mr. partridge has a conflict. what i can do is call mr.ey and bring him back. >> you can always recall him and ping-pong back and forth if we need to based on hearsay issues. at least we can use this time until mr. partridge chooses to join us. >> is he on zoom? >> no. >> okay. just wanted to check. >> all right, so call your next witness then. >> all right, we call mr. bradley to the stand. i don't want -- >> dana: what happened if you are going to be a witness you can't be in the courtroom waiting and listening to other testimony so that's why the slight delay. this is defense attorney and we're waiting for that person to be brought in here. jonathan, while we wait can i ask you something? you have some defendants in this case who have already pled guilty. do you think they regret that decision? >> well, there is always that buyer's remorse. keep in mind the attorneys, like sidney powell, pled to relatively minor offenses where they won't get any jail time or have to give up their licenses and they also did not plead guilty to the overal

mr. partridge was joining us by zoom. >> mr. partridge ably represented his client would be more comfortable if he was here in person that's due to the conflicts in richmond county could not occur to this afternoon i think that's reasonable request. the witness is here if her attorney is able to join right now perhaps that can be something that is addressed want to alert the court. [inaudible] >> quick short the latest i have seen was mr. partridge was going to be able to join by zoom. >> he mr. partridge had affirmed perhaps that was read this morning. >> i do not know either. but she is here. >> mr. partridge here? >> we will find out. [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] all right, just for everyone's information we did convey the zoom a link to mr. partridge this morning. i think the last exchange we have a seek and join us by zoom. and apparently has elected not to do so. i really do not know what else we can do what he is notice of the hearing, he was provided a

mr. partridge. >> your honor the motion to quash mr. wade's subpoena was knelt advance waiting for the representation. i believe that good faith basis that miss merchant represented on monday i think that's not accurate. understand the testimony that is now in the record. mr. wade is available but we have maintained at this time that the motion to quash should be granted but i understand the court's ruling. >> i will say yes on monday it did seem like the focus mr. bradley would be the hook that makes every witness potentially relevant and we really haven't been able to explore that on the privilege issues that we'll have to tackle again later. for now, as it the evidence in front of the court at the moment is we have a witness who has said this relationship may have pre-dated the affidavit that mr. wade filed. i don't see a way around the relevance of his testimony. i deny the state's motion to quash the subpoena of mr. wade. miss merchant. >> bill: as we wait for nathan wade, who is an n all likelihood one of two star witnesses in thi

mr. partridge, mr. darcy is your client, with us? >> she is. she's on the zoom platform beyond her since i'm in richmond county via my conflict. >> the next amendment, the directions. >> that's fine. only objective >> was >> that was not in regards to maturity, just certainly was it wasn't like the 20-minute mark she has personal knowledge of this relationship, not what was represented on monday or no knowledge came from mr. bradley. she has no good faith basis to explore this vision. fishing expedition as it relates to this this is a blatant mr. abbas ms merchant do believe that when we went through the motion of quash, there were you group them into two categories in each one of them, we said that they were going to be impeached by mr. bradley >> there were well, we took mr. already outside of fulton county, judge, so we talked about fulton county differently then this uri you took place you're out separately. she wouldn't front then fulton county because there wasn't other issues and again, we're arguing a motion to quash. i responded to the

mr. partridge. pheu tkpwros. >> -- miss tkpwros. >> motion to quash the subpoenas held in advance waiting for the representation. i believe that the -- miss merchant represented on monday that's truly not accurate. understand the testimony that's now in the record. mr. wade is available, but we have maintained at this time the motion to quash should be granted to understand the court's ruling. >> i'll say, yes, on monday it did seem like the focus was that mr. bradley would be the hook that makes every witness potentially relevant. and we really haven't been able to explore that on the privilege issues that we'll likely have to tackle later. for now as the evidence in front of the court at the moment is that we have a witness who has said this relationship may have predated the affidavit mr. wade filed. i don't see a way around the relevance of the testimony. i'll deny -- state's motion to quash subpoena mr. wade. >> nathan wade, n-a-t-h a-n. wade. >> prior to filing this motion to disqualify you an

mr. partridge here?itness get up and leave. we're right now going over procedures. of course, they're debating over witnesses, which ones are going to be testifying today. >> the question is if district attorney fani willis will be able to stay on this case due to her relationship with the prosecutor she put on the case. the question they're looking at is whether or not she financially benefitted in any way, if there were any types of rules or regulations or laws broken here that would cause for a change to be made in this case. >> well, dave aronberg brought up a moment ago, joyce vance, if in fact they did lie under oath about when their relationship began, then they both will likely be removed from the case, right? >> well, they certainly have a duty of candor to the court. it would be extraordinary to have two prosecutors lying to the judge and he'd be entitled to take the action that he saw fit. of course, one intermediate step here might be recusing nathan wade, the prosecutor that fani willis brou

mr. partridge, as i recall that did not apply to your client as much. the original motion to quash that you filed said she had absolutely no knowledge about anything. what ms. merchant proffered and what i didn't hear you saying is not the kats is that at some point ms. yeardy lived in a residence and shared a residence with ms. willis and potentially mr. wade at some point, so i think she's directly involved in the center of this. i don't think that needs much in the way of foundation. >> and judge, that information, however, my understanding came from mr. bradley and that information was incorrect as i informed the court earlier this week as well. there was never any time that ms. yeardy and ms. willis lived together. there was a sublet of a condo that ms. willis resided in that had nothing to do with that of ms. yurdy, she moved into a different residence per our conversation yesterday, that is exactly what it was. there was no overlapping or anytime that they stayed together nor does ms. yurdy have any information as it relates to mr. wade staying a