The Megyn Kelly Show - BONUS: Breaking Down Closing Arguments in Fani Willis Disqualification Hearing, with Dave Aronberg, Mike Davis, and Phil Holloway | Ep. 736

Episode Date: March 1, 2024

Megyn Kelly is joined for this bonus episode by lawyers Dave Aronberg, Mike Davis, and Phil Holloway to talk about the explosive conclusion to the Fani Willis disqualification hearing, the defense attorneys making closing arguments about why Fani Willis and Nathan Wade are incentivized to lie, the way the issues affect the entire District Attorney office, the rough moments for the junior prosecutor in his closing argument, the major decision ahead for Judge Scott McAfee, the judge talking about what the Terrance Bradley text messages really show, the judge's comments about Fani Willis credibility, if the appearance of impropriety is enough or if they need an actual conflict of interest, what will happen next, the trouble Fani Willis may be in for her public statements at Church and elsewhere, and more. Aronberg- https://www.youtube.com/@DaveAronbergFLDavis- https://article3project.org/Holloway- https://twitter.com/PhilHollowayEsq Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. We have a bonus episode for you today detailing exactly what just happened with the closing statements in the Fannie Willis disqualification hearing. This is it. We believe this was their last chance to try to convince this judge to disqualify Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade and Fannie's entire office from the prosecution of Donald J. Trump and his co-defendants in Georgia, which could lead to the end of this case. Both sides battling it out now in what? It was about three hours long. My God, the lawyers, they drone.

But you're lucky because we cut it down for you to the most interesting, compelling points. We sat through it so you don't have to. Now the decision sits with Judge Scott McAfee. He just said that he expects to issue an answer. That's what he said, a ruling. In the next two weeks, he said he believes it will be two weeks away. Let's break it all down. Joining me now, our legal dream team on this case, Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article 3 Project, Dave Ehrenberg, state attorney for

Palm Beach County, Florida, where Mar-a-Lago is located, and Phil Holloway, founder of Holloway Law Group in Cobb County, Georgia. He knows a lot of players in this case. Mike, Dave, Phil, welcome all. All right, so let me start with overall impressions of how that went. Phil, I'll start with you since you're the local. What did you think? Yeah, great to be with everyone here this afternoon. So this argument this afternoon, Megan, went about like I would have expected it to.

You know, you saw the players on the defense side sort of mix it up. They divided their time. Some of them hit some things and some of them hit other things. That's not at all uncommon. But they hit the things that I wanted to see them hit, particularly with the text messages. The point was made, as we've talked about on your show, that the text messages are substantive evidence that the judge can use to decide that Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade have lied to the court. They even talked about

the fraud being perpetrated on the court. That was a big theme. Interestingly enough, Steve Sadow, the attorney who represents former President Trump in this case, made the point that, Judge, you don't actually have to find that they actually did lie. You just need to find that you have grave concerns about the fact that maybe they lied. So he doesn't quite have to go that far. And that gives the judge. Brought forth, he said, the testimony. All you have to find is that their testimony brought forth a true concern about their truthfulness. Keep going, Phil. Yep. And so that gives the judge, I think, you know, a lot of room here. And of course, he's got Robin Yerdy. He's got that testimony. He's got the information from the cell records.

He's got lots of things here that he can use to work with. And he said something, though, that I thought was really, really, really interesting at the very beginning. I don't know if you all noticed this, but he basically said about the cell phones, we may not need to even get into all that because I might have enough to go ahead and make a ruling. Any lawyer who hears a judge say, you know, I may not need to hear your evidence that you want to present. I might be able to rule. That's a signal to that lawyer that the judge is already leaning my way. Okay. And so that was a big signal. I don't know what he's going to do.

He could completely change his mind. But I believe going into this hearing, Megan, I believe that he was leaning towards disqualifying Fannie Willis and the rest of her team. I don't know about dismissing the indictment, but I believe the defense went into this with the wind at their backs. I thought, before I get you guys, Mike and Dave, I did think on the cell phone evidence,

you know, the records, he was at her house overnight at least twice. He visited her 35 times and all that, not to mention all the texts and the messages and calls in 2021 before the affair allegedly began, according to them. It was very interesting because that DA, that assistant DA tried his best to dismiss the cell phone records as much as a DA who uses cell phone records to convict people of crimes all the time could. And he kind of said, I talked to my best friend. We text 30 times a day.

It's not unusual. You know what he didn't explain? Why on earth Nathan Wade would be doing an overnight at Fannie Willis's house twice when they were allegedly not having an affair. Yeah, the texting and the calling stopped when he got to the location near the Yerdy condo in Haightville. And so that tells you quite a lot that, you know, look, there's no need to continue texting when you're already there doing what people do in the overnight hours. He said, you know, they didn't cross-examine him on what he was doing. He admitted to going this area for the Porsche experience, and they never cross-examined him to point out exactly what he

would have been doing for several hours at a time, omitting the fact that we're all talking about the overnight hours. It's not like, gee, you know, you're at the shopping center. You could have been in any one of these number of stores. It's like, it's from midnight to 4 a.m. Yeah. We all know what was happening there. You don't have to ask that question. Yeah. That's certainly how it sounds. All right, Dave, let me go with you next since you're coming at it from the other side. And I think Mike's probably closer to Phil, but what was your impression? Yeah, good to be with you, Megan and Mike and Phil and happy anniversary, Megan. I saw it on your Instagram page. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. Doug and I,

16 years. It's really impressive. Congratulations. I, you know, I come at this obviously from a different perspective, but I share your concerns that this was a self-inflicted wound. Like I have always thought that this was no conflict. There's no proof of actual conflict, but there is evidence of of lying to the court. And if you can show lying to the court, then that's the ballgame. And the one thing that Phil said that I'm unsure about is Sado's comment that you don't have to show lying, just there's some evidence of chicanery. I'd like to delve into that more because I'm not aware that that's a standard because I have not been proven myself that there is an actual lie. Look, there's smoke, but I'm not sure there's fire here. And I don't know which way the court is going to go. I have said originally, Megan, with you that I think that this court is going to allow Fannie Willis to remain, but is going to dress them both down. And perhaps there's a way to to get Nathan Wade off the case without getting Fannie Willis off the case.

But look, there's a lot of shady stuff going on here. And I'd like to believe Fannie Willis when she testified. But, you know, the phone records and the lack of records for the repayment of the cash and this yearty. And I thought that Phil's friend, Mr. Bradley, really just was so evasive and deceptive on the stand that I didn't know which way that went. It just I just think the whole thing didn't need to come to this point. They should have just fessed up. They should have admitted to everything and then recused Nathan Wade and then moved on. But this is self-inflicted wound. And here we are. Well said, Mike, your thoughts. I think there's no question this judge is going to disqualify Fannie Willis from this case, along with her not-so-secret boyfriend, Nathan Wade, along with the rest of the Fulton County DA's office submit that false affidavit

in response to co-defendant Mike Roman's motion to dismiss. You're dealing with perjury, subordination of perjury, bribery, illegal kickbacks. Nothing has changed on this key, crucial fact that Fannie Willis had an illegal financial stake in a criminal prosecution. And all of us are lawyers. We all know that is very unethical. That is very illegal. And no one's going to buy her story that her Black Panther father told his Black Panther cub, Fannie Willis, to keep six months of cash laying around the house.

