ms. merchan. if that conversation happened you better believe that would have been a conversation that defense counsel would have confronted mr. wade with and against. the reason they didn't do that is because it didn't exist. again, you heard from mr. john c. floyd iii, the district attorney's father. as your honor heard, he was a well respected member of the legal community for over 40 years. the importance of his testimony was to provide the court with corroboration as it relates to years leading up to the relationship that transitioned into dating between the district attorney and mr. wade. what he testified to is he moved into our south fulton home in 2019. the evidence of his moving into the home at that time was his georgia driver's license. official government document. he further testified that not only that just ms. willis and himself live at the south fulton home, but that he often would see on numerous occasions the significant other of ms. willis, that was not mr. wade. that person ha

ms. merchan. they choose to go after the black man. and she then goes on, again, deflecting away, and deflecting to the -- what i call the third rail in american society. accusing somebody on the other side of being a racist. so and so is a racist. they're racist. she was the one playing the race card in a way to deflect from her own conduct. she goes on to say in her discussions with the lord. god, is it that some will never see a black man as qualified no matter his achievements, again, the deflection. what is she saying? the listener is not necessarily in that audience, in church, the listener is in fulton county. the potential jurors who will come into a courtroom and say whether or not they can fairly judge the evidence or the defense in this case, she chose to inject race into the minds of the listeners and virtually everybody in this community, and literally everybody in this country has reviewed and analyzed her speech that she made in a premeditated way in bringing in not only the race card but also in bringing in the religiou

ms merchan, is that accurate >> directly overheard >> which ones are we talking about? >> well, essentially, the kind of seemed to be all of them. you'd said alan ban, young. and then the investigators hill, green and r6 could all be directly impeached by statements overheard by mr. bradley? >> yes >> in reference to your question, the unequivocal answer was yes. and when you're on there, is looking through the text messages, i would submit to the court that the text messages don't even say or indicate what was represented to the court in relation to the good faith basis for this motion to disqualify as it relates to the testimony of an the ability to impeach witnesses through mr. bradley what's been referenced by all counsel is mr. bradley's assertion of absolutely. as it relates to whether the relationship existed prior to mr. wade hiring and the question in itself involves speculation because it asks, do you think it started before she hired him? and he says absolutely, he doesn't say he no. he doesn't provide any context as to how he knows. and in these text message

ms. merchan filed the motion to disqualify, now the game plan has to change. game plan, i call the deflection begins to take place. the deflection is when the district attorney sat down and wrote out, i'm sure the court has. when you look at that video, it's in evidence, for a speech at church, she has written out everything and she's reading from it. she chooses to deflect, the court asked earlier, wasn't she really responding to the motion that had been filed against her, that she had. if she had, she would have looked the members of that church in the face and say, there's been an allegation that i had a romantic allegation with mr. wade, and ladies and gentlemen, this congregation, it's true. she didn't do that. she chose to deflect, and to do two things that are reprehensible for any lawyer but particularly for a prosecutor. she chose to pull out the race card and the god card. that's what she did. and she wrote it out. she went on to deflect away from the allegations in the wade motion, and she's saying why in her talk, public discussion with god, why ar

ms. merchan's client, and made what we call the church speech, and your owner has reference of that, youessarily want evidence but you know what the church speech was. it was videoed, it was clear that ms. willis had notes, she was reading from notes that she had prepared. it was a calculated determination by ms. willis to prejudice the defendants and their counsel. by making an issue out of the person who was challenged in the roman motion was black, withoute public or cr anyone for that matter that the reason mr. wade was being challenged was not because he was black, it had to do with the relationship that have been alleged and later admitted to by ms. merchant. ms. willis took full opportunity to prejudice the defendants. then comes along later and says it wasn't intended to be in the defense counsel. the intent was to get public sympathy for what ms. merchant had already alleged in her motion. that was a violation of the professional rules of c3.8 g. no question about it, it wasn't in response to anything that was said. it was a public statement, extrajudicial, for the purpose of ma

ms. cross in relation to miss merchan's representations to the mit to the court is that all mr.ons of it relates to when the miss willis and mr. wade began and whether they cohabitated. that was a promise that was also made, that he would be able to impeach the investigators as it relates to cohabitation. it was speculation, gossip, innuendo. >> the impression i got is that mr. bradley directly overheard a duals that they could be impeached with. is that accurate? >> directly overheard -- >> they actually seem to be -- all of them could all be directly impeached by statements overheard by mr. bradley. >> yes. >> in reference to your question, the answer was yes. when you are looking to the text messages, i would submit to the court that the text messages don't even say or indicate what was represented to the relation to the good faith basis for this motion to disqualify, as it relates to the testimony of and ability to impeach witnesses through mr. bradley. what has been referenced by all counsel is mr. bradley's assertion of, absolutely, as it relates to whether the relationshi