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 questions.

3:05, i'm cutting you off. >> thank you. may i approach? text to refresh your memory. >> are these supposed to go together? all these are two separate dates? >> different dates. >> okay. all right.

we talked about -- you said the text about a footnote. but do you recall me asking you do you think it started before she hired him and you said absolutely. do you recall that? >> i see that in the text message, yes. >> and do you also recall me asking you how they would react, if they would attack me. and you said no, they will deny it. >> your honor, objection as to speculation. as to how he thinks they will react. >> goes to the motivations of the witness. overruled. >> and you told me they will deny it. >> that's written in there, yes. >> i just want to, one last opportunity. you're an officer of the court,

correct? >> i am. >> and you're under oath. is there any testimony from today or the previous days that you want to correct? >> that i want to correct? >> no. i told you everything, i've answered everything you've asked. >> thank you. oh, judge, just so the counsel and state can have for the record, i can admit those. >> they were never tendered so it was just for -- if they need to be at some point, then we can make them part of the record. all right. let me turn it over. if you're with us on zoom. >> thank you, your honor. i have a few questions. first thing i'd like to know if whether the court reporter has exhibits 26 and 27 from the last? >> we have a different court reporter this time. we had to have someone else fill in on such short notice, but i can potentially send those to you if you need them. >> well, i think i have working copies, but i want to make sure

the witness has a copy to look at. >> all right. we can try to work through that logistical challenge. this is 26 and 27? >> i believe that's correct. and 26, i think, is the same text messages that miss merchant was just asking about. it was two pages. i stapled it together. and it is dated january the 5th of this year. >> all right. i can print off a copy now, but why don't we start off with the questions that you have. >> okay. that's where i'm going to start. i'll see what i can do to work through it. >> okay. all right, why don't we start with your question and we'll see

if we actually need to get a copy of those exhibits from the witness. >> all right. mr. bradley -- >> yes, i'm here. >> all of a sudden, i've lost you on the screen. there we go. you're on the zoom. you're on youtube, but not on the zoom itself. but i thought i could see. >> i'm here. i can hear you. >> i know. i think his visual is maybe a little different. hold tight. we can try to correct that. >> he was on when miss merchant was asking questions. >> i know. we need to add a spotlight to mr. -- to the witness stand and we don't need all the other boxes. >> there we go. thank you very much. >> we need to add you as well.

>> now we're ready. >> thank you. mr. bradley, you have referred to mr. wade as your client, correct? >> correct. >> do you understand that the court has ruled that communications that you had with mr. wade are not privileged, correct? aware that the court ruled that one specific dealing with the time frame of one specific conversation wasn't privileged. >> then i'm going to ask your honor if a statute of limitation -- >> to clarify. sure. mr. sadow, you asked whether all communications with mr. wade

were covered. that was not the extent of the ruling. the only ones that i deemed were not covered and that i had asked him about because those are the ones that were irrelevant. any communications mr. wade regarding the existence or nonexistence of a romantic relationship with miss willis. >> fine. thank you, your honor, i understand. so going back to this live inquiry. when you say you don't have personal knowledge, what i want to ask you to start with is very simple. did you have communications with mr. wade about the relationship between mr. wade and miss willis? it's a simple yes and no. >> yes. >> okay. and is it your testimony that during the time you were representing him, which i understood started sometime in 2018, is that correct? >> that's the time frame that i remember, yes.

>> is it your testimony under oath that with regards to conversations with mr. wade and his relationship with miss willis that you only had one such conversation during the time you represented mr. wade? >> one conversation of what? i apologize. >> the only thing i'm asking about is that area that the court said is not privileged, which is the relationship between mr. wade and miss willis. you've testified that during the time you represented mr. wade, from 2018 on, that you only had one conversation with him in reference to the relationship between miss willis and mr. wade. is that correct? >> yeah, i think that's fairly accurate. yes. >> so out of the entire time, it