She used that up, what, $10,000 in cash. And she has no receipts. And there's no evidence she replen what, $10,000 in cash. And she has no receipts and there's no evidence she replenished that $10,000 that she supposedly spent on these trips when she split these, when she went Dutch on these trips to the Caribbean and to Belize and Napa and wherever the hell else they went on their their discovery for the Trump case. One interesting thing about Terrence Bradley is both sides got up and said he's a liar. They both got up and said, we didn't we didn't believe him. No, we didn't believe me there. They disbelieved him on different pieces of his testimony. But he took the biggest beating today, as both sides said to the judge,

this is a lying lawyer taking the stand before you. And I think that was our impression too. Terrence Bradley did not do the right thing. He got up there and lied that he didn't recall, didn't recall, didn't recall the messages he sent four weeks ago about critical matters that have been all over the news. I didn't believe him. It doesn't look like either side really believed him either. I want to go to, forgive me, I don't know which defendant Harry McDougal represents. There's so many. But he did a good job, I thought. There were multiple lawyers on the defense side kind of ticking off the number of problems with the case and then ended with a boom. Take a listen to Stop 14. There are six different actual conflicts of interest in this case, any one of which warrants disqualification, but collectively practically compelling.

First, the financial conflict that's already been covered. Second, the personal ambition, political ambition. Third, there is a dovetailed or complementary pattern of deceit and concealment of the relationship and the money. Fourth, the speech at the church. Fifth, the motion for protective order that the DA filed in Mr. Wade's divorce case. Sixth, the way the state has conducted the defense of this motion to disqualify, especially the hearing. They did nothing to correct obviously perjured testimony. In and of itself, that warrants disqualification of every one of them.

The reason they lied and covered it up was to avoid the trouble therein. Boom. He represents Jeffrey Clark. What's his story, Phil? Yeah. So this attorney made a very, I think, persuasive argument. And he checked a lot of the boxes that things that we've talked about in recent days. I give this guy an A+. He's the only guy I give an A+, too, I have to say. Absolutely. Listen, he did a great job, and he makes the very good point. Things we've talked about, if a lawyer is participating in a case and their boss, like when I was an assistant district attorney, if my boss had told me that he wanted me to help further and participate in a fraud on the court, I would have no other choice but to quit. I would have to resign because a lawyer cannot participate in a fraud on the court. And it's

become very obvious when you hear Ms. Yerdy come in and you see the Terrence Bradley text and you have the actual raw data, whether it's in evidence or not, you at the DA's office have all this cell phone data and you know that your boss and you know that her boyfriend have said things to the court that were demonstrably untrue. You have an obligation at that point to walk away. You cannot further participate in it. So either they don't believe it they're choosing where's anna cross yeah free anna is uh she is she wasn't there again today felt that she was a special prosecutor she was brought in she was going to put terence bradley on the stand originally and then she disappeared the email that i saw that that i was privy to was one from several days ago but it was

after the state's most recent, well, the response that they made last Friday, she indicated something to the effect that I'm gonna be tied up for several weeks with her own cases. Again, she's a private lawyer. You know, how many DA's offices hire private lawyers to come in and prosecute cases? In Georgia, it's almost unheard of.

I've never seen anything quite like this. So, you know, all that is just I've never seen anything quite like this. So, you know, all that is just part of the big weirdness of this. But for now, she's no longer here. She's not at the table. She actually handled the examination of Terrence Bradley the first time he was on the stand. And there was apparently some discussion because when one lawyer starts the examination, the witness, that lawyer's got to stay with it until that witness is complete. It's called double teaming. Lawyers can't just come in and out in the middle of a witness. And so the defense was saying, no, no, we can't have Mr. Abadi doing this. It's got to be Ms. Cross. But apparently the judge let them switch up and we saw Mr. Abadi come in. And she didn't even sign the next brief.

She's removed her name so far from the pleadings. She didn't show up at either of the hearings that we've had. I have real questions about whether we're ever going to see Anna Cross in this case again or whether she knows something that required her to step down as representative of the Fannie Willis team. She was their lead. She was running hurt on this. They didn't want this junior guy running the show. And we all see why my God, he was terrible. I'm sorry, Mr. Abade. Maybe you're a sweet, sweet man, but I mean, a few more years in front of juries would serve you really well. Dave Ehrenberg would not hire

you. He might put you on the junior baby cases, but he would not put you out in front of America on this case. Dave, you tell me that that prosecution rebuttal was painful. Megan, Mr. Abadi served an important purpose today. He proved to the world why Fannie Willis needed to bring on special counsel. That's why she had to bring on Nathan Wade. Right. So you're welcome. He's going to say right. He's going to return to the table, say you're welcome, Fonny Wills. And to me, the worst part was when they kept having to slip him notes, like when the client has to keep slipping your notes like, hey, you got to save this and that. That's not a good look. And the judge stumped him

because he was trying to tell the court, you can't you shouldn't believe Robin Yurte's testimony that the affair began in 19, because her lawyer in trying to get her out of her appearance altogether represented to the court that she had no personal knowledge of anything here. And the judge is like, first of all, the lawyer wasn't subject to cross-examination. That wasn't testimony. And I can't use that against Robin Yurte. But second of all, what's your theory, young prosecutor, that like what would have been the incentive for Robin Yerty to say to her lawyer, I don't know anything. And then when told you've got to take the stand to suddenly come up with a dramatic story. It's been going on since 19. I've witnessed it myself.

And she told like if she wanted to get Fonny Willis, she would have said from the get-go, put me in, coach. I'm ready. And the lawyer was so, do we have that cut, you guys? He was on his heels. It's coming in a second. I had secondhand embarrassment for him.

You remember the moment, Dave? Did you see it? I watched it and he actually walked back. Yeah, point taken, Your Honor, point taken watched it and he actually walked back. Yeah. Point taken. You're on a point taken. But then he said because of the bright lights and the national audience, that's that was his explanation of why he made that argument that she didn't want to be embarrassed in front of everything, in front of all the whole world. But it really didn't make by saying she didn't know anything. That's right. Exactly. That was the problem. That's why the judge called him out on it.

It wasn't a great day for Mr. Abadie. He does seem like probably a nice guy, but he got trashed on Twitter or X by people on both sides. And I think you do see why, as I said, that Fonny Wills decided to hire on real special counsel instead of going with him. Oh, my God. I know. I mean, Anna Cross, she was decent, but she seems to have flown the coop. Now she's stuck with this guy. Oh, we've got it. All right. Let's play that moment. What I would submit to the court is that Miss Gertie's testimony was nothing more than inconsistent at best, based on what I referenced to the court earlier as it relates to the representations that were made by her counsel prior to. Are those in evidence? Would his responses during a motion to quash,

which weren't subject to cross-examination by defense attorneys, weren't even part of the evidentiary record of the hearing. Again, I'm just kind of puzzled by that. You didn't ask the question of Miss Yardy, what did you tell your attorney before coming here? And then we could have dealt with privilege issues and whatever else. I would, I mean, I would agree with the court is not an evidence, but it was a statement by an officer. All right, you get the flavor. That's how it went on and on and on. It was just painful for all of us. Okay, but let's talk a little bit

about what the judge said, because of course you guys all know as lawyers, that's what's most interesting to those of us on the outside and to the lawyers in the courtroom to figure out what he is thinking and where he might go. And he had some good, tough questions for Team Trump.

