The Megyn Kelly Show - Fani Willis' Perilous Future, and Biden Nudged to Step Aside, with Charlie Kirk, Dave Aronberg, Mike Davis, and Phil Holloway | Ep. 727

Episode Date: February 20, 2024

Megyn Kelly is joined by lawyers Phil Holloway, Dave Aronberg, and Mike Davis to talk about the explosive Terrance Bradley testimony in the Fani Willis hearing, the relevance of Bradley's text messages to Ashleigh Merchant, Fani Willis' team fighting back hard against Bradley,  the media spin about Fani Willis and cash, the relevance of the Willis and Wade trips, what will happen next with them and in the case, the key issue of attorney-client privilege, the massive ruling in the NYC fraud case against Trump, whether it will be upheld on appeal, and more. Then Charlie Kirk, co-founder of Turning Point USA, joins to discuss Fani Willis back in church accepting an award while she plays the victim, the New York Times' Ezra Klein and others in corporate media freaking out about the Biden poll numbers and starting to nudge Biden off the stage in 2024, whether VP Kamala Harris could be the candidate instead, the Democrats' need to "eliminate risk" while facing Trump, the insanity of the Trump verdict and bitterness in Trumpworld over it, the state of the RNC and Ronna McDaniel getting pushed out, new media reports targeting Kirk and his organization, Turning Point's successful and new efforts vs. the old school tactics of the RNC, Lara Trump in the political spotlight, and more.Holloway- https://twitter.com/philhollowayesqDavis- https://article3project.org/Aronberg- https://twitter.com/aronbergKirk- https://thecharliekirkshow.com/podcasts/the-charlie-kirk-show 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 and happy Tuesday. Feels like a Monday because of President's Day. Hope you had a nice holiday. Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis speaking out over the weekend, this time quoting scripture about weapons being formed against her. She's talking about how hard her job is. We know. We're aware. Pretty much everyone knows that. That's why most people don't run to be DA.

This, as the judge overseeing her potential disqualification, will make several key decisions in the coming days. Do you know this thing is not over? It's still under review. The judge is figuring out whether some of these claims of attorney-client privilege are going to stand. And we have yet to hear closing arguments on the hearing, at least, from the defense and the prosecution. So all that's about to happen in the coming days. Meantime, we're getting a great response to the deep dive we took on this case on Friday. You can go take a look at it the deep dive we took on this case on Friday. You can go take a look at it on YouTube. It's setting the internet on fire.

So go check it out at our YouTube channel, youtube.com slash Megyn Kelly, if you missed that deep dive. Everything you thought you wanted to know about the Fannie Willis case and more. As we signed off for the long weekend, something important happened. As far as we can tell, virtually everybody's missed it. A key witness was on the stand. His name is Terrence Bradley. He's Nathan Wade's former law partner and friend. Now he's originally, he was suggested to be the defense's so-called star witness, meaning the defense in this case, kind of confusing given the way this case is unfolding, but you know, the defense is Trump. The defense is this guy, Michael Roman, whose

lawyer, Ashley Merchant, brought this whole affair thing to light. And the state is Fannie Willis. And in this case, the lawyers like Ms. Cross defending Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade and their behavior. So it's kind of weird because we say defense, but in this hearing, it's more like Fannie Willis is the defense. Anywho, what I'm saying when I say that Terrence Bradley is the so-called star witness, I mean of the defendants, Michael Roman and Trump. That's what was allegedly posited by their lawyers. But here's what happened. Last week, he took the stand for about two minutes and then said, attorney, client, attorney, client, attorney, client, privilege, privilege, privilege. No,

no, no, no, no, no. And he stepped down and Ashley Merchant called a different witness. She called Robin Yeardley and that Yeardley. And that woman took the stand and said, this affair began long before 2022 as Fannie and Nathan testified. I was there. I was Fannie's longtime good friend. And let me tell you, they had an affair as far back as 19. So that was big. And Ashley Merchant, the lawyer for defendant Roman, was saying, I got another guy in the wings who's going to say this.

His name is Terrence Bradley. I'll give you Robin Yurte because she's easy. She's nobody's lawyer. We don't have any of these attorney-client privilege objections. So let me put her on the stand, which we did. They tried to say she was disgruntled because she had been let go from Fannie Willis's office, but they proved she had been let go. They didn't prove she's a liar. She's somebody who would perjure herself with an ax to grind. They didn't even prove that she was bitter. They just proved that she was let go under circumstances that she seemed to object to. Anyway, up pops Terrence Bradley on day two. Again, Nathan Wade's divorce lawyer for a time and friend and former law partner.

And something extraordinary happened on the stand. And we're going to walk you through the key moments in his testimony and why the day ended with a potential bombshell. Joining me now for the first time in the show is Philip Holloway. He's the founder of the Holloway Law Group based in Cobb County, Georgia. He appears regularly on national and international media covering legal news. And he happens to know a lot of the key players involved in this developing story. Phil, welcome to the show. Great to be with you, Megan. Thank you for having me. Yeah, the pleasure is all ours. So Terrence Bradley wound up being quite important on Friday.

The day kind of started in a sleepy way. They had the former governor of Georgia take the stand to say, Fannie tried to hire me before she hired Nathan Wade. And on cross-examination, he admitted that when Fannie was talking to him about being special prosecutor, Nathan Wade was already in the room. So the defendants are basically suggesting Nathan Wade was already on board. You know, you might've been potentially added as another, but you were not going to replace Wade. Anyway, that's where that went. Fannie Willis's dad took the stand, the former Black Panther. Yeah, it's important to carry cash. No, we didn't live in this house. I never saw Nathan in the house in this, whatever. It was all minutia.

Then comes Terrence Bradley back to the stand, Nathan Wade's former lawyer. And Ashley Merchant got up there, Phil, and seemed to be, number one, trying to redeem herself because all of Fannie Willis's team, including Fannie herself the day before, had said, Ashley Merchant's a liar. She lied. The only reason she got this hearing was she claimed she had Terrence Bradley, who was going to confirm an affair began prior to 2022. That didn't happen yesterday. Terrence Bradley, in his two minutes on the stand, suggested he had never texted with Ashley Merchant. She's a liar. This whole what we shouldn't even be here. And Ashley Merchant started introducing texts between herself and Terrence

Bradley into the record that completely rehabilitated Ashley Merchant, made Fannie Willis and her team look hysterical and dishonest, and showed, I believe, that Terrence Bradley, whether he asserted privilege on Friday or not, 100% behind the scenes was confirming this affair to Ashley Merchant prior to having a case of fright when he took the stand. Tell me where I'm going wrong. Well, no, I think you're pretty much where on with all this, Megan. Listen, it's obvious that if you read between the lines, there's something in those text messages that Fonny Willis really, really, really doesn't want to get out. They literally, Megan, they threw Terrence Bradley under the proverbial bus. They accused him with unsubstantiated, uncharged claims of having engaged in a sexual assault in order to discredit the man. Stand by. Hold that thought,

because we're not there yet. Because what happened was Ashley gets him on the stand. She starts asking him about the text messages she and he have exchanged. This guy, though he represented Nathan Wade and on the stand was like, everything's privileged. I can't say anything. Oh, he was saying things to Ashley Merchant. He was saying a lot of things prior to actually getting dragged into court. He didn't have any qualms about attorney-client privilege whatsoever. So let's

just start there. Yeah, well, we can infer that those text messages, I think, will confirm what the former employee of the DA's office said, which was that the affair started much earlier than they had claimed that it did. In fact, as you said that, you know, she said that it started in as early as 2019. I can infer from what I saw that those text messages probably confirmed something along those lines. I hope that when the judge reviews those text messages, and he did that or is doing that, you know, in an in-camera review, I hope that he rules that those things are admissible because it's obvious that there was a very, I think, broad claim of attorney-client privilege that may or may not necessarily be entirely accurate. The lines, Megan, get blurred when lawyers who are her friends,

they are business partners, when they undertake to represent each other in something like a divorce, for example, the lines are very blurred because what the attorney might know about his client might be from an attorney-client type of conversation. It might be from personal observation. It might be from water cooler talk around the office or just hanging out at lunch. So we just don't know exactly what the basis of Terrence Bradley's knowledge is. And that's what the judge has to figure out when he when he looks at all this stuff back, you know, behind the scenes in his office. So I think that there's something there we would not have seen her. And by her, I mean, Fannie Willis, we would not have seen her team as aggressively

trying to keep this out as we did see, unless they thought those text messages could absolutely bury Fannie Willis. Listen, if she can be shown to have perpetrated a fraud on this court, she could be disbarred and she could potentially be jailed. She's essentially accusing all of these defendants of making false statements. But if it can come to light, and if it is shown that she is doing that with this court, she's just as guilty as anybody she might be accusing of doing the same thing. And the consequences for her are very dire. She could lose her law license. She could wind up in jail, certainly out of office. And look, the state is looking at this, the state Senate. You've now got Congress looking at it. Fannie Willis is under the microscope and she does not want to be there. She doesn't like playing defense. Prosecutors are accustomed to being on, you know, that is the key to her fate.

The judge's ruling literally, I think, controls her professional fate in this case. I mean, I think we're already there with the testimony of Robin Yurte, who was Fannie's longtime friend and for at least some time employee at the DA's office who said, you know, they lied. The affair began back in 2019. I know that because I witnessed it with my own eyes and because my

good friend at the time, Fannie Willis told me all about it. She was having an affair with Nathan Wade. Now, Nathan and Fannie disagreed. They said, didn't start till 2022. But when we, when we closed the day out on Thursday, we had counsel for Fannie, you know, the state attorney, Cross, say, when we come back tomorrow, we're going to put a bunch of witnesses up there to show you Robin Urdy's a liar. That's what she promised. Didn't happen, Phil. I watched all day. I waited. Not a one. Yeah, all we got was Bonnie Willis's Black Panther father who came to court and talked all about how he, you know, he loves cash. He tells his daughter to use cash. Cash is king. It's a black thing. Everything needs to be paid in cash. And he was

trying to talk about selling a script. And he talked about everything except what we needed to hear was when did this whole thing start? He claimed to never really see or talk to his daughter for various reasons. But surprisingly, he did know enough to know that at some point in 2019, she had some other boyfriend, but it wasn't Nathan Wade. That testimony seemed to be not all that probative. It didn't really move the needle very much. Other than to maybe explain why Fonny Willis can't answer a straight question. She seems to get that naturally, you know, from her father. But we did not see any other witnesses that would contradict the claim that this affair started in 2019. No, that's the thing.

