( ♪ ) my back got injured very bad. i was off work for about a year. i heard about relief factor from my wife. i took it every day, three times a day, for three weeks. look at her and i said, "the pain is gone." and she said, i'm glad it helped. i said, "no, you don't understand. it's gone." you, too, can feel better every day with relief factor, a daily supplement that fights pain naturally. call or go online now for our 3-week quickstart, just $19.95. las vegas grand prix choose t-mobile for business for 5g solutions. because t-mobile is helping power operations and experiences for hundreds of thousands of fans with reliable 5g connectivity. now's the time to accelerate your business. want to save money and get cash? for veteran homeowners, it's easy as 1-2-3. one: call newday and apply. two: take out an average of $70,000. three: pay off your credit cards

>> you are confused, you think i'm on trial. these people 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. i don't need anything from a man. a man is not a plan, a man is a companion. no, no, this is the truth. and this -- it is a lie. it is a lie. >> did you observe them do things that are common among people having a romantic relationship? >> yes. >> such as, can you give us an example? >> hugging, kissing. just affection. >> wait until the youngest graduated and we dropped her off at college and then file for the

divorce. because my marriage was ir retrievebly broken. i was free to have a relationship. >> sandra: we all remember those fiery moments and now a live look at the courthouse in downtown atlanta where any moment now the star witness in the hearing to disqualify fani willis and nathan wade will return to the stand. hello, welcome everyone, i'm sandra smith in new york. hello, john. >> john: hello do you, i'm john roberts in washington. the courtroom saga has delivered explosive allegations and the latest twist involves nathan wade's divorce attorney, terrence bradley. he will be back on the stand after the judge determined some of bradley's communications with wade are not covered by attorney/client privilege. >> sandra: lawyers for the defendants in the election racketeering case are expected to hammer bradley over the timeline of willis and wade's romantic affair. the two maintain under oath their relationship started after willis hired wade to prosecute

former president donald trump. >> when did your romantic relationship with miss willis begin? >> 2022. around march. >> i do not consider our relationship to have become romantic until early of 2022. i'm saying some time between february and april of 2022. >> sandra: bring in our legal panel now, andy mccarthy and leo terrell, both are fox news contributors, what are your expectations as we see the judge taking the seat there in the courtroom. >> well, three reasons i guess why you would say the attorney/client privilege didn't apply. either the communications were not about legal advice or the lawyer was a fact witness or there were other people involved so that there's no confidentiality expectation. the only other possibility is that the judge found the crime fraud exception apply and i have

not heard anything to give a basis for that yet. >> john: now leo, terrence bradley apparently said he believes and knows the relationship started prior to when nathan wade and fani willis say it did. we also had the woman, robin yearti, who testified the relationship started actually in 2019. if he comes out and says no, the relationship started earlier than what nathan wade and fani willis are claiming, that would indicate not only might they have told an untruth in a court filing, but there may be perjury involved here as well. >> you are absolutely right. let me be clear. terrence bradley, he's a lawyer too. he has an affirmative obligation to be candid with the court. his bar license is at issue. he cannot lie. and for this hearing to take place, that tells us the judge made a finding in camera behind

closed doors there was some evidence that could be testified to outside of the attorney/client privilege as andy pointed out. this is a very important hearing when you couple the testimony by bradley and the cell phone records and the other witness who testified the relationship started prior to 2022. >> sandra: so andy, what sort of surprises might we see when this gets underway? >> well, i think it's going to be more just the shock value of having confirmed things that we already suspect. i wouldn't be that surprised. my problem with this, sandra, to the extent i have one, it's very interesting but it's far afield from what the biggest problem with the atlanta case is, which is the atlanta case. >> john: and leo, to that point, do you expect that fani willis might be disqualified from this case, might it go to another jurisdiction, might it be

