the problem with, with Nathan Wade and Fannie Willis's whole, we roughly

00:34:10.560 paid the same amount and Fannie Willis reimbursed me for cash, but we have no evidence of that

00:34:16.660 other than both of our works.

00:34:18.600 We have no bank account transactions.

00:34:20.840 We have no other evidence whatsoever.

00:34:23.080 The problem is, is that, look, you have an appearance here of corruption.

00:34:27.200 You have an appearance that Nathan Wade was illegally hired by Fannie Willis, that she is paying

00:34:34.580 him $250 an hour.

00:34:36.540 She hasn't, and she's taken illegal kickbacks.

00:34:39.560 She has an illegal financial interest in the, in this criminal prosecution.

00:34:44.520 So her affirmative defense is, oh, no, no, no, no.

00:34:48.020 I, I paid cash for my half of these trips.

00:34:51.400 Well, guess what?

00:34:52.540 The burden shifts to her.

00:34:54.240 It's her burden to prove that she paid cash.

00:34:57.380 It's her burden to come forward and say, here's where I got the cash.

00:35:01.500 Here's the transaction in my bank account here.

00:35:04.240 Here's where I took out the, withdrew from the ATM with this cash, the burden's on her.

00:35:09.700 So she has not met her burden of proof in this, in this burden shifting exercise on their bogus

00:35:16.420 cover story.

00:35:17.800 And so that's where I think that she's going to lose with this judge.

00:35:20.960 Well, you're right.

00:35:21.640 Cause I, I was actually kind of getting into his, his false interrogatory there and not

00:35:26.440 so much their, their receipts in their relationship, which is the first thing we have to tackle.

00:35:31.340 And they don't have any.

00:35:32.640 And that's the bottom line.

00:35:33.480 They have no receipts whatsoever.

00:35:35.020 She was pressed on it.

00:35:36.180 So was he.

00:35:36.760 Um, did, did she go to the ATM right before she gave you wads of cash?

00:35:41.040 Did she know, did you give her a receipt when she gave you all the cash?

00:35:45.480 No.

00:35:46.460 Um, is there anything that would verify that she actually reimbursed you for half of this

00:35:50.340 travel?

00:35:50.980 No, none whatsoever.

00:35:52.540 No, absolutely nothing.

00:35:53.820 And here's a little bit of that in SOT 6.

00:35:56.880 Then you tell us that Ms. Willis, uh, paid you in cash all the money for the entire trip.

00:36:04.520 It was a gift for you for your birthday, correct?

00:36:06.360 Yes, sir.

00:36:07.460 And I'm sure you probably have the deposit slips where you took the cash and deposited

00:36:12.700 the cash into your account, don't you?

00:36:14.420 I did not deposit the cash in my account.

00:36:16.040 You don't have a single solitary deposit slip to corroborate or support any of your allegations

00:36:23.940 that you were paid by Mrs. Willis in cash, do you?

00:36:28.240 No, sir.

00:36:29.240 Not a single solitary one.

00:36:31.440 Not a one.

00:36:32.140 Now, um, when Ms. Willis would pay you in cash, would you scamper down to the ATM with

00:36:39.280 her and as she drew money out of her account to pay you these thousands of dollars?

00:36:44.280 Mr. Gilliam might scamper, but there's been no evidence that Mr. Wade does.

00:36:48.280 I object to the phrasing, the argumentative nature of the question.

00:36:51.040 All right, uh, on that issue overruled, did you and Ms. Wade scamper down to the ATM machine

00:36:57.680 and have her dry out? 1.00

00:36:59.340 Uh, for example, on the Belize trip, just on, on, uh, your payment would have been, uh, $2,794.

00:37:08.000 Ms. Wade?

00:37:08.640 Claire, yeah.

00:37:09.600 Thank you.

00:37:10.020 Pardon me?

00:37:10.920 Ms. Wade and I didn't, didn't go to Belize.

00:37:14.840 No, I'm, excuse me, Ms. Willis, I'm, I'm sorry.

00:37:17.320 Did you go down to the ATM with Ms. Willis while she drew out $2,794 to pay you in cash

00:37:27.220 that you did, did she, did you go to the ATM with her?

00:37:31.500 No, sir.

00:37:32.200 She didn't go to the ATM.

00:37:34.060 She carried the cash.

00:37:35.460 Oh, and so she would give you the cash.

00:37:38.020 Did you have a little place in your house where you just stack up all this cash that you apparently

00:37:41.740 got to repay you for these benefits that you bestowed on her?

00:37:45.800 Now, Mr. Gillen, if I answered that, I'm putting myself in jeopardy.

00:37:49.880 If I, if I tell the world that I have cash someplace in my home, don't you think that,

00:37:53.800 that could be problematic?

00:37:55.320 No.

00:37:55.480 Did you, in your declaration, sir, it was filed in this case, did you tell the court in that

00:38:06.680 declaration that the expenditure that you had provided on behalf of Ms. Willis was paid

00:38:14.100 for back by her in cash, yes or no?

00:38:17.640 I believe that I did when I said that the expenses were split roughly evenly.

00:38:23.980 If you could point to me any place in your affidavit where you used the word cash, I would

00:38:31.380 appreciate it.

00:38:32.180 I didn't, I didn't use the word cash, no, sir.

00:38:34.860 No, you didn't use the word cash, did you?

00:38:37.040 But I didn't say that she didn't give it to me in cash.

00:38:39.560 No, you just didn't tell anybody that you allegedly got paid back in cash, right?

00:38:45.760 No, I told everyone who asked.

00:38:48.780 Today.

00:38:49.920 Yes, sir.

00:38:50.580 It's just, look, I know I've been watching the coverage, Dave, on MSNBC and elsewhere

00:38:58.600 and CNN, and what they're now saying is it's a black thing.

00:39:02.240 You don't understand.

00:39:03.400 Black people distrust the system. 1.00

00:39:04.740 This is literally what I saw on CNN earlier.

00:39:06.840 Distrust the system, and therefore they don't have checking accounts, even if they're the

00:39:11.960 district attorney.

00:39:13.280 She is the system.

00:39:14.380 And they just bring wads of cash everywhere.

00:39:19.800 Okay, even if that's true, she used Cash App.

00:39:23.000 Why didn't she use Cash App to repay all these monies that she would have to know at some level

00:39:27.960 could come back to haunt her given the relationship?

00:39:30.400 It's just, it's not plausible.

00:39:33.940 This is the biggest challenge for both of them, is this reimbursement.

00:39:37.760 Because I felt the same way when I heard Nathan Wade testify.

00:39:41.220 Oh, and by the way, you saw how the lawyer also mixed up Wade and Willis' last name?

00:39:44.760 We're all doing it.

00:39:45.960 Yeah, good.

00:39:46.720 It's not just me.

00:39:47.920 All right.

00:39:48.620 Well, that's the problem.

00:39:50.340 That's the reason why I didn't think that Nathan Wade was too credible.

00:39:52.920 When finally Willis got up, and she did make it into more of a racial issue and a community

00:39:57.500 issue that her father's a Black Panther, and he taught her, don't rely on guys, always

00:40:03.040 keep Cash around.

00:40:04.000 And that's why I believe they're going to call the father up under oath.

00:40:06.880 Yeah, he's up now.

00:40:08.060 He's up now.

00:40:08.540 There you go.

00:40:09.040 And so that's important.

00:40:09.780 And that's why, if you have all this evidence that shows that, yeah, maybe that is plausible,

00:40:13.540 I think it's hard to then definitively say that they're lying.

00:40:17.780 I think it's going to be hard to do.

00:40:19.200 Because the only evidence, to the contrary, is this one witness who said their relationship

00:40:23.720 began earlier, and she has a motive to lie. 0.99

00:40:27.060 And secondly, as weird as it sounds, that they wouldn't keep any receipts.

00:40:32.240 And I share your skepticism.

00:40:34.080 But her explanation, buttressed by her father and perhaps others, is plausible.

00:40:40.240 It doesn't have to be definitive proof, Mike.

00:40:42.820 I mean, this is witness testimony.

00:40:44.240 So it's up to the judge to weigh the credibility.

00:40:46.400 It doesn't have to be smoking gun proof that that's a lie.

00:40:49.920 It can be, this is obviously not true.

00:40:52.460 I don't believe them.

00:40:53.460 They're wiggling too much.

00:40:54.640 It's not plausible that there would never be an ATM withdrawal or deposit receipt by him.

00:40:59.840 And the biggest point I thought was made is that Fannie Willis, at the time she's allegedly 0.98

00:41:04.600 carrying around these hunks of cash, thousands of dollars, was she had a lien against her,

00:41:10.620 Mike, for some almost $5,000 against her, I think her home, her mortgage.

00:41:15.780 I can't remember exactly, but I think that's what it was.

00:41:17.920 And that was asked of her.

00:41:19.760 And she once again got all defensive.

00:41:21.460 Oh, now you're going to tell me how to pay my bills?

00:41:23.100 Like, what we're trying to do is prove this is not plausible, that you secretly had stashes

00:41:29.980 of thousands while a lien was against you as, again, the sitting DA.

00:41:36.880 So, yeah, let's just try to figure out what their argument is, that the people in America

00:41:42.140 who have untraceable cash are apparently drug dealers, sex workers, and Fulton County prosecutors,

00:41:50.880 right?

00:41:51.220 It just doesn't make sense.

00:41:53.100 If she spent this cash to pay back Nathan Wade, her boyfriend, for these elaborate trips

00:42:00.860 that she only started taking after she put Nathan Wade on her payroll at $250 an hour,

00:42:08.260 $700,000 to prosecute President Trump and 18 others, where's the evidence that she replenished

00:42:15.580 this cash in her house?

00:42:17.560 Where's the evidence that she followed her father's advice to have six months of cash

00:42:22.860 in her house after she spent thousands of dollars on her trips to the Caribbean and Napa and

00:42:29.540 wherever the hell else her and Nathan Wade went around the world?

00:42:32.660 Here she is trying to say, you know, you just don't get it.

00:42:37.620 And again, you hear a tinge here of like over and over with like, whoa, it's me.

00:42:42.420 My blood, sweat, and tears.

00:42:43.920 I got news for you, Fannie.