I want to go through it. Hold on, because I want to play some of the sound. But this is important, because when we closed the day on Thursday, Robin Yerty did some damage. Fannie and Nathan later took the stand and said, Robin is wrong. It didn't begin until 2022. But when the day closed, Fannie's lawyer said the next day they were going to demolish Robin Yerty with witnesses showing us how dishonest she was. Not one. They didn't call one witness to even try to do that. It was either a bluff or it fell through, but she didn't have it. And trust me, if she had it, she would have put the witness on the stand because Robin Urte hurt them badly. To the contrary, what we saw was Terrence Bradley, the lawyer, take the stand,

try his level best to wiggle. I mean, he was wiggling like an Elvis Presley concert, trying to get out of offering any conversations he's ever had with Nathan Wade. And of course, the defense was trying to say, he's casting too wide a net, Judge. He can talk about what he knew from Nathan Wade, his friend, his law partner. He just can't talk about attorney-client communications, facts he learned from Nathan only in the context of the relationship that were offered to him for purposes of seeking legal advice. And, and Ashley Merchant was trying to show you work together. You knew each other for years. Come on. There's office talk. Um, sat out. Trump's lawyer was trying to

say there's office talk. You guys talked about, no, only about sports. That's the only thing we ever discussed outside of the attorney claim. It was obviously untrue. This guy to me was like the biggest liar of anybody I've seen. This is, I don't know any of these players. I know you're down there, but to me, he came across as the biggest liar because he lied to try to protect Nathan Wade at every turn. No, nothing other than attorney client privilege discussions only discuss sports bull. However, Ashley Merchant had him because prior to getting to court, he did text with her. He admitted it. And when she showed him his, her phone with the text messages, he didn't deny it. And we got to hear about at least two of the texts he's trying to get out of now. One was in one text message introduced. Hold on. We actually may just have it here.

Yeah. Let's just play it where he was asked about one of the text messages and the content was revealed in SOT3. Can you repeat the question? The question is, did I text you asking you if you knew who I could get an affidavit from about the affair? And you responded, no. No one would freely burn that bridge. Yes, I do see that. All right, Phil. So let's start with that. His response as Nathan Wade's lawyer,

friend, whatever, was not, what affair? There's no affair. And, or I can't talk to you about this because it's attorney client privileged. Yeah. What he said was who, who would want to burn that bridge. And that underscores, you know, he was obviously uncomfortable being there, but that alone proves that when Ashley Merchant claimed in her written legal pleading, she said, look, I'm going to bring Terrence Bradley to court. He's going to back up the other witness, and he's going to back up and confirm that this affair started before they claimed it did in 2022. Ashley Merchant is a lawyer who would not have put that in writing in a legal pleading filed in a court if she did not have a good faith basis for putting it in

there. That's how it works. I know Ashley Merchant. She's very reputable. She's not going to do something that is that dishonest. If she was basically referring to her conversations with this witness through text messaging, that was her good faith basis for making the claim. And she would not have put it in there if it weren't true. And I think we can all read between the lines, even though we haven't seen or heard all of the text messages, when the judge goes back and reads those and goes over that with Mr. Bradley, the judge is going to see it. Now, the judge is going to have to decide, okay, if I decide this is not admissible, I've got to put it out of my brain and not use it for any basis for determining this case. But I don't know how the judge really can do that, because if he sees these text messages and he knows that Fonny Willis and Nathan Wade have not been honest and truthful to him, that's got to make a big impact. And I think that the judge is going to

reconsider some of his rulings. And I think that a lot of these claims of attorney-client privilege will, in fact, be ruled as not privileged. So we may see Terrence Bradley back on the stand again whenever this hearing reconvenes. And I think that that's a very likely thing to happen. Maybe not all of the stuff's going to come in, but I think a lot of these text messages might. Here's a second one that we got. The dress was lifted up a little on a couple of these. So we got to hear in the couple of the questions, what Ashley Merchant has and keep in mind, this is not her whole case. It doesn't boil down to these text messages, but she was called a

liar. First thing Fannie Willis did when she took the stand on Thursday, you lied, you know, your whole basis for getting this hearing was a lie. No, it wasn't. Nathan Wade's lawyer gave it up to Ashley Merchant in texts. And by the way, that wasn't her only evidence. Then she kept digging. Then she found Robin Yurte. And all of this was the basis for calling Nathan Wade and Fannie Willis and asking them the tough questions, which was a totally fair thing to do. And they took umbrage where they tried to get out of the hearing altogether saying, you have no good faith basis to call us. Well, Ashley Merchant did have a good faith basis. These texts prove it. Robin Yurte proves it and advances the case against these two even more that they did have an affair

that it appears to have begun long before they've admitted and that they were in an inappropriate relationship that they appear to have lied to the court about. Here's the second exchange that reveals some of the content, SOT5. I made reference to an email that Ms. Merchant would have sent you about the motion she was going to file. If you look at this, does this appear to be the email that you received? It's dated January the 6th, 2024, 1020, 1025 AM I see it in the email that's the email that you received along with obviously

the attachment yes then did you respond to that email within the text message that I've just pushed before you? Yes, I said looks good. The answer is yes. Oh, yes, I get it. So there you have it, Phil. You've got Ashley Merchant sent him the January 8th motion she

filed, which detailed the affair allegations, which included that it began long before she hired Nathan Wade as special prosecutor. And Nathan Wade's former lawyer slash friend looked it over and responded to Ashley Merchant again, not what affair? No, it didn't. This is all wrong. Or I can't comment on this as an attorney who represented him. He responded, looks good. So that tells us what? Yeah, that tells us that Ashley is barking up the right tree. Listen, I watched these people call Ashley an outright liar.

And I'm wondering if Ashley doesn't have some basis to sue them for defamation, because the civil discovery on that would, I think, be very, very revealing. But when a lawyer like Ashley takes the time to send this over to a witness who knows all of the details and says, is this accurate? And the witness says, looks good to me. That looks like that witness has made an admission, has basically let the cat out of the bag, has opened the door, if you will, to all other conversations he's had about this case. And it opens the door, I think, to all other information he may have, because he may have

actually waived and already given away anything that was covered by attorney-client privilege, the judge, I hope, was watching, and I think he was. He was taking very good notes. But that particular exchange with attorney Steve Sado, who represents former President Trump, was one of the key moments that I think sets the stage for the admissibility, in my view, of all of the later communications that Terrence Bradley had with Ashley Merchant. So I think it's going to come in. I think this is all going to corroborate Miss Yurte. And I think that the judge is probably going to have no choice but to find that these lawyers

have perpetrated a fraud on the court. They have an obligation as officers of the court to be truthful, to be honest, to be candid with the court. And it also raises the question, Megan, and I don't think many people have talked about this, if any of the other prosecutors on this prosecution team know that there was a fraud and they're taking actions by course of continuing to represent the state in this case that further and perpetrate that fraud? Does that bring them into this? Does that mean that they have some obligation to say, wait a minute, I'm not going to participate in this if I know that my boss is not being truthful with the court?

This is going to be very interesting to see what the judge rules. Okay. I do want to dig into that. Let's table it for one second because I want to get to the point you raised earlier, which is then there was a massive pile up because. And because there are real questions about whether the rules here are very complicated because all these people, not Robin Yerty, but Nathan Wade, Fannie Willis, Terrence Bradley, not to mention Ms. Cross, Ms. Merchant, Mr. Sadow, they're all officers of the court. So Terrence Bradley, for example, and Ms. Cross representing Fannie Willis. Now they have multiple obligations. You have an obligation as a lawyer to maintain the attorney client privilege and protect your client's privileges and confidentialities. However, you also have a simultaneous strong duty as an officer of the court to protect the integrity

of the court. You're there as an officer of that judge. When you're in that courtroom, you work for him too and for the justice system. And there is a requirement, I actually pulled the Georgia ethical obligations. And what the ethical obligations say is that the disclosure of a client's false testimony, right? So if you're a lawyer and you know your client is testifying to something that's false, and you know that because he told you in confidence as his lawyer, the disclosure of a client's false testimony can result in grave consequences to the client, including not only a sense of betrayal, but also loss of the case and perhaps a prosecution for perjury.

But the alternative is that a lawyer cooperate in deceiving the court, thereby subverting the truth-finding process which the adversary system is designed to implement. And it goes on to talk about that balancing test between a lawyer's obligation to the client and to the court and what the obligation of a lawyer is when they conflict. And Terrence Bradley was squarely in the middle of that on Friday because he was claiming he knew stuff via the attorney-client privilege. I think we both have questions about whether that's really how he learned it. But let's give him the benefit of the doubt. If he learned about an affair from the attorney client privilege, and then he saw Nathan Wade lie about the affair on the stand, I think the defense is right.

He would have an obligation to testify truthfully to the court. The obligation to the court as an officer of the court would trump the attorney client privilege obligation. That's what Sadow and others were arguing. It's one of the things the judge is going to have to decide. So I'll just get your take on that now instead of tabling it because I just teed it up. What do you make of that? Yeah, well, it's the ethical duty of candor to the court.

And we see this sometimes, like in a criminal case, when the defendant has, say, confessed to his attorney, right? And the attorney says, okay, well, you don't need to testify. But then the person says, look, I'm going to testify. It's my right. And the attorney has to let him. But the attorney can't ask questions because to do so would be perpetrating a fraud on the court. So the attorney just has to put the witness up and say, all right, tell the judge whatever

it is you got to say. And that way the attorney is not participating in it. So it's definitely a gray area. It's a very uncomfortable area. I don't know that I would agree that Terrence Bradley had the obligation to take the stand and correct something that Nathan Wade had said. But certainly, he cannot do anything to assist Nathan Wade if he's saying something that's not true. Well, I'll give you something.

I'll give you something there, Phil. I'll give you something there. The defense elicited testimony from him that the divorce proceeding is not yet closed. And they're correct. The divorce apparently is not final. And in any event, the time for any after settlement appeals and so on and challenges has not expired. And according to the ethical rules, an attorney in a case who knows that there's been perjury in a case has an obligation all the way through that proceeding until it's totally closed. And the time for appeals or filings post resolution have been exhausted to raise with the court if he knows there's been perjury.

So while it came out that Terrence Bradley was not the lawyer for Nathan Wade by the time Nathan Wade submitted those interrogatory answers saying, I never had an affair. I never took a trip with anybody. I don't have any receipts showing any travel with another woman in his divorce proceeding. Terrence Bradley represented him for a time in that case, and I believe he would have an ongoing obligation in that proceeding to go back and correct the record. Forget this proceeding. I think Terrence Bradley could be in trouble in the divorce proceeding if he knows that Nathan Wade perjured himself. Well, you know, you may very well be right. This whole thing is very complicated. The rules are not always crystal clear, and oftentimes there's a lot of gray areas.

