Share This Episode
Sekulow Radio Show Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow Logo

FIASCO IN FULTON: Judge Ruling Released on Fani Willis

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
March 15, 2024 1:12 pm

FIASCO IN FULTON: Judge Ruling Released on Fani Willis

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1046 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


March 15, 2024 1:12 pm

FIASCO IN FULTON: Judge Ruling Released on Fani Willis.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

This is Jay Sekulow.

The fiasco in Fulton County continues as the judge rules on the Fannie Willis Disqualification Case. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jay Sekulow.

Hey everybody, welcome to the broadcast. A much awaited decision from Judge McAfee in the Fulton County Fiasco case has come out. And I will tell you something, there's a lot of commentary on this particular order and opinion.

I will tell you, I think it is wrong and I'm going to give you just one example. The judge basically said either Fannie Willis goes or Wade goes, the chief deputy, and if Wade goes she can stay in the case. But he wrote this, and this is, I can't reconcile his decision when he writes words like this. An odor of mendacity remains in this case. That means an odor of lying remains in this case. And if you want the impartial submission of justice, especially I think when you're dealing with an ex-President, but with anybody.

And the efficient and lawful and due process of equal protection process of a criminal justice system. The thing to do here was not to be quote the wisdom of Solomon and cut the baby in half, and in this case neither half wins. But rather to make a concluding fact is, hey, there's an odor of mendacity, the judge's words, in this case and therefore one of them has to go but not both. That makes absolutely no sense, zero.

Andy? That's absolutely correct, Jay. This is a disappointing opinion, very disappointing opinion, because the judge first of all says, quotes Georgia law, and then finds that there's an appearance of impropriety that applies to criminal prosecutions that could disqualify a prosecutor. And yet he says the court found an appearance of impropriety to exist in this case. The perceived conflict in the reasonable eyes of the public threatens confidence in the legal system. I'm reading from the judge's opinion.

When this danger goes uncorrected, it undermines the legitimacy and moral force of our already weakest branch of government. Well, having found that, why in the world did you give Fawnee Willis the opportunity to stay on in the case? Why didn't you just say her office and her are disqualified from the case? Another prosecutor has to come in. Instead you say that with the appearance of impropriety, the odor of mendacity, lying as Jay mentioned, nonetheless I'm not going to do anything.

I'll tell you why. It's very simply this. It is a Republican judge running for reelection in a Democratic county. There's no other way around it, Jay. No, because the judge specifically found that there were what they call the appearance of impropriety, which is the standard upon which you say the case can't move forward. Lawyers can't operate that way. There is a possibility of appeals. We'll get into that.

Not likely in my view that that's going to be successful, to be quite honest. There was a Georgia Senate investigation going on. The governor's looking at it. So there's more to unfold here. But this was, I think, a very weak decision in my view on how this matter goes. And this just goes to show you the nature of this. But you know, the ACLJ, we're involved in all of these different kind of fights. As we've been mentioning for the last two weeks, we are now in the middle of our life and liberty drive here at the ACLJ. And as we continue to witness the left's weaponization of the justice system to attack their political rivals, the ACLJ continues to fight back.

But we can only do that through your support and your help. Right now we are preparing to defend the Constitution by filing a brief at the Supreme Court in the Trump immunity case. That is due Tuesday. We're fighting the two-tiered system of justice to defend the FBI whistleblowers. Our next brief on that one is due April 3rd. We're battling with now 19 cases against the Biden deep state.

And that's because we're filing today a federal cause of action against the State Department over the issue of funds from the State Department being given to UNRRA, the United Nations Relief Agency, with the knowledge that UNRRA was aiding and abetting Hamas. Please support these battles with us now during our life and liberty drive. Any amount you donate is doubled at ACLJ.org.

And if you're able, please become an ACLJ champion. We started this campaign for champions with about 15,000. Our goal is to get to almost 30,000 in the next 12 to 18 months. First goal coming up is 20,000, and I'm happy to say we are only 162 short of our goal. If you can be one of those 162 champions, we would really appreciate it.

Those are champions who fight alongside us each and every month. If you can make a one-time gift only, that's absolutely fine too. Go to ACLJ.org to have your gifts doubled now. Here's what the judge said. This is Judge McAfee in the Fulton County Fiasco. He said the two options the court gives are the following. The district attorney may choose to step aside along with the whole of her office and refer the prosecution to the prosecuting attorney's council for reassignment.

That's a Georgia provision that allows an organization to then sign into another district attorney. Alternatively, the SADA, that's Wade, can withdraw, allowing the DA, the defendants, and the public to move forward without his presence or remuneration distracting from and potentially compromising the merits of this case. Which is interesting, Judge McAfee, because you also say that an odor of mendacity remains in the case, even if one of them is gone. So either it does or it doesn't. And that's the problem with the court's order.