00:42:45.160 We all work.

00:42:45.980 We all work hard.

00:42:47.200 All of our money comes from our blood, sweat, and tears.

00:42:49.020 We don't have to overstate it and get so dramatic.

00:42:51.000 But her dramatics to me were part of the deception.

00:42:53.800 Here she is in Sot 13.

00:42:55.740 So when you got cash to pay him back on these trips, would you go to the ATM?

00:42:59.880 No, lady.

00:43:01.040 You would not go to the ATM?

00:43:02.340 No.

00:43:02.880 Okay.

00:43:03.480 So Fulton County pays you direct deposit, I assume?

00:43:07.540 Yes.

00:43:08.000 Fulton County and the state of Georgia both pay me direct deposits.

00:43:11.300 Okay.

00:43:11.720 So the cash that you would pay him, you wouldn't get it out of the bank?

00:43:14.820 I have money in my house.

00:43:16.080 You have money in your house.

00:43:16.800 So it was just money that was there?

00:43:17.780 When you meet my father, he's going to tell you as a woman, you should always have, which 0.95

00:43:25.920 I don't have, so let's don't tell him that, you should have at least six months in cash

00:43:30.660 at your house at all times.

00:43:32.120 Now, I don't know why this old black man feels like that, but he does. 1.00

00:43:36.060 If you're a woman and you go on a date with a man, you better have $200 in your pocket. 1.00

00:43:40.080 So if that man acts up, you can go where you want to go.

00:43:42.740 So I keep cash in my house, and I don't keep cash as good in my purse like I used to.

00:43:48.380 I don't go on many dates, but when you go on a date, you should have cash in your pocket.

00:43:53.600 So my question was, where did that cash originally come from?

00:43:56.480 If it didn't come out of the bank.

00:43:57.920 Cash is fungible.

00:44:00.400 We've had cash for years in my house.

00:44:02.860 So for me to tell you the source of when it comes from, when you go to Publix and you

00:44:06.620 buy something, you get $50, you throw it in there.

00:44:09.060 It's been my whole life.

00:44:10.840 When I took out a large amount of money on my first campaign, I kept some of the cash of

00:44:15.000 that.

00:44:15.220 But to tell you, I just have cash in my house.

00:44:19.560 I don't have as much today as I would normally have, but I'm building back up now.

00:44:24.960 You just put money in.

00:44:26.000 It's a very good practice.

00:44:27.220 I would advise it to all women.

00:44:29.020 I am sure that the source of the money is always the work, sweat and tears of me.

00:44:34.440 The money that you paid, Mr. Wade, the cash in October of 2022.

00:44:38.720 You do not know where that money came from.

00:44:40.640 I do know where it came from.

00:44:41.720 It came from my sweat and tears.

00:44:43.060 Okay, Mike, she's getting some pushback online for saying there she took money out of her 0.97

00:44:49.760 campaign when she was running and that's in her personal cash fund.

00:44:53.560 That's a hard no-no.

00:44:54.820 Yeah, I mean, when Governor Kemp and Attorney General Chris Cardot in Georgia opened their

00:45:01.640 criminal probe for perjury and subvenation of perjury and bribery and false statements

00:45:09.100 and gift ban violations, it sounds like they can add a campaign cash violation as well.

00:45:15.680 You can't use campaign finances for any personal use.

00:45:19.080 That's just the way it is.

00:45:20.880 And we'll see, but that statement may come back to haunt her in a different way.

00:45:25.680 You're not allowed to take campaign cash and put it in your personal coffers.

00:45:28.620 That's just against the law.

00:45:30.400 So we'll see if that comes back.

00:45:31.620 But that's her, you know, my blood, sweat and tears led to my money.

00:45:35.580 And she tried to do the feminist thing. 1.00

00:45:37.440 It was a little much, but of course, predictably, it's got the people on MSNBC like,

00:45:42.240 oh, you go, girl.

00:45:44.100 Here is back to Joy Reid talking about her reaction to some of those moments in SOT 23.

00:45:50.980 And what we also saw today, frankly, was a clinic in Black womanhood and particularly

00:45:54.620 high profile Black womanhood, right? 0.99

00:45:57.060 If you're a Black woman in this country, you don't have to be a district attorney 1.00

00:45:59.940 prosecuting the former president of the United States to really understand what it means

00:46:03.740 to have your integrity or your professionalism questioned or the urge to defend your character

00:46:08.460 or reputation, right?

00:46:09.460 And so that's what you really saw on display today.

00:46:12.460 Yes, she was angry, but she was also insulted.

00:46:14.480 If you're questioning my integrity and accusing me of hiring somebody that I was having an affair

00:46:19.680 with when I'm telling you the timeline and then asking, did my kids live at my house?

00:46:23.340 You want to know how much money I have?

00:46:24.860 Is he giving me cash?

00:46:25.800 She was insulted and rightfully so. 0.77

00:46:27.600 This idea that women of color have to sit there and be demure and take it. 1.00

00:46:30.960 There were people on social media who were saying, oh, she's coming in too hot. 0.99

00:46:34.600 No, she wasn't.

00:46:35.600 She was offended and she had a right to be offended.

00:46:37.460 You tell me, Dave, you're a DA.

00:46:40.020 Is there a special exception to asking difficult questions about possible lies when it's a Black 0.99

00:46:45.840 woman on the stand?

00:46:47.160 No, but I do understand why she was pissed off.

00:46:50.740 I mean, she's been getting a ton of death threats.

00:46:52.640 She's been getting a lot of hate.

00:46:54.480 And this was just a culmination of everything.

00:46:56.360 You remember, she ran into that courtroom and she defied her own lawyers who were trying

00:47:00.560 to block the subpoena.

00:47:01.580 And she said, no, I'm going up there.

00:47:02.920 And that, to me, helped establish some credibility.

00:47:05.900 She just went out there, threw caution to the wind.

00:47:08.160 And I understand why she was angry.

00:47:09.940 I thought that anger was real.

00:47:11.160 I don't think that was contrived.

00:47:12.760 And now here she is forced into this humiliating hearing.

00:47:15.420 Now, to your point, the reason why she's at this hearing is because of these allegations.

00:47:19.860 These were self-inflicted wounds.

00:47:21.740 I mean, she should not have entered into this relationship with Nathan Wade.

00:47:24.560 And then if they lied, then, yeah, these questions are absolutely fair to determine whether they

00:47:29.460 should be disqualified.

00:47:30.240 But I understand her frustration, her anger.

00:47:33.080 And it reminded me when Brett Kavanaugh, and I mentioned this earlier, but remember when

00:47:36.120 he went after the Clintons during his hearing?

00:47:38.160 And we're like, what does this have to do with anything?

00:47:40.160 Well, you go after the process and you have folks, your natural supportive community coming

00:47:45.680 out in your defense and perhaps that's what she was doing here. 0.99

00:47:49.640 I want to get back to her affect and her anger in a second, Mike.

00:47:52.120 But I do want to pick up on what Nathan Wade was saying about why there's no, you know,

00:47:55.700 how it was all paid in cash and there's no receipts and so on.

00:47:58.600 He, that cross-examination, I think that was Trump's lawyer there, pressing him on where

00:48:03.100 the receipts and so on, and why you haven't disclosed it before now.

00:48:06.580 I thought that was persuasive.

00:48:07.820 He submitted a sworn affidavit, Mike.

00:48:09.760 He went through, I mean, I have it here in front of me.

00:48:12.640 Here, I'll hold it up for the audience.

00:48:14.580 It's got all highlighted.

00:48:15.420 Those are mine.

00:48:16.000 Um, goes through in detail.

00:48:20.200 Um, all the, no funds paid to me in my role as special prosecutor have been shared with

00:48:24.760 DA Willis, nor vice versa.

00:48:27.260 Um, all the stuff he allegedly hasn't done with Fannie Willis.

00:48:30.540 And then paragraph 34, the DA and I are both financially independent professionals.

00:48:35.240 Expenses for personal travel were roughly divided equally between us.

00:48:38.420 At times I have made and purchased travel for her and myself for my personal funds.

00:48:43.780 At other times she's done it.

00:48:45.880 Examples of DA Willis purchasing plane tickets for the two of us with her personal funds for

00:48:52.960 our personal travel are attached.

00:48:54.580 And we talked about this the other day.

00:48:55.560 All he attaches are the plane tickets that he says she purchased them for one of their

00:49:00.280 cruises to the Bahamas from Atlanta to Miami.

00:49:02.900 You know, as well as I do, if you're sitting there as Nathan Wade and you know,

00:49:08.180 she reimbursed me for everything by these big cash deposits that her daddy told her she 0.90

00:49:13.320 needed to keep, you want to put that in the affidavit.

00:49:15.680 Where is it?

00:49:17.340 Yeah, it's just not credible.

00:49:18.900 And this is purely speculation on my part, but I think they should do an open records request

00:49:24.160 to see if Fulton County reimbursed Fannie Willis for those plane tickets from Atlanta to Miami,

00:49:31.100 those two plane tickets that she paid for.

00:49:33.380 But that's neither here nor there.

00:49:35.620 I would just say this again, the burden of proof shifts to Fannie Willis to come up with 0.85

00:49:42.340 evidence that she paid cash to reimburse her boyfriends for these trips around the world.

00:49:49.540 And the fact the fact that she didn't do this when she's prosecuting the president, a former

00:49:55.920 and future president of the United States shows you at a minimum she has horrific judgment. 0.63

00:50:00.920 Here, okay, we've got the sandwich soundbite.

00:50:06.020 Let's play it.

00:50:06.640 Mr. Wade, let's go on and have the conversation.

00:50:12.080 I'm just asking you whether or not it was a coincidence.

00:50:14.240 It had absolutely nothing to do with this.

00:50:17.280 It's interesting that we're here about this money.

00:50:20.400 Mr. Wade is used to women that, as he told me one time, the only thing a woman can do for 0.96

00:50:25.700 him is make him a sandwich.

00:50:27.660 We would have brutal arguments about the fact that I am your equal.

00:50:32.620 I don't need anything from a man.

00:50:34.120 A man is not a plan. 0.97

00:50:35.600 A man is a companion.

00:50:37.680 And so there was tension always in our relationship, which is why I was give him his money back.