Terrence Bradley clearly believes he's living in one of those gray areas. He went so far as to contact the bar and say, you know, what am I supposed to do here? And, you know, the state bar gave him some kind of, you know, advice. Maybe it's binding, maybe it's not. But at the end of the day, he's going to have to disclose this if this judge says that he's going to have to disclose it. And here's the thing, Megan, if I'm the judge, and I think that there's a hint of any evidence that somebody has perpetrated a fraud on my court and on me, I am going to move mountains to get to the truth. And if that means ordering lawyers to testify, so be it. If it means referring it to

the state bar for a more aggressive, thorough investigation, so be it. But I'm going to get to the bottom of this because perpetrating a fraud on the court is one of the worst things that can happen in our justice system. And this is the place where Fannie Willis and anybody else who may have engaged in a fraud on the court has to be very, very, very careful. She did herself no favors by testifying. She did herself no favors by having her team work so hard to shut Terrence Bradley up. Because what it did, it gives the appearance that she's got something to hide.

And that is a terrible look for a prosecutor. That's our last point. So Terrence Bradley said very little. The most damaging part of his testimony for Fannie Willis was the part Ashley Merchant read out loud and Sadow read out loud, which was a reference back to his texts with Merchant prior to the proceeding. But on the stand, Terrence Bradley did no harm to Nathan Wade. He was bending over backwards to not do any harm to Nathan Wade. He just kept saying attorney-client privilege. You would never have known that based on the cross-examination that the state, Ms. Cross, unleashed on this guy. Oh, yeah.

They went after him, both guns blazing. I'm like, did they watch the same testimony I did? Because he's on their side. Maybe he wasn't before the proceeding, but once he's taken the stand, he's totally Team Wade, and they tried to eviscerate this guy. Sexual assault is why you left, allegedly, the law partnership with Nathan Wade. Not one, but two instances of it tried to completely assassinate the guy's character. And. It was a mistake. It was a strategic mistake by the prosecution because it telegraphed to all of us that Terrence Bradley has something very, very bad to say.

And we all want to hear it even more. And yeah, never mind us telegraphed to the judge. Go ahead. Yeah, I think I think that's right. They literally threw him threw him under the bus. I was surprised by that. I've known Terrence Bradley for over 25 years. There's not a fiber of my being that will believe he sexually assaulted a client or anyone else. But what is clear is that some allegation was made and that that was perhaps the basis for his leaving the Nathan Wade law firm, which the judge correctly pointed out was a little bit contrary to what he may have said. And, you know, if he claimed that he he left because of some dispute that was covered by

attorney client privilege, the judge said, wait a minute. No, no, this is this doesn't sound like attorney client privilege, which is what he said that That was his claim, that he left, at least in part, he said, because they had a dispute over the divorce proceeding and attorney-client privilege information. And it turns out that, okay, maybe it was having to do with a sexual assault allegation against Terrence. Yeah. And then the judge said, now I'm going to have to go back and reconsider if this witness is not misinterpreting or misconstruing. We have that. Let me play that soundbite because we've got the defense attorneys who jumped all over this.

And then you'll hear the judge at the end saying, I'm going to have to reconsider all these claims of attorney-client privilege since you, Mr. Bradley, have a different definition of it than I do. Watch here at SOT7. Judge, if this is allowed to continue in this way and it does appear a little bit harassing,

then is Mr. Bradley going to be excused from his privilege because this is not. That's what I was going to do. Don't do that. Mr. Chobar. I think she's already done that. Your Honor, I'm asking in all seriousness that privilege, although. Based on the answer right now, I think now we've opened up a whole area. What he has just responded to, he previously said was privilege. That doesn't sound like privilege to me. We'll have to address that

when we go back through the run. Mr. Bradley previously testified that the reason he left the firm was totally and completely covered by privilege. When asked by the state, he went into a factual scenario that, to my mind, I don't see how it relates to privilege at all. And so now I'm left wondering if Mr. Bradley has been properly interpreting privilege this entire time. That last line, that's it, Phil. I mean, whatever. I don't think a lot of people care about the sexual assault allegation. Clearly nothing came of it. You know, you tell me the guy's got a good reputation down there, you know him. But the fact that it was wrongly asserted in the judge's view there to cover the circumstances of his departure from the firm caused the judge to doubt Mr. Bradley's

interpretation of it in the context of his relationship with Wade and the discussions about Fannie. And therefore, this was a big mistake by the state to bring this up, to try to impeach him when he hadn't done them any harm. Now they uncorked a whole other problem for themselves. I think they just couldn't help themselves. They had this witness that was going to come in and talk all about sexual assault. And they just they were gnashing at the bit to get that testimony out there to try to embarrass somebody that they believe was talking to Michael Roman's attorney about Nathan Wade and maybe saying some bad things. And so they really, really wanted to attack him. They should have just stopped. They should have said,

no more questions, judge, not gone there. And we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now, you and I. This was a strategic error, but it opened the door. It kicked it wide open for the judge to go back and say, wait a minute, I think now we might be able to have him testify about a lot of these things that the prosecution team, the state, did not want him to say. And so I don't know what the judge is going to rule, but if I were the judge, I think that a lot of that I would rule is now fair game for the defense to bring him back and to continue to explore with him under oath to see exactly when this affair between Nathan Wade and Fannie Willis began. This is all about now proving, if they can, the fraud that the merchant team and everybody else

on the defense says was perpetrated on this court. That's going to be huge, and that's going to be the next big area that we're going to see this case, I think, venture into. So, Phil, what do we expect this week? The judge is going to, he said, maybe as soon as Friday, he'll have another hearing. What's happening this week? Yeah, he's been having hearings basically every Friday that are, you know, status or other things. Because of the number of defendants, he's allocating some weekly court time to this. He's not going to rule until several things happen. He's got to conclude the

hearing that we've been talking about. As you mentioned, there's still summations. That could be done in person or it might be done by briefs. He may even have more testimony before it's over. And then he's got to digest it all. He's got a lot of research to do. He's got other cases, of course, to handle. I don't expect a ruling anytime soon, but I think at a minimum, I think at a minimum, he's going to disqualify Fonny Willis and her team from this case, in which case the state of Georgia through the prosecuting attorney's counsel is going to have to decide, you know, is this case going to remain an orphan or can we find some other DA to take it? I don't think he's going to go so far as to dismiss it. He might, but I do think that Fonny

Willis and her days on this case are probably numbered. I think that she's ultimately going to have to be removed. Completely agree with that. A hundred percent. Phil, thank you. Come back soon, would you? You bet. Anytime. Great to be here. Nice to have you. All right. Coming up, Dave and Mike have been watching this whole thing and they've got thoughts, too. We'll bring them on next. Don't go away. Joining me now, our legal all stars are back. Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article Three Project, and Dave Ehrenberg, state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, where Mar-a-Lago is located. Mike, Dave, thank you for being here with us. Breaking news.

Margo Cleveland of The Federalist just tweeted out the following. She's apparently been speaking with Ashley Merchant, lawyer for defendant Roman. Ashley Merchant confirmed to me, quote, Yes, I spoke directly on a number of occasions with Terrence Bradley. He reviewed my pleadings for accuracy before I filed them. He unequivocally told me the personal and romantic relationship began prior to Nathan Wade receiving the contract as a special prosecutor on this case. This would explain why they tried so very hard, the state did, Mike, on Friday to demolish this guy, even though at least on Friday he said almost nothing. What do you make of it? Well, now you have two witnesses.

You have Fannie Willis's friend slash assistant testifying their relationship started uh fannie willis and nathan wade's uh personal relationship started back in 2019 long before she hired him to be her special prosecutor long uh long before she uh she admitted to the court so you have evidence there that that fannie willis and nathan wade committed perjury in two different courts, one in Nathan Wade's divorce court and one in this criminal court on the Trump prosecution. And then you have Nathan Wade's attorney slash friends also corroborating this. So you have two witnesses, two friends of Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade saying that Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade's, I got the cart before the horse, Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade's personal relationship began long before they testified.

That's a serious problem, Dave. And this judge in camera, in his courtroom, I mean, in his chambers, is going to hear all of that. Not all of it played out in front of the public, but as he figures out what's privileged and what's not, he's going to Marco Cleveland. And I don't know whether he lets it in or prohibits it. He's got real questions about the wide sweeping assertion of privilege by this guy. They were obviously friends and colleagues long before he got retained as a divorce lawyer. But he's going to hear it. And he's going to, I think, accept Ashley Merchant's representation as a member, an officer of the court, that this was told to her by Terrence Bradley. And he's actually got a confirming text from Terrence Bradley that we heard about, may or may not be admissible, that says it in writing. So he doesn't even have to accept only Ashley Merchant's word. There's no question that in the judge's mind, this is going to weigh more toward favoring the credibility of Robin Yerty and not so much

Fannie and Nathan. Am I wrong? Yeah, it's a problem, Megan. There are some tricky issues here. This would be a good thing for a law school class to delve into because we're dealing with attorney-client privilege, which is held by the client, and the client is the one who would waive it. So if you're talking about the attorney waiving it, that attorney can get in trouble with the bar. That's one of the issues here because the client, Wade, has not waived it. His lawyer, Bradley, looks like he may have waived it. And then you have an issue of who did he waive it to? The other lawyer merchant who was apparently informed, well, she's going to take the stand. She can't. She's the lawyer in the case. merchant who was apparently informed, well, she's going to take the stand. She can't. She's the lawyer in the case. So this is really tricky. And it's going to

all be in the hands of Judge McAfee here to determine what gets in. And because it is very relevant, although I disagree with all these other pundits who say, well, it's only about whether a conflict existed. No, because both Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade both represented to the court that they didn't have an affair or didn't have a relationship, excuse me, until after he started, then this is all relevant. And if they can show that these two are lying, then I think it is game over. It's game over. I agree. Thank you for your honesty, because I couldn't agree more. It's before they took the stand and before we had Nathan Wade's interrogatory or his affidavit swearing that the affair didn't begin until 2022,

it was more abstract. But now you have representations under oath, his in writing and on the stand and hers on the stand, all of it's under oath, Fannie and Nathan, saying it didn't begin until 2022. And if this judge finds that those are lies, then they perjured themselves. And that's a problem for a civilian. And it's an extra problem for an officer of the court who has an ethical obligation to stop perjury when they know it's happening, never mind not to commit it themselves, Mike. So I agree with Dave. I think we're all in agreement that if the judge favors the testimony of Yerty and considers this testimonial of Terrence Bradley in whatever form, they're both getting booted off of this case. It doesn't require that to boot them, but they will. What do you make, Mike, of the decision

by the state to go after him, hammer and tong on Friday, even though he on the stand, he did no damage to them. Nothing actually got out because he just kept saying AC privilege, AC privilege. But they went after him as though, you know, he had just been the critical witness against them and had said the things that we just heard in the Margo Cleveland text. You know, what's bizarre about this whole case, this whole disposition of this case is you have these Fulton County district attorney lawyers who are supposed to be working for Fulton County, and they've turned into, it seems, personal attorneys for the politician slash DA Fannie Willis, along with her boyfriend, Nathan Wade. And so you have to wonder, who's their client here?

