In the ongoing financial corruption trial of District Attorney Fani Willis, Nathan Wade’s former divorce attorney and law partner, Terrence Bradley, took the stand and delivered a candid reaction to a piece of evidence that could significantly impact the trial’s trajectory.
The Revelation: Text Messages Unveiling the Relationship Timeline
While on the stand, Bradley was presented with a series of text messages that delved into the intricate timeline of the relationship between Willis and Wade. The central focus of the trial, these texts allegedly confirm that Willis and Wade were romantically involved before Willis enlisted Wade to prosecute the case against former President Donald Trump.
The “Oh Dang” Moment: Bradley’s Reaction on the Stand
In a dramatic courtroom moment, Bradley, upon reviewing the texts, muttered to himself, ‘oh dang.’ The content of these messages seemingly corroborates the notion that Willis and Wade were dating before their professional collaboration on the Trump case.
Legal Interrogation: Questioning Bradley’s Knowledge and Intent
During the trial, Steve Sadow, one of Trump’s attorneys, questioned Bradley about a text exchange with Ashleigh Merchant, an attorney for Trump co-defendant Michael Roman. The exchange touched upon the timing of Willis and Wade’s relationship and its correlation with Wade’s involvement in the Trump case. Sadow pointed out a message where Merchant suggested Willis should not hire Wade and asked if their romantic involvement began before Willis hired Wade. Bradley’s response, a succinct ‘Absolutely,’ prompted further scrutiny.
Denial and Speculation: Bradley’s Attempt to Downplay the Revelation
Under Sadow’s questioning, Bradley attempted to downplay his prior text messages, insisting they were mere speculation about the timeline of Willis and Wade’s relationship. Sadow, not convinced, confronted Bradley about the inexplicable nature of speculating on such a specific matter in a text message.
Bradley’s Testimony: “I Cannot Recall” Becomes a Pivotal Phrase
Throughout his testimony, Bradley employed the phrase “I cannot recall” more than ten times, creating an air of uncertainty about his knowledge of the timeline of Willis and Wade’s relationship. Sadow pressed Bradley on the legitimacy of his use of the phrase, emphasizing the inconsistency in Bradley’s claimed lack of recall, especially on crucial details.
Judge’s Ruling and Bradley’s Tangled Web: Unprotected Communications
Bradley’s appearance on the stand followed a ruling by Judge Scott McAfee that certain communications between Wade and Bradley are not protected by attorney-client privilege. The judge’s decision paved the way for probing questions about the details of Willis and Wade’s relationship.
Dramatic Revelations: Wade’s Frequent Visits and Overnight Stays
Prior to Bradley’s testimony, revelations emerged about Wade’s extensive visits to Fani Willis’ Georgia neighborhood, numbering at least 35 times, with overnight stays. These visits occurred before Willis officially enlisted Wade to join the Trump investigation team, adding further complexity to the timeline presented by the couple.
Legal Battle: Attempt to Remove Willis from the Trump Case
As the trial unfolds, Michael Roman and other co-defendants in Trump’s case seek to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis due to what they perceive as an ‘improper’ relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade. The crux of their argument centers on Willis allegedly benefitting financially from a personal and romantic connection with Wade, whom she appointed, using taxpayer funds, to work on the case.
Willis and Wade’s Defense: Denial of a Disqualifying Conflict of Interest
Despite acknowledging their relationship, Willis and Wade assert that it does not constitute a disqualifying conflict of interest. They maintain that the relationship has not resulted in any direct or indirect financial gains for District Attorney Willis.
Share on Facebook «||» Share on Twitter «||» Share on Reddit «||» Share on LinkedIn