it is good to be back with you. will fani willis get pulled off

the biggest case of her career and one of real consequence for the election? any minute, we expect to hear from a key witness about willis' romantic relationship with nathan wade. will that witness confirm their testimony or could what he says delay, even defeat the trial before it gets underway? plus, right now, michigan voters are at the primary polls. why democrats are drawing their attention to a state that's more than 900 miles away. plus, inside the mystery of a missing couple presumed dead. with evidence of a bloody struggle left on their abandoned yacht. what we're learning now about what might have happened in their final moments on earth. but we begin with the future of the georgia election interference trial against former president trump and may be, may be it could be at stakes. who prosecutes, when, and perhaps whether it gets

prosecuted at all. any minute now, they'll call back to the witness stand a key witness who's expected to testify about the romantic relationship between fani willis and the special prosecutor she put on the case. the name is terrence bradley. his former divorce lawyer, former law partner, central to today's hearing and the future of this case is what he knows about the timeline of wade's relationship with willis and specifically, did wade and willis tell the truth about it under oath? let's talk about the implications with katie. former fulton county, georgia deputy district attorney is with me. also here in studio, lisa rubin and joyce vance. okay, lisa. what is said in this next hour or two could be huge. what should we know about terrence bradley and the importance of his testimony? >> terrence bradley is an

extremely important witness because of two things. one, he was nathan wade's first divorce attorney and his law partner, but he also corresponded over text with mike romans' attorney. he's the attorney who brought this motion to disqualify willis on the basis of knowledge that his lawyer said that she had obtained from the divorce case from nathan wade before it was sealed and also other sources. to the extent that bradley gets into subject matter that wasn't covered before because it was covered by attorney client privilege, he could shed some light on when that relationship began that he wasn't able to last week. i should also note that bradley left wade's partnership under a cloud of suspicious because an employee of theirs had accused him of sexual misconduct. so the two witnesses here who said or could say things about

the willis wade relationship that are contrary to their testimony both have self-interests here. >> so there you see nathan wade with his lawyers. we saw judge mcafee who came and sat. let's listen in. we're going to continue to listen to what exactly happens in this critical moment of testimony. here we go. >> david lewis and john esposito. >> on behalf of mr. meadows. >> that he waives his apaerns. >> thank you. mr. clark. >> he also waives his appearance. >> on behalf of mr. chulie. >> good morning, he waives his presence. >> mr. roman? >> he waives his presence. >> mr. schaffer. >> on behalf of mr. schaffer and he waives his presence.

>> on behalf of mr. floyd. >> good afternoon. mr. floyd, we also waive mr. floyd's appearance. >> thank you. on behalf of miss lathen. all right, i know before we had mr. cromwell and i had not heard anything from him. i don't know if any other parties have as well. >> i believe he's in a deposition in south georgia. >> all right. >> looks like he joined. >> okay. that's helpful to know. mr. cromwell, can you hear us? all right. well let's keep an eye on that to see if he does join us. and we'll take it up as it comes. so, just a few preliminaries. first of all, i'm a bit under the weather so i'll try to speak up. if you can't hear me, let me know. i'll try to talk close to the

microphone. we are here today the sole purpose is at the conclusion on february 16th, i announced i'd be meeting with mr. bradley to assess the validity of his assertion of attorney client privilege. i've now been able to do that and i also allowed mr. wade the opportunity to weigh in and respond as well. after considering the testimony, not only on camera but also what came out of the hearing, i found that neither mr. wade nor mr. bradley had met their burden of establishing that the attorney client privilege applied. specifically as it 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. i saw no further 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 it'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 that off? >> just, mr. wade is still a potential witness -- >> believe mr. wade was released when we concluded his testimony. last hearing. so unless he's been resubpoenaed, i have no knowledge of that, right to be present. >> sure. i think procedurally, that would be accurate. 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 he would be here in person. i don't see him in the gallery. do we know if he's in the hallway? >> attorney. >> all right. if we could call for mr. bradley. that's fine. all right. mr. bradley, deputy scott will swear you in again. >> i do. >> terrence bradley. >> sorry. >> thank you, judge. good afternoon, mr. bradley.

