Investigate Earth Conspiracy Podcast - Fani Willis Hearing Meltdown | Georgia Election Fraud Trump Case

Episode Date: February 16, 2024

On today's episode unveiling yet another unfortunate instance of governmental impropriety, we spotlight Fani Willis, the distinguished district attorney of Fulton County, Georgia, encompassing much of Atlanta, with a tenure since 2021. As the pioneering woman to occupy this esteemed position, she has garnered attention for her involvement in pursuing former President Donald Trump regarding the election "fraud" case in Georgia. During a recent hearing, attorney Nathan Wade found himself in the hot seat, facing inquiries about the timeline of his relationship with Fani Willis. What unfolded revealed a distressing reality of governmental misconduct, as Fani displayed visible frustration witnessing her romantic partner, Nathan Wade, undergo a meltdown while testifying. Not long after Wade's testimony, Fani Willis herself had a meltdown in the courtroom as she took the stand in her defense. This revelation prompts a critical examination of the integrity of our justice system and its alarming level of politicization. It serves as a poignant reminder of the challenges we face in upholding the principles of fairness and impartiality in governance.Our X/TwitterOur FacebookOur RumbleOur Instagram

Oh, baby, I love it's so incredibly beautiful. Hello and welcome to Investigator's podcast. I'm your host chat alongside my beautiful wife, Sherry. On tonight's episode, we're going to be talking about Fannie Willis meltdown in Atlanta Court today. Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis took the witness stand today, Thursday. And today, by the way, is February 15th and forcefully pushed back against what she described as lies about her romantic relationship with a special prosecutor during an extraordinary

hearing over misconduct allegations that threatened to completely upend one of the four criminal cases against Donald Trump. And so obviously, Fannie Willis was visibly upset in court today who originally fought to stay off the witness stand. Now, Sherry, what did she do? So she was originally subpoenaed. Yes, and she was fighting the subpoena and said she was not going to go and testify for anything. But apparently, after her boyfriend or ex-boyfriend or whoever you want to call Nate,

way to be, after she saw that he was not doing a great job in the courtroom today, she barges into the courtroom and says, hey, I'm here and I want to testify. I'm here. And then they're like, oh, you're being hostile. No, I'm not hostile.

I want to testify now. But let me remind you, when you are a witness in a case, you're not supposed to hear testimony of other witnesses. Yeah, exactly. Obviously, she was listening to that because she was mad. She stormed into that courtroom. Yeah, and she even actually admitted it in court today. The attorneys on Trump's side was, you know, they said, hey, were you listening to this testimony? She's like, I was, I was pacing back there and I was listening. I'm pretty sure that's what she said, right? We'll play some clips later. You guys will love these clips. But either way, the reason why we had to do an episode,

on this, right? We got quite a few things to talk about over the next few days. We got the Kansas City Chiefs Parade Shooting, which will probably get to. We have the U.S. National Security threat by Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia. Obviously, it couldn't come at a more convenient time after Tucker Carlson just didn't one of the biggest interviews of Vladimir Putin. Yeah. And all of a sudden they want America to be scared again because they're like, look, Trump's, or not Trump, but Putin is about to put nuclear warheads in. space. And just so you guys know, by the way, I am guaranteeing you that the United States already has nuclear warheads in space. You know, like for example, Elon Musk and his contracts for the

Department of Defense in the United States government, there are so many contracts where he has to have very high clearances or people working around these projects have to have extremely high clearances. And so oftentimes, and Elon Musk has said this himself, you know, they carry payloads on some of their rockets. They have no idea what it is. So it could come from. some of these defense contractors, whatever. So there's no telling what the United States has in space, but it doesn't matter. It's, you know, it was one of those classic things.

It's just a very convenient thing that's going on right now. Yeah, exactly. So, but today we're going to get into Fannie Willis. We're going to explain this to you guys the best we can because I'm sure you've probably heard that Trump is in some quote unquote hot water in Georgia. We know all about, or not all about, but we know that Trump is also in courtrooms in New York. Just so conveniently, by the way, this is all happening going down in 2024. Obviously, this is an election year in the United States of America.

For those that are listening outside of the United States, you know, if you think about, for example, and listen, I want to preface this right now. I don't care if you're a Trump supporter or you're not. You have to take what we're about to talk about on the merits of what's happening because what the Democrats like to say often is democracy, right? They love to use the word democracy. And even Fannie Willis in today's court said democracy. Democracy.

She even started talking about black man. And, you know, she used the race thing. Then she used, you know, she used everything she possibly could as her keywords or scapegoat words, right? But what we have to understand is what we're going to talk about today, not only just about Georgia, Fannie Willis and how big this corruption really is, even in the Atlanta case. but what's happening in New York. And what I believe is happening is is throughout this ideology or idealistic court system and justice system, or I guess I should say injustice system, they are taking away your ability and they're going to. But they're going to take away your ability to vote for who you want to be present if that is Trump, right? If you hate Trump, you should still care because at what point.

Right. At what point that, say you like RFK Jr. They're not even going to let him have a chance at running, right? Or say you like any president that has values that you like that is against their ideology or their agenda, they're setting up the groundwork. They already have the groundwork in place to not no longer allow you to vote for who you want to. So democracy is already out the window. And when you think about a two-tier system and you think about when you have Democrats and Republicans, and Democrats are doing anything and everything possible to get the most popular candidate of the Republicans off the ballot. There's something going on here because why would you do that?

If you want fair elections and we're talking about fair elections and this whole court thing is about is fair elections, you're not going to have a fair election if you don't let the most popular candidate of the Republicans be a candidate of a president. Yeah, exactly. And we've seen this with other states. We've seen this with, obviously, Colorado, seen it with Maine. Colorado was actually just in the Supreme Court last week. And they were arguing for the fact that Colorado was attempting to take Trump off the ballot. I don't think we have heard the outcome of that yet. I think they're reconvening, I believe, the 18th of February Supreme Court. So we shouldn't have some kind of ruling on that as well. There is a lot of things. Trump's also fighting the immunity, presidential immunity for a lot. of this stuff. And by the way, if Supreme Court rules that Trump doesn't have presidential immunity, this has a lot of, you know, this has a lot of implications for presidents throughout history that are still alive at least. Because I mean, there are things that presidents at times

have to do in the course of their everyday duties that they potentially could be prosecuted for, actually. And really all it does is if you strip a presidential immunity's rights away, you were stripping away. Basically, you're going to have a political war. just like we're already having, but worse. And like you said, Chad, even if you're a Democrat or far left or in the middle or far right, wherever you stand in America or outside America, wherever you stand as far as your political values are, we should all be concerned with what's going on right now. Because this is about not Trump, but this is about trying to get a candidate not to be able

to run for presidency. This is what it's all about. and they're doing anything and everything possible to keep him off the ballot. Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, it's legal warfare or prosecutorial warfare. And that's what they're doing, right? I mean, it's not a civil war.

It's not straight up tyranny and dictatorship, but it kind of is, right? I mean, we do kind of have a civil war going on behind the scenes, but it's through legal ways and through very unjust and corrupt legal ways. we have a very unjust and corrupt system that is going to ensure that dictatorship potentially happens. It seems, I mean, that's what a lot of people believe. And it's just so funny that now the Democrats once, you know, they always used to say our legal system is unjust and corrupt and all this stuff.

They wanted you to believe that. But now all of a sudden they say, oh, you've got to just listen to what the legal system says because it's perfect. And there's, trust me, there's absolutely nothing wrong here. So nothing to see here. But I do want to get into what the actual charges in Georgia are. We're going to get to some of these just crazy clips and sound bites from today's court case in Atlanta. But Donald Trump in Georgia faces 13 felony charges related to allegations of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election loss to Joe Biden.

And so these charges include conspiracy to commit election fraud. Now this charge alleges that Trump and his associates, plan to manipulate the election results in Georgia by spreading false claims of voter fraud and attempting to pressure state officials to change the outcome in his favor. Racketeering is number two. This charge is related to the racketeering influence and corrupt organizations act, or RICO, and claims that Trump and his associates engaged in a pattern of criminal activity, including election fraud, to further their political goals.

