The Megyn Kelly Show - BREAKING: Bombshell New Phone Evidence Shows Fani Willis and Nathan Wade May Have Lied Under Oath, with Phil Holloway | Ep. 730

Episode Date: February 23, 2024

Megyn Kelly is joined by Phil Holloway, founder of Holloway Law Group, to talk about the bombshell new report about phone records showing Nathan Wade spending time at Fani Willis’ condo much more than they originally said, evidence of thousands of texts between Willis and Wade, how the new information shows Willis and Wade may have lied under oath, exactly what Willis and Wade said last week under oath, how Willis may attempt to counter the evidence, whether Willis and Wade could be disbarred or worse, whether there’s even more evidence, the questionable evidence of cell phone “pings,” and more.Holloway: https://x.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. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, everyone. I'm Megyn Kelly, special edition coming to you live from Washington, D.C., where I am for CPAC. And I was not expecting to be on the air today, but we had such significant breaking news in the Fannie Willis debacle that we had to put an episode out for you. So that's what we're doing today. And Phil Holloway, who's the founder of Holloway Law Group, a lawyer down in Cobb County, right where this is all happening. He knows a lot of the players in the case is with us. And we're going to get you updated on the bombshell developments that dropped earlier this morning.

Phil, thanks for being here. Always happy to be with you, Megan. Good afternoon. Thank you very much. And to you. All right. So let's just start with the headline. The headline is that the defense lawyers for Trump filed a brief today attaching an affidavit from an investigator who works for the defense, who went and somehow you're going to explain how managed to get a subpoena for Nathan Wade's cell phone records, not all of his, you know, the specifics of his texts, but that show where he was, what cell phone towers his phones were connecting to, how many times he called Fannie Willis, etc. There's a ton of detail in here. And what they are saying is that there's

really no doubt that these two were in excessive contact throughout at least 2021, long before they said their affair began under oath in 2022, to the tune of 12,000 text messages over the 11-month period they looked at in 2021, and over 2,000 voice calls in that same period. I was averaging it out. It's basically, I think, 180 text messages a month, which is a lot. Or 100, no, it's 180 voice calls a month, which is insane. I went back just for kicks to see how many voice calls my husband and I had this month, Phil, and it was 46. All right, so they were averaging 180, these alleged non lovers during 2021. And the cell phone tower evidence seems to suggest there were also overnight visits between these two allegedly platonic friends.

So what did you what was your takeaway and what you read this morning? Yep. So that that's quite something. And of course, you know, we have not heard their response, but I don't know what their response could be because what they did, they used something called geofencing, which basically, you know, law enforcement uses it all the time to solve crimes. Anytime somebody goes somewhere with a smartphone, you know, it can be tracked. And this is quite frankly, one of the first times I've ever seen it used this way by the defense in a criminal case. But last week, when we heard Steve Sado questioning Nathan Wade and Fannie Willis, he asked some questions that led me to believe that he just might have cell

phone data. And lo and behold, he's working in connection with Ashley Merchant, who represents Mr. Roman, who first brought this whole thing to light. They sent a subpoena to the cell phone providers and they got the data and they ran it through fancy software that investigators use. And by the way, private investigators who work for criminal defense lawyers, they can get the same training that cops can get. And so the tables have really been turned. This data, Megan, shows that he was at, you know, her place or maybe that safe house or remember the witness that said, you know, that it was at her home for a while. She's the one that saw them together, saw them acting like. Her friend, her former friend, Robin Yurte, who turned on her and testified.

That was, yeah, That was the resident. Just to bring people up to speed, that was the friend, Robin Yurte, who was her very good friend since college and also testified the affair was going on long before 2022. Also said that after Fannie was getting harassed at her home, she allowed Fannie to move into Robin's condo for a period of time. And it appears to include most of 2021. And that's where Fannie was during all this time. And the defense was making a big deal during the hearing we watched last week of how many times did Mr. Wade visit you there? Is that, that's what you're talking about? Yeah. And that's, that's, that's the resonance that they, they use after his testimony, they went back and, and that's the resonance that they use. After his testimony, they went back and compared the cell phone data, and they found him going there from in the evening,

maybe 7, 8, 9 o'clock to 3, 4, 5 o'clock in the morning, right? So this is not the time when you're just basically over there visiting your boss, preparing for court, right? This is the time when you're doing things, maybe know, preparing for court, right? This is the time when you're doing things, maybe sleeping, maybe sleeping together. But this is not the general sort of, we're just going to hang out and have drinks kind of time, right? Let me put some numbers on that. So what the private investigator, Charles Middlestad, is saying is that the cell phone records show that at a minimum of 35 occasions,

