Willis is back in court for a second day of her hearing today, and we're here to break it all down. Megyn is in the Bahamas, and Mike Davis is in Florida with us to talk about it all.
00:00:00.540Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at New East.
00:00:11.820Hey everyone, welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. I'm Megyn Kelly, live from the Bahamas today.
00:00:17.320We're on vacation for this President's Day holiday, but what's happening with this Fannie Willis case was just too amazing to miss.
00:00:23.780So coming to you live from south of Dave Ehrenberg's border, he's here with us today.
00:00:29.560He, of course, is the DA and the prosecuting attorney for Palm Beach County.
00:00:33.420And also with us, as usual, on these big days is Mike Davis, who's the founder and president of the Article 3 Project.
00:00:39.640And there have been massive and explosive developments in the Fannie Willis case, as expected, because the hearing went on all day yesterday, Thursday.
00:00:47.760And it has resumed this morning, less explosive today, though they're in the middle of a lunch break.
00:00:51.880And 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.
00:01:00.660And under threat of violating the subpoena and possibly having the sheriff track him down, we understand he's coming back after lunch.
00:01:09.560So in any event, we'll get to what happened yesterday.
00:01:11.260Guys, thank you so much for being here.
00:01:57.000Number two, I thought Fannie Willis got up there and I gave her some points for being extremely entertaining.
00:02:06.600All I could think was, God, part of me really would like to see her cross-examine Donald Trump because nobody would miss it.
00:02:14.180It would have ratings like the Super Bowl.
00:02:15.480So, 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.
00:02:51.220He 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.
00:03:01.780Spent 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.
00:03:08.360So he knows, he knows how to detect deception.
00:03:11.300And I've been going to Phil for years on the slide just saying, hey, did you see this?
00:03:55.360I think Fannie Willis' testimony yesterday was an unmitigated disaster for Fannie Willis and her prosecution against President Trump.
00:04:07.080And frankly, this anti-Trump lawfare and election interference.
00:04:10.860It was stunning to me how she first it was stunning that she testified at all.
00:04:16.000And apparently it was her decision to testify.
00:04:19.120She was pretty angry and rearing ready to go in this testimony.
00:04:24.540And she came out there very defiantly, very angrily.
00:04:29.240And she did not have her story straight.
00:04:34.440The 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.
00:04:49.400She paid him $250 an hour, $700,000 almost.
00:04:54.660She paid him more than others who are actually qualified.
00:04:59.460She took these trips with her secret boyfriend who was married to the Caribbean and Napa.
00:05:07.500And now we learn about Belize and maybe elsewhere.
00:05:10.540But 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,
00:05:26.880which obviously would be absolutely illegal for a prosecutor to take kickbacks and or profit from a prosecution.
00:05:35.460And 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.
00:05:46.700But she has no documentation whatsoever how she paid him back in cash.
00:06:04.200Yeah, 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.
00:06:27.860And 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.
00:06:40.640You know, you know, when she went to a grocery store, if there was $50, she would just throw it in her drawer.
00:06:46.320I mean, it was just a completely non-believable story on her part.
00:06:52.040And 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?
00:07:07.500Did 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?
00:07:42.760Well, let me start where I agree with Mike and with your comments, Megan.
00:07:47.280And that is, I also am suspicious of Nathan Wade.
00:07:51.380I didn't think he was completely credible when he said that, yeah, she just paid me back in cash.
00:07:57.940The 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.
00:08:08.080And so once you say that to the court, if you're proven to lie, then it is game over.
00:08:23.120Now, 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.
00:08:34.720Actually, I found her to be more credible than him.
00:08:37.460Now, as far as whether it's enough to save the day, it'll be up to Judge McAfee.
00:08:40.780But mind you this, I talked to my Democratic friends, and they had the same impression.
00:08:46.820We all see things through our own lenses.
00:08:48.860And my Republican friends, they all trashed both of them.
00:08:52.080But 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.
00:09:09.340And in the end, I think it's still going to be tough for Judge McAfee to find that there's an actual conflict.
00:09:15.980If he wants to find that there was a perception of a conflict, sure.
00:09:19.260But since the standard is, is there an actual conflict?
00:09:22.400I don't think it's proven that she lied.
00:09:24.520I don't think it's proven there's an actual conflict.
00:09:26.400So I think there's a decent chance that she wins the day.
00:09:33.160So 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.
00:09:44.100If 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.