This wasn't the wisdom of Solomon. This is a sloppy order by a judge in a superior court in Fulton County who I think is under tremendous political pressure. But I think it's a ridiculous decision.

Harry, you've, Harry Hutchinson's joined us. You've taken a look at it. What's your sense? Well, my sense is that Judge McAfee failed to answer at least properly the questions posed by this particular case brought by the defendants. So among the questions that Judge McAfee asked and answered, and questions that were indeed posed by the defendants, was whether there was an actual conflict of interest as opposed to the appearance of a conflict of interest. He asked that question and focused on that question, even though the appearance of a conflict is sufficient under Georgia law to disqualify the DA. Second, Judge McAfee asked, did the defendants meet their burden of proving an actual conflict of interest in this case, even though that is not a necessary question. Judge McAfee says no, despite unmistakable evidence showing a financial entanglement between the two principles, that is Mr. Wade and Fannie Willis. Third, the judge asked, was there evidence of forensic misconduct? That is, did Fannie Willis issue prejudicial statements? The evidence I think is clear on that question.

Yes, she did issue prejudicial statements compounded of course by evidence of mendacity. Fourth, does the established record highlight a significant appearance of impropriety that infects the current structure of the prosecution team? The judge says yes, there's sufficient evidence. However, we will not disqualify.

Instead, we will give the option to the DA. My own view is Judge McAfee issued a very weak opinion, one that does not rely on either the law or precedent in Georgia, and I think the American people should be disappointed. We're getting a lot of questions about, will this case go to trial before November? Andy, I don't think so.

There's no way. No, this case will not go to trial before November. Just to mention, this is an interlocutory ruling. That is to say, it is a ruling during the pendency of a case. It is not immediately appealable as a matter of right. However, the judge could let either side, since both sides lost and both sides won in a sense, take the case to the Georgia Court of Appeals, which the Georgia Court of Appeals could grant the interlocutory review or not. The chances are the Georgia Court of Appeals will not, but it is now March 15th.

The likelihood of this case being tried before the election in November is zero in my opinion. Let's go to Martin in North Carolina. He's on line one. We're taking your calls at 800-684-3110. I know it's confusing, so any questions you have, don't be afraid to ask. Martin, go ahead.

You're on the air. Thank you, Mr. Teckler. I appreciate it and I don't disagree with your statement that you made at the beginning, but is there the possibility that they're looking for charges or indictments against Willis and Wade or the others that may have not been fully, well, not telling the truth during their testimonies during this trial or proceeding? I don't think so at all because the judge doesn't give a lot of credit to the testimony. He says while the testimony wasn't particularly helpful, he doesn't say that they knowingly made a false statement. And that would be a predicate to an under oath statement that you knowingly made false. So Andy, I don't see that. No, I don't see that either besides the judge doesn't charge the prosecutor charges with perjury and Fannie Willis is not going to charge herself.

This would require the governor to put in a special district attorney to determine whether perjury has been committed unlikely. Yeah, I just don't see it. Let me see this. Ellie Honig, CNN. It's interesting to start seeing the commentary coming in on this. Take a listen. One of you has to go, either the DA and with her, the entire office or Nathan Wade.

This will be the easiest decision the DA's office has ever had to make. Obviously, Nathan Wade will go and the judge in his ruling says essentially this is necessary to preserve public confidence in this case. He says there's enough of an appearance. There's enough of, as he says at one point, an odor of mendacity around this case, interesting phrase, that something's got to be done to at least clean up the public perception. Further to Andy's point that we were just making before about could you be charged with perjury, the judge says there are other forms or sources of authority such as the General Assembly, the Georgia State Ethics Commission, the State Bar of Georgia, the Fulton County Board of Commissioners, or the voters of Colton County may offer feedback on any unanswered questions that linger.

The question that lingers is there's a taint over this proceeding, Harry, and I don't know how you removed the taint. Well, I think you're absolutely correct because one of the questions that the judge focused on was whether there is a conflict of interest. What is a conflict of interest? It includes acquiring a personal interest or financial stake in the defendant's conviction and there is indeed evidence in the record showing that Fannie Willis had a personal stake in the defendant's conviction and that is compounded by evidence of mendacity. So the appropriate remedy under the circumstances is to disqualify Fannie Willis. I think the judge lacks sufficient courage to disqualify her and I think whatever the outcome of the case against Donald Trump and the defendants may be, whatever that outcome, I think many individuals will lose confidence in the judgment of Georgia law and the prosecutor's office.

Here's what's so interesting. The court concludes that there was sufficient evidence of an appearance of impropriety. The court explained that why the appearance of impropriety standard did apply to the criminal prosecution. Now listen to what he said, Andy. If that is the case, why did you not disqualify the DA's office?

That's exactly right. If that is the case, judge, you said that, why did you not find that the district attorney's office, Fannie Willis, and all her assistants in the office are disqualified? You say the district attorney's prosecution is encumbered by an appearance of impropriety. You say that this affects the public perception of the criminal justice system. You say that there is an order of lying in the case. Why in the world have you allowed the district attorney now to make the decision whether she stays in the case or her boyfriend leaves?