00:50:44.500 I don't need anybody to foot my bills.

00:50:47.100 The only man who's ever foot my bills completely is my daddy.

00:50:50.400 Okay, so there it is.

00:50:54.240 I get it.

00:50:54.960 I kind of liked the soundbite overall.

00:50:56.760 You know, I thought it was actually a pretty good moment for her, but I have to say it was

00:51:00.480 not a good moment for Nathan Wade, right?

00:51:04.100 Like you're sitting there like, what do you mean?

00:51:06.020 Only thing a woman can do for you is make you a sandwich. 1.00

00:51:08.040 That's like, that is, isn't that the misogynistic trope of like some jerk guys?

00:51:13.980 You'll go up to him and be like, well, what about this?

00:51:15.780 And they'll be like, make me a sandwich.

00:51:16.940 This does not make Nathan Wade look good, but her whole point was to be like, I'm the

00:51:22.340 fiery one and I would never take a man's money, notwithstanding all the evidence that she 1.00

00:51:26.000 did.

00:51:26.520 Okay.

00:51:27.300 Let's, let's go back to her anger because I, it did not, I liked that soundbite. 0.63

00:51:31.500 I thought that worked, but her, she took the stand.

00:51:34.560 Dave says correctly.

00:51:35.520 She took the stand over counsel's objection.

00:51:37.540 I mean, I think she knew she was going to get, the judge was going to make her take the

00:51:40.840 stand, but whatever.

00:51:41.540 She wanted to have this empowering moment, Mike.

00:51:43.140 So she comes out there, a gun's blazing, attacks Ashley Merchant, the lawyer for, for Roman 0.95

00:51:48.520 and really starts to like play into her, lean into her anger in a way, again, I think is

00:51:54.200 evidence of deception, but let's take a look at it.

00:51:56.940 Watch.

00:51:57.740 I've been very anxious to have this conversation with him today.

00:52:00.620 Mr. Wade is a Southern gentleman.

00:52:03.000 I mean, not so much.

00:52:04.360 It's highly offensive when someone lies on you and it's highly offensive when they try to

00:52:08.000 implicate that you slept with somebody the first day you met with them.

00:52:10.900 And I take exception to it.

00:52:12.400 I very much want to be here.

00:52:13.900 So I'm not a hostile witness.

00:52:15.180 I very much want to be here.

00:52:16.560 Not so much that you're hostile, Ms. Willis, it'd be an adverse witness.

00:52:19.540 Your interests are opposed to Ms. Merchants.

00:52:22.220 Thank you.

00:52:22.840 Ms. Merchants' interests are contrary to democracy, Your Honor, not to mine. 0.99

00:52:29.280 Okay.

00:52:29.720 Here's a little bit more in Sat 12.

00:52:30.900 Watch.

00:52:31.720 Your office objected to us getting Delta records for flights that you may have taken on this

00:52:36.520 for me.

00:52:36.740 And, well, no, no, no, look, I object to you getting records.

00:52:40.860 You've been intrusive into people's personal lives.

00:52:43.680 You're confused.

00:52:44.460 You think I'm on trial.

00:52:45.820 These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020.

00:52:49.020 I'm not on trial, no matter how hard you try to put me on trial.

00:52:53.240 Let me tell you guys something.

00:52:54.520 I know the temptation is to be like, yeah, you go, girl, if you're on her side.

00:52:58.200 But it's a classic deceptive tell when you attack the question or the questioner and

00:53:06.800 sort of try to go on offense and turn it into a moment that works for you as like the fierce

00:53:13.000 one in the chair.

00:53:13.740 That's classic Phil Houston stuff.

00:53:16.000 All this stuff is being done for a reason, to try to turn the tables, make her look like 0.98

00:53:20.120 she's the righteous one, as opposed to what a truth teller would do, which is just use the

00:53:24.680 words to answer the questions asked.

00:53:26.740 And the judge kept saying to her, like, you're going to have a chance to make your arguments

00:53:32.920 when you get, you know, your lawyer up here who gets a chance to sort of, you know, ask

00:53:37.960 you questions.

00:53:38.820 And she couldn't hold it together to the point where at one point, Mike, she lost it.

00:53:43.160 And the judge was like, we're going to have to take a recess if you can't get it together.

00:53:48.720 And he might strike her testimony, he said, if you can't, you know, just answer the questions.

00:53:53.340 Here it is in SOT 17.

00:53:54.200 Did Mr. Wade ever visit you at a place that you resided?

00:53:58.160 He has never been to my home in South Fulton.

00:54:01.860 2020 was before I knew that a phone call was going to be made and I was going to have to

00:54:06.080 abandon my home.

00:54:07.140 As a result thereof, he never visited, lived at, came to, or has seen South Fulton.

00:54:14.600 You qualified that with your home in South Fulton?

00:54:17.180 That's where I lived in 2020.

00:54:18.640 2020, did he ever visit you at a place that you resided?

00:54:24.240 Okay.

00:54:24.960 I don't understand.

00:54:25.820 You're going to have to get a guy. 0.56

00:54:26.660 In 2020, I lived in South Fulton.

00:54:28.660 Okay.

00:54:28.820 That's the only place I lived in South Fulton.

00:54:30.800 That's before I had to abandon my home, Judge.

00:54:33.260 All right.

00:54:33.540 And at my home in South Fulton, he never came there.

00:54:38.240 Okay.

00:54:38.720 So if you don't come someplace, you can't live there.

00:54:40.980 Ms. Willis, that's, I'm going to have to caution you.

00:54:42.480 That's going to be my, the first time I have to caution you.

00:54:46.080 We have to listen to the questions as asked.

00:54:48.380 And if this happens again and again, I'm going to have no choice but to strike your testimony.

00:54:54.880 She was literally shaking, Mike, as we saw her there.

00:54:57.720 She just was not, she was not in control and she was extremely emotional.

00:55:02.080 And there's, I think, a reason for that.

00:55:04.100 I don't think it was righteous indignation.

00:55:05.780 I think she knew she's probably going to get booted off this case. 0.74

00:55:09.160 She knows she's caught in.

00:55:10.700 She went out there in such a hurry and so angry. 1.00

00:55:14.140 Megan, does she have her dress on backwards? 1.00

00:55:16.000 A lot of people ask you that question because the zipper's in the front.

00:55:19.360 I don't know.

00:55:19.920 Some dresses are like that. 1.00

00:55:22.020 Yeah.

00:55:23.080 Regardless, she did herself no good by coming out there being angry and indignant in that courtroom.

00:55:30.640 Because even this judge, who I think is, you know, not exactly a fire-breathing Republican, kind of a soft judge.

00:55:37.720 When you managed to piss off this judge, I think you've gone too far there, old Fannie. 1.00

00:55:43.740 Yeah, she was, I don't know.

00:55:46.000 You could see her fingers are shaking while she's out there, Dave, which is kind of surprising in somebody who's a DA.

00:55:53.020 Yes, angry.

00:55:54.140 But look, it could be because she's indignant, as you say.

00:55:57.880 And it also could be because she is committing perjury. 1.00

00:56:01.960 She's denying something she knows is true.

00:56:04.040 And she's about to be publicly humiliated, already has been, and is going to get booted off of this case, the biggest case ever in Fulton County.

00:56:10.840 Well, I'm not a body language expert like the guy you spoke with, Megan.

00:56:15.100 But, you know, we all have our lived experiences, and we see the world through them.

00:56:18.860 I mean, I, as a prosecutor, have been attacked when I prosecuted cases, and I see what she is saying, where it's not necessarily a lie when you say, you guys are the problem.

00:56:30.660 You're the one who are the defendants, not me.

00:56:33.160 I have been there, and I've felt that way before, and here's someone who had to abandon her home because of all the death threats she's receiving, and now she's being accused of essentially sleeping around and lying about it. 0.62

00:56:42.360 So I can see why she's indignant about it.

00:56:44.120 Hmm. Here's what Phil Houston said, just a little bit more color of what he, you know, the former CAA guy, deception detection guy.

00:56:51.260 She exhibited a very high volume of deception, combative, uncooperative. 0.86

00:56:56.140 The most prevalent deceptive behaviors were both her verbal attacks directed toward her questioners and her failure to either directly answer some of these questions or answer them at all.

00:57:05.240 In my opinion, she appears to be trying very hard to avoid identification of the source of the cash she gave to Mr. Wade.

00:57:14.340 She was trying to prevent the questioner from pinning her down as to the nature of the physical contact she had with Mr. Wade.

00:57:20.860 The objective of her aggressive behavior appears to reflect her attempt to preclude the prosecutors from eliciting any testimony from her that will conclusively lead to serious legal consequences.

00:57:32.560 Perhaps one of her biggest concerns relates to whether or not the money she gave Mr. Wade was sourced from her government work.

00:57:39.640 Her goal is to obfuscate and stymie the prosecutor's efforts to the degree that it becomes extraordinarily difficult for them to pin any serious wrongdoing on her. 0.99

00:57:49.680 That's Phil Houston's take.

00:57:51.620 All right, let's get to the interrogatory answers because I really happen to believe this is the most devastating thing of the case.

00:57:58.320 I really do.

00:57:59.560 Nathan Wade lied under oath.

00:58:00.660 That is my clear conclusion and opinion, having listened to the testimony.

00:58:04.480 He lied in his divorce proceeding.

00:58:07.660 And it doesn't even have to, this is a separate issue from him, we believe, lying in his affidavit in this motion that he didn't start the affair until 2022.

00:58:17.060 He said in his divorce proceeding that he didn't have an affair with anybody.

00:58:20.420 He didn't have a sexual relationship with anybody other than his wife and that he had no entertainment, no hotels, nothing and no receipts thereof or documentation whatsoever about any of that in the course of his marriage, which was ongoing.

00:58:36.740 I mean, I'm not sure if the divorce is final, but if it's final, they just resolved the proceedings a month ago after this whole thing.

00:58:43.640 So the point is through entire 2023, they were married.

00:58:47.360 And yet we have him admitting yesterday under oath he was having a sexual relationship with Fannie Willis.

00:58:53.800 We have him submitting under oath documents that he says show the many trips that they took together, at least receipts for one of them.