dropped all together? >> the fact we are having the hearing, fani willis and nathan wade are in trouble, exposure to other civil and ethical penalties. if the case is transferred, i think you get a fresh pair of eyes and a flip of the coin whether or not the case proceeds. >> john: let's go to the courtroom. i guess terrence bradley will be appearing by zoom, but of course everything else will be going on in the courtroom live. judge -- >> met their burden of establishing the attorney/client privilege applied, specifically as relates to mr. bradley's knowledge of any relationship that existed between miss willis and mr. wade. and particularly that it wasn't established that his specific knowledge came about in furtherance of legal advice. having made that determination i didn't see any other choice but to allow the parties to have an

opportunity to explore that topic with him. there's really in my mind it's that topic only i think if there is anything else we have already covered, i'm not here to do it again. so, with that is there anything else we need to cover before kicking that off? >> just, mr. wade is still a potential witness -- [indiscernible] >> i believe mr. wade was released from the subpoena when we concluded his testimony at the last hearing. so unless he's been resubpoenaed, and i have no knowledge of that. he has every right to be present. >> i think procedurally that would be accurate and so at this point i don't see 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? all right, if we could call for mr. bradley. >> judge, permissible to sit in the jury box? >> that's fine. >> mr. bradley, deputy scott will swear you in again. [indiscernible] >> terrence bradley. >> thank you, judge. good afternoon, bradley. 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. attorney/client privilege. >> overruled. >> i do not have knowledge of it starting or when it started. >> terrence, you told me it st started when they were both municipal court judges, is that correct? >> that is incorrect. >> you never confirmed in writing that it was instead of magistrate court, it was municipal court when they started dating? >> if you are speaking of the text message, you can go to the text message and you can read that and i will explain the text message to you. you and i did not have a conversation about when it started. you asked a compound question of

magistrate court versus -- you said it was magistrate, municipal -- magistrate court conference, i'm sorry, and then you asked 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. >> i'm going to object, this was covered in the previous hearing where mr. bradley said he had no personal knowledge of the exact text that miss merchant is speaking of and used in an attempt to refresh his recollection and he explained what he's explaining, so this is repetitive and unnecessary. i would object to asked and answered and relevance at this point. >> all right. perhaps we will get there. i think miss merchant has the right to draw his attention to the exact potentially inconsistent statement. >> thank you, judge. >> overruled.

>> may i approach him. >> you may. for purposes of the record, i believe miss merchant you tendered, the entire text chain as an exhibit? >> i have only tendered a few of the texts but gave the state the courtesyp couldis last time of the exhibits. >> was this one tendered? >> this was not tendered. >> we'll take it as it comes. >> i think we are at 39. i will wait to mark it but i think we are at 39. may i approach, judge? >> you may. >> all right. so, terrence, do you remember

telling me it started when she left the d.a.s office and was a judge in south fulton? >> i see message but i don't recall, i see the message but do not recall. >> you don't recall texting this. >> i looked back at my text messages through -- that we have had. i see the message, but i do not recall that, no, ma'am. >> and when i asked you if you -- if you thought it started before she hired him and you responded absolutely. >> your honor, i'm going to object as to the source of the information that mr. bradley allegedly gathered this from. there's been absolutely no foundation and based on the argument the last hearing that a lot of this is based on gossip, inuendo, and that mr. bradley would have any information she keeps referring to. >> i didn't ask him about the source of the information and

under rule 621 i can impeach him with inconsistent facts. this is inconsistent facts. >> why would it be a relevant impeachment if he has no personal knowledge of this. >> if he doesn't. >> i think you have to lay that foundation, that would be sustained. >> do you remember telling me that it began -- >> that doesn't address the issue. >> i was just asking if he remembered telling me as opposed to the text. >> sure. >> do you remember telling me it began -- >> no, then you are in the substance of it. which we have not determined whether he actually knows or how he knows. >> you told me in fact you corrected me when i said magistrate court you corrected me and said it was municipal court. >> same objection, your honor. >> this is the same issue. >> i'm asking if he remembers that. he hasn't answered that question yet. >> right. but the relevance of whether he

remembers it is not established until we know how he remembers it or why he knows it. if that makes sense, i guess not. >> how he knows it, i'm just asking if he told me that. >> right. >> i was not asking how he knew that or sourcech that knowledge, but if he told me that. >> that's the point, the source of the knowledge -- hearsay because it's gossip and inuendo. >> it may not be hearsay or gossip, we don't know how he knows what he's apparently telling her and figure it out before we go any further. >> and if it's a witness who has testified it's not hearsay. >> when did the relationship start? >> i cannot answer that. >> when was your knowledge when it started. >> objection, he said he has no

idea when it occurred [indiscernible] >> i asked his first knowledge. i asked him when he first got knowledge of that. >> ok. if the question is when did you first get knowledge, we can start there. 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. so i don't know when the relationship started. >> and that wasn't my question. so, my question is, when did you first gain knowledge, i didn't ask the source of the knowledge, didn't ask you to comment on the validity. >> we'll get to the how, i'll note the objection, overrule it. >> for the record, appreciate, your honor, but he said he has no personal knowledge so it's clear he had to gain the knowledge not from hearsay.

>> he could have gained it from mr. wade. >> most of us learn things from hearsay it's a question whether it's admissible. that's what we have to get to. >> apologize: >> when did you first get knowledge, i'm not qualifying what type of knowledge but first knew about the relationship. >> i don't know how to answer that. i mean -- so i can't give you a date, if you are asking for a date. if you are asking me how did i get the knowledge, it would have come directly from my client. >> right. >> so help me understand -- >> you say you can't answer that question, you don't know the date. that's the answer to the question. >> but i said that five minutes ago. >> we have to make it clear. next question. >> you don't know the specific

date. >> no. >> do you know if -- can we narrow down the timeline. did you gain knowledge in 2019? of this relationship beginning? >> i'm going to object to this line of questioning. he said he does not know when he gained knowledge. >> he doesn't know the specific date. >> i'm overruling that. is try to see if he can narrow it down based on goal posts. >> thank you. >> 19, i would probably say, no, i mean -- i don't have anything that i'm -- there wasn't a specific date, there wasn't a football game, there wasn't something that i can attribute to him telling me whatever, and so you are asking for a date, you are asking for a year, it's 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 a contract from miss willis january 2021, correct? >> can i see the -- >> yes, i think so. i think -- i think if it was from the exhibits, i think it was 21, yes. >> i don't want to belabor the point, you remember when you were here before, if the documents you looked at last time. >> yes. >> said january 2022. >> 21. >> 21, thank you. >> renewed in 22. >> yes. contract date that we have in the record is january 25th, 2022. so using that date, at that point had they begun their romantic relationship? >> of 2022 -- >> january 25, 2021, i'm sorry, when you got your first contract. >> i don't recall -- i don't

recall any specific dates, no, ma'am. >> you remember when you got that contract, is that correct? >> i remember the contract, yes. >> you told us last week, or the week before now, you told us mr. wade brought you that contract, told you about that contract. >> that is correct. >> so miss willis is not the one that brought that contract to you directly, it was mr. wade. >> that is correct. >> at that point in time they were engaged in a relationship. >> i can't say -- >> mischaracterization of what mr. bradley just said. >> he doesn't remember the exact date i think the question is to reference or tie it to some other event that he might remember. >> i agree with your honor. he said he does not remember any specific dates after signing the contract. that's exactly what he just said. it's asked and answered. >> i know, and we are getting to the end of it. you don't have much more to pull on here, but he answered that last question, what's your next one. >> and judge, i didn't hear the

answer if they were in a relationship january 25th, 2021. >> do you recall the question? >> i recall the question and i can't tell you accurately whether or not they were in a relationship at that time. you asked me about him bringing me a contract. i said he did bring me a contract and that is accurate. >> do you remember prior -- do you remember knowing miss willis prior to her taking office as the d.a.? >> i had very little contact with miss willis. i knew her through my business of coming down to fulton, if that's what you are asking. yes. >> you heard through the business, so you had met her prior to your contract? >> i'm going to object to relevance why we are here today. >> judge, he doesn't remember much of anything right now so i'm trying to create a timeline to hopefully piece this together. >> all right. well, i'm not seeing really the likelihood that's going to have

any success. i'll let you ask a few more questions, but if he doesn't have a date, then i don't know that you are going to be able to create one today. >> ok, thank you. so the time that you had this contract from january 2021 until january 2022, did you come in and out of the d.a.s office? >> yes. >> were you able to witness mr. wade and miss willis to interact. >> object, to and from a specific room to pick up files and mr. bradley said he rarely saw them together but this was -- >> i think the only avenue closed at the last hearing was his personal knowledge potentially through -- actually, no, if he testified he had no personal knowledge, it's knowledge conveyed to him that

was cut off at the last hearing, that's really the only thing we have not been able to explore unless you are, correct me if i'm wrong. >> knowledge conveyed to him. >> by somebody else. he claimed at the time was privileged i found it's not. that's what we are here to explore. >> ok. do you remember telling me that not many people knew where they met? >> object as to relevance as to his personal knowledge which is what 602 requires. >> back to the same point, miss merchant. >> his personal knowledge, what he told me. >> he has not yet told you how he knows that. so unless you can establish why he should be testifying on this at all, there's no relevance. >> and i don't know how he knows. >> then ask him. an>> i have to establish how he said that. >> no you don't, you can go the other way around. >> when you told me that it

started when you left -- when she left the d.a.'s office and was a judge in south fulton, where did you gain that knowledge from? >> i'm going to object. his testimony a few minutes ago is that he did not recall making that statement. >> i'll overrule that, mr. bradley answer the question if you can. >> repeat the question. >> when you told me their relationship started when she left the d.a.'s office and was a judge in south fulton, where did you obtain that knowledge from? >> 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. >> based on things told to you or things you observed? >> object as to the nature of this line of questioning because the witness has made it clear he was speculating as to how or what he knew. if it's speculation, it's inadmissible in the court. >> motivation for his reason for speculating would be admissible, i'll overrule that. >> thank you, judge. was this speculation when you told me that, was that based on things that had been told to you and things that you had witnessed? >> i never witnessed anything. so you know, it was speculation. i can't tell you anything specific if that's what you are asking. >> you can't tell me anything specific as to why you speculated about that? >> this was -- however many years ago. i mean, i don't recall, but no. i don't.

>> did you have any reason to lie to me? >> i don't know if speculation is lying, but -- i'm -- >> let me just -- show me where in the text it says you are speculating. >> you can't ask me if i was speculating or guessing. >> i didn't ask you -- >> the same one you just showed me, it does not. >> you are welcome if you need to look at your text. anywhere that you didn't have knowledge. >> i'm going to object, the line of questioning directed counsel where he got the knowledge. he explored that said it's speculation and did not get it from any source other than his own speculation. >> sure, i think we are 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. and judge, speaking objections are clearly coaching the witness because he's regurgitating.

>> your honor, i object and take offense to that comment. i'm objecting based on the law and i'm making a record for the court so i take offense to that comment. it's not the case. >> all right. well, i think we can start with objection, the grounds and rule number. if i need more i'll ask. >> thank you, thank you. what did nathan tell you about the relationship? >> objection, hearsay. >> nathan has testified, it's not hearsay. >> it's still hearsay. it's an out of court statement brought of the truth of the matter asserted. >> judge. >> impeachment by contradiction, which would be an exception to the hearsay rule and admissible as such into evidence and the privilege issues are overruled. >> thank you, judge. >> well, i think -- if you don't know when he's talking about, so we have established december 2019 was the date of privilege. >> something i covered in the in camera hearing and based on what

he told me in the in camera hearing i don't believe any statements to this effect were covered by privilege. >> judge, i just want for the record, sometimes the record does not reflect where people are looking and when i ask a question, mr. bradley is looking at mr. wade and his lawyer to wait for them to object and they are clearly interacting in the court. it wouldn't otherwise. >> it's there now. >> a question was put to you mr. bradley. >> one of my lawyers is sitting right in the back, a, behind -- >> you can look wherever you want. >> i never looked at mr. wade or his attorneys. >> all right. mr. bradley, question put to you. >> repeat the question please. >> i showed you or asked you, what did nathan wade tell you about the relationship? >> same objection, your honor. >> and it'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 offices 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 one time about the recessionship? >> objection, asked and answered. >> clarify for cross. miss merchant. >> i do not recall any other time that he mentioned that they were in a relationship, no.

>> so other than -- so you talked about this one time. and you said you don't know when it was, though, correct? >> that is correct. >> was it before mr. wade -- before you got the contract in fulton county, let's start with that. >> i do not recall. >> ok. and how did it come up? >> say again. >> how did it come up? >> i 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 6th with a motion attached? >> i think i did, yes. yes, i know i received -- i don't know the date is january 6th but yes, i received.

>> you remember receiving that. >> yes. >> the date, ok. and then you reviewed it and you and i spoke about it. you recall that? >> we speak over the phone or through a text? >> that's what i'm asking you. >> i can't remember whether it was text or phone or -- >> but you recall us 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 office, terrence bradley had received, and whether or not that was going to be in the motion or not. >> there was a discrepancy, i kept it out and you asked me to put it back in, correct? >> i don't -- i recall you -- that might be accurate, yes. >> and you thought, because you thought it might be suspicious if you were left out of the motion? >> 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 had received a certain amount and then you also had put and then mr. wade had received a certain amount. but there was not anything in there originally and i said that it needed to be accurate, i needed to be accurate as far as i received 74,000, that's correct. >> because you did not want anyone knowing that you had talked to me. >> object to relevance. >> bias. >> overruled. >> i wanted you to be accurate as far as the accuracy of our message or your filing. >> ok. so that was your -- your interest was inaccuracy of the filing. >> 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 -- that i'm going to be in your motion. >> i asked you to review it for accuracy. >> accuracy and i just stated it was inaccurate. >> and the inaccuracy was about how much you had made. >> that was the inaccuracy that i saw that jumped out was the fact that i saw that i was left out when you had put -- >> ok. >> the firm, the money was. i did not -- when i responded to that, it was for that specific reason. >> ok. and i agreed i would put that section back in. >> correct. >> and i did put it back in and sent it to you again. >> i don't recall getting a second email from you, no. >> but you were happy i put it back in, or agreed to put it back in. >> object as to relevance.

>> we need to get to more material aspects. >> yes, judge, i'm moving along, i promise. so you actual me, you did ask me to put that back in. >> well -- >> asked and answered, relevance. >> he didn't answer that last question, so overruled. >> you did -- can you confirm you did ask me to put that back in to be accurate? >> that's correct. i said that yes. >> okay. >> and then i asked you if everything was accurate and you said looks good. correct? >> i recall you asking that, but the looks good was applying to the accuracy of the 74,000, that's it. >> ok. so when you reviewed the motion and you specifically pointed out that one thing that you found

inaccurate, you didn't point anything else out that you found inaccurate in that motion, correct? >> no, i did not. >> motion alleged the relationship began when miss willis was in municipal court. >> if i can reread the motion, but i don't recall but if that's what it says, but my saying that it looks good was when you put back in the 74,000 into your motion. >> ok. and that wasn't what i was asking. what i was asking, you didn't tell me that there was anything else inaccurate in the motion, though, right? >> but i didn't state that anything was accurate other than the 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 i approach, judge?

>> you may. >> which page are you showing? >> not page number, january 6th. >> may i see? >> yeah, of course. so we will be talking and you asked me to send a rough draft. >> ok, but you didn't want it to be leaked before i filed it. >> that's correct, that's

correct. >> so you are the one that asked me to send you a rough draft. >> yes, that's correct, yes, that's correct. >> 10:08 on saturday, january 6th. and then you got an email from me with that rough draft at 10:25 that same day, correct? >> yes. >> if -- if it says 10:25, then i know you sent me an email. >> while he's looking at it, i'm going to object as asked and answered. we have been through the fact she sent a copy of the motion, whether he specifically said rough draft or not and then asked about the accuracy, he's explained his answer and asked and answered. >> understood. we are getting there, overruled for now. >> and then i responded, when we were talking about that i took it out and i can add it back and

you said yes, add it back. do you remember that? >> i answered that, yes. >> and i said anything else, anything else that isn't accurate and you responded looks good. you recall that? >> let me see the -- >> of course. >> i don't know where the exhibits are. they were admitted. that refresh your memory? >> i said looks good, but as i stated before, i was responding to you putting me back into the motion for receiving $74,000 and a contract. >> that's not what this says. this says, you said yes add it back and i said anything else, anything that is inaccurate and you responded looks good. you were not responding to put it back in. >> your honor, i'm going to object, this is not his motion.

[indiscernible] >> overruled. >> i'm talking about his personal knowledge. >> i said twice it looks accurate or more than twice was for the 74,000. >> do you remember telling me about nathan and fani coming to your office and spending time together at your office? >> no. i mentioned i do recall testifying on the 16th that she had come to our office. >> and that was before she was elected as district attorney, correct? >> i recall that that was when she was district attorney. because i said there was a meeting held at my office. >> and who was at that meeting? >> i can't tell you that. i don't recall. >> but you know miss willis was there and mr. wade was there. >> it was at our office.

actually miss 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 that meeting. >> why did she hold it at your office then? >> i have no idea. >> you also remember telling me about them spending time together at her law office before she took her job? >> i don't recall. i don't recall. do you have something to -- >> well, what i'm asking is, so let's back up a sec. miss willis rented a law office from evans firm, or andrew evans and another lawyer, stacey evans. you have knowledge of that, correct? >> i'm going to object to hearsay. how does he know that information? that would be the correct

question. >> ok. miss merchant. >> i don't really know even how to respond to that. hearsay, i'm asking if he knew she rented an office. >> they may have been there. may have -- may have seen a business card or something at some point. i think he can answer that. >> i've never been to miss willis' office when she was in private practice. i've never dealt with where she rented. i didn't even know where her office was. so -- >> do you remember knowing she rented an office. >> yes. >> from the evans. >> correct, yes. >> and do you remember telling me that mr. wade and miss willis would meet at that office? >> i'm going to object. 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, judge, he hasn't answered. >> he said in general he has no personal knowledge.

it's not established the source because he said he's never been to her office. >> all right. miss merchant, if -- i know you are trying to impeach him by prior inconsistent statement but unless you can first back up and show why each statement is actually something that he had knowledge of, i don't know if it's going to be relevant. >> judge, i'm not even there yet, but again, speaking objection and so now i would anticipate what the 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 you knew. >> you are asking knowledge and then something specific. >> once i get an answer to that, if he has knowledge i will follow up with where that knowledge came from. >> let's try again. >> my question is, do you have knowledge of them meeting that at that office. >> objection, foundation. >> ok, overruled. >> do you have knowledge of them

meeting at that office. >> i have no personal knowledge if that's what you are asking. >> i didn't ask that yet. i'm asking if you have any knowledge. >> objection, hearsay. >> not if it came from mr. wade, judge. >> how do you know, mr. bradley. >> 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 miss willis worked. what did you know about them meeting at that office? >> objection, hearsay. >> it's not hearsay, judge. >> overruled. >> how he knows it and then you ask the next question. >> she's already -- already asked the next question. >> can you repeat the question? >> yes. >> how do you have knowledge, what knowledge -- you just told us, you told us mr. wade told you, tell us what mr. wade told you with miss willis and mr.

wade meeting at the evans office. >> objection, your honor. privileged. this clearly covers a time after december 2018 and covered by the privilege. >> overruled. you recall the question, mr. bradley? >> i do not. >> re-ask the question, miss merchant. >> what did you learn from mr. wade, i would clarify that's where you learned it from, about mr. willis -- mr. wade and miss willis meeting at the evans office together? >> object to asked and answered. >> we haven't had an evens answer. >> his answer may change. >> tip him off how to answer the

question. >> i can't recall what the conversation was. i do -- i do recall knowing that they would -- that he would 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 at that office, though, correct? >> i don't recall him stating that, no. >> you don't recall it. >> no. >> so it's possible he did say that. >> you just don't remember one way or another. >> i don't remember him saying that. >> do you recall that he had a garage door opener to either a house or condo or something like that of miss willis's? >> i've never seen a garage door

opener. i've never been to miss willis's house. i've never been to -- 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. >> i didn't ask whether you had personal knowledge -- like you saw it, do you have any knowledge at all from mr. wade or any source that he had a garage door opener to access one of miss willis's residents. >> object, any source is hearsay. >> overruled. >> i do not have any knowledge. >> when you told me that, did you just make it up? >> do you have something that shows that i told you that? >> yes, when -- well -- we are going to go through all the texts we can, but so was that made up, though? >> i'm going to object. >> i don't recall him having -- >> just a second. >> 106, the rule of

completeness. i don't have that text message or any text messages that indicate that, your honor. >> if it was a text, we had that conversation, i think it was when he was on speaker phone and mr. merchant was there, but if i'm asked to qualify where that's from -- >> ok, rule of completeness would be if you need to introduce other texts to show the context. if you are saying you haven't seen a copy yet, i think miss merchant needs to do that before you can decide the next step. >> and that's what i was asking him, if that was something he just remembers making up. if he doesn't, that's fine. >> referenced text messages started to go into the package of papers. >> i don't remember if i was a text or it was a conversation. it was one of those. >> he has now said he has no knowledge, on to the next question. >> ok. did mr. wade tell you about the trips he and miss willis took? >> no. >> do you have any knowledge of the trips he and miss willis took. >> objection, hearsay.

>> overruled. >> i do now. >> ok. but you did not before this proceeding? >> i did not know until you texted that you found that in the deposition of his divorce. not deposition, but something from his divorce. >> ok. and when you responded, doesn't surprise me they took many trips to florida, texas, california, those are your words, right? >> object as to relevance. he said he did not know and he learned from miss merchant the information. >> he said he learned about certain trips from miss merchant. >> ok. you can tie it down, but -- we'll see. >> thank you. >> no information on any trips that miss willis and mr. wade took that he learned it all from miss merchant. that was his testimony. >> sure. conclusion we reach, i think she's going to ask more than one question, though. all right, miss merchant. >> judge, so we can be clear, if

he said more than one version, that's all relevant. we are allowed to talk about the different versions that he's told. >> i've overruled the objection miss merchant. >> thank you. >> 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 out of famu. you remember that? >> i don't recall that, but if -- i don't recall. >> ok. judge may i approach? >> sure. you may. >> it's in one of the ones i gave you.

look at that and see if it refreshes your memory. just first let me know if it refreshes your memory. >> yes, yes. >> so it's true that you told me that they took many trips to florida, 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, i think, and that was specific to at the top of that it says no i didn't. >> yes. >> and so that was to the trips that you asked about and i think before that when you mentioned

that you found all these trips i think i said oh, wow. >> yes, you did. >> and -- >> you did not know about all the trips that were taken and you qualified, you said no, i didn't, when did it happen and the next text i can get or look at your phone or whatever, whatever refreshes your memory said was after you left, after the firm was dissolved. >> object to relevance. >> overruled. >> after -- you said those were after your firm had resolved, correct? >> i think you mentioned they were after i left, maybe, or whenever you found them and i said no, i didn't know about those trips. >> 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 printouts of screen shots? >> well, you have the printouts. >> judge, the reason i'm asking, i'm getting objections i've cut things off and it's just the

nature how you printout screen shots. in order to avoid that, i'm happy for him to refresh his memory with his own phone. >> i don't know if he's accepting your offer. >> you can just provide the documents. >> ok. let's see -- >> may i have some water, judge, please. >> let me see what we can do. >> all right, judge, i'm trying to pull out all the messages he may need. >> all right. well, i don't really see -- at some point we are reaching the

cumulative point we don't need to go through an entire six-month text chain. you are making the point he made some comments along the way that led you to believe he had more knowledge than today he's testifying he had. if you've hit the high points of that, i don't know what else we can cover that actually moves the needle. >> okay. i'll just -- i'll move on to the -- so you told me they took many trips to florida. does that refresh your memory, you told 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 trips to texas, and you are the one -- was that based on your knowledge from mr. wade? >> it 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 if you went on

these trips. i'm asking if you have knowledge from mr. wade. you also typed california. was that something you gained from knowledge from mr. wade. >> it would have been from the client at this point, yes, from the client. >> you told me the trip to california was to move her daughter out there, was that something you gained from mr. wade? >> thank you, judge. >> any knowledge that i have of 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. >> i think this is impeachment of mr. wade's testimony if mr. wade testified he never used anyone else's credit card before. >> asked and answered, it was covered during the last hearing, knowledge of mr. wade used his credit card. >> i asked when.

i didn't ask did he, i asked when did he. >> i do not have any dates of when mr. wade used my credit card. i testified that we used the card for business and that throughout the business we ordered paper or supplies or filing of depositions. the cost factor of cases is what i said. and that still applies today. did he use my credit card, he did. but i can't tell you who 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, i mean, it was for a trip but i can't tell you where, when, why, or anything to that nature, correct. >> and he paid you back in cash.

>> i never testified that he paid me back in cash. i said that he would either pay me back, you know, i said i couldn't remember, i do not recall. sometimes he would write checks, sometimes he would pay cash and that still applies today that i do not recall him paying me back cash but i do recall him paying me back. >> this was -- before your partnership split up, correct? >> it would have been before i left the firm, yes. he wouldn't have used my card after i left the firm. >> so we can at least narrow down the dates to that. >> before i left the firm, yes. >> ok, great. and mr. wade gave you details about meeting miss willis in hapeville or east point. >> st. croix. >> he did not tell you about that. >> he did not give me details.

>> he did not tell you about meeting with miss willis at an hapeville or east point apartment? at this time i don't recall. no, i don't recall. >> where did you get that information from, then? >> testified he doesn't recall if he even had that information. >> i asked if he got it from mr. wade and he said he doesn't recall. then i asked where he got it from. >> i do not recall where i got the information from. >> ok. and you and mr. wade were friends as well as business partners, correct? >> we were friends in the sense of i've 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, gay banks called you and nathan wade called you, it was after that you call mr. topra to assist you in this matter, correct? >> was it after that? so i hired mr. chopra and hired mr. graham. mr. graham is here and when i received the subpoena -- mr. graham was here at the last

hearing but he had to go out of town, but he was present. mr. graham i had called and i started getting calls from media and i told him to respond to the media, i think, and that was somewhere around whenever you subpoenaed 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. >> ok. i'm going to ask the question again because i didn't get an answer to it. after you got the phone call from gay banks and from nathan wade -- >> i think it was before that, but -- however, i think it was before that is what i'm stating.

>> when you got the phone call from gay banks, you called me immediately -- actually you texted me and then called me. >> i didn't call you immediately, but yes, we did speak. >> ok. 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. >> i didn't mention anything about mr. chopra or -- that is correct. >> that is my questions. okay. i'll show you two more texts. >> all right. mrs. merchant. >> last two weeks. >> 3 of 5 i'm cutting you off.