Why have you done that? Why don't you take the courage and say, with all these things combined, you cannot stay in this case and give the public a sense of integrity in the criminal justice system? That's all I want. Integrity in the criminal justice system because you can't pull the trigger. Very sad. If the judge would have granted the order, it would not have meant that Fannie Willis' case will not eventually be prosecuted. This wasn't a motion to dismiss. It would have just been prosecuted by a different office. Now it's true that a new DA could come in there and say this whole case is ridiculous, which I think it is, but this was not the motion to dismiss on the merits to remove the case permanently. Was this appearance of impropriety of significant, which it clearly is, if a judge is saying an order of mendacity surrounds the case, my goodness, Judge McAfee, what were you thinking? You're a conservative judge, supposedly, and think about that as you make this decision, but folks, this is why we continue to fight these cases. As we've been mentioning for the last two weeks, we are now in the middle of our life and liberty drive here at the ACLJ, and as we continue to witness the left's weaponization of the justice system to attack their political rivals, the ACLJ continues to fight back.

But we can only do that through your support and your help. Right now, we are preparing to defend the Constitution by filing a brief at the Supreme Court in the Trump immunity case. That is due Tuesday. We're fighting the two-tiered system of justice to defend the FBI whistleblowers.

Our next brief on that one is due April 3rd. We're battling with now 19 cases against the Biden deep state, and that's because we're filing today a federal cause of action against the State Department over the issue of funds from the State Department being given to UNRRA, the United Nations Relief Agency, with the knowledge that UNRRA was aiding and abetting Hamas. Please support these battles with us now during our life and liberty drive. Any amount you donate is doubled at ACLJ.org, and if you're able, please become an ACLJ champion. We started this campaign for champions with about 15,000. Our goal is to get to almost 30,000 in the next 12 to 18 months. First goal coming up is 20,000, and I'm happy to say we are only 162 short of our goal. If you can be one of those 162 champions, we would really appreciate it.

Those are champions who fight alongside us each and every month. If you can make a one-time gift only, that's absolutely fine, too. Go to ACLJ.org to have your gifts doubled now. During the break, I was taking some notes, so the way it's going to work out, I think, is clearly what Pawnee Willis is going to do. She's going to get rid of Wade and say, you know, you're done this way.

She stays in. But here's the question, Andy. If Nathan Wade is removed, the work that he generated, the work product that he generated during this period of time would be under the Wonsong case, normally deemed fruit of the poisonous tree.

That's right. There's nothing in the order about that at all. No, he doesn't think it out. The judge doesn't think it out. So what happens then to all the – he was the lead prosecutor. What happens to all the witness interviews and evidence they gathered? I'll tell you what I would do if I were the defense attorney. It's called a motion to suppress. I would say that everything that was gained by this person who was improperly in the case should be suppressed, and everything that comes from that, fruit of the poisonous tree, should also be suppressed. And all the evidence that was accumulated by the acts of practices and transactions of Nathan Wade should be suppressed and not be permitted to be used as evidence in the case. Well, one of our listeners on Rumble said, what good does it do to get rid of Wade but not his work?

None. This is a prophylactic – it's like putting a Band-Aid on a gashing wound. I mean, that's the problem with this. The taint here, Harry, is real, and the judge acknowledges it when he talks about the odor of man-dacity remains in this case. Absolutely. And so the judge has exhibited extreme weakness, and Andy is absolutely correct. Judge McAfee simply allows evidence infected by the appearance of impropriety to remain in the case. And so that evidence should now be removed, and a motion to suppress such evidence should be allowed, and that would require Fannie Willis, if she remains as the DA in this particular case, she must restart her investigation, and she should not be allowed to rely on tainted evidence. There's another quote in this opinion – I'm going to get to your phone calls in one moment here – that is worth reading. An outsider could reasonably think that the district attorney is not exercising her independent professional judgment totally free of any compromising influences. I mean, you write that, and then you get the wrong conclusion.

That's what's so absurd. Jonathan's calling from North Carolina on Line 2. Jonathan, go ahead, you're on the air. Good afternoon, guys.

You guys are kind of hitting on my question. If she chooses to remove Wade, will her office be able to continue prosecuting the case? Will she have to get a new prosecutor to come in, or will she be able to continue? No, the office would not be removed.

That's what the judge is saying. If Fannie Willis makes the election to take herself out of the case, the whole office is out. There's no way she's going to do that. So she fires Wade. Then her office can continue. Does she hire a new special counsel?

Maybe, Andy. I mean, she has the right to. She's got 150 lawyers in the office she can use. It's a big office.