00:59:00.740 And some of the lawyers zeroed right in on this, because if this judge sees this lawyer, this officer of the court lied under oath in a divorce proceeding, he's a liar.

00:59:12.260 Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

00:59:14.240 You can find him a liar on everything if he found he lied in one thing while under oath in an earlier proceeding.

00:59:18.780 So here is some of that.

00:59:20.300 It's important to go through.

00:59:21.160 So here he is just denying, first of all, that he had an affair because he claims the marriage was sort of emotionally over before it had actually ended.

00:59:31.440 This is Sot 3.

00:59:33.060 In 2022, in this affidavit, you swore that you and Willis developed a personal relationship.

00:59:39.960 Yes, ma'am.

00:59:40.720 And you said that that didn't that didn't develop until 2022, correct?

00:59:44.260 That's correct.

00:59:45.000 And that's different from what you said in your pleading in May 2023 in the divorce case, correct?

00:59:50.820 No, ma'am.

00:59:51.620 In May 2023, when you were asked if you had a if you'd had any affairs, essentially, and you said none.

00:59:58.660 That's correct.

00:59:59.420 OK.

00:59:59.880 So in May, you said you had not in May 2023 in the divorce case, you said you had not had a personal relationship, an affair, a romantic relationship with anyone.

01:00:08.040 That's correct.

01:00:08.940 But you told this court in the affidavit that you did have one that started in 2022.

01:00:13.460 So that would have been ongoing at 2023.

01:00:16.820 So here I think there's a distinction.

01:00:20.160 If you'd allow me to explain the interrogatory, ask the question during the course of your marriage or to date.

01:00:30.360 It actually says, I'm going to request that the witness be committed.

01:00:34.280 Mr. Wade.

01:00:34.980 So my marriage was irretrievably broken in 2015, ma'am, by agreement.

01:00:43.080 My wife and I agree that once she had the affair in 2015, that we'd get a divorce.

01:00:50.780 We didn't get a divorce immediately because my children were still in school, and I refused to allow them to grow up without their father at the time.

01:01:02.340 So we waited.

01:01:03.900 We waited until the youngest graduated, and we dropped her off at college and didn't file for the divorce.

01:01:11.600 So if you're asking me about the interrogatory as it relates to having the 2022 relationship with District Attorney Willis, I want to say, because my marriage was irretrievably broken, I was free to have a relationship.

01:01:28.740 Okay, here is what the interrogatory, how it reads.

01:01:34.560 Describe each instance in which you have had sexual relations with a person other than your spouse during the course of the marriage, including the period of separation.

01:01:45.180 Including the period of separation.

01:01:47.420 I'm sorry.

01:01:48.860 Dave, I'll start with you.

01:01:50.780 It's a lie.

01:01:51.820 He lied when he said none.

01:01:53.880 That was his answer, his sworn answer.

01:01:56.420 Yeah, sure seems like that.

01:01:58.480 That's another reason why I didn't find him too credible.

01:02:01.620 Now, Megan, didn't he try to go back and assert the fifth and try to amend the answers to his interrogatories?

01:02:06.620 Yeah, that's weird, too.

01:02:07.500 We're going to get to that.

01:02:08.280 That was another weirdness that stinks to high heaven.

01:02:11.700 This guy's going to have problems with the bar.

01:02:13.480 There's no question.

01:02:14.380 Like, you can't do this as a lawyer.

01:02:15.760 You can't do it, period, as a civilian.

01:02:17.220 But you really can't lie to the court willingly as an officer of the court.

01:02:20.640 You can't without consequence.

01:02:23.400 So that was number one.

01:02:25.800 That's the first soundbite.

01:02:27.420 Did not have an affair because of the emotional separation.

01:02:30.900 That doesn't, that's not how these things work.

01:02:33.560 Then he said, he admitted that he, notwithstanding the request for receipts of any hotels with a lover, he provided absolutely nothing.

01:02:44.220 You heard some of that earlier, a minute ago.

01:02:46.580 So he admitted that he gave none.

01:02:49.240 And his answer was, no, I have no receipts that would show any travel with another woman to a hotel or anything else.

01:02:54.040 That's also a lie.

01:02:56.140 And then he updated his answers, which Dave just raised.

01:03:00.820 He, what happened was he had to give these interrogatory answers repeatedly.

01:03:04.920 He gave them similar ones, December of 21, May of 23, December 22nd of 23.

01:03:11.960 I mean, that's recent.

01:03:13.040 And then January 26th of 24, he updated those answers after Ashley Merchant raised all these issues in this Trump case.

01:03:22.160 And he updated them to assert, he kind of crossed out none, which we know is a lie, to say the plaintiff declines to respond and asserts his privilege pursuant to Georgia statute 24-5-505.

01:03:40.460 What does 24-5-505 say?

01:03:44.480 It says, I have it here, no party or witness shall be required to testify as to any matter which may incriminate or tend to incriminate such party or witness, or which shall tend to bring infamy, disgrace, or public contempt upon such party or witness.

01:03:59.940 Okay, so you can't require someone to testify as to something that may incriminate them.

01:04:06.860 We know that.

01:04:07.320 That's Fifth Amendment privilege.

01:04:09.000 And you also can't require somebody to testify as to a matter which shall tend to bring infamy, disgrace, or public contempt upon such party or any member of their family.

01:04:21.120 Infamy, disgrace, or public contempt.

01:04:25.040 So he was asked about this yesterday.

01:04:27.260 Like, are you asserting the fifth?

01:04:29.640 And why?

01:04:30.620 Is it the incrimination piece?

01:04:32.400 Or is it the other piece?

01:04:33.980 And he invented some third piece that doesn't exist.

01:04:38.480 Watch.

01:04:39.820 You updated those responses again after the motion to disqualify was filed, though, correct?

01:04:47.920 When was the motion filed?

01:04:49.640 January 8th, 2024.

01:04:51.460 When I filed the motion to disqualify you and alleged that you had a romantic relationship with Ms. Willis.

01:04:55.860 Yes, ma'am.

01:04:57.240 After that, you updated these responses, correct?

01:04:59.720 Yes, ma'am.

01:05:00.660 And so your new responses, you now changed your answer from that you didn't have any of this to you're asserting the privilege under 24-5-505, correct?

01:05:09.000 Yes, ma'am.

01:05:09.580 Okay.

01:05:10.980 And both of these are under oath?

01:05:12.760 Yes, ma'am.

01:05:13.320 You also updated your response to the question about spending time with someone other than your spouse for dinner, drinks, things at restaurants, bars, hotels, or the other person's home, correct?

01:05:25.800 Yes, ma'am.

01:05:26.440 So in December of 2023, you said no to all that, and then in January, after I filed my motion, you said privilege to all that, Fifth Amendment privilege?

01:05:35.240 Yes, ma'am.

01:05:35.820 Okay.

01:05:36.740 And just to be clear, was it—

01:05:38.100 I'm sorry.

01:05:38.380 I'm going to abstract the characterization of Fifth Amendment privilege.

01:05:41.000 It was a statutory privilege, and that's quite different.

01:05:43.600 That's what I was just about to ask him.

01:05:44.900 So that privilege covers infamy or Fifth Amendment privilege, correct?

01:05:48.680 So it was a privacy privilege, just what I updated my response to do.

01:05:53.100 Once you filed your motion to intervene in my divorce action, I then figured that you were in talks with my former wife's divorce lawyer.

01:06:07.780 Okay.

01:06:08.020 And because of that, I asserted a privacy privilege because I didn't want the proceedings of my divorce to bleed over into the proceedings in this case, which is the case that obviously you're involved in.

01:06:22.860 So your answer is in December of 2023 that you didn't have any documents about any travel that you took with Ms. Willis.

01:06:28.940 That wasn't true, though, correct?

01:06:31.500 They didn't ask me about any documents regarding Ms. Willis.

01:06:35.760 A romantic partner.

01:06:38.020 They asked you for documents regarding a romantic partner.

01:06:40.260 So I'm sorry, I inserted Ms. Willis' name.

01:06:43.040 Let me rephrase the question.

01:06:44.560 They asked you for documents about travel with a romantic partner in December 2023, and you under oath said you did not have any of those, correct?

01:06:52.060 I did not.

01:06:52.920 Okay.

01:06:53.200 And they asked me about gifts.

01:06:55.300 Right.

01:06:55.840 I've never purchased a gift for Ms. Willis.

01:06:58.180 And they asked you about receipts for dinner, receipts for drinks, hotels, bars, and restaurants, and you said you did not have any of those.

01:07:05.180 I did not and do not have any receipts for any of those things.

01:07:08.820 And once again, he doesn't have any receipts because he only has a credit card bill.

01:07:16.920 He lied.

01:07:17.800 It's another lie.

01:07:18.980 And she did a good job, Ashley Merchant, of calling out the lie because he's trying to wiggle out suggesting he was only asked for receipts and he didn't have those.

01:07:28.480 Here's what it says.

01:07:29.760 I read you the first one.

01:07:31.280 Here's the second one.

01:07:32.560 Identify any and all occasions in which you entertained a member of the opposite sex, including but not limited to, dining and or drinking at any restaurants, bars, pubs, hotels, or person's home from the date of marriage to the present.

01:07:50.860 Identify any and all occasions in which you entertained a member of the opposite sex, including but not limited to, those places.

01:07:59.680 It was not limited to give us the receipts.

01:08:02.960 It was identify all the instances.

01:08:05.080 And his answer was none.

01:08:07.760 Again, it's another, an independent felony.

01:08:12.360 Is it not a felony, Dave?

01:08:13.600 You're the prosecuting attorney.

01:08:14.660 If it's a material misstatement, intentional misstatement, then yes, it is a, it is perjury.

01:08:21.500 Now, whether it's a felony or misdemeanor under Georgia law, I don't, I don't know, but it is a crime.

01:08:26.460 It is rarely prosecuted, but it looks bad.

01:08:29.920 It could lead to disciplinary charges.

01:08:31.400 Plus, the judge could take that into account since it's raised in this hearing when he makes his ultimate decision.

01:08:37.840 Notably, his affairs may not have involved Bonnie Willis.

