exclusively >> on max hi mornings congestion. >> i'm feeling better all in one and done with new mucinex kickstarted >> better now next >> kickstart gives all in one and done relief with a morning jolted cooling sensation combat season >> i'm rahel solomon in new york and this is cnn >> hi there. >> i'm brianna keilar alongside boris sanchez here in washington. and in minutes and emergency hearing is going to begin that could disrupt i'd even up end the georgia election interference case against former president trump and more than a dozen other co-defendants. star witness for them is expected to take the stand in the

his efforts to remove willis and wade from the case? the defense says that bradley could show the chord that prosecutors have not been honest about their romance. and specifically when it started, as we wait for the hearing to begin, cnn's nick valencia and zach cohen are here to fill in the details. nick, you're outside the courthouse. what can you tell us about what we're expecting to see during this hearing? hey there boris and brianna, this is all going to focus and center around what terrence bradley knows about the romantic relationship between fani willis and nathan wade. the judge wants to know everything that terrence bradley knows about when this relationship started and any other details that he can provide. and you remember ashley marie she's the defense attorney that says that a bradley can prove that fani willis and nathan wade weren't

being fully truthful about when their relationship began. so what's really interesting about this all is that this allegation started as a claim that fani willis may have financially benefited from hiring nathan wade as the lead prosecutor in this case, but it's now morphinan to whether or not fani willis and nathan wade were telling the truth on the stand when they testified just a couple of weeks ago, guys zach cohen. >> let's go to you now. >> let's take a few steps backs. zach, walk us through what we learned that led up to this hearing yeah. >> boris and brianna, you'll remember that up until about a month ago, we were all talking about donald trump. and when he might have to stand trial in georgia as part of that as part of the election subversion case. but that changed in january when one of his co-defendants, mike roman, a former campaign official, filed this motion, first surfacing these allegations that fani willis and nathan wade, her top prosecutor here. we're engaged in this alleged improper romantic relationship and look,

the judge since then is laid out the threshold for disqualification. he has said that the defense attorneys have to prove that willis benefitted financially from that relationship. but he also weighed out to other questions they sought to answer through what we've now have three days of hearings. one was was what's the relationship romantic and two, when did that relationship start willis and wade of both acknowledge that? yes, the relationship was romantic, but we're still kind of trying to work through the answer to that second question. when did it start? that is the focus still to this day of the hearing that we're gonna hear. nathan wade testified to. we've already heard fani willis, though, take the stand. you remember? for earlier this month, she gave up on an unprompted and unpredicted testimony. take a listen to what she said when she took the stand earlier this month intrusive into people's personal lives. you're confused. you think i'm on trial these people who are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020. i'm not on trial, no matter how hard you

try to put me on trial. >> so the conversation is clearly shifted from trump to willis. and again, we're entering in our third day of evidentiary hearings over this issue of whether or not fani willis will be removed from the case or whether the case could continue on as it was before the allegations first surfaced. >> sorry, it's zach and here we are. court has reconvened here. we see judge scott mcafee there on the bench. i want to bring in laura coats to talk a little bit about what we're seeing and what we're expecting here today. >> well, this is a really striking moment. remember, we've already seen this person on the stand before, but he had to leave the stand because he's the attorney for nathan wade, the lead prosecutor. in the election subversion case, but he's the divorce attorney for him. the question before the court really is, has every form of communication, every conversation, every personal observation, is that all going to be under the attorney-client privilege, the anti-war broadly is generally no, just because you're an attorney and you speak to someone, it doesn't i mean, it's always privilege. it has to be communication in furtherance of getting legal

advice. so remember before the judge was skeptical about any argument that suggested that anything they'd ever talked about in the history of their interaction was going to be tethered to the actual attorney-client privilege. and remember, the attorney-client privilege does not belong to terrence bradley it belongs to nathan wade as the client. they've had now was called an in-camera moment with the judge, essentially, the fancy way of saying you and i are going to talk one-on-one and i'm going to figure out whether what you have to say is actually privileged or not. and if it's not, you better get on the stand. well, he's on the stand today for this very reason. the question will be, what will he said? i suspect it's going to be about when it started. what he knows and whether it goes towards the actual burden of whether it actually raises to a level of conflict that makes it impossible for the defendants. they get a fair trial. >> a big question in this case, obviously on the implications for the former president are huge we're listening in right now to the conversation between