The Fulton DA's office is the biggest office in the state. Or she can go outside and hire a special assistant DA, like she did with Nathan Wade from the private bar in Georgia, former prosecutor, former defense attorney. She's not, you know, hampered by not having Wade. Well, she may be in other ways, but she wouldn't be hampered in prosecuting her criminal case without him. The one thing I will say, though, that makes no sense to me, Harry, is I, you know, with due respect to the judge, you cannot write the odor of Mandacity stays and the appearance, sufficient evidence of appearance of impropriety and not remove the district attorney who's ultimately responsible for the odor and the appearance of impropriety. I think you're absolutely correct. And one of the things that the judge has done with his opinion is he has impeached himself, raising the question whether or not he is competent to remain on the bench.

This is basically, inarguably, an incoherent opinion. It really is. I'm going to go ahead and grab another phone call. Christine's calling from New Jersey on Line 3.

If you want to talk to us, 800-684-3110. Christine? Yes.

Hi, I have a quick question. I personally think that the judge has compromised in the whole situation. I don't know why he didn't excuse himself. I'm under the impression and was told that he had a fundraiser for Fannie Willis.

Just curious if this is true. Yeah, I think he did. I think he supported her financially.

They don't remember. Judges in Georgia do not run on a party basis, so what he did was not illegal or unauthorized. He worked in that office with Fannie Willis at some point early in his career. He's only 34 years old. I think the judge has got it wrong, really wrong. Whether that goes to the level of recusal, probably not. But the judge himself, this decision is ridiculous.

It's a juvenile decision. I'm going to say it. Can I say what I said before? I'm going to say what I said.

This is absurd. You're charging the former President of the United States and other very well-known lawyers in Georgia with some crazy RICO theory. You engaged in what the court has now found sufficient evidence of the appearance of impropriety.

The judge goes on to say there's an odor of mendacity surrounding this case. And you don't hold the district attorney who's responsible for both the appearance of impropriety and the odor from the case? And you give her the option of how she'd like to resolve it? Fire your assistant or fire yourself. What do you think she's going to do?

So, you know, go ahead and fire your assistant or just fire yourself. But the reality is, we know what's going to happen, is Wade's out. But is the evidence that he collected out?

I doubt it. Are we in a situation where now we're seeing, or we will see, this unfolding of taint of this entire process and makes the country more concerned about these unbelievable anti-irregularities? Well, you know, Jay, it's disquieting and disappointing to see a judge take the position where you think, as you read the opinion, he's getting it right, he's getting it right. There's an odor of mendacity, there's an appearance of impropriety, the criminal justice system is at stake, the integrity of the entire process is in the balance. They did the wrong thing and every time, splitting the money and so forth, and you're waiting to see the end result and yet the judge fails you in the end because of a lack of courage on his part and because he's looking at the political realities of Fulton County. And I'm going to say it, it's very sad that that is the case. I think it's a bad day for the justice system, it's a bad day for Fulton County, it makes these counties look like they're operating in third world countries. That's the problem with all of this. The taint on all of this, the impropriety, the appearance of impropriety, the odor of mendacity hanging over the proceedings, but don't worry, we're going to let the DA who created all this mess make a decision on how she'd like to proceed. You lost, but you get to make the decision.

That's what's so absurd here. But again, this is the reason why we fight on so many issues. As we've been mentioning for the last two weeks, we are now in the middle of our life and liberty drive here at the ACLJ and as we continue to witness the left's weaponization of the justice system to attack their political rivals, the ACLJ continues to fight back.

But we can only do that through your support and your help. Right now we are preparing to defend the Constitution by filing a brief at the Supreme Court in the Trump immunity case. That is due Tuesday. We're fighting the two-tiered system of justice to defend the FBI whistleblowers.

Our next brief on that one is due April 3rd. We're battling with now 19 cases against the Biden deep state and that's because we're filing today a federal cause of action against the State Department over the issue of funds from the State Department being given to UNRRA, the United Nations Relief Agency, with the knowledge that UNRRA was aiding and abetting Hamas. Please support these battles with us now during our life and liberty drive. Any amount you donate is doubled at ACLJ.org and if you're able, please become an ACLJ champion. We started this campaign for champions with about 15,000. Our goal is to get to almost 30,000 in the next 12 to 18 months. First goal coming up is 20,000 and I'm happy to say we are only 162 short of our goal. If you can be one of those 162 champions, we would really appreciate it.

Those are champions who fight alongside us each and every month. If you can make a one-time gift only, that's absolutely fine too. Go to ACLJ.org to have your gifts doubled now. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jay Sekulow. Hey, welcome back to the broadcast everyone.

If you're watching on any of our social media apps, YouTube, Facebook, Grumble, Twitter, we encourage you to share the feed with your friend and make sure you're subscribing. We've got a lot of new people that are watching here. We've got calls coming in. So McAfee said basically, hey Fannie Willis, district attorney, we think your case has the appearance of impropriety.