Number three, false statements and writings. this charge involves accusations that Trump and his associates made false statements and filed false documents such as a fake elector's certifications in an attempt to overturn the election results. Criminal solicitation. That's number four. This charge claims that Trump and his associates solicited others to commit election fraud by pressure in state officials to find and change the outcome of the election. And the number five, interference with an election official. This charge relates to the alleged pressure Trump put on Georgia's

Secretary of State Brad Raffman Spinger, whatever that name is, to find enough votes to overturn the election results in the state. So that right there is just the charges in Georgia. Now here is why all those charges could be thrown out or BS, right? I mean, let's just talk about these. Number one, the political motivation against this, right? So Trump's legal team is definitely arguing that these charges against him are politically motivated and that the prosecution is trying to influence the outcome of the 2024.

presidential election, and this could potentially sway public opinion and make it even more difficult for the prosecution to secure a conviction. The other thing, there's a lot of lack of evidence, right? The charges against Trump rely on significant amount of evidence, and this includes phone calls, emails, witness testimony, the like. If the prosecution is unable to provide sufficient evidence to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, it could result in an acquittal as well. But we've also seen that they don't necessarily need evidence. They don't. They don't need anything. Because as long as you have these woke prosecutors and these woke attorneys or what anything, judges, it doesn't matter what evidence they have or they don't have because they're not going to let the trial be fair.

We've seen this even with Trump and the other trials that have been happening. Yeah. When you get a system that is a one-party system, you're not going to have a fair trial. He's definitely not getting a fair trial. And I still don't even understand why there's charges against Trump when he's. questioned the Georgia election results. Yeah, absolutely. That's what he did. He questioned them because he said, this is wrong, this is fraud, this is a sham,

this is not right. I know for a fact I won Georgia. And because he questioned that, he's on trial. Yeah. And you know about pressure in people and doing all this stuff. Well, listen, I'm going to play a piece here. And I want you guys to listen to this because I think this piece is extremely important. We've also said on other episodes that I,

I do encourage everyone, no matter what your political affiliation is, that you should watch the movie 2000 Mules. I believe it's on a website. The Nesh D'Souza actually produced that movie and directed and I think funded a lot of it. I would like to actually get Dinesh on the podcast at some point. But anyways, the Epic Times recently reported from a huge, huge study, unbiased study, despite a prominent government sub-agency underneath the Department of Homeland Security, labeling the 2020 election as the most secure election in American history.

A new study has just been published, which found that the massive expansion in melon voting, as well as the result of fraud, almost certainly changed the outcome of this election. Now, I want you to hear this piece. It's from the epoch or Epic Times, however you want to pronounce it. I think it's a great piece. You have to hear it before we get into more of this Fannie Willis

and then also New York on this episode. So here you go. The fact that a prominent government sub-agency underneath the Department of Homeland Security labeled the 2020 election as the most secure election in American history, well, a new study has just been published, which found that the massive expansion of mail-in voting,

as well as the resultant fraud, almost certainly changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential race. Specifically, this was a study commissioned by the Heartland Institute titled this, quote, Who really won the 2020 election, measuring the effect of mail-in ballot fraud in the Trump-Biden race for the White House? And before we dive into the results of the actual analysis,

I first have to give you a bit of background on this particular study. You see, about two months ago back in December, the Heartland Institute, alongside Rasmussen, they conducted a large poll of American voters, asking them about the 2020 election. And that poll, it found that one in five people who voted by mail committed some type of voter fraud. Specifically, in that poll, they asked respondents if they voted by mail. And if they happened to answer yes, then there was a series of other questions that they were asked related to mail and voting. And here were some of the top line results. Quote, 17% of mail-in voters admitted that in 2020, they voted in a state where they were no longer a permanent resident.

21% of them admitted that they filled out a ballot for a friend or a family member. 17% of them said that they signed a ballot for a friend or family member with or without his or her permission. And then there were two other questions that were asked of all the voters, not just the people who voted by mail, but rather all the voters being surveyed. And one of the questions was about their friends, family, and acquaintances. and that question, it revealed that, aside from themselves, 10% of all the respondents claimed that they, quote, knew a friend, family member, co-worker, or other acquaintance who has admitted that he or she cast a mail-in ballot in 2020 in a state other than his or her state of permanent residence. Furthermore, the second question, it revealed that 8% of all the voters said that they were offered some type of a payment or some kind of a reward for voting in the 2020 election. And so with this survey as the foundation, the Heartland Institute conducted a deep dive analysis looking to see exactly what happens when you combine the results of the survey, showing roughly

1 in 5 people admitting to some type of fraud, with the fact that in the year 2020, about 43% of all ballots were mailed in. And apparently, what you get, according to the Heartland Institute, is an election whose results were almost certainly altered. Quote, after the researchers carried out additional analyses of the data, they concluded that mail-in-ballot fraud, significantly impacted the 2020 presidential election. They also found that, absent the huge expansion of mail and ballots during the pandemic, which was often done without legislative approval, President Trump would most likely have won. In short, here was the top line finding that the researchers wrote in this study.

Quote, had the 2020 election been conducted like every national election has been over the past two centuries, wherein the vast majority of voters cast ballots in person rather than by mail, Donald Trump would have almost certainly been reelected. Now, as we discussed just a moment ago, the survey that initially launched this study, it found that one in five voters committed some type of mail and fraud. However, after diving a bit deeper into the actual data, the researchers found that the number could be significantly higher. Quote, after analyzing the raw survey data, we were able to conclude that 28.2% of respondents who voted by mail admitted to committing at least one kind of voter fraud. This means that more than one in four ballots

cast by mail in 2020 were likely cast fraudulently, and thus should not have been counted. And the reason that they can say that these ballots were likely to have been cast fraudulently is because what these people were admitting to in that survey is illegal in almost all circumstances across all 50 states. For instance, when discussing the idea that 21% of respondents claimed to have filled out a ballot for another person, well, here's what one of those researchers told us here at the Epic Times in a phone interview after the study came out. quote, there are narrow exceptions where a survey behavior may be legal, like filling out a mail and ballot on behalf of another voter if that person is blind, illiterate, or disabled, and request

assistance. However, such cases were within the margin of error and not statistically significant. And so, the next logical question that they were asking in the study was, what were the implications? What would it mean if upwards of a quarter of the mail-in ballots were indeed fraudulent? And what they did to answer that question was to look at these six swing states, that President Trump officially lost in the year 2020. Just for your reference, those states were as follows. Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. And then, taking into consideration the fact that mail-in voters overwhelmingly favored Joe Biden,

these researchers, they ran several different scenarios based on the data which came out of the survey. Quote, they then calculated the electoral results in the six states under the different scenarios, each with a lowered assumed percentage of fraudulent ballots ranging from 28.2% all the way down to 1%. For each of the 29 scenarios that they assessed, the researchers calculated the estimated number of fraudulent ballots, which were then subtracted from the overall 2020 vote totals to generate a new estimate for vote totals. Overall, of the 29 different scenarios presented in the study, the researchers concluded that President Trump would have won the 2020 election in all but three.

Specifically, they calculated that the only scenarios that would affirm the official 2020 election result, namely that candidate Biden won, were mail-in ballot fraud levels between 1 and 3% of ballots cast. Mail and ballot fraud rates higher than 3% would, according to the study, mean more fraudulent Biden votes that should be subtracted from the total, putting President Trump ahead. And so, the study then broke down their analyses by percentage points spread, showing what happened at different tiers of valid fraud. Take a look.

If mail and ballot fraud levels were between 1 and 2%, then none of the results would change, and Joe Biden would still pull out a victory. If fraud levels were exactly 3%, then the states of Arizona and Georgia would flip Trump, but Joe Biden would still win in that scenario. However, this all changes when you get above 3%. If the mail-in fraud levels were between 4% and 5%, then Trump wins enough of the swing states to actually force a tie at the Electoral College, which would then subsequently force a vote of state delegations in the House of Representatives, and at that time, the Republicans

control the majority of state delegations and would therefore have likely Trump winning. But then, once you get to 6% and above in terms of mail-in-ball fraud, then there is no more matter of state delegations. In all those scenarios, Trump wins at the Electoral College. And don't forget, the survey analysis that this was based on had about 20 to 28% of the respondents admitting to some type of ballot fraud, well above that 6% threshold. Although, just to give you both sides of the argument here, there are some critics of that survey, and specifically the way the questions were framed. For instance, we here at the Epoch Times, we discussed the survey with Mr. Jim Womack. He's the president of the North Carolina election integrity team. And after reviewing the survey, as well as the new study that was

based on the survey, Mr. Womack came back to us and he told us that the questions had some flaws. Quote, we know that there was fraud in the 2020 election, but you can't conclude that it was 20% or 10% or even 5% based on the survey because the questions that could lead to such conclusions were unclear. His main critique of the questions in this particular survey was that they basically co-mingled legal and illegal activity into one question. making it difficult to determine what the true percentage of ballot fraud really was. For instance, 17% of respondents said that they cast a ballot in a state where they were no longer a permanent resident. However, Mr. Womack mentioned he made the point that the Uniform and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act,

well, it allows people who live overseas to still cast a ballot in America. And so what that would mean is that 17% of the people saying that they voted in a state where they no longer live isn't equivalent to 17% admitting to voter fraud. Another example that Mr. Womack gave is that in all 50 states, it's permissible for blind, disabled, and or illiterate people to request help in filling out a ballot. And so 21% of the people responding yes to that particular question also does not necessarily mean that 21% of the people actually admitted to voter fraud. His whole criticism is that you need to delve deeper into these particular questions to get to the truth.

