mr. bradley? mr. bradley: any knowledge that i would have received would have come from my client at the time. ms. merchant: you had knowledge of this place that ms. willis works. what did you know about them meeting at the office? >> objection, hearsay. judge mcafee: overruled. she has already asked the next question. ms. merchant: how do you have knowledge? you just told us mr. wade told you. tell us what mr. wade told you about ms. willis and mr. wade meeting at the other office? >> objection, your honor. privilege. the time after december 18 is covered by privilege. judge mcafee: overruled. do you recall the question, mr. bradley? mr. bradley: i do not. ms. merchant: what did you learn from mr. wade about mr. wade and ms. willis meeting at the evans office together? >> objection -- judge mcafee: he has not answered. >> he had one conversation with mr. wade. judge mcafee: and his answer may change. mr. bradley: i can't recall what the conversation was. i do recall knowing that he would go down to th

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

mr. 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 throug

mr. bradley testified mr. wade said the divorce proceedings were beginning and >> we have a starting point but does that necessarily foreclose anything from that point on ward? if they started talking about something else entirely? >> post divorce of course not but during the pennsylvania -- observations and other realizations that mr. bradley came into during his representation. to parse it out would put mr. bradley in an untenable position. >> i think we're talking about two aspects of -- the first attorney/client privilege. first is controlled by state law and statute that deals with communications and purpose. i don't hear that being the objection. the objection is that there are confidential matters under 1.6 which in some form or fashion mean that once you start a relationship attorney/client that everything from that point on is confidential between the two of them. there is no such case law in georgia that deals with confidential information of that kind. attorney/client yes, confidential information n

mr. bradley and mr.ade from 2018 through there is no such law that protects only communications and i apologize but i think what we are being told is i don't have to say anything at all about mre attorney-client relationship with him it could be deemed confidential and i can't talk about it. there is no rule to that effect both in the court would say are ourretirement attorney/client privilege confidential information you ordered mr. bradley to testify. we have to decide after you ordered him to testify. [inaudible] >> if not said he cannot testify to anything. the question on the table is what observation do you have between mr. wade and ms. willis. now their teams have made an allegation of some impropriety. that same impropriety would be related to a divorce proceeding on every level. were talking about things that gave him knowledge associated with his representation. i realize and then i realize the rule 1.6 we violate that the whole thing comes tumbling down. i'm not saying you cannot ask about mr.

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

mr. 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

mr. 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

mr. 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

mr. bradley you were counsel for mr. wade in the divorce case when the interogger toes were initially served on opposing counsel on or about december 27, 2021, correct? >> that's correct. >> and you were also counsel on -- for him when he amended -- when the amended interrologier toes were served in may, 2023. >> that's incorrect. >> so you ceased representing before may 30, 2023. >> that's correct. >> at any point in the divorce proceedings was a pleading filed with the court or a paper served on opposing counsel that purported to have your signature that you were not the one that signed or authorized your signature on? >> say that again? >> did anyone sign your signature without your authorization on any pleading or any other paperwork served on opposing counsel in the divorce proceedings? >> i don't think so. if you have the documents, i can authenticate my signature. >> and you testified that you also practice criminal law and divorce law and perhaps other types of law as well? >> that's correct. >> and are you aware

mr. bradley mr. campbell. >> so you were you ares with mr. not related to attorney-client privilege, correct? >> related to the contracts come yes. >> but you have conversations, even though as understood correctly, mr. bradley was your attorney at the time, correct? >> at what time? >> at the time that mr. bradley received his contract from the cannibals would be beginning agenda or in january 2021, right? >> is at the day of his contract? >> pretty close. >> i don't know what the date of this contract was but if they were after the date of the filing of the divorce, then yeah. >> i'm not talking about, i'm not talking about after the date of the filing of divorce. it's been represented to the court that you had an attorney-client relationship with mr. bradley from 2015 forward, correct? >> that is correct. >> mr. bradley received his contract with fulton county that was in 2021, correct? >> i don't know. >> we can prove that to others. but at the time mr. bradley was doing work in fulton county if i understand, you still had an attorney-clie

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

mr. bradley and mr. campbell. >> you were discussing matters with mr. bradley which were not related to attorney/client privilege, correct? >> related to the contracts, yes. >> but you were having conversations that would not -- even though, if i understood correctly, mr. bradley was your attorney at the time, correct? >> at what time? >> at the time that mr. bradley received his contract from fulton county, which would have been the beginning of january, or in january of 2021, right? >> that the date of his contract? >> pretty close. >> i don't know what the date of his contract was, but if -- if it was after the date of the filing of the divorce, then yeah. >> i'm not talking about -- i'm not talking about after the date of the filing of the divorce. it's been represented to the court that you had an attorney/client relationship with mr. bradley from 2015 forward, correct? >> that is correct. >> when mr. bradley received his contract with fulton county, that was in 2021, correct? >> i don't know. >> we can prove that through other evidence. but at the

mr. bradley is looking at mr.ade and his lawyer to wait for them to object and they are clearly interacting in the court. it wouldn't otherwise. >> it's there now. >> a question was put to you mr. bradley. >> one of my lawyers is sitting right in the back, a, behind -- >> you can look wherever you want. >> i never looked at mr. wade or his attorneys. >> all right. mr. bradley, question put to you. >> repeat the question please. >> i showed you or asked you, what did nathan wade tell you about the relationship? >> same objection, your honor. >> and it's already been ruled upon. >> i recall him stating that at some point they were dating. i can't tell you what date that was. it was made in confidence. we were in the back of our office. our offices were the only two in the back. there was no one else present. that is all i can tell you at this time. >> one time? >> one time. >> you only had a conversation one time about the recessionship? >> objection, asked and answered. >> clarify for cross. miss merchant. >> i do

mr. bradley and mr. campbell, you were discussing matters with mr. bradley which were not related to attorney-client privilege, correct? >> related to the contract, yes. okay. but you were having conversations that would not even know if i understood correctly. mr. bradley, was your attorney at the time, correct? >> at what time? >> at the time that mr. bradley received his contract from fulton county, which would've been beginning of january or in january of 2021, right? >> is that the date of his contract? >> pretty close >> i don't know what the date of his contract was, but if late for my after the date of the filing of divorce, then i'm not talking about i'm not talking about after the date of filing divorce it's been represented to the court that you had an attorney-client relationship with mr. bradley from 2015 forward? >> yes. correct? yes, sir. that is correct. >> when mr. bradley received his contract with fulton county, that was in 2021, correct? >> i don't know. >> we can prove that through other evidence. but at the time that mr. bradley

mr. 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

mr. bradley and mr. y 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 r

mr. bradley you were counsel for mr. wade in the divorce case when the interogger toes were initially served on opposing counsel on or about december 27, 2021, correct? >> that's correct. >> and you were also counsel on -- for him when he amended -- when the amended interrologier toes were served in may, 2023. >> that's incorrect. >> so you ceased representing before may 30, 2023. >> that's correct. >> at any point in the divorce proceedings was a pleading filed with the court or a paper served on opposing counsel that purported to have your signature that you were not the one that signed or authorized your signature on? >> say that again? >> did anyone sign your signature without your authorization on any pleading or any other paperwork served on opposing counsel in the divorce proceedings? >> i don't think so. if you have the documents, i can authenticate my signature. >> and you testified that you also practice criminal law and divorce law and perhaps other types of law as well? >> that's correct. >> and are you aware

mr. bradley and mr. wade from 2018 forward. there's no such law that protects such confidences, only communications made in -- and if i'm mistaken, i apologize, but i think what we're being told is i don't have to say anything at all about mr. wade once i have the attorney/client relationship with him because it would be deemed confidential and if it's deemed confidential i can't talk about it. there's no such case law to that effect in georgia. there's no bar rule to that effect. the only thing the court has to do is say are we talking about attorney/client privilege or pure confidences, confidential information. you ordered mr. bradley to testify, and then it's up to his counsel to decide whether he wants to have his client held in contempt after you've ordered him to testify. >> we have said he can't testify to anything. the specific question on the table is what observations do you have of mr. wade and ms. willis from that point on? now, they -- the defense and their teams have made an allegation of some impropriety. that s

mr. bradley's access to and from a specific room to pick a file and mr. bradley's said that you're 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 we'll actually know if he >> testified was that he had no personal knowledge. is knowledge that conveyed to him that was cut off at the last hearing. that's really the only thing we hadn't been able to explore. unless you correct me if i'm wrong, knowledge that was conveyed to him by somebody else. that's that he claimed at the time 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 >> then object as to relevance as to his personal knowledge which is what, six requires. >> we're back to the same point. ms merchant's his >> personal knowledge is what i'm asking him, what he told me, but he hasn't yet told you how he knows that. and so if unless he can establish why he should be testifying on this at all, then there's an

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, why did you speculate, you know what his answer was? i don't recall. there's no way you can credit that witness the question now though, and you are because getting to this is is

mr. 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 indicated it would last at least two days. rig

mr. bradley and mr. campbell. >> you were discussing matters with mr. bradley which were not related to attorney-client privilege, correct? >> related to the context, yes. >> but you were having conversations -- even though if i understood correctly, mr. bradley was your attorney at the time, correct? >> at what time? >> at the time that mr. bradley received his contract from fulton county, began in january 2021, right? >> is that the date of his contract? >> pretty close. >> i don't know what the date of his contract was but if it was after the date of the filing of divorce, then yeah. >> i'm not talking about the date after filing of the divorce, it's been represent today the court that you had an attorney-client relationship with mr. bradley from 2015 forward? >> yes, sir, that is correct. >> that was in 2021, correct? >> i don't know. >> we can prove that through other -- but at the time that mr. bradley was doing work for fulton county if i understand you still had an attorney-client privilege at least you're claiming one with mr. bradley, correct?

mr. 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 indicated it would last at least two days. rig

mr. 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 was

mr. bradley and mr. campbell. >> so you were discussing with mr. bradley that were not related to attorney/client privilege, correct? >> related to the contract, yes. >> if i understood correctly, mr. bradley was your attorney at the time, correct? >> at what time? >> at the time that mr. bradley received his contract from fulton county, which would have been the beginning of january or in january of 2021, right? >> is that the date of his contract? >> pretty close. i don't know what the date of his contract was. if it was after the date of the filing of divorce, then yeah. >> i'm not talking about after the date of the filing of divorce. it's been represented to the court that you had an attorney/client relationship with mr. bradley from 2015 forward, correct? >> yes, sir, that is correct. >> when mr. bradley received his contract with fulton county, that was in 2021, correct? >> i don't know. we can prove that through other evidence. at the time that mr. bradley was doing work for fulton county, if i understand, you had an attorney/client privileg

mr. 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

mr. bradley's credit card. >> you've never used his credit card? >> never. >> for transactions to anything with ms. willis, out to dinner, anything like that? >> i've never used mr. bradley's credit card. i've never used anyone else's credit card. not even my father's and we have the same name. >> and you'd pay back, if you used someone's credit card, you'd pay back in cash, correct. >> ma'am, i've never used 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. >> what number is this? >> it is exhibit -- hold on, judge. exhibit 9. it shubt largest section -- it should be the largest section you've got. >> i maintain my objection. >> let's see what the next question is and maybe the objection is going to be highly relevant. >> is that an accurate copy of your capital one statements that you provided in discovery to -- is that an accurate reflection of your capital one records? >> that i provided in discovery to whom? >> to your divorce lawyers? or that you provided in the divorce proc

mr. 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 do not consider us to be friends. >> is he someone you would have in your phone and you would message them. >> i may have text messaged him. >> would you text message him and mr. wade on the same conversation. >> i don't recall doing that but if it happened it would not surprise me. >> that would not surprise you. okay. how frequently do you think the three off you would've text. >> i would not think very often. i don't even know what time. you are asking me to recall. i willl not speak to that becauw i really do not know the answer to that. i don't want to speculate how much that would happen. it is not out of my practice to text to people on one text message. if you showed me that happened it would not surprise me. although i have no recollection of it. >> they would have the record of those texts. talking about sometimes paying cash, when you went on vacation with mr. wade, let's just go one by one. le

mr. 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

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 taxpayers, some of which made its way back to the da fani willis, the da fani willis and nathan wade though, offered a counter narrative where they said, no, no, no, he got hired first first then the relationship started. none of this was sort of intentional. none of this was planned. and then the stakes got upped further, jake, because both da willis and mr. wade have now testified under oath that

mr. bradley to testify and then mr. bradley will have to take his decision whether he is going to follow the court's order or whether he is not. if he does, then he will be able to ask him some questions that miss merchant prepared on mr. roman's behalf. if he says i'm not going to do that we're in the position the court will have to -- [inaudible] at that point my guess is he would say i would like him -- think on appeal. i'm trying to play through where we'll be. if we're going to do that we might as well put him on the stand. >> a good thing to flag. yesterday during the hearing there was some intermingling of 1.6 and attorney/client privilege and now having had the time to kind of parse through that, and it does seem that there is a distinction between the two. one is not covered with it and according to a case in georgia, supreme court doesn't make that distinction. to that and mr. evans as we work through these issues when mr. bradley takes the stand i would be directing him to respond and be responsive to any ques

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. >> would you message him? >> i might have text him. >> would you text him? >> i don't recall that but it wouldn't surprise me in. how equally would you say? >> i wouldn't think very often but you're asking me to recall, i don't even know what time. you are asking me to recall but i will speak to that because i don't know the answer to that so i don't want to regulate how often that would happen. it's not out of my practice to text people online so if you told me that happened and showed it to me, it wouldn't surprise me but i have no recollection of it. >> the record of it. >> i know you said you paid security cash, when you went on vacation, let's go one by one, what is the first time he went on vacation? >> i think the first time was around april 22. i'm trying to be competitive, article april 22, birthday is march 18 come about happen his 49th birthday. something like tennessee, i think we went to a museum, thickly i have stayed the nig

mr. bradley. >> you have never been friends with mr. bradley? >> no, i don't consider us to be friends. i certainly -- i don't dislike mr. bradley. i don't consider us to be friends. >> is he someone that you would have in your phone and message with? >> i might have text messaged him. >> okay. would you text message him and mr. wade on the same conversations? >> i don't recall doing that. if it happened, it wouldn't surprise me. >> okay that wouldn't surprise you. the three of you. >> huh-uh. >> how frequently do you think the three of you texted? >> i wouldn't think very often. 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 really 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 >> there would be s

mr. bradley? >> he will be here at 12:22. >> i think we should have the prese preliminary -- i don't know if you want to argue in place or whatever makes you trouble. it was relayed to you since you weren't in court earlier this morning we had some initial conversations about the distinction between a privilege and rule 1.6 and you wanted to be heard. >> i apologize that i >> whatever you need to do. >> your honor, i believe -- anticipation of the rule 1.6 is fiberglass versus -- is that correct? >> it is difficult hearing -- >> there is a microphone in the jury box, you can try to lift that microphone up and speak in the jury box or make your way to the podium or table. the >> sorry. >> is that better? >> that was authority provided by mr. sadow, our morning recess and that was indicated to go toward a potential argument, i don't think we have gotten there yet. it is fraud on the court. it is attorney-client privilege, 1.6. >> the case i had cited this morning showing distinction was tenant healt

mr. bradley? >> i don't i've never been formed with mr. bradley. >> you've never been friends with mr. bradley? >> no, i don't. i don't consider us to be friends. i said i don't dislike mr. bradley, but i don't consider us to be friends as he someone that you would have in your phone and you would message was i might've text message tim. >> okay. >> 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. >> okay. so that wouldn't surprise you. >> three of you. okay? >> how >> frequently would you think that the free of you would have text? that's not very >> i wouldn't think very often, but, you asking me to recall. i don't even know what time period you're asking me to recall, but i'm not going to speak to that because i just really don't know the answer to that. and so i don't want to speculate as to how often that would happen, but it's not out of my practice. to text to people on one text message. so if you told me that happened in showed it to me, it wouldn't surprise me, although i have no recoll

mr. bradley? >> the last estimation i heard was okay. >> is that still the case then ms cross, did you have another witness available >> having brought everything, mr. john floyd? not special prosecutor? i'm floyd. returning. >> okay >> is he hadn't this way >> all right. i believe they have just called to the stand. john floyd, who was the father of fani willis. so that will be interesting testimony to hear any moment now, we're waiting for him to take the stand. what we just did witness was i think they're very small world of the georgia legal profession. right there. the former governor of georgia, roy barnes testified that he was offered at one point the job of being special prosecutor in the election fraud case against donald trump and others. and also testified a little bit to the qualifications of nathan way to ultimately did lead up that investigation. michael moore are you are part of this small world there. what did you hear? what was most important? >> well it was good to see governor ba

mr. bradley former law partner and friend of mr. wade, who apparently has some information it has communicated by text and email with the defense attorneys about that. so if these records back up, something mr. bradley tells a judge in chambers and cameron private, or if mr. bradley tells him something that backs up the records in private, i think they become particularly critical. i mean, this this is about like watching somebody on the titanic say, well, the iceberg is really not that big. this is a big deal in the sense that it could very well undermine the credibility of the district attorney and mr. wade. that's a problem going forward because the judge has got to make a decision on whether or not there has been some appearance of conflict or has there been some false filing or statement made to the court if that's the case, then i think she's got a problem. i don't know yet, but i do know that prosecutors and law enforcement use this type of cell phone tracking data, all the tab so additions here now the district attorney's of

mr. bradley, which you began corresponding. will give you a chance to do that, and you can follow up by email without exhibit. it will be the complete chain without any deletions or removals, exhibit 39. ms. merchant: at 1:57, when he texted himself a screenshot, i literally rode him, do you want any other screenshots? i have nothing to hide. >> all right, we are done. ok, i will wait to hear back from you all on exhibit 39, and is there anything else to take up before we discuss friday? just kind of really open to the floor. seeing men, i believe i asked him put it out there among the defense counsel to be considering how they would like to organize their arguments on friday. have there been any decisions reached on that? ms. merchant: we are going to be making a decision on that. >> in terms of subject matter or something like that? >> and time limits. >> yeah. that is the idea. >> ok, great. >> what is it that you are asking for? we will start there. i'm just kind of curious. >> i don't think we can answer that right now. if

mr. bradley and mr. campbell did for me. they did a really good job. all of those cases that we originally came with, they're done. they're not just done for mr. bradley land mr. campbell. they're done through my office. life is not stagnant. there's been new police cases. i have a lawyer that is doing that work now. that doesn't work for me. that's same kind of deal. i have another lawyer that does filtering for this case. completely separate. >> so in the same private office, you had a filter contract, then you had somebody else having pedalling first appearances and so forth and then a special prosecutor. is that correct? >> i'm just not -- ultimately the answer to your question is question. but i'm not sure that they did it at the same time. the first appearance contract, even 60 or $90. i don't know how i convinced them to take that. but i think because it was for such a short amount of time. and then i think i pay my filter lawyers, which i still don't know how i get away with about $150 an hour. i want you to understand, the a.g. pays special pr