Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 27, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

02:57:51

POOP GONNA HIT THE FANI! Terrence Bradley to TESTIFY on "Privileged" Text Messages! Viva Frei Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	But let's also talk about how this bill is structured and how it provides that support.
	It provides that support by spending over half of the money right here in the United States to U.S. businesses and U.S. workers from places like Texas and North Carolina and Pennsylvania and Colorado all throughout this nation who will be building the equipment and supplies that we'll be sending to our military.
	Because that's another important part of this.
	Our military sends Our old equipment to Ukraine.
	And Ukraine uses it with great effect on the battlefield.
	Then the new stuff is kept by our military.
	So let's break this down.
	We're supporting our economy.
	We're protecting our 100,000 troops.
	We're ensuring a stable and prosperous Europe.
	We're defeating the Russian military.
	We're ensuring food supplies.
	We're updating our own military stocks.
	We're infusing money in the U.S. defense industrial base into our own workers and businesses.
	And we're doing all of this for less than 5% of our annual defense budget.
	Yeah, the audio is bad.
	All right, the audio was too quiet on that clip.
	So what I'm going to do, I picked the wrong thing to start with.
	Son of a gun, people.
	Yeah, let's get this out of here.
	I'll tell you what he just said.
	The Senator Cotton, whoever that was there.
	Hold on, it wasn't Senator Cotton.
	Jason Crow, not Senator Cotton.
	Shame on me.
	Well, if anybody heard what he said, it's fine.
	But I'll paraphrase it for you.
	Whatever that guy's name was, Jason Crow, Representative Jason Crow, came out and said, you see, when you're supporting Ukraine through 200, 300 billion dollars in aid, You're actually supporting local economies because when you give them the money, they're not just taking the aid and running and buying Russian-made weapons.
	They're buying American-made weapons.
	And so you're employing the fine folks of Texas who make these weapons.
	They then go and give the old weapons to Ukraine, and they use them very efficiently.
	And then the new weapons get to be kept by America.
	And so you see, when you take your tens and hundreds of billions of dollars and ship it off for the war machine, it comes right back to America to buy weapons that are manufactured by the military-industrial complex in America, grossly benefiting those military-industrial complex contractors.
	Who get the contracts.
	And so you see, all that we've done is we've taken your money, your taxpayer dollars, and given it to military industrial complex contractors.
	My goodness!
	Once upon a time, I'm old enough to remember when that was a conspiracy theory.
	The idea of the military industrial complex operating as a taxpayer tax money laundering scheme, that was conspiracy theory.
	It's like what people don't really realize.
	He's like, oh, we're giving $15 billion in aid to wherever.
	Yeah, they just turn around, give it to the military contractors in America, the Boeings or whomever, you know, what's the one that, the Halliburtons.
	And they and their executives make massive profits off taxpayer dollars while, you know, of the weapons that you manufacture that you ship off and they go to Poland and then they get divvied up to the Ukraine and who else knows where they end up, you know, maybe in the hands of some terrorist organizations.
	That's called taxpayer money laundering to finance and enrich the players in the military-industrial complex.
	Once upon a time, that was conspiracy theory.
	And now they're just saying the quiet part out loud, screaming it from the hilltops.
	Oh, that is scumbag logic from a warmonger.
	Yep, oh no, you're gonna employ.
	You're not employing people when you pay them with taxpayer dollars.
	That's the house taking its cut.
	That money runs out.
	You're not employing people when you're the government paying people from taxpayer dollars.
	That's how you squeeze...
	You can't even squeeze blood out of a turnip.
	So that was the intro video.
	I'm sorry the audio wasn't good enough.
	And who has noticed this?
	Now, Rambo, you have to say this?
	You're right.
	How the hell can this clock be two minutes fast?
	I set this to the minute.
	Impeccable!
	Doesn't matter.
	You gotta deal with it.
	That's why I was...
	Oh, now it's one minute fast.
	The clock is off, by the way.
	People, could you ever imagine that at some point in time we would be sitting around geeking out on the internet because we're about to watch a court hearing in real time with live commentary from a madman?
	Who would have ever thought this would have ever been reality?
	Not me.
	I knew my law degree paid off for something.
	Those three years of study, six months of bar school, another six months of an intern, that's four years, plus the 13, 14, 15 years of practice, starting my own law firm, building it up, learning the bureaucracies of operating a small business in Quebec, Canada.
	All of that would pay off so that one day I would look like a mildly crazy possum.
	It's an opossum.
	And we would be live commentating, I think, one of the most, if it's not the most important lawsuit in recent memory, it's certainly the most entertaining, with a wild audience of people who are interested in understanding, want to participate in spreading awareness, or who are here just for the laughs, because there will be fanny jokes today.
	The poo-poo will be hitting the fanny.
	And if you're from the UK, that's exactly how I mean it as well.