I'll just describe all the defendants that way. And then he had some equally tough questions for Team Trump. I'll just describe all the defendants that way. And then he had some equally tough questions for Team State. And my own takeaway watching the whole thing was this judge is likely to find he was wrestling with whether they have to prove that Fannie Willis had an actual conflict of interest or whether it would be enough to disqualify her if there were just an appearance of impropriety. And he seemed to be maybe struggling a little to find an actual conflict of interest, though I think he probably will find it. But he doesn't seem to have any doubt that there is the appearance of impropriety. And I think he's going to hold that that's the relevant legal standard. Appearance of impropriety is enough to get you booted. And and that's that already happened to Fannie Willis once in this case with respect to one defendant who she was going after in this case.

And that person was running for office and she had campaigned for his adversary. because of the appearance of impropriety and the state team, Trump offered up honest assessments that there had been some smaller rulings long time ago that suggested you need an actual conflict, but they were in dicta, meaning it wasn't an actual holding. It was just like extra wording in, in these opinions. But since then the Georgia Supreme court had actually held appearance of

impropriety is enough. And Mike, to me, like if that if he that that legal standard, as you guys know, the legal standard can make or break you. If he goes with appearance of impropriety, they're done. There's no question. If he goes with actual conflict, well, I know what you want and what you believe. But what did you glean from the judge, Mike, on what he'll do if he needs an actual conflict of interest? Well, I am concerned about this judge. I mean, this is a Kemp appointee.

He worked for Fannie Willis when she was in the Fulton County DA's office. When he left the Fulton County DA's office to go be a federal prosecutor, an assistant U.S. attorney, this judge donated $150 to Fannie Willis' campaign. So I think there may be some, you know, personal connection between the two, maybe some affection that he has. And I think that he, you know, he has to have a rock solid case in order to disqualify Fannie Willis from this case. I think there's clearly an actual conflict of interest well beyond the appearance of a conflict of interest. There's undisputed evidence that she hired her sacred boyfriend and she hired him before Fannie Willis indicted President Trump and 18 others. The indictment is the key.

She lied about the timing and when it started, the nature of the relationship. But it's undisputed that she hired her secret boyfriend before the indictment. And she took these trips. Yeah, and she took these trips. She took these trips and her defenses that she paid him back in cash with the six months of cash she had laying around her house because of her father's advice. But there are no receipts whatsoever. That's just not credible, especially when you look at the other lies that Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade

have have have have perpetuated on the court in this case and in Nathan Wade's divorce proceedings. Yeah, and that they haven't gotten away with. I mean, it's very clear he lied in his divorce proceeding and the defense was doing a good job raising the fact that when Nathan Wade submitted his, his affidavit, that's like a sworn written statement, not to be confused with his sworn interrogatory answers in the divorce proceeding where he definitely lied and said he didn't have an affair. That's period. It happened. But then he submitted an affidavit in this case saying the affair didn't begin until 2022 and saying she reimbursed me. And there's a here's some proof. And he included one set of airline tickets that she allegedly

paid for. And they were doing a good job pointing out to the court that he said, even he said nothing about cash, nothing fell in that affidavit. Like she, she paid me her fair share of everything in cash. The defense doing, being very effective at saying those two got together, they came up with a story and that's what you were told this fake story. You know, the judge gets to determine the credibility of witnesses. And when it when it looks like witnesses are, you know, getting their heads together and deciding in advance sort of what their stories are going to be. And when people when cops arrest people, they always put them in like different police cars so they can't get their story straight. But it was so obvious, you know, that it was obvious to those who was

watching that Fonny Willis was watching the testimony in this hearing, even though she wasn't supposed to be. She busts in the courtroom. You know, she's mad as a wet hen. She's loaded for bear. It's obvious that she's doing more than just simply obeying the judge's instructions. And so it comes across like they are getting their stories straight. The judge gets to consider that. And I think that for a lot of the reasons we've been talking about, but specifically just the manner in which they testified, he may very well give zero credibility and zero weight to this whole cockamamie story about, you know, paying in this untraceable cash. I mean, that's

just probably the worst possible thing they could come up with. They should have just said nothing and been done with it. But to come up with a story about cash, give me a break. Nobody is going to believe that. I certainly don't believe that that makes any sense whatsoever. And, you know, to the point about, I want to make one point about, you know, the judge having donated to, if I can circle back to that, a lot of people in the metropolitan Atlanta area in this last DA's election, we really, really, really wanted to get rid of the last guy because he was a terrible DA and Fonny Willis was the, it looks like the best shot to defeat him and to get some change in the district attorney's office.

I had a yard sign for her in my house, right in front of my house. Wow. Because I live in Fulton County. But that doesn't mean that I thought that, you know, I think that she's done right here in this case. I've got lots of problems with the way she's conducted herself and the way she conducts this case. And the fact that the judge may have donated $150 is probably because he also worked for Paul Howard, the previous DA, when he was in that office. And he knows how Paul Howard was. And he also probably wanted to get rid of Paul Howard. So I don't really factor a whole lot of that in here. And the fact that the judge actually worked with her, I think that probably hurts her more than helps her. I think that, yeah, look, a friend of

mine who's also very plugged in this used to work down there, he says to me, and I agree with him, the judge would not have really let them go this far in getting this personal with these, you know, with lawyers, because this is really, really personal stuff. If the judge wasn't really concerned that there was some slimy, shady stuff going on, he wouldn't have let them go this far. So I think he's going to find not only an appearance of impropriety. That's we've we're well beyond that. He's going to find that there was an actual conflict. He's not going to believe this whole thing about the cash.

And you know why? Because he's going to ignore it. He's going to believe that they lied to him in court. He heard Robin Yerdy. He has personal knowledge. He saw the text messages. Terrence Bradley was absolutely certain their affair began before 2022. They've lied to him. He knows they've lied to him. He's going to discount their entire testimony. He's going to believe Robin Yerdy. He's going to believe the text messages. He's going to toss them from the case. The big question that I have, I'm sure that they're gone, but the big question I have is what's he going to do with this indictment? There's a lot

of reasons that he should dismiss the entire indictment. That's a big, big lift, though, to ask of a judge. I don't know that he's going to be really ready to go that far. He might. But I think that they've made a very strong case for removal of not only Fannie Willis, but for her entire office. Let me play some of his the judge's comments. First, the one I'll get. I got one that will help, I think, the prosecution feel good. And I've got one that's going to help Team Trump feel good. Teed up. So the one that might make the prosecution feel good. And I've got one that's going to help team Trump feel good teed up. So the one that might make the prosecution feel good, you tell me Dave is he zeroed in for a minute on those Terrence Bradley texts, which there's no question. They were diametrically

opposed to what he said on the stand, the text to Ashley merchant again, for the listening audience, Bradley represented Nathan Wade and had been friends with Nathan Wade and allegedly knew about their affair starting in 2019 and had lots of texts with defense attorney Ashley Merchant saying, yes, it started back in 19 when she left the DA's office and then became a judge. And here are all the people who you might subpoena who probably know. And they had a bunch of details. And then when he took the stand, nothing. I don't remember a thing. Who, who am I? Terrence who? Anywho, the judge seemed to be zeroing in on whether, like how damning those texts really are and whether they, they really impeached the testimony that we heard. I'll let him say it in his way, but I was listening to it thinking, well, this is not great for Team Trump. It's SOT 9.