We think there's an odor of mendacity which is lying surrounding the case. But you get to make the decision of whether you go or Wade goes. If Wade goes, your office can stay in. If you go, the whole office goes out. So guess what? Wake up America, what's going to happen there? She's going to say Wade goes.

Then she'll disappoint some other friend of hers. So this has raised a whole host of questions and we are getting a lot of questions coming in at 1-800-684-31. Tell them to go right to the phones. Terry is calling from Missouri on line four. Terry, go ahead.

Yes, sir. My question is did the judge not potentially just taint the jury by allowing her to remain on the case but saying there's impropriety? So it's interesting you said that. The judge obviously thought about that issue because that's a really good question you raised and he wrote this. The case is too far removed from the jury selection to establish a permanent taint of the jury pool as best it can divine under the sole direction of Williams. That's a case the court cannot find that this speech crossed the line to the point where the defendants have been denied the opportunity of a fundamentally fair trial where that requires the district attorney's disqualification. Meanwhile, Harry, he said, there's an odor of untruthfulness around the case and the appearance of impropriety at the same time that there's no basis to throw her out.

Absolutely. So it's important also to remember that for a conflict of interest to exist, it means that there is evidence that one of the parties acquired a personal interest or a personal stake in the defendant's conviction. And there is indeed evidence on the record showing that Fannie Willis had a personal stake in the defendant's conviction and then this is compounded by evidence of mendacity. So irrespective of whether or not the jury pool has been tainted by her speech, I think it is clear that there is an appearance of impropriety and the judge failed to do the right thing. And the judge says in the opinion that, you know, the speech she gave doesn't taint the jury pool, but it was still legally improper. Providing this type of public comment creates dangerous waters for the district attorney to wade further into. I don't get it, Andy, what this judge is doing. Well, I don't either. I mean, you know, he goes, he starts out like he's going to do the right thing and then he turns around and does what I think is the wrong thing.

But I mean, I don't, I can't read the tea leaves too much, but I am concerned about the outcome of the case and I think when you talk about the jury pool, you don't know that until you actually select the jury and during voir dire, an examination of the individual jurors as to whether or not anything that may have happened has tainted their opinion of the guilt or innocence of the accused. So that is down the road. But this is a, this is a case that, you know, is, is, uh, it stinks.

He says it stinks, but he's not doing anything about the stink. I'm going to tell you this and what we're going to do. We have a lot of callers coming in, so we were going to hit a couple other topics, but we are going to do a take your phone calls.

But let me encourage you to do this, folks. Um, at the American center for long, we're in our halfway point, uh, exactly today, actually of our life and Liberty challenge. And, and you know, the cases that we're involved in, whether that is making sure your right to vote was protected in the 14th amendment case, by the way, we're expecting a second order in that case, although we want already nine to zero at the Supreme court. If we check the originalist will we have nothing yet that'll probably come out this afternoon or Monday on our separate appeal there. Um, the less weaponization of the justice systems, what we've been talking about for the last hour, we're preparing to defend the constitution. We're filing an amicus brief on the immunity issue next week. On Tuesday, we filed fighting the two tiered system of justice with those whistleblowers that's on April 3rd. We now have 19 cases against the Biden deep state. And we're filing a federal lawsuit today against the state department, excuse me, over the issue of funds from the state department being given money to UNRRA with the knowledge that UNRRA was aiding and abetting Hamas.

So you're supporting these battles. Your gift will be doubled at ACLJ.org. And if you can become an ACLJ champion, which is someone that stands with us each and every month, it makes a huge difference. Started our campaign in October with 15,000.

We are just 162 short of 20,000 champions. Go to ACLJ.org. Back with more in a moment. So judge McAfee's ruling basically is only one potential liar. And that's what he calls him. He said the odor of mendacity can prosecute a case you can't have two. You can have one, but not two.

And the one could be the district attorney who started all this, who you would think would be responsible. We're taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. Let me talk to the folks that are watching on our social media feeds, whether it's X, Twitter or Facebook or YouTube or Rumble. There are a lot of you watching right now, and some of you are probably new to this broadcast and new to the ACLJ. Let me encourage you to subscribe, hit like as well, and also share this feed with your friends.

It makes a big difference. So we want you to do that, whether it's Rumble, YouTube or X or ATA. You may be watching on ACLJ.org on our website as well. Let's go right back to the phones. Let's go to Bob who's calling in on Line 1. Bob, go ahead.

Thank you. Since we know the proper signification of this word mendacity would be a disposition to lie or habitual lying, if Fannie Willis decides to continue a case that has the odor of mendacity, could the judge please explain how the continuation with her would not multiply that? Let me say something, and I agree with you 100%, Bob.

I'm going to let Harry comment on this, but I'm going to say something very direct here. This judge is way over his head, okay? He's been out of law school probably 8 or 10 years.

