by Techno Fog
We continue our reporting on the ongoing saga in Fulton County to disqualify District Attorney Fani Wade and Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade.
Yesterday morning, on the first day of evidence, the State desperately tried to prevent Special Prosecutor Wade’s divorce lawyer, Terrence Bradley, from testifying. The State failed. Mr. Bradley briefly testified yesterday and returned to the stand today, where he shielded Wade from scrutiny by repeatedly asserting the attorney-client privilege concerning his knowledge of Wade’s affair with DA Willis.
The official position of the Fulton County District Attorney is that the “romantic relationship” between Willis and Wade began in early 2022. Bradley refused to disclose any facts that were contrary to the 2022 start date, stating he could not divulge anything he knew about the relationship because he learned it during his representation of Wade.
Mr. Bradley did everything in his power to shelter Nathan Wade. And in return, the State tried to torch Mr. Bradley’s reputation.
The State tried to make the hearing about sexual assault claims against Mr. Bradley, attempting to call two witnesses to prove their case that Mr. Bradley was an alleged sexual predator. It was improper, outside the bounds of allowable evidence in Georgia, and was shut down by Judge McAfee. But the State sent a strong message: that it was willing to go to extremes to protect its District Attorney and its case against Trump, et al.
Yesterday, we went in chronological order, discussing the testimony of each individual witness. Today, we’ll go in order of importance. And we’ll start with the testimony of Terrence Bradley.
Terrence Bradley
Mr. Bradley, Nathan Wade’s former law partner who represented Bradley for a time in his divorce case, almost didn’t make it to Court today. Despite being under subpoena, he spent his morning at his doctor’s office – as if he really didn’t want to be in Court – only to return for the afternoon session.
On direct examination by attorneys for the Defendants, Mr. Bradley was asked about various phone calls and texts messages he exchanged with Ashleigh Merchant (attorney for Defendant Michael Roman). These text messages are of critical importance, as they demonstrate Mr. Bradley’s knowledge of the affair and the trips taken by Willis and Wade.
For example, in one exchange, Mr. Bradley texted that he wasn’t surprised Ms. Merchant discovered the various trips because he knew the couple had gone to Texas, Florida, and California together.
In another text, Ms. Merchant asked Mr. Bradley where she could get an affidavit about the Willis/Wade affair. Mr. Bradley’s response implied the harm that would come to anyone who would come forward: “no one would freely burn that bridge.”
Then there was perhaps the most important text that Mr. Bradley sent Ms. Merchant. After she sent him a copy of her motion to disqualify DA Willis and Nathan Wade, Mr. Bradley sent a text back: “Looks good.”
The defense attorneys pressed Mr. Bradley on that issue, asking him if that response to Ms. Merchant – the one that confirmed the affair allegations in the motion to disqualify – were “based on confidential communications with Nathan Wade.” Bradley replied: “Yes.” (A couple minutes of relevant testimony below.)
The attorneys for the Defendants made repeated attempts to get Mr. Bradley to explain the basis of his knowledge concerning these texts, and to speak on anything he knew about the romantic relationship between Willis and Wade – specifically, whether it took place before Wade’s appointment as Special Prosecutor on November 1, 2021. And every single time, there was an objection that this information was protected under the attorney-client privilege.
This became the point of dispute during the hearing. The Defendants had three basic arguments:
- Nathan Wade waived the attorney-client privilege because he testified about the affair.
- Attorney-client privilege does not apply due to the crime-fraud exception, which “posits that communications with an attorney after the completion of a crime or fraud are privileged, “but those which occur before the perpetration of a fraud or commission of a crime and which relate thereto are not protected by the privilege.”1[1]
- Steven Sadow, Trump’s defense attorney, had a different perspective. He argued that the crime-fraud exception didn’t apply. Instead, he maintained that attorney-client privilege cannot be used as a weapon to enable persons to perpetuate fraud on the Court.2[2] Sadow proposed that Judge McAfee consider what Mr. Bradley might say ex parte and in camera (in the privacy of the Judge’s chambers, without the parties present) because Wade was using privilege to perpetuate a fraud on the Court.
Judge McAfee didn’t allow Mr. Bradley to testify on anything he learned about the Willis/Wade affair. He also didn’t make a final ruling on the privilege issue, though he wasn’t convinced by the waiver argument. Instead, he was persuaded by Sadow’s argument and will be conducting a private conference with Mr. Bradley and his attorney concerning what Mr. Wade told Mr. Bradley about the relationship.
Make no mistake – Nathan Wade is using the attorney-client privilege as a weapon. He has freely discussed the affair, yet he refuses to waive attorney-client privilege so his attorney can speak about the affair. No doubt there would be waiver if Mr. Bradley’s testimony would be favorable. This leaves one obvious explanation: Wade is concerned that his attorney will contradict his testimony, and thus implicate both Wade and Willis for perjury.
While we’re on the subject of perjury, Nathan Wade testified yesterday that he never used anyone else’s credit card – he specifically denied using the credit card of Mr. Bradley.
This turned out to be false. This afternoon, Mr. Bradley testified that Nathan Wade had used Mr. Bradley’s credit card to purchase a trip. (He couldn’t recall the date of purchase.) Wade reimbursed Mr. Bradley with cash.
Mr. Bradley would also discuss how he obtained work as part of the Fulton County anti-corruption unit/taint team. In January 2021, after Willis was elected District Attorney, Nathan Wade approached him and asked “if we would be interested in having a contract with Fulton County.”
Apparently this proposal came directly from DA Willis herself. And Nathan Wade stood to financially benefit from this arrangement. As part of his legal partnership with Mr. Bradley and another partner (Mr. Campbell), Nathan Wade would receive 1/3 of the money paid from this Fulton County contract. Mr. Bradley would testify that, in total, he would receive three contracts from Fulton County – and in each one, Nathan Wade would receive his one-third cut.
Mr. Bradley left Wade’s firm sometime in the summer of 2022. He explained under questioning from the defense attorneys that this was due to a “privileged” disagreement with Mr. Wade that might have been connected to the divorce case. (Mr. Bradley would end his representation of Mr. Wade in the divorce matter sometime in the fall of 2022.)
The State Cross Examines Terrence Bradley
On cross-examination, the State revealed their strategy: they would paint Mr. Bradley as a witness with motive to lie and slander Nathan Wade.
And they did this by getting to the real reason Mr. Bradley left the firm: because he had been accused of sexually assault by a firm employee. Mr. Bradley acknowledged the accusation but said in his defense “I didn’t sexually assault anybody.”
The State also asked whether Mr. Bradley sexually assaulted a client named Anna Rodriguez. He denied even knowing the name.
Mr. Bradley would leave the stand after a brief re-direct. Judge McAfee would state his concern that Mr. Bradley had misapplied the attorney-client privilege regarding the reason he left Wade’s firm, and reiterated that he would need a private conference with Mr. Bradley to determine whether the other instances of privilege were appropriate.
The State Tries to Prove the Sexual Assault Case Against Terrence Bradley
From there, the State called Austin Dabney, a former lawyer from the Wade-Campbell-Bradley firm, who was asked whether he witnessed Mr. Bradley sexually assault a firm employee.
After objections from the Defense, the Judge shut this line of questioning, observing this went “well-beyond the scope of what is allowed under the rules of evidence.”
The State also attempted to call Anna Rodriguez, the former client who was set to testify that she was also sexually assaulted by Mr. Bradley. And again, the Judge shut them down, stating her testimony was “extrinsic evidence of a collateral matter” (meaning evidence of Mr. Bradley’s purported bias) and said it was inadmissible.
Some brief thoughts on this issue – if the State is serious about these sexual assault allegations, then why haven’t they charged Terrence Bradley? Or will they eventually charge Terrence Bradley? He can’t be comfortable right now, knowing Fani Willis and the prosecutors who attempted to destroy his reputation would not hesitate to put him in prison. Looking back at the hearing, he should have pleaded the Fifth on the topic.
The Testimony of John Floyd (Fani Willis’s Father)
Also testifying was Fani Willis’s father, John Floyd.
To briefly summarize, Floyd’s direct examination by the State primarily covered two main points:
- That Fani Willis left her South Fulton home and moved into the condo (previously leased by Robin Yeartie) because she feared for her safety.
- That he had advised Fani to keep thousands of dollars in her home, to always keep six months of cash.
Upon cross-examination by the Defense, Mr. Floyd admitted that Fani had never told him about his relationship will Nathan Wade. He admitted that Fani kept the relationship a “secret” from him – thus bolstering the Defense’s argument that Fani Willis and Nathan Wade went to great lengths to keep their relationship from the public eye, even hiding it from friends, colleagues, and family.
The Defense also got Mr. Floyd to admit that he had seen the testimony from the previous day. This was an important concession, as the Court had ordered all witnesses to be sequestered and not observe the trial (whether present, live streams, or in the media).
As a result of the failure to sequester, the Defense asked that Mr. Floyd’s testimony be struck. The Judge denied that request but said it may go to his assessment of Mr. Floyd’s credibility.
The Testimony of Former Georgia Governor Roy Barnes
Roy Barnes, who served as Georgia Governor from 1999 to 2003, was the State’s first witness today. He was called to support the State’s assertion that Nathan Wade wasn’t Fani Willis’s first choice as Special Prosecutor.
Mr. Barnes, an old and well-respected Southern Democrat, testified that he had been offered the position by Ms. Wade at a meeting on October 26, 2021. He declined, stating he had “mouths to feed” at his law firm and didn’t want the stress or added security that the Special Prosecutor position entailed.
Mr. Barnes (as opposed to Nathan Wade) would be qualified for the position. He is a well-known trial attorney, has experience in criminal law, and can manage highly complex cases. These are facts not even disputed by the Defense attorneys; your humble author agrees. At the meeting with Willis, Barnes didn’t recommend any attorneys for the Special Prosecutor position. He further stated that he “wasn’t surprised” that Nathan Wade was selected as Special Prosecutor because he’s a “good organizer.”
Where it goes from here.
Today might have been the last day of testimony.
But it’s not a certainty.
The attorney-client privilege issue remains undecided, and the in camera discussion between the Judge and Mr. Bradley (and Mr. Bradley’s attorney) will be key in resolving that issue. The Judge said that Mr. Bradley’s statements to him will be sealed; whether they remain sealed is dependent on how the Judge makes the privilege determination. We anticipate briefing on this topic from both sides.
Furthermore, the Defendants intend to introduce Nathan Wade’s cell phone records and records from Delta Airlines. There is a small possibility that witnesses might be called to testify concerning those records. Or, Judge McAfee might consider those records without witness testimony.
From there, the Court will schedule closing arguments and allow the parties time for briefing on various issues, including whether the State can admit extrinsic evidence concerning the alleged sexual assaults by Mr. Bradley. We doubt Judge McAfee will reverse himself on that issue, but there’s no guarantee.
Whether Judge McAfee will disqualify Fani Willis and Nathan Wade remains a mystery.
What weight does he give to the testimony of the various witnesses?
How does he account for the contradictions and discrepancies?
Robin Yeartie testified to seeing Nathan Wade and Fani Willis engaged in physical interactions (hugging and kissing) and said there was “no doubt” there was a relationship as early as 2019. The State will argue her bias – the end of her friendship with Fani Willis, her resignation from the District Attorney’s office – gives her incentive to lie. The Defense will counter that Yeartie didn’t want to testify against her former friend.
Wade and Willis testified the relationship started in 2022. The Defense can counter that Wade was a visitor to Willis’s condo, going there alone at least 10 times before he was appointed Special Counsel. The two talked on the phone. They went to restaurants together. Willis would visit Wade at his office. Are we really to believe there was nothing going on?
Then there’s the issue of credibility. Is it credible that Willis paid Wade for the trips by thousands of dollars in cash? All without withdrawal slips or deposit receipts from either party? Is Wade a credible witness, considering: (1) his lie about using Mr. Bradley’s credit card; and (2) his deceitful interrogatory responses during his divorce?
And can Judge McAfee make those determinations without considering the testimony of Terrence Bradley, who has personal knowledge of the start date of the Willis-Wade relationship?
But maybe Judge McAfee can split the baby. Under Georgia law, he doesn’t necessarily have to make a determination that either side is telling the truth – he can merely conclude that there is such an “appearance of impropriety” that the disqualification of Willis and Wade are necessary.
Not only were they doin the nasty, the entire case was coordinated by Lisa Monaco and the biden regime.
These “lawyers,” and all their cash transactions.
Their paychecks are not in cash.
They have credit cards so they don’t need to carry loads of cash.
Cash payments leaves them open to being defrauded and having no recourse.
Yet, still, in a “Better Call Saul,” style, they all choose to use piles of cash instead of having a paper trail.
Sleezy.
Democrats and sleazy go hand in hand.
Hasn’t Jerk Smith established that attorney/client privilege doesn’t exist? Bradley confirms the accusation that the pipe laying began before 2022. Bradley says he can’t say because of attorney/client privilege. But, what can’t he say? If it didn’t begin until after 2022, there’s nothing TO say. Only if the horny humpin’ honeys were getting it on before they say they were is there anything of privilege to conceal.
Boy, them Democrats love to throw those sexual assault accusations around, don’t they?
If it can be assumed Yeartie is lying because she has a motivation to lie, then Willis and Wade have an even greater motivation to lie and are, therefore, lying. The appearance of impropriety only exists outside this sordid clan. Their behavior is standard fare for Democrats; no one expects anything but corruption from them.