00:10:07.340And the people who want to see Trump burned should want that.
00:10:11.720They should not want somebody like this trying this case because they've lost all credibility.
00:10:16.700If this case is to have any chance of having the belief or the trust of the system.
00:10:22.420Yeah, what were you going to say, Dave?
00:10:23.160Yes, 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.
00:10:44.440You 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.
00:10:56.460And my Democratic friends thought he was terrible.
00:11:11.040It's up to this really impressive judge, Judge McAfee.
00:11:14.600But 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.
00:12:36.760She tried, Ashley Merchant, who's the defendant for Michael Roman, who's really been pushing this whole thing.
00:12:41.620She tried to call Terrence Bradley, who used to be law partners with Nathan Wade and was friends with him.
00:12:48.500And 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.
00:12:59.760Bradley was there under subpoena and under protest.
00:13:05.940He claimed everything that they had ever exchanged, Mike, was attorney-client privileged.
00:13:11.860And he's going to be recalled today because the judge has already said that's not true.
00:13:16.300Obviously, 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.
00:13:25.060And 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.
00:13:43.000Yeah, 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?
00:13:57.780If you saw your client who happens to be your friend with his girlfriend, that would not be covered by attorney-client privilege.
00:14:05.280And so this blanket assertion of attorney-client privilege is just not going to fly.
00:14:10.200So that's how we kicked it off yesterday.
00:14:13.320Then, because Ashley Merchant was running up against Terrence Bradley saying, you know, privilege, privilege, privilege, he's obviously good friends with Nathan Wade.
00:14:20.660She moved on from him and she called Robin Yurt, I don't know, I can't remember her last name.
00:14:39.500We did look, but it looks like she was just a court employee.
00:14:43.320Anyway, 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.
00:14:52.160And then she worked for Fannie in the DA's office and ultimately got fired, allegedly because she improperly handled something,
00:15:01.100though 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.
00:15:06.880But clearly there's some bad blood there at the ending of her professional time working under Willis.
00:15:11.940So she got up there and this is the money soundbite where, you know, she said, basically, not without, not with these words,
00:15:18.740but 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.
00:16:07.200Did 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?
00:16:42.600Are 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?
00:17:47.740Now, they'd have to overcome this by showing that she's a disgruntled employee who was lying.
00:17:53.080The 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.
00:19:14.840Well, first, you guys have both called her Fannie Willis, Fannie Wade.
00:19:18.280And I think you're getting the cart before the horse.
00:19:22.040So, let's just see how this relationship blossoms before we go there.
00:19:26.300But I would say, number two, you're exactly right, Megan.
00:19:28.820And 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.
00:19:40.340It has the appearance that Fannie Willis has a financial stake in a criminal prosecution, that she's taking illegal kickbacks from her boyfriend.
00:19:50.860She's paying $250 an hour, $700,000 to prosecute a former and likely future president of the United States.
00:19:59.340And as you all of us know, that is absolutely illegal for a prosecutor to have a financial stake in a criminal prosecution.
00:20:07.820I have to say, I did find Ms. Yurti credible.
00:20:13.000I thought her simple one-word answers actually worked.
00:20:17.080Like, that's what a truth teller sounds like.
00:20:19.360You know, you guys ask me, did you have an affair with Nathan Wade?
00:21:52.540The 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?
00:22:02.860I don't really know how to answer that.
00:22:41.480So 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.
00:22:56.880But they started with testimony from a disgruntled former employee, Robin Urte, who was let go from the prosecutor's office.
00:23:05.440The 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.
00:23:17.240Earlier that she's being described as perhaps a disgruntled employee.
00:23:21.620She came out and just refuted everything that Ms. Urte said.
00:23:25.280Ms. Urte came off as a disgruntled employee.
00:23:27.620And she also left the office where she was working, the DA's office, under a clap.
00:23:33.600Oh, she was clearly a disgruntled employee.
00:24:37.840Disgruntled or not, she does have a reason why she would lie.
00:24:41.600Now, it is up to the judge to make a determination on credibility.
00:24:45.020If they had more, it would be better for them.
00:24:46.600But 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.
00:24:54.800And it does matter because they both swore in a sense that he was hired after the relationship.
00:25:15.280Number 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.
00:25:26.000So, you know, we're taping this, it's like 1230 on Friday.
00:25:29.460Maybe that's going to happen later today.
00:25:30.920Maybe 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.