Now, we hear at the Epic Times. We're actually able to present these criticisms back to the Heartland Institute, specifically the researchers behind that study, and they got back to us saying that they essentially stand by their findings. For instance, quote, Mr. McPherson, one of the researchers, he acknowledged that it's legal for people who are blind, disabled, or illiterate to get help from someone in filling out a ballot. However, he argued that the number of such individuals responding to the Heartland-Rasmussen survey would likely have been tiny. It would be difficult to imagine that dozens of blind people or those that are illiterate or disabled are answering this poll. The presumably tiny fraction of

survey respondents who fall into this category would be statistically insignificant and not impact the overall survey results. But even if that particular question is left out due to concerns about its clarity, the percentage of people who admitted to potentially fraudulent voter activity would still be about one in five. Mr. McPherson said he and his team have received and reviewed Mr. Womack's criticism and they believe the points he makes have some validity, but not enough to affect their findings in a meaningful way. He maintains, the study clearly shows that if the 2020 election have been as fair and secure as prior elections, President Trump would almost certainly have been re-elected to a second term. There you go. Wow, there's a lot to unpack here.

But we do get to talk about this because this is very important. I mean, this is a Hartland Rasmussen study where they said at the very, I guess, least, one in five, potentially committed voter fraud, according to the study. Potentially is one in four. Yeah, I mean, well, it was even as high as one in three, right? I mean, so you're looking at even a four or five or even six percent voter fraud rate. And keep this in mind, everybody. This is just what people are admitting to in a survey. Okay. And even what their findings, the Rasmussen study showed, was even what people admitted would have overturned the election to Trump. Now, we're not even talking about stuff we don't know, right? We're not talking about the stuff that, you know, the hanky-panky

stuff that went on overnight where Trump was leading a lot of. of these states. And then these ballot drops and the videos were showing people stuff in multiple, multiple ballots and various ballot drop off boxes. And then these same people, by the way, they're called mules that were going to ballot where people would drop off their ballot or milling their ballot or whatever. And then they were taking these ballots going to 25 or 26 different locations. You know, that's all conspiracy according to mainstream.

But there is actual video seeing these people. people do it. Yeah. So you got to think. So 8% at least with the respondents in this study said that they were offered some type of payment to vote. Yeah. That was crazy because I was like, okay, is it the people that are dropping off the multiple

ballots? Are they getting payment for doing their one ballot? Yeah. I was curious about what that meant. Well, and then also the fact, you know, they used COVID-19 and they used the pandemic to then usher in mass mail-in ballots, right, voting. And so we had a total mail-in ballots of 43% in the 2020 election. That's unheard of.

I mean, we're talking about unheard-of numbers in melin-balloting. And the only people that are supposed to mail-in ballots are people that are disabled, or blind or overseas or something you can't go there. Or something where you can't actually vote. And now, since we've opened up this mailing ballot thing, everyone is doing this. And there's not a fair way to see where these ballots, are coming from.

No. Nobody's showing IDs. No one's showing the actual ballot. I think to me, to have a fair election, you got to go to a place and show your ID and vote. But listen, you know, and I'm going to get to that in just a second. But basically 28% of these people admitted fraudulent activities in their voting and their balloting, right?

So, all right, let's talk about this. And it's interesting at Rasmussen Hartland study didn't actually talk about this. But this is something that kind of made me think, right? So the North Carolina election integrity board director, whoever this guy was, tried to call out this study a little bit and saying, although, yes, we understand that. And there was certainly voter fraud in this election in 2020. But also, we don't think about this. And then Rasmussen and Hartland came back and said there's no way, even if this guy was right, it would still equate to one and five. And we, by the way, still stand by our results.

Which Trump would win. Yeah, Trump would win. And even in the people that admitted this stuff. right? We got to remember this. So the blind, disabled, or illiterate. Okay. Now, how wide of a term are these things? Because the reason I'm saying this is that according to Democrats, Joe Biden, Kamal Harris,

they believe that black people have no IDs, they have no copiers. They are unable to actually go to somewhere and vote. So would the Democrat party or the government consider these people because they can't do all these things, either illiterate, um, disabled even because they don't have certain things supposedly to other people have. So when we say that these disabled and illiterate and blind people are this, like how widespread is those categories? Because and how much did they, how much did they take advantage of these? Oh, absolutely. Oh. And I'm sure all you had to do is, you know, fill out a little piece of, uh, or you know, put on your ballot, hey, I'm blind, I'm disabled, I'm illiterate. Probably

we didn't have to prove a damn thing. But I don't think that's even it. I think most of these illegal ballots are these things that were going on is people were filling out ballots for somebody else. Not even people that are blind are, you know, not smart enough to do it themselves or whatever. Yeah. And a lot of these people admit it. Or they moved to different states and they're still like filling this out.

But I don't even think these even equate to what really, really happened in 2020. No, absolutely not. And that's the thing. This is just a study based on what people were willing to admit in a study that showed that a lot of these votes were technically invalid. 25%. 28%. Well, actually, hold on, was it? No, it was.

I thought it was 25. Yeah, so 48% of ballots meld in. 28.2 people or 28.2% of people admitted fraudulent activities on their voting ballots. And, you know, all these things are whatever. So I want to get to some clips of Fannie Willis today in the court right now. We have to explain everything we know, I guess, so far about Fannie Willis. I think that's the next step. Who is Fannie Willis?

What is she? So the high profile racketeering case that names former President Donald Trump and 14 others as defendants had taken an increasingly personal turn towards the woman who brought the charges, Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis. Now, Ms. Willis may testify what she did. did today, but this article that was published yesterday, about her relationship with a special prosecutor that she appointed to take the lead on the case, the legend of 2020 election interference. Now, the judge will hear from other witnesses first, and Ms. Willis may not need to testify, which she was fighting this.

As Sherry said earlier, she did actually testify because, as Sherry said, this guy was losing, well, he was losing bad on the stand. She knew that she understood this. Yeah, her lover. But she was not even supposed to be listening to his testimony. Yeah. So the judge today heard from many witnesses, and including him and including Ms. Willis and including Ms. Willis's friend. Now, several allegations were made about Ms. Willis over the past few months from misuse of public funds to to behavior at odds with ethnic guidelines. But the hearing today primarily focused on one point, the extent and timeline of her relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade,

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee has said the issue could be grounds to disqualify Ms. Willis from the case. Now, timeline disputed Mr. Wade, which is an attorney with his own Atlanta area law firm. He's a defense attorney, by the way. Yeah. He was contracted on the Georgia election case since it was in the investigation stage. So the allegations of inappropriate relationship first emerged on January 8th when attorney Ashley Merchant, who was representing defendant Michael Roman charged that the married

sorry charge that the married Mr. Wade had been romantically involved with Ms. Willis before she hired him onto the case. Allegations that Mr. Wade doesn't have the experience required to prosecute a racketeering case or that he wasn't appointed via the proper procedures were dismissed by the judge.

Now Ms. Merchant alleged that since Mr. Wade, which is the lover, was hired, he has been paid about $650,000 by the state retained his private practice and spent thousands on lavish vacations with Miss Willis, including a cruise. In an affidavit submitted to the court in the racketeering case, Mr. Wade has disputed Ms. Merchant's timeline, saying that he met Ms. Willis in a professional capacity at a conference in 2019, but it wasn't until 2022 after he was hired that he began a personal relationship

with her. He also said that Miss Willis split expenses equally with him, and there were other trips during which she paid for travel and lodging for him. Now, Ms. Merchant argued that Mr. Wade, which is the lover, had lied and said that she had witnesses who could testify that the two had a personal relationship since as early as 2019, shortly after meeting at a conference. Now, during the hearing on February 12th,

in which the judge said Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis would be required to testify, Ms. Merchant confirmed that the source of these claims is the attorney who represented Mr. Wade in his divorce. divorce. Mr. Wade was appointed special prosecutor by Ms. Willis on November 1, 2021, and filed for divorce from his wife the next day. In a court filing, Mr. Wade's divorce case, his wife, Jocelyn Wade, had made public bank statements and receipts that showed that flight tickets were booked for Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis together. Ms. Willis sought to discredit Ms. Wade in a strongly worded court filing in a divorce case alleged that Ms. Wade had an extra

marital affair. That was the cause of the divorce. Ms. Willis claimed that the only reason that Ms. Wade was seeking to dispose her in the divorce case was to embarrass and harass Ms. Willis, Baney Willis, the prosecutor, and interfere with her high profile case. So that's basically the background. It all goes back to timelines, though. Timelines, and it goes back to trying to hide some of the timelines when and what is a romantic relationship. When does that begin? You know, that was a whole other thing. You know, she said romantic to her is sleeping with a dude.