judge mcafee and the lawyers in the room, it right now at this point, it's been largely procedural. we are expecting terrence bradley to appear via zoom shortly. we also have with us paula reid and gloria borger paula, there is a specific piece of evidence that the defense is going to try to introduce here and it has to do with cell phone pings related to nathan wade and the proximity that he was in two da willis before their relationship reportedly started. >> and that's a very so-called heat map that shows that they were in the same location for a certain period of time. now this kind of data is not conclusive. so to some of the key issues in this case, which is did they have a relationship they've acknowledged that probably, but at what time did that begin? and they're trying to insinuate that because there were so much contact because there was so much proximity that that must suggest that perhaps this relationship began sooner than what they've said that this kind of data, again, it's not concur close it. i mean, it certainly raises questions the trump team released it to much fanfare. in

recent days, but yeah, it's not conclusive, but they're going to bring it up. and also the judge does with it. >> the police make it as messy as well. let's have a right, >> yeah job if we can let's take a moment and listen in here because they're going over this issue of privilege this is the judge scott mcafee. >> my mind it's that topic only. i think that there's anything else we've already covered i'm not here to do it again so with that, is there anything else we need to cover before kicking them? but all just mr. wade, he's still potential witnesses >> mr. body >> i believe mr. wade was released from nina. we concluded his testimony the last year or so unless he's been risky and there's no knowledge of that, right. to be present. >> sure >> i think procedurally, that would be accurate and so at this point, i don't see a a

means where he would need to be recalled and but if it is, then that is something you can take up. >> all right >> mr. bradley, through his attorney, informed me that he would be here today in person. i don't see him in the gallery. do we know if he's out in the hallway? okay. all right. if we can call for mr. bradley >> judge would be permissible to send the jury box that's fine >> or in this rally, deputy scott will swear you in again. >> well i do the last name? terrence bradley trr enco bradley biari dealing

>> thank you, judge good afternoon, mr. bradley. >> good afternoon. >> good to see you. sorry. under these circumstances going to just go straight to where we left off before fani willis and nathan wade were in a romantic relationship, correct >> correct >> and it began at the time that they were both municipal court judges, correct? >> objection, your honor. based on privilege >> okay overruled. >> i do not have knowledge of it starting or when it started she told me that it started when they were both municipal court judges though, correct? >> that is incorrect >> you never confirmed in writing that it was instead of magistrate court, it was in municipal court job when they were started dating. >> if you were speaking of the text message, you can go to that text message and you can read that text message and i will explain the text message

to you well, you and i did not have a conversation about when it started. you asked a compound question of magistrate court versus i mean, you said it was much equipment is pool match. i mean, you said match. magistrate court conference. i'm sorry >> and then you ask another question i said no >> municipal court. nothing else. >> i'm referring to a different conversation i asked you, do you think it started before she hired him >> and i'm going to object covered in previous hearing where mr. bradley said he had no personal knowledge of the exact text that ms merchant's speaking of an actually used to attempt to refresh your recollection and he explained exactly what is explaining what the courts this is repetitive and unnecessary i would object to pass answered and relevant to this. >> all >> right perhaps we'll get

there, but i think first, ms merchan has the right to draw his attention to the exact potentially inconsistent statement. >> thank you, judge. may approach him. so rule >> and for purposes of the record i believe ms merchan, you tendered was it the entire text chain is an exhibit. >> i only tendered a few of the tax, but i did give the state they're caught they're courtesy copies last time was this one tendered? >> this one was not tendered. and i'm happy to tender it. >> well, we'll just take it as a comms whatever you i think we're at 39 >> wait >> to market. >> but i think i may approach, judge

>> all right >> so times do you remember telling me that it started when she left the da's office and was a judge in south fulton i see the message there, but i don't recall. i do see that message, but i do not recall. >> you don't recall texting this >> i look back at my text messages through that we've had i see the message, but i do not recall that. no, ma'am. >> and when i asked you if you start if you thought it started before she hired him and you responded absolutely. your honor. i'm gonna object to the source of the information that mr. bradley allegedly gathered this from there has been absolutely no foundation based on the argument that the last year that a lot of this is based on gossip and you endo, assumption and privileged information. and at this point in this virgin has not i've provided a foundation as to how mr. badly have any information

that she keeps referring to. >> go ahead and smurfs. i didn't ask him about the source of the information. and under rule 621, i can impeach him with any inconsistent facts. this is an inconsistent fact. i can teach him with any contrary facts. sure >> why would it irrelevant impeachment if he actually has no personal knowledge of this if he doesn't think you have to lay that foundation. and so that'll be sustained >> do you remember telling me that it began >> well, that's that doesn't address the you know, i was i was just asking if you remember telling me as opposed to the sure. you remember telling me that it began? >> well, no. then you go into the substance of it which we haven't deterred, chairman, whether he actually knows or how he knows you told me >> in fact, you corrected me when i said magistrate court, you corrected me instead, it was municipal court. do you remember that? same objection,