good to see you, sorry under these circumstances. i'm 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 they were both municipal court judges, correct? >> objection, your honor. based on privilege. >> no further -- okay, overruled. >> i do not have knowledge of it starting or when it started. >> you told me 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, municipal court when they started dating? >> if you're speaking of the text message, you can go to that text message and read that text message and i will explain the text message to you. but you and i did not have a conversation about when it

start. you asked a compound question of magistrate court versus -- i mean, you said it was magistrate court, municipal, i mean, you said 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 can object to previous hearing where mr. bradley said he had no personal knowledge of exact text miss merchant was speaking of and used in attempt to refresh his recollection. he explained what he's explained here in the court. this is repetitive and unnecessary. >> all right. perhaps we'll get there but i think miss merchant has the right to draw his attention to the exact potentially

inconsistent statement. >> thank you, judge. >> overruled. >> and for purposes of the record, i believe miss merchant, you tendered was it the entire text chain? >> only a few of the texts but i did give the state their courtesy copies last time of the exhibits. >> was this one tendered? >> it was not. i'm happy to tender it. >> we'll just take it as it comes. >> we're at -- i think we're at 39. i will wait to mark it but i think we're at 39. may i approach, judge? >> you may.

>> all right. so terrence, do you remember telling me it started when she left the office and she was a judge in south fulton? >> i see the message there, but i don't recall, i do see the message, but i don't recall. >> you don't recall texting this? >> i looked back at my text messages through that we've had. i see that message but i do not recall that. no ma'am. >> when i asked 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 in. there's been absolutely no foundation based on the argument at the last hearing that a lot of this is based on gossip, innuendo, assumption and privileged information. at this point, miss merchant has not provided a foundation to the 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 any inconsistent fact. this is an inconsistent fact. with contrary facts. >> sure. a relevant impeachment if he has no knowledge of this. it is sustained. >> do you remember telling me that it began -- >> well, that doesn't address -- >> i was just asking if he remembered telling me as opposed to the facts. >> sure. >> do you remember telling me that it began -- >> well, no, you're getting into the substance which we haven't 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. do you remember that? >> same objection, your honor. >> exact 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 isn't established until we know how he remembers it or why he knows it. does that make sense? i guess not. >> sorry. how he knows it, i'm just asking if he told me that. >> right. >> so i wasn't asking how he knew that, the source of that knowledge. i was asking if he told me that. >> sure. >> that's the point. how he knows it. >> right. >> source of his knowledge. here say, gossip and innuendo, which was what was indicated the last hearing. >> it may not be hearsay or gossip. i think we need to figure that out before we go further. >> yes, and if the source of the information is a witness who's testified then it's not hearsay. so when did the relationship start? >> i cannot answer that. >> when was your first knowledge of the relationship? >> he's already answered that

question multiple times. today, he said he had no idea of the timeline or when it occurred. >> i didn't ask when. i asked his first knowledge. he testified he has knowledge they had a relationship. i asked him when he first got knowledge of that. >> okay. so if 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 it 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. i asked when you first had knowledge. >> we'll get to the how. i'll note the objection, overrule it. >> just for the record, i appreciate it, 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 wade. >> whether it's admissible, right? that's what we've got to get to, so. >> apologize. >> when did you first get knowledge? i'm not qualifying what type of knowledge. when you 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're asking for a date. if you're asking me how did i get the knowledge, it would have come directly from a client. >> right. >> so, help me understand -- >> you say you can't answer that question. you don't know the date so that's the answer to the question. >> i said that five minutes ago.