That is not a romantic relationship. Yeah. A romantic relationship starts when you're courting each other, when you're talking to each other on the phone, when you're even, you know, going out to dinner, going to mellow mushroom or anything like that. Yeah, mellow mushroom, wherever. Yeah, she mentioned mellow mushroom. But, yeah, I mean, I don't know. To me, that's courting. Maybe she said mellow mushroom because she's like, there's no way I go on a date of mellow mushroom.

Even though we love mellow mushroom. I'm just saying not normal people go out to dinner with somebody that they're not involved with in a different way than business. Absolutely. But we're going to break down like why this is corrupt. Well, there's a couple of reasons. Obviously, we talked about the fact that, you know, when she made him a special prosecutor over the case, which didn't have the qualifications to even, you know, do a racketeering case. He's a defense attorney. Yes, but he the next day filed for divorce.

and this whole thing was is that he apparently was paid up to an over potentially $600,000 from Ms. Willis. She wanted to, I don't know if she wanted to use this guy to kind of usher in this case about and against Trump. She wanted a team of people behind her, although where the evidence lied and how much evidence was actually there. You know, it was probably going to be a little tough to get people that had their entire careers on the line to risk their neck on trying to prosecute someone based on a very, very, I guess, circumstantial, not even circumstantial case, superficial case with very little evidence. And so that's also, I think, what some of the defense is trying to,

not defense, but the actual Trump attorneys that were in the court today, you know, and it also just shows like if you're going to lie, you're taking all this money and this cash out, which is potentially taxpayer money, you know, it just shows how corrupt. she is. It shows how corrupt the justice systems are. And really, it was on full display. And then when you actually hear this lady talk today, including Mr. Wade, Mr. Wade was sweating bullets on the stand because he was like, shit, I don't know what to say about all this stuff.

Because now then you have Fannie Willis, the district attorney coming in, storming in. Yeah. And she's not supposed to be even listening to his testimony. No. But she's listening to his testimony as far as the timelines and everything. everything. Yeah. You know, that's illegal. You're not supposed to do that. Absolutely.

But I do want to play, I'm going to play this clip. This is as she walks in. I hope, I'm pretty sure she says some things as she comes in. So I want you to hear the drama in the court room as it unfolds. And you have to see the body language of this woman as she walks in because she walks in because she walks in like she owns this court. Yeah. Like she's the owner of the court above the judge.

Yeah. And we'll try to kind of, I guess, play by play it as she walks in because she doesn't say a ton here, but we still have to get to the point of her storming in the courtroom, like it is her courtroom. This judge, the amount of shit that he put up with in this courtroom, and it's because she's a district attorney and she's got all this, you know, she's got a security team, an entourage of six or seven dudes that followed her around the courtroom and wherever she went, they were following her around and she tried to make this case that she's been threatened and all this BS. Either way, let's hear as she walks in the courtroom.

and we'll kind of play by play it. Maybe. God, I hate when it does that. We need to explain exactly the same problems. We need to read here to go over all of this and to explain exactly what happened.

So she's standing here right now in the courtroom. That the court allowed Ms. Willis to be called and interrogated on these matters. Can I believe to, Your Honor? Just a moment, Ms. Willis. So, Ms. Gross, I don't know if you want to speak with Ms. Willis now. It's sounding like maybe they're withdrawing the objection.

Okay, I want to point out what's happening here. Fannie Willis and a pink dress, like basically storms down the side of the pews or whatever you want to call it, the seating in the courtroom. She storms down, huffing and puffing and puffing in the middle of a proceeding, a court proceeding. And she's basically just like, oh, I'm here. No, I'm going to interrupt whatever the hell y'all are doing. This is my courtroom now. And she starts talking, over the judge and the judge like just a second miss willis um uh what do you want to do about that they were asking trump's attorneys and they were sitting there like what the hell's going on and it's like she owned the courtroom yeah and she really felt like she when you watch this freaking

thing today it was like she really did the judge oh yeah he let her get away with more things than any other person could ever get away from get away with ever yeah let's listen to the rest of this Motion. I don't leave the motion to... Or is Ms. Wells want to take the lead here? We'll draw the motion to flash Ms. Love. Based on the one. I'm going to go.

Okay. So the position of the district attorney at this point is that she's no longer contesting the subpoena. Ms. Mershershner's called her as the next witness. So there you go. So she is no longer contesting the subpoena. And the only reason she's no longer. and we're talking about Fannie Willis here. The only reason she's no longer contesting the subpoena

is because she literally just watched her lover boy on the stand completely self-destruct and it really screwed her. So in her own ego, in her own like, oh, I'm better in this shit. I'm district attorney.

I'm going to go in there and I'm going to win my case. Right. That's what she felt. And also, you know, you can kind of tell it was almost like the judge was intimidated by her. Yes. I mean, that's really the way I saw it.

Before Miss Willis, I don't even want to call her Miss Willis. She don't deserve that respect, in my opinion. I want to call her Fannie because that's the biggest insult you can possibly give her. Well, and that is, that name goes with par of the course. I don't even go. Sorry. But anyway, so, you know, when she came in, it was just like, or before she came on, I guess, the judge just seemed like, you know, he had more control over the court.

courtroom everything was cordial and the way it was supposed to be he even seemed like you know he wasn't just necessarily on the side of the state and you know basically trying to defend miss willis and mr wade and all of that and then when miss fanny willis came in or fanny willis sorry it was like everything changed and he just it seemed like he no longer had control this he even at one point in time had to walk out the courtroom like she she started flipping out and he said, we're taking five minutes. Didn't even address her, didn't say nothing to her when she's literally just basically yelling on the stand, which we're going to play the clip two in a minute.

Yeah, and she was yelling at the attorney as well. Yes. And yeah, instead of, you know, reprimanding her. And she even looked up at him for a second, like, go ahead and say something to me. And then he just walked out of the courtroom. And I'm just like, this is the, this is the most unprofessional shit I have ever seen. But I have to say, when you're in a courtroom, when you're a witness, on the stand.

Usually when an attorney is questioning you, it's yes, no answers or can you elaborate. Yeah. She elaborates on everything, no matter if it's a yes or no question, because it's like, did your dad stay in the house where you were threatened? Yes, but you have to understand my dad is 80 years old. You know, she goes into everything. Like she pretty much even put her personal life on the stand. Yeah.

When the attorneys are not even looking for that, they want yes and no. answers. And as a district attorney, you would think she would know better than that. You are not supposed to go beyond what the questions are asking you. Yeah. And yeah, you're right. And, but she did. She did multiple times. And, and here's one of those things. Like, she snaps in, in this particular response, where she says, no lady. And listen to what she has to say. And this was a question when the attorney was cross-examining her. Here you go. he initially paid for that for a ruba yes ma'am so let's talk about both of those i know he initially paid for it did you pay him back for the crews and for aruba yeah i gave him his money before we

ever went on that trip you gave him cash before you ever went on the trip mm-hmm okay and so when you got cash to pay him back on these trips would you go to the ATM no lady you would not go to the atm no no lady i mean and the thing is like she's so effing entitled it is sick But then Fannie Willis suddenly accuses her secret lover, Nathan Wade, whom she had an affair with for years of being a misogynist. And so this is what she had to say in this. I mean, she was doing everything to kind of shift the focus and blame off of her, no matter what she could. And Mr. Wade was up there just a minute ago, desperately trying to protect her. And yet there was many times that she was kind of throwing him under a bus.

Here is one example, to some degree. but it just also shows. We're going to get into, like, how egotistical she is. And did the forthcoming indictment have anything to do with that? Or was it just a coincidence? Mr. Let's go on and have the conversation. I've just asked you whether or not it was a coincidence. Had absolutely nothing to do with this.

It's interesting that we're here about this money. Mr. Wade is used to women that, as he told me one time, thing a woman can do for him is make him a sandwich. We would have brutal arguments about the fact that I am your equal. I don't need anything from a man. A man is not a plan. A man is a companion.