This was just on the bench new, and he made a big mistake, and I know he's supposed to be conservative, and I get all that, but you can't say the person's lying under oath and has an odor of mendacity in the case, and what you said at the church was legally improper, and then say you could still prosecute the former President of the United States. Judge, what were you thinking? You're thinking about your election coming up, I'm afraid. That's the reality.

Harry? Well, I think you're absolutely correct. So first, there is an odor of mendacity. Secondly, what Fannie Willis said at the church was legally improper, but third, you don't even have to go that far in order to disqualify. So the judge on page 13 quotes Federalist number 78, thus, it is sometimes the case that an attorney guiltless in any actual sense nevertheless is required to stand aside for the sake of what?

Public confidence in the probity of the administration of justice. This is a clear cut case that applies to that particular rule. So the judge had several bases for disqualifying Fannie Willis, but could not find any sufficient basis to disqualify her and the fruit of the poisonous tree in this particular case. So instead, the judge says the case against the defendants can indeed proceed. All that Fannie Willis has to do is to make a choice, either disqualify herself or disqualify Wade. The choice was actually up to the judge, not to Fannie Willis. This is exactly right, Harry.

This is exactly correct. Andy, your thoughts? Let me tell you this also. We've got people on the line. Hang on the line. We're opening up some phone lines, 1-800-684-3110. If you've got any questions, you want to talk to us.

Andy? Yeah, I mean, what Harry said, I was nodding my head in agreement, vigorously. The choice is the judge's. The decision is the judge's. The ruling is to be made by the judge. You've abrogated your responsibility as a Superior Court judge, and you've said, I don't have the courage to rule on this thing the way I need to, because I'm running for re-election in Fulton County, and it's heavily Democratic, and I'm a young, white Republican judge, so I'm scared. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to say, here, Fannie, you decide. You want to stay in the case? Fine, wonderful. Stay in your whole office.

150 strong lawyers can prosecute the President and the former mayor of New York and the former Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the House and everybody else. We only just get rid of your boyfriend, that's all, and that will remove the odor of mendacity. What about your own odor of mendacity? Does that leave too, Fannie? No, it stays with you.

So, basically, it stays with you throughout the case. The judge made a huge mistake here. Evelyn's calling from Texas on Line 6. Evelyn, go ahead, you're on the air.

Hi, yes, thank you for what you guys do, and I watch your daily. Andy stole my comment just before the break, in that the odor of mendacity says that it stinks, but the judge is not willing to do anything to clear out the stink. It's just going to stay stinky. Well, exactly. I mean, and even Ellie Honig from CNN, this is bite number 24, take a listen. Any one of these statements by a judge would be a career ender for a normal prosecutor. To have an on-the-record finding that there are reasonable questions about whether you lied under oath, that would be devastating.

And we'll see what the political effects will be. The bottom line, the DA survives, but not without serious bruising. Serious bruising is not enough here. She needed to be removed from the case for what she did.

Period. Let's go to Sandra's calling from North Carolina. We're taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110. Again, those of you watching on any of our social media feeds, please subscribe and share it with your friends. We've got literally thousands and thousands and thousands of you watching right now. We encourage you to do that. Hi, Sandra.

Hello. Can't they appeal this and can't Kemp as the governor that he sees as corruption here, can he not fire her? Okay, so those are good questions. I'm gonna let Andy answer them who knows more than Georgia law. Let's start with the appeal. It's a discretionary appeal.

It's not a mandatory grant. Right, because this is a ruling during the pendency of the case and it's not a final ruling, Sandra. There is no absolute right to an appeal. The judge could say, I'll let you take an appeal, but then you go to the court of appeals and even the court of appeals has discretion to hear the appeal or not. So the likelihood is, in my opinion, that the three-judge panel of the Georgia court of appeals, if it went to them, would probably not hear the case. Secondly, the governor cannot remove her because she has not been disqualified by a superior court judge. The governor doesn't. The governor in Georgia is the source from which all manner floweth, but not that much. So no to that.

There's no doubt in my mind that she will stay on the case and she's gonna fire Wade and basically Wade becomes the fall person on this. We're taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110, 800-684-3110. I do need to say this. This is why the fight for justice is something you gotta keep going and you gotta keep fighting. And that's whether it's in the US Supreme Court where we fought for your right to vote for the candidate of your choice on ballots across the country. It started out in Colorado. A month later we were dealing with 15 cases. We won that 9-0. The second part of that case is at the Supreme Court right now.

Order probably coming out this afternoon or tomorrow, or excuse me, Monday. That's why we're filing a brief in the immunity case because Presidents have to have limited Presidential immunity for official acts or they cannot be able to make decisions. That's why we're defending whistleblowers.

So all of this work that goes on is to defend the constitutional republic that we want to leave to our children and to our grandchildren. And you think about that. This disappointing part to me in the decision was the judge making findings of fact of lying and impropriety and the appearance of impropriety and then does nothing. And says, well, Fannie, you'd make the decision. You could stay in if you want and you get to try the case or you can get rid of Wade and you make the call. And then he said what she said was improper, legally improper, which by the way, that's not even a legal standard, legally improper. You mean unlawful, a violation of the law? This is where this judge is young and inexperienced.