when Mr. Wade's phone connected for an extended period to either one of these towers in close proximity to where Fannie Willis was living, the data reveal he is stationary and not in transit. So it's not like he's doing a flyby. So at least 35 occasions in those 11 months, in addition to the 2000 voice calls and just under 12,000 text messages. And the two instances that he highlights are the ones you just made reference to September 11th, overnight into the 12th, 2021. Of course, before Nathan Wade was hired as special prosecutor showed, he arrived at Fannie Willis's house at 10.45 p.m. and stayed until 3.28 a.m., arrived back at his home at 4.05 a.m., and then sent a text to Fannie Willis at 4.20 a.m.

Now, look. Yeah, I made it home safe text, right? Phil, this is, to me me what an affair looks like. Well, he was still married. I think he was still living with his wife at this point. Because I'm like, why would somebody leave the house of their affair partner at 328 in the morning? And I don't know. I guess we'll find out eventually, maybe. But it certainly might be something someone who didn't want their wife to know they had left the house might do because he did it again. The other example is November 29th to 30th, 2021. And he arrived at her home at 1243 in the morning and stayed there until just before 5 a.m., 4.55

a.m. And remember, this is just comparing his known residence to that known location. That's the only two they looked at. If they start looking at other things, who knows what they're going to find? Think about his testimony and her testimony in court and how many times it was asked, you know, did you ever cohabitate together and all this kind of stuff? And they were like, no, there was no cohabitating, no spending the night. Well, I guess it depends on what your definition of spending the night is, because if you leave at five o'clock in the morning, maybe you say, well, it wasn't quite the whole night. I don't know. But we're splitting hairs.

I was just not going to fly, but I'll play a little bit of that sound so people can be reminded. Sot 3 is that claim you just referenced. Watch. I have gone to a condo in Hapeville. OK, so Hapeville. Yes, ma'am. So you have gone to a condo with Ms. Willis in Hapeville. I have gone to a condo in Hapeville. Okay. So Hapeville. Yes, ma'am. So you have gone to a condo with Ms. Willis in Hapeville? I have. Have you spent the night there?

Never. Never spent the night? Never. Did Mr. Wade ever visit you at the condo that you leased from Ms. Yerdy? He visited that condo, yes. He did? Yes. Did he ever spend the night at that condo, yes. He did? Yes. Did he ever spend the night at that condo?

No. Just visited? Yeah, but he did visit for sure. Did anyone else stay with you at the Yerty condo, including Miss Yerty? Never. Miss Yerty never lived in the condo. My word was stay, not lived. Stayed with you at the condo. I guess I don't understand the distinction, but no one ever. I think my baby spent my oldest child.

I think she spent one night with me, maybe my oldest and my youngest. But I think that whole time I was in that place, other than that one night, I don't think anyone ever. It was a very lonely period in my life. I don't think anyone ever spent the night other than maybe one night. It doesn't look like she was that lonely because, I'm sorry, you arrive at quarter to one in the morning and leave at five in the morning. That's the night. You know, I'm so glad that I came on to do this show with you today

because my Twitter feed has just been blowing up all day. And I've been trying to remember as best I can, you know, what we heard in that testimony. But this this that sock you just played, you know, that crystallizes it right there. It's obvious that they were you look, in my opinion, at least it's obvious that they were lying. OK, so they've if that's the case, they've lied under oath. They've perpetrated a fraud on the court. Okay, so we're now in very, very serious territory here. This is the kind of thing that the judge is really not going to have much choice. He's got to take some action now because we can't have people playing these little word games like that when they're asked a straight question and they say, no, nobody ever stayed the night.

Well, if they left at 5 a.m., that's been in the night in my book. OK. And so they certainly were not forthcoming. They certainly left the wrong impression. It tried to, at least, of what was going on. And so the question becomes, if they're lying about that, Megan, what else are they lying about? And that's when the whole thing ties together with the cash, the untraceable cash. The judge, if he finds that a witness has lied or is untruthful, he is entitled to disbelieve all of their testimony about everything else. And that includes the cash. I mean, and this is ignoring the big lie that we think they told, which is their affair did not begin before 2022 after she hired him. I mean, the reason whether he slept over and the number of texts and the number of phone calls is relevant is it doesn't sound like a platonic relationship. I don't I practice law for 10 years.

