The political landscape is riddled with scandals, and at the heart of the latest controversy sits DA Fani Willis, whose hiring habits and ties are being called into question. I, Ryan Samuels, unravel the implications of her pre-charge meeting with Vice President Kamala Harris amidst the storm of her pressing charges against Donald Trump. The plot thickens as I throw the gauntlet down to Keith Olbermann following his incendiary tweet about dismantling the Supreme Court – a debate that promises to be as fiery as the rhetoric that sparked it. We're peeling back the layers of political machinations, from the questionable use of geo-fencing data to the revealing White House WAVE records that demand a stern look at transparency and accountability in our governing bodies.
Stakes are high in the world of political adversary investigations, and the Biden administration finds itself at the center of accusations of using legal indictments as political armament. As the curtain rises on DA Fani Willis's misconduct hearing, we're privy to salacious details and potential conflicts that threaten to upend the DA's office. Following the breadcrumb trail, I expose the scandalous beginnings of Ms. Merchant and Mr. Bradley's relationship, born within the DA's office and captured in a text exchange that could not be more revealing. It's an episode that doesn't just cast stones at the figures in the spotlight but calls into question the integrity of the hallowed institutions they inhabit. Join me, and let's navigate these treacherous political waters together.
The political landscape is riddled with scandals, and at the heart of the latest controversy sits DA Fani Willis, whose hiring habits and ties are being called into question. I, Ryan Samuels, unravel the implications of her pre-charge meeting with Vice President Kamala Harris amidst the storm of her pressing charges against Donald Trump. The plot thickens as I throw the gauntlet down to Keith Olbermann following his incendiary tweet about dismantling the Supreme Court – a debate that promises to be as fiery as the rhetoric that sparked it. We're peeling back the layers of political machinations, from the questionable use of geo-fencing data to the revealing White House WAVE records that demand a stern look at transparency and accountability in our governing bodies.
Stakes are high in the world of political adversary investigations, and the Biden administration finds itself at the center of accusations of using legal indictments as political armament. As the curtain rises on DA Fani Willis's misconduct hearing, we're privy to salacious details and potential conflicts that threaten to upend the DA's office. Following the breadcrumb trail, I expose the scandalous beginnings of Ms. Merchant and Mr. Bradley's relationship, born within the DA's office and captured in a text exchange that could not be more revealing. It's an episode that doesn't just cast stones at the figures in the spotlight but calls into question the integrity of the hallowed institutions they inhabit. Join me, and let's navigate these treacherous political waters together.
Hogs to win, see ya. Hey everybody, I want y'all to check out a fellow Marine's podcast.
Speaker 3:
My name is Ted Neuchat and I got a call from my buddy, ryan F Samuels, and he wants me to tell you that he's a working hard playing all American. Son of a who is celebrating God, family country.
Speaker 2:
Welcome to the Ryan Samuels show, one of the top political podcasts in the United States, where we have a healthy distrust for government and mainstream media. The Ryan Samuels show is a raw, unfiltered look at American politics. Follow on Facebook, twitter, youtube, rumble and all podcast platforms. Here is your host, ryan Samuels.
Speaker 4:
Hello patriots. We are here. We are back again and Fanny Willis continues to get spanked in the public eye and is now facing serious, serious misconduct allegations, and right now they are being brought before the Senate for a misconduct hearing into the way that she behaved with Mr Wade and hiring her boyfriend at $250 an hour, who was much less qualified than the two other white prosecutors that happened to be on the case. We're only paid $150. Interesting, I might add, but anyway, this is obviously good news for the Trump team. The evidence is piling up and we're gonna go over that, but before we do, last night I commented on Keith Ulberman's tweet. Let's just rehash what I had to say. Let's listen to what I said. Thing about removing Donald Trump through Congress right now.
Speaker 4:
Now we all remember Keith Ulberman, big MSNBC clown similar to Rachel Maddow. This is what he had to say the Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members, including Jackson, kagan and Sotomayor, have proved themselves inept at reading, comprehension and collectively, the court has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate. It must be dissolved, dissolving the Supreme Court of the United States, ulberman. You, sir, are a fucking moron. You're a trash pail. You've always been a trash pail. Dissolve the Supreme Court because they read section five and clearly you didn't. And then you accused them. I meant every word of that and I still think that Keith Ulberman is an absolute trash pail. I think that he is a garbage human being and I think that if he would like to be a man and come on this show and debate me, he's more than welcome to. But you know, mr Ulberman was so offended by my show last night that he blocked me on Twitter. So again, keith, you're a trash pail. You've always been a trash pail. You're a garbage reporter. You are a political hack who is useless to society and if you ever wanna come on to my show and talk to me face to face, I will destroy you, and you know it. You're invited anytime and I know you're gonna listen to this because you cannot help yourself.