Is it the office, Fulton County DA's office, the people of Fulton County? Or is it this politician and her boyfriend who are running this office? And that, to me, has been a head scratcher this whole time, is who's their client here? That's an interesting point. Let me ask you this, Dave. I don't want to get too deep into the legal ethics, but I do think you're right. This would be a good case for a law school to take a hard look at. And one of the reasons is, as I discussed with Phil, when you're a lawyer, you have an obligation to maintain attorney and

client privilege, like Terrence Bradley would would if he only learned about the affair through Nathan seeking legal advice, but you have a separate independent duty not to commit a fraud upon the court. And I, and the law, the ethical obligations make pretty clear that when those two things conflict, it's your obligation to the court that trumps everything. So if your client comes to you and says, I'm going to take the stand and I'm going to say, I didn't murder the person. And you know, the client's already confessed. He did murder the person. You have an ethical, ethical obligation not to suborn perjury as his lawyer. You, the ethical obligations, I just looked him up this morning in Georgia say, first, you try to dissuade the client from doing

it. And second, if that doesn't work, you should withdraw from the representation. And if necessary, you are supposed to raise it with the court. Like if the client goes ahead and does it anyway, you have an obligation to the court. And that's kind of the situation Terrence Bradley may be in, where he may know, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say he knows it through AC Privilege, that the affair began before 2022, and that these two people just took the stand and swore under oath the contrary. I think there's a good argument that his obligations to this court as an officer of it, trump AC Privilege and require him to disclose the truth. What say you? I think when it comes to the divorce case, you can't suborn perjury. That's a trickier one because he may have had that case is ongoing,

correct things because you can't, as you say, you can't commit a fraud upon the court. In this case, the case we're talking about, he's not the lawyer. He's a witness. And I'm not so sure as your last guest, who was really good. He said that it's not the responsibility of the lawyer to start correcting the record, especially when that lawyer is the witness and not the lawyer. So I think. OK, but wait, let me ask you a question on that. Let me let me ask you a question about because I know this is tricky stuff. We're all kind of in weird waters now because this doesn't happen very often.

But why would the law require a lawyer in the course of representation when the AC privilege and relationship is at its peak? Why would the law and the ethics require a lawyer to betray his client there? And all the way through the conclusion of that case, including pendencies of appeals and so on. And not later, not, not a separate proceeding where the bond is, if anything, lesser and the reliance is lesser. And now it's like the obligation of the court is still there. I just feel like the interest in maintaining the attorney-client privilege only wane. They don't increase post-representation. Well, you can't put on testimony that you know is false. That's a problem. And that may have happened in the divorce case with the interrogatories. And that's

something that if that is ongoing, he may have to deal with. But in this case, it's just a different responsibility as a witness. There is the crime fraud exception, Megan. And this is where it gets kind of tricky. The crime fraud exception says that, and this is where it gets kind of tricky. The crime fraud exception says that that pierces attorney-client privilege. And it applies, though, for future frauds. Does it apply when you're a witness and you see your client, in your view, lying on the stand currently to the judge? I'm not so sure. That's where it gets really tricky. I think that's what Terrence Bradley needed to ask. I don't see crime fraud exception. I see

your point. Crime fraud is when the lawyer and the client work together to commit a fraud upon the court at the time, and they try to shield their misdoings. I mean, frankly, it's kind of like Michael Cohen's situation where, you know, he's representing Trump. They're allegedly working on something that they both know is illegal. And then they try to shield those communications where the lawyers in on the alleged criminality by saying AC privilege. That doesn't work. But that's that's that's different than here. However, I do think what Terrence Bradley should have said to the court was, Judge,

I have an obligation to maintain attorney client privilege and I have an obligation to you as an officer of the court. And what we need you to decide is when I have to choose between those two things, which one do I put above the other? That's really what this court has to decide. If not committing a fraud on the court is the most important thing, then you have to reveal the privilege information. If maintaining the privilege is the most important thing, then you have to reveal the privilege information. If maintaining the privilege is the most important thing, and I'm satisfied you only learned this thing through AC privilege, not through your friendship, then that's a different ruling. So that's where we stand with Terrence Bradley. I think this judge is very smart, and I think he's going to make the right decision, Mike. I'm not sure either Fannie or Nathan at this point is going to be solid in

maintaining their bar card. I really think they could be in trouble. They could get disbarred if this court finds that they lied. And if he allows Terrence Bradley to actually testify and he says this relationship was started well before 2022, I really think both these people could be disbarred. And much worse. They could go to prison for perjury and subordination of perjury and many other potential crimes. I would say this about attorney-client privilege. Not every interaction between an attorney and a client where the attorney is providing legal advice to the client. So if you have Nathan Wade and his attorney who are friends in a situation where, you know, in their role as friends, as you said, Megan, he says that he started to date Fannie back in 2019, that's not privileged. If you have this attorney observing Fannie Willis

and Nathan Wade in a personal relationship back in 2019, and this attorney is called to testify about his observations, that generally would not be privileged. And so there are ways you can figure out what this attorney knows about Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade's relationship, I think, pretty easily without getting into attorney plant privilege. Mm hmm. I did think it was interesting, guys, didn't you, that we did not see the witness take the stand to say Robin Yerty is a liar. Remember, we were talking about that when we chatted on Friday. That didn't happen, Dave. That did not see anybody take the stand to say, don't believe Robin Yerty. They may have felt that she didn't hurt him enough, that the father who took the stand did well enough. And remember, Megan, this was my prediction, that I still think, based on what we've seen in court, not what's in camera, which is behind the scenes in the

judge's chambers, that this court, I think, still does not have enough clear-cut evidence that they lied. And so I think, as of right now, he's going to dress them down in court. He's going to admonish them. But I still think that Fannie Willis will be allowed to stay on the case. Oh, my Lord. I mean, that would absolutely be stunning. And it would completely undermine this prosecution and the faith in it. I mean, the jury pool has seen this. Who's going to look at Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade the same ever again. And in no way should Nathan Wade stay on this case. He's already a proven liar. I mean, there's just no question he lied in his divorce interrogatories. That guy's got to get bounced irrespective of anything else. But I, I disagree. Fannie Willis is not long for the case

either. All right. There's more to get to stand by more with Mike and Dave next. Don't go away. I want to do the Trump verdict, the, verdict, the $350 million verdict in a second, but to a couple final points on Fannie Willis. There is reporting out today by CNN that a Napa Valley employee, Stan Brody, is attesting to the fact that Fannie Willis is uses cash sometimes to pay for things. Willis used the money. She, she apparently took out a bunch of cash from her, uh, pocket book when in Napa Valley. And he says she used the money to pay for two bottles of wine, each valued at roughly $150, and the $50 tasting, according to Stan Brody, who said he hosted Willis and a guest he later learned was Nathan Wade at Acumen Wines in early 2023. The media going with Mike, this proves she does use cash, and therefore we, I guess, are supposed to believe she was giving thousands in

cash to Nathan Wade to reimburse her half for all these trips. What do you make of it? This is such an unbelievable argument that Fannie Willis is making. She even brought in her Black Panther father to come defend his Black Panther cub, Fannie Willis, by saying that she keeps thousands of dollars, you know, six months, up to six months worth of living expenses of cash in her house. Okay. She testified that she's done this essentially because her father told her to do this her whole life, but she hasn't explained where she came up with this cash. And as she's using this cash to pay for these supposedly pay for her half of these lavish trips to Belize and then, you know, the Caribbean and Napa with her not so secret boyfriend slash special prosecutor. She's paying $250 an hour out of Fulton County Fund, $700,000.

But she's not taking kickbacks, she says, because she's been paying with cash. Well, did she ever replenish this cash so she can follow her Black Panther father's advice and have six months worth of cash in her house? If she's spending the money, how did she replenish it? What's the evidence that she replenished it as the Fulton County DA? Are there any transactions in her bank accounts from her direct deposit? For me, Dave, I mean, tell me, first of all, this didn't come into evidence. So this is interesting to talk about for the three of us. But the judge doesn't get to consider this. He can't take judicial notice of out of court statements like this, which are hearsay. They didn't introduce this guy there. So it's kind of interesting, but not going to be relevant for the proceeding. But I also think it's it's really not this judge's problem that Fannie Willis didn't get receipts

for any of the cash or keep any records of it. It's her problem. She's the one who's been accused of improper conduct, of violating ethical rules, of taking essentially kickbacks from a vendor. And it's her obligation to prove it. Yes, she's got witness testimony. That's that's evidence. That's all she's got. And the absence of receipts should ignore against her. Not it's not a positive. She's the one who should have kept a receipt. She should have done in the

first place. And she certainly should have kept receipts if she wanted to prove that she paid her fair share. Yeah, I think that's the greatest weakness in her defense here is that we are led to believe that she reimbursed roughly half of the expenses in cash and there are no records kept. Now, like in for her case, she had her father. And if there really is no hard evidence one way or the other, except for just a logical conclusion that, hey, come on, if you were getting these trips and you did reimburse, you would have some sort of receipt, some sort of Venmo or cash app. And if not that, you'd write it down.

