that we received notification from mr. cromwell on behalf of ms. latham and he said he was waving her presence. i do not know if he later decided to join us by zoom, but i do not think he was electing to login. so after mr. couture, just in terms of timing, do you have any expectation of how long, if any questioning would last? >> i do not imagine my question would be very long. judge mcafee: ok. let's get back to it at 4:00. you can just step out of the room.

mr. qatar, are you still with us? >> i am, your honor. judge mcafee: all right, let us go back on the record with mr. bradley here and everyone else's here as well. you may proceed. >> mr. bradley did you use any , documents to prepare for your testimony today? mr. bradley: no, i did not. >> the last time you spoke with gabe banks? mr. bradley: the day, i do not have the date, but it was the date of whenever the phone call happened. >> and you knew his wife kyra banks works for das office, right? mr. bradley: yes, that is correct. >> when was the last time you spoke to mr. wade? mr. bradley: i have not spoken

mr. wade personally in two years since i left the firm. >> ms. willis? mr. bradley: my interaction with ms. willis was never where i would pick up the phone and talk to her or anything like that. >> so you didn't hang out with ms. willis, did not have a personal relationship with her? mr. bradley: no, i never had any personal relationship. i mentioned before that i went to a dinner that was after she was elected that was at a steakhouse, but it was 75 200 people there. >> so you knew of her, you just did not have a business relationship or personal relationship with her, at least a close one? mr. bradley: she was in the das office and i had criminal cases, but i did not personally know

her, no. >> not having known her, not really hanging out with her, you got a contract from her office. >> i am going to object. asked and answered. judge mcafee: i think you covered this ground on the 16th about the contracts. are you going somewhere else with this? >> i am, judge, if you would give me a little latitude. judge mcafee: you may proceed. >> you got a contract from the office not knowing or having a good working business relationship with ms. willis? mr. bradley: correct. >> that's because nathan wade steered that contract to you. mr. bradley: i do not know how it came about but it was presented to me at the office by the contract. >> who presented it to you, mr. wade? mr. bradley: yes. >> and he owed you money you said at one point. he owed you money at one point.

mr. bradley: i do not recall saying that he owes me money. >> did he owe you money at one point? mr. bradley: not that i recall saying that mr. wade owes me or owed me money, i don't recall ever saying that. >> i didn't ask if you ever said it, i asked if he ever owed you money in the past? mr. bradley: no, he didn't owe me money. >> and so he steered this contract to you come into your office, and you weren't really talking to him, had not talked to him for two years? mr. bradley: the contract was in 2021. i did not leave until 2022. >> you did not talk to him that whole time? mr. bradley: i left in 2022. i have not really spoken him since 2022 is what i said. when i left june of 2022, june,

august dates of 2022. >> one last question. other than your attorney, who did you speak with today about giving testimony in this case? today? mr. bradley: i spoke with my attorneys charles graham and bc chopra. >> i have nothing further, your honor. judge mcafee: all right. i am going to double check, did mr. cromwell ever join us by zoom? >> i think he is still having technical issues. he said all relevant questions were asked. judge mcafee: ok. so just for the record, mr. cromwell has been apparently watching the preceding and was in his client's presence and did not have any other questions. mr. bradley, you can step down. thank you, sir.

[inaudible] judge mcafee: by way of proffer, what about the texts? >> just to admit when other people asked about the text, some of them were in the record today. so i organized them. the ones that have been talked about today, i just organize them. i just wanted to reference to them. judge mcafee: ok. do we need mr. bradley for that? >> i don't think so. judge mcafee: have you marked them? have you show them to the state? >> i gave a copy to the state. judge mcafee: but so these are just for one second to make sure i give you all you can speak and looking at that. mr. bradley handed me defense

exhibit 23, 24, 25. mr. bradley: i didn't realize that they were, oh, is this from the hearing? judge mcafee: thank you for checking for those. [laughter] i've got anything else in your 23, 24, 25. binder? [laughter] ok. and have we come to any conclusions on i'm sorry, how , did you mark it? >> i marked it. i think we're up to 39. judge mcafee: defense exhibit 39 is tendered and admitted without objection. these are additional text messages? >> they objected that they were not complete because the first

part of the text was not there. like, oh, there was something before that that was said. so what i did was i spent the whole time trying to line them up. so that i had the beginning and the middle based on their objections. they have all the texts, they can admit all of them if they want them. judge mcafee: all right. i will just do this. i understand the desire to have the complete text chain for purposes of completing the record. i think there is no point in having him sit here and authenticate every single one of them so i am willing to admit it as a court exhibit and the only exhibits that have been previously tendered in reference of testimony would be the ones that are actually relied on for making any findings but just for the record, we have the complete text change. should it ever be an issue for some reason. any thoughts about that? >> my only thought this is not the complete text change. i looked to briefly look in this