Speaker 4:
Anyway, back to Fanny getting spanked. This conduct charge is absolutely just. It's completely been cooperated right, though Ashley Merchant is the attorney who took this and ran with it and investigated this. Has geo-fencing data. You know cell phone records of her and Mr Wade having the relationship before the case ever began, which is a problem because she hired her boyfriend at almost double the salary of the two other people on the trial who are much more qualified. Now, the other interesting thing that Ashley Merchant has disclosed is that Fanny Willis had a meeting with the Vice President of the United States, camilla Harris, before she filed the charges on Donald Trump. What are you doing, meeting with the Vice President of the United States right before you're about to File charges on their political opponent? Hmm?
Speaker 5:
Interesting. One of the other things I did was I did open records for the White House access and we had records that Ms Willis and the mayor of Atlanta were at meeting with the vice president.
Speaker 1:
Okay, and so this is the access history. How does that work? The White House keeps records of anybody that comes in as any kind of official meeting, for sure.
Speaker 5:
And my understanding is it's highly regulated who can access the White House, since you have to apply in person or apply ahead of time, and then they give you a time when you make the appointment, and they give you a time when you're allowed to be in and when you have to be out by, and they track you and I mean that makes sense. They don't want anybody, you know, lingering in the White House, but they keep that. And so these are called WAVE records I believe is what they're called, and I'm not sure what that's an acronym for, but they're publicly available, they're open records.
Speaker 1:
And this record that's shown on the screen shows Fannie Willis was a visitor with the POTUS. I presume that's vice president of the United States.
Speaker 5:
Yes, yes, it was.
Speaker 1:
And what was the date of that back in? Was that February, sometime of 23?
Speaker 5:
February 28, 2023.
Speaker 1:
Is that before the indictment?
Speaker 5:
Yes.
Speaker 1:
Okay, any further explanation of why Ms Willis was meeting with the vice president of the United States?
Speaker 5:
No, I know Dexter Bonson. I believe that's the same one that Mr Dickinson or Dickson, the mayor of Atlanta, was also there.
Speaker 1:
Good, we'll take a short break. We've been going at this for a while. Let's take a.
Speaker 4:
Why? Why is she meeting with the vice president of the United States? Now? This, all of this stuff is coming out and we did a show not too long ago about the Fannie Willis testimony and how she acted just like a petulant child who couldn't have their happy meal, their toy, before they ate their happy meal. And she has a look of fear in her eyes now because she knows the defense team was specifically asking her questions about dates and times that she met with Mr Waite and when he was over her house and how long he was at her house and what time he left, and she denied it, all Unbeknownst to her. They have both of their phone records with geo-offencing data tracking and location tracking, and they have them both together multiple times, not to mention over a thousand phone calls between each other before he ever even worked for her. So just look at her face she is petrified, she's shaking, her world is crumbling apart, and rightfully so.
Speaker 6:
And, mr Waite, he had never laid his head was the direct quote at that condo, which these records don't prove, that he laid his head anywhere, if you were to believe the analysis or if you were to give credence to what the non-experts said, mr Waite.
Speaker 4:
She knows she's done for. She's absolutely done for this committee hearing is going to blow up in her face whether the judge removes her from this case, which he absolutely should. I mean he absolutely should remove her from this case. At the end they did ask him. Both teams said that they wanted to submit more evidence the prosecution and the defense and the judge says I have all I need to know to make a decision Interesting. We'll see what that decision is, but you know, the Trump team made their argument and they made a very good argument and I don't see how this judge will continue to keep her on this case. Even if he does continue to keep her on this case, she now has to deal with the Georgia Senate investigation that is happening.
Speaker 7:
Here's one of the closing arguments from Attorney Harry Medugald I'm going to talk further about conflicts and I'm going to assume the most difficult standard for us to meet, which is actual conflict. There are six different actual conflicts of interest in this case, any one of which warrants disqualification but collectively practically compelling. First, the financial conflict has already been covered. Second, the personal ambition, political ambition. Third, there is a dovetailed or complementary pattern of deceit and concealment of the relationship and the money. Fourth, the speech at the church. Fifth, the motion for protective order that the DA filed in Mr Wayne's divorce case. Sixth, the way the state has conducted the defense of this motion to disqualify, especially the hearing On the financial piece.
Speaker 7:
The court asked for a limiting principle and asked about materiality. The limiting principle is whatever impairs the independent professional judgment of the lawyer that is applied routinely. We have a county code section that flatly prohibits gifts from contractors period. We have, by analogy, the federal bribery statute, which has a threshold of $5,000, 18 USC 666. The court asked about burdens and inferences. The court can draw a negative inference from the state's failure to produce evidence to support the invisible magic cash balancing theory based on state v Thomas 311, georgia 07, particularly footnote 19. As to the timing question that the court asked about.
Speaker 7:
There were two contracts for Mr Wade executed after they acknowledged the relationship began. Each one of them afflicted or conflicted under county and common law. The second conflict is her political ambition, for which she was previously chastised by Judge McBurney. That's also present in this book. The inside flap of this book says that they were given quote exclusive access to thousands of secret documents, emails, text messages and audio recordings. The court has twice denied defense motions to unseal special purpose brain jury materials. She helped herself to get the glory of this book. I introduced certified copies of a number of county code sections.
Speaker 4:
That's just to be. This is a very long speech. We're not going to listen to the whole thing, but it outlines just I mean, complete corruption, which we know. Everybody knows that this case is an absolute farce, that it's not going to go anywhere, that it's a political witch hunt, that it's a waste of time, it's a waste of taxpayer money and that Fannie Willis is about just as useless as Keith Oberman, maybe a little bit more useless. Maybe I'll wake up tomorrow and Fannie will block me now. But let's, donald Trump came out and made a statement about Fannie Willis.
Speaker 8:
He says look at Fannie, you know Fannie is F-A-N-I. She indicted me. She wanted to indict US senators for doing nothing, indicted me for doing nothing and it was her and a boyfriend and he got almost a million dollars. He had no experience, no, nothing Knew him a long time ago. Then she said something to the effect I don't know much about the gentleman. They had 2,000 phone calls. I said you know, I'm not sure I've ever called the First Lady 2,000 times and I've been with her for a long time, I think, and they have thousands of text messages, right, but she's not sure whether or not she knows it.
Speaker 8:
The whole thing is a con job. You look at what's going on in Manhattan where Hillary Clinton think of it Hillary Clinton's lawyer with a big law firm leaves the firm to go into the DA's office to prosecute me. Then he leaves the DA's office and he writes a book. He writes a book Before anything was done. He's writing a book. How illegal is that? Or take deranged Jack Smith. He's a deranged person. Look at his record. He's been overturned by the US Supreme Court unanimously. These people are bad people. They were set out to do a number on me, to damage me, so that Biden could beat me, because that's the only way he can beat anybody, because he's damaged he's really damaged goods. You know what he should do? They're all his prosecutors. That's one hundred percent.
Speaker 4:
They're all Biden's prosecutors. If you think for one second that Joe Biden or the administration is not behind any of this or pulling the strings, I mean you're. You're just not living in reality. I mean they don't operate independently. The president can say listen, dude, knock it off. This looks really. First of all, it looks really bad on me. It makes me look like I'm at. You're attacking my political opponent. So back off. The president can do that, but he's not doing that. Why would he? It's in Trump's right. It's the only way you can win.
Speaker 8:
They work for him, like Fauney and her lover went to Washington and spent at least two days that they know of eight hour days in the White House Counsel's office or the DOJ, so they were working on this a long time in conjunction with Joe Biden's White House. The DA's office has one of the top people from the Justice Department. That's Washington, in other words, merritt Garland's people put their top person in the DA's office to handle this case and it's a nonsense case. You know. Every legal opinion I've read said it's not even a crime. It's not a crime. It's not this. It's not that it should never be brought, should have never been. None of these things should have been brought. But it's all being.
Speaker 8:
All of these indictments are Biden indictments and they're there to hurt an opponent. If I weren't running, none of this stuff would have ever happened. Or if I was doing badly, I would say it probably wouldn't happen. But all of this was done to inflict harm on his political opponent and we've never had that in this country. It's something that's quite well known, but it's in other countries, not in this country. This is a big example and honestly, what he should do is take all of those prosecutors off the cases and fight a really fair fight. We're going to win anyway one way or the other. We're going to win anyway. But they should fight it fair because it's so bad for the country and people know what's happening. They see it. If they didn't see it, I'd be down at nothing. I'd be absolutely nothing. They get it and they see weaponization. It's an attack on a political opponent.
Speaker 4:
And he's absolutely right. I mean people, it's everywhere. I mean you talk to anybody. Everybody knows that this is just clearly a farce. But Fannie will is is in a lot of trouble and it's going to be interesting To see just exactly how much trouble she gets herself into. Here is a bit of the testimony that was given to the Georgia Senate today On the Fannie Wallace misconduct hearing came da, when did she become da?
Speaker 5:
She became da in Jean. It would have been January 2021.
Speaker 5:
Okay so she became da January 1st 2021, but she had a transition team leading up to that. So and and mr Wade was in charge of her transition team. So mr Bradley told me all that we met for about an hour, said that they had been, they had been together. If they met at this conference, nathan was still married and he, mr Bradley, was upset because of what happened in the divorce. He was upset because they were still married. You know, the wades were still married and he essentially just left her after meeting miss Willis and dropping the kids off at college.
Speaker 1:
So and Bradley was Wade's attorney in that divorce action you're talking about.
Speaker 5:
Yes, I didn't know that at the time but they were law partners. They had been yes, and. I actually don't know if they. He was still his attorney when he talked to me. I don't know if he was or not, because at some point mr Wade represented himself and then he hired a different lawyer, so I didn't know anything about the divorce at that time.
Speaker 1:
So Bradley did not like the way Wade had treated his wife.
Speaker 5:
He did not.
Speaker 5:
He didn't know he did not like the way he had treated his wife. He didn't like what was happening in the divorce proceeding. Yes, and I mean I remember specifically him saying you know, I handle my business, things like that, like you know that I don't leave my wife without alimony because this and we talked about it I mean miss Wade had been a stay-at-home mom, for you know, they've been married almost 30 years and Literally it was right after they dropped their, their youngest, off at college that he said you move out, you know. And so we went through. You know, I was obviously interested in wait, what, what's, what's happening? Walk me through this.
Speaker 5:
And so he was telling me about the, the access cards you know that mr Wade had access cards telling me about the contracts, told me about their contract that they hada, that Nathan had brought them the contract for the first appearance hearings they had a contract for that we didn't talk about that yet that they had the contract for the taint work and then, ultimately, that Nathan was hired as the attorney on this case, that they had been dating before and he, I mean he told me, you know they met at hotels, he would go to her, her place, and he's. I remember him saying you need to find her, her bestie, who they had a falling out. That's the person whose condo it was that they would meet at and and did you later determine who that bestie was?
Speaker 5:
Yes, it was Robin Yurtie. It was not until sometime later that I determined that it was. It was very difficult to determine who that was because he did not Remember her name and but he knew her by sight.
Speaker 1:
He did later confirm to you or identify who she was.
Speaker 5:
Yes, so I had sent him a couple pictures or showed him a couple pictures of some other folks.
Speaker 1:
We're in January of 24, right before your motion.
Speaker 5:
It was. It may have even been after I filed the motion. It was around the time. It was either before around the time, but it was in January. I had gotten some open records requests from the DA's office. They had a contract, Yep we just put on screen some of the text messages that you produced to us. Yes, this is from your phone. It is, and so you're talking to Terrence Bradley.
Speaker 1:
I see over there on the left.
Speaker 5:
Yes, and so when you see on the 14th that one that's right in the middle that says file attachment with MIME type, that is a picture of her, so it doesn't show up on this, but it's actually. There was a picture.
Speaker 4:
So she has established a like crystal clear connection between Nathan Wade and Fanny Willis and that he paid her $250 an hour, when she's only paying the other more qualified attorneys $150 an hour. That they've had a relationship before this trial that began. That she did go to Washington DC and meet with the vice president before she dropped these charges. It's a mess. I mean she uncovered all of it. It's phenomenal what she's done, what she's showing to the world. This is, this is major news.
Speaker 1:
On the top on this whole case and now she is going before this committee. Let's watch it live. I'm to verify the accuracy of what you were claiming it happened.
Speaker 5:
I did not want to say one word that had not been verified.
Speaker 1:
Because he was the source. Yes, he's the guy that was his law partner and his divorce attorney. Yes, who probably knew as well as anybody in the state.
Speaker 5:
They had been best friends also.
Speaker 1:
Okay, all right, and so let's pull these up. Senator Dolezal, when did you start? You kept these text messages somehow.
Speaker 5:
I did so. I actually he, mr Bradley uses an Android, I believe, and so it was. It was not easy to just download them and I'm not the most text-heavy person. I also. There's a lot of text that just went into things that I didn't think I thought would just embarrass people and weren't relevant. So what I did was I screen-shotted the text that I thought were relevant. I tried to use those in court, but the prosecutor kept objecting and saying I was hiding things because I wasn't showing all of my text. So they just kept on and on for days saying I was hiding things. I was hiding things and I explained to them. I let them look through my phone. They scrolled through all my texts.
Speaker 1:
Who's like?
Speaker 5:
It was. Adam Abadi was the prosecutor, okay, so he just kept saying you know that I was. Where's the beginning of that text? Where's the thing after that? Where's the other part of that text? These aren't complete. You know, rule of completeness kept objecting and I had just screen-shotted the text that I thought were highly relevant but weren't slanderous I guess I don't even know the word, but you know there were some that that, like you know that miss Willis's daughter had failed out, like things like that. They were just ugly, they didn't need to, they didn't need to be admitted.
Speaker 1:
Oh yeah.
Speaker 5:
So I had tried really hard to just screenshot the relevant ones, but they kept saying that I was hiding stuff and I wasn't showing the whole thing. So when they objected to my text coming in the screenshots, they said they wanted the whole text chain and the judge ordered me to, if I was going to admit the text, to go figure out a way to download all of them. So I bought a program for 20-30 bucks and took three hours and I was very proud of myself for finally figuring out how to do it. But I was able to make a copy of it and then redact our phone numbers. So this actually showed like when they're read, when they're reviewed.
Speaker 1:
What were you arts up there on January 5th at 9.50 am you're asking what? Do you read the question?
Speaker 5:
So I'm asking him do you think it started before she hired?
Speaker 1:
him. You're talking about the affair.
Speaker 5:
Yes, the affair.
Speaker 1:
What's his response?
Speaker 5:
His response was absolutely. It started when she left the DA's office and was judge in South Fulton, and so you know these are things that he had told me. But I was getting ready to file. My filing deadline was was the 8th and as we're as we're doing this, you know I'm fact-checking line by line, basically.
Speaker 1:
So you did, and did you send him a copy of your proposed motion?
Speaker 5:
I did and I actually admitted so at the hearing that we had. I was able to admit the email where I sent him that. So I sent him a copy of the motion that weekend when I was reviewed. When, you know, I wanted him to review it and then he had a text. He didn't write me back by email, but I submitted my email so that you could, so that the court could see exactly when I sent it and when he responded. And then he responded that everything looked good. Because I asked you know, I said I'm sending you this motion, I need you to look at it, and then he responded that everything looked good in it.
Speaker 5:
He actually, he actually told me at first he wanted me to make some changes because I had not included the information about how much money he had received.
Speaker 4:
So, to be clear, bradley is the witness right. He's. He's the leak inside of the relationship, one of the leaks coming out. He is Nathan Wade's former law partner, best friend and attorney that represented him in his divorce proceeding. So you know it's a very credible source and she had him text all of the information to her so that she had a record of it from his phone to hers.
Speaker 5:
I had only included the information about how much Wade had received and you know, I didn't know that it was. It wasn't really highly relevant to my motion, but he was like, oh, that's gonna tip them off, that I'm talking to you and I don't want he did not want anybody to know that he was.
Speaker 1:
He was talking, he was very concerned about what I'm gonna. Let you just read through this chain. Okay, we left off up there. Absolutely, it began before it began, when she was a judge in South Fulton. When was she a judge in South Fulton?
Speaker 5:
She became a judge in August of 2019 and I did an open records.
Speaker 4:
I first asked, actually, I first yeah, so she was a judge way before the. The Trump trial was even close to, you know, being into fruition before January 6th even had happened, before the election had even happened. I mean, it is. It's a wonderful news. It's a wonderful news. Here is a piece from another attorney. I love this attorney that's working for Donald Trump. He is incredibly smart and he is pushing facts like I have never seen before.
Speaker 3:
Bradley, who we now know from Defense Exhibit 39, has been texting with Ms Merchant for a number of months. This is not the first time. This is months. Within 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. It goes on. Ms Merchant says she liked it started when she left the DA's office, with the appropriate emoji or whatever one would call it to say it was liked. And then Mr Bradley said they met at the municipal court, cle conference Again unprompted, he's now definitively telling Ms Merchant when this relationship started.
Speaker 3:
Ms Merchant said that's what I figured when he was married. And then Ms Merchant says we're not talking about. A couple hours later she texts and says, upon information and relief, 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.
Speaker 4:
Pretty damning evidence. She is in a lot of trouble and she has a lot to deal with in the next, in the next year. This is Ryan Samuels. Thank you very much for tuning in. Don't forget to hit that like share and subscribe button and we will see you next time.