could be 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021. when did you stop representing mr. wade? >> it was a few months after i left the firm. >> give me a approximate time. >> i left maybe june, july of 2022, maybe. >> okay. so that would suggest that for assuming it's 2018, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and half of 2022, which is in the vicinity of four to four and a half years, you're testifying under oath you had one conversation about a relationship between mr. wade and miss willis. is that correct? >> i don't recall having any other conversation with mr. wade about him and miss willis. >> is it your testimony then

that you don't remember any other conversation or there wasn't any other conversation besides the one? >> going to object. asked and answered. >> i think it's a fair question. overruled. >> i don't recall. i would say it's the one, but i don't recall. >> you testified that you did have communications with mr. wade about him visiting with miss willis at a condo or apartment, correct? >> i don't think i testified that i had a conversation. i testified that any knowledge that i would have known anything about any condo would have come from that, but i don't recall a conversation about that. i do not recall a conversation about that. >> do you recall any other thing at this point in time under oath

that would indicate when the relationship started between mr. wade and miss willis? >> i do not know when the relationship started between mr. wade and miss willis. i cannot recall that. i'm sorry. go ahead. >> i'm going to drill down on that now, okay? >> yes, sir. >> mr. wade was hired as the special prosecutor on november 1st of 2021. you're aware of that, correct? >> i have my contracts to show when i started. no one showed me the contract of when he started, but so, but if he has a contract for november 1st of 2021, then that's correct. >> all right. i'm going to suggest to you that the record will reflect that the contract between miss willis and mr. wade was november 1st of 2021. correct? i want you just to accept that, okay? is it your testimony that you

don't know under oath whether or not there was a relationship between mr. wade and miss willis before the contract? >> i do not recall any dates of when the relationship started. so whether you are pinpointing a date of when his contract started or not, i'm telling you i did not recall any specific date that he flat out said anything about a relationship with miss willis. >> now i want to go based on what you've just said, let's go to what was defense exhibit 26. okay? in defense exhibit 26, which i showed you last time, was two pages of text messages between you and miss merchant, correct? >> correct. >> now, the first page starts

off by saying, miss merchant, like just date don't hire him. do you think it started before she hired him? you see that? >> yes. >> and your response to that was absolutely. correct? >> i'm going to object. asked and answer. >> mr. sadow, i think we went through a lot of these texts. >> we didn't go through this whole one. >> just a second. all right. i'm sorry, you said we didn't go through this particular one? >> no, we stopped right there. i want to go -- >> i answered because she -- she just stated a few minutes ago. you could read it back.

>> okay. you saying both of these two exhibits weren't already covered by miss merchant? >> it was not done, this particular language was not gone into. i'm doing it based on the exhibit itself. let's do it this way. i now move into evidence defense exhibit number 26. >> i don't have, i'd have to search through my notes but does anyone recall has that been tendered in? >> it was. >> no, it was only presented to your honor for you to take part into camera ex parte to speak to mr. bradley and his counsel. >> okay. miss merchant is indicating it was admitted. >> i thought mr. sadow admitted but i'm organizing so i think it might be easier if i submit copies. >> so defense exhibit 26 and 27 are being tendered. >> actually, only 26 at this

time. >> okay. defense exhibit 6. >> 26. >> 26. >> i'm going to object as it relates to foundation and awe authentication. it was used to refresh his recollection and myrecollection is that it didn't but i renewed my objection. >> i think mr. bradley recognized the texts. i'd overrule on that basis. any other objections, admissibility from defense counsel? defense exhibit 26 is now admitted. mr. sadow. >> after you said the word absolutely, on your own, you said it started when she left the d.a.'s office and was judge in south florida. they met at --

>> asked and answered. >> i'm going to let mr. sadow have a few minutes on this and we'll go from there. >> judge, i'm sorry. i did answer this. i answered it for miss merchant. >> understood. >> i stated that i was speculating the judge, someone objected to the speculation and but this was the exact same language -- >> mr. sadow's asking the question in a different manner and i'm going to give him a little leeway to do that. >> i have to start back where i was, but after the word absolutely, you, on your own, said it started when she left the d.a.'s office and was judge in south fulton. they met at the municipal court cle conference. that's what you said, correct? >> that is correct. >> now, it's your testimony, at least so far, that when you, on your own, gave those two