01:08:41.540 It could have involved other women. 1.00

01:08:42.680 And he clarified that when she, the lawyer merchant, said, Bonnie Willis.

01:08:47.460 And he said, no, no, no.

01:08:48.840 So it could have involved others.

01:08:50.140 It may not involve Bonnie at all.

01:08:51.920 Well, we know it involved Bonnie at least once because they're, they admit to themselves, I mean, to the court that they were, they were having an affair in 2022.

01:08:59.260 That's their story.

01:09:00.400 The others say it went back further, but at least in 2022.

01:09:03.940 And these interrogatory answers were start or assigned with the lie as recently as December 22nd, 2023.

01:09:10.880 So it's just no question that he lied.

01:09:13.400 And you tell me, Mike, whether he gets to save his lie after Ashley Merchant files her, her motion in the Trump case by saying, making up some Fifth Amendment right to your privacy.

01:09:23.480 Hmm, that's the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

01:09:26.500 It actually shows more guilt on his part that he's trying to change his prior testimony.

01:09:31.880 When you update your interrogatories or you, you do an errata page, you update your deposition testimony.

01:09:38.320 It's to fix, like, honest mistakes, like you maybe honestly, you know, thought, you know, that it was on Monday instead of Tuesday.

01:09:47.400 It's not, you don't update a substantive, your substantive testimony and think that you can just eliminate your perjury.

01:09:56.340 You can eliminate a lie by updating your interrogatories.

01:09:59.680 That's just not how it works.

01:10:01.220 Here's, I think it's, again, Trump's lawyer, Sato, who got up there and was trying to point out this exact issue in SOT 27.

01:10:09.100 How would an answer of none bring infamy, disgrace or public contempt upon you?

01:10:15.540 So, as I explained in direct of Mr. Roman's counsel, the minute she elected to intervene into my divorce proceeding,

01:10:26.100 I then started to understand the bigger picture, which was that all the attorneys in the election interference case were colluding with Joycelyn's divorce lawyer.

01:10:38.280 And because of that, I said, privacy, I don't want my divorce proceeding to bleed into this criminal proceeding.

01:10:47.580 I just didn't want that.

01:10:49.420 So you raised a privilege, if I understand, that indicated that your answer would bring infamy, disgrace or public contempt upon you, right?

01:11:00.420 I'm going to object to the relevance of this and ask an answer to the point.

01:11:04.780 Mr. Sato, where are we heading with this?

01:11:06.220 Now, I think I can finish that up by saying, you didn't say none again.

01:11:11.780 You asserted a privilege, correct?

01:11:14.460 That's correct.

01:11:15.220 Okay.

01:11:15.520 And you did the same thing, did you not, with number five?

01:11:19.380 That's correct.

01:11:20.340 That is, you didn't say none again, right?

01:11:23.440 Correct.

01:11:23.900 Okay.

01:11:24.220 Is the answer to the interrogatory number four, as you have it in front of you, is the answer none?

01:11:31.120 Is that the truth?

01:11:31.720 The answer is, to that interrogatory, is as I placed it at the time I responded, sir.

01:11:38.680 I'm asking you now, is the answer to that interrogatory none?

01:11:43.400 The answer is still privilege.

01:11:45.640 My God.

01:11:48.520 I really, I have secondhand embarrassment for him.

01:11:51.760 There is, for the record, no privacy privilege to avoid answering embarrassing interrogatories.

01:11:59.140 You do what had already been done in this case, which is you ask the judge for an order to place the documents under seal so that you don't have to be publicly embarrassed.

01:12:07.880 That this is a fake, made-up thing.

01:12:11.000 I don't know why he's doing it, Dave, because he'd already told the lie.

01:12:15.960 Like, going back and amending it to, say, privacy, like, that doesn't cure the three-time lie you told on the earlier answers.

01:12:25.760 Yeah, maybe he's trying to do what Mike suggested, where you update your interrogatories because you made an innocent mistake, and now he's got a privilege.

01:12:34.440 But no, this doesn't seem like it was just a misstatement.

01:12:38.060 It looks like it was intentional because the wording of the interrogatories are so broad that you can't get out of it by saying, no, I don't have receipts.

01:12:45.700 I actually, if they ask for just receipts, he could say, no receipts, just credit card statements, splitting hairs, but you can get away with it.

01:12:52.300 But not when they ask for everything.

01:12:54.240 When did you even have an encounter, an experience?

01:12:57.680 When did you entertain someone?

01:12:59.080 That's so broad and intentionally broadly written to encompass stuff like this.

01:13:04.000 And they ask for all documents.

01:13:05.480 If you look at, if you zoom out, we don't have all the interrogatories.

01:13:08.660 Some were leaked, and we have these two, and they were asking about others on the stand.

01:13:12.640 But it was clear that the interrogatories asked for all documents that relate to any of these issues, not just receipts.

01:13:18.460 He's the one who tried to limit it to receipts.

01:13:20.780 And so he's got them dead to rights.

01:13:22.640 But to what end?

01:13:23.620 Okay, so Dave's raising the point, Mike, that this judge may say, eh, okay.

01:13:28.900 I mean, I have to say, I thought the judge got it because that lawyer, Sato, he tried to push it a bit and really drive it home that this is a lie and so on.

01:13:37.340 And the judge was like, I got it.

01:13:39.140 You know, let's move on.

01:13:40.080 And I believed the judge that he did get it.

01:13:42.600 Like, he seemed to me to actually understand this guy had clearly been caught in a lie.

01:13:47.760 And that, I don't know, like Dave's point is, there's a chance that this judge could say, eh, he was embarrassed.

01:13:55.220 Like, he lied about having an affair in a divorce proceeding.

01:13:58.820 That's a lie probably many men have told, you know, I don't know.

01:14:04.840 Does he say, I'm not going to punish, like, I'm not the judge in the divorce proceeding.

01:14:09.520 I'm the judge in the Trump proceeding.

01:14:11.120 And I don't really believe he lied in this proceeding.

01:14:14.900 He wasn't asked about that specific interrogatory here.

01:14:19.200 He's claiming the affair didn't start until 2022.

01:14:22.160 I have to decide whether that's a lie.

01:14:24.540 And I don't know if I believe this, Rob and Yurti.

01:14:28.080 Fannie and Nathan were both very strong that it didn't start until 2022.

01:14:31.580 The trips didn't start until 2022.

01:14:32.740 So I'm going with that.

01:14:34.120 And if I don't have more, I'm not DQing the DA in her office from a huge prosecution.

01:14:39.820 I think that there is zero chance that this judge will not DQ Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade in this case.

01:14:48.740 I think that is absolutely going to happen.

01:14:51.040 I think the only open question is whether he dismisses this case entirely without prejudice.

01:14:58.760 So the attorney general can bring in a new prosecutor to start this case, to decide whether to refile these charges, because this case, as we've talked about, has been tainted since before its inception with this illegal financial state that Fannie Willis had in this criminal prosecution before they filed the criminal indictment.

01:15:25.400 And that is the key.

01:15:26.260 Here's just two other moments I want to get to before, because we are going to move on to a couple of other matters in the time we have.

01:15:32.380 This has made the rounds on X, and I can see why.

01:15:36.020 He was asked, Nathan Wade was asked, if he'd ever been to a cabin with Fannie Willis.

01:15:41.160 Now, you guys just think about it, and the audience should think about it with respect to their own partners, spouses, whatever.

01:15:47.280 If somebody asks you if you've ever been to a cabin, you know the answer.

01:15:51.160 Yes.

01:15:51.720 My answer is yes.

01:15:52.780 Doug and I have been to a cabin many times.

01:15:54.260 It's not that hard.

01:15:56.760 It's not a trick question.

01:15:58.600 But watch this in SOT 7.

01:16:01.480 I'm asking if you remember paying for a cabin six months ago in Tennessee.

01:16:07.120 No.

01:16:07.840 Do you remember booking a cabin?

01:16:09.920 I booked lots of cabins.

01:16:11.080 Did you go to a cabin with Miss Willis ever?

01:16:20.860 Ever?

01:16:21.540 Ever.

01:16:21.920 Ever.

01:16:21.960 Ever.

01:16:22.340 Ever.

01:16:22.960 Ever.

01:16:23.840 Ever.

01:16:23.960 Ever.

01:16:24.500 Ever.

01:16:29.020 Ever.

01:16:29.900 Ever.

01:16:31.020 Ever.

01:16:33.020 Ever.

01:16:35.040 Ever.

01:16:35.420 Ever.

01:16:39.060 No.

01:16:43.400 You've never gone to a cabin with Miss Willis?

01:16:45.120 No.

01:16:47.080 I don't know what's happening there, but some of the memes on X are amazing.

01:16:52.700 They do like a little thought bubble of him picturing Fannie Willis in various outfits.

01:16:57.880 Inappropriate, but I have to say funny.

01:16:59.740 What's up with that?

01:17:00.840 I don't even know what to make of that.

01:17:02.220 Dave, thoughts on that one?

01:17:03.520 I was wondering the same thing when he had that long pause.

01:17:09.860 Like, what is he thinking about?

01:17:11.540 Unless he goes to cabins every other day with lots of different people and he had to think

01:17:15.940 about it.

01:17:16.360 This is something you generally remember.

01:17:18.180 I think in his mind, he's probably trying to say, is this thing a cabin?

01:17:23.020 This is more of like a home.

01:17:25.420 I don't know.

01:17:25.800 He's trying to like split those hairs, but it's not a good look.

01:17:29.060 By the way, Megan, since we're on the subject, before we move on the subject, can I give my

01:17:33.000 prediction?

01:17:33.480 Because it's always dangerous.

01:17:35.120 Please.

01:17:35.760 Thank you.

01:17:36.300 It's always dangerous to get predictions when there's this thing called videotape out there,

01:17:40.640 but I'm going to do so because Mike brings this up.

01:17:43.140 I actually think based on what you just said previously, that is I think what's going to

01:17:48.640 happen.

01:17:48.880 I think in the end, the judge is going to dress both of them down, is going to say, what

01:17:52.600 were you thinking?

01:17:53.840 But I don't have enough proof that you lied and therefore I'm not going to disqualify you.

01:18:00.020 It's, oh, I really think that's the clearly wrong decision.