But her defense is plausible. And she said that she was taught always to pay your way. A man is not a plan. She's had cash and we can't disprove that. But again, I don't think we have to. Robin, your tea is her biggest problem. And by the way, Mike, they did not prove disgruntled. I know we talked about this on Friday. Disgruntled, that means you're bitter, you're angry and you've got like an ax to grind. That wasn't proven. They proved that she left the DA's office under circumstances that were

not to her liking, that she was essentially forced out, resign, or you're going to be fired by Fannie Willis. What does that prove? Okay. Yes. I accept the way Dave put it on Friday, potential motive to get Fannie, potential motive to lie, but they didn't prove that. I mean, really all they showed was that she was very good friends with Fannie and that she left Fannie's employee under circumstances that she didn't much like. Now, that doesn't mean, well, how do we get from that to this woman is willing to commit a felony and perjure herself on the stand to hurt Fannie Willis? Yeah. And remember, Fannie Willis is not a very considerate of her employees. Remember that Nathan Wade and Fannie Willis submitted a court filing

in this case where they attached Nathan Wade's false affidavit in his divorce case about his relationship with Fannie Willis. And Nathan Wade and Fannie Willis had eight different lawyers in the Fulton County DA's office submit this court filing to the Fulton County court, right, in response to co-defendant Mike Roman's motion to dismiss. Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade knew that this court filing was false, and they still allowed eight lawyers in the Fulton County DA's office to submit this court filing. So I don't think that Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade care too much, you know, about the fallout that their lies about their relationship may have with other people, because all they're doing here is looking out for themselves. They are clearly lying. They should be

clearly disqualified. They should be prosecuted for perjury. And I think this case needs to be dismissed. Well, they might be. All right. Let's let's move on to the Trump civil fraud verdict. Judge Engeron ruled, as we expected, he would on Friday, the penalty nearly three hundred and fifty five million dollars. My God, it's huge. He also ordered that they pay substantial interest, pushing the penalty for Trump up to $450 million. Trump's banned now for three years from serving in top roles at any of his New York companies or any New York company, including the Trump organization. Sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr. must pay more than $4 million each. The judge wrote that the frauds found here leap off the page and shock the conscience. He wrote that Donald Trump rarely responded to the questions asked in this case. He frequently interjected

long, irrelevant speeches on issues far beyond the scope of the trial. His refusal to answer the questions directly or in some cases at all severely compromised his credibility. The complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. He said this court must conclude that they they'll engage in it again unless they are judicially restrained, in part given their lack of contrition. So I'll start with you as a Trump defender on this, Mike. I know you're against it. I know you think it's crazy. But what are the chances of it actually being reversed on appeal? Well, this should be reversed on appeal for many different reasons. You had New York Attorney General Tish James campaign on the fact

that she was going to get Trump, and she did that repeatedly, which is unethical. When she, during the first five weeks of this trial, as Congresswoman Elise Stefanik noted in a judicial ethics complaint against Tish James with the New York Bar, Tish James made over 50 inappropriate, unethical comments during the first five weeks of the trial. So you have, you have a, this, this case has been tainted by politics since before it started. You have this Manhattan judge, Arthur Ingeron, who donated to Biden, donated to Democrats. He ruled that Trump committed fraud before the trial even began, before any witnesses came, before any other evidence. It was clearly a biased trial from the beginning.

And then this judge, there's no evidence whatsoever of any victim. The banks got paid back in full on time as agreed with interest. They still want to do business with Trump. They came in and testified to that. You can argue that New York law, you don't need a victim. Well, I would say this. If that's the case, then you have a problem with standing. If there's not a victim, you have a problem with constitutional standing. You also have a problem

with an unconstitutionally punitive award here, damages award here, where you're awarding almost $500 million, a half billion dollars, when there's no victim, there's no damage to anyone, and they're going to try to award almost $500 million in damages. That is unconstitutionally punitive. Dave, the New York State Court of Appeals, that's the highest court in New York, will probably eventually get this. It's more left-leaning. The U.S. Supreme Court could come after that, not left-leaning. So same question to you. I'm sure you don't object to the verdict, but do you think it will be reversed on appeal? Unlikely, Megan. It could get reduced somewhat, but it still will be a massive verdict. I'd like to start with the one area I agree with my friend Mike on is that when you're a prosecutor,

whether you're the state attorney or attorney general, you've got to be really careful when you campaign and make comments like, I'm going to go after someone. That doesn't look good. Now, with that said, the facts are the facts. I mean, Trump here did it to himself by, for example, inflating his own apartment at Trump Tower, where he said it was over 30,000 feet when it was under 11,000 feet. I mean, that's not a rounding error. That's not just a harmless puffery. That is a statistical fraud. And when you then show that he didn't have any remorse or any claim to mistake on all these other properties and Goran let him go and Goran let him give part of the closing statement where he lit in and Goran and Goran did that to bend over backwards to make sure it would be a fraud in New York. And even though you don't need a victim, look, you can make the argument

that the banks were victims here. Even though they got repaid, they would have lent the money on more favorable terms if they'd been told the truth. And so, yes, I think this will be upheld on appeal, although because it was so huge, over 450, around $450 million with interest, I think that it could be reduced somewhat,

but it won't be overturned. It's unbelievable. I have to say, there are questions now about selective prosecution in this case, because why Trump? Every real estate firm in New York has got to be shaking in its boots right now if they've done anything close to overstating the value of an asset in trying to get loans. This is what Kevin O'Leary, you know, he was just on our show, Mr. Wonderful from Shark Tank, was saying to the New York Post. He said, you might as well find guilty every real estate developer on earth. He said, I want this reviewed and appealed and turned over because it's wrong for everyone that participates. Every developer, if this judgment sticks, must be jailed. They must be found guilty. They must be put out of business.

You can't do this to one another. It's not about Trump. He says it's un-American. He said the shockwave sent through the real estate industry is insane. We're stunned. You have no idea. I mean, that's the thing. Is there a case to be made for selective prosecution? Is that something that can be raised on appeal at all? Like why Trump? Why was he singled out? And did it have to do with Letitia James? I'll get him. I'll get him. I'll get him. I mean, we could play sound bites for the rest of the show of her saying that she was campaigning, Mike. Yeah, I mean, you could make that argument. The selective prosecution, as you both know, those are hard claims to make. But Tish James made the case pretty easy when she campaigned on the fact that she was going to get Trump repeatedly when she's made over 50 comments during the first five weeks of the trial alone before we stopped counting, right? And so there's

certainly evidence for a selective prosecution. I would say this about the fraud. Remember with fraud, you have to have material misrepresentations of fact, and there has to be detrimental reliance. And the detrimental reliance is key. These banks do their own due diligence. So even if Dave is correct that Trump misrepresented the size of his apartment, the banks do their own due diligence on this, and there's notrepresented the size of his apartment. The banks do their own due diligence on this and there's not detrimental reliance to the bank. So how the hell can there be fraud? Yeah, that's that's what we heard. Even I heard that even on CNN and MSNBC asking that question on Friday, Dave. And, you know, I heard a lot of lawyers say the banks were hurt even if

they don't admit it. It's kind of where we are. There's no victim. You're a victim even if you don't know it is kind of how the defenders of the verdict are taking this. The heart of this matter, the problem is caused by two things, this wacky New York law that allows it, even where there is no victim. And I think just the hatred of Trump. I just think he was singled out. There's no question they went after him because they were looking for a crime, not for, you know, that this man maybe did. And honestly, Dave, how do we, how are we supposed to make sense of you didn't express remorse? He's denying that he did it. Does every defendant now need to say, I didn't do it,

but if you find that I did, I'm really, really sorry in order to avoid punitive damages like like this is insane. Same thing on E. Jean Carroll. The reason he talks about her so cavalierly is because his position is I never did it. She's a lunatic. Both of these courts have something similar in that they seem to be punishing him for not admitting the accusations against him. Well, it goes to damages, I think. The fact is, Judge Angoron said, you did this, you clearly inflated the values, and you knew it, and you should have been. Here's the example. How do you triple the size of your apartment? That's not a valuation, that's a measuring.

You just need a ruler for that. And yet, when it comes to this massive judgment, I think that's where the lack of remorse, the cockiness, the arrogance, I think that's where it came into play. One last thing about the damages here. Even though banks got repaid, other individuals would have been loaned that money on more favorable terms for the banks if Trump had not inflated his assets. And so that's where it comes into. So the banks say, yeah, we got repaid. Yeah, but there is an opportunity cost there. You would have gotten made a lot more money somewhere else if you weren't lied to. And one last thing on that. Talk about speculative damages. You have to prove damages in a court. You can't go that

speculative. Sorry, keep going. Well, right. Well, one last thing. Trump defended himself by saying, we told you that we were liars. We told you, don't trust us. But, and he called it a harmless clause. But the clause there was not really what he said it was. It didn't say, don't trust us. We're not telling the truth. That would have gotten him away with it. He could have been given a pass if that were the case.

He had some vague clause that they were hiding behind. And I think that also struck the court as another instance of intentional fraud. The problem as I see it here is, of course, Trump played fast and loose with these representations, that seems clear, as do virtually all realtors in New York. I mean, I know this one guy who's in real estate who said his father would be ashamed if he ever found out that the son had paid $1 in taxes, would be ashamed of him. Real estate moguls in New York have ways of manipulating their bank loans, their taxes, and so on that we mere mortals do not have and wouldn't know how to take advantage of even if we thought we could. And it doesn't feel fair. It doesn't feel right to those

of us who are just like, you know, salary employees and our taxes get sucked out. And that's the end of that. But they're there. And people like Trump and others are taking advantage of it. It's just Trump's in the news because Trump's hated by half of the country and by half of the judges and so on. And so I think that Mr. Wonderful has a good point. You could do this to a lot of people, not just Trump. And it feels very persecuting to me and I'm sure a lot of others. You guys are the best. Thanks for coming on. Further updates to follow. Up next, we've got Charlie Kirk here and we're going to play a little bit more of Fannie Willis out this weekend talking at her church, which honored her yet again, where she has a brand new message for you about, here's a preview,

how she's a victim. I'm Megan Kelly, host of the Megan Kelly Show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch the Megan Kelly Show on Triumph, a Sirius XM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megyn Kelly. You can stream The Megyn Kelly Show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are. No car required. I do it all the time.

I love the SiriusXM app. It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more. Subscribe now. Get your first three months for free. Go to SiriusXM.com slash MKShow to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MKShow and get three months free. Offer details apply. So much happening in the world of politics with Trump and Biden, and we are super glad,

as always, to have Charlie Kirk here on it all. He's the founder and CEO of Turning Point USA. You can get involved at TPUSA.com. He's also hosted the Charlie Kirk Show podcast. Charlie, great to have you. Welcome back. Thank you. Great to be here. Thanks so much. Have you been following any of the Fannie Willis drama? Oh, yeah. I mean, it's hard not to follow. And, you know, I try not to find too much delight in my enemy's downfall, but it's been very hard to resist. It was, uh, I took over daytime TV. It was indecipherable, uh, to see Fannie Willis on the stage, uh, on, uh, you know, testifying, uh, Nathan Wade, it was something else. So we've been following it very closely. So you, um, well, and I, and most people who are not far left, uh, in this country stand alone.

We stand alone as a group because the folks over at the New York Times are absolutely flabbergasted that this is getting attention now because as I listened to their podcast, The Daily, the other day in discussing the bombshell developments that happened on Thursday, they were talking about how, gee, you know, when this first broke, like, who even knew that this could potentially be a thing? It just didn't even seem like a thing to us. Take a listen to these two. And what this motion seems to claim is that if this alleged relationship and the benefit that it brings to Fannie Willis can be proven,

then this entire case should therefore be thrown out. That's right. Although it's worth keeping in mind that a number of legal scholars have argued that even if all of these allegations were true, there's really no basis for this being construed as a conflict of interest and that these prosecutors should stay on the case and it should be steady as she goes from here on out, that this is all a big distraction that has no legal merit. So what you're saying is that no one's quite sure that legally speaking, there's a real argument here to be made by Michael Roman. And if I'm remembering correctly, the feeling that

a lot of people had when this motion was filed was that it was kind of a Hail Mary, right? And there was not much evidence that it was necessarily even true. Yeah, well, I mean, it was a Hail Mary in the sense that Michael Roman's lawyer didn't include any evidence to back up her claim. This is a very salacious claim. So there was a moment there when nobody knew really what to make of it. It was a very uncomfortable moment.