And so there was tension always in our relationship, which is why I would give him his money back. I don't need anybody to foot my bills. The only man who's ever foot my bills completely is my daddy. Is there anything else you would like to add

to that? No. I mean, and keep in mind, this is the district attorney in Atlanta. And she's up here. I mean, look, here's another example. You want to talk about, here's the other way, hold on, I want to make sure I get this right. This is where she talks about wine versus what she likes,

as far as Mr. Wade versus her taste. Here you go. He likes wine. I don't really like wine, to be honest with you. gray goose um i bought him a bottle of wine while we were there and the sippings that you do there you go so she don't like wine she likes the gray and you know listen gray goose is pretty good i'm just saying you know don't go on this like your district attorney lady what the hell are you doing she was throwing a dude under the bus yes and she wants to tell her whole life story on the stand i don't

even get that as a district attorney you know better that is she an attorney because she's not acting like going right now. And it's, you know, she's trying to explain everything when you're supposed to give yes and no answers. I guess in her mind she didn't feel like she had a option and she had to explain why things happened the way they did because if she just says yes and no, it makes her look completely guilty. Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah, well, because you have to understand, regardless how dumb she sounds on the stand because she does like in so many different ways. I was embarrassed for her. Yeah. I mean, and if you watch her and you're just like, you're a district attorney in this freaking in this city. Yeah. Go ahead. Sorry.

But the thing is, is that, you know, it didn't really get much better from there. It kind of seemed like, you know, she took her security or potentially took her security. At least it sounds like she has, like I said, we talked about a security team. And they specifically ask her, did you ever use your security team for Mr. Wade? Did your security team escort you guys around? And this was just a question. We won't go into thoughts or opinions on this. But I just want you to hear her response to this.

I was going to ask you your security detail. Did they take you to and from your house? They take, well, so I haven't been able to enjoy my home. Condo, I'm sorry. In March of- Where you lay your head? Do they take you to and from where you lay your head? 99% of the time.

Would they take Mr. Wade to and from wherever you laid your head? That is never in the history of ever happened, ever, okay? Your security team has never taken him. From my house. That's a lie. And I'm telling you that that's never happened. So your security team has never taken him. My security team has never taken Mr. Wade anyway from any place where I have lived and brought him here.

Never. Not once. And then in a minute, they specifically talk about, well, did they ever take you and Mr. Wade anywhere, right? I mean, that's the other thing because obviously she's paying the security. security team out of tax fare punted money, which, you know, no one gives a shit about tax fair funded money or funded money because, you know, we send money everywhere except for our own country and our own people. We just make sure that the people that are out there to kill democracy, actually kill

democracy and really hype up tyranny and dictatorship. Those are ones we want to protect, right? They want to take your guns, but they want to also be escorted around by seven armed men, which in most I think most of the time those armed men are contractors and you know they're not even government employees or city employees or another that stuff

they're not police officers necessarily um so anyway so then I mean it's just crazy I'm sorry but not sure where the legal outcome of this is one person says but all this but one thing is certain fanny willis has shown what an absolute

embarrassment she is um whilst embarrassing for the country as well it is good we're seeing this and the nature of those prosecuting Trump. And I just want to play this clip. This is when the judge storms out. And it's because she's having a timber tantrum on the stand, which has, you know, happened quite often today. And so this is what caused the judge to say, we got to take five minutes. And I just want to mention real quick, if it was a normal person, a person that was not a district attorney or somebody that was not in the high courts, this judge would have never put up with what he put

up with today. She would have been escorted out right away. Absolutely. Well, she would have been held number one in content, right? Yes. Yes. And it's not even the fact that she's a district attorney, right? There are many courts across the land that are still pretty decent.

And the reality is, is like, judges, you know, it takes, it takes a, usually a long legal career to ever get to the point where you actually step up to be a judge. Mm-hmm. And the thing is, is like, that's why they also are so forceful in their, in their courtroom. That is their domain. Judges believe, and I've talked to many judges, I've, you know, I've known quite a few judges in my time. And when you talk to those people, they're the nicest people ever usually outside of work, but, but you get them in a courtroom. That is like taking a lion and putting them in their little zone and then you throw some dude in there that wants to be a dumbass.

that's the way judges feel about their courtroom that is their domain that is their courtroom yes and this guy acted like it was a it was just he was he was he was actually yeah he was acting like he could just be run over by this girl in a pink dress yeah and so here is fanny willis flipping out today when the judge called a um a pause here you go mr say not thank you we're going to take five minutes be back and fine it is a lot It is a lot Mr. Seda, thank you.

We're going to take five minutes. Be back and fine. So they go. So what she's basically holding up here when she's saying, this is a lie. She was yelling in the courtroom. And instead of even say anything to her or any of that, the judge is like, we're taking five minutes.

I can't even deal with this shit anymore. She's holding up what the, you know, what Trump's attorneys had about all of the, the things and the money and all the stuff. The legal documents that they had. Yeah, they had all the evidence. She requested all these things to be in front of her and she was holding them up,

made a big scene. This is a lie. This is a lie. She was just completely out of pocket. She was completely off the freaking hinge. And out of control in a courtroom. Yeah. She's a witness on a stand.

Any witness that was on a stand would not be able to do what she did. But like you said, this judge kind of. bitched out and let her do this. I think if I was a judge in this courtroom, I would have never allowed that. And I would not allow that with any other person. Yeah. And, you know, right when she came on or she

came up to the stand, this is one of the first thing she said in comparison to her and Mr. Wade. Here you go. I should be treated hostileness. I think we have very much want to be here, so I'm not a hostile witness. I very much want to be.

Not so much that your hostleness will. So it would be an adverse witness. Your interests are posed. mischurchance. Those merchants are contrary to democracy, Your Honor, not to mine. So your interests are contrary to democracy. She also says that Nathan Wade is a southern gentleman. Me, not so much. And so what she's, I'm not even going to say it.

But regardless of the fact, he's trying to, you know, she's saying, oh, Mr. Wade's a southern gentleman, but I ain't going to stand there. I'm just going to go here and yell and take over the courtroom. Exactly. And no one's going to say a damn thing to me. And she has been elected to this position. Like how? Yeah, absolutely.

How would anyone elect a person of this statute to a position like this? Well, it's called ideologies. That's absolutely what it is. Here's another clip from today. Here you go. So your office objected to us getting Delta records for flights that you may have taken when this is. Well, no, no.

I object to you getting records. You've been intrusive into people's personal lives. You're confused. You think I'm on trial. These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020. I'm not on trial no matter how hard you try to put me on trial. So there you go. She's once again shifting it back to Trump.

I'm not the one on trial. These people are on trial. It's Trump on trial. You know, she's just like Alvin Bragg. She's just like the district attorney in New York. She's the same shit. She wants popularity and fame. And then, you know, she's going to get a little bit of fame right now.

You know, Fannie Willis is trending on X. She's trending on Twitter slash X, whatever you want to call it. She's trending all over the internet and it's because she wanted the fame of being the one and all these idealistic, uh, agendized prosecutors and district attorneys and judges, they all want fame off of Trump and they want to be the one. They want to be the one to take down Trump because I don't know. What do you get? Like the is, is taking down Trump like taking like finding the end of a rainbow where you get a pot of gold? Because it probably is actually. there's probably something out there

says look whoever actually does take down Trump we're going to give you whatever you want we're going to give you a lavish lifestyle if everyone hates you will move you off out of the United States there's something probably like that and it's pretty obvious that they're desperate they are doing every and any

little thing they possibly can to be that person but she went to this conference and this is when she met this Nate Way guy he is actually I think the speaker in the conference And after the conference, she goes in the hall with her friend. Her friend knows him.

Her friend hugs him and everything. And this is when they exchanged business cards that night. And she- What year was that? Was it 22? It was way before like 19 or something. Yeah. I don't know when it was.

But this is a first meeting of these two people. I think right there, there was some kind of sparks going on. Absolutely. And they're not going to admit it. Yeah. And it's just so funny because. as it goes on. This is when she met this guy and they had no relations and, you know, they misconstrue what kind of relations. What is a friendship? What is a romantic friendship?

You know, she was basing it basically on sex. She's generalizing shit. Yeah. But I, to me, when you dive into a relationship with anyone, her sex, not sex, whatever, when you are spending more time with a person and going out to dinner with them, texting each other, calling each other, to me, you're in a relationship with somebody. It doesn't matter if somebody's sticking there, you know what, and you're what. Yeah. Well, and the thing is, she knows as a prosecuting attorney, or as a district attorney, I guess, she knows that it would be almost impossible for the court to prove when they had sex.

Right. It would be impossible unless Mr. Wade said on the stand that I had sex with her at this time. Now, here's the thing. she wanted to depict that and listen the timeline is huge because it is huge they've lied their they're lying about when their relationship started sorry go ahead yeah when they started a relationship which i think they said 2022 uh but before we get to some of this stuff to where it just completely destroys her right on the stand her best friend number one or her once best friend um even some of what mr wade said himself but let's hear as fanny willis kind of melt down and

she's essentially accusing these attorneys, which is, you know, standard practice nowadays of being racist or demasculating a black man, which has nothing to do with anything to do with saying to begin with. Mr. Wade, I guess at one point in time had cancer. I think it was during 2021. Mr. Wade, which was the lover, right? The attorney that she appointed, which was under her. Now, he had had cancer at one point in time and he had said that he had desperately tried to keep himself, you know, quarantined and in sterile environments and all this shit. And they proved that was complete bullshit because he was going to airports and all these places.

