BREAKING NEWS: Trump's Lawyer Ruthlessly Lays Out Case To Disqualify Fani Willis From Georgia Case

I'm going to speak to what I would call

a subset of forensic

misconduct and I'm going to

assume that all the law that's been

provided to you in leadings as well as

emails you know you don't need me to

tell you what the law is so I want to

just set up how the disqualification and

then dismissal of the indictment should

take place under the subset of forensic

next

conduct Roman's Council this Merchant

filed on January 8th her pleading her

motion to dismiss and to

disqualify we were in

court that Friday of that week in which

I made it known that we that is

President Trump May adopt that motion I

waited to see wanted to see what was

going to happen before I did so

that Sunday which would be January the

14th

2024 da Willis took it upon herself to

go

to a historic black church in Atlanta

having not responded at all to the

motion of Miss Merchant's client Roman

and she made what we've now called The

Church speech and your honor has

reference to that

uh you didn't necessarily want evidence

on that but you know what the church spe

Church speech was it was videoed it was

clear that Miss uh Willis had notes she

was reading from notes that she had

prepared it was a calculated

determination by Miss Willis to

Prejudice the defendants and their

councel how so by making an issue out of

the fact that the person that was

challenged in the Roman motion

was black without telling the public or

the church members or anyone for that

matter that the reason that

Mr uh Wade was being challenged was not

because he was black had nothing to do

with race it had to do with the

relationship that had been alleged and

later admitted to

by Miss

Merchant Miss Willis took full

opportunity

to Prejudice the

defendant and then comes along later in

a pleading and says it wasn't designed

or intended to be at the defendants at

all or the defense Council which with

all due respect is just nonsense the

purpose of that was to get public

sympathy public empathy for what Miss

Merchant had already alleged in her

motion now that was a violation of the

professional rules of conduct it was a

violation of

3.8

G

there's no question about it it wasn't

in response to anything that was said it

was a public statement extrajudicial for

the purpose of making a comment upon the

defendant what would it would be in

response to a motion that was filed but

it wasn't filed in a response in a

pleading it was filed in response to a

motion and the motion were allegations

made as I if this will is wanted to

respond at that point she could have

said the facts of the matter instead she

misstated what the the situation was

took advantage of the

opportunity an ethical violation and the

ethical violation makes it clear that

you must refrain from making extra

judicial comments that have a

substantial likelihood of heightening

public condemnation of the accused can

you think of anything more that would

heighten public condemnation of the

defendants than alleging

that defense Council and the defendants

were making their motion based on race

and

religion that's as bad as it gets in

Folton County with all due respect

that's exactly that's exactly what Miss

Willis wanted done and remember the

state still had not

responded so then what we get from the

state is we get an affidavit filed as

part of their response

and that affidavit says

specifically and the affidavit is Mr

Wade says

specifically in paragraphs 26 and

27 that the relationship did not begin

until

2022 it acknowledges relationship and

says it didn't begin until

2022 and the pleading that's filed the

states pleading a response indicates not

exactly that but it says there was no

relationship as of November 1 of 2021

and that's on page

seven so now we know that timing is the

issue because this

Merchant made it clear that we alleged

and had evidence that that indicated the

timing was before Mr Wade was hired not

after so the state now has filed an

affidavit and a leading that claims post

hiring into

2022 and then Mr Wade will US testify to

the same thing under

oath now miss yti says it began in 2019

why would she know well she would know

because she was a former friend I know

the state's going to get up here and say

you can't believe essentially what

they're going to say is you can't

believe any defense witness because

they're defense Witnesses and only

people that would tell the truth would

be way and Willis I suggest to you that

that's not accurate I suggest that the

testimony that M Mr Wade gave and M

Willis gave and I'm specifically dealing

now with the timing issue without

getting into anything else that

that brought forth a true concern about

their truthfulness and being what is

required of a lawyer in this

state which is cander toward the

tribunal and that's 3.3 of professional

rules specifically um small A1 make a

false statement of material fact or law

to a

tribunal so that's as I posited it to

the court that's the second ethical

violation and then you also

have 8.4 of of professional rules it

says it's a violation of the Georgia

rules of professional conduct for lawyer

2 and that's A4 or engaged in a

professional conduct involving

dishonesty fraud deceit or

misrepresentation now do you have to

find that Wade and Willis lied no what

you need to be able to find is that

there is a concern a legitimate concern

based on the evidence in this case about

their truthfulness a legitimate concern

about the truthfulness which equates to

an appearance of

impropriety because once you have the

appearance of impropriety under forensic

misconduct the law in Georgia is clear

that's

enough to

disqualify so why should you find

there's a

concern with their

truthfulness ERT is the first one you

have that testimony but then we go to

what is the most obvious