statements in the text, that you were merely speculating and did not have that knowledge from mr. wade. is that your testimony under oath? >> yes, that's what i testified to, yes, sir. >> so, you on your own, came up with the whole notion that it started when she left the d.a.'s office and was judge in south fulton. that's according to you, that's speculation on your part. correct? >> overruled. answer the question, mr. bradley. >> yes, that's speculation on my part. yes. >> right. it had nothing to do with what mr. wade had told you. correct? >> i answered your question. i was speculating to the answer. that is correct. >> so maybe you can tell the court in your own words why in the heck would you speculate in

this text message and say that it started when she left the d.a.'s office and was a judge in south fulton? why would you speculate and say that in a text? >> i knew they had met at the municipal court conference. >> how do you know that? i'll stop you right there. how did you know that? >> i answered that at the last -- >> i'm asking you now. >> i knew that -- >> i'm asking you now. i'm asking you questions and you are in a situation where you get to give answers. i'm asking you how did you know that. >> how did i know when they met? >> somebody told you that, right? >> when they met? >> yeah. >> yes. correct. >> who told you? >> mr. wade told me when they met. >> so you had more than one conversation about the relationship between mr. wade and miss willis because he told you where he met her.

correct? >> incorrect. >> it's incorrect? >> it's incorrect. >> let's go back to the exhibit. why would you speculate that that's when they started the relationship? what would cause you to put that down as speculation? >> i don't recall, but why i thought that it started at that time. but i do recall that he only met her and i testified to that. that he met her at that conference, which was in 2019. >> you knew that ashley merchant represented a defendant in this case when you were text messaging with her, correct? >> yes, i did. yes. >> and you knew that the reason she was asking you questions

about mr. wade was because she was trying to show when the relationship began, correct? >> no, that's not. 100% correct. >> look at the beginning of the text message. >> yes, but what messages were before this message? before she said that? >> i can't answer that question because i don't know them. all i have is what's in front of you. and it says that she says do you think it started before she hired me. so you knew as the counsel for a defendant in this case, that miss merchant was asking you specifically about the knowledge that you had regarding the timing of the relationship between wade and miss willis. correct? >> i mean, based on this, yes. i see what -- >> and in response to that, you

answered directly on your own what you now claim to be speculation, right? >> that's correct. >> so i ask you one more time before i move to the next part of this. why would you speculate when she was asking you a direct question about when the relationship started? >> i have no answer for that. >> except for the fact that you do in fact know when it started and you don't want to testify to that in court. that's the best explanation. >> overruled. >> that's real. that's the true explanation because you don't want to admit it in court, correct? >> no, i have no direct knowledge of when the relationship started. >> you -- i'm not going to go back through that again. but if you didn't know and you were asked specifically as this

exhibit shows, maybe you can explain why you wouldn't say, i don't know. >> is that a question? you're asking me a question? >> yeah, a definite question. >> state that again. i apologize. >> if you're being asked as we've just gone through with this text message, from miss merchant, as attorney for codefendant, and she's asking you about the relationship and she's clearly asking you about the timing, why wouldn't you just have said in response, i don't know when it started? >> i don't know why i didn't say i don't know. >> maybe, again, it's because you know what the truth is and that's why you answered exactly the way you did in defense exhibit 26. correct? >> no, i can't sit here and tell

you that what you just stated was correct. >> what do you want the court to believe and the rest of us to believe is that for some unknown reason, upon being asked a direct question about when the relationship started, you decided on your own to simply speculate and put it down in a text message as opposed to putting down what you actually knew. that's what you want the court to believe, correct? >> that was a lot. so can you break that down? i apologize. you're asking me do i want the court to -- >> believe that instead of saying nothing, you decided on your own to speculate. >> yes, i speculated. yes, sir. >> that's what you want the court to believe, correct? >> that's correct.

okay, now, then when you go to the next page of that, okay? you see it starts best i can see, it starts in south fulton. is that what you have in front of you? second page. the second page that i have says that's what i figured. >> okay, that maybe cut off from the ones that i have. it's, i'm looking at my opening set line says in south fulton. is that on your second page? >> no. so, the -- if you're going in order of the pages, no. neither page starts with south fulton. >> don't get caught up on whether it starts that way. does the second page have a line

in there that says in south fulton? >> oh, yes. i apologize. so, yes. >> that's fine. >> yes. >> just want to make sure we're on the same page. you say after in south fulton, they met at the municipal court cle conference. right? >> yes. >> you see that? >> yes. that's correct. >> and then miss merchant says that's what i figured. when he was married. is this accurate upon information and belief, willis and wade met while both were serving as magistrate judges and began a romantic relationship at that time? you see that's what she said, right? >> no, i mean, so it says they met at municipal court cle. the only other thing here says that's what i figured, when he was married.

no response from me on that day then there's another response, i guess a question that says is this accurate. >> okay, that's what i just went over with you. >> okay, so i don't have anything in that is this accurate at all. i can show the court. it just says is this accurate with a question mark. i don't have anything following that. >> you don't have after that upon information in belief, willis and wade met while both were serving as magistrate judges and began a romantic relationship -- >> i apologize. it goes to the next page. i apologize. >> no problem. just want to make sure. >> no, i see that now, yes. >> so that's what i just read was exactly what miss merchant has said to you in a text. right? >> yes. that was in the text. is it accurate upon further information, yes. that's there. >> and again, since you have

told us that you were speculating when you gave the answer that we went over with previously, on this one, you don't say i don't know. you simply correct her by saying no. municipal court. right? >> yes. so she asked was it accurate and i said it wasn't. no, it wasn't accurate, it was municipal court. >> right and when you said it was accurate, it was municipal court, you didn't say no, that's not accurate, they didn't start a romantic relationship at that time, correct? >> no, but i was referring to the municipal court no it wasn't accurate as it applied to -- i was answering the no municipal court. meaning when she said is that accurate, it was to the municipal court and not magistrate court. >> okay. but you didn't say that the rest of what she asked you was accurate. you didn't say no, that's

inaccurate. that's not true. that's not accurate. you simply said the only thing that wasn't accurate was municipal court should be there instead of magistrate. right? >> so i was answering the question of it was a compound question. and i was answering the question of -- she wrote magistrate court and i said no, municipal court. >> it's not compound. upon information -- >> that's okay. i know the feedback and delays complicates things but i think you've adequately made your point. i don't think we need to belabor it much longer. let's move on to the next issue. >> thank you, your honor. mr. bradley, prior to coming into court today, you and your lawyer meet with anyone from the district attorney's office? >> no.

not that i know of. not that i'm aware of. no. i did not meet anyone. i did not meet with anyone outside of my attorneys. >> did you have any conversation -- >> i did not. >> so you have not spoken, if i understand you correctly, prior to coming to court today, you've not spoken with the prosecutors. >> no. >> right? >> i have not spoken to the prosecutors. i've not spoken to defense. >> have you spoken to mr. wade? >> no. >> so, as far as just getting into the courtroom today, there's been no contact or conversation with any of the parties we just went over, right? >> there has not been any contact with defense or the state at all. >> i think i have basically just

one or two more questions. why would you see the need to speculate when you were texting with miss merchant? >> i think we did cover that one, mr. sadow. i think that exact question was already put to him. what would be the next one? >> let's go to 27. defense exhibit 27. do you have that now, sir? >> i do, sir. >> would you look at it and tell me whether or not the defense exhibit 27 appears to be accurate because i want to see, introduce it into evidence. it consists of an e-mail to you from miss merchant. and the text response from you.

correct? >> the text response was not in response -- so, yes. it does consist of e-mail and a text response. i'm not saying that the text response applies to the entire e-mail that was sent. >> all i've asked you right now is are the -- >> yes. >> is the e-mail and the text, are those accurate in the interaction that makes up defense exhibit 27? >> as it applies to the stapling of the e-mail and text message chain, yes. that is defense, defendant's exhibit 27. this is, it's accurate. >> okay. i would move defense exhibit 27 in. i believe it was treated the same way as 26 last time. >> no objections. >> yes, judge.

>> overruled. any other objections, defense exhibit 27 is admitted. anything else? >> your honor, i don't know whether you'll file this objection but i'll ask. >> all right. >> mr. bradley, you realize that if you were to testify under oath, that you knew from mr. wade that the relationship between him and miss willis existed before the contract in november 1st of 2021, that would show that both miss willis and mr. wade had lied under oath. you knew that, don't you? >> i think that's going to call for an opinion on the credibility of another testifying witness. i don't think that would be an appropriate question. >> then that's all i have, your honor. >> mr. stockton. >> just briefly, judge. >> we'll see. >> mr. bradley, do i understand

from your prior testimony that miss merchant sent you a motion to review prior to her filing it? >> objection. cumulative answers. >> i'm going to give him just a little bit, all right? mr. stockton. maybe this is going somewhere else. >> did miss merchant send you a motion prior to january 8th of 2024 for you to review? >> that is correct. >> and did you in fact review that motion? >> that is correct. >> and did you indicate to miss merchant that the contents of that motion seemed okay to you? >> well, so, you're referring to exhibit 27, which as i stated a few minutes ago, one is an e-mail. one is a text chain. so in the text chain, i never responded to the e-mail. i never responded looks good or anything to the e-mail that was sent to me.

however, in the text chain, what you all are trying to merge together is the fact that i was asked about the contract and that contract was a $74,000 and me being added back to that. so when i said, and i think before in that text, it referred to the, me being added back and that the time, i said yes. looks good. >> and you're aware and you recall that when miss merchant presented you with that motion, she asked you not to disclose it to anyone until she filed it. is that correct? >> we are covering i think the last five or six questions, we've covered ground. >> i'm trying to get there, judge, i promise you. >> okay.

>> repeat the question. i'm sorry. >> she asked you not to disclose that motion to anybody until she filed it, correct? >> i think so. i think it was in a text message, yes. >> and you knew it was her intention to file that motion, correct? >> the actual motion that was sent? >> yes. >> i knew she was going to file a motion, yes. i do not think that that was the final draft or it could have been that she was working on it, but yes. i knew that she was going to file some motion, yes. >> and you knew that she presented that motion to you for your review so that she could make sure it was accurate. correct. >> i'm going to object. all this is asked and accumulate. >> noted. i think mr. stockton is getting

to the next point so why don't we just ask that one. >> is that correct? >> combine that with the next question so we're not having to lay bit by bit every single time. >> mr. bradley, you knew that miss merchant was relying on your review to insure the accuracy of that motion prior to filing it, correct? >> speculation as to what he knew that miss merchant knew. >> i overrule that. >> mr. bradley. >> no. so, once again, i was excluded from the footnote of that motion. and my review of it and i said hey, you need the add me back to the footnote because i did have a contract and i did receive

74,000. >> if i may help you out. let's talk just about that part of the motion. the relationship between the district attorney willis and mr. wade. when you reviewed that, you knew that she was, that miss merchant -- >> no, i did not know she was relying on me to, for any, any relying on me for any accuracy other than what was put in there. about the 74,000. >> mr. bradley, if there was something patently false in that motion, you would have told miss merchant, wouldn't you? >> i can't say that i would or wouldn't have. i don't know what i would have told miss merchant. >> if there was something patently speculative, you would have told miss merchant, wouldn't you? >> i don't know what i would

have told miss merchant. she asked me was it accurate. we were discussing the 74,000 that was left out. >> again, if i may direct you just to the portion dealing with the relationship with miss willis and mr. wade. you didn't tell her that there was anything patently false in that because you didn't see anything patently false in that motion, as it relates to the relationship. >> repeat you question, i'm so sorry. >> you did not inform miss merchant that there was anything patently false in that motion that you were presented with as it concerns the relationship because you did not see anything that was patently false,

correct? >> objection. asked and answered. cumulative. >> all right, next question, mr. stockton. sustain. >> and you didn't see anything speculative. >> asked and answered. >> i just want to ask you one more question. i'm coming at it from the other way than mr. sadow did. did anybody from the district attorney's office or any witnesses in this case contact you about miss merchant's motion from january the 8th of 2004 until today? >> did anyone contact me about her motion? >> yes. from the district attorney's office or any witnesses or anybody else involved with the case besides the defense? >> the only personal call that i had was with gabe banks. i never spoke to anyone else and

to my knowledge, he's not a part of this. so. >> that's all i got, judge. >> thank you, mr. stockton. >> mr. durham? >> no questions, your honor. >> mr. mcdougle. >> good afternoon, mr. bradley. you have certain information about the relationship between mr. wade and miss willis that is not privileged, correct? >> well, that was my determination. so i think he disagrees with it. so his opinion is a little irrelevant on that point. >> do you understand that the court has ruled that certain information that you have about the relationship between miss willis and mr. wade is not privileged? >> i -- the court's ruling as i

understood it and as my lawyers and i understood it, of the privilege not existing was based off of a conversation that was had in the back of my office, which was confidential, with mr. wade and i. that's what was asked of me on yesterday and that's what the ruling, to my knowledge, unless i'm being corrected here now in saying that it's more, it was that particular piece that the judge said did not have privilege. >> and have you testified already today to the sum total of your knowledge of the relationship that is outside the scope of the privilege according to the court's ruling? >> can you ask that again? i'm sorry. i didn't understand it. >> referring to what you understand to be the information that is not privileged.

have you testified to the sum total of that information? >> i think i have, yes. i think i've testified to that, yes. >> all right, sir. last of my questions. >> mr. bradley, at least as of february 15th when you first testified, you said you still considered yourself a friend -- >> i think i said that, yes. >> and you've been friends with mr. wade for over ten years, correct? >> that would have been fairly accurate, yes. >> and you recall communicating with miss merchant about this case and about mr. wade and miss willis' relationship, correct? >> objection. asked and answered. all three of the previous. >> sure.

why don't we combine it with the next question. >> mr. bradley, when you spoke, when you communicated with miss merchant, did you tell her any lies about mr. wade and miss willis' relationship? >> did i lie to miss -- >> that's a simple question, mr. bradley. you're a lawyer. did you lie to miss merchant when you told her facts about mr. wade and miss willis' relationship? >> not that i recall. i don't recall -- i mentioned earlier that i speculated on some things.

i've testified to what i did know. so i can't recall whether or not i -- no. >> mr. bradley, speculation is kind of a weasely lawyer word. you're under oath. >> argue mentive. not a relative question. >> mr. bradley, when you were communicating different details of the relationship between miss willis and mr. wade to miss merchant, did you lie to her about any of those details? >> objection. asked and answered twice. >> i don't think he's answered it yet. >> i don't recall ever, whether any of it was a lie or not. >> well, at the time you were communicating with miss merchant, you were still friends with mr. wade, correct?

>> yes. >> and at the time you were communicating with miss merchant, you knew she was talking to you in her role and capacity as attorney in this case, correct? >> correct. >> and you knew she was going to use that information to file a motion and benefit her client, correct? >> i did not know that. i'm sorry. >> as an attorney yourself, you are testifying here under oath that you had no idea what miss merchant was going to do with all the details that you were giving her about wade and willis' relationship? >> so, at the time, no, i did not. i knew miss merchant was gathering information. that is correct. >> okay. and did you lie to her when you told her that the relationship began before 20 -- >> i don't think we need to drill on specifics. i don't think we're going to get much out of this.

>> mr. bradley, isn't it true the only thing that has really changed, well, you were speaking to miss merchant. whether by text or telephone. you never said to her that i don't remember or that i'm speculating, correct? >> i don't recall. >> well, you've looked through a whole lot of text messages. do you remember ever seeing any communication from you that said i don't remember? >> through the messages that -- i don't have all the messages in front of me, but i don't recall if i ever said i don't remember. >> do you recall seeing any text messages where you replied to her or gave her details where you said i'm speculating about this detail? >> i never used the word,

speculating. no. >> and the only thing that's changed between then and now is that phone call from nathan wade's friend, gabe banks, correct? >> no, gabe was my friend and i actually stated that the first day that i was here was that i've known gabe for a few years and that we were -- not were, but we are fraternity brothers. so i never said that anything changed behind gabe banks. >> so you never told miss merchant that you were worried that they were threatening you. >> asked and answered. he was asked this on february 16th and today. >> we've covered this. >> and just to be clear, you didn't attend college with mr.

banks, did you? >> i did not. >> when you referred to him as your fraternity brother, you happened to have pledged the same fraternity, different colleges, different chapters. >> that's what we consider fraternity brothers, yes. >> and as a normal course of your relationships with your friends, do you pass on lies about your friends? >> have i passed on a lie about a friend? >> is that something you normally do? do you tell lies about your friends? >> have i told lies about friends? i could have, i don't know. >> about a case of national importance? >> objection. >> overruled. >> i could have. i don't know. >> mr. bradley, i notice you're not looking at me.

>> i'm looking at you on the screen only because i was accused of, and i did the same thing to mr. sadow. >> next question. >> no further questions. >> thank you, sir. mr. guillen. >> good afternoon, mr. bradley. a few questions. a lot of folks have taken up the questions that i wanted to ask but i've got a few left here. we'll see. you said you didn't know what miss merchant was going to be doing with the motion she sent to you. remember that testimony a few minutes ago? >> i think i said i didn't know, i knew that she was gathering information, yes. >> let's look at the title of the motion that she sent you. do you remember -- >> that was sent on the 6th. >> excuse me, do you remember reading defendant

michael romans' motion to dismis grand jury and her office and the special prosecutor from further prosecuting this matter? >> yes. >> so when you tell this court you didn't know what she was going to do, she kind of gave you a hint, didn't she, in the title of the motion she sent for you to read, didn't she? yes or no. >> i read the title of what the motion was. >> there wasn't anything in the title that threw you off. pretty straightforward speaking title, wasn't it? >> correct. >> so you knew that what she wanted was information from you so that she could then and the special prosecutor from further prosecuting the matter, right? >> i'm going to object to speculation. >> no overruled. >> you knew that, didn't you? yes or no. >> when she sent the motion,

yes. >> and you knew that the special prosecutor to whom she was referring in that motion was mr. wade, correct? you knew that? >> yes. >> because you read the motion. you said you reviewed it, correct? >> yes. >> and we're not going to over all of the -- number one, because we don't have time, and number two, the court wouldn't let me. but there are a few things that i do want to ask you about in that aspect. now in that motion, that you said you reviewed, on page 6 of that motion, well on page 5 it starts off how do we know this and there is a question mark. >> yes, mr. gulen, i can appreciate what you're doing and i think that is something that you could do at argument. he said as a whole that he got the motion and he said his response is to -- his opinion of how he handled it. i don't see again this really

being necessary to go through it line by line. >> but a little indulgence your honor. this is not going to be a -- a 40-minute death march through the motion. i would like to ask about a few bullet points that capture under this and then i will move on but i will ask the court's indulgence in that respect. >> again, i think that we've covered it and you could argue that this was in the motion and he had a kans to review the motion. >> that is a problem with -- >> it very much is. n. time i'll reshuffle the order. >> we did with mr. wade and that was kind enough and then the court said to -- >> i'll need to draw straws next time. >> i'll go with that. >> anything else? >> that is all i have. >> we had mr. catchera still on zoom. >> yes, and i have a few questions. >> could we add a spotlight to mr. catchera. i'll let you know when we're able to proceed.

judge, before we start, could i take a five minute restroom -- >> yes, we've been going for two hours. we'll come back at 4:00. and we received notification on behalf of mr. latham and if he decided to join us by zoom, but i don't think he was electing to -- so, after mr. catcher, in terms of timing, mr. abide, do you have any expectation of how long you're -- if any questions would last? >> i don't imagine it would be very long. >> let's get back in at 4:00. you could step out of the jury room. >> all right. welcome, everyone, i'm alex witt in for katy tur. we've watching fulton county, georgia, where a hearing is underway to decide whether judge

macafee is going to replace district attorney fani willis in the election interference case. all of the discussion has been around the admission of phone records but it all stems on the former divorce attorney of nathan wade and he's one who had as been on the stand and peppered by questions, six or seven by my count, defendant counsels. so i'm joined to break this down. this is a long two hours and going through it with the host of the katie phang show. and legal correspondent lisa rubin and and criminal defense attorney robert james. all right. a big welcome to you. lisa, you and i have had the advantage of discussing this last hour. talk about terrance bradley and what the point of the questioning to him was and how much he has revealed? >> well i think we know now that terrapins bradley exchanged texts with ashley merchant,

where he offered up a bunch of information about the relationship between fani willis and nathan wade. today, he is trying to walk that back and say that he didn't have any personal knowledge, including when the relationship started, he never saw them together, that any knowledge he had about the relationship came from a single conversation with nathan wade. but the defense is trying to establish he knew that this woman represented a defendant in the fulton county rico case and you knew why she was asking questioned and gave you a draft of the motion to disqualify and if there was something patently false, you were a lawyer and you would have told her as much. and he said, i couldn't say whether i would or wouldn't have. but they established he understand what they were doing with information that he provided and that he has an obligation to tell the truth today. and the bottom line, alex, there

is really no in between. he was either lying and or speculating when he confessed to ashley merchant by text or he's covering up for d.a. willis and nathan wade now. >> which means what for him? katie, how effective has he been as a witness. his behavior would suggest what to you? >> that is important. because the judge in an evidentiary hearing is not only the person who understands the law but he has to apply the facts to the law and judge is the credibility person in this case. he's deciding whether the credibility of those witnesses passes muster. i would say the thing about terrance bradley, toward the end of the last round of questioning that he did admit he would have lied and he would have passed along lies about a friend even as a lawyer. i think that old adage, the devil makes work of idle hands because he passed along gossip.

he said, no i think he did say, i was speculating when i made these statements. the real question and the gut check is this. is terrance bradley willing to risk his bar license to take the stand and lie for nathan wade and fani willis, because i would say no. he's not going to lie for them. is there a very small carve out in a judge macafee found in terms of the testimony that bradley was having to answer. yes. and the only lawyer and i have to give them credit was steve sadow for donald trump and who said let's understand the scope of what you're allowed to testify about and it was ome one conversation that happened in the back of bradley's office about the relationship between wade and willis. but what is the evidence? there is no evidence as to a date when wade and willis began their romantic relationship. so what has mcafee heard so far. he heard from wade and willis

that it began in march of 2022 and the only counter veiling evident is for robin, the former friend and employee at the d.a. office of fulton county that that relationship began in october. but terrance bradley has not confirmed during his testimony that the relationship began back in 2019. >> it is actually extraordinary and in fact, lisa and i had who had the benefit here together and we talked about steve sadow and his questions were surgical and precise in their direction towards terrance than to the predecessor, miss merchant. let's play a little bit. i'm going to ask erin in the control room to play a sound bite referencing what katie is referring to and i'm going to get you to react it to on the other side. here is donald trump's attorney. >> so, when did the relationship start? >> i cannot answer that.

i do not have knowledge of it starting or when it started. >> okay, i want clear. i believe it is 7 if we have that. we're going to load that right now and play that. here we go with that. as the counsel for a defendant in this case, that miss merchant was asking you specifically about the knowledge that you had regarding the timing of the relationship between wade and miss willis, correct? >> um, i mean, basically on this, yes. >> and in response to that, you answered directly on your own what you now claim to be speculation? right? >> that is correct. >> so i ask you one more time before i move to the next part

of this. why would you speculate when she was asking you a direct question about when the relationship started? >> i have no answer for that. >> except for the thakt that you do know when it started and you don't want to testify to that in court. that is the best explanation. >> robert james, is the money grouping of back and forth from what we've been witnessing over the last almost two hours in that courtroom? >> well it is the most relevant question. i don't know there is a money pull thing. but you need affirmative evidence that there is financial benefit and financial gain and that fani willis and nathan wade lied and we don't have that. >> we don't have that yet. i want to thank you all for joining me. what we do have right now is "deadline: white house." it will be starting right now.