Now we have that and it's in evidence. And what does Bradley do? He knows that he's put himself in a position that if he testifies truthfully on the witness stand, your honor is in a position to be able to find, if you choose to, that both Willis and Wade lied. So what does Bradley do? Look, you were an assistant U.S. attorney. You know how this works when you have witnesses in this situation. Mr. Bradley did everything he could possibly do to evade answering questions. No recollection, couldn't remember, it was speculation. Anything he could possibly say

that would cause your honor not to believe that Bradley knew when this relationship started. I suggest they were clear-cut lies, and the truth isn't Defense Exhibit 26. And so if we take that view that he thoroughly impeached himself, that he did not give truthful conduct, what's left standing? Generally, you would see someone who's impeached perhaps we have some kind of core that you could point back to and say that's the time he was telling the truth. In these text messages, is it ever definitively shown how he knew this and that he actually did know it other than just an assertion outright absolutely. Usually, if a state has a witness that goes sideways, they've got them locked in. They've sat down with a detective and got a full statement. We don't have that here. But what you have is a text message,

which is a prior statement of Bradley that he did on his own that was not given to him by someone else. The only thing that the court has just noted is how do we know he wasn't speculating because you don't have to accept the fact that he wasn't speculating the cases that i provided i think by email yesterday the first dealing with that you can disbelieve that testimony and draw negative inference that's the ferguson case on lee the other case you can simply take the prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence. It has the same value. And that's what I'm asking you to do, to take what was the unprompted statement in Defense Exhibit 26. So what was happening there, Dave?

This was the smoking gun for the defense. Mr. Bradley, Terrence Bradley, was supposed to go there and say, yeah, they had the affair beforehand. Here are the text messages. I knew about it. But he then decided to go the other way. And he admitted to essentially lying back then. He said, I was just speculating. So he's either lying now or lying then. It reminds me of Frank Pentangeli or

Pentangeli from Godfather 2. Yeah, Pentangelo. Yeah. That's right. That's right. Oh, Michael, I don't know. I think differently now. So that was the smoking gun and the smoking gun misfired. And that is the greatest reason. If you said, Megan, what's the number one reason why the state should feel confident? It's because the biggest witness for the defense misfired it was a flop and now they really don't have much to show an actual conflict except for miss yurdi who has been according to the people who support the state discredited because of her bias and you have the phone records which we don't know what's going to happen with them. And you have the cash, which, yeah, it smells bad, feels right, but there's no proof that that wasn't the case,

especially when you had the father, the Black Panther, who came in and said, yeah, that's how I taught my daughter. So I'm not sure it gets the level of actual conflict. And here's the last part. I think the best thing that has been said so far, Megan, is that this will turn on the standard. If the judge says that it depends, it needs to have an actual conflict, then I think Fannie Willis stays. If he says it needs to be an appearance of conflict, then she goes. If the judge says we need to prove that there was a lie,

then I think she stays. If it's just, well, is it look bad, some nefarious conduct here, then I think she goes. It depends on the standard that the judge adopts. He asked them as well about, not only did he say, what's the standard? Is it actual conflict or an appearance? But then he said, proven by what measure? Like, I feel like you, Dave, in your recitation are requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened. That's not the standard. The lawyers seem to agree that it's preponderance of the evidence. They have to convince the judges 51 percent more likely, 49 percent less likely that they that they had this affair before she hired him and that they engaged in this illegal sort of exchange of money without her disclosing anything. And I think they're there. Preponderance is the

easiest legal standard there is. All they have to prove is that Terrence Bradley in these texts was saying exactly what Robin Yerty is saying and what we believe, which is that the affair began before. And if you look at these texts, and the judge was talking about admitting the entire texts, all of them, which we talked about yesterday. He didn't necessarily have, but now he may have them. The audience may be familiar with these now, but here's just a couple of examples. Do you think it started before she hired him? Merchant asks Terrence Bradley. Absolutely. Now the defense, the state tried to say it's implicitly speculative. She says, do you think, do you think it started? And so absolutely is only, this is what I think. He ignored Abate, the state's attorney, the very next line by Terrence Bradley, which is,

it started when she left the DA's office and was the judge in South Fulton. He knows it's not speculative. He knows. And then we go on, here's just a couple of others. Her whole motion alleging it had been going on long before she hired him. Anything in this thing that's not accurate, looks good, he responds. And then I talked about this with the audience when the text broke. He volunteers to her, you need to subpoena the original security detail that she had when she first became DA. When was that? 2020. That's Ter, that's Terrence Bradley telling her, you got to get the original, you guys, he says it twice, get the original detail and current, but you really want the guys who were there when she was initially elected. Then finally, in those text messages,

those, you know, the 31 pages of them we have here, he says he doesn't know the name Robin Yurte, but he's trying to think of people who might know about the affair and when it started. And you can hear him thinking, gee, this might be a way to get it. How about you do an open records request of all people hired when she took office and who were fired around June of 2022? If you get that, I'm going to be able to give you a name. Finally, she finds it. And he said she hired a girlfriend. It was like a bestie. It was her place they stayed at. This is a man who long before 2022, that was all prior to 2022 and prior to her hiring him. He's remembering they were staying at the same home together. And she finds it with that public records request. Is it Robin Bryant Yurte? And he says, that's her.

That's the East Point apartment person. She was fired and goes on to say, she's her bestie. Be careful. She's probably still loyal. This is not a guy who's just speculating. He remembers they were in the same apartment together. This woman knows about the affair, but she's probably not going to give it up to you. And lo and behold, she did give it up, Phil.