yes, sir. >> 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 because he said he does not know when he gained. >> doesn't know the specific date. >> i'm overruling that. i think we can try to see if he can narrow it down based on goal posts. >> thank you. >> 19, i would probably say no. i don't have anything that i'm, 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're asking for a date. you're 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. >> okay. >> i think, if it was from the exhibits, i think it was '21, yes. >> i don't want to belabor the point. >> yes. >> those documents you looked at last time. january 2022. okay. >> '21. >> you're right. thank you. >> renewed in '22. >> it was, the contract date we have is january 25th, 2022. at that point, had they begun their romantic relationship? >> of 2022 -- >> january 25th, 2021, i'm sorry. when you got your first contract. >> i -- i don't recall.

i don't recall any specific dates. >> you remember when you got that contract though, correct? >> i remember the contract, yes. >> you told us last week or the week before now, that mr. wade brought you that contract. told you about that contract. >> that is correct. >> so miss willis didn't bring it to you. it was mr. wade. >> correct. >> at that time, they were already engaged in a relationship. >> he just said he does not remember any specific -- >> the exact date. i think it's to tie it to some other event he might remember. >> he said he does not remember any specific dates after signing the contract. that's exactly what he just said. asks and answered. >> and we're getting to the end of it. miss merchant, you don't have much more to pull on here.

he answered that last question so what's your next one. >> judge, i didn't hear the answer if they were in a relationship january 25th, 2021. >> 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 bring me a contract. and that is accurate. >> do you remember prior to, 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're asking. yes. >> you knew her through the business. so you had met her prior to your contract. >> i'm going to object to relevance to this point. >> sure. >> judge, 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 let you ask a few more questions but if he doesn't have a date, i don't know that you're going to be able to create one today. >> okay. thank you. so the time you had this contract from january 2021 until january 2022, did you come in and out of the d.a.'s office? >> yes. >> and so were you able to witness mr. wade and miss willis interact during that time? >> going to object. this has been asked and answered. it was addressed the last hearing about mr. bradley's access 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 that was closed at the last hearing was his personal knowledge. potentially through, actually, no.

if he testified, that he had no personal knowledge. it's knowledge that conveyed to him that was cut off at the last hearing. there's really the only thing we haven't been able to explore. correct me if i'm wrong. >> knowledge conveyed by -- >> somebody else. if it 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? >> i'm going to object to relevance as to his personal knowledge, which is what 602 requires. >> we're back to the same point, miss merchant. >> his personal knowledge. i'm asking what he told me. >> but he hasn't yet told you how he knows them. unless you can establish why he should be testifying on this at all, there's no relevance. >> i don't know. >> then ask him. >> 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 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 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 d.a.'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 would be told to you or observed? >> i'm going to object because the witness has made it clear he was speculating as to how or what he knew. if it's speculation, it's inadmissible. >> all right, but the motivation for his reason for speculating would be admissible so 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? >> i never witnessed anything. so, you know, it was speculation. i can't tell you anything specific if that's what you're 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 what, no. i don't. >> did you have any reason why? >> i don't know if speculation is lying, but i'm -- >> well, let me just -- show me where in this text it says you were speculating. >> you didn't ask me if i was speculating. >> tell me if it says anywhere here. >> if this is the same one, it does not. >> you're welcome if you need to to look at your texts. is there anywhere here that indicates you didn't have knowledge of the relationship? >> no. >> i'm going to object to the line of questioning direct the 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. >> sure. i think we're flushing that out. and i think it's right to have a little leeway on this if he's an adverse witness.

>> thank you, judge. judge, he's -- >> i'm objecting based on the law and i'm making a record for the court so i take offense for that comment. it's not the case. >> all right. well, i think we can start with objection, the grounds an 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. >> judge? >> yeah, this would be for impeachment by contradiction which would be an exception of the hearsay rule and admission of evidence and it's overruled. >> thank you, judge. >> well -- we don't know when he's talking about so we've already established the december 2018.