your honor. this is the exact same issue. right >> if you remember that he hasn't answered that question, yeah. >> right. at the relevance of whether he remembers it is an established until we know how he remembers it or why he knows it. because that makes sense i guess not >> sorry. >> how he knows it and i'm just asking if he told me that >> right. so i wasn't asking how he knew that. i wasn't asking the source of that knowledge. i was asking if he told me that. >> sure. >> but that's the point. how he knows it, correct. source of his knowledge. they would condemn hearsay is because it's gossip and innuendo, which is what was the last year. >> well, i may not be hearsay, may not be gossip. we haven't really gotten there yet. we don't know how he knows what apparently is telling you, and i think we need to figure that out before we can go any further. >> yes. and if the source of the information is witnessing you've testified that it's not hearsay. so when did the relationship start? >> i cannot answer that >> when was your first

knowledge of the relationship? >> objection, your honor. he's already answered that question multiple times today. he said he had no idea at the timeline or when it occurred. it was one of the first questions that >> i didn't ask when i asked his first knowledge, he testified he has knowledge that they had a relationship. i asked him when he first got knowledge of that okay. so that the question is, when did you first get knowledge? i think we can start there. >> that was the question yes. >> thank you. >> when did you first get knowledge of their relationship? >> i've said over again that i was not i didn't have any personal information where i could personally say when it started i've said that time and time again. i don't i don't know when the relationship storming. >> and that wasn't my question. so my question is, when did you firsthand knowledge? i didn't ask the source of the knowledge, didn't ask you to comment on the validity of that knowledge? i asked when you first had knowledge, we'll get to the house. mr. a. body. so i'll not the objection.

overrule it. and they can answer that. >> just for the record, i appreciate, your honor but he said he has no personal knowledge, so it's clean. you had to gain the knowledge, not from here says he could have gained it from her weight. >> well, i mean, most of us learn things from here. say the question of whether, whether it's admissible, right. and that's where we gotta get to apologize >> when did you first get knowledge? i'm not qualifying what type of knowledge i'm just ask them when you first knew about the relationship i don't know how that answer that to mean so i can't give you a date. if you're asking for a date. if you asking me how did i get the knowledge? it would have come directly from a client. >> right. >> so help me understand. i think if you >> say you can't answer that question, you don't know the

date. so that's the answer to the question. >> but i said that five minutes ago >> we had to make it clear yes. sorry. next question was >> merchant, but you don't know the specific date do you know if it can we narrow down the timeline? was it did you gain knowledge in 2019 of this relationship beginning >> i'm going to object to this line of questioning is he said he does not know when he gained borrow another specific crimes version. i think i'm overruling that. i think we can try to see if he can narrow it down based on goalposts. >> thank you >> 19 i would probably say no. i mean, i don't have anything that i'm i'm there wasn't a specific date. there wasn't football game, there wasn't something that i can attribute to him telling me whatever. >> and so you're asking for a date, you're asking for a year

is still a date. and at this time, i am telling you that i do not have the date. >> let's try this then. so you received the contract from ms willis january 2021, correct >> can i see >> yes, i think so. >> okay. >> i think at that thing, it was from the exhibits. i think it was 21, yes. >> and i don't want to belabor the point. when you were here before. yes. >> if those documents that you looked at last time? yes. >> january 2022. that's okay. >> 21 21. you're right thing. and i think renewed in 22, it was, yes. so the contract date was that we have in the record as january 25, 2022. >> so >> using that date, at that point, had they begun their romantic relationship? >> of >> 2022, 25th, 2022, 2021. i'm sorry. when you got your first contract

>> i don't recall i don't recall any any specific dates you remember when you got that contract that correct? >> i remember i had the contract, yes. >> and you told us last week or i guess it was a week before now, you told us that mr. wade brought you that contract essentially told you about that contract? >> that is correct. >> so ms willis is not the one that brought that contract to you directly it with mr. wade? >> that is correct >> at that point in time, they were already engaged in a relationship, right? >> to object. >> i can't say that the relation of what mr. bradley just said, you just said he does not remember. there's nothing specific, doesn't remember the exact date. i think the question now is to reference it or tie it to maybe some other event anymore? quite remember, i agree with, your honor. she asked that specific question. he said he does not remember any specific days after signing the contract that's exactly where he just said an answer. oh, no, no. we're getting to the end of

it. so ms merchant, you don't have much more to pull on here, but he answered that last question. so what's your next one? >> judge? i didn't hear the answer. if they weren't relationship january 25, 2020, you recall the question? >> i recall the question and i can't tell you accurately whether or not they were in a relationship at the time you asked me about him bringing me a contract. i said he did brick now contract and that is accurate >> do you remember prior to do you remember knowing ms willis prior to her taking office as the da? >> i had very little contact with ms willis. i knew her through my business of coming down to fulton if that's what you're asking yes. >> you knew her through the business. so had you had met her prior to your contract? >> i'm going to object to relevance at this point is to live with you today. >> sure. >> did. >> he doesn't remember much of anything right now and so i'm trying to create a timeline to hopefully piece this together.