-- ms. merchants phone when she allowed us to have it for seconds minutes. there are text messages i know that i saw that are not in what is important to these states to the 39. judge mcafee: ms. merchant, what about that? >> i let them screenshots of the ones that they weren't there and he sent them to himself on my phone. i also offered to hook my phone up to whatever it is. my phone is an iphone, this is an android. i can't download like you could in a normal text. i told them if they had a system to get all of my text, they can have every single one. >> we can definitely do that. >> your honor, the text that she is submitting now and tendering into evidence are specific parts of the conversation. the entire text chain is a continuous conversation. those particular parts given the witness's testimony should be submitted into evidence and the statements with this testimony today, it would be up to the government, the state if they want to introduce the rest of it. judge mcafee: sure. i think that's a fair point that if you had been confronted with a particular text, that could

have been the opportunity to admit it as a prior consistent statement for impeachment. and some of them were, but apparently some of them were not. >> i am taking it out. i'm taking out the ones that they said he was with and i'm just going to the one that he was. that's fine. it just makes it more confusing. judge mcafee: all right. we have a newly compiled 39. let's see what the state thinks about that one. all right. regardless if that is now what is being discussed, again, i do not see a need for mr. bradley to be here any longer, so i'm going to excuse him at this point. >> may we be? judge mcafee: of course. take care. yes, that's right.

judge mcafee: so where are we with defense exhibit 39?

>> so i put in so that it would make sense. so you could read it, you know, when you're reading a text and it's a conversation. judge mcafee: sure. >> they're upset that they're not in order now, i guess, i don't really understand. judge mcafee: let's start from the beginning. what is the purpose of the defense exhibit 39? >> these are the ones that i showed him and that i showed him today. so there were a lot of follow up questions on it. and so i realized, ok, well, they should just be in the record because other people are referring to my text and they might as well just be in the record and he authenticated all of them. judge mcafee: mr. rice? [inaudible] judge mcafee: to that end, is there a particular text message in there you think was not? i understand you're saying, well, maybe one of them has already been admitted. but otherwise, just having a omnibus here are all the relevant text messages exhibit. is there an authentication objection? is there any other kind of objection like that?

>> yes, they didn't authenticate that all of the text messages were from him and between ms. merchant or the context. i think that is the problem. if the state was to provide a specific text chain from a cell phone extraction, there would be an objection because the state would be making the determination as to what is relevant. all of the information should be turned over and it is for the parties to object or for your honor to determine which parts of the conversation are relevant or not. i don't have all of the conversation. the conversation starts in september. so there's a few text messages, september and then we jump to january. ms. merchant has determined that that jump in between is not relevant. that is not appropriate. it's for your honor to determine what's relevant and not. and i can't make an objection as to what i don't know. i can tell you what i've read. it seems as if there are definitely parts that are missing that would make certain parts of the text message. she's attempting to admit that

she didn't confront the witness with would be my objection, but only some the relevance can only be determined if we have the full chain. she has determined which ones are relevant. that is your job. judge mcafee: sure. didn't she just tried to do the full chain as an exhibit a moment ago? >> no, we do not have the full chain. the full chain is text messages that begin in september and continue down. that's not contained in that entire package. they're on her phone. she would like us to extract from just that change. ms. merchant and i offered that : not a problem. and i offered that when we were here before and i was told they didn't have that technology, but let me just go through them one by one, it might be easier. i was trying to just do it quickly. judge mcafee: just hand them to me. i can read them. while i am reading them, mr. gillen, what did you have to add? >> apparently ms. merchant has allowed the state to take screenshots of what they now

intend would be the larger perspective on and i disagree with them about the rule of completeness but it is their job when something is admitted that if they have an objection because the context is not appropriate, they then move and the state moves to rule of complete admissibility of the other emails chain they had. so the real issue here is their failure to comply with the rule of completeness once they have the material from the last hearing they took screenshots of. judge mcafee: and now they are being tendered. >> i don't think that he is. it seems to me what is happening here is ms. merchant has tried several different ways to get it in. she wanted everything in and they objected to it and she wanted the segments and that had the witness had been asked

about, and that is what she is trying to do. my point is that the rule of completeness is at the time of tendering. if they want something to be complete, that is on them. judge mcafee: sure. last point. >> i had very limited time with ms. merchant cell phone. i only had time to literally find one part of the text message before ms. merchant demanded her phone back. so i did not have the opportunity to screenshot every text or missing part of the conversation so mr. gilman is saying it should be done but it can't be done because i do not have the information. you do not have the complete packet and there were many of the text messages screenshots that you printed out that were not used to confront mr. bradley will reflash -- refresh his recollection. so there inadmissible evidence.