00:25:59.940Was it just, he's my pal, we're going to the movies?
00:26:03.480You 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.
00:26:12.900So like, they didn't flesh any of that out.
00:26:15.420And it made me like a little frustrated.
00:26:18.960I mean, I think she gave pretty convincing testimony, but I would have liked to have heard the specifics, like you said.
00:26:25.900But 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.
00:26:47.100When she submitted that affidavit to the, in response to Mike Roman's motion to dismiss.
00:26:53.880So 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.
00:27:00.860But 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.
00:27:21.840What was the date of the indictment again?
00:27:40.080So 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?
00:27:51.260Well, that's when the case technically begins, right?
00:27:54.980For 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?
00:28:06.760They brought a very novel legal theory, a RICO theory, with a lot of facts they have to prove.
00:28:13.960And, you know, 19 defendants, Trump and 18 co-defendants.
00:28:18.180That'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.
00:28:43.940And 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.
00:28:57.620And, you know, she, she was enamored by that on the stand yesterday.
00:29:01.280And, you know, that started after she started paying Nathan Wade for this prosecution of President Trump.
00:29:09.020She had a financial stake in this prosecution of President Trump and 18 others.
00:29:13.720She was, it looks like she was taking illegal kickbacks.
00:29:17.420All 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.
00:29:26.680They're getting booted because it means they lied in the affidavit and the supporting brief.
00:29:30.580And then yesterday on the stand, this would be the judge saying, I don't find those denials credible.
00:29:34.680Uh, 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.
00:29:44.780So I just think if he believes Yurty, they're toast.
00:29:48.180They better call some witnesses to undermine Yurty today.
00:29:51.100That would be the smart thing to do if they've got it.
00:29:52.980Okay. But let's move on because there's a couple of other key points.
00:29:55.820Did, did she line her pockets some way through Nathan Wade, thanks to all these lavish vacations, or did she pay her own way?
00:30:03.260They 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.
00:30:14.120And 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.
00:30:30.420So secondly, on the point of, did Fannie Wade, this guy keep doing it.
00:30:35.800By the way, my team points out, they reminded me, they said they broke up.
00:30:38.960So there, there will be no Fannie Wade.
00:30:42.020That cart is not, the horse is not never going to go before the cart because I guess it's over.
00:30:46.480Anyway, 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.
00:30:55.960They, they, he took the stand first, Nathan Wade yesterday.
00:30:59.660And 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.
00:31:14.980She just kept giving him wads of cash.
00:31:17.760And, um, then she, he was asked the obvious question.
00:31:23.500Did 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?
00:31:31.960You could show that she gave you the cash.
00:31:33.320And he, I'll just front for the audience.
00:31:38.960And then he's going to talk about credit cards and it's important.
00:31:42.520So take a listen to the whole thing, especially the very end in SOP 4.
00:31:46.400In 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.
00:55:54.140But look, it could be because she's indignant, as you say.
00:55:57.880And it also could be because she is committing perjury.
00:56:01.960She's denying something she knows is true.
00:56:04.040And 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.
00:56:10.840Well, I'm not a body language expert like the guy you spoke with, Megan.
00:56:15.100But, you know, we all have our lived experiences, and we see the world through them.
00:56:18.860I 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.
00:56:30.660You're the one who are the defendants, not me.
00:56:33.160I 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.
00:56:42.360So I can see why she's indignant about it.
00:56:44.120Hmm. Here's what Phil Houston said, just a little bit more color of what he, you know, the former CAA guy, deception detection guy.
00:56:51.260She exhibited a very high volume of deception, combative, uncooperative.
00:56:56.140The 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.
00:57:05.240In my opinion, she appears to be trying very hard to avoid identification of the source of the cash she gave to Mr. Wade.
00:57:14.340She was trying to prevent the questioner from pinning her down as to the nature of the physical contact she had with Mr. Wade.
00:57:20.860The 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.
00:57:32.560Perhaps one of her biggest concerns relates to whether or not the money she gave Mr. Wade was sourced from her government work.
00:57:39.640Her 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.
00:58:07.660And 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.
00:58:17.060He said in his divorce proceeding that he didn't have an affair with anybody.
00:58:20.420He 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.
00:58:36.740I 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.
00:58:43.640So the point is through entire 2023, they were married.
00:58:47.360And yet we have him admitting yesterday under oath he was having a sexual relationship with Fannie Willis.