indication that Willis and

Wade we not truthful on the point of

timing and that's

Bradley defense exhibit 26 came into

evidence defense exhibit 26 comes in and

says and you know I went into this last

hearing it

says that on January 5th

2024 at approximately 9:49 a.m. there's

text messages that are exchange between

Miss Merchant and Mr Bradley and the

text messages go like just date and

that's for Miss Merchant Miss Merchant

says do you think it started before she

hired him Bradley who we now know from

defense exhibit 39 has been texting with

Miss Merchant for a number of months

this is not the first time this is

months within the the communications

between the two Mr Bradley says

absolutely now absolutely is not a

speculative word that's not speculation

that's a definitive

statement and Bradley then

unprompted as this and unprompted is

important it started when she left the

DA's office and was a judge in South

Fulton goes on Miss Merchant says or he

she liked it started when she left the

DA's office with the

appropriate um Emoji or whatever one

would call it to say it was liked and

then M Bradley Mr Bradley say they met

at the Municipal Court clle conference

again unprompted he's now definitively

telling Miss Merchant when this

relationship

started Miss Merchant says that's what I

figured when he was married and then

this Merchant says and we're now talking

about a couple hours later

she texts and says upon information and

belief Willis and Wade met while both

were serving as magistrate judges and

began a romantic relationship at that

time and Mr Bradley responds no

Municipal Court thank you doesn't say it

didn't start then he doesn't suggest

that she's wrong other than magistrate

court minicipal now we have that and

it's in evidence and what does Bradley

do he knows that he's put himself in a

position that if he testifies truthfully

on the witness

stand your honor is in a position to be

able to

find if you choose to that both ws and

weade lied so what does Bradley

do look you were an assistant us

attorney you know how this works when

you have witnesses in this situation Mr

Bradley did everything he could possibly

do to evade answering questions no

recollection couldn't remember it was

speculation anything he could possibly

say that would cause your

honor not to believe that Bradley knew

when this relationship started I suggest

they were clear-cut lies and the truth

is in defense exhibit 26 and so if we

take that view that he thoroughly

impeached himself that he did not give

truthful

conduct uh you know what's left standing

generally you would see someone who's

impeach be have perhaps we have some

kind of core that you could point back

to and say that's the time he was

telling the truth in these text messages

is it ever definitively shown how he

knew this and that he actually did know

it other than an just a assertion

outright absolutely usually if a state

has a witness that goes sideways they've

got them locked in they've sat down with

a detective got a full state statement

we don't have that here but what you

have is a text message which is a prior

statement of

Bradley that he did on his own that was

not given to him by someone else the

only thing that the court is just noted

is how do we know he wasn't speculating

because you don't have to accept the

fact that he wasn't speculating the

cases that I provided I think by email

yesterday the first um dealing with that

you can disbelieve that testimony and

draw a negative inference that's the

Ferguson case on Lee the other case you

can simply take the prior inconsistent

statement as substan of evidence it has

the same value and that's what I'm

asking you to do to take what was the

unprompted statement in defense exhibit

26 of Bradley and take that on its face

face value that that is an indication

that Bradley in fact knew and had said

he did if you accept

that you have to have concerns about the

truthfulness of Willis and Wade on the

timing issue and and I don't know if

this is something maybe one of your

co-counsel were going to address as well

we heard about kind of the law that

applies how we're we're outside kind of

the orbit of of the core of cases we're

used to dealing with here where it deals

with side switching or uh where someone

is in the uh relationship the client

relationship the proposition you're

putting forward now is that if a

representative of the state a lead

prosecutor of the district attorney

themselves um says something that's

untruthful on the record that is

something that immediately has to be

proactively policed by the trial court

is basically what I'm getting at is

where in the law do we find the remedy

to an untruthful statement

generally we send you down the street to

the bar right and that's why I gave you

the cases of registe and Edwards

yesterday while those aren't prosecut

torial cases or dealing with prosecutors

they deal with counsel and in both those

cases the trial judge found ethical

violations on the part

of defense counsil or potential ethical

violations went through the ethical

violations and said based on that you're

disqualified you cannot be the attorney

of record in this case it's good for the

goose it's good for the gander if

defense Council can be kicked off of a

case because of ethical violations I

suggest this same thing can happen for

prosecutors when ethical violations deal

with truthfulness cander to the court

extrajudicial

statement uh those are the things that

this court can rely upon and say based

on those again I find an appearance of

impropriety where where would be the

limiting principle uh the district

attorney signs every indictment assigned

to this courtroom does that mean she's

off every case no it would be when the

if I found that she's untruthful is that

what you're kind of suggesting though

you don't have to find again I'm not