if anyone missed the opportunity, it was the defense counsel to confront him. judge mcafee: sure. all right. i don't think we need to go back and forth any further. ms. merchant you said to print , out a complete chain of every text exchange with mr. bradley. i'll give you the chance to do that and you can follow up by email with that exhibit. that would be the complete chain without any deletions or removals. and we'll have that marked as defense exhibit 39. ms. merchant when mr abadi : texted himself the screenshots, i literally wrote him. "do you want any other screenshots? i have nothing to hide. you can download my phone if you want." judge mcafee: all right. we're done. ok. i'll wait back to hear from you all on exhibit 39. is there anything else to take up before we discuss friday? just kind of throwing it open to the floor. seeing none, i believe i asked

and put it out there among defense counsel to be considering how they would like to organize their arguments on friday. have there been any decisions reached on that? >> i can email the court when we are done with that we are going . to make it as efficient as possible and break it up. judge mcafee: break it up in terms of like subject matter or something like that? yes, that is the idea. i will start with, what it is you are asking for? we will start there. i was kind of curious. >> i don't know the answer right now. number one, the court said, look, if you divide it up, then we can go with that. or if you can't divided up, then i will give each defense counsel a specific period of time . tomorrow we will find out

whether we can divided up or not in a way that serves the interests of our respective clients. hopefully we can, we can communicate with the court. judge mcafee: what we will just wait to hear from you. to the point of, i think the state recently filed their own motion, i think it formally said to reopen the evidence as to another witness. i only got to read it very briefly, or i don't know if that was just saying in the alternative we would like to reopen the evidence. maybe someone can clarify that. but my thought they are and what i think we ought to do friday and what i would like to do on the cell phone analysis and this other affidavit filed by the state today is that both parties , any party rather, can make whatever arguments they want based on a proffer, any counter arguments that want to make based on a proffer. they would not be admitted into evidence at this point.

at this point, i need to start hearing the arguments in the law that we have heard so far and if i think i am able to reach a ruling based on that, i will. however, if i think that the proffer is going to make a material determinative point, we can reopen the evidence at that point. but the bottom line is on the intention is that we're friday, still sticking with argument, but the parties are free to address some of these issues that have been brought up post hearing if they'd like to . >> your honor? i am alive and well with a quick question. i suggest that we do not have to have a witness present on friday. judge mcafee: correct. friday would just be argument and counsel can proffer why they think it is significant and if once i've heard the law on the argument of counsel, i decide that that is going to have some material bearing on the outcome, then we will, we can reopen the evidence and have it properly admitted and authenticated and subject to cross examination. >> thank you. judge mcafee: ok.

ms. merchant. ms. merchant: i just wanted to know if the court wanted us to focus our arguments on. judge mcafee: actually, i think what i am more likely to do is along the lines of what i suggested before, give you a time block and you use the time however you think is more effective. once you think it's your strongest argument, a lot has been covered and there is a lot of the motions that were covered in the evidentiary hearing that i would plan to rely on at the same time as well. so i would leave that to you. i just said disqualification as a whole so if you have arguments about misconduct, anything like that, that would be the time for that argument as well. i talked about that and then things evolved. we didn't actually send out a notice, adding any other motions, but we do need to, we have some trials starting next week, the next two weeks, we've

got some of our homicide trials already scheduled so i will be following up with you to schedule the rest of the pretrial motions we have. >> so the only argument is that we have on friday would be one -- 1:00 on the issue? judge mcafee: that's right. all things disqualification, uh -- all things disqualification. anything from the state or any other defense counsel? >> not at this time. judge mcafee: all right, thank you. >> former president trump is the winner in michigan's republican presidential primary. here is a look at the current results which has nikki haley in second place. republicans have decided to award 16 of the 55 delegates based on these totals. the others will be allotted at a party convention held this weekend. mr. trump has won every state

gop contest up to this point. the next are caucuses in idaho, missouri, and north dakota before super tuesday march 5 when 15 states will hold republican primaries. and a look at the results of michigan's democratic presidential primary. president biden is the declared winner. the next percentage of voters are from people who remain uncommitted, many likely from arab americans protesting his handling of the israel-hamas conflict. the next primaries were democrats will be super, march 5. you can follow all the results to each primary and caucus on c-span.org/campaign2024. >> c-span's washington journal. our live form involving you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from washington, d.c. and

across the country. wednesday morning, poster author discusses political moves of the day and campaign 2024 and axios correspondent talks about his recent interview with hunter biden and previews his deposition with house committee members on capitol hill. washington journal. join the conversation live at 7:00 eastern wednesday morning on c-span, c-span now, or c-span.org. >> republican and democratic house and senate leaders met with president biden and vice president harris at the white house to negotiate federal spending with the partial shutdown looming friday. before the meeting president spoke briefly to his reporters. then chuck schumer and house minority hakeem jeffries referred to the white house meeting as productive, intense, and honest. and speaker