00:58:53.800We have him submitting under oath documents that he says show the many trips that they took together, at least receipts for one of them.
00:59:00.740And 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.
00:59:21.160So 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.
00:59:59.880So 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.
01:00:34.980So my marriage was irretrievably broken in 2015, ma'am, by agreement.
01:00:43.080My wife and I agree that once she had the affair in 2015, that we'd get a divorce.
01:00:50.780We 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.
01:01:03.900We waited until the youngest graduated, and we dropped her off at college and didn't file for the divorce.
01:01:11.600So 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.
01:01:28.740Okay, here is what the interrogatory, how it reads.
01:01:34.560Describe 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.
01:03:13.040And then January 26th of 24, he updated those answers after Ashley Merchant raised all these issues in this Trump case.
01:03:22.160And 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.
01:03:44.480It 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.
01:03:59.940Okay, so you can't require someone to testify as to something that may incriminate them.
01:04:09.000And 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.
01:05:00.660And 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?
01:05:13.320You 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?
01:05:26.440So 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?
01:06:08.020And 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.
01:06:22.860So your answer is in December of 2023 that you didn't have any documents about any travel that you took with Ms. Willis.
01:06:44.560They 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?
01:06:55.840I've never purchased a gift for Ms. Willis.
01:06:58.180And they asked you about receipts for dinner, receipts for drinks, hotels, bars, and restaurants, and you said you did not have any of those.
01:07:05.180I did not and do not have any receipts for any of those things.
01:07:08.820And once again, he doesn't have any receipts because he only has a credit card bill.
01:07:18.980And 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.
01:07:32.560Identify 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.
01:07:50.860Identify any and all occasions in which you entertained a member of the opposite sex, including but not limited to, those places.
01:07:59.680It was not limited to give us the receipts.
01:08:51.920Well, 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.
01:09:00.400The others say it went back further, but at least in 2022.
01:09:03.940And these interrogatory answers were start or assigned with the lie as recently as December 22nd, 2023.
01:09:10.880So it's just no question that he lied.
01:09:13.400And 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.
01:09:23.480Hmm, that's the dumbest thing I've ever seen.
01:09:26.500It actually shows more guilt on his part that he's trying to change his prior testimony.
01:09:31.880When you update your interrogatories or you, you do an errata page, you update your deposition testimony.
01:09:38.320It's to fix, like, honest mistakes, like you maybe honestly, you know, thought, you know, that it was on Monday instead of Tuesday.
01:09:47.400It's not, you don't update a substantive, your substantive testimony and think that you can just eliminate your perjury.
01:09:56.340You can eliminate a lie by updating your interrogatories.
01:10:01.220Here'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.
01:10:09.100How would an answer of none bring infamy, disgrace or public contempt upon you?
01:10:15.540So, as I explained in direct of Mr. Roman's counsel, the minute she elected to intervene into my divorce proceeding,
01:10:26.100I 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.
01:10:38.280And because of that, I said, privacy, I don't want my divorce proceeding to bleed into this criminal proceeding.
01:10:49.420So you raised a privilege, if I understand, that indicated that your answer would bring infamy, disgrace or public contempt upon you, right?
01:11:00.420I'm going to object to the relevance of this and ask an answer to the point.
01:11:04.780Mr. Sato, where are we heading with this?
01:11:06.220Now, I think I can finish that up by saying, you didn't say none again.
01:11:48.520I really, I have secondhand embarrassment for him.
01:11:51.760There is, for the record, no privacy privilege to avoid answering embarrassing interrogatories.
01:11:59.140You 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.
01:12:11.000I don't know why he's doing it, Dave, because he'd already told the lie.
01:12:15.960Like, going back and amending it to, say, privacy, like, that doesn't cure the three-time lie you told on the earlier answers.
01:12:25.760Yeah, 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.
01:12:34.440But no, this doesn't seem like it was just a misstatement.
01:12:38.060It 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.
01:12:45.700I 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.
01:13:23.620Okay, so Dave's raising the point, Mike, that this judge may say, eh, okay.
01:13:28.900I 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.
01:14:34.120And if I don't have more, I'm not DQing the DA in her office from a huge prosecution.
01:14:39.820I think that there is zero chance that this judge will not DQ Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade in this case.
01:14:48.740I think that is absolutely going to happen.
01:14:51.040I think the only open question is whether he dismisses this case entirely without prejudice.
01:14:58.760So 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.