>> all right. well i'm not seeing really the likelihood that that's going to have any success. i'll i'll let you ask a few more questions, but if he doesn't have a date, then i don't know that you're gonna be able to create one today. >> okay. thank you. >> the time. that, you had this contract from january 2021 until january 2022, did you come in and out of the da's office? >> yes. >> and so were you able to witness mr. wade, ms willis interacts during that time? >> i'm going to object when asked and answered. it was addressed. the last hearing about mr. bradley's access to and from a specific room to pick a file and mr. bradley's said that you're rarely saw them together. but this was i think the only avenue that was closed at the last hearing was

his personal knowledge, potentially through we'll actually know if he >> testified was that he had no personal knowledge. is knowledge that conveyed to him that was cut off at the last hearing. that's really the only thing we hadn't been able to explore. unless you correct me if i'm wrong, knowledge that was conveyed to him by somebody else. that's that he claimed at the time was privileged. i found that it's not that's what we're here to explore okay? >> do you remember telling me that not many people knew where they met >> then object as to relevance as to his personal knowledge which is what, six requires. >> we're back to the same point. ms merchant's his >> personal knowledge is what i'm asking him, what he told me, but he hasn't yet told you how he knows that. and so if unless he can establish why he should be testifying on this at all, then there's an elements and i don't know how he knows that that would then ask you about that would be the next

question, but now he knows it. i first have to establish that he said that no, you don't you could go the other way around when you told me that it started. when you left when she left the da's office and was a judge in south fulton. >> where did you gain that knowledge >> i'm going to object. his testimony few minutes ago that he did not recall making that statement or overrule that mr. bradley. answer the question if you can? >> repeat the question, >> when you told me that their relationship started when she left the da's office and was a judge in south fulton, where did you obtain that knowledge from? >> it was i was speculating i didn't have a no one told me i

was speculating. >> no one told you that? >> no one told me >> that you were speculating based on things that had been told to you or things you have observed. >> so i'm going to object as two the nature of this line of questioning. a witness has made it clear he was speculating as to how or what he knew and a bit speculation. it's inadmissible for this court. all right. but the motivations for his reason for speculating would be admissible. so i'll overrule there. >> thank you, judge. >> was this speculation when you told me that was that based on things that had been told to you and things i've never witnessed anything so, you know, it was speculation. i can't tell you anything specific, if that's what you're you're asking >> tell me anything specific as to why you speculated about

that >> this was however many years ago? i'm he not don't recall, but no, i don't did you have i don't know if speculation is >> lying, but i'm well, let me just show me where in this ties back you didn't ask me if i were speculating or guessing i didn't ask you, but tell me you if it says anywhere here if this is the same one that you just showed me, it does not. >> you're welcome. if you need to get your facts >> is there anywhere in here to indicate she didn't have knowledge of how i'm going to object. the line of questioning, your honor, directed counsel to explore is where he got the knowledge he's explored that. he said it's speculation and he didn't get it from any source other than his own speculation. >> i think we're flushing that out and i think it's her right to have a little leeway on this

if he's an adverse witness. >> thank you, judge speaking objections are clearly coaching witness because he's regurgitating. >> your honor, i have i can take offense to that comment. i'm objecting based on the law and i'm making a record for the court or home, so i i take offense to that comment. it's not the case. >> all right. well i think we can start with objection. the grounds in the rule number. and then if i need more, i'll ask. >> thank you. all right. thank you. >> what did nathan tell you about the relationship? >> objection, hearsay. >> nathan has testified >> still hearsay. it's an out-of-court statement being brought up. the truth of the matter asserted, hearsay. >> judge. >> this would be for impeachment by contradiction, which would be an exception to the hearsay rule and admissible as substantive evidence and the privilege issues are overruled. >> thank you, judge. all right >> well, i think he did several republican objections. we