saying you have to find she was

untruthful or that Wade was untruthful

you don't have to make a finding of fact

that they lied all you have to do is

make a finding of fact that you have

genuine legitimate concerns about their

credibility about their truthfulness and

once you find that then you can apply

registe and and uh Edwards well but it's

the same principle though if I have

genuine concerns about her truthfulness

on a particular occasion how do those

not spill over into every criminal case

a district attorney brings well it's

because she testified under oath and so

did Mr Wade they didn't have to testify

falsely they could have testified

truthfully they could have indicated

that the relationship the timing was in

fact before Mr Wade was hired they chose

not to and in that sense that dishonesty

that constitutes a violation of their

ethical responsibilities this is not

sign an indictment this is not filing a

pleading in which both sides have their

own positions this is a requirement that

every witness has to tell the truth

under oath and if they don't tell the

truth under oath or there's a

significant concern about their

credibility then they're violating their

ethical rules and as anyone will tell

you as your honor already knew from when

you were a prosecutor prosecutors are

held to a higher

standard they're the ones that are

supposed to be Seeking Justice they

don't have a particular they're supposed

to be

disinterested when you have the lead

prosecutor and the DA giving what I

suggest to you is

uh untruthful testimony based on what

Yer has said based on what Bradley said

in his text based on the whole way it

was presented to you Bradley didn't want

to testify he first came up with his

attorney client privilege thing on that

and your honor was fortunately went into

that and then when Bradley knew he had

to testify about it you saw what

happened you can draw the inference as

I've suggested on

Bradley that what he said in the text

message defense exhibit 26 is true the

relationship in fact started prior to

November 1st of 2021 that ER says that

and now without getting into any detail

the cell phone records the cell phone

records show that during that period of

time from let's say April 1 of 2021 to

November 1st I'm sorry November 30th of

2021 that there was a number a

considerable number of 35 or more um

occasions where it appeared that based

on the records that Mr Wade was down in

the area where Miss Willis was saying in

the A's

department but more important is there

are two occasions and the state has not

challenged challeng those there are two

occasions where the records

reflect that it appears Mr Wade spent

the night at that apartment the state

may say we don't accept that but they

didn't challenge it and even when they

brought forth what they brought forth

today supplemental two and three they

didn't challenge it again so what does

that suggest that's corroborating

evidence of what yere had said of what

Bradley said in his text message it's

all also impeachment evidence as to what

Wade and Willis said about how many

times is that a significant in terms of

just the the times didn't Mr way testify

that he was there at least 10 times

during that time frame you've now found

35 well minimum of 35 okay but never

overnight he said he never spent

overnight put that to the side though

just in terms of the fact that he did

say he'd been over there that he visited

the place uh and I presume he wasn't

obviously keeping a very good accounting

of it but he that wasn't something that

was

entirely denied I if you're asking me do

we win on the point that he said more

than 10 or around 10 and we say 35 do we

win on that point no okay it's not

determined the overnight might raise

some more concerns I understood yeah it

does and that's the reason why we

highlighted it in the Affidavit of Mr

midad because that is suggestive that

they were not being honest to the court

so

then how much time have I

used have I I'm letting them use the

hook so uh suggestive again raising

issues I'm wondering about burden uh is

it we're dealing with a preponderant

standard we are dealing with a

preponderant standard and it's our

burden no question about that so does

suggestive get us there no but it is

corroborating evidence of evidence that

we did put up and that's what the

purpose of the cell phone records They

corroborate what y said says they

corroborate what Bradley said in defense

exhib

26 and they impeach to that extent Wade

and wills's testimony so if you find by

a preponderance of the evidence so I can

finish this up if you find by a

preponderance of the evidence that my

what I call subset of forensic

misconduct ethical violations has been

shown and that there is a significant

and legitimate concern about the

truthfulness of Wade and

Willis they're disqualified

now obviously factual findings are yours

but the law allows you to do that you

don't have to do it through an actual

conflict that's the other side of the

equation and that's what I've argued and

I think that's what Mr gb's going to

argue before I let you go though uh this

is an interesting classification you're

saying forensic conduct isn't just com

commenting publicly about the case

indicating guilt you're saying forensic

conduct is just anything a district

attorney says falls into that box no I'm

I'm saying that improper foric

misconduct as a subset of that would

include violations ethical violations

which

impact the ability of the defendant to

get a fair trial as well as impact the

Court's ability to have faith that the

prosecutors these two prosecutors are

acting in good faith in their own

conduct same idea dealing with as I said

defense counsil in the two cases I

mentioned ethical violation

can give rise to disqualification and I

suggest we have that here all right

thank you Mr s thank you