>> sure. that's something i covered in the in-camera hearing and based on what he told me in that hearing, i don't believe any statements to this effect were 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 his lawyer to wait for them to interject. >> it's there now. a question was put to you, mr. bradley. >> judge, one of my lawyers is sitting right in the back, a. >> you can look wherever you want. >> and i never looked at mr. wade or his attorneys. >> all right. >> mr. bradley. question was put to you. >> repeat the question, please. >> yes, so i showed you or asked you, the last question i asked you was what did nathan wade tell you about the relationship. >> same 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 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 with him one time about the relationship? >> objection. asked and answered. >> no, i think clarify. >> i do not recall any other time that he mentioned that they were in a relationship.

no. >> okay. 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? >> i do not recall. >> and when did it come up? >> say it 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. >> okay. did you receive an e-mail from me on january 6th with a motion attached? >> i think i did. yes. yes, i know i received a -- i

don't know if the date is january 6th, but yes, i received that. >> so you remember receiving that. the date. >> yes. >> and you reviewed it and you and i spoke about it. do you recall that? >> did 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. >> yes. >> and what 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 of terrence a. bradley, had received and whether or not that was going to be in the motion or not. >> i had kept it out. you asked me to put that back in, correct? >> i don't -- i recall you -- that may 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 had also put in there that mr. wade had received a certain amount. but there was not anything in there originally and i said that it need to be accurate. i need it to be accurate as far as that i had received 74,000. that's correct. >> because you did not want anyone knowing you had talked to me. >> object. that's irrelevance. >> bias. overrule. >> i wanted you to be accurate as far as the accuracy of our message. or your filing. >> okay. so your interest was in accuracy 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. >> right. i asked you to review it for accuracy. >> for accuracy and i just stated that it was inaccurate. >> and the inaccuracy was the thing 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 -- >> okay. >> the firm, the money wise. i did not, when i responded to that, it was for that specific reason. >> okay. and i agreed i would put that back in. that section back in -- >> correct. >> i did put it back in and i sent it to you again. >> i don't recall getting a

second e-mail from you. >> but you were happy that i put it back in. >> irrelevance. >> we need to get to more material aspects. >> yes, judge. i'm moving along. i promise. so you asked me, you did ask me to put that back in. >> he didn't answer that last question so overruled. >> can you confirm you did ask me to put that back in for it to be accurate. >> yes, 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. >> okay. 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? >> i did not. >> and that motion alleged their 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. >> okay. that wasn't what i was asking. what i was asking is you didn't tell me 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. >> page number, it's january 6th. yeah, of course. so you asked me to send a rough draft and i told you okay, but i don't want it to be leaked

before i filed it. >> correct. >> so you're the one that asked me to send a rough draft. >> yes, that's correct. yes, that's correct. >> that was at 10:08 on saturday, january 6th. and then you gotten e-mail from me with that rough draft at 10:25 that same day. correct? >> yes. >> do you need to look at it? >> if it says 10:25, i don't know -- i know you sent me an e-mail. >> i'm going to object and through the fact that she sent him a copy of the motion. whether he specifically said rough draft or not then asked about the accuracy. he's explained his answer. asked and answered. >> we're getting there. overruled for now. >> and then i responded when we

were talking about the -- that you were talking abou i took it out but i can add it back and you said yes, add it back. >> yes. >> i said anything else that i didn't respond to looks good. you recall that? >> let me see the -- >> i don't know where the exhibits are. they were admitted. that refresh your memory? >> it says looks good, but as i stated before, i was responding to you putting me back into the motion for receiving $74,000 in a contract. >> that's not what this says. this says, you said yes, add it back. i said anything else, anything that isn't accurate and you responded looks good. so you weren't responding to put it back in. >> i'm going to object.