I mean, the judge takes a look at the whole text messages, like all of them. It's even more damning than the defense brought out on Terrence Bradley and what he knew. Yeah, the whole discussion about that and that Abadi was trying to he was trying to make the point that we don't know how he has this knowledge that he purports to have. But clearly he does. If you're telling Ashley Merchant and look, these two were collaborating together. He was trying to help Ashley Merchant until very recently. He was trying to help her put together this pleading that was as accurate as it could possibly be and that had as much useful information because he wanted to help her have a good motion. He told her, go be great. You're a great lawyer,

so go be great. And so he tells her who to find. He helps her find Robin Yurdy. He suggests that she contact the original security detail because they know about the affair. And so when you look at all of this in its entirety, and even a body said, look, I need to, the rule of completeness means all these things need to be considered. The text messages together show that he, you know, he's got personal knowledge. And I think it doesn't explicitly say I've got personal knowledge, but it's a very reasonable inference that you can make. And when we're talking about the standard of proof that needs to be applied in a courtroom, which is, you know, like beyond a reasonable doubt, well, that's the criminal conviction standard. We're

obviously not there. Preponderance of the evidence, you know, it's just like the scales just go one way, just a little bit over the other. So you've got the text evidence, you know, it's just like the scales just go one way just a little bit over the other. So you've got the text messages, you've got Bradley's demeanor in court. Let's not forget that. The judge gets to consider that as well. And there may be more trouble coming down the road, but that's another story. And then you've got the cell data. So you've got all of this together. I think clearly tilts those scales just even if ever so slightly, but I think it's maybe a lot more than slightly. It tilts the scales in favor of this affair beginning much earlier than Nathan Wade said on the stand. And then he said in his sworn affidavit that he filed with the court. And if he's lying

about that, the judge can ignore all of his testimony, every bit of it. Same for Fonny Willis, every bit of it. He can ignore it. And then what's he left with? He's left with your dirty. He's left with the substantive evidence that is the prior inconsistent statements on the text messages. Are they perfect? No, they're not perfect. But that goes to weight, not admissibility. Those text messages are in and they're subject to evidence. That's what the defense was saying. They're saying they corroborate.

That's what the defense was trying to say. It doesn't rest or fall on those text messages, but they are corroborating evidence to what Ms. Yurte said. Here's the other thing, Mike, when I listened to the judge, you know, cause you're always trying to read tea leaves. He did get into just how credible Fannie Willis might be. It was just like a hint of it. Listen here in SOT 10. Those are the things that this court can rely upon and say based on those, again, I find an appearance of impropriety. Where would be the limiting principle that district attorney signs every indictment assigned to this courtroom? Does that mean she's off every case?

No, it would be when... If I found that she's untruthful, is that what you're kind of suggesting? You don't have to find... Again, I'm not saying you have to find she was untruthful or that Wade was untruthful. You don't have to make a finding of fact that you don't have to find again i'm not saying you have to find she was untruthful or that wade was untruthful you don't have to make a finding a fact that they lied all you have to do is make a finding a fact that you have genuine legitimate concerns about their credibility about their truthfulness and once you find that then you can apply registae and and uh edwards well but it's the same principle, though.

If I have genuine concerns about her truthfulness on a particular occasion, how do those not spill over into every criminal case a district attorney brings? Well, it's because she testified under oath, and so did Mr. Wade. They didn't have to testify falsely. They could have testified truthfully. They could have indicated that the relationship, the timing, was in fact before Mr. Wade was hired. They chose not to. And in that sense, that dishonesty, that constitutes a violation have their own positions. This is a requirement that every witness has to tell the truth under oath. And if they don't tell the truth under oath, or there's a significant concern about their credibility,

then they're violating their ethical rules. And as anyone will tell you, as Your Honor already knew from when you were a prosecutor. Prosecutors are held to a higher standard. So, Mike, what was interesting there was the judge seemed to be asking himself, if I find the district attorney of Fulton County lied to me under oath on the witness stand, how bad is it going to get? How many defendants are about to come in and say, I want to blow up my case, my plea deal, my everything, because the DA is a proven liar. And you could see Satow dodged. His answer was not responsive to what the judge was asking. But the judge was asking that for a reason. What did you make of that? Well, I don't think the judge even knows needs to go that far. I don't think he needs to decide whether Fannie Willis's credibility is implicated in every case.

I think that the lawyer was correct in arguing that Fannie Willis came in and testified under oath in this particular matter, and she's not being truthful in this matter. And so this doesn't necessarily, I don't think it has to spill over to every case before the Fulton County DA's office. He can decide on this particular case that Fannie Willis was not being truthful, Nathan Wade was not being truthful, and they got eight other attorneys in the Fulton County DA's office to submit untruthful statements to this judge. And so this office should be disqualified. What did you make of it, Phil? I just found that whole exchange. The judge seemed to be looking for a get me out of a situation where every criminal conviction she's gotten is going to get challenged. Give me a quote limiting principle that I can sort of, just like the Supreme Court does. They say, we're going to go the narrowest, tiniest route so that

we don't open up the new floodgates on law. He's going to find whatever we find by the narrowest line of reasoning. He doesn't, he seems to be looking for somebody to give him, okay, it's limited here because she was talking about her own love life in a case where she hired her lover. It doesn't apply to all other cases where she wasn't hiring her lover and then taking the stand and giving the oath and all that. Well, I think the judge just has to make his ruling and let the chips fall where they may. Now, he doesn't he doesn't want to have to invalidate, you know, every indictment. He doesn't want to open up the floodgates to all this kind of thing. And I don't blame him. I mean, who would? Because there's a lot of cases that are in that pipeline that need to need to be dealt with.

But he has to rule with the information that he's got on this case. And so if he can find some narrow basis, he does. Let's just say he wants to. Let's say he wants to grant the defense motion. He could easily say, I'm not even going to address the issue of whether or not they lied. I'm going to go ahead and say there's an appearance of a conflict of interest, and that's it. Okay? He can limit his ruling to that, and he can avoid the concern that he gave. I would have answered the question, by the way, Mr. Sadow did a very good job. I would have just said, look, judge, I'm not concerned about all the other cases. That's your job. I'm concerned about this case and my client and him getting a fair shape. This is about fundamental fairness.

This district attorney has not provided fundamental fairness. And without that, the system doesn't work. You guys can figure out what to do with your DA. She's your problem. I'm just concerned about this particular case. But the judge, I think he's going to rule for the defense. I think he's going to find for the defense. I think he's going to find a way, because he's no dummy, he's going to find a way to limit his ruling so that he doesn't have to jeopardize all of the other cases. Now, that doesn't mean that the lawyers in the metro Atlanta area who represent those defendants aren't watching this and aren't going to raise the issue when they present their cases to the other judges in the

circuit, because there's a lot of them. And so this issue for Fannie Willis is only going to get worse. It is not going to get better. And I think that she made a fatal mistake by not recusing herself early on. The first rule when you're in a hole is to stop digging. She didn't do that. She kept digging. She kept digging. She kept digging. And when she busted in there like a wildcat wanting to testify because she's really, really hopping mad, she wanted to vent. She wanted to call people liars. It was not a good look. She looked unprofessional. She came across as not being truthful. And she shot herself in the foot in terms of credibility, going forward with all other cases that have her name on those indictments.