01:18:04.740 I have to say, I think they're toast and they should be toast.

01:18:08.280 And, but we'll, we'll see.

01:18:09.760 I mean, I actually looked up, I didn't know anything about this judge.

01:18:12.760 He was appointed.

01:18:13.680 We've talked about that because there was a vacancy and now he's, he's got to run, I

01:18:17.440 think for reelection, but he's, he's right leaning.

01:18:20.400 He was in the Federalist Society.

01:18:22.220 So this is, you know, not a left winger.

01:18:25.440 So I think, and I have to say, I was very impressed at how he bent over backwards to

01:18:29.940 be fair to Willis and Wade yesterday.

01:18:32.900 That's good because they're in some trouble here.

01:18:34.980 So you should bend over backwards to be fair to them.

01:18:37.060 It gave him, I would say gave her more latitude than he should have, but okay.

01:18:40.200 So my general impression of watching that yesterday is I will trust this judge to make the right

01:18:45.900 decision.

01:18:46.460 And until he gives me reason to distrust him, I'm, I'm assuming he's proceeding in good

01:18:51.560 faith and, you know, we'll see what he says, but I have obviously my own feelings on what

01:18:55.620 the outcome should be.

01:18:56.520 Here's just a couple other that I can't miss.

01:18:58.560 This was what, this is sort of the biggest moment yesterday where she got, she was angry.

01:19:03.820 You know, she came, as I said, loaded for bear. 0.93

01:19:05.360 She's picking up the documents.

01:19:06.880 It's a lie.

01:19:07.680 It's a lie.

01:19:09.140 Here's a bit in SOT 14.

01:19:12.980 When did your romantic relationship with Mr. Wade end?

01:19:16.880 Did it end?

01:19:18.480 Me and Mr. Wade, um, we are good friends.

01:19:24.240 Uh, my respect for him has grown over these seven weeks of attacks.

01:19:30.220 Uh, we are very good friends.

01:19:33.240 I think, but for these attacks, it would have been a friendship that as life goes, you would

01:19:38.220 have stopped having.

01:19:39.880 Um, I think that you have cemented that we'll be friends to the day we die.

01:19:43.460 Right.

01:19:44.480 Uh, let's, we just have a hand.

01:19:46.820 I'm not going to handle Mr. Seda.

01:19:48.720 Let's have a, she asked about a personal relationship.

01:19:50.580 She asked when the romantic relationship ended.

01:19:52.540 That's the question.

01:19:53.540 That it's sometime in, um, I'd say late summer of 2023.

01:19:58.960 So I don't believe men, um, because this is what you're really asking about.

01:20:03.180 This is the salaciousness of all of this, right?

01:20:05.320 No, I'm just asking about your romantic relationship.

01:20:07.260 When you stopped dating, I'm asking.

01:20:09.500 I, I, I think that me and Mr. Wade, so he's a man.

01:20:15.460 He probably would say June or July.

01:20:18.920 I would say we had a tough conversation in office.

01:20:22.480 Mr. Wade visits you at the place you laid your head.

01:20:25.340 When?

01:20:26.080 Has he ever visited you at the place you laid your head?

01:20:28.440 So let's be clear.

01:20:29.500 Cause you've lied in this.

01:20:30.600 This, let me tell you which one you lied in right here.

01:20:32.780 I think you lied right here.

01:20:34.140 No, no, no, no, no.

01:20:35.260 This is the truth.

01:20:36.080 Judge.

01:20:36.560 It is a lie.

01:20:38.460 It is a lie.

01:20:40.700 Hmm.

01:20:41.460 Mike, what was your take on that one?

01:20:43.880 Uh, she, I mean, that the problem is, is anytime she gets caught in a lie, she lashes out.

01:20:50.840 She says other people are lying.

01:20:52.640 She brings up the black Panther. 0.73

01:20:54.820 She brings up that she's a strong woman.

01:20:57.580 Um, those are obvious.

01:20:59.260 She's obviously deflecting and tried to distract from the fact that she has lied to the court.

01:21:05.040 Nathan Wade has lied to the court and they've lied to the, to the court repeatedly.

01:21:09.680 Here was another moment where she kind of did that same thing.

01:21:13.240 I thought Dave, it was, I thought it was an inappropriate response about how she's not

01:21:17.720 going to embarrass or emasculate a black man. 0.82

01:21:20.580 It's like, she kept raising the black man, black, black, black. 0.99

01:21:23.220 It's like, this has nothing to do with race.

01:21:24.880 Just stop it.

01:21:25.860 Like, well, okay, fine.

01:21:27.680 Here she is in Sot 16.

01:21:30.520 Last area briefly.

01:21:32.580 Yes, sir.

01:21:33.040 You had contact with Mr. Wade in the year 2020, correct?

01:21:39.660 Ooh, um, I had some contact with Mr. Wade.

01:21:44.960 Would you explain when you say some contact?

01:21:47.540 Please tell us the, talk about 2020.

01:21:51.460 I had some contact with Mr. Wade in 2020.

01:21:54.720 Um, one of the reasons your allegations are so preposterous or miss merchants that you

01:21:59.520 have joined is ma'am.

01:22:01.600 I didn't ask you about the allegations.

01:22:03.360 I asked you about your contact.

01:22:05.360 So I ask you, okay.

01:22:07.180 I appreciate that, that you want to say something, but I'm interested in, did you have contacts

01:22:12.240 with Mr. Wade in 2020 and your answer so far has been yes, correct?

01:22:16.180 Very limited contact because, um, Mr. Wade had a form of cancer that makes your allegations

01:22:24.560 somewhat ridiculous.

01:22:26.660 And I do appreciate the characterization.

01:22:29.100 I'm not going to emasculate a black man, but I'm just telling you.

01:22:31.360 I'm sorry, what?

01:22:32.220 I'm not going to emasculate a black man.

01:22:36.140 Did you understand that?

01:22:37.560 All right, let's get back on track.

01:22:39.420 Mr. Sado, next question.

01:22:42.420 I'm sorry, but that just played so far.

01:22:44.200 It's ridiculous.

01:22:44.780 No one's, no one is asking you, you brought it up.

01:22:48.560 She's clearly suggesting he had some sort of prostate cancer or something like that.

01:22:53.200 That's my assumption.

01:22:54.760 She's the one who brought it up.

01:22:56.240 And by the way, Dave, no one's saying you were a hundred percent having sex in 2020 while

01:23:00.780 he was struggling with cancer.

01:23:02.280 It's the question is, did you have a romantic relationship going at that time?

01:23:05.260 So once again, it's an attempt to obfuscate, mislead, attack the question, even the one that

01:23:11.340 hasn't been asked, all of which are signs of deception.

01:23:16.260 Perhaps when I looked online to my Democratic friends, they were saying this looks like a

01:23:22.320 high tech lynching.

01:23:24.060 And yeah.

01:23:24.760 So, you know, I got to say, when you live that experience and you say, hey, this is the first

01:23:32.420 black prosecutor in that area, black woman prosecutor. 1.00

01:23:38.140 And all of a sudden now she is being accused of being a Jezebel and she's being put on the

01:23:43.200 stand.

01:23:44.340 Now, look, I realize a lot of this is self-inflicted wounds, but, you know, we don't live the life

01:23:49.240 experience that Fonnie Willis has lived.

01:23:51.220 And so she was pissed off and I'm not going to second guess her outrage, but I understand

01:23:56.900 how those of us from the outside looking at this, like what, like that lawyer said, like,

01:24:00.460 what, why are you saying emasculating a black man when we didn't even bring up race?

01:24:04.180 But, you know, there are racial overtones in all this.

01:24:06.660 And she.

01:24:07.460 No, there aren't.

01:24:08.500 There are no racial overtones in any of this.

01:24:11.540 It's absurd, Mike, that she kept interjecting race into the matter.

01:24:16.180 He's asking about whether they were together romantically, whether the relationship began

01:24:21.000 prior to 2022.

01:24:22.380 The fact, let's say he was going through cancer treatments for something related to his manhood.

01:24:26.680 That doesn't mean that there wasn't an affair.

01:24:28.620 Married couples all the time have to deal with this and they don't end their relationship

01:24:31.580 and say, oh, it was over for those eight months.

01:24:33.320 He was in chemo.

01:24:34.020 This is ridiculous.

01:24:35.380 It's a dodge.

01:24:36.500 She's trying to paint herself as the victim in gender sympathy. 1.00

01:24:40.820 This is what liars do. 0.76

01:24:42.180 I'm sorry, but I've been with Phil long enough.

01:24:43.860 Read his book, Spy the Lie, to understand exactly what she was doing there.

01:24:48.140 And stupid morons online may have fallen for it and said, you go, girl, it's it's a lynching.

01:24:53.360 But those of us who actually are truth seekers could see what she was doing.

01:24:58.520 The question is whether the judge will.

01:25:00.760 Do you have any of the same feelings I have, Mike, about this judge?

01:25:04.520 Yeah.

01:25:04.960 Yes.

01:25:05.400 And I think the American people, after four years of BLM's nonsense and racial division,

01:25:13.340 I think that if you look if you look at what real Americans think in the real world,

01:25:17.420 I think they're really tired of this racial division, this racial nonsense, 0.79

01:25:21.860 playing the victim because you're a black woman. 0.95

01:25:24.900 She is the Fulton County D.A. because she's a black woman. 1.00

01:25:28.360 She ran on the fact that she's a black woman. 1.00

01:25:31.120 And she ran on the fact that she's a black Panther cup. 1.00

01:25:34.260 So people are not going to let her use the fact that she's a black woman as an excuse 1.00

01:25:39.420 for the fact that she took illegal kickbacks from her unqualified boyfriend.

01:25:45.540 And she had a financial interest in this this litigation, this the biggest criminal case

01:25:52.660 imaginable, a RICO case against a former and likely future president of the United States.

01:25:59.220 All right.

01:26:00.420 Just an update.

01:26:02.060 Terrence Bradley did take the stand after being threatened by the judge.

01:26:06.120 Ashley Murchin is trying to establish when he knew that they met and began their romantic

01:26:10.480 relationship.

01:26:11.740 Objections are continuing on claims of attorney client privilege.

01:26:14.780 She's asking based on your personal knowledge, not AC privilege.