it's not his motion. >> overruled. >> personal knowledge. >> i've said twice -- >> overruled. >> i've said twice that the looks accurate or i've said 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. do you -- i don't recall. do you have something to -- >> well, what i'm asking is, so let's back up a sec. so miss willis rented a law office from evans firm. or andrew evans and another lawyer, i think stacy evans. t you have knowledge of that,

correct? >> object to hearsay. how does he know the information. that would be the correct question. >> okay. >> i don't really know how to even respond to that. hearsay. i'm asking if he knew she rented -- >> they may have been there. >> right. >> may have seen a business card at some point. >> 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. >> do you remember though knowing that she rented an office -- >> yes. that is correct. yes. >> and do you remember telling me that mr. wade and miss willis would rendezvous 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. he hasn't even answered it. >> he said in general, he has no personal knowledge. it's not been established the source because he said he's never been to her office. >> miss merchant, i know you're trying to impeach him by prior inconsistent statement, but unless you can back up and show why each statement is something he had knowledge of is going to be relevant. >> i'm not even there yet. i didn't ask anything objectionable. i asked if he had knowledge. that's it. i didn't ask did someone say this to you, what did this person tell you. >> you're asking if he had knowledge then you say of something specific. so -- >> once i get an answer to that, if he has knowledge, then i will follow up where that knowledge came from. my question is do you have knowledge of them meeting at that office. >> objection.

foundation. >> overruled. >> do you have knowledge of them meeting at that office? >> no personal knowledge. >> overruled. >> not if it came from -- >> how do you know, mr. bradley? >> how do you know? >> any knowledge that i would have received would have come from my client at that 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 then you ask the next question. >> she's already asked the next question. >> can you repeat the question? >> yes. how do you have knowledge, what knowledge, you just told us mr. wade told you. so tell us what mr. wade told you about miss willis and mr.

wade meeting at the evans office. >> objection, your honor. privilege. this clearly covers a time after december 18th. >> yeah. overruled. >> do you recall the question? >> i do not. >> re-ask the question. >> what did you learn from mr. wade about mr. wade and miss willis meeting at the evans office together? >> object to asked and answered. >> he hasn't answered. we haven't heard an answer. >> he testified he had one conversation with mr. wade at his law office. >> and his answer may change to

overruled. >> 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 they had sex at the office though, correct? >> i don't recall him saying that, no. >> you don't recall. >> no. >> so it's possible he did say that. you just don't remember one way or another? >> i do not remember. i'm saying that. >> do you recall that he had a garage door opener to your house or condo or something like that of miss willis?

>> i've never seen a garage door opener. i've never been to miss willis' 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'll ask again. you had any knowledge at all from mr. wade or any source that he had a garage door opener to access one of miss willis' residences. >> i'll object. >> depends on the source. overruled. >> no, i don't have any knowledge. >> so when you told me that, did you just make it up? >> do you have something that shows that i told you that? >> yes. well, we're going to go through all the texts, we can. but so was that made up though? >> i'm going to object because -- >> i don't recall him having --

>> 106 rule of 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 text, we had that conversation. i actually think it was when he was on speakerphone and mr. merchant was there. if i'm asked to qualify exactly where that's from -- >> rule of completeness would be if you need to introduce other texts to show the context. if you're saying you haven't seen a copy yet, then i think miss merchant needs to do that before you can decide the next step. >> that's what i was asking him. if that was something he just remembers making up. if he doesn't, then that's fine. >> she referenced text messages and started to go into her packet of papers. >> sure. so you don't have a text message for that. >> i would need time to look through and i don't remember if it was a text or a conversation. >> he has now said he has no knowledge. so on to your next question. >> okay. did mr. wade tell you about the trips he and miss willis took?