Here's another, forgive me, my notes, I'm going through my notes. It was the guy who showed up after Gillum. My notes read, next guy. So with apologies to next guy, I thought next guy did a good job. He ticked off the argument pretty well. He said, look, she was personally benefiting from her position, the job and the scope of the indictment because the more work, the more he got paid, the more they see the world. We know Wade paid at least $17,900 toward this relationship. That doesn't even include dinners, day trips, et cetera. So the number's likely higher. She paid him $1,400 for airline tickets. That's the only proof we have beyond her verbal testimony about all the wads of cash this in-debt woman allegedly had sitting

around her apartment, even though she said by her own words, she was quote broke a couple of years earlier. He said, Ms. Yurte, Robin Yurte's testimony stands. She saw them kissing and hugging. Don't know whether they had sex before 2022, but they're the ones who decided to go right to the sex talk. Whatever, Wade and Willis, that's a red herring. He was like, that doesn't dictate when the relationship began, the romantic relationship between them. You know, don't be so focused on the sex. Okay. There can be love without the sex. That was basically what he was trying to say. Then he says, we can question Richard Rice. Sorry, Richard. Then he said, we can question Terrence Bradley's temporary amnesia after Gabe Banks, friend of Nathan, whose wife works for Fannie, happened to call him after it looked like he might be

helping the defense. He said, this was important to me. He said, your honor, on the question of Nathan Wade and how much money he gave Fannie, net net, you asked an earlier lawyer how much to be material. It was actually a good question. He asked it of the first guy, Merchant, Ashley Merchant's husband is there. And he said, how much money would be improper? If you do the math on what he actually paid for and what they testified she paid back in cash, you still have over $9,200, $9,200 and $9,247 to be exact. If it was $6, that would still be improper. Would it be improper where it's a per se disqualification if someone buys their boss a stick of gum? Is that per se disqualifying

because there's no materiality requirement? Well, no, I don't disagree that it may not meet a materiality requirement, but it's a personal benefit. I won't say that giving back a gum is justification for disqualifying a disreturn. I think that's part of the issue, Judge. I think it's a fact-based inquiry by you. And the lawyer, John Merchant, struggled a little. And then the judge kind of cross-examined him,

like, there's got to be some materiality standard because what if I buy somebody a stick of gum, they've got to declare it or pay me back or I'm, I'm compromised. And the John Merchant gave him that like, no, not a, not a stick of gum. And so then he said to this lawyer, you asked John Merchant about materiality clearly by any standard, $17,000 is enough. But Fulton County has told us that it's far less than that, that it's $100 a year. She twice signed certifications that she received no gifts, I think this is, Phil. Is that what they're talking about, that she has to disclose her gifts? Yeah. More than $100, and she never did it. Yeah, this is a form that goes out to all, you know, the top officials in Fulton County, all the judges, they all have to do it as well. You have to

disclose these gifts. And part of the record that's been made, these forms that she signed were attached as exhibits to this motion to disqualify. And it shows that she didn't declare any gifts. And the form itself defines the gifts. It's not that you can't get gifts. You can't get it from a prohibited person. And a prohibited person is somebody who either is trying to do business with the county or who is.

That means a contractor. That means Nathan Wade. OK, and so if you get a gift from Nathan Wade of more than a hundred dollars, you're supposed to, you're supposed to put it on that form. Now in earlier proceedings and in another format, she has claimed that she doesn't think that applies to her because she is a constitutional officer. She is not an employee per se of the county. In other words, she's not somebody that's hired by the board of commissioners that oversees some department like the, you know, the wastewater department or whatever that hands out contracts. She takes the position that these

rules don't apply to her because she's an elected constitutional official. Nevertheless, the county says that she does and they want her to fill out those forms. And when she did, she didn't declare any of these things. So if the judge has a question- The point is, Dave, that even if they apply to her or they don't, it sets a standard for what the officials in Georgia think is a material amount of money that would be changing hands between a public official and an outside contractor or constituent. And they set it very low at 100. And this is what he went on to say the following. Listen to this. Her explanation about cash does not stand to reason. Anyone who's ever been at a money laundering trial and when this cash thing

is used, we laugh. I thought of you and I thought of this judge. You're a prosecutor. This judge was a prosecutor. He was an assistant U.S. attorney and a D.A. Do you think that's true, that statement? Yes. And I used to work in the money laundering area when I worked at Treasury. So, yeah, that's why I had to laugh. But I do have experience when it comes to these gift forms. We all have a version of them in Florida. As the D.A., I have to submit my own gift forms. And what happens is if I am in a relationship with someone and you give gifts back and forth and I'm reimbursing, I'm giving cash and it's almost Dutch, it's almost even Stephen, you don't have to fill out a gift form. Even if he paid for a cruise for me, I wouldn't

have to report it if I then gave him half the money in cash. And so along with her explanation, even though it may be far fetchfetched, it comes with the benefit that she does not have to fill out that form. Dave's hiding cash. I think we've just gotten an admission. He's gotten gifts and he hasn't disclosed. No, no, no, never. Just kidding. Mike, what about, the lawyer went on to say the following, the only explanation she gave was sometimes I go to Publix and I withdraw an extra 50. The only explanation she gave was sometimes I go to Publix and I withdraw an extra 50. We've all done that. When you go to the grocery store and you pay for your bill, your bill's a hundred bucks, and then you can withdraw cash right

there. And you say, add another 50 bucks on there. But it's, there would be a transaction record. Like that's all knowable and you would see it. There would be a receipt of it if you wanted to produce such a thing. And there would be a lot of receipts of it if you had what's half of $17,000, you know, $8,500 stocked away in cash from your little $50 public fund. And he said they didn't show it with any, any documentation. They didn't show one withdrawal of $50. This is something you've been saying from the beginning. Yeah. I mean, there would be like close to 200 of those $50 withdrawals from Publix if Fannie Willis were telling the truth about following the advice of her Black Panther father and keeping six months of cash laying around the house like a drug dealer or a prostitute.

I mean, it's just absurd on its face, this whole argument she's making. She's lying. She's clearly lying. She's clearly perjured herself with the court to come up with this bogus explanation. Like you guys said, why wouldn't they have put this in the affidavit to the court, this whole cash theory in the affidavit? Yes, very relevant. Yes, that's a very good question. The defense did a very good job of calling out Nathan Wade. This is your big chance.

You're about to get kicked off this case. You're being publicly humiliated. So is your girlfriend. Why wouldn't you put in the affidavit? She reimbursed me. This isn't much to do about nothing. She gave me half the money. She's given me nine grand almost in cash. That's how we operate. Nope. Didn't pop up magically

until they took the stand. And we know he already lied under oath. We know for a fact he lied in his divorce proceeding. And there's no reason to believe he didn't lie in this proceeding too. What about his affair with Fannie Willis? It's exactly the same subject matter, both times. He definitely lied about it under oath in his divorce proceeding, and we believe he definitely lied about it in this proceeding. Here, I showed you a little bit of Abate. I feel that's all the audience needs to see. We've represented his attempts pretty well, but we're not in the business of boring people. What was interesting was Sadow got up there and gave, rebuttals weren't allowed, but the team Trump had reserved five minutes just to sort of get up and say what they wanted to say at the end. Here's a little bit of how it ended.

It was pretty good. The only way that Wade can walk, I'm sorry, the only way that Bradley can walk away from the, I have very little time,. I'll skip that. Let's go to something. Motive. That's an issue. Whose motive in this case is the strongest? Bonnie Willis. Nathan Wade. Because if they testify truthfully on every point.

