bradley. mr. bradley: no. so once again, i was excluded from the footnote of that notion and my review of it in the chain was could you add me back to the footnote because i did have a contract and i did receive 74,000. mr. stockton: and if i may help you out, let's talk just about that part of the motion that deals with the relationship between the district attorney willis and mr. wade. when you reviewed that, you knew that she was that. mr. bradley: no, i did not know that she was relying on me to for any accuracy other than what was put in there, the 74,000. mr. stockton: mr. bradley if , there was something patently false in that motion, you would have told ms. merchant, would not you? mr. bradley: i can't say i would have or wouldn't have, i don't know what i would have told ms. merchant. mr. stockton: if there was something pat patently speculative, you would have told ms. merchant, would not you? mr. bradley: i don't know what i would have told ms. merchant. if she asked me if it was accurate. we were d

bradley: my interaction with ms. willis was never where i would pick up the phone and talk to her or anything like that. >> so you didn't hang out with ms. willis, did not have a personal relationship with her? mr. bradley: no, i never had any personal relationship. i mentioned before that i went to a dinner that was after she was elected that was at a steakhouse, but it was 75 200 people there. >> so you knew of her, you just did not have a business relationship or personal relationship with her, at least a close one? mr. bradley: she was in the das office and i had criminal cases, but i did not personally know her, no. >> not having known her, not really hanging out with her, you got a contract from her office. >> i am going to object. asked and answered. judge mcafee: i think you covered this ground on the 16th about the contracts. are you going somewhere else with this? >> i am, judge, if you would give me a little latitude. judge mcafee: you may proceed. >> you got a contract from the office not knowing or havin

bradley to testify. then mr. bradley will have to take a position whether he's going to follow the court's order, heed the court's order, or whether he's not. if he does, then he would be able to get into questions that ms. merchant has prepared on mr. if he's not going to testify, theoretically we are in a position which the court will have to hold him in contempt. and then at that point i guess i would like him to contest while i take it up on appeal. i'm just trying to play through where we are going to be. if we are going to do that we might as well put him on the stand >> that's a good thing to flag now. i agree yesterday during the hearing there was intermingling of 1.6 and attorney-client privilege. now having had the time to paragraphs through that -- parse through that, it does seem that there is a distinction between the two. one is not covered by the evidentiary privilege. and pulling the case, 273 georgia 204 supreme court doesn't make that dis continuation. to that evened, mr. evans, as we work throu

bradley?'m sorry when it called the witness the sheriff usually goes for them. >> i don't know where they are it would be best if someone from your team they're not going to know what they look like great books not a problem. [background noises] [laughter] was meant. [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] folks i do. >> clarence of bradley. terrance bradley. >> your honor. [inaudible] >> what is the nation on camera? >> their statements that could be made whether they are recovered or not. >> at the time the question is asked would implicate some of the same subject and i'll handle it. >> thank you. >> see what happened mr. bradley i apologize. it might be helpful to have a sidebar having to restate it. >> i am carefully crafted my questions to avoid any privileged information. but if they think i am invading that i welcome an objection and i'm happy to address it. let's see how it goes in again mr. bradley i will

bradley he knew that mrs. merchant was relying on your review to ensure the accuracy of that motion prior to filing it, correct >> speculation as to what he knew that ms merchant's new bet on you and overrule that mr. brown know >> so >> once again, i was excluded from the footnote of that motion and my review of it and i said, hey, you need to 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 that deals with the relationship between the district attorney willis and mr. wade when you reviewed that you knew that she was merchant. >> i know i did not know that she was relying on me too. for any any relying on me for any accuracy other than what was put in there? if i was 74,000 mr. bradley, if there was something patently false in that motion, you would have told ms merchant wouldn't you? >> again, said that i would or wouldn't if i don't i don't know what i would've told me submersion if there was something pat

bradley or ms. urti or text secting there is no law i have to tell them every good faith basis i have ahead of time. if we did we would never have trials. >> appreciate the argument of counsel. i think the standard on the motion to quash and subpoena is not one where we're required to completely flush out and litigate every reason a witness may be relevant. we'll take these one at a time with ms. urti. deny the motion to quash. and if your election is to call her, that's what we'll do. >> thank you, judge. mr. bradley, you may be excused for now but subject to recall. we'll call ms. urti. would you like me to swear her, judge? >> i think we need to make sure. there we go. if we could swear in the witness. >> can you hear us? >> yes, i can. >> all right. raise your right hand, ma'am. do you swear or affirm the testimony you give the court will be the truth and full truth. state your name for the court. >> [inaudible] >> thank you, ms. urti for being here. can you tell the judge when you first met mis