don't know when he's talking about, so we've already established in december the credible sure. >> that's something i covered in the >> in camera hearing and i'm based on what he told me and that in camera hearing, i don't believe any statements to this effect we're covered by privilege. >> and, judge, i just want for the record because sometimes the record doesn't reflect where people are looking and that when i ask a question, mr. bradley is looking at mr. wade and his lawyer to wait for them to object and they're clearly interacting somehow in the court. so i just want the record to reflect that because it wouldn't otherwise it's there now, you have a question was put to mr. grubman. >> judge, one of my lawyers is standing is sitting right in the back a bit on that rabbit hole. you can look wherever you want. >> yeah. and i never looked at mr. wade or his attorneys. that sounds golf shirt all right. mr. brown, the question was put to you >> repeat the question, please. >> yes. so i showed you or i asked you, i'm sorry, the question. the last question i asked you was, what did nathan

wade tell you about the relationship? >> objection. >> and that's already been ruled upon i. >> recall >> him stating >> that at some point they were dating i can't tell you what date that was. it was made in confidence. we were in the back of our office. our officers were the only two in the back. there was no one else present that is all i can tell you at this time. >> one time >> one time >> you only had a conversation with him one time about the relationship? >> objection. asked and answered. >> no. i think that's clarify for their own sitting cross, ms merchant? >> i do not recall any other time that he mentioned that they were in a relationship.

know okay so other than so you talked about this one time and you said you don't know when it was that, correct? >> that is correct. >> was it before mr. wade before you've got the contract in fulton county, let's start with that. >> i did not recall and come up say again, how did it come up >> do not recall how it came up it was in the back. i know it was i know where it occurred in our offices in the back. i can't tell you what we were discussing prior to that >> did you receive an email from me on january 6 with emotion attached?

>> i think i did, yes. yes, i know i know i received i don't know if the date is january 6, but yes, i received yes. >> so you remember receiving that? yes. the date? >> and you reviewed it and then you when i spoke about it you recall that >> do we speak over the phone? are you saying through a text that's what i'm asking you. >> i >> can remember whether it was texts, phone, or but you recall a >> speaking one way or another >> one way or another? yes >> and where i was trying to confirm the facts in that filing i think i remember there was a line of about the accuracy of how much money that

my office the law the law office can say bradley have received. and whether or not that was going to be and the motion or not there wasn't a discrepancy in and out. who asked me to put that back in, correct? >> i don't i recall, you that may be accurate? yes >> thought because you thought it might be suspicious if you were left out of no. >> i think >> we discussed that it. should reflect the accuracy because

the accuracy was that i received i. had a contract and received 74 grand 74,000 and i think you had put in there that mr. campbell he received a certain amount and then you also have put in there that mr. wade ever received certain amount, but there was not anything in there originally. and i said that it needs to be accurate. i needed to be accurate as far as that, i have received 74,000 is correct. >> because you did not want anyone knowing that you had talked to me object. that's to relevance. >> we bias >> i wanted you to be accurate as far as the accuracy of our message or your filing okay. >> so that was your your interest wasn't inaccuracy in the file

>> i didn't reach out to you and say send me a copy of your motion, right? i didn't reach out to you to say that you were there. i'm going to be in your motion right. >> i asked you to review it for accuracy. >> accuracy. and i just stated that it was inaccurate and the inaccuracy that you pointed out was the thing about you or how much you would make that was the inaccuracy that i saw that jumped out was the fact that i saw that i was left out when you he put the firm that was i did not i did not when i responded to that, it was for that specific reason. >> and i agreed i would put that back in that section back in and i i did put it back and i send it to you again

>> don't recall getting a second email from, you know, but you were happy that i put it back in or that i agreed to put it back in and object to relevance. >> yeah. when you get when you get two more material aspects yes, judge. i am moving along. >> i promise >> you asked me you did ask me to put that back in well, an answer beller well, it's need an answer. that last question. so you did can you confirm you did ask me to put that back in for its be accurate yes, that's correct. i said that. yes. >> and then i asked you if everything was accurate and you said looks good correct? >> i recall you asking that, but that looks good was applying to the accuracy of the 74,000 that's it

>> so when you reviewed the motion and you specifically pointed out that one thing that you found an accurate even point, anything else out that you found an accurate in that motion though, correct >> no, i did not. >> and that motion alleged that their relationship began when ms willis was in musical board if i can read reread your motion, but i don't recall. but if that's what he says, but i didn't my saying that it looks good was when you put back in the 74,000 into your motion. >> and that's that wasn't what i was asking. what i was asking is you didn't tell me that there was anything else inaccurate and emotion that right but i didn't stay that anything was accurate. but other than 74,000 now when i

told you that i had this motion that i was preparing, you asked me to send a rough draft? >> no, that's incorrect. >> may approach, judge >> what's paid are you showing page number? it's january 6 and all the time so we've been talking you asked me to send your rough draft and i told

you. okay. but i didn't want it to be leaked before i filed it. >> that is correct >> so you're the one that asked me to send a rough draft yes. this correct? yeah. yes, that's correct. >> now is at 10:08 on saturday, january and then you've got an email from me with that rough draft at 10:25 that same day, correct >> yes >> you can even look at >> if if it says 1025, then i know you sent me an email why he's looking at it. >> i'm going to object as to asked and answered. we've been through the fact that he set up a copy of the motion he said rough draft or not, and then asked about the accuracies, explained his answer. and i've checked to ask understand mr.