What happens if the relationship started before November 1st? They get disqualified. Who has the best motive of anyone to lie? They do. Who has the most at stake to lie? They do. Who wants to stay on this case for whatever the financial reason may be? They do. Who wants to stay on this case for whatever the financial reason may be? They do. So I guess it's Sado. He was very good, very effective. And that was the final word.

Can we spend just one minute on the other argument? Because we really haven't spent a lot of time on the second argument to get her booted. And that has to do with her public statements, her statement before the church saying they played the race card. Why are they going after the one black attorney I brought in? He's good enough for the white attorney in Costco, but he's not good enough for this jurisdiction. And, um, do we have it? Yeah, I think, uh, yeah, yeah. Is it SOC 22 team? I think it is. Yeah. Listen, listen here. This this is this caused a lot of headaches for her. Why does Commissioner Thorne and so many others question my decision in a special counsel? I appointed three special counsel. This is my right to do. Paid them all the same hourly rate. only attack one first thing they say oh she don't play the race card now but no God isn't it them who's playing the race

card when they only question one why are they so surprised that a diverse team that I assembled your child can accomplish extraordinary things. God, wasn't it them that attacked this lawyer of impeccable credentials? How come God, the same black man I hired, was acceptable when a Republican in another county hired him and paid him twice the rate. Oh, y'all ain't hearing me. Why is the white male Republican's judgment good enough, but the black female Democrats not? Okay. So we haven't given this enough attention, but the defense is also saying that's a disqualification right there, that you're not allowed to impugn the defendant publicly in this way, suggesting the defense says that they're racists or sexists, or they said they, he played the rate. She played the race card in the God

card. Like I'm God's child. And also that she was out there going, I get convictions in 95% of the cases. Telegraphing says the defense they're guilty. Um, I was surprised at how much airtime the defense gave that argument at this thing. It's suggested to me they actually think they're onto something. I don't know if they are. The judge seemed to be saying, hey, the prosecutor kept saying, the only cases in which DAs get disqualified, Phil, for doing these kind of statements is when they're out there going, he's guilty. He did it. And he was pointing out, like, it has to be that egregious. So what did you make of that second argument? Yeah, I think it's a good argument, actually. I don't think it

has to be that egregious. When she went down to that church, she was talking, it was in response to Ashley Merchant on behalf of Mr. Roman. It was in response to that filing. And so what she's doing is she's saying these things that are derogatory about Michael Roman. Okay. And so these people sitting in those pews, this is the jury pool. This is the actual jury pool that people in the Fulton County Superior Court, they get their jurors from, you know, is from this area. So she's down there in the well of the church, in a house of God, and she's saying these negative things about Michael Roman, who she's also prosecuting. She's calling him a racist and all these other things. And it was

improper. You're not supposed to try your case on the courthouse steps. And that means you're not supposed to defend motion. When you have a motion. And that means you're not supposed to defend motion. When you have a motion filed against you, you're not supposed to go and argue your motion before the church on Sunday. You're just like, you're not supposed to, you know, argue your case to a jury outside of the courtroom. The same thing applies.

I think it's a very good argument, but it doesn't stop with the church, Megan. It's more than that. It's the stuff in the books. It's the stuff in all the other media appearances. She had thousands and thousands and thousands of taxpayer dollars that were spent on a media monitoring company so she could boost and monitor her public profile as this case proceeded. She signed the contract with them right when she started this prosecution. It was so that she could become famous, so that she could watch her star rise because it's part of her political ambition. She's using this case not only to enrich herself financially, she's doing it to enrich herself politically. She's getting herself ready for whatever she thinks the next step is in her political career. Here's another one. This is an interview she gave in September 2023. Listen. It's been very troubling. I've become very private about my family because of the threats. I have 20-year-olds, you know, they've doxed them.

They've doxed my father. Explain to people what that means. So what doxing is, and in particular just recently on a Russian website, y'all figure out why Russia would be interested. They put the information not only of me and my home address, but also some of my loved ones' addresses. Said a lot of racial things. I've been called the N-word so many times that I don't even think I hear it anymore. But a lot of ugly and nasty things about me. But just with the purpose of you should go and intimidate and threaten this person and their family because

of certain prosecutions. Okay. So that's what led Sadow to go in there. It was really more about, he was focused on that church speech, but they focused on all of her extrajudicial statements, all of her out of court statements. But here, listen to Sadow trying to make the point how out of line she was in SOT 7. It was a calculated determination by Ms. Wills to prejudice the defendants and their counsel. How so? By making an issue out of the fact that the person that was challenged in the Roman motion was black. Without telling the public or the church members or anyone for that matter that the reason

that Mr. Wade was being challenged was not because he was black. It had nothing to do with race. It had to do with the relationship that had been alleged and later admitted to by Ms. Merchant. Now, that was a violation of the professional rules of conduct. It was a violation of 3.8G. There's no question about it. Can you think of anything more that would heighten public condemnation

of the defendants than alleging that defense counsel and the defendants were making their motion based on race and religion? That's as bad as it gets in Fulton County. What'd you make of that, Dave? I think it's a lousy argument to get someone disqualified. I think that's an argument

to have someone possibly sanctioned by the bar. I don't think it should be sanctioned, but it's a legitimate issue before the Georgia bar. But to disqualify her entire office because of her comments at the church, I think that is a bridge way too far and it's not going to work here. They do have some strong arguments that perhaps there was some lying going on and that could bounce them. But as far as bouncing them, because she was telling the church without mentioning the defendant

by name and without saying he's guilty, but by saying that it is interesting how the same special prosecutor who is now being condemned, who was getting paid twice as much when he worked for a white Republican. It's interesting. No one had a problem then. Yeah, I know that is a difficult conversation to hear, but it does not warrant disqualifying her entire office from this case and reassigning it to another prosecutor in a different circuit. I think I agree with you on that. I don't think that's their strongest argument at all. It's probably why it was second. And as I say, I was surprised to see it take such a major role at this hearing. But we'll see whether the judge was persuaded at all by that. OK, so I think we've covered everything. I think we're all on the same

page, which is, I don't know, what's the percentage? Let's go do it that way. Cause I think we all think there's disqualification is likely. What's the percentage odds, Phil, that it happens that she and Nathan Wade and her office get booted? Yeah. well, if she gets booted, everybody beneath her gets booted. So I'm probably at around 80 to 85%, I would say. I think the odds are pretty good. I do think the judge is going to do it. I think he's going to find the narrowest possible grounds to do it.

Judges like to take the easy way when they can find one, and I don't blame them. But I do think it's about 85%. How about you, Mike? If this judge does his job and follows the law, it should be 100 percent. OK, should be. I mean, I see your point. So far, I've liked Judge McAfee, but I see your point. Your point is, yes, he's a Republican, but he's he was appointed by somebody who can't stand a Republican who can't stand Trump.