Actually, just fact check for you, New York Times. Some of us knew exactly what to make of it. If you just have an open mind when it comes to anything involving Donald Trump, I refer you back to our own coverage the same day this all broke. Watch the case against Trump in Georgia. I'm not sure the case itself is going to go away, but the prosecutor might be. She's in a whole lot of trouble herself and could potentially even be facing criminal charges herself. 100% right. And those of us who can see the law clearly understood this was a massive potential ethical violation by these two. Right from the start, all the BS spin at the beginning of that clip about how most legal experts say there's no

basis to get rid of them, to throw them. That's absolutely not true either. The Atlanta Journal Constitution broke the case, broke the story and cited Stephen Gillers, who's the god of legal ethics. He's written the textbook that we all study. And in that first article, Stephen Gillers said, if any of this is true, she's in a deep, deep seat of trouble and could get thrown off the case. So the revisionist media coverage of it, Charlie, just yet another reminder of how important the lane you and I are in has become. Yes. Anybody wanting actual honest information? Yeah, a couple of thoughts. First, that's the number one podcast out there. And so it's not just some fringe thing. It does very, very well. It always almost near the top of the podcast charts. Number two, I just laugh when, you know, grown men talk like 15 year old girls with their up inflection of their voice. We don't really know if they're guilty or in it's like it just drives me crazy. It's like that central casting for Upper East Side metrosexual New York Times podcast host. Anyway, I'll put that aside. So it just drives me crazy.

So the but hold on. Did they even address the lying about the start date of the relationship? That alone is perjury. I mean, before we even get into some of the disgruntled, the woman who testified that it started early, she was disgruntled. Haven't you heard that, Charlie? Oh, yeah, that's their new spin. And then so but under oath, she said something completely different. So you zero in on that. But I have a I have a six point list I want to go through here, Megan. I think it's really important. And I know you covered this in great detail.

And this is from Josh McCoon, who is the chairman of the Georgia Republican Party. Number one, here's no longer in dispute. Willis awarded a no-bid contract for legal services to Wade. That is true. We know that to be true. Number two, Wade engaged in a sexual relationship with Willis while he was submitting bills to her as a vendor that were paid without question, including an invoice for 24 hours of billable time in a single day. Number three, Wade and Willis kept this relationship secret to the point of Wade lying in response to questions submitted in his divorce proceeding to keep the relationship secret. Number four, Wade filed for divorce from his wife within 24 hours of receiving the no-bid contract from Willis. Divorce, contract, divorce, contract. Number five,

Wade paid for multiple lavish vacations that Willis took with him. And number six, there is no documentation that Willis was ever reimbursed for him for any of these vacations. And hilariously, Megan, one final thought. I joked with my team when they were testifying. I said, oh, they're going to say that they were paid in cash. That's just what liars do. And maybe they were, Megan, but I don't think so. I don't think that Fannie Willis has thousands of dollars in cash and that we're supposed to believe that there was a reimbursement. By the way, there's no withdrawal bank records. There's no deposit bank records. So not looking good for the- And there's a $5,000 lien against her.

A $5,000 lien against her at the time she's allegedly doling out thousands to Nathan Wade. She just happens to have it sitting around her house. Did her daddy tell her that, that it's important to pay your bills, that it's not good for a sitting DA to have a lien against her? I missed that part of the daddy's testimony. Here she is again back at the church this past Sunday with yet another message about how hard it is to be her as they awarded her at the Atlanta Church the Black History Achievement Award. Watch. There are things going on recently that I won't talk about, but everybody did not embrace me during those times. And Berean has continued to embrace me. You know, people keep sending me scriptures and I and I appreciate those scriptures.

The scripture they keep sending me is no weapon formed against you shall prosper i need y'all to hear me though they did not say the weapon weapons will not form the other lesson that i've learned in this three years is God ordains those weapons. He puts those weapons in your life to form against you. And if you really understand him, you become in your maturity to understand he does it for a reason. And it's to grow you and it's to make you stronger. And it is to prepare you. This is a really hard

job I'm trying to do. And I am an imperfect human being, but I can literally feel the people who loves me's prayers. It's really hard to be a DA, Charlie. Newsflash, very hard to be a DA. She's just doing the best she can and stooping the special counsel she brought in to go after the president of the United States former. Yeah. So first of all, her theology is all screwed up. I'm not going to get into that, but I mean, that's just, you know, she, she, that this is so perverted and twisted and wrong. And let's just not forget Nathan Wade was technically married when this affair was ongoing. Okay. So I don't know. So let's, let's just be careful, you know, talking about how no weapon formed against you. Maybe you've got to get your sexual ethics into gear, Fannie Willis, before you start to play the victim anyway.

But here's what I think is so interesting is the audience applauding. And she's trying to turn this into kind of like a base community organizing type issue. Last time she was at the church, she was playing on outward racial undertones. You know, how hard it is. Is it for, you know, a black woman to do her job type thing? I'm paraphrasing, Megan, but you remember that was essentially. She's like they were the ones who played the race card, not me. Yeah. And again, this is this is what's so fascinating about this and why I think she will eventually be taken off the case if we have any sort of form of rule of law. And the judge was also not showing a great deal of sympathy for her just based on his motions and his tone and just how he was allowing certain line of question to continue.

But that remains to be seen. But remember this, the New York Times, which you played their podcast earlier, they had a full spread piece, profile piece on Fannie Willis last summer. She was supposed to be the one. She was supposed to be the one that could have the rock star. She was supposed to be the new Stacey Abrams. It just turns out that, I don't know, they're kind of 0 for 2 so far at trying to pick these heroines out of Georgia. She was supposed to be the one that was going to bring down Trump because there are certain elements of this case that are different than the Jack Smith case and the Alvin Bragg case. Number one, the Alvin Bragg case is so legally flawed. It's a joke. There's really nothing to it. The Jack Smith

stuff, if Trump were to win, he could get pardoned eventually. It's all under federal statute. And also there's jurisdictional issues and federal court takes forever and there's appeal in the Supreme Court. Georgia had a couple elements that made it unique. Number one, mandatory prison time. Number two, it wasn't clear whether or not he could be pardoned. Probably not because it was a state- of quote-unquote co-conspirators that were pleading guilty. And that makes it hard to overcome as a defendant if all of a sudden 10 other people plead guilty and they all point fingers at you. It just, no matter what you're accused of, it makes it hard. Now, all of a sudden with Fannie Willis being put on defense, regardless of how they proceed, even if she remains, is anyone going to take anything that comes out of this case seriously? Of course not. They're going to look at her as a corrupt district attorney that had sweetheart no-bid contracts, legal services to her lover.

And the final element of this, Megan, that I think is being lost, but we don't yet know the extent of it. Remember, on the invoice that Nathan Wade submitted, he was communicating with the Biden White House Counsel's Office. We don't know the details of that conversation. We don't know to the extent of what he was talking to the Biden White House Counsel's Office about, but we know that he had 24 billable hours to the executive branch's basically legal representation. Did Biden know? According to Newt Gingrich, someone from Washington, D.C. pushed Fannie Willis to put forward this indictment. But this is falling apart. And now the media is like, oh, well, we never thought it was that big of a deal. Why are you picking on poor Fannie? She was she was built up to be the one to bring

down Donald Trump. The the official line is that, well, sometimes a local prosecutor might consult with the White House if they've already done an investigation like the January 6th committee. They talk to them. Sometimes they would consult with a committee that done a bunch of legwork so that they didn't have to repeat the legwork. So it could have been totally innocent. Well, you know, we also see if you're going to account for that. Let's also account for the reports. I think it was in Politico last week that Joe Biden privately is very angry at Merrick Garland, not just because of the special counsel, hers report saying he's a well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory, but also because Merrick Garland did not put pedal to the metal on these

prosecutions, did not lean harder on the DAs around the country to make sure that Trump had a conviction prior to the election. Right? So why should we believe that there was an improper coordination between the Biden white house and Fannie Willis when we know the president himself, according to this article, is grumbling behind the scenes that Merrick Garland should be fired potentially because he didn't fast roll all of these things. He wanted his opponent with the big C conviction prior to November. Yeah. And it turns out that's less and less likely. Now, the only conviction they might get is New York with Alvin Bragg. And there will almost if there will be prison time associated with that, that would be just so outrageous. But New York is New York is its own beast right now.

But that's all about just adding Donald Trump's going to have to change his driver's license to the media. Convicted felon Donald Trump. Every rally, Megan, every time he does an interview, they're going to say, and now about to take the stage, convicted felon Donald Trump, convicted. That's all that the New York case is about. Oh, of course. I mean, yes. I mean, because he's larger than life. He's a marketing expert. And also he's so far used every single one of these indictments and not yet any convictions, but this lawfare to his advantage, his poll numbers have only made him go up. It's made him more sympathetic. It looks like an overreach of an unpopular president. And so, yeah, I think he's going to lean in to how he does it.

I mean, he's the genius. He'll figure it out as far as turning this stuff into a positive. And the other element of this though, with the Joe Biden White House Counsel's Office is that Joe Biden has insisted repeatedly he's had nothing to do with any of these convictions and these indictments, and eventually one of the convictions. If that's the case, why is he grumbling privately about Merrick Garland? And so he's like, oh, I have nothing to do with this. No, no, no. Now it's becoming very clear. And there are leaks happening out of the Biden White House because we wouldn't have that if it wasn't for the Politico story. And this is a White House that notoriously does not leak and reporters are not seeking out leaks. It just kind of is on its own island. And we have to kind of just guess what's happening.

Unlike the Trump White House, which is, you know, we knew what every single staffer was having for lunch and for breakfast on a daily basis. Right. It was it was happening every day. And so the other element of this though, Megan, that I think is really important just to finish that point is that the more and more it looks like Joe Biden is sending out Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice or even Fannie Willis, the even less popular Joe Biden is going to become and the less sympathetic that these trials will be in the eyes of independent and swing voters. Now, Joe Biden's getting a bit of a push from sources closer to him than expected. Ezra Klein, a lefty who's committed to the leftist agenda, is saying, you know, we don't have to do this. Maybe there's another option available to us.