But so when the attorney start asking some questions a little bit about this, she, she mails down and accusing him cross-examined an attorney of this. Here you go. Last area, briefly. Yes, sir. You had contact with Mr. Wade in the year 2020, correct? I had some contact with Mr. Wade. Would you explain when you say some contact?

Please tell us. Talk about 2020. I had some contact with Mr. Wade in 2020. One of the reasons your allegations are so preposterous or mismerchants that you have joined is... Ma'am, I didn't ask you about the allegations. I ask you about your contact. It's all I ask you. Okay?

I appreciate that that you want to say something. But I'm interested in, did you have contacts with Mr. Wade in 2020? And your answer so far has been yes, correct? Very limited contact because Mr. Wade had a form of cancer that makes your allegations somewhat ridiculous. I do appreciate the characterization. I'm not going to emasculate a black man, but I'm just telling you. I'm sorry, what?

I'm not going to emasculate a black man. Did you understand that? I don't think we should discuss further. So yeah, so she's trying to bring in race here, right? When the dude literally said nothing about any of this. And of course, as Democrats do, they want to push everything race, gender, whatever it is. But that's what she did out of nowhere because she knows that in her little minute brain, which obviously she freaking has, in my opinion, she's trying desperately to pull from straws.

And what straws does she have? What is the generalized theory of what they all try to do? Race, gender, like we got to just start pulling shit. I'm getting worried here. I got to just start saying shit, like about race or whatever. And dude, I'm just saying as a district attorney in Atlanta, when she goes on as a witness and says, I'm not sure where I vacationed at. I don't know what continent it was. Yeah.

That worries me. a district attorney of Atlanta and she doesn't know what continent were she visited. Yeah. Like what the heck? So she is smart enough to be an attorney but does not know if she visited a different continent or not. Yeah. No, you're right.

It was not she because she said she visited Belize and then she said, well, I don't know. I don't know. Where is Belize? What continent is that? Where is Bahamas? Where are they? What continent are they? Like, how do you not know that as a district attorney?

attorney. Yeah, they were talking about, you know, international travel. Mr. Wade likes to internationally travel and they ask her, well, how many continents have you been to? And she's like, well, you know, she was naming some things. She's, I've been in Belize. What continent is that? Well, Belize is, you know, basically kind of around Mexico. Right. But she's like, don't, don't like make fun of me because I don't know that. But to me, as a district attorney, I would think, you know what continent that is. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I'm stupid, but. But dang. So they just ask her, by the way,

when did, how much contacted you have with Nathan Wade, right? Uh, in 2020. Now, here's where she's already lying on the stand. Because her ex best friend, which they detailed of how big of a friend she was,

they were college roommates. They went to parties. She even moved into her house during, during this time, 2018, 19, I guess. And took over her lease. Yeah.

Somewhere around this time. And, And so when they ask her, the witness testifies that Fannie Willis's relationship started at a particular time. And this is what she had to say. Listen here. And romantic is later. When I ask you personal, do you take that to mean romantic? Yes.

And do you understand it that their relationship began in 2019 and continued until the last time you spoke with her? Yes. Okay. So that's what she said. And this lady was who Fannie Willis was. basically lived in her apartment or condo, I guess, as they call it. And so she knew that Ms. Willis was in a relationship with Mr. Wade, and she even went in a detail, kissing, hugging, holding hands in 2019.

Yes, she sought firsthand. Yeah. So that just kind of proves to me. I think she's a great character witness. I don't think she's getting on the stand to lie for any other reason. she's not lying. She told when she saw this relationship occurring. And it's way before the time they're trying to say.

And for anyone, it's got to be Ms. Willis that wants to lie about it because she's the one who's under the fine microscope right now of the time where she hired her boyfriend and gave him all the money. Here's the clip about Belize and the continent. Here you go. You and Mr. Wade go to New York. I've gone to New York. I've gone to New York twice since I've been district attorney.

I'm trying to think of it's two or three times. I went to do a domestic violence thing there for sure, and I was honored and I went to the Apollo there. Those are the only two trips that come to mind. I went. He was not with me. You also said that he was a world traveler and been on many of the continents. Have you been on any of those continents with him?

Besides this one. where's Belize? What continent is that? I'm not being funny. I don't know. Let's say with the exception of... Belize with him. I've been to the Bahamas with him. I've been with Arubis with him. Don't embarrass me. I'm not sure what continents those are on. Whatever continents those are, that's where I've been.

I'm sure if I gave it some thought, I would tell you. But whatever continents those are that I've been to those locations, sir. But not Australia or any other continents. I don't even want to go to Australia. I do know he took a trip in December to Austin. Australia. I have no idea, you know. All right, guys, that was Fannie Willis. As the attorney was asking her, you know, Mr. Wade, your lover, has been the six continents.

Have you ever been to any of those continents besides this one? And she says, uh, what continent is Belize? I don't know where it is. I'm not trying to be funny. I just don't know where that is. And by the way, we got to be real. I mean, you could probably ask a lot of people what continent believes. is and they're probably going to have no idea, right?

I mean, let's just be real. They're probably not. Now, Belize is in Central America, which is North American continent. But, you know, I've seen videos and memes of people going on the streets asking college kids and stuff like this about like basic stuff about our geography or our presidents and stuff like it. And they have no idea. But this girl is the district attorney, a main district attorney in Atlanta.

Yeah. And it's also a prosecuting. a former president of the United States in a massive legal battle about election fraud and interference. So, you know, and I think that's what really stands out here, right? It's not the fact that, you know,

how many people could you ask, you know, what continent Belize is on? You'd probably be surprised how many people can't answer that, right? But, you know, I guess typically people hold people like this to a higher standard. standard and so they're like well she should know this but

nonetheless and then they ask her at the end of this they said well we know he went to Australia have you ever been to Australia she's like I'll never go to Australia my gosh I'd never go to Australia that's so bad and listen you can maybe say why she didn't want to go to Australia I'm not going to

I'm not going to infer why she probably didn't want to go to Australia you may be thinking that she did not want to go to Australia because of snakes or, you know, rabid... Quala bears. No, not qualabers. Or rabid kangaroos.

Kangaroos. You know, look, they have kangaroos in Australia that will sucker punch you. If you just happen to be standing in the bush, they called the bush there. Yeah. But, you know, they might just come along and suck up to punch you.

And they look like the Bradley Martin bodybuilder of kangaroos. And they could sucker punch you. But you also have snakes. You have snakes that will kill the shit out of you, like, very fast. And then you have spiders that are the most deadly. I mean, and Brian and I were talking today. And it's like, Australia wants to kill you predominantly. Like, if you're not in the coastal regions or the city areas, like you go out into the

Outback, most of Australia wants to kill you. Even though I do not think that's why she don't want to go to Australia because I guarantee she has no idea about all the deadly shit in the Outback. I think it was a different reason. but we're not going to go in that. I'm just going to say that would be the number one place I would want to go first is Australia. It's beautiful. If I could go off my continent, which is North America, I would go to Australia.

Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. So anyways, I do want to play this because I think this is very important. This is Nathan Wade. He was just basically made to admit in court. Sorry, I literally disconnect this. But anyways, Nathan Wade. Nathan Wade was made to admit in court that he lied.

And, you know, I think this was kind of the, um, the subject matter of today's court hearing was that everyone was lying. Like everyone they brought on the stand was lying except for the roommate, which was Fannie Lewis's friend. But everyone else was lying. Fannie Wilson is lying. Her lover was lying.

And this is just yet another example of Nathan Wade just admitted in court that he lied on his interrogatories, as they call it, for his divorce from his wife. And we want to point this out very clearly because there's something he says here and how he was kind of defending this to where it was almost like, you know, the law and, you know, how divorces work and marriage doesn't apply to him for some reason. So when they start to ask in this stuff, this means everything because this entire court hearing is about timelines. It is. And it's also about body language.

Absolutely. And the way the body works because I think at this particular time is when he was like sweating bullets. Yeah, he was. Like you could actually see the sweat coming down his nose. For sure. Yeah. And so this is a back and forth between the Trump attorneys and Mr. Wade. Here you go. Here to separation, which included up to May the 30th of 2023. Isn't that correct, sir? My answer to this interrogatory is none.

It's none. So you're saying that you did not have sexual relationships with anyone outside of your marriage, and the period of separation is during the period that you're answering the question to this interrobatory, correct, sir? I'm saying during the course of my marriage, I did not have sexual relations to anyone, and this answers no. Well, again, Your Honor. I understand. You can proceed, Mr. We need to, we need a yes or no.

let's just get down to it. Did you or did you not? By May the 30th, in 2023, have had sexual relations with Ms. Willis, yes or no? Yes or no? Yes.