bradley? i'm sorry when it called the witness the sheriff usually goes for them. >> i don't know where they are it would be best if someone from your team they're not going to know what they look like great books not a problem. [background noises] [laughter] was meant. [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] folks i do. >> clarence of bradley. terrance bradley. >> your honor. [inaudible] >> what is the nation on camera? >> their statements that could be made whether they are recovered or not. >> at the time the question is asked would implicate some of the same subject and i'll handle it. >> thank you. >> see what happened mr. bradley i apologize. it might be helpful to have a sidebar having to restate it. >> i am carefully crafted my questions to avoid any privileged information. but if they think i am invading that i welcome an objection and i'm happy to address it. let's see how it goes in again mr. bradley i wi

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

bradley. i believe it's appropriate. >> thank you. based on that, the subject matter falls under 608, extremes evidence of collateral matter. alta gets allowed under our rules of evidence. >> understanding that, i just want to on the record that rodriguez would testify that mr. bradley sexually assaulted her. was a client at the time. and that would be impeaching of his testimony. >> understood. any further evidence or witnesses? >> i have none further. >> at this time, for now, i will consider the evidence closed, subject to any certified submissions by counsel. subject to the results of that hearing. we will coordinate with all counsel to sign a date to come back for a summation and to that end, miss merchan is running lead on this and consult whether this will be a collective response of the defended period and they were going to have to get it through allotment. maybe council of 10 to 15 minutes aside. we will follow up so we could coordinate with everyone's schedules. i want to make sure

[indiscernible] >> terrence bradley. >> thank you, judge. good afternoon, bradley.traight 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

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. you split expenses, right?ect. >> you've probably shared among yourselves, correct? >> correct. >> after mr. bridled at the firm then there were just two of you, correct? >> that is the cause of the significant change, yes, ma'am. >> and i have two people bring in income, correct? >> correct. >> one of those people, you, is spinning almost all of your time devoted to this election integrity case, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and income from this election integrity case is less than what it was the year before? >> yes, ma'am. >> we talked about monthly cap and we didn't talk about it. there was talk about the monthly cap included in your contract indicating there was a certain threshold that you could reach,, number of hours a month to go but up and out you were not going to be compensated, correct? >> that's correct. >> that's bittersweet, isn't it? >> that's bitter, bitter. >> all right. exhibit 14, still learn from give? >> it is. >> i i want you to take a look t the collection of exhibits that includes all of

bradley. but mr. bradley refused to admit it. you can hear the lawyers coming at it five or six different ways. he kept saying no, no, no. ultimately i don't think they proved that he was in debt, but who knows. it's possible the defense team will come up with some evidence later that shows in fact that the opposite, that he was in debt, which will call mr. bradley's testimony even further in to question. >> charles: let's take a listen to a compelling part of this and then i want your thoughts. >> did you lie to mrs. merchant when you told her facts about mr. wade and mrs. willis' relationship? >> 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 a weasely lawyer word. let's speak truth here. you're under oath. when you were details different details of the relationship to mrs. merchant, did you lay to her about those details? >> objection. asked and answered twice. >> i don't think he's answered it yet. >> i don't rec

bradley so he can testify? >> i'm not willing to waive attorney/client privilege. >> thank you. >> health questions on -- [indiscernible] i don't want to get into the type of cancer, i want to get into the medical condition itself. i understand you to say that you had cancer in the year of 2020? >> yes, sir. >> and you explained that because of that in 2020 you were -- kept yourself in a sterile environment? >> i tried, yes, sir. the>> now, what about 2021? >> 2021, just focusing on my health, trying to get back to myself. >> you remember i asked you some questions about hapeville and the condo. >> yes, sir. >> you indicated that prior to november 1st of 2021, you had spent time at the condo, the hapeville condo. >> yes, sir. >> with miss willis, yes, sir. >> and someone else, you said miss urdi? >> yes, sir. >> so you were not concerned -- that was not a sterile environment, was it? >> are you inferring that they are not sterile? of course it's a sterile environment. it's a condo. >> but don't you remember the