Joe Biden, you know, I don't think he can get the ball across the finish line. I'm nervous and I don't like being nervous. I don't have to be nervous because we've got at least someone great right in reserve, Kamala Harris. She's been underestimated. And if you don't like Kamala Harris, he actually goes on to name. He's like, look at the bench. It's amazing. Gretchen Whitmer, Gavin Newsom, AOC. He mentions AOC as a possible sub in. Now, look, the reason this is interesting is because this is somebody who the White House could potentially be reading and paying attention to. And it just shows some more fractions over there on the left fractures over on the left when it comes to maintaining Biden as the nominee. Yeah. So there's a there's a chance and who knows, because it's all a mystery in some sense. But there's a chance that their pride that they could resurrect Biden's poll numbers will be their downfall. There's a chance that they felt that they could just turn it around and run enough TV ads. Now, they have a very impressive infrastructure of ballot chasing.

We've talked about that before, Megan, and their ability to have thousands of full time people on the ground and chase early ballots. But that all, to a certain extent, falls apart if all of a sudden you can't crack 35 percent. I was going through RealClearPolitics.com the other day and I found it really interesting. You know who the most stable poller is? The person who actually is the most consistent number is RFK. He's right near that 14 to 18% almost consistently, where Trump and Biden are all over the place. 38, 42, 44, they're all over the place. RFK is right near that 14 to 18%. Six months ago, I said the exact opposite. I will say now though, and I think this

is one of the reasons why Ezra Klein is saying, hey, we got to get rid of this guy. Six months ago, I think RFK was hurting Trump more than Biden. I think RFK is hurting Biden more than Trump. I think he's becoming kind of a protest vote. I think Democrats are saying, I can't support Biden. OK, the Kennedy name seems perfectly fine. And I think that is one of the reasons why you're seeing the collective intelligentsia of the Democrat Party continue to freak out. But they're running out of time. And if they think that Kamala Harris is an all-star player, I hope they select Kamala Harris. Listen to the rehab on her by Ezra Klein. You're going to love this. In private settings, she's enormously magnetic and compelling. Sure, Jan. Her challenge would be translating that

into a public persona, which is, and let's be blunt about this, a hard thing to do when you've grown up in a world that has always been quick to find your faults. A world that is afraid of women being angry, of black people being angry. A world where for most of your life, it was demanded of you that you be cautious and careful and measured and never make a mistake. And then you get on the public stage and people say, oh, you're too cautious and too careful and too measured. It's a very, very, very hard bind to get out of, but maybe she can do it. It's her being a woman and being, yeah, and being a black woman that really, that's what's causing her troubles on the public stage. Charlie, you see, like, I've overcome by lady parts to be able to not be cautious and careful and measured and never make

it. It's amazing. I've been able to overcome that, notwithstanding all the estrogen raging in my body. And apparently Kamala Harris was just a too strong a combo, I guess, being black and being a woman. Therefore, that's why she is the way she is. I mean, OK, tell it to Condoleezza Rice. She doesn't suffer from any of those problems. In politics and just like in life, there's the X factor. It's just something about Kamala Harris is she's deeply unlikable. Just it's very similar to Hillary. It's just something about Kamala Harris is she's just deeply unlikable. It's very similar to Hillary. She just looks so ambitious in a bad way, just synthetic and fake and transactional and artificial. And so if they want to replace Joe Biden with Kamala Harris, let's be honest, the only reason why Joe Biden is still around is because they're not too thrilled about their number two. If they had a superstar at number two, this rodeo would have been rearranged six months

ago. He does begin his piece, interestingly, by saying, and I'll put it this way, he's not up for this, Joe Biden. He says, I think he's a good president. I don't like having this conversation. And I know a lot of liberals and Democrats will be furious at me. I still think Biden might win against Trump. It's just that there's a very good chance he might lose, maybe even better than even odds. And Trump is dangerous. I want better odds than that. Well, it's too late to throw to the primaries, but it's not too late to do something.

You're isolating something really important, which is after Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in 2016, the Democrats operate in we must eliminate all risk, that we can't even have a 5% or a 10% chance. They were so traumatized by what happened in 2016, which I think is at the root of a lot of the lawfare stuff and trying to kick Donald Trump off the ballot, which is I don't think they will be able to handle looking at election returns and even seeing it close. I think some of them don't even have the genetic material to deal with that. They're so invested with making sure Donald Trump won't become president again. That's Ezra Klein. He's like, I can't leave it up to chance. We have to do

whatever it takes. So that means switching out Biden, kicking Trump off the ballot. And it's fascinating. I mean, we call it Trump derangement syndrome. Their identity is wrapped up in this. Their their daily obsession is preventing Donald Trump from ever getting back in the White House. And if there's even a five percent risk, that's not that's not good enough for Ezra Klein. Mm hmm. Meanwhile, you have Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight polling. Now he's got his own sub stack saying it's time for the White House toThirtyEight polling. Now he's got his own substack saying it's time for the White House to put up or shut up. And he's got a different plan for President Biden. OK, this is actually very interesting. Here's what I'd propose,

quoting here. Over the course of the next several weeks, Biden should do ready for lengthy sit down interviews with non-friendly sources. Non-friendly doesn't mean hostile. The proposed options, Charlie, the New York Times, the Washington Post, 60 Minutes, and maybe even the Wall Street Journal op-ed page. So he writes, he writes what he wants at the op-ed page, or even a team of writers at the dispatch, which I mean, I like, I like Jonah Goldberg, Steve, but like those are never Trumpers. Those are people who would definitely be voting for Biden instead of Trump. So these are his plan for the, the tough non-friendly sources. You do the lengthy sit downsdowns with it? What do you make of that resurrection plan? Yeah, the New York Times is the non-friendly source. You know, I'd have some, I would, I just want to see,

I think it should have to be like a prerequisite that you have to be able to sit through a 90-minute long-form podcast interview to become president in the modern era. It's kind of the new litmus test. Donald Trump could do it. I mean, he sat down with you and, you know, you asked him the tough questions. Yep, exactly. And I mean, I was expecting when you were saying that, it's like, are they going to say Joe Rogan? I mean,

of course not. I mean, could you imagine Joe Biden? At the end, at the end, he said, go on Ezra Klein's podcast, question mark, go on Rogan. Just kidding, I think. But Bernie Sanders did it. Yeah, well, I mean, Bernie Sanders, to his credit, is far more there than Joe Biden. I mean, he's old, but he's you know, he's still he still can put a couple sentences together. Look, there's this collective freak out. They're running out of time. And they also have said the other Democrat intelligentsia have, you know, in these op-eds, like, well, do we really want to put this in the hands of Democrat activists? And that's code for saying they might get someone insane to become their nominee. Like that's code of being like, well, we don't want, you know, Rashida Tlaib or Ilhan Omar to be our nominee, right? That's kind of their code of saying it. And again, I just repeat, the third party element here adds a great deal of chance and mystery. It's very, very hard to pull when there's three

candidates. Whoever has the stronger base will end up winning typically in a three-party or four-party, five-candidate type situation. And so you have Nate Silver, you have Ezra Klein, but I don't see any movement with this being said, Megan, I don't see a single piece of evidence that Joe Biden is letting go of power, that the people around him, they almost seem to be white knuckling. It seems as if they're gearing up and ramping up. And there has not been a sign of life for Joe Biden in polling. He still is significantly down. He does have an advantage when it comes to the plumbing of the elections, the infrastructure, the early voting. But as far as likability and popularity, Joe Biden remains to be in trouble. I think it was the Ezra Klein

piece saying there are some people who can go to Biden and try to convince him to bail. It would include the Obamas, the Chuck Schumer, Mike Donilon, Ron Klain, Nancy Pelosi, Anita Dunn. They need to get him to see the truth. An intervention. Yeah. They got to sit down and say, Joe, it's a no. But anyway, it's not happening. At least it hasn't happened so far. We'll wait to see whether they, you know, wrestle with reality more. I would just love to see the intervention he walks in. Go ahead. Yes, please.

I gotta ask you about the Trump verdict, the anger on $450 million when you had the interest in. You're close with Team Trump and Trump family members. My information from people close to Trump was this was the case he was most worried about because really it could and now has shut down his business, his method of making money for all his life in New York state, his home state, not to mention a half a billion dollar judgment against Trump. And even when you have as much money as Trump does, that doesn't mean you're liquid,

doesn't mean you have $500 million sitting in the bank that you can easily cut a check. So have you had any reaction from them that you can share on the insanity of this verdict that came down last Friday? I can't say which one they're the most worried about. This is my opinion, not anything they've said, but just gleaning from conversation. This is the one I think they're the most bitter about. And I think that's an important distinction. And I would totally understand. They helped build modern New York. You know this, Megan. I mean, from the woman rink to the convention center, to owning the Plaza Hotel, to the Commodore. And Donald Trump, he really came to be when New York was still full of slums and was not a world-class city. And he gave back through charity and philanthropy and employing

tens of thousands, probably over 100,000 people over the last couple of decades. And, you know, again, I'm speaking just from an outsider and personal opinion based on conversations I've had. It just feels as if they were knifed by the city that they love. And I think they still have a love for that city, a city where they were born and that, you know, Donald Trump raised his kids and that his first grandkids were born in a city where he built the iconic Trump Tower and had properties all across New York. A city where he was known as Mr. New York. A city where he filmed and shot The Apprentice. And now, because he became president and they don't like what he did when he was president

and that he's running again, we can just confiscate your business? I mean, it hurts. And I don't mean that in some sort of gushy, weak way. I mean that in a way of justice that you feel as if for 40 years, you build a profitable, sustainable business. You pay back everybody that you've borrowed money from. You build beautiful assets. People are thrilled with your brand. They're thrilled with what you've contributed. And they're able to bring this politically charged garbage. And literally, it is garbage to do what is the equivalent of Soviet-style wealth confiscation. And so, yeah, I don't want

to speak on the president's behalf or his family, nor which one they're the most worried about. But I could say that this one has created a great deal of bitterness for a family that did so much for the city and for the state of New York to only have their empire at least temporarily taken away from them. They have this new kind of business manager that is now in charge of it. This wasn't even a jury trial. Thankfully, there's an appeal process. Kevin O'Leary, Mr. Wonderful, I think that's what he goes by, I think said it best, which is that this is one of the most un-American decisions. It will drive business out of the state of New York. And I've talked to some other people that have multi-billion dollar portfolios in New York, and they're terrified. They are terrified. And make no mistake, this is a warning shot from

Letitia James. You have to tell them that they have nothing to worry about as long as they're Democrats. They'll be good. Well, no, that's what I was going to say is that Letitia James, Letitia James's message is like, oh, hey, if you support the right political party, I'm not going to confiscate your stuff. I'm not going to take your property away. And certainly don't. I mean, if you're a Republican, don't don't fly your flag and don't put it out there. And God forbid you decide to run for office because that's when they really will turn on you. And that's what's really happening. That's what the quiet sort of story behind the scenes is who in their right mind to run for office because that's when they really will turn on you. And that's what's really happening. That's what the quiet sort of story behind the scenes is who in their right mind would run for office on the Republican ticket after this.