we're getting there overruled for now and then i responded when we were talking about that, so that we were talking about i said i took it i took it out, but i can add it back. and you said yes, at it i answered that, yes. >> and then i said, anything else? anything that's and he responded, looks good. >> you're all that >> let me see and there i don't, know where the exhibits are >> refresh your memory. >> it says looks good, but as as i stated before, i was responding to put me back into the motion for receiving $74,000 in a contract well, that's not what this says you said yes. at it back and then i said anything else? anything that isn't accurate. and you responded looks good. >> so you weren't responding to put it back?

>> i'm going to object. i know his motion. he wasn't the affiant of the most verified. overruled. mr. bonny i've said personal twice. >> overruled. mr. bonny, i've said twice that it looks accurate was or i've said more than twice, was for the 74,000 you remember telling me about >> nathan and fani coming to your office and spending time together at your office? >> know, i've mentioned i do recall testifying on the 16th that she had come to her office and that was before she was elected as district attorney, correct? >> i recall that was when she was district attorney because i said that there was a meeting held at my office and who was

at that meeting? >> now i can tell you that. i don't recall. >> but you know, ms willis was there, mr. wade was there. >> it was at our office. actually, ms willis was there and there were other people there mr. wade was not in that meeting. he was he was in the back. >> i wasn't even in a meeting >> why did she hold it at your office that i have no idea you also remember telling me about them spending time together at her law office before she took >> took her job? >> i don't recall. i don't recall the you have something to well, what i'm asking is so let's backup cec. so it's willis rented a law office from evans from andrew evans and another lawyers think stacy evans you have knowledge of

that, correct? >> no, i'm going to object to hearsay if well, how does he know the information? >> that'll be the correct question >> okay ms marsha >> i don't really know even how to respond to that your i'm asking if he knew that she rented >> they may have been there i mean i've seen a business card or something at some point, i think he can answer that. i've never been to ms >> willis's office when she was in private practice? i've never dealt with where she rented? i didn't even know where our office was >> so do you remember though, knowing that she rented an office? >> yes. from the yes. did notice? that is correct? yes. okay. >> and do you remember telling me that mr. wade and this willis but rendezvous with that office >> i'm going to again, hearsay as to how he knows that

information. he said he has no personal knowledge. >> he did not say he has no personal knowledge. he hasn't even answered it. >> he said in general he had no personal knowledge it's not been established a source of how he would know this because he said he's never been to her office >> all right >> ms marsha, if you if i know you're trying to impeach him by my prior inconsistent statement, but unless you can first backup and show why each statement is actually something that knowledge of. i don't know if this is going to be relevant. >> and, judge, i'm not even there yet, but again, speaking objection. and so now i would anticipate what our response is going to be next i didn't ask anything that was objectionable, but these objections are coaching the witness. i asked if he had knowledge. that's it. i didn't ask. did someone say this to you? i didn't ask. what did this person tell you? i asked if >> he would know you're you're asking if he had knowledge and then you say have something specific. so once i get an answer to that, if he has knowledge, then i will follow up with where that knowledge came. >> but let's try again. >> so my question is, do you

have knowledge of them meeting at that office? objection. foundation. >> okay. all right. overruled. >> you have knowledge of the meeting at that office >> i have no personal knowledge if that's what you're asking. >> i didn't ask that yet. i asked if you have any knowledge >> objection. that would be hearsay. overruled. if it came from mr. weisselberg came from so he said, how do you know mr. grandma? >> how do you know any knowledge that i would have received would have come from my client at the time. okay. >> so you had knowledge of this? place that ms willis worked what did you know about them meeting at that office? >> objection. hearsay. >> it's not hearsay, judge. >> how he knows it. and then you ask the next question. all right. >> is she's already asked the next question can you read the question? yes >> how do you have knowledge? what knowledge did well, you just told us she told us mr. wade told you. so tell us what