bradley campbell entity. >> and i'm not asking about that. what i'm asking about is during the years 2019, 2020, 2,021.2022 you filed a business return for the law firm of nathan wade? >> yes, ma'am >> and in 2019, you said that the law firm of nathan wade made 140, $184,000, correct >> i don't know >> is that does that does that sound familiar? does that sound about like what you made in 2019? and reported on your taxes as a business law firm? >> that's what's on the return. yes, ma'am. you're right. >> and i'm happy i can bring those up. i've got one copy. i'm not letting all right. >> may approach, judge. >> thank you. >> so in 2019 gross profit for the law firm of meeting made is $184,000, correct? >> let's see >> the second line number to grow >> yes, ma'am. hundred and 8,048.24? yes, ma'am. >> and then in 2020, you also filed nathan wade, attorney at law. >> and your birth profit was >> $230,000, correct >> yes ma'am >> 2021. you also filed as a solo nathan wade, pc, attorney, a larger first profit was $236,000, correct? >> yes, ma'am.

bradley, you have referred to mr. wade as your client, correct? >> correct. >> you understand that the court has ruled that communications that you had with mr. wade are not privileged, correct? >> no, i'm 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 it's at the limitation -- >> clarify -- mr. sadow, you asked whether all communications with mr. wade i think were covered? that was not the extent of the ruling. the only ones that i deemed were not covered and that i had asked about in the in camera hearing because those are the ones that were relevant were any communications mr. wade made regarding the existence or nonexistence of a romantic relationship with mrs. willis. >> fine. thank you, your honor. i understand. >> so going pack to this line of inquiry. when you say you don't have personal knowledge, what i want to ask you to start with, have simple, did you have communications with mr. wade about the relationship between mr. wad

bradley is looking at mr. wade and his lawyer to wait for them to object and they're clearly interacting somehow in the court. so i just want the record to reflect that because it wouldn't otherwise it's there now, you have a question was put to mr. grubman. >> judge, one of my lawyers is standing is sitting right in the back a bit on that rabbit hole. you can look wherever you want. >> yeah. and i never looked at mr. wade or his attorneys. that sounds golf shirt all right. mr. brown, the question was put to you >> repeat the question, please. >> yes. so i showed you or i asked you, i'm sorry, the question. the last question i asked you was, what did nathan wade tell you about the relationship? >> objection. >> and that's already been ruled upon i. >> recall >> him stating >> that at some point they were dating i can't tell you what date that was. it was made in confidence. we were in the back of our office. our officers were the only two in the back. there was no one else present that is all i can tell you at

bradley and mr. bradley determined he actually said what he said to ms. merchant and whatever it was based on communications. >> i understand -- thank you for clarifying your argument. and what i have been going back and forth with ms. merchant, what i understood is that the communications was in furtherance of a crime. the existence of a crime at the time or performing. what you are saying going back in time and reopen that box. unconnected to the communications whatsoever, is that fair? [indiscernible] >> attempt to use these communications as a shield. >> there is a fraud waiver. that's what it is called. it doesn't offend the privilege an attorney to discuss what happened at another proceeding. and suggests as a sword and not merely a shield. >> it was quite ex policity mr. weighed never waived of any communications between he and mr. bradley. he was never willing to get into communications between him and mr. bradley. this fraud upon the court theory, my question is going to be does it apply in georgia? [georgia] >> the only thing i have been able to

this is bradley cooper.m, top half, sergeant pepper, bottom half saturday night fever. that is quite an outfit. i don't know much about men's fashion but i have noticed there is a lot of players here tonight. given the musical theme, players here tonight. given the musicaltheme, certainly. show his trousers. it is pointing down the way. here we go. top of sergeant pepper, bottom half saturday night fever. , ., ., ., ,, fever. maestro, one of those because it hasn't quite — fever. maestro, one of those because it hasn't quite broken _ fever. maestro, one of those because it hasn't quite broken through - fever. maestro, one of those because it hasn't quite broken through in - it hasn't quite broken through in the way that it possibly had the potential to. the way that it possibly had the potentialto. it the way that it possibly had the potential to. it is not up there for best film. but there are acting nominations, bradley cooper is in there. best actor. and carey mulligan for best actress, of course playing

bradley. he's asserting there's an attorney/client privilege associated with this case under rule 1.6. and to draw any inference, make any statements or any other proffer of information after this relationship began between attorney and client december 2018 would be improper, and you would, in fact, be violating the rules of evidence associated with his bar license. >> the way the question was phrased what did he personally observe outside of the relationship not involving communication. how does that fall within attorney/client privilege. >> whether we like it or not, when we have a client, there are a number of items associated with that relationship between attorney and client that come within your purview and lead you to further action, further investigation, further questions, develops your strategy. we can't talk about mr. wade on any level. it would be inappropriate. the divorce was filed sometime thereafter, during that entire interlude, any of these issues could, in fact, have formed

bradley and mr.ey represented that he had firsthand knowledge from speaking to several witnesses that he would be able to impeach with the statements she represented. that is the relationship prior to mr. wade being appointed special prosecutor and that there was issues of cohabitation that he would be able to directly impeach those witnesses. that is false. speaking with mr. cheap yeah those are misrepresentations not true. they are for the purpose of harassment and undue burden to the district attorney and renew our motion to quash. the only hearing we should be having is a hearing as it relates to sanctions for the defense counsel's lack of candor that is required by not only statutory law and professional rules of responsibility and case law and we ask we move into a hearing that is related to the sanctions due to misrepresentation and flagrant falsehoods that have been spread throughout the world in an effort to affect this case and keep it from moving forward. with that, your honor, that's our

bradley gets on the stand and all we hear is i don't recall. not at all plausible when he's giving them details a month ago and that's speculation. i'm sorry. it's not speculation when you're giving specific details, so i think it badly undermines mr. bradley's testimony yesterday and, the timing of the relationship. she says, the trump attorneys says to mr. bradley, do you think their relationship began before she hired him? that's i'm paraphrasing. and he says absolutely why does that matter? why does it matter when the relationship between fani willis and mr. wade began >> right. so we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here. when the defendants challenged fani willis, their story was essentially fani willis was in a romantic relationship with nathan wade. and then while that relationship was ongoing, she appointed did him to lead the trump case, even though he had never prosecuted a felony criminal trial in his life thereafter, mr. wade made a lot of money, hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fulton county taxpaye

bill bradley was already a sensation, and more than a basketball star.a rhodes scholar. and a church going christian, until a sermon preaching apartheid in racially segregated row autodish a. >> i walked out and never return to that church. >> reporter: when bradley finally appeared in madison square garden, knicks fans were delirious. >> my first game every time i touched the ball in warmups, eight 18500 people roared, right? i was their savior supposedly. >> reporter: but not for long. >> god turned on me. booing me, throwing coins at me, accosting me in the street, bradley, you overpaid bum. i was failing. and it hurt. >> reporter: and yet today his jersey hangs in madison square garden alongside his teammates the storied knicks of the '70s. >> we have a new nba champion. >> reporter: two-time world champions in 1970 and '73. >> we were not the best players in the league. but we were the best team. for two years, we were the best team in the world. >> reporter: what does it feel like for you now to come to madison square garden after all these years?

bradley and mr. bradley determined he actually said what he said to ms. merchant and whatever it was based on communications. >> i understand -- thank you for clarifying your argument. and what i have been going back and forth with ms. merchant, what i understood is that the communications was in furtherance of a crime. the existence of a crime at the time or performing. what you are saying going back in time and reopen that box. unconnected to the communications whatsoever, is that fair? [indiscernible] >> attempt to use these communications as a shield. >> there is a fraud waiver. that's what it is called. it doesn't offend the privilege an attorney to discuss what happened at another proceeding. and suggests as a sword and not merely a shield. >> it was quite ex policity mr. weighed never waived of any communications between he and mr. bradley. he was never willing to get into communications between him and mr. bradley. this fraud upon the court theory, my question is going to be does it apply in georgia? [georgia] >> the only thing i have been able to

bradley. do you think that fani willis is in any trouble today based on his testimony, which i think what we just saw as two hours of preposterous, non-credible testimony from mr. bradley. mr. bradley is a lawyer. he's an officer of the court. he's testifying about events that are recent and important. and yet when it came to virtually anything of any substance, his response was, i don't recall or i was speculated let's understand how this person came onto the radar to begin with, he was asked by the defense lawyers in writing in a text, did the relationship between nathan wade and fani willis start before the da hired nathan wade and his answer in writing was quote absolutely. and then on his own, he offered up specifics about when and how they met he said they met at this particular cla continuing legal education conference. and today he said, well, i was speculating. that's ridiculous. why would you make up out of whole cloth some specific place where people met and when he was asked about,

but as wade, bradley, campbell, yes, ma'am. >> wade, bradley, campbell was registered on april 1, 2021, and administratively dissolved on september 8, 2023. correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> other than that partnership, you have always been registered as law office of nathan wade? >> yes, ma'am. >> not with chris campbell. >> correct. >> thank you. so the affidavit that you filed in your divorce case, the first one in 2022, i think i'm up to number 7. i'm going to give you a group of exhibits so we don't have to go back and forth. i'm marking the 2022 as 7. i'm marking the 2024 as 8. i'm marking the credit card statements as 9. and your taxes as 10. >> i object to the taxes to the relevance of them at this point. relevance of this entire structure is unclear to me -- [indiscernible] -- relevant to the issues under the court's consideration but in so far as talking about tax returns and other things like that, certainly that should be retkabgted and i would object to the relevance of it. >> i agree they should be redacted but i don't agree to the relevance. i'm marking them so everyone can fol

bradley set up diogojota before scoring their second of the night by half—time.en crossed for liverpool�*s third, a dominik szoboszlai header and though nkunku pulled one back, luis diaz added a fourth for liverpool, a comfortable night for liverpool and a memorable one for conor bradley.

the cross examination of terrence bradley, who was the former divorce lawyer for nathan wade.as we, know the attorney-client privilege issues kicked in, it was a whole argument legally about whether there was fraud perpetrated in. that it could pierced the attorney client privilege, all the confidential communications come out. judge mcafee ruled no, there was no fraud, it didn't meet the legal standards to be able to do. that that's not what i want to ask you. i want to ask you about the cross examination by the state of georgia. they went hard against terrence bradley, bringing up the allegations that he sexually assaulted a law firm employee at the law firm that he had worked at with, nathan wade. your thoughts about that strategy? do you think that it was affective or do you think that maybe it was an overstep? when >> it could have been an overstep, katie, i'm of two minds of it. remember, earlier this proceeding, judge mcafee did indicate that he wanted to have a conversation with terrence bradley and private about the communications that terrence broadly said that he ha

bradley. no privilege issues. >> let's start with your honor, we have argument matters to be drawn we want to do it like i can stand up with inflation. let's just been said by mr. avante or are you going during his merchandise? this point we just need to know that the courts protocol. >> sure. so i think at this point, we just need to take his issues one at a time. and as you've joined the motion, i think defense counsel would have the opportunity the weigh in, but again, at any point, if i'm just hearing the same thing over and over again from each separate defense counsel, i'm going to reserve the right to say thank you. >> i appreciate that. all right. they ask you about >> and of course, we are monitoring right now this hearing that is happening in georgia, you can see the defense and the prosecutors, they're both making their argument myths, but we do want to bring you an important update that is happening in the courtroom here in new york. and manhattan in the first criminal case that wa

bradley's credit card. >> never used his credit card? >> never. >> for transactions to anything with miss willis, out to dinner or anything like that? >> i have never used mr. bradley's credit card. i have never used anyone else's credit card, not even my father's, and we have the same name. >> you would pay back if you ever used it you would pay back in cash, correct? >> ma'am, i have never used son one else's credit card. -- someone else's credit card. >> can you take a look at the bank records that i gave you? it's the largest tab you have. >> which exhibit is this? >> it is exhibit 9. >> it should be the larger section. exhibit -- i maintain my relevant objections. >> let's see the next question and the objection may be highly relevant. >> is that an accurate copy of your capital one statements you provided in discovery to -- is that an accurate reflection of your capitol one records? >> discovery to whom. >> your divorce lawyers. that you provided in the divorce proceeding. >> does he recognize it by s

bradley, correct? >> yes. >> so when you talked to mr. bradley about matters with his contract in fulton county, though were not covered by attorney-client privilege, correct? >> they were not. >> okay. not all communications with m bradley were covered by attorney-client privilege, correct? >> well, those certainly weren't. >> not all communications with mr. bradley were covered by at least as you've been represent today the court by the attorney-client privilege, correct? so there was communications outside of attorney-client privilege, correct? >> if you're saying if i ever communicate outside of attorney-client privilege, the answer is yes. >> let's finish this the up. as you call it roman number 4, defense exhibit number 4, your response to certain interrogatories, not going back but words in interrogatories are already in evidence. there were two of them and the answer to both of those was -- >> yes, sir. >> on january 25th of 2024 -- >> yes, sir. >> you again were in a position that you answered those same interrogatories. as long

bradley cooper spent six ears contender? bradley cooper spent six years learning _ contender?learning to conduct 416 - contender? bradley cooper spent six years learning to conduct 416 minute years learning to conduct a16 minute conducting scene, and often when it comes to awards season, that unquestionably is the one in that film. standout scene. neverwon unquestionably is the one in that film. standout scene. never won an oscar but he has won

bradley set up diogojota before scoring their second of the night by half—time.z had also missed a penalty, he hit the woodwork four times during the game. bradley then crossed for liverpool's third, a dominik szoboszlai header and though nkunku pulled one back, luis diaz added a fourth for liverpool, a comfortable night for liverpool and a memorable one for conor bradley. he really understands the way we want to play. you have to be brave. he is that. so i am really happy for him. he can kept it calm, put them in a corner, stuff like the it's all fine. and he's a very, very serious young man, but that was pretty special. well, i think they were better than us. liverpool deserved the three points. i think we were not good enough. i think for many reasons, you know, we were waiting for them. yes, not much to say. i think they were better than us. the champions manchester city are up to second, ahead of arsenal on goal difference. they were far too strong for struggling burnley winning 3—1 at the etihad. julian alvarez scored twice in the first half and rodri cemen

because yesterday judge mcafee met with terrence bradley and terrence bradley's lawyer for 90 minuteshind closed doors in what we call an in camera meeting, within chambers meeting. during those 90 minutes, judge mcafee indicated publicly he was going to explore terrence bradley's understanding of the scope of the attorney-client privilege. he used to be the former divorce attorney and law partner for nathan wade. during bradley's testimony, just about ten days ago, bradley indicated that he was invoking the attorney-client privilege in response to certain questions. but at the close of the evidence, judge mcafee said, you know what, mr. bradley, i don't think you really understand the scope of the attorney-client privilege, we're going to explore that more with you to make sure you're giving fulsome answers. so, what do i expect to happen today? well, one of two things. either a total nothing burger, something innocuous, why did you leave the law firm partnership with nathan wade, those types of questions. or we may hear some blockbuster huge testimony about the personal relationship

bradley set up diogojota before scoring their second of the night by half—time.nez also missed a penalty, he hit the woodwork four times during the game. bradley then crossed for liverpool's third, a dominik szoboszlai header and though nkunku pulled one back, luis diaz added a fourth for liverpool, a comfortable night for liverpool and a memorable one for conor bradley. he really understands the way we want to play. you have to be brave. he is bad. sol we want to play. you have to be brave. he is bad. so i am really happy for him. he kept it calm, put them in a corner, stuff like the it's all fine. and he's a very, very serious young man, but that was pretty special. well, i think they were better than — well, i think they were better than us — well, i think they were better than us. we deserved the three points — than us. we deserved the three points i— than us. we deserved the three points. i think they were not good — points. i think they were not good enough. i think... points. i think they were not good enough. ithink... for many— good enough. ithink... for

bradley set up diogojota before scoring their second of the night by half—time.l�*s third, a dominik szoboszlai header and though nkunku pulled one back, luis diaz added a fourth for liverpool, a comfortable night for liverpool and a memorable

bradley. >> i've never been friends with mr. bradley. >> you've never been friends with mr. bradley. >> i don't consider us to be friends. i don't dislike mr. bradley, but i don't consider us to be friends. >> is he someone that you would have in your phone and you would message? >> i might have text messaged him. >> would you text message him and mr. wade on the same conversations. >> i don't recall doing that, but if it happened, it wouldn't surprise me. >> that wouldn't surprise you, the threat of you. how frequently do you think the three of you would have text? >> i wouldn't think very often, but you're asking me to recall, i don't know what time period you're asking me to recall. i'm not going to speak to that, i don't know the answer to that. i don't want to speculate as to how often that would happen but it's not out of my practice to text two people on one text message. so if you told me that happened and showed it to me. it wouldn't surprise me. although i have no recollection of it. >> but there would be some record of it in your phone or the phone records would h

bradley set up diogojota before scoring their second of the night by half—time.rpool�*s third, a dominik szoboszlai header and though nkunku pulled one back, luis diaz added a fourth for liverpool, a comfortable night for liverpool and a memorable

bradley's phone. more importantly, i am going to object -- being able to establish contact based on previous statements made, and i'm concerned about going into the content of the statements without putting things in the buckets that i've identified. >> sure, and so am i, ms. merchant, i'm not seeing so much the relevance of the back and forth, i'm allowing you to establish the contact that was made in line with the outline you provided me, and i think we're on track with that. were you planning to tender these text messages? >> i'm discussing them with him. now, if yesterday he said we didn't talk text about this case, so if that was assessed again today, yes, at least i would show them to him to refresh his recollection or to impeach him, but judge, their first part of that argument is foundation, what i'm assuming they're saying all of these. they're not all relevant. i can give you all of my texts, but they're not all relevant. they asked for screen shots. if there's a way to submit my entire text

bill bradley joins me now. thank you so much for being here. there is a great moment in the film where you talk about being asked, which is a bigger thrill, winning two nba championships are being elected to the senate and at three times, i want our viewers to hear what your answer was >> well, being, like to century time, that's all they did was a greatest honor, but i do was give me an opportunity to work 14 hours a day for six years to prove that the people were wrong in electing me but standing at center court your fist raised in the air. chills going up and down your spine of the smile frozen on your face knowing you're the best in the world now, that's a thrill >> that sounds just like what it's like in the well of the senate. i'm sure. >> but >> senator, you were there here in washington for 18 years, 1979 to 1997 things relative to now worked pretty well. then you've got a lot of bipartisan legislation done. is it possible to get back to that >> well i think the first two years of the biden administrati

bradley? >> lawyer should be here. probably outside. the last estimation i heard was about 11:30. >> ok. >> if that's still the case, miss cross, do you have another witness available? >> mr. john floyd, not special prosecutor john floyd. >> is he heading this way? >> yes. >> all right. >> mr. ward, we are holding a place for taking witnesses out of order. you have any updates on mr. bradley? >> yes. his appointment will last a few more hours. he can do it on zoom if that's possible. >> all right. ms. merchant? >> i was outside looking for them. >> he has asked whether the defendants will accept his testimony by zoom. >> as long as i can show him documents if he needs his memory refreshed, that's fine. >> the state would have objection to this witness not appearing. >> understood. >> mr. ward, i think we'll need continual updates from you. and also some kind of expectation of what this afternoon will look like. i was never informed of a medical appointment. i think the notice in this hearing i

bradley? >> lawyer should be here. probably outside. the last estimation i heard was about 11:30. >> ok. >> if that's still the case, miss cross, do you have another witness available? >> mr. john floyd, not special prosecutor john floyd. >> is he heading this way? >> yes. >> all right. >> mr. ward, we are holding a place for taking witnesses out of order. you have any updates on mr. bradley? >> yes. his appointment will last a few more hours. he can do it on zoom if that's possible. >> all right. ms. merchant? >> i was outside looking for them. >> he has asked whether the defendants will accept his testimony by zoom. >> as long as i can show him documents if he needs his memory refreshed, that's fine. >> the state would have objection to this witness not appearing. >> understood. >> mr. ward, i think we'll need continual updates from you. and also some kind of expectation of what this afternoon will look like. i was never informed of a medical appointment. i think the notice in this hearing i

bradley set up diogojota before scoring their second of the night by half—time.e game. bradley then crossed for liverpool's third, a dominik szoboszlai header and though nkunku pulled one back, luis diaz added a fourth for liverpool, a comfortable night for liverpool and a memorable