Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee has allowed District Attorney Fani Willis to continue prosecuting former president Donald Trump’s Georgia election interference case … and Glenn has a few words for him. “I have never seen a clearer case of perjury,” Glenn says, after the world watched Fani Willis defend her relationship with her special prosecutor “friend.” Glenn warns that if this judge can ignore GPS evidence in this case, how many criminals will this allow to go free? But why did Judge McAfee issue this ruling in the first place? Is he a “coward” who is afraid of repercussions from the anti-Trump left?
TranscriptBelow is a rush transcript that may contain errors
All right. We just had some breaking news here.
STU: Yeah. We have our Fani decision.
Fani Wilson. Remember, the course, what was on the line was, is she going to leave? Is she going to be forced out, and they will have to find an entirely new situation, basically restart from scratch? Was what was on the line here.
GLENN: Because she perjured herself.
STU: Again, and this is, of course, the case against Donald Trump in Georgia. And the judge, Scott McAfee, has come out in a 23-page ruling issued.
He said that the defendants failed to meet their burden, in proving Willis' relationship with the special prosecutor, named Wade, was a conflict of interest.
Enough to merit her removal from the case. The judge did find an appearance of impropriety. And said, either Willis -- and her office may leave the case. Or wade must withdraw from the proceeding.
So basically, what will happen here is the dude will get fired. And she will be able to keep going. Now, this is not the a --
GLENN: That's unbelievable!
STU: That's incredible.
After what they've done.
GLENN: Have you ever seen a clear case of perjury?
STU: Everyone on earth knows she was lying. He was lying.
GLENN: There's no justice. There really is no justice. I mean, if you want to know highway African-Americans felt, in, you know, the 1930s, '40s, '50s, especially in the South?
Here it is! Here it is!
You can see it with your eyes. You hear the testimony, and you just know it's rigged. It's rigged.
Because there is no way, any reasonable person would come up with that.
STU: What do you mean, an appearance of impropriety?
How can I possibly think it's just an appearance of impropriety. Again, we talked about this in the beginning. If they had come out and said, look, Nathan wade is just the bad guy out there.
Yeah. I had an affair with him. He was an incredible man. I had to have a piece. But he's an incredible attorney. And I'll admit to everything. And I hired him because he's the best. Probably, they just skate. Instead, they decided to lie throughout the entire thing.
GLENN: Boldly.
STU: Boldly. The face of judge --
GLENN: It is not. You know, you can debate. Well, I made a mistake.
Well, I was -- no. They boldly took the stand.
Wanted to lie.
STU: And did lie.
GLENN: And did lie. Over and over.
STU: Over and over again.
GLENN: How?
STU: It was noted by the judge, that the situation was not proper. However, basically, they're just going to make him leave.
GLENN: Yes. But how does she stay?
Forget the relationship. How does she stay even an attorney, if she has perjured herself?
STU: Right. This is so far beyond the relationship. I barely cared about the story, when there was a relationship involved. Okay.
Whatever. But once she started lying on the stand, and he started lying on the stand, and it was proven. There is absolutely no way she should be in a position of power, and she certainly, and so should he, lose his law license.
There is no law. If attorneys can get away with that. None. None.
None.
STU: It's quite the statement. But it's hard to disagree with.
GLENN: Yes.
STU: They were overt in this. We all know. Just looking at this from a human perspective, we know they were all lying. They didn't go through a perjury trial. Right?
They didn't go through a bar hearing, where they had to fight for their license. They went through something that was -- a proceeding that was supposed to lean on this case. In this case, they will let her stay on. Obviously, that will be the choice she makes, by the way.
GLENN: But how? How?
How can the judge believe anything that she is presenting or saying, if the judge knows, she boldly, knowingly, lied in two other cases.
How?
STU: I certainly can't believe a word she's saying. I don't know how he can.
GLENN: I can't.
STU: It is incredible. And you would be right to look at this and say, this is seemingly very unfair.