mr. wade told you about ms willis and mr. wade meeting at the average office? >> objection, your honor. privilege. this clearly covers the time after december 2018 we've covered by privilege yeah. >> overruled you, recall the question, mr. bradley? >> i do not. >> here we ask the question, ms merchant's what did you learn from mr. wade? i was clarified that's where you laundry about her well, mr. wade and ms willis meeting at evans office >> on object. >> to, asked and answered. he's testified that wasn't answered. >> i haven't we haven't heard an answer. >> he testified he had one

conversation with mr. wade and the back of his law office and his answer may change so as to what how to answer the question i can't recall what the conversation was i do i do recall knowing that they would that he wouldn't go down to the office or had been down to the office, but i can't tell you in what capacity or when or any of that. no. >> mr. wade told you that they had sex with an office that correct? >> i don't recall him saying that, no >> you don't recall it? >> no. >> so it's possible he did say that you don't remember one way or another? >> i do not remember him saying that do you recall that he had a garage door opener to

>> your house or a condo or something like that of ms willis's >> i've never seen a garage door opener i've never been to ms willis's house i've never been to and i'm trying to explain. i've never been so no, i do not have any personal knowledge of him having a garage door opener let me ask the question. yes. yes >> if you had personal knowledge, as you saw, you have any knowledge at all from mr. wade, are any doors but he had a garage door opener to access one of ms willis's residence now? >> object to the any sources to hearsay. >> all right. depends on the source. >> overruled >> no. no, i don't have any knowledge >> so when you told me that, did you just make it off? >> do you have something that shows that i told you that >> yes. we well, we're going to go through all the texts we can. but do you was that made

up though? >> i'm an object because i don't i don't recall him having his rally just injected or one au six, it's rule completeness. i don't have that text message or any text messages that indicate that, your honor? >> and i don't have if it was a tax, i we had that conversation. i actually think it was when he was on speakerphone, mr. merchant was there, but i'm not sure but i mean, i if i'm asked to qualify exactly where that's from, i would >> so rule of completeness would be if you need to introduce other texts to show the context, if you're saying you don't i haven't seen a copy yet and i think ms merchant needs to do that before you can decide the next step. >> and that's, that's what i was asking him. if he if that was something he just remembers making up. if he doesn't, then that's fine. but your >> reference text message and started to go into her packet of paper. sure. that attack. so you don't have a text message to that? >> i don't i would need some time to look through and i don't remember if i have a text to that or if it was during a conversation? it was. one of those. >> he is now said that he has no knowledge. so onto your next question. okay

>> did mr. wade tell you about the trips that he and ms willis truck? >> no. >> you have any knowledge of the trips that he and ms willis took? >> objection. hearsay. >> overruled >> i do. now but you did not be for this proceeding >> i did not know until you text that you found that in the deposition of his divorce? i may not not deposition, but something from his divorce >> okay. >> and when you responded, doesn't surprise me. they took many trips to florida, texas, california. those are your words. the right to object through he's taken it did not know any actually learn from his merchant the information. >> he said he learned about certain trucks from ms merchant's. >> okay. you can tie it down, but thank you. >> will see no information about any trip that ms willis and mr. wade took that he learned all from his merchant

that was his testimony. sure. >> judge. i'm allowed to conclusion. we reach i think she's going to ask more than one question though >> all right. ms merchant's and if judge, just so we can be clear, if he said more than one version. that's all relevant, were allowed to talk about the different versions that he's told. >> i'm overrule the objection is merchan do you remember telling me that it didn't surprise you that they took the trips that i found in the divorce file because they took >> many trips to florida, texas california, and then you told me that they took the trip to california when she moved her daughter there because she failed at a fan. you remember that? >> i don't recall that, but if i don't recall. okay. >> judge, me or it's it's in one of the ones i gave you

>> wouldn't that refreshes your memory >> so when you just just first let me know if that refreshes memory? >> yes. okay. yes >> it's true that you've told me that they took money to support, correct? >> per that? yes. but one of the messages is cut off and you asked about some of the trips and i said, no, i didn't think that was specific to the top of that. it says no, i didn't and so that was to the trips that

you asked me about and i think before that, when you mentioned that you found all these trips, i think i said, oh, wow >> you did not know about all the trips that were taken and you call it you said no, i didn't when did it happen? and then the next hatch for if i can get are whatever whatever refreshes your memory >> you said >> was accurate after the phone was resolved, correct? >> object to relevance. >> it was after the firm that the trips that you said no, you didn't know about you told me those were after your firm had i think you mentioned that they were after i left maybe or whenever you found him and i said, no, i didn't know about those trips, so so you believe i mentioned that it was after you left >> i'm quite sure you have the text message and i will refresh my memory. >> is it easier for you to refresh your memory with your own phone or with my printouts of screenshots.