I never had a co-counsel come over and spend the night from 1 a.m. to 5 in the morning. And I was a single woman for most of that time. Didn't happen. And there's a reason. So this is all sort of evidence of the big lie, which I believe they told because they knew it stinks that she hired her lover, that she paid him more than she paid the other special prosecutors, and that she then benefited from it because he took her all over the world on this fat cat salary, at least versus what she'd be paying people who actually work for her in the DA's office and certainly what she was making. But I want to go back because they were asked, it was very clear, and I sensed the same when they were getting cross-examined by Merchant and by Sadow.

It was very clear they had these records when they were asking Fannie and Nathan questions last Friday. And it's now, knowing what we know from this affidavit and these phone records, it's very interesting to watch the testimony because Nathan knows, Fannie knows, they know what the truth is, and watch them dance on these questions. Here's Fannie being careful not to actually say exactly how many times Nathan Wade visited that condo. Again, now we know it was at least 35 occasions when he was there for an extended period. Watch. Could you give us an approximation of how many times Mr. Wade visited you at the condo between the time you moved in and prior to November 1 of 2020? I don't think often, but I don't want to speculate. Can we say more than five, more than 10?

I'm going to tell you the problem I'm having here. Let's say more than 10, but I'm not sure that that's even accurate. He certainly has come and picked me up, gone and grabbed some food to eat. I don't remember him being in that condo a lot. I'm sorry. You want a number? And what I don't want to do. Giving me your current and best recollection is all I'm asking for. That's all I can give I'm sorry. You want a number. And what I don't want to give me your your current and best recollection is all I'm asking.

That's all I can give you, sir. And now here's Nathan Wade, just for the audience, because the name is interesting. It sounded like hateville, Georgia. I remember thinking that when we last Friday thinking who would name their town hateville. It's hate with a P like Paul hateville. Here's Nathan Wade's commentary about the number of times he visited the condo. Your answer is yes. Prior to November 1st of 2021, you would have gone to the Hapeville condo and been there with Miss Willis, correct? Yes.

And you would have been there, as you indicated, for many reasons, right? Yes. Can you give me, just list a few of the reasons? Ms. Yurdy resided there, went to visit her, maybe went to talk about a document that I received. You would go to the condo to talk about a document that you received? Absolutely. Okay, go ahead. Absolutely. Any other reasons? None come to mind. None come to mind? No, sir. And would you say that was frequent? When I say frequent, do you think prior to November 1st of 2021, you were at the condo more than 10 times? No, sir. So it'd be less than 10 times? Yes, sir. So if phone records were to reflect that you were making phone calls from the same location as the condo before November 1st of 2021,

and it was on multiple occasions, the phone records would be wrong? If phone records reflected that, yes, sir. They'd be wrong? They'd be wrong. Any other reasons why you would be in the Hapeville area on multiple occasions prior to November 1st of 2021? Let's see. The Porsche Experience is there. I'm sorry? The Porsche Experience is there. Okay, so that would have been one. Any other reason? Yes, sir. The airport is there. Airport in Hapeville? Yes, sir. Delta Airlines is headquartered there. Let's see. Restaurants there.

Okay. If that's your recollection, that's fine. I'm not asking you to try to remember everything. Okay, Phil. So, again, I never had an associate drop me off a document at 2 in the morning and then stay for several hours. The Porsche experience, unless that's a euphemism for what he calls Fannie, that doesn't work either, not overnight. And then the airport, this investigator, Charles Middlestad, specifically said modality was used to eliminate the possibility that hits could be associated with routine travel on I-75 or I-85 or nearby the airport. He did his best to eliminate any commercial site that was in the cell phone towers. Having said that, it's not an exact science. It's not an exact science,

but you heard him there saying, scoffing at the notion he was ever there more than 10 times. Well, the truth will out. It will always come out i think the one thing that that you in that testimony that he left out was that he went down there to that condo uh to get her to help him with his briefs i think that's probably what he what he should have said and that's probably more close to what's being accurate listen this was a booty call that's what these were. We can call a spade a spade. And he can say if he wants to that the phone records are wrong, but they're not. You know, phone records don't just change themselves. They've got him. They've got him dead to rights. They've caught him. They've caught her, quite frankly, I think, in my opinion, in some lies. And it's not just one. It's over and over and over and over. And so now this case