01:26:18.160 He said he has no personal knowledge of when it happened.

01:26:20.700 So that's how that's going so far.

01:26:22.940 All right.

01:26:23.260 We've got to get to a couple of other big things in the news today.

01:26:25.880 I have more Trump, but I just want to switch because the second biggest item is what's

01:26:29.820 happening in the Hunter Biden and Joe Biden corruption.

01:26:34.180 Cases and allegations, cases and hunters, case and allegations against Joe.

01:26:38.820 Big news today is special counsel David Weiss is charging someone.

01:26:43.820 It's not Hunter Biden with additional charges or Joe Biden.

01:26:47.340 It's the FBI or ex-FBI informant who said, you remember this FBI document that the FBI didn't want to release to Congress.

01:26:57.000 Then Congress was going to hold Christopher Wray in contempt unless he gave it to them and he gave it to them.

01:27:01.580 And in it, you had people like Nancy Mace, who was back then a moderate Republican. 0.93

01:27:06.020 Now she's gone kind of wacky.

01:27:07.780 But she came out and she was like, I think the president has taken a bribe.

01:27:12.180 And I remember a lot of people were like, wait a minute, if Nancy Mace is saying it, we have to pay attention.

01:27:17.620 Well, not so much because it turns out the ex-FBI informants now have been named and charged as a liar.

01:27:23.280 His name is Alexander Smyrna, 43, longtime FBI informant, did not say whether he's a U.S. citizen or from what country he is,

01:27:32.340 only that he's a, quote, globe-trotting businessman who speaks Russian and became an FBI informant in 2010.

01:27:37.820 He was arrested two days ago in Vegas on Wednesday, two charges of making false statements

01:27:42.460 and obstructing the government's long-running investigation into Hunter Biden.

01:27:46.520 They're saying he fabricated the lie that Biden, President Biden and Hunter, each sought $5 million in bribes

01:27:54.640 to protect Burisma, that Ukrainian energy company on whose board Hunter sat,

01:27:59.240 from an investigation by the Ukrainian prosecutor general at the time.

01:28:04.020 They say in 2015 or 2016, Hunter promised to protect the company through his dad from all kinds of problems

01:28:09.340 and that this guy Smirnoff falsely claimed to his bureau, that was Smirnoff's false claim to his bureau handler in 2020.

01:28:18.400 The claim was easily disproved, prosecutors said.

01:28:20.700 Smirnoff was only in contact with Burisma executives in 2017 after Biden left office, President Biden,

01:28:27.140 when he had no ability to influence U.S. policy.

01:28:29.900 So as I read this, Dave, this is not an exoneration of Hunter or even Joe Biden on sort of the overarching claims

01:28:39.280 of corrupt and pay-to-play and using the Biden name, but that the most salacious piece that we've seen

01:28:45.400 over the past year, which was they may have taken bribes while he was the sitting vice president

01:28:50.220 to change policy in Ukraine, $5 million for the father and $5 million for the son,

01:28:56.260 appears to have been completely made up by this guy who's now being charged.

01:28:59.480 Right.

01:29:00.480 Megan, thank you for bringing this up.

01:29:01.960 I'm so glad to be done with that last subject where you had me on my heels the whole time.

01:29:06.400 That's Mike's turn.

01:29:07.880 Yeah, right.

01:29:08.540 This is better terrain for me because first off, the guy's last name is Smirnoff.

01:29:13.660 So there's jokes in there somewhere.

01:29:14.880 What a country, right?

01:29:15.760 When you can come and you can convince James Comer that you're for real and then it turns

01:29:21.360 out those folks have egg on their face because this guy was a fraud and kudos to Weiss.

01:29:25.620 I know that Mike doesn't love David Weiss, but hey, this guy lied.

01:29:29.480 And he cost a lot of people a lot of time, money, energy, and this guy should be held

01:29:35.860 accountable.

01:29:36.360 Now, as far as where it goes next, it doesn't exonerate anyone, but it does expose the narrative

01:29:41.360 that's been on a lot of right wing TV that this whole thing, this accusation of this

01:29:45.900 whistleblower was nonsense.

01:29:47.520 And it's interesting, Megan, that I haven't seen many other pundits talk about it who have

01:29:51.600 been perpetuating this stuff.

01:29:52.980 So kudos to you for bringing this up.

01:29:54.760 It's important that we realize that this guy was a fraud.

01:29:58.780 Thank you.

01:29:59.780 To me, Mike, this is the difference between, you know, we're going to see, we're going to

01:30:04.700 see in the days now that this is broken, who's honest and who's not.

01:30:08.400 Because what happened on MSNBC and other places during Russiagate was they spewed these nonsense

01:30:14.020 conspiracy theories night after night.

01:30:15.500 And then when it became very clear, it was all made up post Mueller and all that.

01:30:20.040 No one ever corrected anything, which does, it does show you that it was ideological, that

01:30:25.080 they don't, they weren't, you know, misled in good faith to reach the wrong conclusion.

01:30:30.260 Truth tellers will say, oh, I have new information.

01:30:32.880 Let me share that with you in the media.

01:30:34.480 And I, I, I will be watching to see who doesn't, you know, who tries to downplay this.

01:30:39.940 It's not that it gets rid of the whole allegation as we just discussed, but there shouldn't be

01:30:43.620 any more talk about the alleged $5 million bribes to Joe and Hunter, because David Weiss,

01:30:49.600 at least is saying it was completely made up.

01:30:52.300 And this guy is actually going to be prosecuted for felony lying over it.

01:30:56.140 But what's your take?

01:30:57.500 Well, the reason we had those allegations out there is because there was a coverup.

01:31:01.620 There was no effort by the FBI and the Justice Department to investigate these allegations

01:31:08.360 that were made by someone who was paid by the U.S. government as a confidential human informant.

01:31:16.140 So that, that's, that's the issue.

01:31:18.300 Now that they've investigated this and they've determined this guy's lying, then they should

01:31:23.100 prosecute him.

01:31:23.820 If there's evidence he's lying, they should prosecute him.

01:31:26.560 But the problem was, was the coverup, right?

01:31:28.460 And so why did they wait for years to investigate his allegations?

01:31:32.740 And why aren't they charging the people who lied during the Russian collusion hooks?

01:31:38.720 Why are they selectively prosecuting liars when those liars hurt Biden, but they're not

01:31:45.180 prosecuting the liars when those liars hurt it, when those liars hurt Trump?

01:31:50.240 Good, good, good point.

01:31:51.760 Uh, just to add a little bit of color here, the allegation is he did it, he lied because

01:31:58.520 of politics.

01:31:59.660 During the 2020 campaign, he sent the FBI, his FBI handler, quote, a series of messages

01:32:04.480 expressing bias against Biden, including texts replete with typos and misspellings, boasting

01:32:10.360 that he had information that would put Biden in jail.

01:32:13.300 Uh, representative Comer has issued a statement saying it's the FBI's fault.

01:32:18.560 They private, my sources, they are privately told the committee that their source was credible

01:32:23.620 and trusted and had worked with the FBI for over a decade and had been paid six figures.

01:32:27.480 They actually released that out to the public too.

01:32:29.080 That's what, that's what Comer's people told us.

01:32:30.840 Well, we'll continue to follow it.

01:32:32.240 I should say in defense of Smirnoff, allegations are not conclusive.

01:32:36.760 He's going to get his day in court to deny all of this.

01:32:39.680 Okay.

01:32:39.860 So that's Biden.

01:32:41.520 And then big news in a couple of the other Trump cases.

01:32:45.260 Number one, Judge Engeron in the civil verdict case, uh, you know, the civil corporate fraud

01:32:50.920 case against Trump is going to release his verdict today.

01:32:54.640 Well, the numbers, really what Trump is going to be forced to pay and what penalties his

01:32:58.240 company, his company is going to be forced to endure.

01:33:00.500 And number two, Judge Juan Merchant, who's overseeing the hush money, Stormy Daniels case

01:33:06.540 has refused to throw out the charges against him.

01:33:10.140 And trial is set to begin in that, the very first of the four cases to go to trial against

01:33:15.080 Trump, criminal cases, March 25th, 10 days after the Ides of March.

01:33:21.860 Dave, what do you think of, uh, the March 25th date and the fact that we, it looks like

01:33:26.720 we're a go for the hush money case soon.

01:33:29.260 Beware the Ides of March, Megan.

01:33:31.580 That's a little Julius Caesar.

01:33:34.140 Well done.

01:33:34.780 Look at you.

01:33:36.800 Love it.

01:33:37.400 I knew a high school English would come in handy one day.

01:33:40.760 So, uh, I, I think that case is the fourth out of four, as far as the strength of the

01:33:45.640 cases for prosecutors, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a weak case though, but here's the

01:33:49.180 thing.

01:33:49.420 Alvin Bragg, my counterpart up there is framing that as election interference that Donald

01:33:53.700 Trump helped, uh, change the course of history by suppressing this information illegally

01:33:58.960 through campaign finance violations.

01:34:00.960 And this stuff should have come out and it would have changed the election.

01:34:03.780 The challenge for prosecutors is to be able to bootstrap a federal law, federal campaign

01:34:09.540 finance violations on a state law of, uh, falsifying your business records.

01:34:14.720 That's how you make it into a felony.

01:34:16.540 That's going to be the challenge.

01:34:17.740 It's uncharted territory.

01:34:19.300 One other thing I'd like to add, Megan, to respond to Mike's last point, people did get

01:34:23.400 prosecuted for allegedly lying to the FBI about the Russia investigation.

01:34:27.080 And that was the subject of the Durham report.

01:34:29.420 He prosecuted two people.

01:34:31.320 He lost badly on both, both acquittals.

01:34:33.500 So that's that.

01:34:34.880 Fair point.

01:34:35.600 Okay.

01:34:35.800 So Mike, um, this is happening.

01:34:38.580 It's going to be a big number.

01:34:39.820 Do you have any doubt?

01:34:40.580 Judge anger on in the civil fraud case against Trump is going, I mean, it could be over 300

01:34:44.900 million.

01:34:45.660 This is a, this is a bet your business litigation for Trump.

01:34:49.080 He didn't ask for it.

01:34:50.340 He got it.