This is a problem for Trump is like he appointed by somebody who can't stand Trump, a Republican who can't stand Trump. This is a problem for Trump is like, he's got Democrats who can't stand him. Then there's a contingency within the Republican party, like never Trumpers or people just don't like Trump that can't stand. So it's like, you need to find almost just like an open-minded person to try your case. I know so far this judge, I think deserves the benefit of the doubt. I'm not worried about that $150 payment for the reasons Phil said. So we'll see. I mean, we have to see how he reasons. All right, Dave, bringing it in, third base here. What are the percentage odds that Fannie, Nathan, and Fannie's office go? I'm going to split hairs here. I think Nathan Wade, 80%, he gets bounced, 85%, 90% he gets bounced. But as far as Fannie Willis, I think 50-50. And you may be wondering,

how does one get bounced but not the other? I think the judge could split that hair and actually say that for the appearances of impropriety, for all these reasons, he should not be part of the case. Fannie Willis, you need to remove him from the case. But because I have not established that there has been an actual conflict involving you, I'm going to allow you to remain on the case. But because I have not established that there has been an actual conflict involving you, I'm going to allow you to remain on the case. But Nathan Wade has to go. I know that's an unusual decision, but I think he has to go. And I think there's a 50-50 chance that she does as well. All right. You heard it here. If he says they're both out and her office goes to a fail, there's been conflicting. I've seen different opinions on whether the attorney general of Georgia, who's a Republican, will decide who takes the case. And then you said there's this special prosecutorial board, like overseers who decide.

So what happens? The law changed on that a couple of years ago. It used to be the attorney general. Now it goes to the prosecuting attorneys council of Georgia. It's a state agency that will have to, first off, decide if they're going to assign it to somebody, and if so, who. Burt Jones is our lieutenant governor. He was going to be one of these defendants, but Fannie Willis had supported his opponent prior to the election.

In fact, either donated or participated in a fundraiser, and a different superior court judge said, you should have known better than that. That was really dumb. I'm going to disqualify you from anything having to do with Burt Jones. Now Burt Jones is the lieutenant governor. Fannie Willis's office has referred that matter to the prosecuting attorney's council, and still nothing's happened. If this case is so tainted by virtue of this conflict of interest that I think the judge is going to find any other prosecutor who they can find that might even want it, and that's a big question, they're going to have to start over because it's so tainted from the very

beginning, it's structurally unsound, that another prosecutor is going to have to look at all the evidence and decide, hey, do we even want to go forward? And so I think that as a practical matter, even if the judge doesn't dismiss the indictment, if he kicks Willis and company off this indictment, I think the case languishes and dies on the grapevine because the prosecuting attorney's counsel, they do a great job, but they're not going to find anybody else that really wants to pick this up. That's just my opinion, but I think that's what's going to happen. What happens to the people who have pled guilty, who have already pleaded guilty in this case?

A lot of viewers are writing in saying, you know, you've got Sidney Powell, you've got, what's the name of the blonde lawyer? I can't remember. She cried when she- Jenna Ellis. Jenna Ellis, right? You've got a couple of others. So what happens to them? Does anybody know the answer to that? Well, they'd have to file a motion to withdraw. And here's the thing. If they file a motion to withdraw, okay, it's going to go to Judge McAfee. But if Willis is off and there's no other prosecutor, who is the other side that you get to come to court to address that motion? I don't know. We are in uncharted territory here.

But I do know that right about now, after all of this, people that are watching this, those people who have entered these pleas of guilty are probably regretting it. And I'm just waiting for the first one to come along and file their motion to withdraw, because I guarantee it's coming. At least one of them is going to do it. Ashley Merchant should wind up on the cover of, you know, ABA, whatever, lawyer of the year. I mean, already she deserves it. But certainly if this case gets kicked, these two get disqualified. This woman deserves some sort of a medal for the legal work she's done. It's not every day you manage this kind of a victory if she gets a victory. But I do feel already it's been a win for the defense. All right. Last but not least, this is for you, Dave and Mike. I got to give credit where it's due. Mike, you were right. The Supreme Court did take the appeal from Team Trump on immunity. Dave, you didn't think it would happen. You convinced me that they wouldn't want

any part of it. They would just let the Court of Appeals decision striking down Trump's argument stand and say, we got enough worries. And Mike, you said, no, they're going to take it. And they are taking it. So how do you feel about Trump's chances on the merits once they actually take it up? I think the Supreme Court is going to establish that the president of the United States, any president of the United States, is immune from criminal prosecution for his official acts, just like federal judges are immune,

just like members of Congress are immune. Then the Supreme Court is going to remand this case back to Judge Chutkan at the end of June. And she's going to have to have an evidentiary hearing on what allegations against Trump are as president and which allegations against Trump are in his personal capacity. For example, not calling the D.C. National Guard fast enough is clearly as president. And, you know, deciding whether to fire his attorney general is clearly as president. And remember, the Supreme Court is deciding a separate case on this obstruction of justice that the Biden Justice Department's bringing. I think that 80 percent of this case against Trump, this January 6th case against Trump in D.C., is going to be dismissed on the pleadings before any trial begins.

There's no chance this is going to get tried before the presidential election. That case is imploding even more than the Georgia case is imploding. I mean, there's so many massive threats to the January 6th federal court prosecution, which brings me to Mar-a-Lago and your jurisdiction, Dave. That put in perspective for me the fact that Team Trump just went in there and said we wanted, I think, August 8th, very early August trial date. The prosecution there wanted July 8th. It was basically a month apart. Prosecution in the Mar-a-Lago documents case said July. Team Trump said early August. And what do you make of those dueling requests and what do you think will happen? Well, Trump actually wanted the Mar-a-Lago documents case to take place on the 31st of Neverwary. But since he had to since he had since he had to actually establish a date,

the courts and now you got to give us a date. He established that late August date because I think he wants to use it as a block from Judge Chutkin being able to actually make that January 6th trial happen before the election. And just to address my friend, Mike, congratulations to Mike. He got it right.

I got it wrong about the granting of cert, but Mike also must say he did think that the court would push the hearing date past the election instead of the sort of expedited date. I put expedited in air quotes of April 22nd. So Mike is mostly right, not not altogether right. And I was completely wrong. I'll admit it here. Noted, noted. Yes, that's right. I was trying to say this the other day that like if they because some people were like they're in the tank for Trump. I'm like, if they're really in the tank for Trump, like let's save him. They wouldn't have expedited any arguments. They would have said, we'll take this up next term and really kick the can way

down the road until Trump could potentially become the president again. In any event, I think Trump's going to lose that case when it actually gets heard on the merits, though it's possible he could do a little better than he did at the court of appeals. Maybe they'll just like give a little immunity for certain acts, which right now they said doesn't exist. You guys are awesome. Thank you so much for watching that thing. That was not the most exciting piece of this case. It was not like Real Housewives. No, we needed, we need a little bit more Housewives today. So thank you for making it exciting, interesting, and thought-provoking as always. Mike, Dave, Phil, all the best.

Thank you. Thank you, Megan. Thank you. Always happy to be here. Okay. When we get the decision, and we do believe the judge said it would be two weeks, so I take him at his word. We, of course, will bring it to you. We'll bring back our legal panel. In the the meantime have a great weekend I'll see you Monday Thanks for listening to the Megyn Kelly Show No BS, No Agenda and No Fear