I mean, I don't know how I can look at this, and say, anything other than, they -- look, they definitely want Donald Trump to get in legal trouble.
You know, there's no question about that. And if they don't -- if they keep Fani Willis on the trial, there's a chance these things come to fruition before the election. If they throw her off, basically it's over.
And they don't want that.
GLENN: A new study shows that what the Supreme Court doctrine that was the old doctrine created by the Supreme Court, allows 96 percent of private property, is open now to warrantless searches.
The DEA, in a completely other new story, shows that they had a surveillance program on Americans.
They have collected massive amounts of telephone records, for 20 years.
And it was shuttered, because of the Edward Snowden revelations in 2013. The inspector general has released a report heavily redacted.
And that has been released. That was released six years later. The Washington Examiner has just received a copy of it.
The office of inspector general exists to provide oversight of government agencies. Among the new details of the DEA program, is that it refused to comply with parts of the IG investigation, for seven months. And no one faced any consequences.
Can you trust inspector general reports anymore?
Can you trust that Congress even has oversight or even if they want to have oversight?
This, the country has broken down. And all of the problems that are happening, right now. Are because we've abandoned all of our principles.
Does it ever feel to you, let me take a break.
Let me just take a break. Sorry, we didn't expect that news broke, just as I was finishing that commercial.
STU: Let me give you a quick rundown of what their argument is. And what the judges argument is in this case, Glenn. Basically, they start out and go through -- reading through it, while you're talking.
Go through the idea of why weather she financially benefited from it first. Her argument was, we don't have proof of that. We don't know for sure.
They essentially bide the Fani Willis argument of number one, she already makes a bunch of money. She already doesn't have massive debts. She wasn't doing this purely for financial gain. They bought the idea that okay. She paid for one of these trips.
Which it does seem like she did one of the birthday trips that she mentioned many times. So it wasn't like -- and I sort of agree, right?
Like I think you do too. This isn't necessarily, entirely about, oh, we hired this guy, just so I could take trips.
Like, I don't think that's necessarily what happened.
GLENN: Right. It could have.
STU: I think they were broken up. They wanted to take trips. And it just happened to work out well.
I don't know if that's the primary reason.
It's more like, she wanted the guy she was sleeping with, to be close.
And that's a massive problem there. Let me give you this paragraph. This is after they basically say, look, there's issues there. But we can't prove that was her motivation.
Without sufficient evidence, that the district attorney acquired a personal stake in the prosecution, or that her financial arrangements had any impact on the case, the defendant's claims of an actual conflict must be denied. This finding is by no means an indication that the court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment. Or the unprofessional manor of the district attorney's testimony during the evidentiary hearing.
GLENN: Unprofessional.
STU: He's admitting that he knows, that she was lying, basically.
GLENN: That's not unprofessional. It's perjury.
STU: I would agree.
I mean, that's a separate. You don't necessarily get charged with it, in that way.
You would have to have a separate hearing on it. Still, it rises to that standard, to me.
He says, rather, it is the undersigned opinion, that the Georgia law, does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices, even repeatedly.
And it is the trial court's duty to confine itself to the relevant issues and lay brought before it.
Other forms or sources of authority, such as the general assembly -- he's giving a path here.
The general assembly. The Georgia state ethics commission. The state bar of Georgia.
The faulted county Board of Commissioners. Or the voters of Fulton county.
May offer feedback for any unanswered questions that linger. This is directly from the ruling.
But those are not the issues determined to the defendant's motions, alleging an actual conflict. So he's basically.
I think you can very fairly look at this. And say, he's being very challenged by a Jesse Jackson disciple. You can argue --
GLENN: Lose your job. Verify to lose -- what a coward.
STU: Well, he would deny it.
GLENN: Terrified to lose your job.
How dare you. Your job is a constitutional boast. And you're terrified -- what you know I'm terrified of?
I'm terrified of being shot and killed. I'm terrified of an out-of-control government, swooping in, and arresting my employees.