is no longer about the guilt or the innocence of the accused. It's about the prosecutor. It's about the prosecution team now. All these people that work for her, they now have to go into court and they've got to decide for themselves, you know, do we still carry this water for our boss? Do we buy into this claim that the phone records may be fake? Because they have an ethical obligation as lawyers to be truthful and candid with the court. And they can't go into court and advocate something that's knowingly false because then they are doing the same thing that it looks like, in my opinion, Wade and Willis are doing. And they can get disbarred and they could go to jail. They could be found in contempt of court. All sorts of bad things can happen to them. Right about now, the least of Fannie Willis's concerns

is the guilt or innocence of the accused in this case, whether she gets any more convictions. She's going to be lucky to get out of this mess that she's in with her law license intact. I mean, we are into territory, Megan, where she could be tossed from office. She could be indicted. She could be referred for bar investigations. You know, the attorney general watches the news here in Georgia. There are procedures and mechanisms in place to take action when people commit crimes in a courtroom. And it is a crime to lie to the judge.

And this is exactly what she's accusing a lot of these defendants of doing. And here, it's on full display, right here for the whole world to see. All right, so you've got to hear this, Bill. This is just breaking on her response via CBS News. The Fulton County DA's office is working Friday to craft a rapid legal response that explains why cell phone data unearthed by Donald Trump's lawyers does not undermine the timeline. D.A. Fannie Willis gave regarding when her relationship with Nathan Wade began. A source close to Willis said lawyers in her office are trying to challenge the interpretation of the data filed by Trump's lawyers.

If the data analysis is proven to be accurate, it might serve as a powerful piece of evidence that Wade and Willis misled the court about when their relationship began, among other things. The Trump team's analysis was conducted by a private investigator who used a geofencing analytics tool called CellHawk. We knew this, which the investigator called the gold standard

in cell phone records analysis. On Friday, lawyers for the DA's office were trying to find their own expert witnesses who would be able to counter what the Trump lawyers have asserted. According to the source, their hope is to be able to file a response as early as Friday or this weekend. Quote, the interpretation of the data is not what you think it is, end quote, the source told CBS News. Lawyers for the DA's office are not expected to claim that Wade did not visit the condo on multiple occasions. Indeed, both Wade and Willis have testified that Willis was there as many as 10 times, but they will maintain that the relationship had not developed into a romance during that period. By the way, nice sleight of hand by CBS News. They both testified that he was there as many as 10 times. They don't point out. We just heard him testify, definitely not more than 10. Okay, anyway, going on. The source also says that it was not uncommon. All right, ready for this bill.

For Willis to hold work meetings at the condo. Wade was not working in the DA's office until November of 21. But the source says he was part of her, quote, kitchen cabinet before that. In one meeting, according to the source wade was involved in discussions about the atlanta spa shooting case in which eight people were allegedly shot to death by disturbed gunmen so this is the kitchen cabinet not the kitchen sink but the kitchen cabinet defense i mean that's she's she's a tough boss if she's calling you over there for six hours overnight when you're supposed to be getting your sleep pill. You know, I mean, it was the kitchen. I mean, honestly, that's this is it's just it's so incredulous.

I just can't believe that this is their excuse. This is something that just absolutely defies all logic and credibility. It's worse than the cash explanation. Megan, this is worse than the cash. She's saying that he was over there till four or five o'clock in the morning on a kitchen cabinet meeting. I mean, I don't know what rooms they visited each other in. Maybe some of them were the kitchen. Maybe it was the back patio. Who knows? But this cell data, it's there. I know this investigator. He's very good.

He's as good as the cops are. He's better than a lot of cops. He's not going to be impeachable in the sense that, you know, his work product is is not going to be something that they're going to be able to easily dispel. And here's the other thing. I was thinking about this when you were reading that response. Do you think that this was the only evidence that the Trump team and the Roman defense team are holding back? Or I'm pretty sure they've got more. So what's going to happen? We're going to see them come out with some cockamamie type of response.

And then round two comes. And then, you know, it's the kind of thing where you give them enough rope and let them hang themselves. That's exactly what these defense lawyers are doing, and they are doing it exquisitely. Can I say something? If I were a lawyer in Fannie Willis's position right now, and I really had nothing to hide, I really hadn't been having the affair prior to when I testified I was, I'd say, Judge, let's go on camera and I'll show you the texts. We did text a lot because he was helping me on that shooting or he's part of my kitchen cabinet.