But I could say that because I've been doing this for 44 years. But I will tell you, very poorly written decision, wrong conclusion. If he would have said, listen, I listened to the evidence and I didn't find that there was an appearance of impropriety and I don't think anybody was lying, that would be his call. He was the trier of fact. But he doesn't. He says, no, all these things were wrong. All these things were the odor of mendacity surrounding the case. She made statements that were still legally improper, but I'm letting her stay in there and warning her, be careful, you better not do it again.

But this is exactly the reason why we fight. Now we're taking your calls when we come back from the break at 1-800-684-3110. Our phone lines are jammed now. They'll open up a little during the breaks here.

1-800-684-3110. If you're watching on social media, share with your friends. As we've been mentioning for the last two weeks, we are now in the middle of our life and liberty drive here at the ACLJ. And as we continue to witness the left's weaponization of the justice system to attack their political rivals, the ACLJ continues to fight back.

But we can only do that through your support and your help. Right now we are preparing to defend the Constitution by filing a brief at the Supreme Court in the Trump immunity case. That is due Tuesday. We're fighting the two-tiered system of justice to defend the FBI whistleblowers. Our next brief on that one is due April 3rd. We're battling with now 19 cases against the Biden deep state.

And that's because we're filing today a federal cause of action against the State Department over the issue of funds from the State Department being given to UNRRA, the United Nations Relief Agency, with the knowledge that UNRRA was aiding and abetting Hamas. Please support these battles with us now during our life and liberty drive. Any amount you donate is doubled at ACLJ.org.

And if you're able, please become an ACLJ champion. We started this campaign for champions with about 15,000. Our goal is to get to almost 30,000 in the next 12 to 18 months. First goal coming up is 20,000, and I'm happy to say we are only 162 short of our goal. If you can be one of those 162 champions, we would really appreciate it.

Those are champions who fight alongside us each and every month. If you can make a one-time gift only, that's absolutely fine, too. Go to ACLJ.org to have your gifts doubled now. Hey, welcome back to the broadcast, everyone.

Taking your calls 800-684-3110. Simon on YouTube wrote, does the fact that she says stays on this, could that actually work better for the defendants as they can fall back on the words of the judge about her conduct? I think no, Andy. No, I don't think so at all.

I don't think that the judge's comments in an order in a case can ever be used in the trial in chief. I don't either. Mark is calling from California. He's online, too.

Hi, Mark. He's listening on YouTube. Jay, I appreciate the comments you guys make.

They're always accurate and concise. I'm interested in what happens to the four cases that have already been pleaded out, like Sidney Powell and the other three defendants. Do those get re-litigated, or what's your opinion on that? I think those pleas are good. Those pleas are valid.

If she would have been thrown off the case and a new DA came in and said, hey, we're not going to proceed, then I think they could have gone in and gotten their pleas revoked because it was under a false pretense. But that's not happened here, so no, it doesn't affect any of that. Let's go over to Mike who's calling from Washington. He's listening on Rumble. Mike, go ahead.

You're on the air. Yeah. What I'm about to say is probably ridiculous, but if this is how our justice system, our judicial system works today, I think they should call up Donald Trump and give him the option to decide how he wants things to be handled going forward because that's kind of what they're doing with Fannie Willis, isn't it? Well, I think worse than Fannie Willis's case. He's been found guilty of an impropriety law, what the judge called legally improper and the appearance of impropriety. And you're supposed to have the legal system, Harry, is supposed to be above approach, especially the criminal justice system.

That is not what you have here. I think you're precisely correct. So the Supreme Court and the judge notes this, that disqualification due to an appearance of impropriety should rarely occur where there is no danger that the actual trial or of the case will be tainted. Here the judge notes affirmative evidence that the trial has already been tainted and there is a clear and present danger of future taint.

Nonetheless, this particular judge lacks the courage, in my opinion, to disqualify Fannie Willis. Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. Melissa's calling. She's calling from Connecticut. She's watching on ACLJ.org. Melissa, go ahead.

You're on the air. Thanks, Jay, to you and your team for all you do. If Fannie fires Wade, then what happens to all the money that he was paid?

Interesting question. He would say it was earned at the time. He gets it. He keeps it. $658,000 plus whatever expenses he got. He earned it. He billed the county. Fulton County paid for it.

Fannie Willis approved the payments. It's his money. End of story. End of story.

I think that's right. This decision, this judge, is an absolute total fiasco in my view. And I'm not going to try to sugarcoat it. I mean, he's a young guy and he's been practicing law about eight or ten years, and I don't know how many cases he tried. But this decision that he thinks is like the wisdom of Solomon is ridiculous. They were legally improper, what was lawfully unlawful, what they did legally improper, but still it was legally improper, he says.