>> no. >> do you have any knowledge of the trips? >> objection, hearsay. >> overruled. >> i do now. >> okay. but you did not before this proceeding? >> i did not know until you texts that you found that in the deposition of his divorce. i may not -- not deposition, but something from his divorce. >> okay. when you responded, doesn't surprise me. they took many trips to florida, texas, california. those are your words? >> objection. he actually learned from miss merchant the information. >> he said he learned about certain trips. >> okay, you can tie it down. we'll see. >> no information on any trips that miss willis and miss wade took. that he learned it all from miss merchant. >> sure. any conclusion we reach.

i think she's going to ask more than one question though. >> and if judge, just so we can be clear, if he said more than one version, that's all relevant. we're 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 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 they took the trip to california when she moved her daughter there because she failed out of famu. do you remember that? >> i don't recall that but if -- i don't recall. >> okay. judge, may i approach? >> sure. >> 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 that refreshes your memory. >> yes. yes. >> so it's true you told me that 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 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 me about and i

think before that when you mentioned that you found all these trips, i think i said, oh, wow. >> yes, you did. you did not know about all the trips that were taken and you qualified it. you said, no, i didn't. when did it happen, i can gather, look at your phone or whatever refreshes your memory. you said was after the -- correct? >> objection to relevance. >> overruled. >> it was after the firm, the trips that you said no, you didn't know about. you told me that was after your firm. >> i think you mentioned that they were after i left, maybe. or whenever you found them and i said no, i didn't know about the trips. >> so i mentioned it was after you left? >> i'm quite sure you have the text message and i'll refresh my memory. >> is it easier with your own phone or my printouts?

judge, the reason i'm asking is because i'm getting objections of how i've print things off. it's just the nature of screen shots. i'm happy for him to refresh his memory with his phone. >> you can just provide the documents. >> okay. let's see. >> can i have some water, judge, please? >> yeah, it's there. >> pull out all of the messages. >> 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 made the point that he made some comments that he had more knowledge than he's testifying head. so if you've hit the high points of that, i don't know what else we can cover that moves the needle. >> i'll move on. you told me they took many trips to florida. 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. 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 had knowledge. you also typed california. was that something you gained from knowledge from mr. wade? >> it would have been from the client. at this particular point, yes. it would have been from the client. >> and when you told me the trip to california was with her daughter, would that be something you had knowledge? >> thank you, judge. any knowledge that i have about 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. here today. >> well, i think this was going to be impeachment of mr. wade's testimony if he testified he had never used anyone else's credit card. >> it was covered during the last hearing. knowledge that mr. wade used his

credit card. >> i asked when. >> when, okay. >> i didn't ask, did he. i asked when did he. >> let's go there. >> i do not have any dates of when mr. wade used my credit card. i testified that we used a card for business and that throughout the business, we would order paper or supplies or filing depositions. i mean, 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 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, i mean, it was for a trip, but i can't tell you where, when, why or anything to

that nature. >> and he paid you back 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. that 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 partnership split up, correct? >> it would have been before i left the firm, yes. he wouldn't have used my card after he left the firm. >> so we can narrow the dates down to that. >> before i left the firm, yes. >> great. and mr. wade gave you details about meeting miss willis in -- >> correct. >> he did not tell you about that. >> he didn't give me details.

>> he did not tell you about meeting with miss willis at at eastville or hateville apartment? >> at this time, i don't recall. no. i don't recall. >> where did you get that information from then? >> he testified he doesn't recall if he even had the information. >> 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. >> i do not recall where i got the information from. >> 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, that banks called you. it was after that that you hired mr. chopra to assist you in this matter, correct? >> was it after that? so, i hired mr. chopra and i hired 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 present. mr. graham, i called and i had 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. >> okay. i'm going 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 to your -- >> i think it was before that,

but however -- i think it was before that. is what i'm stating. >> when you got the call from gabe banks, you called me immediately. actually, you texted me then called me. >> i didn't call you immediately, but yes, we did speak. >> and you texted me about it as well. >> that is correct. >> okay. and then we spoke after mr. wade called your friend and we talked about that as well, correct? >> that is correct. >> at that point, you didn't mention anything to me about being represented by mr. chopra. >> that i didn't mention anything about mr. chopra or, that is correct. >> yes. that was my question. let's see. actually, two more texts. >> all right, we're going to do five more minutes. >> last two