Here are my texts. Here are his texts. If it was a completely platonic affair, the odds are those texts are going to be completely anodyne and boring. But the odds are very different if it was a love affair. And there's probably going to be some hot and steamy things in there or expressions of love. Let's see them. Show the texts if you're so innocent. Let's see them.

Yeah. And the other thing that is worth pointing out for people who may not be familiar with the Atlanta area, East Cobb County is very close to where I'm sitting now, but it's no easy task to get all the way down to Hapeville. You know, I guess at midnight, one in the morning, four or five in the morning, there's not that much traffic. So he's got that going for it. But this is not normal business working hours.

This is the time when you're – I can't really think of any other reason that they would be visiting one another at two, three, four, five o'clock in the morning. Unless it was having an affair. If it were innocent, then why would you lie about the number? If it were innocent, you'd say, oh, yeah, definitely more than 10. It was dozens of times. We were working on a bunch of matters. We were friends. I was her mentor.

You wouldn't downplay. You wouldn't start talking about the Porsche experience. This is like the whole thing smacks of dishonesty, but I have a couple of questions I want to ask you about. And I want to get back to the cell phones because there's more there. How did they get a subpoena for the cell phone records of the prosecutor? That is extraordinary. Yeah. So I've seen in the filings, there's at least part of the subpoena and it actually came. Ashley Merchant appears to be the one who sent the subpoena. So somehow they would have been able to get Nathan's cell phone number.

I've got it. I know what his cell phone number is. I've had it for a long time. But somebody also had to get her cell phone number. And this tells me that they've got sources. They've got people that are close to her that that that are perhaps helping provide them information. You know, it's once you get that, you just have to send the subpoena. You're a criminal defendant. You have the right to what's called compulsory process. That means you can compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents and other evidence. Now, we don't see this often happening from the defense, but it can happen. Prosecutors do it

all the time. Fannie Willis, she used the grand jury. Yeah, we're used to it going the other way. I've never seen a defendant get She used the grand jury. She was wielding those grand jury subpoenas like just a wild woman. She was sending grand jury subpoenas for lawyers, case files, and all kinds of things that I think should have been attorney-client privilege. And I still don't know why none of that was really objected to because she was invading the attorney-client privilege in the investigation itself. But in any event, back to your original question before I get too far off, the lawyers are making full use of the compulsory process, the right to compel through the subpoena power of the court to compel the production of evidence. And, you know, all they needed is the phone number. And of course, then they have the address. And then it's easy to it's easy to start putting

things on a map, plotting it out. You try to have this. Yeah. When you have this, you know, he's visiting till five in the morning and then are close to it or whatever, and then getting the you know, getting or sending a text message as soon as he gets back home up in East Cobb County. You know, what that does is it smells like somebody saying, hey, honey, I made it home safe. You know, I love you. Have a good day. I'll talk to you in a few hours after I get some sleep. That's right. That's the kind of thing that comes to my mind. Absolutely. That's what comes to mind, too. Now, here's the thing I want to play for the audience. Mark Garagos, very famous criminal defense attorney, he comes on our show a lot.

And we were talking to him recently about the Brian Kohlberger case. He's the suspect, of course, in the quadruple murder out of Idaho. And in that case, as you may know, they use cell phone tower data to figure out whether his car was near the murder site. And they believe it was. And this was one of the bases for his arrest. Well, Garagos, who's on the defense side, again, has real questions about cell phone tower data, and he explained them on our show, and I had the team pull that sot so you and I could discuss it. Take a listen. I can't tell you the number of murder cases that have turned out that cell phone evidence ended up exonerating my client as opposed to showing that he was guilty. and it could be pinging onto two towers 12 miles away from each other just by virtue of the amount of traffic on one of the towers. So I've never been a fan of the cell phone triangulation. It's a good tool to try to get you there, but I've used it to show that somebody was 40 miles away

at the time of the crime and exonerated them. So that's not going to get him there. And even in Kohlberger, Brian Kohlberger's cell phone apparently pinged on a tower near the victim's home. I can't remember. It was the day after or the day before, but there was one false ping of his phone. So it's not foolproof. And so, you know, are we too far ahead of our skis here? No. So, but here's the thing that house or that condo in Haightville, Georgia, it's not like 12 miles. It's, it's a far distance, far away. Okay. It's, it's the kind of situation where they can, um, they can claim that, you know, he was at home in, at home in East Cobb County and just happened to be pinging off of a cell tower down by the airport.