There's at least an appearance of impropriety, which is the judicial standard, but I'm going to give the person that lied, who created the odor of mendacity around the case, the decision on which way to go. You know, you figure that one out, folks. Allen's calling from Texas. He's watching on YouTube. Allen, go ahead.

Yes, sir. I'm calling to ask why nobody has addressed the fact of something called malicious prosecution against Trump. This guy gets arrested and charged in search warrants, arrest warrants, one after another after another after another. It's obvious what they're doing.

Is that not against the law in this country anymore? Well, malicious prosecution would be, and they've made a series of motions, motions to dismiss. Now, all of them have not been raised yet because the situation with Fawnee Willis kind of came out of nowhere, so there's going to be a whole series of additional motions, Fawnee.

Yes, there will be. I don't know that it's reached the level of malicious prosecution that is absolutely, utterly, totally baseless. I think the RICO allegations and the RICO thing is ridiculous, and the expert witness who they got I don't think is really thinking right when he advises them that there's a racketeering case here. But because the judge has ruled on certain motions and dismissed them, and they're going to probably be re-indicted, I think that there is some sort of an aura of legitimacy to the prosecution. That remains to be seen.

Other motions are going to be filed. Nadine is calling from Georgia on Line 4. Nadine, go ahead. You're on the air.

Hi, Jay. Thank you. I've been following you since Virginia when you were on CBN. Also, you're welcome.

Thank you for what you guys do. I just wanted to make a comment that this is reminiscent of Comey and HRC, and now her and Biden is just a continuation of how corrupt our system is. You know, we talked about it was a Comey-like decision. There was all these violations of the law, but then the nevertheless comes. Nevertheless, we're not going to prosecute, which wasn't even Comey's decision to make, by the way. That's another story. But here you had the same thing. Improper, still legally improper, appearance of impropriety, odor of mendacity surrounds the case, and yet the judge doesn't do the right thing, Harry.

I think you're right. So here we have proof of corruption. We have proof of impropriety.

We have a clear and unmistakable situation where there is the appearance of impropriety, but at the end of the day, there are no real consequences with respect to the DA. It makes no sense. Harry, I'm watching some of the comments that come in, and one of them is from a person in Fulton County saying, and our taxpayer dollars are paying for this, Andy? My taxpayer dollars are paying for it. That makes me even angrier.

I live in Fulton County. I'm not happy. All right, Michael, very quickly, go ahead.

You're on the air. Yeah, I was just saying that my angle is that it seems like there's no honest judge in the United States of America at this point, because you have even Eileen Cannon in Florida who's quoted the H.E.R. document and said there's no real case here, but we're going to go forward anyway. And with Fannie Willis, there wasn't just the appearance of impropriety, there was perjury, at least the appearance of perjury.

This is crazy. Here's the thing, I'm not going to besmirch Judge Cannon because she's still got two motions that are pending before her, but I will tell you this, some of these decisions from some of these courts have been, I will agree, outrageous. And that's why we won at the Supreme Court 9-0 against the decision out of the Colorado Supreme Court, which was nonsense. That's why I believe we'll win the immunity case if the Presidents, I know what we're arguing, we're arguing for a limited Presidential immunity for official acts only. If they will limit it to that, I think they can win.

If they go for this, the President could do anything at any time and order the assassination of a political opponent, and the answer to that has to be no. That's not an official act. So all of that takes place. That's why we're engaged in these cases. I know it's frustrating, folks, but that's why you got to have tenacity to stand through that, and that's why we are fighting back. As we've been mentioning for the last two weeks, we are now in the middle of our life and liberty drive here at the ACLJ, and as we continue to witness the left's weaponization of the justice system to attack their political rivals, the ACLJ continues to fight back.

But we can only do that through your support and your help. Right now, we are preparing to defend the Constitution by filing a brief at the Supreme Court in the Trump immunity case. That is due Tuesday. We're fighting the two-tiered system of justice to defend the FBI whistleblowers.

Our next brief on that one is due April 3rd. We're battling with now 19 cases against the Biden deep state, and that's because we're filing today a federal cause of action against the State Department over the issue of funds from the State Department being given to UNRRA, the United Nations Relief Agency, with the knowledge that UNRRA was aiding and abetting Hamas. Please support these battles with us now during our life and liberty drive. Any amount you donate is doubled at ACLJ.org, and if you're able, please become an ACLJ champion. We started this campaign for champions with about 15,000. Our goal is to get to almost 30,000 in the next 12 to 18 months. First goal coming up is 20,000, and I'm happy to say we are only 162 short of our goal. If you can be one of those 162 champions, we would really appreciate it. Those are champions who fight alongside us each and every month. If you can make a one-time gift only, that's absolutely fine too. Go to ACLJ.org to have your gifts doubled now.
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-03-15 14:43:23 / 2024-03-15 15:04:00 / 21

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime