Search Posts

A side-by-side comparison meme with the caption "Pee-wee Herman" at the top. The left photo shows actor Paul Reubens in character as Pee-wee Herman, wearing a gray suit and red bow tie, smirking with a raised eyebrow at an event with other formally dressed people blurred behind him. The right photo shows a man with dark, somewhat tousled hair wearing a pink/red checked button-down shirt, photographed indoors against a plain wall, resembling U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff. The meme implies a physical resemblance between Pee-wee Herman and the man in the right photo.

Text in image: Pee-wee Herman

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

-I'm Laura Ingraham, and this is the Ingraham Angle tonight. As always, thank you for joining us. Fanny lines blurred. That's the focus of tonight's angle. Today, over several hours in an Atlanta courtroom, we saw why allowing a county DA to bring charges against a former U.S. president is absurd and destructive. Now, Fanny Willis is a leftist who thought that this case would catapult her to political fame, maybe even the Senate or Governor's mansion, because it would be Fanny, the Trump slayer. She was so full of herself, she thought no one would notice when she hired her married boyfriend as her lead Trump investigator. Now, just to refresh everyone on the timeline here, on New Year's Day 2021, Ms. Willis started as Fulton County DA, and then the next month, about 40 days later or so, February 10th, she opens the criminal investigation into the Trump election interference claim. And then, months later, by November 1st, she hires her friend, Nathan Wade, as a very special prosecutor. And then the next day, he files for divorce from his wife. Now, of course, Willis and Wade didn't expect that his divorce proceeding would become an issue in the Trump case. But at today's hearing, Judge Scott McAfee was considering whether the affair between the two created a conflict of interest that should knock them both off the case. Today, Nathan Wade took the stand on the question of who paid for their pleasure trips. -Did you take a trip with Ms. Willis in 2023 to Belize? -I did. -Did you take a trip to California with Ms. Willis in 2023? -I did. -Did you pay for those trips on that credit card? -I used the credit card to book the travel, but understand -- -She paid your back cash. -Well, let me say this. Let's take the Belize trip, for example, since you started there. That was a birthday gift to me, so I paid nothing for that trip -- zero. -Okay. So the charges that are on your card, she gave you cash for? -She did. -Okay. -Cash. Now, we're supposed to believe that Fannie Willis was carrying around those large amounts of cash. Of course, cash is not traceable. Now, when the DA unexpectedly appeared on the stand today, she did address this, or tried to. -I know he initially paid for it. Did you pay him back? -For the cruise and for Aruba. Yeah, I gave him his money before we ever went on that trip. -You gave him cash before you ever went on the trip? -Mm-hmm. -Later in the afternoon, Trump attorney Steve Sadow revisited the cash question. -I'm asking you whether or not those payments would be reflected on credit card bills of yours. -So, there was about $500 that I think is reflected on a debit card. My recollection is I took about $400 in cash with me today. -$400 or $4,000? -$4,000. -$400 or $4,000? And she answered $4,000. Now, who carries around that kind of cash? Well, Fannie does. Again, very convenient because you need a paper trail, right, to show that Willis did repay Mr. Wade and that she wasn't getting a financial benefit from the lawyer that she hired to investigate Trump. -Did you keep track of this cash that you paid him at all? -What do you talk -- I don't understand. -Did you keep track? Did you keep a ledger? Did you keep track of it? -So, I've only given him cash, as I mentioned, three or four times. There's no ledger. This is friends handing money off to each other. Of course, just friends handing money off to each other. This is ridiculous, just like the idea that Ms. Willis didn't know her ethical obligations as the county DA. -Did you disclose your relationship to anybody at Fulton County? -No, I don't think so. -Are you aware that Fulton County requires you to disclose any relationship with someone that you're doing business with? -I'm not aware. To me, that was stunning. Again, she's going after Trump for election interference. She doesn't even know her own ethical obligations. Now, but that was on top of many other stunning moments today where both witnesses appeared evasive and, at times, very argumentative, even belligerent, with glaring memory lapses about events that most people wouldn't easily forget. -How many times Mr. Wade visited you at the condo between the time you moved in and prior to November 1 of 2020? -I don't think often, but I don't want to speculate. -Can we say more than 5, more than 10? -Let's say more than 10, but I'm not sure that that's even accurate. -What about any other prosecutor that's involved in the prosecution of this case? -I don't think any of them have. -Yeah, because a personal residence is not a typical venue for official meetings between government lawyers. -I'm asking you whether or not prior to November 1 of 2021, there was a romantic relationship with Mr. Wade. That's very simple. It's either a yes or no. -I don't consider my relationship with him to be romantic before that. I'm not a handholder. -You didn't see the need, if I understand, to tell any of the people on the prosecution team when you had established a romantic relationship with Mr. Wade, that the lead prosecutor, that is the man that was basically giving orders to others, was dating or having a romantic relationship with you. -From at least 2020, me and Mr. Wade were friends. We were friends. We hung out. In November of 2021, I hired him. I do not consider our relationship to have become romantic until early of 2022. -The romantic relationship ended before the indictment was returned, yes or no? -To a man, yes. -To a man, yes. To you, no? -To a man, yes. What? Now, women across America are laughing because every woman I've ever met remembers vividly when a relationship starts. She said, "Well, it started between February and sometime in April." Bizarre. Now, of course, this all flies in the face of earlier testimony of a friend of Ms. Willis who was questioned about when this Willis-Wade relationship began. -Okay. So, you know that their relationship, their personal relationship, began shortly after this municipal court conference? -Yes. -And do you understand it, that their relationship began in 2019 and continued until the last time you spoke with her? -Yes. -What motive would her friend have to lie about Ms. Willis's relationship with the prosecutor? The prosecutor, of course, that she hired to go after Trump. It's unclear what motive she would have. But what is clear is that when Fanny gets in trouble, Fanny plays the victim. She stayed away, for the most part, from the race card today, except for a few moments like this. -Did you have contacts with Mr. Wade in 2020? -Very limited contact because Mr. Wade had a form of cancer that makes your allegations somewhat ridiculous. I'm not going to emasculate a black man. Did you understand that? -What? -Again, her first instinct is to deflect and then try to engender some type of, in this case, racial sympathy. There were lots of "poor me" moments. -So, let's be clear because you've lied in this. Let me tell you which one you lied in right here. I think you lied right here. No, no, no, no, no. This is the truth, Judge. It is a lie. It is a lie. Turned 50 in 2021. That's probably one of the worst birthdays I've ever had. -I ask you who knew? Answer and then explain this to us. -I am very private. It's like a woman doesn't have the right to keep her private life private. I don't need anybody to foot my bills. The only man who's ever foot my bills completely is my daddy. -Look, as wild as today's testimony was, and I was riveted by it long before we knew even who Nathan Wade was, it was obvious that the election interference case brought by this Fulton County DA was tainted. By charging Trump and 17 associates under a state racketeering statute, Willis showed us who she really was, a rogue prosecutor on a political mission to disqualify the GOP's leading candidate from the 2024 campaign. Now, even never-Trump legal experts have thrown water on Willis's case, questioning Trump's judgment. Okay, that's one thing, but portraying him with this state RICO statute as some type of mafia crime boss whose enterprise was subverting democracy, that is quite another. The Willis investigation was a political vendetta, and it was a travesty from the get-go. There are plenty of low-life radicals across the country who want Trump off the political scene, but they shouldn't have the power to prosecute and be paid by state taxpayers or have any power to interfere with the 2024 presidential election because that's election interference, and that's the angle.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.