That's not going to fly, not in this case. And I still say that there's more that they've got in reserve. There's more ammunition that they've got. So they're waiting on the defense. I want to ask about that. Let's talk about that because, and by the way, even if the cell phone tower data is somehow faulty, the number of calls is the number of calls. the number of calls is the number of calls.

The number of texts is the number of texts. As I say, they're calling each other, what, 180 times a month? And I'm calling my husband 46? That's weird. And Doug and I talk a lot. I mean, granted, we live together. But I'm just saying that does not in any way sound like a platonic relationship to anybody. And visiting her for 35 times all the stuff okay now let's talk about Terrence Bradley um he has filed a brief since you and I last spoke he was Nathan Wade's friend and divorce lawyer for a small

period of time he's claiming blanket attorney-client privilege to get out of any discussions he had with Nathan Wade from 2015 to 2021 when he stopped representing him. He's basically saying six years worth of conversations are privileged because it was all during the divorce proceedings. Okay. It's a six year divorce. He didn't even file until the day after Fannie hired him, November, 2021. And he's just filed a brief with the court saying you shouldn't even do an in-camera review of these privileged discussions, which is supposed to happen this Monday. It's supposed to happen this Monday. You shouldn't even be allowed to talk to Terrence Bradley

about the where, when, why and what because it's privileged. And so it's not even appropriate for you to hear it as the judge behind closed doors. And the defense team, you tell me, Phil, but they seem very, very sure that Terrence Bradley has something very, very helpful to say if he's allowed to say it. They are sure. But, you know, I give him an A for effort in asking the judge not to even look at those things in camera. The only way for the judge to evaluate it and to make the ruling is to look at it. So that is absolutely not going to fly. The judge is going to look at those text messages and listen, that type of a broad claim of attorney-client privilege, that doesn't work for me either because when your business partners, your friends, you work in the same office building, You have conversations and you know things about

each other that are from a different source. They're not based on an attorney-client type communication. So that's a little bit overbroad in my view, and I don't think it's going to fly. Do you think that we have seen all the defense has, like their best stuff in those text messages? We know that Terrence Bradley exchanged with Ashley Merchant. You and I played them a couple of days ago where there was at least one in which he signed off on the brief saying looks good. The brief saying that the affair had begun long before 2022, all those things. Every claim of the defense is basically, he said, yeah, it looks good. And then she texted him saying, is there anybody who would go on the record and give me an affidavit about the affair?

And he said something to the effect of no one would burn that bridge. He didn't say there was no affair. But have we sort of seen it all, do you think? Or might there be more? You know, if I'm wrong about this, I'll come back on your show and I'll eat my hat for the world to see here on YouTube. But no, we've not seen the last of this. We're going to see more. I think we might even see all of those texts eventually. We're going to see more. I think we might

even see all of those texts eventually. It's going to come out one way or another. I'm convinced of that. And the prosecutor is correct in being very concerned and trying to keep that out because I, from what I've seen, I'm convinced that they have proof that those text messages contain more ironclad proof that there was an affair that lasted or that began before 2022. And that would be just more evidence that Fannie Willis has perpetrated a fraud on the court. And once that is established, this case is over. She's over. She could be out of office. But that, I think, is going to be the death knell for this case. Well, that's the thing. It's like, I don't know if there's anything stopping Ashley Merchant from making those

texts public and just showing us. Maybe the judge can't see them or doesn't want to see them because he thinks that it's a lawyer revealing privilege information. But the lawyer did it. I don't think she's under any ethical obligation not to tell us what's in there. And I agree with you, at some point in some way, we're going to find out what's in there. And if what's in there is Terrence Bradley saying, it began way back whenever. He doesn't want me to tell you. Who knows what's in there?

She might be able to keep it out of evidence. She might even be able to save herself with this judge in this proceeding. But we'll find out eventually. And she'll be embarrassed and somebody will just renew the motion in front of this judge. Like the truth is the truth. We're going to find it one way or another. Are we not Phil? The truth will out. That's what my mother used to tell me. And she's not wrong about that one way or another, the contents of those text messages will be revealed of that. I am very, very confident. And I look forward to speaking with you again once we have them, because they're going to be something to behold, I'm sure.

Bill Holloway, thank you so much for coming on and pinch hitting for us here on Friday afternoon. Things are always breaking in this case on Friday. Now I got to go to CPAC and do my other thing. So thank you all the best and will to be continued next week, I'm sure. Yep. Have fun. Thanks for having me. Thank you guys for listening. Talk soon. Thanks for listening to the Megyn Kelly show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.