Or arresting me.
That's what I'm -- that's what I'm afraid of?
Okay. Plus, everything else that is going on, that I am worried about my family and my children.
How dare any of you judges be afraid that you'll lose your job. Boohoo. Cry me a river.
It is our Constitution and our country, that is at stake.
And none of this monologue has anything to do with Donald Trump. None of it.
We all know she perjured herself.
I don't care about the relationship. I don't care about the money.
The people of Georgia should. What I care about, more than even the case with Donald Trump, is that this woman perjured herself, and so did her boyfriend.
They knowingly, gleefully, wickedly perjured themselves. Over and over.
Neither of them, should have a law license today.
Neither of them!
STU: Allegedly. So we --
GLENN: Allegedly.
STU: Just trying to protect you from being sued. But, no. I think there is a standard here, where like, as a person who is a normal human being, looking at what they say, I -- I'm not a lawyer. I don't know every little in and out of what they're doing here.
We'll have the mom to talk about it. But it's to me, blatantly obvious. I said this 100 times.
No human being in history, has, actually, done the things they said they did.
Nobody.
And that is outside of the cell phone data. Where we know, she was there.
GLENN: I know. I know.
STU: Societies blatantly obvious to any human being.
GLENN: It is the cell phone data.
STU: Yeah.
GLENN: It is that. Forget about --
STU: They've addressed that.
GLENN: Et cetera, et cetera.
It is the cell phone GPS location, by triangulating the phones. That they know he was -- may not know he was in bed with her.
But I'm sure the CIA has some satellites that can see the heat of bodies through a ruse of houses.
STU: They can look through now and see through Wi-Fi, and see who is in the rooms.
GLENN: Exactly right. If -- if that triangulation does not hold up as evidence.
STU: To be fair, I don't think that's what he said.
I don't think he's saying the cell phone data doesn't hold up.
I think he's basically admitting, they had this relationship, and they were lying.
GLENN: Yeah. Wait.
So he can allow them to go on a case, when they shouldn't be. When they perjured themselves.
It's his court, as well as another courtroom.
STU: Again, I disagree with this ruling.
That's why I read that paragraph.
He's basically stating. I don't have the legal authority to do this on these grounds.
He's saying, these other institutions should be the ones doing this. They should be the ones disqualifying her. I can only act under the law, I have. At my behest right now.
Look, I tend to agree we strongly.
But that is his argument.
He says, he's limited by the law. It's not just -- you can't. If there was a financial aspect.
He could throw her off.
He said, I don't have the financial aspect locked down enough. Therefore, I can't do it.
GLENN: You have perjury.
One is fraud. The other is perjury. Under oath. By an officer of the court.
STU: I know.
GLENN: I got news for you, gang. If this is the way you can just go to court, you think any lawyer is not going to tell murderers, and everything else, exactly what to say?
No. No. No.
Change -- the change story a bit.
STU: Yeah. Stick to your story.
This is a Mafia tactic, right?
If the Mafia were to exist, this would be one of the tactics they would do.
GLENN: And of course we don't need any more enemies. And if they do exist, I love the mob.
STU: But I think that is real. All you have to do, and they proved that they talked.
They talked -- coordinate your story. That's basically what occurred here.
They -- they had a very similar story.
And like, again, I don't think -- I don't think Fani Willis was saying, hey. If I hired this guy, I would be able to go to Napa Valley, in six months.
I don't think that's the full motivation. To your point, a much greater violation has occurred.
They went in front of this judge, and blatantly lied in my view.
Over and over and over again.
And that doesn't --
GLENN: I mean, I just want to say, in your view, no. Let's follow the science.
GPS coordinates. That is not reliable technology.
STU: According to the GPS coordinates. And that's not reliable technology. To your point, there's a lot of criminals out on the street later today.
GLENN: Let me just say this real quick. Please, dear Jesus come. Or send us an astroid.
Because I can't take much more of this.