01:34:51.480 Letitia James campaigned on getting Trump.

01:34:53.600 And it appears today she will, I was told by people close to Trump, this is the case

01:34:58.840 he cares most about.

01:35:00.080 I mean, it's his business.

01:35:02.080 There's no question that this judge, Arthur Ingeron, this Democrat, uh, operative is going

01:35:08.040 to drop the hammer on Trump.

01:35:10.420 And I think that this, this judge is going to give the maximum fine of over $300 million.

01:35:16.440 But I think he's going to tell Trump, the Trump organization that it has to, has to dissolve

01:35:21.640 in New York and this will go on appeal.

01:35:24.140 I think Trump's going to win on appeal because this is obviously an absurd case.

01:35:29.360 You, you, how, how do you have fraud when you have a businessman paying back sophisticated

01:35:36.360 wall street banks on time as agreed in full with interest?

01:35:41.500 And you can say, oh, sure.

01:35:42.580 The New York law, you don't, there, there's not a requirements that you can show that there's,

01:35:47.840 uh, there's an actual victim under New York law.

01:35:50.100 Well, then how do you have standing under article three of the constitution to bring

01:35:54.300 a fraud claim if there's not a victim, right?

01:35:56.920 And, and, and banks who are told do your own investigation.

01:36:00.280 Here's my representation about what my properties are worth, but you should kick the tires yourself.

01:36:04.220 And it's not like Joe Schmo, you know, civilians.

01:36:08.440 These are, you know, huge corporate banks.

01:36:10.940 Like they're Citibank is allowed to make its own investigation, not rely entirely on the

01:36:14.940 representations of Trump.

01:36:15.940 This is what is at stake here.

01:36:17.680 But that judge anger on is going to be smiling even bigger than in the video we just showed

01:36:21.220 because he's made clear he wants to stick it to Trump and today he gets to do it.

01:36:25.400 You're right that that too will be appealed.

01:36:28.240 Um, there was another development in the Mar-a-Lago case by you, Dave, where the more Trump friendly

01:36:34.380 judge who's overseeing that, you know, that the documents that he didn't, didn't turn

01:36:38.320 over, it seems that she has refused to delay a bunch of motion practice, which the Trump

01:36:45.060 team wanted.

01:36:46.000 She's holding them to some tight deadlines. 0.98

01:36:48.800 And that has many people wondering whether that case now has a realistic chance of getting

01:36:53.880 tried.

01:36:54.700 It's on the schedule for May, maybe not May, but maybe before November, which I did not

01:37:01.120 think was possible.

01:37:01.960 What, what do you make of those recent rulings by her?

01:37:03.980 I don't think it's possible this case gets tried before the election, Megan.

01:37:07.560 I think this was just one of many delays that Trump wanted and she didn't give everything

01:37:12.640 that he wanted.

01:37:13.660 And it doesn't mean this case is going to go anytime soon.

01:37:16.400 There are complex issues of a SEPA, that federal law that governs classified documents.

01:37:21.460 And then there's this whole dispute over whether or not Jack Smith has to produce information

01:37:26.560 about witnesses and documents and evidence that could be harmful to national security and

01:37:32.180 the witnesses themselves.

01:37:33.160 So that could be appealed to the 11th circuit.

01:37:35.560 So in the end, I think, and I think you and I agree on this, is that the strongest case

01:37:39.720 against Trump, the Mar-a-Lago documents case is now, I think still the least likely to be

01:37:44.280 tried before the election.

01:37:46.120 So what this means though, is that if the, okay, so the civil ones wrap, E. Jean Carroll's

01:37:50.760 done.

01:37:51.260 The corporate civil one that's going to result in probably $300 million is done.

01:37:55.640 But for the appeals, of course, the Mar-a-Lago one is probably not going to make it prior

01:38:01.300 to November.

01:38:02.680 The New York case on Stormy Daniels' hush money payments, not properly documented, looks

01:38:07.300 like it's going to go off starting March 25th.

01:38:09.640 And they say it's going to be maybe six weeks at most.

01:38:12.500 I mean, it shouldn't be six weeks even.

01:38:13.860 But anyway, okay, it's going to be, let's say.

01:38:15.960 So that'll be wrapped up.

01:38:17.800 So that leaves us with Georgia and D.C. January 6th, federal prosecution.

01:38:24.640 Georgia, as we are watching, it looks like it could be in for some serious delays if

01:38:29.160 anything happens to Wade or Willis.

01:38:31.840 If the judge says they're fine, like shame on you, but you're fine, that one could restart

01:38:37.460 up again.

01:38:38.260 And with vigor, I think it's fair to say, after what just happened in court, they're not

01:38:44.040 going to take the pedal off the metal.

01:38:47.600 And all of this, Mike, could be clearing the way for the January 6th federal trial to potentially

01:38:54.640 move forward.

01:38:55.360 There's motion practice up at the Supreme Court on that right now.

01:38:57.740 We don't know whether the Supreme Court's going to take the case about whether Trump

01:39:00.420 has immunity or not.

01:39:01.800 So what do you think is going to happen?

01:39:03.560 Could that case actually now have a clearer runway for trial before November?

01:39:10.700 I don't think there's any chance that that's going to go to trial before the election.

01:39:14.040 Because the Supreme Court, I think, is going to allow President Trump to seek en banc review

01:39:20.880 with the D.C. Circuit on presidential immunity.

01:39:24.140 That's going to take several months.

01:39:26.380 And then the Supreme Court, I think, will accept cert or take the presidential immunity

01:39:31.340 case.

01:39:31.780 Remember, back in December, Jack Smith said it was so important that the Supreme Court and

01:39:36.180 the Supreme Court alone decide this presidential immunity case that the Supreme Court should grant

01:39:42.180 the extraordinary request of skipping the D.C. Circuit and just decide this case right away.

01:39:48.220 The Supreme Court said, no, we're going to go through the normal appellate process.

01:39:51.560 But how can Jack Smith and the Biden Justice Department now claim that the Supreme Court

01:39:57.160 should not hear this case after they asked for the Supreme Court to hear this case through

01:40:02.940 an extraordinary process back in December?

01:40:05.440 So the Supreme Court, I think, will stay these proceedings, let the D.C. Circuit hear this

01:40:11.000 en banc, and then it will go to the Supreme Court through a cert petition.

01:40:14.780 The Supreme Court's not going to be able to hear this case, let alone decide this case before

01:40:20.200 the election.

01:40:21.120 And Dave, we know, does not think the U.S. Supreme Court will accept cert.

01:40:25.220 And that would keep things going quickly down in the trial court.

01:40:30.380 All right, last question.

01:40:32.340 Who would you least want to be today after we've seen a day and a half of testimony here?

01:40:39.060 Fannie Willis, Nathan Wade, or Robin Urte?

01:40:43.900 Dave, who would you least want to be?

01:40:46.860 Nathan Wade.

01:40:47.980 I mean, he's got his ex-wife who's going to be really upset with everything she heard.

01:40:53.440 The lawyer for the ex-wife, and if he had other girlfriends too, and he didn't come across

01:40:59.900 well at all.

01:41:01.160 Fannie Willis, with her fire and brimstone, I thought may have rehabilitated her and him

01:41:07.300 and the case.

01:41:08.420 And so I think the loser of the week would be Nathan Wade.

01:41:11.220 I think Fannie Willis could actually survive this. 0.99

01:41:14.000 I want to point out one thing I forgot to say.

01:41:16.820 Jocelyn, Nathan's ex-wife, through her lawyer, is denying that she ever had an affair, which

01:41:22.220 we heard him say.

01:41:22.860 She says she had some text messages with an old flame or friend that she admits were not

01:41:28.640 great, but that it never evolved into a physical relationship, and that she's being unfairly 0.99

01:41:34.560 besperched by him in this national appearance.

01:41:37.420 Okay, Mike, who would you least want to be now?

01:41:41.200 Nathan Wade, Fannie Willis, or the first witness, Robin Urte?

01:41:46.260 I agree with Dave that Nathan Wade is facing the most legal jeopardy on the most fronts.

01:41:52.800 Although I don't think Fannie Willis or Fannie Willis, or however the hell you say her name,

01:41:56.960 I don't think she's coming out of this looking good at all.

01:42:00.820 I think she's very damaged through this process, and she's going to get disqualified. 1.00

01:42:05.460 The case may get kicked.

01:42:07.580 She might get disbarred, and she might get prosecuted. 0.55

01:42:10.780 And we understand that this judge will wrap up the hearing, we think, today, but will not

01:42:15.520 rule today.

01:42:16.700 So we're going to have to wait to see where this goes.

01:42:19.340 But it should probably be pretty quick.

01:42:22.180 And we'll bring you all the developments that happen between now and when we return on

01:42:26.540 Tuesday.

01:42:27.180 Monday's a holiday.

01:42:28.380 It's the president's day, so it shouldn't be much in court.

01:42:30.680 But you guys are the best.

01:42:31.480 You took time out of your busy days to pinch hit, and now I'm going back to the pool.

01:42:36.740 And I thank you both so much for being here.

01:42:39.240 Thank you.

01:42:39.940 Thank you, Megan.

01:42:40.700 Enjoy it.

01:42:41.540 Oh, thank you.

01:42:42.260 Gosh, and thanks to all of you for tuning in.

01:42:44.520 We didn't do our SiriusXM live show today because we couldn't make that technology happen.

01:42:48.620 And we don't have our fancy studio.

01:42:49.940 I'm just sitting here, you know, in like a little booth, and there's a studio right on

01:42:53.220 campus.

01:42:53.640 It's beautiful.

01:42:55.180 But I really wanted to get with you guys and talk about everything we had seen yesterday

01:42:58.920 before it was all stale and picked over.

01:43:01.480 Bye, everybody.

01:43:02.760 So thanks for joining us.

01:43:04.240 Have a lovely holiday weekend, and we'll do it all over again on Tuesday.

01:43:12.580 Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. 0.94

01:43:14.520 No BS, no agenda, and no fear.

The Megyn Kelly Show - February 16, 2024

Explosive DA Fani Willis and Nathan Wade Testimony - What Happens Next？ With Dave Aronberg and Mike Davis ｜ Ep. 726

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript