The Benny Show - Benny Johnson - BIG FANI GOING DOWN IN FLAMES 🔥 Key Witness Takes Stand To RAT on Fani Willis and Nathan Wade SCAM

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 27, 2024 - The Benny Show - Benny Johnson

01:41:29

BIG FANI GOING DOWN IN FLAMES 🔥 Key Witness Takes Stand To RAT on Fani Willis and Nathan Wade SCAM

Participants

Main voices

benny johnson

20:16

Appearances

marjorie taylor greene

04:13

Clips

martha maccallum

00:15

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		We have breaking news right now.
		We have been monitoring the case in Fulton County, Georgia, and Nathan's hot dog roller best friend, a man named Terrence Bradley, has taken the stand.
		This has shocked the court.
		He was ordered to do so by the judge.
		He has been testifying.
		What you are seeing right now is a live shot.
		Ladies and gentlemen, that is an ad.
		What you are almost about to see is a live shot of Terrence Bradley, who is testifying right now.
		We will give live commentary.
		It is getting very, very good.
		The man has apparently lied multiple times, been shown text messages, receipts that he has lied to the court about the relationship between Big Fanny and Nathan's hot dog.
		So, ladies and gentlemen, is this the day that lover boy gets slammed into the penal colony?
		Will Big Fanny get hard time?
		Let's have a listen.
unidentified		A little bit of leeway to do that, so let's just say that.
		All right, I hesitate to have to start back.
		Where I was, but after the word absolutely, you, on your own, said it started when she left the DA'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 when you, on your own, gave those two statements, In the text, that you were merely speculating and did not have that knowledge from Mr. Wade.
		Is that your testimony under oath?
		Yes, that's what I testified to.
		Yes, sir.
		So, you on your own came up with the whole notion that it started when she left the DA's office and was judge in South Fulton.
		That's, according to you, that's speculation on your part.
		Correct?
		Overruled.
		Answer the question, Mr. Riley.
		Yes, that's speculation on my part, yes.
		Right.
		It had nothing to do with what Mr. Wade had told you, correct?
		I answered your question.
		I was speculating to the answer.
		That is correct.
		So maybe you can tell the court in your own words, why in the heck would you speculate?
		In this text message and say that it started when she left the DA's office and was a judge in South Fulton.
		Why would you speculate and say that in a text?
		I knew they had met at the municipal court conference.
		How do you know that?
		I'll stop you right there.
		How did you know that?
		I answered that at the last...
		I knew that...
		I'm asking you questions, and you are in a situation where you get to give answers.
		I'm asking you, how did you know that?
		How did I know when they met?
		Somebody told you that, right?
		When they met?
		Yeah.
		Yes, correct.
		Who told you?
		Mr. Wade told me when they met.
		So you had more than one conversation about the relationship between Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis because he told you where he met her.
		That's incorrect.
		Incorrect.
		It's incorrect.
		It's incorrect.
		Let's go back to the exhibit.
		Why would you speculate that that's when they started the relationship?
		What would cause you to put that down as speculation?
		I don't recall why I felt that it started at that time.
		But I do recall that he only met her, and I testified to that, that he met her at that conference, which was in 2019.
		You knew that Ashley Merchant represented a defendant in this case when you were text messaging with her.
		Correct?
		Yes, I did.
		Yes.
		And you knew that the reason she was asking you questions about Mr. Wade was because she was trying to show when the relationship began, correct?
		No, that's not 100% correct.
		ending of the text message.
		Yes, but what messages were before this message, before she sent that?
		I can't answer that question because I don't have them.
		All I have is what's in front of you, and it's that she says, do you think it started before she hired me?
		So you knew, as the counsel for a defendant in this case, that Ms. Merchant was asking you specifically about the knowledge that you had regarding the timing of the relationship.
		Between Wade and Ms. Willis, correct?
		I mean, based on this, yes.
		I see what was that.
		And in response to that, you answered directly on your own what you now claim to be speculation, right?
	That's correct.
	So I ask you one more time before I move to the next part of this.
	Why would you speculate?
	When she was asking you a direct question about when the relationship started?
	I have no answer for that.
	Except the fact that you do in fact know when it started and you don't want to testify to that in court.
	That's the best explanation.
	That's the real, that's the true explanation because you don't want to admit it in court, correct?
	No, I have no direct knowledge of when the relationship started.
	I'm not going to go back through that again.
	But if you didn't know, and you were asked specifically as this exhibit shows, maybe you can explain why you wouldn't say, I don't know.
	Is that a question?
	Definite question.
	State that again.
	I apologize.
	If you're being asked, as we've just gone through with this text message, from Ms. Merchant, as the attorney for a co-defendant, and she's asking you about the relationship, and she's clearly asking you about the timing, why wouldn't you just have said, in response, I don't know when it started.
	I don't know why I didn't say I don't know.
	Maybe, again, it's because you know what the truth is, and that's why you answered exactly the way you did in defense exhibit 26, correct?
	No, I can't sit here and tell you that what you just stated was correct.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Got him!
unidentified		What do you want the court to believe?
		And you want the rest of us to believe is that for some unknown reason, upon being asked a direct question about when the relationship started, you decided on your own to simply speculate and put it down in a text message as opposed to putting down what you actually knew.
		That's what you want the court to believe, correct?
		That was a lot.
		So can you break that down?
		I apologize.
		You're asking me, do I want the court to...
		To believe that instead of saying nothing, you decided on your own to speculate.
		Yes, I speculated.
		Yes, I've stated that I speculated.
		Yes, sir.
		That's what you want the court to believe, correct?
		That's correct.
		Okay, now, then when you go to the next page of that, Okay?
		You see, it starts, the best that I can see, it starts in South Fulton.
		Is that what you have in front of you?
		Second page.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Guys, toast it!
unidentified		The second page that I have says, that's what I figured.
		Okay, that may be cut off from the one that I have.
		I'm looking at my opening sentence.
		The line says in South Fulton.
		Is that on your second page?
		No, so if you're going in order of the pages, no, neither page starts with South Fulton.
		Don't get caught up in whether it starts that way.
		Does the second page have a line in there that says in South Fulton?
		Oh, yes.
		I apologize.
		So, yes.
		That's fine.
		Yes.
		Just want to make sure that we're on the same page.
		Yes.
		Okay.
		You say after in South Fulton, they met at the Municipal Court CLE Conference, right?
		Yes.
		You see that?
		Yes, that's correct.
		And then Ms. Merchant says, that's what I figured when he was married.
		Is this accurate?
		Upon information and belief, Willis and Wade met while both were serving as magistrate judges and began a romantic relationship at that time.
		You see, that's what she said, right?
		No, I mean, so it says they met at municipal court CLE.
		The only other thing here says, that's what I figured when he was married.
		There's no response from me on that day.
		And then there's another response.
		I mean, I guess a question that says, is this accurate?
		Okay, that's what I just went over with you.
		Okay, so I don't have anything in that, is this accurate at all?
		I can show the court.
		It just says, is this accurate with a question mark?
		I don't have anything following that.
		You don't have...
		After that, upon information and belief, Willis and Wade met while both were serving as magistrate judges and began a romantic relationship.
		I apologize.
		It goes to the next page.
		I apologize.
		No problem.
		Just let me make sure.
		No, no.
		I see that now.
		Yes.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Not sending their best.
unidentified		What I just read is exactly what Ms. Merchant said to you in the text, right?
		Yes, that was in the test.
		Is it accurate upon further information?
		Yes, that's there.
		And, again, since you have told us that you were speculating when you gave the answer that we went over with previously, on this one, you don't say, I don't know.
		You simply correct her by saying, no, municipal court, right?
		Yes, so the...
		She asked, was it accurate?
		And I said, it wasn't accurate.
		No, it wasn't accurate.
		It was municipal court.
		Right.
		And when you said it wasn't accurate, it was municipal court, you didn't say, no, that's not accurate.
		They didn't start a romantic relationship at that time, correct?
		No, but I was referring to the municipal court.
		No, it wasn't accurate as it applied to the...
		I was answering the no municipal court, meaning...
		When she said, is that accurate, it was to the municipal court and not magistrate court.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		But you didn't say that the rest of what she asked you was accurate.
		You didn't say, no, that's inaccurate.
		That's not true.
		That's not accurate.
		You simply said the only thing that wasn't accurate was municipal court should be there instead of magistrate, right?
		So, I was answering the question of, it was a compound question, and I was answering the question of, she wrote magistrate court, and I said no municipal court.
		Right, but it's not compound.
		It's one statement.
		I'm sorry.
		No, no, that's okay.
		I know the feedback and the delay complicates things, but I think you've adequately made your point here.
		I don't think we need to belabor it much longer.
		Let's move on to the next issue.
		Okay, thank you, Honor.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Popcorn!
unidentified		Mr. Bradley, prior to coming into court today, did you and your lawyer meet with anyone from the district attorney's office?
		No.
		I mean, not that I know I'm aware of, though.
		I did not meet to anyone.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Not that I'm aware of!
unidentified		I did not meet with anyone outside of my attorneys.
		Did you have any conversation?
		I did not.
		Any conversation?
		I did not.
		So, you have not spoken, if I understand you correctly, prior to coming into court today, you've not spoken with the prosecutors?
		No.
		Right?
		I've not spoken to the prosecutors.
		I've not spoken to defense.
		Have you spoken to Mr. Wade?
		No.
		So, as far as just getting into the courtroom today, there's been no contact or conversation in it with any of the parties we just went over, right?
		There has not been any contact with defense or the state at all.
		I think I have basically just one or two more questions.
		Why would you see the need to speculate when you were texting with Ms. Marchant?
		I think we did cover that one, Mr. Seydal.
		I think that exact question was already put to him.
		What would be the next one?
		I'm trying to look.
		Let's go to 27. Let's go.
		Defense Exhibit 27. Do you have that now, sir?
		I do, sir.
		All right.
		Would you look at it and tell me whether or not the Defense Exhibit 27 appears to be accurate?
		Because I want to seek to introduce it into evidence.
		It consists of an email to you from Ms. Merchant and a text response from you, correct?
		But the text response was not in response.
		So yes, it does consist of the email and a text response.
		I'm not saying that the text response applies to the entire email that was sent.
		All I've asked you right now is, is the email and the text, are those accurate?
		Oh, spicy!
		As it applies to the stapling of the email and the stapling of a text message chain, yes, that is defense, defendant's exhibit 27. This is accurate.
		Okay, I would move defense exhibit 27 in.
		I believe it was treated the same way as 26 last time.
		Same objections, Mr. Rabadi.
		Yes, Judge.
		All right.
		Overruled.
		Any other objections from defense counsel?
		Seeing none.
		Defense Exhibit 27 is admitted.
		This guy's a lawyer?
		I don't know.
		Yeah, I don't know whether you'll find this objection, but we're not asking it, obviously.
		All right.
		Mr. Bradley, you realize that if you were to testify under oath that you knew from Mr. Wade that the relationship between him and Ms. Willis existed.
		Before the contract in November 1st of 2021, that if you testified that you knew that from Mr. Wade, that would show that both Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade had lied under oath.
		You know that, don't you?
		I think that's going to call for an opinion on the credibility of another testifying witness.
		I don't think that would be an appropriate question.
		Then that's all I have, Your Honor.
		Thank you, Mr. Sado.
		Mr. Stockton.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		That was Trump defense attorney.
		Say it out.
		Here we go.
unidentified		Do I understand from your prior testimony that Ms. Merchant sent you a motion to review prior to her filing it?
		I'm going to give them just a little bit.
		All right, Mr. Stockton, maybe this is going somewhere else.
		Did Mrs. Merchant send you a motion prior to January 8th of 2024 for you to review?
		That is correct.
		And did you in fact review that motion?
		That is correct.
		And did you indicate to Ms. Merchant that the contents of that motion seemed okay to you?
		Well, so you're referring to Exhibit 27, which as I stated a few minutes ago, one is an email, one is a text chain.
		So in the text chain, I never responded to the email.
		I never responded looks good or anything to the email that was sent to me.
		However, in the text chain, what you all are trying to merge...
		Together is the fact that I was asked about the contract, and that contract was $74,000, and me being added back to that.
		So when I said, and I think before in that text, it referred to me being added back, and at that time I said, yes, looks good.
		You're aware and you recall that when Miss Merchant presented you with that motion, she asked you not to disclose it to anyone until she filed it.
		Is that correct?
		We are covering, I think, the last five or six questions.
		We've covered ground.
		Let's get to that ultimate point.
		I'm trying to get there, Judge.
		I promise you.
		Okay.
		Repeat the question.
		I'm sorry.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Oh, he's melting!
unidentified		She asked you not to disclose that motion to anybody until she filed it, correct?
		I think so.
		I think that was in the text message, yes.
		And you knew, in fact, it was her intention to file that motion, correct?
		The actual motion that was sent?
		Yes.
		I knew that she was going to file a motion, yes.
		I do not think that that was the...
		Final draft, or it could have been that she was working on it, but yes, I knew that she was going to file some motion, yes.
		And you knew that she presented that motion to you for your review so that she could make sure it was accurate, correct?
		All right, noted.
		I think Mr. Stockton's getting to the next point, so why don't we just ask that one?
		Is that correct?
		Did you?
		We combined that with the next question, so we're not having to lay bit by bit every single time.
		Mr. Bradley, you 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 Mrs. Merchant knew.
		I'd overrule that.
		Mr. Bradley?
		No, 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 District Attorney Willis and Mr. Wade.
		When you reviewed that, you knew that Ms. Merchant?
		No, I did not know that she was relying on me for any accuracy other than...
		What was put in there?
		About the $74,000.
		Mr. Bradley, if there was something patently false in that motion, you would have told Ms. Merchant, wouldn't you?
		I can't say that I would or wouldn't have.
		I don't know what I would have told Ms. Merchant.
		If there was something patently speculative, you would have told Ms. Merchant, wouldn't you?
		I don't know what I would have told Ms. Merchant.
		She asked me, was it accurate?
		We were discussing the $74,000 that was left out.
		Again, if I may direct you just to that portion dealing with her, the relationship between Mrs. Willis and Mr. Wade.
		You didn't tell her that there was anything patently false in that because you didn't see anything patently false in that motion as it relates to the relationship.
		Repeat your question.
		I'm so sorry.
		You did not inform Mrs. Merchant that there was anything patently false in that motion that you were presented with.
		As it concerns the relationship, because you did not see anything that was patently false, correct?
		All right, next question, Mr. Stockton.
		Sustained.
		And you didn't see anything that was speculative in there, either, did you?
		Sustained, Mr. Stockton.
		Shook.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		He's shook.
unidentified		I just want to ask you one more question.
		I'm coming at it from the other way that Mr. Sadow did.
		Did anybody from the district attorney's office or any...
		Witnesses in this case contact you about Ms. Merchant's motion from January the 8th of 2004 until today.
		Did anyone contact me about her motion?
		Yes, from the district attorney's office or any witnesses or anybody else involved with the case besides the defense.
		Other than the call, the only personal call that I had was with Gabe Banks.
		I never spoke to anyone else, and to my knowledge, he's not a part of this.
		That's all I've got, Judge.
		Thank you, Mr. Stockton.
		Mr. Durham, if you're still with us.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		This guy's a lawyer.
unidentified		Thank you, sir.
unidentified		Mr. McDougal.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		This guy's a lawyer.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		They're not sending their best, as we say.
unidentified		Good afternoon, Mr. Bradley.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		This is Trump's attorney.
unidentified		You have certain information about the relationship between Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis that is not privileged, correct?
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Get ready.
unidentified		Well, that was my determination, so I think he disagrees with it.
		So we're going to say his opinion is a little irrelevant on that point.
		Do you understand that the court has ruled that certain information that you have about the relationship...
		Between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade is not privileged.
		The court's ruling, as I understood it, and as my lawyers and I understood it, of the privilege not existing was based off of a conversation that was had in my office, in the back of my office, which was confidential, with Mr. Wade and I. That's what was asked of me on yesterday.
		And that's what the ruling, to my knowledge, unless I'm being corrected here now and saying that it's more, it was that particular piece that the judge said did not have privilege.
		And have you testified already today to the sum total of your knowledge of the relationship that is outside the scope of the privilege according to the court's ruling?
		Can you ask that again?
		I'm sorry, I didn't understand it.
		Referring to what you understand to be the information that is not privileged, have you testified to the sum total of that information?
		I think I have, yes.
		I think I've testified to that, yes.
		All right, sir.
		That's my question.
		Thank you.
		Mr. Rice.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		I think I have.
unidentified		I think I said that, yes.
		I think I did, yes.
		That would have been fairly accurate, yes.
		And you recall communicating with Ms. Merchant about this case and about Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis'relationship, correct?
		I'm going to object as to pass an answer in cumulative by all three of the previous.
		Sure.
		We can put on to lay that foundation.
		Why don't we combine it with the next question where you've got a new point to make.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		He's breaking.
unidentified		Mr. Bradley, when you communicated with Miss Merchant, did you tell her any lies about Mr. Wade and Miss Willis'relationship?
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		This is how he says fine.
unidentified		Thank you.
		Thank you.
		Did I lie to Ms?
		That's a simple question, Mr. Bradley.
		You're a lawyer.
		Did you lie to Ms. Merchant when you told her facts about Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis'relationship?
		Ooh!
		you Not that I recall.
		I don't recall.
		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 kind of a weaselly lawyer word.
		Let's speak truth here.
		You're under argumentative at this point.
		Your Honor, I have a relevant question.
		Mr. Bradley.
		Let's find a question, Mr. Rice.
		Mr. Bradley.
		When you were communicating different details of the relationship between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade to Mrs. Merchant, did you lie to her about any of those details?
		Rejection asked and answered twice.
		I don't think he's answered it yet.
		I don't recall ever whether any of it was a lie or not.
		At the time you were communicating with Ms. Merchant, you were still friends with Mr. Wade, correct?
		Yes.
		And at the time you were communicating with Ms. Merchant, you knew that she was talking to you in her role and capacity as an attorney in this case, correct?
		Correct.
		And you knew that she was going to use that information to somehow benefit and file a motion, benefit her client, correct?
		I did not know that.
		So I did not.
		Well, I'm sorry.
		So as an attorney yourself.
		You are testifying here under oath that you had no idea what Ms. Merchant was going to do with all the details that you were giving her about Wade and Willis' relationship.
		So, at the time, no, I did not.
		I knew that Ms. Merchant was gathering information.
		That is correct.
		Okay.
		And did you lie to her when you told her that the relationship began before 2021?
		I don't think we need to drill into specifics.
		She's covered it at a high level.
		I don't think we're going to get much out of this.
		Mr. Bradley, isn't it true the only thing that has really changed?
		Well, you were speaking to Ms. Merchant, whether by text or by telephone.
		You never said to her that I don't remember or that I'm speculating, correct?
		I don't recall.
		Well, you've looked through a whole lot of text messages.
		Do you remember ever seeing any communication from you that said, I don't remember?
		Always sweating.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Look at him sweat.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		The salt.
unidentified		The salt.
		The messages that I don't have all the messages in front of me, but no, I don't recall if I ever said I don't remember do you recall seeing any text messages where you replied to her or gave her details where you said I am speculating about this detail no I've never used the word speculating no And the only thing that's changed between then and now is that phone call from Nathan Wade's friend, Grave Banks, correct?
		No, well, Gabe was my friend, and I actually stated that the first day that I was here was that I've known Gabe for a few years and that...
		We were, not were, but we are fraternity brothers.
		And so I never said that anything changed behind gay banks.
		So you never told Ms. Merchant that you were worried that they were threatening you?
		Objection.
		Ask and answer.
		Like you was asked this on February 16th and today.
		Mr. Rice, we've covered this.
		And just to be clear, you didn't attend college with Mr. Banks, did you?
		I did not attend college with Mr. Banks.
		When you referred to him as your fraternity brother, y 'all just both happened to have pledged the same fraternity, different colleges, different chapters.
		Well, that's what we consider fraternity brothers, yes, sir.
		And as a normal course of your relationships with your friends, do you pass on lies about your friends?
		Have I passed on a lie about a friend?
		Is that what you're asking?
		Is that something you normally do, Mr. Bradley?
		Do you tell lies about your friends?
		Have I told lies about friends?
		I could have.
		I don't know.
		Do you tell lies about your friends about a case of national importance?
		Overruled.
		I could have.
		I don't know.
		Mr. Bradley, I notice you're not looking at me.
		I'm looking at you on the screen only because I was accused of, and I did the same thing to Mr. Sadow when he was on the screen.
		What's the next question, Mr. Rice?
		No further questions.
		Thank you, sir.
		Mr. Gilliam.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Look at how pissed he is.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		He's so pissed.
unidentified		Good afternoon, Mr. Bradley.
		A few questions.
		A lot of folks have taken up the questions that I wanted to ask, but I've got a few left here.
		Good.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Go in.
unidentified		You said you, Mr. Radley, you said you didn't know what Ms. Merchant was going to be doing with the motion that she sent you.
		Do you remember that testimony a few minutes ago?
		I think I said I didn't know that.
		I knew that she was gathering information, yes.
		Well, let's look at the title of the motion that she sent you.
		That was sent on the 6th.
		Excuse me.
		Do you remember reading the defendant Michael Roman's motion to dismiss grand jury indictment as fatally defective and motion to disqualify the district attorney, her office, and the special prosecutor from further prosecuting this matter?
		Do you remember seeing that in the draft that you read and reviewed?
		Yes.
		So when you tell this court that you didn't know what she was up or what she was going to do, she kind of gave you a hint, didn't she, in the title of the motion that she sent for you to read?
		Didn't she?
		Yes or no?
		I read the title of what the motion was.
		It wasn't anything in the title that threw you off.
		Pretty straightforward speaking title, isn't it?
		Correct.
		So you knew that what she wanted was information from you so that she could then file a motion to dismiss the grand jury indictment, to motion to disqualify the district attorney and her office and the special prosecutor from further prosecuting the matter, right?
		I'm going to object to speculation.
		You knew that, didn't you?
		Yes or no?
		When she sent that motion, yes.
		Okay.
		And you knew that the special prosecutor to whom she was referring in that motion was Mr. Wade, correct?
		You knew that?
		Yes.
		Because you read the motion.
		You said you reviewed it, correct?
		Yes.
		And we're not going to go over all of the, you know, number one, because we don't have time, and number two, the court wouldn't let me.
		But there are a few things that I do want to ask you about.
		In that aspect.
		Now, in that motion that you said you reviewed, on page six of that motion, well, on page five, it starts off with, how do we know this?
		And there's a question mark.
		All right.
		Yeah, Mr. Gillen, you know, I can appreciate what you're doing.
		I think that's something you can do at argument.
		He said, as a whole, that he got the motion, and he's had his responses to his opinion of how he handled it.
		I don't see that.
		Again, this really being necessary to go through it line by line.
		Well, a little indulgence, Your Honor.
		I'm not going to go.
		This isn't going to be a 40-minute death march through the motion.
		I would like to ask about a few bullet points that capture under this, and then I'll move on.
		But I would ask the court's indulgence in that respect.
		You know, again, I think he...
		I think we've covered it.
		And I think that you'll be able to argue that this was in that motion and that he had a chance to review it and he never objected to anything in there or erased it.
		That's a problem.
		It very much is.
		Next time I'll reshuffle the order.
		Well, you know, we did earlier with Mr. Wade.
		I hear you.
		That was kind enough.
		And then the court said we had to go.
		I'll need to draw straws next time.
		I'll go with that.
		Thank you, Ron.
		That's all I have.
		Okay.
		We had Mr. Couture potentially still on Zoom.
		Yes, Your Honor, and I have just a few questions.
		All right.
		Could we add a spotlight to Mr. Kuturov?
	I'll let you know when we're able to proceed.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Let's go, baby.
unidentified		Judge, before he starts, can I take a five-minute restroom?
		Absolutely.
		Yeah, we've been going two hours, so let's come back at 4 o 'clock.
		I'll also note for the record that we received a notification from Mr. Cromwell on behalf of Ms. Latham, and he said he was waiving her presence.
		And I don't know if he later decided to join us by Zoom, but I don't think he was electing to log in.
		So after Mr. Kucherov, just in terms of timing, Mr. Abadi, do you have any expectation of how long your, if any, questioning would last?
		I don't imagine my question would be very long.
		Okay, well, let's get back in at four o 'clock.
		Mr. Bradley, you can just sit down.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Ladies and gentlemen, okay, so it is absolutely spectacular what we are seeing right now.
		Terrence Bradley, you just saw a barrage of Donald Trump's lawyers going after Terrence Bradley.
		Who is Terrence Bradley?
		Terrence Bradley is, of course, the man in the hot seat, the man who is sweating more than Nathan Wade on the surface of the sun inside of a tracksuit.
		Ladies and gentlemen, this man, we thought Nathan Wade was a sweaty hot dog on the hot dog roller.
		Oh, my.
		Goodness gracious!
		Not only that, at least Nathan Wade was able to, like, sit in the chair.
		This guy's, like, straight up, like...
		He can't make eye contact.
		He's staring, and he slumps over like this.
		Oh, man.
		Okay, so here are the major takeaways.
		And they're going to be back here for questioning.
		You just heard them.
		They're going to be back here in a few minutes for questioning again from one of Trump's final attorneys.
		I believe there's one more attorney for Donald Trump.
		This...
		It is the clip.
		We have all the clips loaded here in case you missed them.
		This is the clip.
		This is the clip that says the case is over.
		All right?
		Here we go.
		So here's what happened.
		Trump's defense attorney, Steve Sadow, is going after Nathan Wade's former law partner, Terrence Bradley.
		This is the man who represented Nathan Wade, Nathan's hot dog, in the divorce proceedings against his wife.
		Right?
		He's asking about a text message that confirms Fanny Willis.
		Big Fanny, Nathan's hot dog, love affair.
		That started well before 2022, which is when he was hired in order to go after the case.
		Obviously to launder money for Big Fanny.
		Get a load of this exchange.
		This is the one, ladies and gentlemen, that's going to be broadcast and slapped across every single news outlet tonight.
		This is the end of the case.
		He confirms the relationship in his own private messages.
		The reaction is perfect.
		Go.
unidentified		Based on what you've just said, let's go to what was Defense Exhibit 26. Okay?
		In Defense Exhibit 26, which I showed you last time, was two pages of text messages between you and Ms. Merchant, correct?
		Correct.
		Now, the first page starts off by saying, Ms. Merchant, like just date, don't hire him.
		Do you think it started before she hired him?
		You see that?
		Okay.
		Yes, I see it.
		Yes.
		And your response to that was absolutely, correct?
		I'm going to object, ask and answer in queue.
		All right.
		So, Mr. Jadow, I do think we went through a lot of these texts.
		We didn't go through this whole one.
		Just a second, Mr. Saito.
		All right.
		I'm sorry, Mr. Saito.
		You said we didn't go through this particular one?
		No, we went through.
		We stopped right there.
		I want to go.
		I went.
		I answered.
		Because this is the exact language that she just stated a few minutes ago.
		You can read it back.
		Okay, Mr. Saito.
		You're saying both of these two exhibits weren't already covered by Ms. Merchant?
		It was not gone.
		This particular language.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		So, I do a show every single day here.
		And let's say I did that show.
		And I did the show by staring at the ceiling and then by staring directly into my desk.
		And then, partly through the show, I would use a massive rag to wipe the fire hydrant of sweat from my brow.
		Would I come across to you as somebody who's telling the truth?
		Would I come across to you as somebody who's lying?
		Which is what this dude is doing.
		Now here's the text message.
		So we've looked through the court documents and here's the actual message.
		The message to him, from him, to the law partner is about Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade.
		They should just date.
		You can't hire the guy.
		You're dating him.
		That's the message.
		You can't hire Nathan Wade.
		Fannie Willis can't hire him.
		They're dating.
		And this man, Terrence Bradley, Nathan Wade's lawyer, his own attorney, says, oh yeah, absolutely correct in response.
		We gotta put that in, we'll put that in text form where you can see it.
		We'll put it in text form.
		We just are reading the transcript.
		So that's, that's it.
		That's the bombshell.
		You're done.
		You're done.
		This guy confirmed that they dated before the Trump trial and that this is all a massive money laundering fraud in order to hire the call of booty.
		Nathan Wade.
unidentified		Ooh, baby!
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		By his own lawyer's admission, put a fork in him.
		He done!
		Now, ladies and gentlemen, we will let you know there has been a break in the court right now.
		More of Trump's attorneys have more questions.
		They are retooling right now for Terrence Bradley, who is crumbling, by the way.
		Crumbling under the weight of these questions.
		Here is a great example.
		The relationship.
		What kind of relationship did Nathan Wade and Fannie Willis had?
		Watch this.
		Tell me if you think this guy's lying.
		The status of the relationship questioning, so important.
unidentified		Go.
		When you told me that it started when you left when she left the DA's office and was a judge in South Fulton Where did you gain that knowledge from?
		I Oh, I'm going to object because his testimony a few minutes ago that he did not recall making that statement.
		I'll overrule that.
		Mr. Bradley, answer the question if you can.
		Repeat the question.
		When you told me that their relationship started when she left the DA's office and was a judge in South Fulton, where did you obtain that knowledge from?
		It was...
		I was speculating.
		I didn't have a...
		No one told me I was speculating.
		No one told you that?
		No one told me that.
		You were speculating based on things that had been told to you or things you had observed?
		So I'm going to object as to the nature of...
		This line of questioning, because the witness has made it clear he was speculating as to how or what he knew.
		And if it's speculation, it's inadmissible for this court.
		All right.
		But the motivations for his reason for speculating would be admissible, so I'll overrule that.
		Thank you, Judge.
		Was this speculation, when you told me that, was that based on things that had been told to you and things that you had witnessed?
		I never witnessed anything.
		So, you know, it was spectacular.
		Speculation.
		I can't tell you anything specific, if that's what you're asking.
		You can't tell me anything specific as to why you speculated about that?
		This was however many years ago.
		I mean, I don't recall, but no, I don't.
		Did you have any reason to lie?
		Okay.
		I don't know if speculation is lying, but...
		Well, let me just show me where on this text it says you're speculating.
		You didn't ask me if I was speculating or guessing.
		I didn't ask you, but tell me if it says anywhere here that there's speculation.
		No, if this is the same one that you just showed me, it does not.
		And you're welcome if you need to to look at your text.
		Is there any word here that indicates that he didn't have knowledge of the knowledge?
		I'm going to object.
		The line of questioning Your Honor directed counsel to explore is where he got the knowledge.
		He's explored that.
		He said it's speculation, and he didn't get it from any source other than his own speculation.
		Sure.
		I think we're fleshing that out, and I think it's her right to have a little leeway on this if he's an adverse witness.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Oh man, the judge is calling him an adverse witness.
		Ladies and gentlemen, check it out.
		The judge is saying this guy is an adverse witness.
		This guy is not cooperating with the court.
		He's not being forthright.
		There's the same judge, of course, that said that he will strike Fannie Willis' testimony if she can't control herself.
		That sent Fannie Willis to time out.
		So, what is the question at hand?
		This man, Terrence Bradley, who's Nathan Wade's lawyer, confirmed that he and Fannie Willis were dating.
		That Nathan Wade and Fannie Willis were dating before they have sworn affidavits that they started their relationship.
		Why is this important?
		Obviously, because this is what shows the money laundering operation between Fannie Willis and her lover.
		Which you're not allowed to do.
		Code of conduct.
		Code of conduct.
		The court.
		Just the whole trial itself.
		Means the entire thing needs to be thrown out.
		And so, ladies and gentlemen, let us jump to, um, are these good lawyers?
		Like, are these people actually, like, good attorneys?
unidentified		Listen to this.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		It's such a hilarious...
		Oh, okay.
		Here we go, ladies and gentlemen.
		We are back in the court.
		This is live.
		This is live.
		We are now live.
unidentified		No, I did not.
		Last time you spoke with Gabe Banks.
		The day that I don't have the...
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		You could skip this ad.
		Just a second, ladies and gentlemen.
		We had a...
		Yeah, we could skip that ad.
		Here we go.
unidentified		Here we go.
		Two years, actually, when I left the firm.
		Miss Willis.
		I never...
		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?
		You didn't have a personal relationship with her?
		No, I never had a 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 some 75 to 100 people there.
		So you knew of her.
		You just didn't have a business relationship or a personal relationship with her, or at least a close one.
		I knew of her from my...
		She was in the DA's office, and I had criminal cases, but I did not personally know her, no.
		And not having known her...
		Not really hanging out with her.
		You've got a contract from her office.
		I'm going to just object as to cumulative ask and answer throughout the...
		All right, Mr. Kutcher, I think we covered this ground on the 16th about the contracts.
		Are you going somewhere else with this?
		I am, Judge.
		If you give me a little latitude, I'll tie it right now.
		Okay, you may proceed.
		You got a contract from the office not knowing or having a good working business relationship with Ms. Willis.
		That's correct.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		He smoked.
unidentified		Nathan Wade steered that contract to you.
		I don't know how it came about, but it was presented to me at the office about the contract, correct?
		Who presented it to you?
		Mr. Wade?
		Yes.
		And he owed you money, you said at one point.
		Say that again?
		He owed you money at one point?
		Don't recall saying that he owes me money.
		Did he owe you money at one point?
		Not that I recall saying that Mr. Way owes me or owed me money.
		I don't recall ever saying that.
		I didn't ask whether you ever said that.
		I said, did he owe you or did he owe you money to pass?
		No, he didn't owe me money.
		And so...
		He steered this contract to you, to your office, and you weren't really talking to him?
		You hadn't talked to him for two years?
		The contract was in 2021.
		I didn't leave until 2022.
		So you didn't talk with him that whole time?
		I left in 2022.
		I haven't really spoke to him since 2022, is what I stated.
		When I left June of...
		Of 2022, around June, August dates of 2022.
		One last question.
		Other than your attorney, who did you speak with today about giving testimony in this case today?
		I spoke to my attorneys Charles Graham and B.C. Chopra.
		I have nothing further, Your Honor.
		All right.
		And again, I'll just double check to make sure.
		Did Mr. Cromwell ever join us by Zoom?
		All right, thank you.
		So just for the record, Mr. Cromwell has been apparently watching the proceeding.
		He had waived his client's presence and didn't have any other questions as well.
		So turning it over to Mr. Abadi.
		No questions.
		All right.
		Mr. Bradley, you can step down.
		Thank you, sir.
		Judge, you want these exhibits?
		I'll take this one.
		Excuse me, sir.
		And just by way of proffer, what about the text?
		Just to admit, so when other people asked about the text, some of them weren't in the record today, so I've organized them.
		They're the ones that have been talked about today, so I just organized them.
		I just wanted to kind of reference that.
		Okay, and do we need Mr. Bradley for that?
		I don't believe so, but...
		Have you marked them?
		Yes.
		Have you showed them to the state?
		I gave the copy to the state, but so these are...
		Mr. Bradley, just hang out just for one second, just to make sure.
		And while he's looking at that, Mr. Bradley handed me...
		Defense exhibit 23, 24, 25. Oh, is that from the hearing?
		From on Friday?
		All right, well, thanks for reviewing those.
		Let me make sure.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Getting spicy.
unidentified		So I've got 23, 24, 25. Anything else in your binder?
		Okay, and have we come to any conclusions on...
		I'm sorry, how did you mark it?
		I marked it.
		I think we're up to 39, surprisingly.
		All right.
		Defense Exhibit 39 is tendered and admitted without objection.
		Well, no.
		Oh, I'm sorry.
		Oh, okay.
		It's messages that weren't referenced today are confronted.
		Okay.
		It relates to Mr. Bradley.
		So these are additional text messages, Ms. Merchant?
		Yeah, so what I did was they objected that they weren't complete because, like, the first part of the text wasn't there.
		It was just like, oh, there was something before that that was said.
		So what I did was I spent the full time trying to line them up so that I had the beginning of the text, the middle, based on their objection.
		They have all the text.
		They can admit all of them if they want them complete.
		All right.
		How about...
		I'll just do this.
		I understand the desire just to have the complete text chain just for purposes of completing the record.
		I think that there's no point in having him sit here and authenticate every single one of them.
		So I'm willing to admit it as a court's exhibit.
		And only the exhibits, though, that had been previously tendered or referenced in testimony would be ones that actually are relied on.
		If you're making any findings, but just so it's on the record, we have the complete text chain, should that ever be an issue for some reason?
		Any thoughts about that, Mr. Abadi?
		My only thoughts are this is not the complete text chain.
		I was going to briefly look at Ms. Merchant's phone when she allowed us to have it for 20 seconds, minutes, and there are text messages I know that I saw that are not in what is purported to be states of the 39. Okay.
		All right.
		Ms. Merchant, what about that?
		I let them take screenshots of the ones that they thought weren't there.
		He sent them to himself on my phone.
		I have also offered to hook my phone up to whatever it is.
		My phone's an iPhone.
		His is an Android.
		I can't download like you could in a normal text.
		I told them if they had a system to get all of my texts, they'd have every single one.
		We can definitely do that.
		Yeah, Mr. Rice.
		The texts that she's submitting now are tendering into evidence.
		They are specific parts of the conversation.
		The entire text chain is in a continuous conversation, so it's 601.
		Those particular parts, given the witness's testimony, should be admitted to substance methods of fire and consistent statements with this testimony today.
		So it would be up to the government, if they'd been able to introduce the rest of it, have Yeah, sure.
		I think that's a fair point that if he had been confronted with a particular text, that could have been the opportunity to admit it as a prior inconsistent statement for impeachment.
		And some of them were, but apparently some of them were not.
		I'm taking those out.
		So I'm taking out the ones that they said he wasn't confronted with, and I'm just going to admit the ones that he wasn't confronted with.
		That's fine.
		It just makes it more confusing.
		Okay.
		All right, so we have a newly marked, newly compiled 39. Let's see what the state thinks of that one.
		All right.
		All right, regardless, if that's now what is being discussed, again, I don't see a need for Mr. Bradley to be here any longer, so I'm going to excuse him at this point.
		Thank you, Mr. Bradley.
		Of course.
		Take care.
		Oh, boy.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Oh, he's hurting.
		Oh, he is hurting.
		The truth hurts.
		Oh, they're not sending their best.
		They're not sending their best.
		Fanny is toast.
		Yes.
		Oh, my goodness gracious.
		Imagine, ladies and gentlemen.
		Imagine, imagine, imagine what we are about to see.
		They're bringing back Nathan Wade and Fannie Willis on Friday.
unidentified		Okay.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		I believe the judge is now going to Let's go through a few Super Chats here.
		David Morrow, thank you very much.
		MacGyver1, thank you very much.
		Appreciate you.
		Donald Trump is getting ready to sell Fannie Will's mugshot.
		I will buy them all.
unidentified		Heck yeah.
		You know when you're reading a text and it's a conversation?
		Sure.
		They're not in order now.
		I don't really understand, but if you want to look at them, you can.
		Well, let's start from the beginning.
		What is the purpose of Defense Exhibit 39?
		These are the ones that I showed him and that I showed him today.
		So there were a lot of follow-up questions on it, and so I realized, okay, well, they should just be in the record because other people are referring to my texts, and they might as well just be in the record.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Big Fanny and Nathan's Hot Door.
unidentified		And Mr. Rice?
unidentified		Not just in the record, Judge.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		They should be in the record.
unidentified		Okay.
		All right.
		So to that end, Mr. Abadi, is there a particular text message in there you think was not authenticated?
		I understand you're saying, well, maybe one of them's already been admitted.
		But otherwise, just having an omnibus, here are all the relevant text messages exhibit.
		Is there an authentication objection?
		Is there any other kind of objection like that?
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		He's sweating too!
unidentified		I think that's the problem.
		For example, if the state was to provide, I guess, just a specific text chain from a cell phone instruction, there would be an objection because the state would be making the determination as to what is relevant.
		Really, all the information should be turned over, and it's for the parties to object in your honor to determine which parts of the conversation are relevant or not.
		I don't have all of the conversation.
		The conversation starts in September.
		So there's a few text messages from Timber, and then we jump to January.
		Ms. Merchant has determined that that jump in between is not relevant.
		That's not appropriate.
		It's for Your Honor to determine what's relevant and not.
		And I can't make an objection as to what I don't know.
		I can tell you what I've read.
		It seems as if there are definitely parts that are missing that would make certain parts of the text messages she's attempting to admit that she didn't confront the witness with would be my objection.
		The relevance can only be determined if we have the full chain.
		So she's determined which ones are relevant.
		That's your job.
		Sure.
		So didn't she just try to do the full chain as an exhibit just a moment ago?
		No, we don't have the full chain.
		The full chain is text messages that begin in September and continue down.
		That's not contained in that entire package.
		They're on her phone.
		Okay.
		All right, Ms. Merchant, and then I'll...
		Mr. Gillen.
		Yeah, not a problem.
		And I offered that when we were here before, and I was told we didn't have that technology.
		But let me just go through them one by one.
		It might be easier.
		I was trying to just do it quickly.
		You can just hand them to me.
		So the first...
		Just hand them to me.
		I can read them.
		And while I'm reading them, Mr. Gillen, what did you have to add?
		3.1.
		Apparently, this merchant has allowed the state to pay...
		Screenshots of what they now intend to be the larger perspective on, and I disagree with them about the rule of completeness, but it's their job when something is admitted that if they have an objection because the context is not appropriate, they then move, and the state should move the rule of completeness to the admissibility of the other e-mails change that they had.
		So, the real issue here is their failure to comply with the rule of completeness once they had the material from the last hearing that they could screenshot.
		Well, isn't that what he's doing now?
		Because now they're being tendered?
		I don't think that he is.
		I mean, it seemed to me that what was happening here is Ms. Virgin has tried several different ways to get it in.
		She wanted everything in and they objected to that and she wanted the segments in that had been All right, Mr. Abadi, last point here.
		Look at him sweat!
		He's sweating more than that!
		So I did not have the opportunity to screenshot every missing part of the conversation to then do as Mr. Gillum is saying that should be done, but it can't be done if I don't have the information.
		So you don't have the complete packet, and there are many of the text message screenshots that you have printed out that were not used to confront Mr. Bradley or refresh his recollection.
		They're inadmissible evidence.
		If anyone missed the opportunity, it was the defense counsel to confront him.
		All right.
		I don't think we need to get back and forth any further.
		Ms. Merchant, you've offered, you said, to print out a complete chain of every text exchange with Mr. Bradley since you began corresponding.
		I'll give you the chance to do that, and you can follow up by email with that exhibit.
		That would be the complete chain without any deletions or removals, and we'll have that marked as Defense Exhibit 39. I have got to respond, though.
		In court Friday at 157, when Mr. Abadi texted himself the screenshots, I literally wrote him, do you want any other screenshots?
		I have nothing to hide.
		You can download my phone if you want.
		All right, we're done.
		Okay, so I'll wait back to hear from you all on Exhibit 39. And is there anything else to take up before we discuss Friday?
		Just kind of throwing it open to the floor.
		Seeing none, I believe I asked and put it out there among defense counsel to be considering how they would like to organize their arguments on Friday.
		Has there been any That decision is reached on that.
		Break it up in terms of subject matter or something like that?
		Yeah.
	Yeah, that's the idea.
	Well, I'll start with, what is it that you're asking for?
	We'll start there.
	It's kind of curious.
	That's interesting.
	Well, I don't think we can answer that right now.
	Number one, the court said, look, if you divide it up, then we can go with that.
	Or if you can't divide it up, then I'll give each defense counsel a specific period of time.
	Tomorrow, we'll find out when we meet whether or not we can divide it up in a way that serves the interests of our respective clients.
	Hopefully we can.
	Okay, I'll just wait to hear from you.
	To the point of, I think the state recently filed their own motion to, I think it formally said to reopen the evidence as to another witness.
	I only got to read it very briefly.
	Or I don't know if that was just saying, in the alternative, we'd like to reopen the evidence.
	I don't know, maybe someone can clarify that.
	But my thought...
	There and what I think we ought to do Friday and what I would like to do on the issue of the cell phone analysis and this other affidavit filed by the state today is that both parties, any party rather, can make whatever arguments they want based on a proffer, any counterarguments they want to make based on a proffer.
	They would not be admitted into evidence at this point.
	And at this point, I need to start hearing the arguments in the law and what we've heard so far.
	And if I think I'm able to reach a ruling based on that, I will.
	However, if I think that the proffer is going to make a material determinative point, we can reopen the evidence at that point.
	But just the bottom line is on Friday, the intention is that we're still sticking with argument.
	But the parties are free to address some of these issues that have been brought up post-hearing if they'd like to.
	Your Honor, excuse me.
	Sorry.
	Let me start with Mr. Say now.
	I'm alive and well with a quick question.
	All right.
	That suggests that we do not have to have a witness present on Friday with a cell phone.
	That's right.
	Friday would just be argument, and counsel can proffer why they think it's significant.
	And if once I've heard the law on the argument of counsel, I decide that that is going to have some material bearing on the outcome, then we can reopen the evidence and have it properly admitted and authenticated and subject to cross-examination.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	Ms. Merchant.
	I just wanted to know if the court wanted us to focus our arguments on any questions you wanted us to try to answer.
	Well, actually, I think what I'm more likely to do is more along the lines of what I suggested before is give you all a time block and you use the time however you think is more effective.
	What you think is your strongest argument.
	I don't...
	A lot has been covered.
	And there's a lot in the motions that weren't covered during the evidentiary hearing that I would plan to rule on at the same time as well.
	So I leave that to you.
	Mr. Gillen?
	I know we have other motions here on Friday.
	Oh, we do?
	I thought we did.
	I just said disqualification as a whole.
	So if you have arguments about forensic misconduct, about anything like that, that would be the time for that argument as well.
	I consider that part of disqualification.
	Sure.
	I thought we had scheduled hearings on the murder of...
	You know, no, I mean, I talked about that, and then things evolved.
	So we didn't actually send out a notice adding any other motions, but we do need to.
	We have some trials starting next week.
	The next two weeks, we've got some of our homicide trials already scheduled, so I'm going to be following up with you all to schedule the rest of the pretrial motions that we have.
	The only arguments that we have on private would be 1 o 'clock on the issue of disqualification.
	That's right, all things disqualification.
	Anything from the state or any other defense counsel?
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Ooh, baby.
unidentified		All right, thank you.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so here we go.
		Ladies and gentlemen, they're not sending their best.
		What you just heard there is the sweaty petitioner for the state limping and begging for some type of relief here because they are just getting absolutely clobbered.
		This witness, Terrence Bradley, just destroyed any dream, hope, any scintilla, any vapor.
		That they might have had to try and like piece and cobble this thing together based on Fannie Willis' antics.
		Let's start from the top.
		This guy was a sweaty disaster, a mess.
		He couldn't get like basic terms, right?
		He couldn't even read the papers in front of him.
		He couldn't even make eye contact with the actual prosecutors.
		Okay, here we go.
		Does he even know that he's under oath?
		Oh man, this is how the whole thing started.
		Get a load of this.
unidentified		Do you also recall me asking you how they would react?
		That they would attack me.
		And you said, no, they will deny it.
		Your Honor, objection as to speculation as to how he thinks they will react.
		I think it goes to the motivations of the witness overall.
		And you told me that they will deny it.
		That's written in there, yes.
		I just want to, one last opportunity.
		You're an officer of the court, correct?
		I am.
		And you're under oath today?
		I am.
		Is there any of your testimony from today or the previous days that you want to correct?
		That I want to correct?
		Yes.
		No, I've told you everything that, I've answered everything that you asked.
		Thank you.
		Oh, Judge, just so the council and the state can have them, just for the record, I can admit those, those few that I told them.
		Well, they weren't ever tendered, so it's just for...
		I didn't know if they wanted to use them.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		So, the big nut in this case is a conversation that he had with Nathan Wade in his office.
		About dating Fannie Willis.
		This is, of course, before they announced that they were dating, according to the court, according to their sworn affidavits.
		And so this, ladies and gentlemen, is the big sticking point.
		And it turns out Terrence Bradley, Mr. Lawyer Man, doesn't really remember having that conversation, even though they have the evidence and the data on it.
		Go.
unidentified		How do you have knowledge?
		What knowledge?
		Well, you just told us.
		You told us Mr. Wade told you.
		So tell us what Mr. Wade told you about Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade meeting at the Evans office.
		Objection, Your Honor.
		Privilege.
		This clearly covers a time after December 2018 when it would be covered by the privilege.
		Yeah.
		Overruled.
		Do you recall the question, Mr. Bradley?
		I do not.
		You re-asked the question, Ms. Merchant.
		What did you learn from Mr. Wade?
		I was clarified that's where you learned it from.
		about Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis meeting at the Evans office together.
		Thank you.
		I don't object to ask and answer.
		He's testified that he hasn't answered.
		We haven't heard an answer.
		He testified he had one conversation with Mr. Wade in the back of his law office.
		And his answer may change.
		He took him off as to how to answer the question.
		I can't recall what the conversation was.
		I do I do recall knowing that they would that he would Go down to the office or had been down to the office, but I can't tell you in what capacity or when or any of that.
		No.
		Mr. Waite told you that they had sex at that office though, correct?
		I don't recall him saying that, no.
		You don't recall it?
		No.
		So it's possible he did say that?
		You just don't remember one way or another?
		I do not remember what I'm saying now.
		Um...
		Thank you.
		Thank you.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Oh, Nathan Wade said he had sex with Vanny Willis inside of his office?
		Oh my, oh my lanta!
		Let's see if we can jog the man's memory here.
		Here's where the Trump lawyer walks up and hands the guy receipts, saying, you have now lied under oath.
		Ooh, baby, do you want to know where the sweating started?
		Here we go.
unidentified		And just so we can be clear, if he said more than one version, that's all relevant.
		We're allowed to talk about the different versions that he's told.
		Thank you.
		Do you remember telling me that it didn't surprise you that they took the trips that I found in the divorce file because they took many trips to Florida, Texas, California.
		And then you told me that they took the trip to California when she moved her daughter there because she failed out of FAMU.
		Do you remember that?
		I don't recall that, but if...
		I don't recall.
		Okay.
		Judge me approach.
		It's...
		It's in one of the ones I gave you.
		Just first let me know if that refreshes your memory.
		Yes.
		Okay, so it's true that you told me that they took my new trips to Florida, correct?
		Per that, yes, but one of the messages is cut off, and you asked about some of the trips, and I said, no, I didn't, I think, and that was specific to, at the top of that, it says, no, I didn't.
		Yes.
		Is it easier for you to refresh your memory with your own phone or with my printouts of screenshots?
		Well, you have a printout.
		I know, but, Judge, the reason I'm asking is because I'm getting objections that I've cut things off, and it's just the nature of how you have to print out screenshots.
		So, in order to avoid that, I'm happy for him to refresh his memory with his own phone, if that would be...
		Well, I don't know if he's accepting your offer or not, so...
		Would that be easier for you?
		You can just provide the documents.
		Okay.
		Oh, man.
		Oh, baby.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		We have two more clips that absolutely destroy their case.
		That absolutely collapse the entire whole rotted, diseased church unto itself.
		Fannie Willis better be heading to the church, baby.
		Fannie Willis better be hugging that pulpit and praying for redemption.
		She's gonna need it.
		Fannie Willis taking the hardest big Fannie spanking you've ever seen in the court.
		And you'll see it, ladies and gentlemen, in text message form.
		We're actually building the assets in the graphics right now.
		Based on, like, what they're saying to each other, we're going to, like, have the assets for the morning show so you can actually see the back and forth.
		The big sticking point is that Nathan Wade bragged about having sex with Fannie Willis in his office before they said that they were dating.
		And, most importantly, that lawyer, Terrence Bradley, confirms that Nathan Wade should have never been hired.
		That this is totally corrupt.
		And that's where the guy's sweating profusely and looking like death warmed over.
		Oh, speaking of death, Andrew McCarthy, somebody, again, who we have to preface here is a legal scholar and expert, not a massive Trump fan, right?
		So he's not here to bang the drum with a MAGA hat on.
		Andrew McCarthy was on Fox News seconds ago saying, stick a fork in it.
		They're finished.
		They might as well, the judge might well rip the entire office out and say the entire office is fired.
		The judge may throw them all through disqualification and disbar them.
		It is incredible.
		Andrew McCarthy, not a guy prone to being loquacious on TV.
		Here we go.
unidentified		And when and why he's made inconsistent statements about it.
		But you're not going to make the case just on this guy.
		You have to make it like the big framework.
martha maccallum ▲ ● ▼		And, you know, with regard to that, this judge is going to have to make a decision in this case about whether or not he's going to remove Willis and Wade.
		There's another hearing, I believe, on Friday in this matter.
		Take us through how you think this is going to go at this point.
unidentified		Well, I think he'll have to sort of segment it.
		So it looks to me like the strongest case to have somebody get out of the case is Wade.
		Because you have all kinds of problems with some of his prior statements.
		Then you have Willis, and then you have the entire office.
		I mean, the ultimate argument they're making is that the whole DA's office has to be removed from this case.
		Frankly, I think at this point, if your standard, as it should be, is the appearance of impropriety, at the very least, Willis and Wade should be off this case.
		And then they should be able to establish whether...
		She and he are so immersed in this that the whole office has to go.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		The whole office has to go.
		The argument that they're getting towards, says Andrew McCarthy, is they're going to look to get rid of the entire office.
		They're going to look to throw the entire district attorney's office off the case, meaning the case collapses, meaning there is no case.
		Because they are, of course, the district attorney for Fulton County.
		Nobody else has the resources or the capacity to bring this case.
		That means the Trump case is finished.
		In Fulton County.
		That means it's over.
		And ladies and gentlemen, again, we cannot emphasize enough like how disastrous this back and forth was.
		This is the most important back and forth, ladies and gentlemen, where they have the text messages saying, yes, yes, they are dating.
		And yes, they shouldn't be hired.
		She shouldn't.
		Fannie Willis should not be hiring Nathan Waite.
		We have the texts.
		Uh, this is, um, this is, uh, clip right here.
		Okay.
		Ladies and gentlemen, this is the clip that is the end of the case.
		All right.
		We cannot emphasize it enough.
		And we have the worst.
		We have the worst is yet to come.
		All right.
		We have the worst is yet to come.
		Best producers in the country on this program.
		We are working for you.
		Here we go.
		Speaking of, uh, who shouldn't, shouldn't be working.
		Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade dating in tech, like in data form.
		And here's Nathan Wade's lawyer saying, yeah, this is totally wrong.
unidentified		Based on what you've just said, let's go to what was defense exhibit 26. Okay?
		In defense exhibit 26, which I showed you last time, was two pages of text messages between you and Ms. Merchant, correct?
		Correct.
		Now, the first page starts off by saying, Ms. Merchant, like just date, Don't hire him.
		Do you think it started before she hired him?
		You see that?
		All right.
		Yes, I see it.
		Yes.
		And your response to that?
		Was absolutely correct?
		I'm going to object.
		Ask an answer.
		All right.
		So, Mr. Sato, I do think we went through a lot of these texts.
		We didn't go through this whole one.
		Just a second, Mr. Sato.
		All right.
		I'm sorry, Mr. Sato.
		You said we didn't go through this particular one?
		No, we went through.
		We stopped right there.
		I want to go.
		I went.
		I answered.
		Because this is the exact language that she just stated a few minutes ago.
		You can read it back.
		Okay.
		You're saying both of these two exhibits weren't already covered by Ms. Merchant?
		It was not.
		This particular language...
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		That's what they have.
		They just revealed what they have.
		The Trump team has the text saying...
		Yeah, they're dating and they shouldn't be hiring each other because that's immoral and that's corrupt.
		And obviously that's going to get us kicked off the case.
		They have it in his own text, in his own language, in his own phone, from his own phone.
		He says, absolutely.
		They shouldn't be hiring each other because they're dating.
		This is, of course, before they told the court they were dating.
		They had it on a sworn petition.
		Now, the person who's asking that question, that line of questioning, is Steve Sadow.
		Steve Sadow is Donald Trump's hand-picked attorney.
		This is the man representing Donald Trump.
		There are some people on that bench who are representing other individuals who are being tried in this court.
		Other individuals, right, that Fulton County tried to wrap up in this whole RICO charge.
		But Trump's specific attorney had an absolutely fascinating line of questioning We have clipped it for you here.
		We're going to play it for you, ladies and gentlemen, and we're going to ask that you watch tomorrow morning and also on Friday where we will have Big Fanny, Big Fanny Ghazi, I think we'll call it.
		Big Fanny Ghazi on Friday where they begin to argue the full disqualification point.
		Here, ladies and gentlemen, is the strongest absolute flamethrower against Fannie Willis' office by Steve Sato, Donald Trump's personal attorney.
		On this case, handpicked by Donald Trump.
		And you can see why here, ladies and gentlemen.
		Enjoy.
unidentified		Judge in South Fulton.
		No, no, I'm kidding.
		They met at...
		Asked an answer.
		All right, understood, Mr. Abadi.
		I'm going to let Mr. Stade have a few minutes on this, and we'll go from there.
		But...
		Judge, I...
		Well, I'm sorry.
		I did answer this.
		I answered it for Ms. Merchant.
		I stated that I was speculating.
		The judge, someone objected to the speculation, but this was the exact same language.
		Well, thank you for that, Mr. Bradley.
		Mr. Seydow is asking the question in a slightly different manner, and I'm going to give him a little bit of leeway to do that.
		So, Mr. Seydow.
		All right.
		I hesitate to have to start back where I was, but...
		After the word absolutely, you, on your own, said it started when she left the DA'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 when you, on your own, gave those two statements, In the text, that you were merely speculating and did not have that knowledge from Mr. Wade.
		Is that your testimony under oath?
		Yes, that's what I testified to.
		Yes, sir.
		So, you on your own came up with the whole notion that it started when she left the DA's office and was judge in South Fulton.
		That's, according to you, that's speculation on your part, correct?
		Overruled.
		Answer the question, Mr. Bradley.
		Yes, that's speculation on my part, yes.
		Right.
		It had nothing to do with what Mr. Wade had told you, correct?
		I answered your question.
		I was speculating to the answer.
		That is correct.
		So maybe you can tell the court in your own words why in the heck.
		Would you speculate in this text message and say that it started when she left the DA's office and was a judge in South Fulton?
		Why would you speculate and say that in a text?
		I knew they had met at the municipal court conference.
		How do you know that?
		I'll stop you right there.
		How did you know that?
		I answered that at the last...
		I'm asking you questions, and you are in a situation where you get to give answers.
		I'm asking you, how did you know that?
		How did I know when they met?
		Somebody told you that, right?
		When they met?
		Yeah.
		Yes, correct.
		Who told you?
		Mr. Wade told me when they met.
		So you had more than one conversation about the relationship between Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis because he told you where he met her, correct?
		That's incorrect.
		It's incorrect?
		It's incorrect.
		Let's go back to the exhibit.
		Why would you speculate that that's when they started the relationship?
		What would cause you to put that down as speculation?
		I don't recall why I thought that it started at that time.
		But I do recall that he only met her, and I testified to that, that he met her at that conference, which was in 2019.
		You knew that Ashley Merchant represented a defendant in this case when you were text messaging with her?
		Correct?
	Yes, I did.
	Yes.
	And you knew that the reason she was asking you questions about Mr. Wade was because she was trying to show when the relationship began.
	Correct?
	No, that's not 100% correct.
	of the text message.
	Yes, but what messages were before this message, before she sent that?
	I can't answer that question because I don't have them.
	All I have is what's in front of you, and it's that she says, do you think it started before she hired me?
	So you knew, as the counsel for a defendant in this case, that Ms. Merchant was asking you specifically about the knowledge that you had.
	Regarding the timing of the relationship between Wade and Ms. Willis, correct?
	I mean, based on this, yes.
	And in response to that, you answered directly on your own what you now claim to be speculation, right?
	That's correct.
	So I ask you one more time before I move to the next part of this.
	Why would you speculate when she was asking you a direct question about when the...
	relationship started?
	I have no answer for that.
	Except for the fact that you do in fact know when it started and you don't want to testify in court.
	That's the best explanation.
	This is a completely argumentative.
	That's the real, that's the true explanation because you don't want to admit it in court, correct?
	No, I have no direct knowledge of when the relationship started.
	I'm not going to go back through that again.
	But if you didn't know and you were asked specifically as this exhibit shows, maybe you can explain why you wouldn't say, I don't know.
	Is that Oh baby, they are toast!
	They are toast!
	Finished!
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Done!
unidentified		Boom!
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Gone!
		I just, I just, I can't, I can't express enough how hilarious this is to watch.
		I cannot express enough how fun it is to see the absolute and total collapse happening right now inside of Fulton County.
		I cannot tell you.
		How excited we are for Friday, where they have the disqualification hearing and the disqualification arguments.
		And ladies and gentlemen, it will be absolutely wonderful to see the entire, as Andrew McCarthy said, the entire DA's office stripped from the case.
		That's what the Trump team is going for.
		Ooh, it will be sweet to have a victory.
		And maybe this is why all of the signals that we are getting from the Democrat Party and from those inside the super state are It's already lost.
		We did everything we could to try and stop Trump.
		And now, well, it's time to go into defensive positions.
		You are seeing that all across.
		All across the corporate sphere.
		All across the Democrat Party.
		All across the people who hedge on these kind of things.
		The betting markets favor Trump.
		The polls favor Trump.
		And they thought that Fulton County was going to be the one to really stop him.
		No, it just...
		Absolutely reinvigorates the base and the America First movement saying, wait a second, maybe there is a massively rigged system against us, against the American people.
		We have, ladies and gentlemen, I am being told, a few more super chats.
		Let's just go through them.
		We really deeply appreciate you guys.
		Salty nuts.
		Thank you, Mr. Clean and Safe Parks.
		I really enjoyed meeting you in Pennsylvania.
		And thank you for these salty nuts.
		They are so salty.
		Oh yeah, ladies and gentlemen.
		All the salt that we have inside of the comment section, we thank you for that.
		The sodium, it fills our cup and it keeps us going.
		God is exposing the leftist evil.
		God bless Uncle Trump.
		That's right.
		They are exposed by their own undoing.
		It's very biblical.
		Flip Georgia back red, people.
		What an embarrassment Fulton County is.
		Lord help us all.
		That's right.
		I mean, everybody is too embarrassed.
		This is too good, Benny.
		It is so much salt, and we thank you.
		Here we go.
		Benny, do you feel a little bad for Wade's divorce attorney?
		Put in this position.
		Have Wade be an ass for him?
		Should just rat them out.
		Wade obviously doesn't consider him a friend.
		That's exactly right.
		He was asked whether you lie.
		Do you lie?
		Under an oath, do you lie to your friends?
		And the guy's like, yeah, I guess I lie to my friends.
		What scumbags are these people, right?
		The company of thieves, they say, right?
		Like, if you surround yourself with the company of thieves, don't be surprised when they rob from you.
		The darkness will come to light.
		That's exactly right.
		The truth shall set you free, ladies and gentlemen.
		We have a special treat for you.
		Since we deeply appreciate you just sort of tuning in in the afternoon, we didn't know that it was going to go ham.
		You never know on these things.
		The reason why it's tough is because, well, like on Friday, Fanny Willis was supposed to take the stand and they yanked her.
	You know, they pulled her.
	And so, you know, they're like, oh, Fanny, you got to put your dress on.
	Don't put your dress on backwards, please.
	Ladies and gentlemen.
	They're not sending their best.
	So you never know with these kind of things.
	So we're glad that you tuned in.
	This was absolutely raucous.
	We have a special presentation for you.
	An interview that we did about 24 hours ago with Marjorie Taylor Greene on this exact issue.
	This was done at a Trump rally in South Carolina this weekend.
	We haven't published it yet.
	So we decided we'd play it here live first.
	And you can see what Marjorie Taylor Greene has to say about Big Fanny.
	She did actually literally break character once and start laughing.
	We were able to get Marjorie Taylor Greene to crack up on camera.
	She's talking about this case.
	She's talking about how Big Fannie Willis is illegally prosecuting Donald Trump and how she's breaking the law in the state of Georgia.
	Here, we are going to close out, and we ask for you to join us in the morning.
	We thank you for watching today.
	We'll see you soon.
	It's your boy, Benny.
	And now here's the great Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green on Big Bang.
unidentified		Thank you.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Here with somebody that needs absolutely no introduction, Marjorie Taylor Greene talking about Big Fanny.
		Oh man.
		We want to begin by saying this prayerfully.
		I've considered this personally.
		And I want to say thank you to Fanny Wills.
		I know you weren't planning on me starting like this, but thank you for this.
		Because we're at the Trump rally right now.
		There are tens of thousands of people here.
		And about half of them are wearing Trump Mugshot shirts.
marjorie taylor greene ▲ ● ▼		Oh my gosh.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		So thanks, Big Fannie.
marjorie taylor greene ▲ ● ▼		We're embarrassed in Georgia, Fannie.
		Actually, we'd like to get rid of her.
		Benny, I filed an ethics complaint against Fannie Willis.
		I don't call her Fannie.
		I call her Fannie as well.
		And Nathan Wade, because they made a little boo-boo.
		They did not file their reports.
		You know, when you're elected as a member or any kind of elected official, you have to file reports about your campaign funds.
		And if you're a Nathan...
		You have a contract with a government office, such as Nathan Wade has a contract with Fannie Willis' office.
		You have to report your financials as well.
		He didn't register as a lobbyist when he was lobbying Fannie Willis, you know, day and night, so to speak, to get a job with her and became her top paid attorney on her staff.
		So he made a mistake there, and there needs to be an investigation into that.
		And then Fannie Willis didn't disclose all the gifts that she was getting from Nathan Wade in the form of dinners, uh, luxurious, luxury vacations, uh, So I think we're finding that out right now.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		We're finding out today, based on text messages from Trump's attorney, that there is now data, cell phone data, proving that they were in the same place at the same time, that this relationship started.
		And it started way before and that they've now lied to the court, as you just said.
		Do you think that Nathan Wade got this job because he showed Fannie Willis his extensive knowledge of the penal code?
marjorie taylor greene ▲ ● ▼		Maybe.
		That might be why he got his job.
		Sorry.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		This is a serious topic, Congresswoman.
marjorie taylor greene ▲ ● ▼		It is a very serious topic of conversation.
		I can't even believe we're having this conversation.
		It's kind of shameful that we should have this conversation.
		But, of course, Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade.
		Brought this conversation.
		You know, anyways, yes, President Trump's attorneys, they do have this evidence, and this proves that Fannie Willis perjured herself on the stand.
		There's another part of this, though, that is deeper and more concerning.
		It's the collusion that took place between Fannie Willis, Nathan Wade, and the former January 6th committee.
		The amount of evidence that was handed over to Fannie Willis in her persecution of President Trump.
		The fact that they went to the White House on these trips, who did they meet with, what were they told, this is what's really concerning, and it is very serious, and it has to stop.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Seems like she's caught up in her own RICO case here.
marjorie taylor greene ▲ ● ▼		She is caught up in her own RICO case, absolutely.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		It's quite biblical, actually, like the weapon that they formed to use against you will be actually used on you.
marjorie taylor greene ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it's pretty amazing, yet she keeps going back to church to talk about it.
marjorie taylor greene ▲ ● ▼		From the pulpit.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Waiting for lightning bolts.
marjorie taylor greene ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, we don't know what that's all about, but we do know that, well, justice will be served, and I look forward to seeing this work out the right way.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Do you think she deserves to be disbarred?
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		I mean, should she ever practice law again?
marjorie taylor greene ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely, she should be disbarred.
		So should Nathan Wade.
		It's much worse for them, though.
		Perjury is serious.
		There's jail time for that.
		It's also, you can go to jail if you do not file your reports correctly in receiving campaign funds.
		Fannie Willis also has serious problems there.
		So the Georgia Ethics Board is going to be holding hearings this week, and I think this will be ongoing, so I look forward to seeing it.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Will you be seeking extremely hard time for Big Fannie?
marjorie taylor greene ▲ ● ▼		You know, from the federal level, I can't be involved in that.
		But I really want to see more from the state of Georgia.
		I've been disappointed that we haven't seen the state of Georgia take a stronger stance into the Fulton County DA, Feeney Willis.
		But I hope to see them step it up a little bit more.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Can you unpack that?
unidentified		Why?
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Why haven't we seen that?
		Georgia is a Republican state.
		There are Republican supermajorities, as I understand it.
marjorie taylor greene ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it is.
		It's a Republican supermajority.
		There's no excuses to be given.
		I'm not sure.
		It's something that completely perplexes me and most people in Georgia.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Have you spoken with the governor about this?
marjorie taylor greene ▲ ● ▼		I haven't spoke to the governor.
		I have spoken with the Attorney General.
		I've spoken with the Lieutenant Governor.
		They've set up a board, like it's an oversight board, to investigate.
		I don't think that's even started yet, but this case needs to be dropped.
		The reality is, the case against...
		President Trump should be dropped.
		It's a complete lie.
		It's a disgrace.
		For all of us in Georgia, we're embarrassed that it's even happening.
		And then Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade should probably serve time in jail.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Message of uplifting.
		You've gone to these events.
		You speak at these rallies.
		You spoke at this rally.
		There's so many people.
		There's a line outside longer than Chris Christie's belt.
		And so it's like really the energy.
		I've never seen it.
		I've been to hundreds of Trump events.
		I've never seen it like this one.
		I mean, this is next level.
		This isn't 2016.
		And this isn't 2020.
		It's totally different.
marjorie taylor greene ▲ ● ▼		No, and it's getting bigger.
		These rallies are fantastic.
		It's really amazing to me.
		I used to be a rally goer, Benny, before I became a member of Congress.
		So it's so much fun.
		Coming to these rallies as a member of Congress, being a person that stood in the long, long lines.
		But you're right.
		These lines are much longer than they were in 2016.
		They're longer than they were in 2020.
		And I just think it shows all the enthusiasm people have to, like, President Trump.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Rock and roll.
		We're going to win.
		We're going to win.
unidentified		All right.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		The only member of Congress that could beat me in a pull-up competition, in a push-up competition, and probably every competition.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		MTG.

▲