Okay. Now, what you did is you answered no to that question, did you or none, correct? I didn't answer no to the question you just asked. I answered no to the interrogatory question. And the interrogatory stands that you answered as a pleading in a civil proceeding your divorce case, right? Yes.

Now, excuse me. The next interrogatory, let's move there. That interrogatory states as follows. Identify any and all occasions in which you entertain a member of the opposite sex other than your spouse who is not related to you by blood or marriage you see that now there are two parts to this

the second part is I read on or in which a member of the opposite sex other than your spouse not related to you my blood or marriage entertained you and then it goes on to say

including but I limited to dining drinking in restaurants bars, pubs hotels you see that correct I do now as of made the

30th, 2023, when you filed this interrogatory, you had in fact entertained Ms. Willis, on many occasions had you not. Again, during the course of the marriage, the marriage was irretrievably broken in 2015. The answer is still no. Let's read what the interrogatory says about the time period required to answer the interrogatory, because what it says is, it goes on to say, including you, including, but not limited to dining and or breaking at any restaurants, bars, pubs, hotels, or persons' homes from the date of marriage to the present.

Do you understand what the word present means? I do. And present means the filing on May the 30th, 2020, isn't that right? It is. So as of May the 30th, 20203, you had done a lot, or you had done a lot of entertaining of Ms. Willis had you not? I had done some, yes. And in fact, under your testimony,

you would have said that she had also entertained you. Isn't that correct? Yes. And so your answer to this interrogatory is false. Is it not, sir? No, it's not false. Well, I hate to dance around. The answer is yes, you did entertain Ms. Willis correct, right?

Yes. She's not your spouse at that time or any time, correct? That's correct. She's not related to you by blood or marriage, correct? That's correct. But she entertained her, right? Yes. And during the course from your marriage, the period of time, up to the press,

so the answer would have been, yes, I did entertain somebody, correct? During the course of the marriage, no. Mr. Wade. I'm Mr. Gellan. I think we've made her point. All right, so the course of his marriage, his mind is to 2015. Okay.

That is that is what he is trying to say that his marriage was up until 2015. Because when it is convenient to the court case, his marriage only lasted in 2015, right? Because as he says, it is irrevocably broken in 2015. That does not mean that you are not still married. I mean, okay, for example, I cheat on Sherry tomorrow, right? and then five or seven years from now. We stay married. We stay married.

Everything's fine. But then all of a sudden, I'm in a court case and I say, well, Judge, listen. Yeah, I cheated on her like five years ago. And then throughout also the entire five years or six or seven years. But, judge, what you're not understanding here is that it was broken then. So we were technically not married then in 2015 because I declared that. So as long as I declared that because, you know,

Fannie Willis has appointed me as. a special prosecuting attorney. So that means I have more powers than you. Obviously, Fannie just came in this court and portrayed that she has more powers than you in this court system, which is very obvious that she does. So he can come in here and say, according to me, my marriage was over in 2015. We don't give a shit about what the court says. We care about what I say.

We care about what Fannie Willis says. And to that point, rules apply to thee, not to me, right? And this is what we are seeing on the everyday basis in this freaking world nowadays. And this is why people are getting infuriated. They're getting infuriated. And listen, I agree. I agree. There are a lot of people that have said, for example, the court system has been broken for a long time.

Now it is going on the reverse. So now what they want you to believe is because it is appointed towards Donald Trump or is appointed to political opponents. It's okay as long as it's completely corrupt. and then they're also in good faith they're letting out criminals. They're letting out people that are shooting people. They're letting out people that are beating the shit out of people, innocent people on the streets.

They're letting out people that shoplift. They're letting out people that rob stores to where stores are having to close down to inner cities and they're saying, look, see guys, we're not prosecuting you no more. And so let us just do our corrupt shit on the other side now and be on our team. Let us destroy our country while we live.

let the criminals out and then look we're on your team now you can do whatever you want to do and we're going to make sure that you guys are protected but we're going to go after these assholes like trump and after these assholes like as long as they're white or they're this or they're that that's what we're going to do and we're going to get you on our team that is what is happening okay I don't care what anybody wants to say that is what's happening if you want to break this shit down on a very basic level, that is what is going on. But he says irrevocally broken. No, didn't, you know.

And there's a reason, by the way, he says irrevocally broken in 2015. Why did he say 2015 in particular, right? Why did he say 2015? Because that was four years earlier. Well, okay, so here's the thing. This whole deal deals with timelines. Fannie Willis said that she was never in a personal or not not personal. But they met each other in 2019.

No. Yeah, yeah, you're right. Yeah, 2019. And his relationship with his wife was over supposedly in 2015, although he never got a divorce. Yeah. So why did he say 2015? Well, it's because he's an attorney, right? He knows what he needs to do to cover his ass, right? Yeah, maybe it's like time lapse or something.

Oh, no, no. It's just a timeline thing. And so he knows going into this, he says, okay, well, shit, I got to cover my ass extensively in everything I say about how many times I may have cheated whether it was with fanny or not I got to cover my ass based on what I'm going to define as when my marriage was over so there's a reason why he said 2015 if I was his wife by the way whoever you are which I think we just mentioned earlier you should be questioning what was happening after 2015 because I'm telling you there's a reason in the court case where his ass was on the line he's

He said, I am saying that my marriage was over and irrevocably broken in 2015. He's saying that on a legal stance to say that whatever I did after 2015, 2015, you can't get me on because now I'm saying that I'm claiming that my marriage was broken. Yeah. And that's legally saying. Broken. And that's when I started cheating. Yeah, exactly.

And was it with Fannie? We don't know. But what we do know is that we don't know if it was from 2004. that he was cheating with Fannie, but I think it was really probably around 2019, at the very least, when her best friend, her sorority sister, all this stuff, said, look, I know they're holding hands, kids in all this stuff in 2019. Yeah, I'm not accusing. But she said in court, and she said in court, there was never a romantic relationship of any

kind until 2022. Yeah, but I'm not accusing her from 2019 at earlier. Yeah, maybe not. I think the first time they met was in 2019. Yeah, probably. You're right. And when she went to the conference and saw him and they, you know, gave each other their little cards, I think that's when the spark happened. Yeah.

Well, yeah. For sure. I'm not saying. No, no. I know. I mean. Anything else. I just think that's the first time they met each other.

Yeah. I think, but yeah, you're 100% right. You are right about they probably met 2019, which I think, I think how they questioned her and all that. I actually think personally, I think according to even the best friend, 2019 is when that shit was going down, right? I mean, they were at it. They were going at it. No, you don't meet somebody a month.

And then month later, you're going on cruises together. That does not make sense. Well, no, technically they did not go on a cruise a month later after 2019. No, I'm saying they did it. But they're not saying they were with each other in 2019 either. Yeah, no. They tried to hide that. Yeah.

But her friend said her. friends said that they were together holding hands, all this stuff in 2019. Supposedly, they did not go on these cruises, which was all paid in cash until 2022, if I'm not mistaken. And, but look, the reality of all this is, this dude, Mr. Wade, which was appointed to go after Trump, according and under Fannie Willis, he was paid like over $600,000 and she was under him. Now, at the very least, she should be disbarred. She should be 100, what I should say, at the very least, she should be taken off the Trump case.

And then potentially looked at to be disbarred based on, based on. I know she filed the case. But there was a reason. There was a conspiracy behind why she put Mr. Wade in the position of this case. I think, like I said, I think they wanted to build a team around this case. I think she felt like she had this connection with Mr. Wade. She felt like as long as we have some people on our team and I and I'm and I'm, you know, I'm doing what I got to do or whatever, whatever the personal relationship was, they were both

benefiting. You know, they both knew that this was going to highlight their careers by by being the one that took down Trump, by being the one that was the people to be like, who's going to be the first to take out Trump? Who's going to be the one for our ideology? And I've already said before, it's probably like a money pool. Who's going to be the one? we're going to pay whoever destroys Trump.

I mean, it's almost like the purge or, or, you've seen movies to where they will, they will set out a bounty for someone, right? And bounties are like, hey, here's the bounty. Here's what we'll pay as long as you can take this person down. And it almost seems like that's what's happening in our justice system with Trump, right? And so you can hate or love Trump, but what I want to tell you about this case in particular, you may be asking yourself right now. Why does this even matter, bro?

Like this, you know, why do I even give a shit about Fannie Willis and Georgia election case? Because what I'm telling you is, and I want you guys to understand this very clearly, this case is highlighting the end of what they always want to use the term democracy. It is highlighting the end of America. It is highlighted the end of your ability to vote for who you want to vote for. and it is signifying and it is high and it is it is progressing what would you call not civil not civil warfare what I'm trying to say is um prosecutorial warfare holy shit that I just butcher that word um it's okay I understand what you're saying what they're trying to do is legal warfare yes God exactly that's a very simple.