It's really like these little they're not little, but these cuts are causing death by a thousand cuts to the Republican Party, to its future leadership, because this doesn't this doesn't happen to the Democrats. This is happening to the Republican, to Trump, who wasn't even some far right leader. He was more moderate in a lot of his policies, but that's not good enough. I will tell you an anecdote, Megan, that I think is very is connected to this. We raise a lot of money at Turning Point. We raise money for get out the vote efforts and more and more donors are asking, hey, this is anonymous, right? And I say, well, yes, I don't have to disclose you if you give to this particular vehicle, which is our 501c3 or 501c4. But the

government might find out. They said, well, I don't want to give to anything that I might be disclosed because I might get targeted. Megan, it's working. I mean, amongst very wealthy people. And my response is kind of always, look, I can protect your anonymity, but if you're really so worried that they'll eventually find out, you just shouldn't give at that point. I mean, at some point you have to put, you know, your own spine and your own, you know, willingness behind. Yeah, exactly. I mean, I was going to use some other part of the, you know, human anatomy, but I'll put that aside, which is you got to have some stones, man. Like

you want to save the country or not. And by the way, I do, I do support anonymous giving for this reason. So not be harassed by the New York times, the Washington post, but Megan, since this has happened, I've seen an alarming increase in top level donors ask and not demand, but like basically seek out anonymous giving options because they're afraid of political retribution. Yep. And it's not paranoia when they really are out to get you. All right, Charlie. So as usual, every time you come on, you're upsetting somebody. Now I've seen two separate hit pieces on you, one from Real Clear Politics and one from NBC. The Real Clear Politics one wasn't really a hit piece, but it was sort of trying to say that there is a lot of anger toward you because Ronna Romney McDonald, whatever, McDaniel, has been booted as the head of the RNC. She was pushed out effectively by Trump is what we say, what we read. And that the reporting is that she went down to Mar-a-Lago to try to stop it.

Instead, Trump said, you've got to go. She did go. But while there, she brought you up, tried to say he's my chief detractor. I'm paraphrasing here. But now we're seeing a couple of hit pieces after she's gone on you suggesting you're a problem, that you're causing trouble for Donald Trump. We talked about your comments on black pilots the last time. I encourage the audience to go back and look at that more fully because Charlie explains exactly what he meant perfectly. In any event, it appears, you know, it gets resurrected now in an effort to drive, I think, a public wedge between you and the Trumps. Donald Trump Jr.

comes out and says, this is bullshit. There's no wedge. We all love Charlie. Just stop it. So what's the truth? What's the story? What's happening here? Well, first, I just got such a kick out of it. It's so coordinated because the two articles both have knives in the title. Do you see that? It's like two separate articles, Real Clear Politics, Sharp Elbow, Sharper Knives, NBC News, Sharp Knives Out. Like, okay, so the knives are out for me. Got it. Thanks. Look, I mean, we made it a focus because we want to win to try to have regime change at the RNC. And I said this before, I'll say it again. This was not a personal thing. I used to get along really well with Ronna. Obviously, that relationship is no longer ongoing. And we were underwhelmed and underwhelmed repeatedly with election results. And the same way that I treat my college football coaches or my NFL

football, which I love, if you're not winning games, you should no longer be in charge of the team. And so whether it be in 2018, 2020, 2022, 2023, and instead of kind of acknowledging that things could be going better, we were met with defiance and we were met with double speak. And so long story short, we made it a focus to try and change the leadership of the RNC. And we did it by mentioning on our show a lot. We did it by hosting alternative programs in Las Vegas for the Restoring National Confidence Summit, where we brought in 75 state party chairs, national committeemen, and also county chairs to receive training and to receive grassroots type data technology, not just training, but also how to use the data technology in their local area.

And the response was overwhelming. And we knew this was coming, Megan. I mean, make no mistake, you don't focus and eventually end up being successful in getting rid of an RNC chair without them running to NBC News to complain. And so I'm unfazed by it. And so I'm unfazed by it. Yeah, I'm unfazed by it. You know, it's all the typical, quite honestly, like left-wing attack vectors that are repurposed by this disgruntled, outgoing RNC regime.

It should be illuminating for those in your audience that really want to see Joe Biden defeated in November, that the RNC kind of henchmen and their media team were more focused on trying to plant stories against me and trying to lobby NBC News and Real Clear Politics. So two pieces in three days, like, OK, can you make it more obvious instead of trying to unite forces and combine forces to defeat Joe Biden in November? It is what it is. I'm unfazed by it. I mean, we played a win. Well, what's amazing, Charlie, is that now one of the things in here is one of the knocks on you is that you're raising all this money.

Like one of the knocks on you is that you want to raise 108 million on a get out the vote campaign in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin to swing the election. These are Republicans ripping you. I can see how why Democrats might not want that, but they say citing a quote Republican operative in close contact with the Trump campaign. I don't think Trump is fully aware of that plan when he finds out he's not going to be happy at all because why? Because it has quote little guarantee of success and because it is, quote, funded by donors who would otherwise give directly to Trump's campaign. Thus, they predict the former president, quote, will be pissed out of his mind. Now, I've talked to

you about this many times. As far as I understand, your effort is to get the people out to vote for Donald Trump, which I'm having trouble following why he would be angry. He wouldn't be. And that's why it's an unnamed Republican operative. It's just someone who doesn't like me or they're upset that we are having success raising money. And let the record be clear. We have over 300,000 donors at Turning Point. That's a big number. That's presidential campaign style number to have 300,000 people contribute money to you. The RNC wishes they had that many active donors, and they wonder why they don't. One of the reasons why is we're relentless and we put results

forward and we're transparent with how we spend our money. And so the other aspect, though, that you mentioned is, yes, we're going to have hundreds of full time people in Arizona and Wisconsin chasing ballots for get out the vote. The RNC, to the best of our knowledge, will have one or two full time people, three or four full time people. And so there's we are the disruptors on the scene. We're the new energy, Megan. We are always thought of just being a youth organization. So they kind of ignored us. And as I have grown and as the organization has grown, we realized that the RNC and the Republican Party was ossified and not innovative and not playing to win and did not have that kind of entrepreneurial approach. Again, we wouldn't have these complaints if 2022 was a blowout year and we won record seats in the House and the Senate, but the results speak

for themselves. And we believe we've identified an issue, which is to try to help low propensity Republican or center-right voters be able to vote in voting month and not just try to flood the polls on election day, but have people vote early and to expand our ability to run up the score leading into election day, in addition to all the other programming that we do. And so I remain close with the Trump family. I'm an enthusiastic supporter, obviously, of President Trump. I had the opportunity to know him and defend him for well over eight years now. These stories happen every so often, Megan. This is obviously the spiciest one that I've ever been through. It's the most direct salvo from the

Republican establishment. But I say, bring it on. We're going to keep on building. They're going to keep on complaining. We're good at building at turning point. It's what we do. And God willing, we'll be successful coming into November. I mean, I've seen it up close and personal and behind the scenes, and it's an amazing operation. It's incredibly sophisticated, professional, well done. And there's a reason, I mean, you've earned every dollar and a bit of attention that you've gotten. I do want to stop with this and with this. So the potential replacements, Trump says to run the RNC, it should be Michael Whatley, the North Carolina GOP chairman,

and suggested the co-chair should be his daughter-in-law, Laura Trump. All right, now I'm going to confess something to you. I don't know Laura Trump, but I remembered that Laura Trump had some sort of a background in the pastry industry. My first thought was, why do we need somebody who knows how to make delicious desserts as co-chair of the RNC? But unlike most people, then went and did my homework and found out, of course, yes, she's been a spokesperson for Trump for, you know, the past several years. But on top of that, I actually went back and I'm not going to tell you who, but I went and started texting friends of mine who were at the top of the RNC over the past many, many, many years. And I've received

very positive feedback about this idea. People who may not be Trumpers, who were basically saying the job of the co-chair is kind of to go out there and stir enthusiasm and go to colleges and go to state dinners in Georgia and elsewhere and be a good messenger for team Republican. And if it's Trump as president, team Trump, and that she would actually be very good at this. She doesn't necessarily have to be a Charlie Kirk when it comes to organizing, get out the vote. She wouldn't be in the top job. And I started to say, OK, well, I see this differently. I kind of I understand it now. But what do you make of I don't I confess I didn't know who Michael Watley was. What do you make of him? Whatever happened to Harmeet Dhillon? And what do you make of Laura

Trump? Yeah, I'm actually meeting with Michael Watley soon. And so I have no strong opinions either way. I am an enthusiastic supporter of Laura Trump. I got to know Laura back in the 2016 campaign when no one thought we would win. And I said, wow, this woman is a superstar. And she's excellent on TV. She's very likable. And obviously, in recent years, you years, we've seen her media success, and she is super articulate in her ability to message the Trump agenda. We just had her on our podcast, and she was terrific. media is that the base does not support the RNC right now. There has been an evaporation of small dollar donations to the RNC that needs to be fixed immediately. Having someone with the Trump last name that can assure small dollar donors that the RNC is doing what it needs to be done, that it is spending the money correctly and appropriately, that it's defending Donald Trump will go a very, very long way to heal the brand of the RNC. And I could just speak for Laura Trump's work ethic. She's like an ultra marathoner. She's a very impressive person,

a great mother, dedicated wife. And also, if you look at some of the issues that the RNC has, the Republican brand has, we have to do better with women. And Lara Trump obviously will be able to be an effective spokesperson, especially on the trans issue, the men and female sports issue, issues that you've talked about a lot on this program, Megan. So I'm an enthusiastic supporter for it. I think Lara is going to be doing a great job there. And I think that she'll be able to expand the appeal of the Republican Party and heal some of the issues that the RNC is currently facing. All right. Now, she also is an amazing cook, apparently, though, because she did study and has a degree in pastry arts

from the French Culinary Institute. Nothing wrong with that. I knew I remembered something about that. So she's a woman of many talents. Anyway, it's just a good lesson to keep your mind open and do your homework before you, George, form any opinions on anybody. Charlie Kirk, such a pleasure as always. Thank you so much for being here.

And don't forget, everybody, head to tpusa.com and definitely do it. Honestly, it's such an impressive organization. You know Charlie's going to shepherd your dollars into something that you care about and you can learn more about how you can get involved and you can help his organization's effort, including at the college level where too many conservatives feel they stand alone and they do not. We'll see you tomorrow. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.