>> well, you have the printout, so either judge, >> the reason i'm asking is because i'm getting objections that i've cut things off and it's just the nature of how you have to pronounce screenshots. so in order to avoid that, i'm happy for him to refresh his memory with his own phone if that would be i don't know if he's accepting your offer or not. so you can get that he easier for you you can just provide the documents erhaps the >> motor chance police. yeah, i'm sorry

>> i just i'm just kinda flat all of the messages that can make. >> all right. >> well i don't really see at some point we're reaching the cumulative point where we don't need to go through an entire six month text chain. you're making the point that he'd made some comments to you along the way that led you to believe he had more knowledge than today's testifying that he had and so if you've hit the high points of that then i don't know what else we can cover that actually moves the needle. >> i'll just i'll move on to the so you told me that they took many trips to florida that refresh your memory. hold me that was that based on your knowledge from mr. wade? >> that would have been based on anything that my client would have told me. i didn't have personal knowledge of whether they went or not >> the trucks to texas texas and that based on your knowledge from mr. wake would have been something that came from the client? i cannot tell you that i have any personal

knowledge of any trip other than what would have been said by the client? >> obviously, i'm not asking you if he went on his trips. i'm asked me if you have knowledge you also typed california. >> was that something that you >> gained for knowledge from the story? >> he would have been from the client at this particular point, yes, it would move from class the trips california was the daughter out there? that is something you need from mr. thank you >> any knowledge that i have any trip would have come from my client at the time >> you told us last week that mr. wade used your credit card one time. do you know when that was? >> i do not. >> relevance cover here today. >> well, i think this we're going to be impeachment of mr. wade's testimony that mr. wade testified that had never use anyone else's credit card before?

>> object to asked and answered because it was covered during the last year. i'll exit mr. wade used just to his credit card. >> so if i ask when i did when i didn't ask, did he i asked when did he lets go there >> does not have any dates of when mr. wade use my credit card testified that we use the card for business and that throughout the business we were ordered paper or supplies or fouling of depositions. the cost factor of cases it's what i said. and that's still applies today. did he use my credit card? he did. but i can't tell you who he used that card. what the trip was for. i can't even tell you at this time where he went but he used it for a trip >> yeah, it i mean, it was for

trump, but i can't tell you where when why or anything to that nature, correct. >> he paid you back? >> i never testified that he paid me back in cash. i said that he would either pay me back i said i couldn't remember. i do not recall. sometimes he will write checks, sometimes he will pay cash and that's still applies today. that i do not recall him paying me back cash, but i do recall him paying me back >> this was when you were still before your partnerships lit up, correct? >> it would've been before i left the firm, yes. even have used my card after i left the firm. >> so we can at least narrow down the dates to that of before i left the firm, yes. okay. great. >> mr. wade gave you details about meeting ms willis in hateful or east point as it was called >> that's incorrect. >> he did not tell you about that?

>> he didn't give me details >> he did not tell you about meeting with ms willis at an east point or hateful apartment? >> at this time? i don't recall no i don't recall. >> where did you get that information from them >> it's just it doesn't recall if even half collection. >> i asked if he got it from mr. wade and he says he doesn't recall. so then i asked where he got it from. >> you now recall where i got the information from. okay >> and you, mr. wade were friends as well as business partners, correct >> we were friends in the sense of known him for years yes, we

were friends. >> and you definitely did not want to come and be a witness in this case, correct? >> that is correct. >> and it was after and we talked about this earlier that gay banks called you and then nathan wade called one of your friends. it was after that that you hired mr. chesebro, to assist you in this matter, correct? >> was it after that so i heard mr. chopra and i heard mr. graham now, mr. graham is here and when i received this

subpoena mr. graham was here at the last hearing, but he also had to go out of town, but he was president. mr. graham called and i started getting calls from media and and i told him to respond to the media, i think in that was somewhere around whenever you subpoena at me. >> so it was i can't tell you that it was that instance of those calls for mr. chopra but i had engaged mr. chopra and mr. graham at that time to ask the question again because i didn't get an answer to it. after you got the phone call from gabe banks and from nathan

wade, do you think it was before that but however, i think it was before that is what i'm stating >> when you got me banks he called me immediately. will actually you texted me and then you called me. >> i didn't call you immediately. but yes, we did speak >> and you texted me about it as well? >> that is correct >> and then we spoke after mr. wade called your friend and we talked about that as well, correct >> that is correct. >> and at that point, you didn't mention anything to me about being represented by mr. chopra but i didn't mention anything about mr. chopra or that is correct. >> that that was only my question. >> when i say two more texts