Yes. Legal warfare is what's happening right now. Absolutely it is. Before our eyes and we're seeing this. Yeah. So that's why this is important. That's why this is extremely important. We'll see what the judge rules.

You know what? The interesting thing about this case was is that towards the end of this case or towards the end of the day and this hearing, it was like the judge, you know, keeping in mind, this judge was the one that was backing down to Fannie Wilson when she stormed into courtroom. as she said and had outburst and literally any other judge, a normal judge would have held her in contempt, would have kicked her out of the courtroom,

would have done whatever, but he backed down to her. He called like breaks because he didn't want to be a part of that. And so any other judge would have held her in contempt. They would have done whatever the hell they need to do, but this just goes to show you that this whole criminal justice system is all connected. I mean, judges, district attorneys,

I think I've always said this. It's one of the biggest issues is that when you have people like district attorneys and prosecutors, and these people that go to dinners and go to these gals and go to all these things with the judges, and they're all friends with all them, right? Now defense attorneys often like to try to get in these, you know, environments to where they can converse with judges. Oftentimes they're not in those particular situations because they do not. work for the state governments or whatever governments they actually are employed by. And so just there alone, defense attorneys are always at a disadvantage because they are never

in the inner circle of the judges and the state-led attorneys and all that stuff. Just alone, judges and district attorneys are a conflict of interest in itself. I mean, if you just look at the justice in its whole, they work together. they converse with each other, they go to parties with each other, they hang out at each other's houses. They do all this shit. And yet the defense attorneys in most cases,

unless they're mega rich or the elite defense attorneys, which are why, which is the entire reason why you say, oh, I got a murder case. I got this case. You better hire a elite attorney that has money that converses with these judges, converses with these people,

that you actually have a chance to win a case, right? you better have some money because the only way you're going to get out of this shit is money. That's it. It doesn't matter about whether you're innocent or guilty. Doesn't matter about any of this shit. So when you go back to before all this Trump shit, before all the Republican versus Democrat stuff,

and you look at what the Democrats used to bitch about, which was valid, by the way, which was the fact that you would have people, not just black people. Yes, it was predominantly towards black people because a lot of black people were poor that would end up in the justice system and they would not have money for attorneys.

but there were a lot of white people, by the way, that also did not have money, you know, and did not have, you know, a right to actual good counsel to where they could spend a shit ton of money on council. Anyways, long story short, when you don't have money to pay the elites against the elites that are already against you, you're screwed. And especially if you're black in the case of many times in our past and our justiceism, I don't disagree with that. and so we've always known, by the way, the justice system is corrupt. And now it's just kind of like, I don't know, I don't know who side you want to be on, but at the very least you can see just how corrupt the justice system is. And maybe I hope a lot of people that maybe used to think that, oh, well, who gives a shit about

that person or that person and that person, that person. Now there's a lot of people that are starting to see, oh shit, the justice system is corrupt in general. Yeah. To everyone. And I hope this wakes up everybody. I mean, everybody. We have experienced it and we are not black.

No. We've experienced it. Yeah, not like on a criminal side, but you know. Well, kind of. No, not criminal side. Business, business side, yeah. Business side of things. But the very least, I think it's opening people's eyes.

I hope it really is. And I hope that we come together on a lot of these issues to where we can see the justiceism as it is and see that just because now they're going going after people like Trump. Now they're going after people that are against their ideologies or their agendas, that we can start to all understand how unjust and corrupt the system is. But I hope that we can see it also politically. Just because you are a Republican or a Democrat doesn't mean that your party is just because they're not.

I don't give a damn if you're a Republican, they're corrupt as well. If you are a Democrat, they're corrupt as well. If you are anything but a libertarian, which says that I want to be left the freak alone and I want less government and more about me, I want my rights and for my people and for my family, until we get to that and we have a system that actually upholds the people's rights, we're never going nowhere. And as long as we keep battling this bullshit between Democrats and Republicans, between blacks versus whites, between just justice system. similar unjust justice system. When is the last time a libertarian president? Oh, never going to happen. Has became president, Chad. It's not possible. It has not ever happened. It is not going to happen. So you being a libertarian is not really helping any cause. No, but it's not going to happen. Well, no, no, it is going to help a cause. I mean, I get what you're saying, right? I mean, you got to vote for one party that's going to potentially

help, you know, something, right? And I also think that to the people that are that are 100% all Trump, right? The people that are so passionate. The reason why Trump is leading in polls is because a lot of people see Trump is not part necessarily of the system because people are seeing that Trump is being prosecuted by both systems. It is not just Democrats. It is also Republicans are going after them. And so when you start seeing this, people are wide awake to this shit. And they say, well, look, if I have to vote for one candidate that could potentially, potentially actually give a shit about America and not the politics. Maybe Trump's that. Now, I don't agree with everything Trump says. I don't agree with whatever Trump, everything Trump does, especially vaccine and COVID

and all that stuff. But I had the very least think that people are waking up to that. And if we are going to have an election with the last two, like potential presidents, Biden and Trump, Trump was 2020 to 2024. And then Biden came in until now. And we look at our, economy in our like country from 2020 to now what what oh sorry I'm wheezing guys I'm sick sorry what what was better well 2020 versus 2024 to now what was better what was better yeah we all know yeah yeah no we all know I mean I think most people know I mean no matter what side you're on you know that our our economy our country everything was better then And listen, guys, we're going to end this here.

But what I do want to say is that I know so many people who are pro-Trump, 2024. I know so many people think that Trump's going to make it to the White House in 2024. It's not going to happen. I'm just going to go ahead and tell you guys right now. And I want you to prepare yourself. I want you to prepare your. No, Sherry, listen to me. Don't do that.

I'm telling you it's not going to happen. They will have him in prison before 2020. Vibrick Ramoswamy said this already. Anyone with a brain, I think, knows this. There's never in a million years going to be a chance, in my opinion, that he's actually going to be standing on any stage anywhere near 2024. You've got about three cases against him right now that all have. And by the way, I want to point this out before we go.

I want to point this out real quick before we go. If you look what Trump is facing, now I want you guys to understand what Trump is facing. here's what Trump is facing Donald Trump is facing 34 felony charges of falsifying business records in first degree these charges stem from allegations that he made hush money payments to the woman's

Dormy Daniels and Karen McDougal to conceal stories about his extramarital affairs the payments were allegedly made to prevent the stories from influence in the 2016 presidential election okay now a lot of these stories have already been proved bullshit but if convicted on all charges trump could face 136 years in prison um and each count carries a maximum sentence of four years however it is important to note that the conviction and maximum sentence are not guaranteed and the actual sentence if any would be determined by the judge but he does face in maximum

I'm 136 years in prison. And look, I think if we see how the court cases are playing out, he just got denied the case in New York as far as extending that case. They know they want to tie him up to where he cannot campaign. He cannot be out there on the campaign trial. I cannot connect with voters. They are actively doing election interference. And why do you think Nikki Haley is not giving up? Because of this exact fact.

But I think they're going to. already told her. Yeah, you're right. You make a great point. Nikki Haley. I think, you know, number one, we know that Nikki Haley, a lot of her primary donors are Democrats. They're Democrat funded, um, a constituent or not constituents, but Democrat funded parties and, organizations and, and donors. And so what they have told her is, Nikki, stay in. Because listen, Trump's not making it in 24. As long as you stay in, you're going to be the leading candidate. Yeah, you'll be the leading one. Yes.

And you make a great point. That is a great point. And a lot of people are like, why is Nikki Haley even staying in? This is so stupid. Like, she's losing everything. Because she knows he's going to be in jail. Absolutely, she does. You're 100% right, babe.

You make a great point there. Yeah. She does. I mean, and the thing is, I think so many people are playing denial in their brains. Like people that like, even if you don't even like Trump, but you're like, hey, I will vote for Trump just to get us out of this shit. even those people are playing denial because those people probably even still even if they hate Trump but they're like hey I'm going to vote I think even those people are probably saying that's not

going to happen they're not that crazy but they are so guys that's going to be it for us we thank you for joining this episode we really don't even like talking about shit like this like fanny willis and Trump and all this stuff we really don't but we do have some episodes that we have to talk about coming up very soon we're talking about a nice national security threat in Russia, you know, what the United States is saying anyway. We may, we may talk about the Kansas City shooting. You know, I do see they're trying to talk about gun control, which is so funny with this particular case.

But nonetheless, this song is, I'll be close to you by Rami. And until next time, peace out, guys. Peace out, guys. There's no way without you since you've been gone. So many. things so many