	Has anyone ever seen a rhinoceros poo underwater?
	Or above water?
	Should I pull up a video?
	Should I pull up a video of what it looks like when a hippopotamus takes a dump and they use their tail to flap that loose, fibrous poop all over the place?
	That's what we're going to see all afternoon.
	I only hope that Mr. Terrence Bradley...
	Former business partner, former attorney, and now former friend for Nathan Wade.
	I hope he does not have...
	I don't want to jinx it.
	I don't want to put, like, bad juju on the universe.
	I hope he doesn't have to go to...
	I hope he's not stuck at the doctor again, like he was last Friday when he was supposed to be in court testifying.
	It's going to be wild today.
	I'll give everyone the rundown in a second.
	Viva, are you a hockey fan?
	I'm a huge one from Germany, which is why I asked.
	Great show, by the way.
	Ulf Alfred, ich bin not hockey fan.
	I'm not a hockey fan at all.
	I'm not really much of a sports fan, actually.
	I only get into poker, UFC, and darts.
	And I haven't been able to watch any of those because, whatever.
	So no, not much of a sports fan.
	I also find there's not enough time in the day.
	I'd rather be watching Big Fanny Willis have her fanny handed to her than watching sports.
	It's going to be wild today.
	I'm forgetting things.
	We're live.
	Okay, so we're live on YouTube.
	We're live on Rumble.
	Are we good on Rumble?
	Yes, we are.
	Are we also on Viva Barnes Law?
	There you go!
	Someone posted it on Viva Barnes Law.
	42 posted the hippopotamus.
	Hold on.
	It's a very small gif, everybody.
	This is my gif to you.
	This is what I was talking about.
	It's the most disgusting thing you can possibly imagine.
	I don't even think that's in fast motion.
	Can you imagine being caught in the crossfire of that fanny?
	Oh, the dogs are annoying me.
	You guys want to leave?
	Hold on.
	Get up.
	Go, go, go.
	I told you.
	Go, go, go.
	Get up.
	Oh, you don't want to go now.
	Okay, we can stay there.
	Okay.
	Oh my goodness.
	Damn it.
	Hair.
	It's going to be wild today.
	So I'll give everybody the rundown summary.
	We've got five or six minutes before this is scheduled to go live.
	I'm going to use the same AFN live feed.
	ANF live feed.
	The Atlanta News.
	Federation.
	I don't know.
	I'll use the same one I was using last time.
	And just want to make sure.
	So we're live on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Anybody who wants to go over there, I will be paying a lot of attention to the chat there.
	And...
	I'm so excited.
	Something's going to happen.
	Like, we're not going to get to see this live.
	Someone's going to...
	But then if Terrence Bradley doesn't show up...
	Okay, we'll get there in a second.
	We're live everywhere.
	Okay, I got that.
	We're good.
	Boom shakalaka.
	Now, let me go here, and I'll bring these things up.
	Let's get my popcorn ready.
	Let's go, says Fried Pie.
	Indeedy doody.
	Big John, how can the politicians get rich if they don't give taxpayer money to their friends?
	Good question, John.
	They can't.
	Well, they can.
	They can.
	Insider trading.
	So they wouldn't need to launder taxpayer dollars to their corporate friends, but that's another good way of doing it.
	Get it on the front end.
	get it on the back end like like big Fannie will stick 10 bucks as Viva do you think the DA's office threatened Bradley with public exposure if he helped the defense he seemed very reluctant to So for those of you who don't remember what happened, first of all, I think they threatened him.
	Period.
	They said, remember your ethics.
	Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
	This is how corruption works.
	They don't have to say, shut your mouth and be stupid and invoke a lie of a defensive privilege.
	They just have to say, remember your ethics.
	And you know what you have to do.
	And he did it.
	Terrence Bradley did it.
	Protected Wade up the wazoo the entire time by invoking baseless privilege.
	And then they still crucified him.
	Or not crucified him.
	Drawn and quartered him.
	Stuck a red-hot poker where the sun don't shine.
	So I think he definitely understood it was a threat.
	When someone says it wasn't a threat, I would say more often than not, they took it as a threat.
	That's why they have to say that.
	Coping, denial, and try to make reality.
	So they threatened him.
	And then they still destroyed him.
	And they were planning on doing it from the beginning because they had those witnesses lined up.
	What was her name?
	I think it was Miss Sanchez.
	So yeah, I think that.
	We got Viva must Jersey Shore fist pump during any bombshell moment.
	What is that?
	Like, booyah?
	Like that?
	Wait, where's my camera?
	There.
	Come back into focus.
	And then we got, I'm a custom leather worker and want to make you something.
	Email.
	Viva...
	No, I was gonna...
	I can't do it online.
	In the about...
	In the aboot section on YouTube.
	I'll get my PO box.
	And oh my goodness, they're coming in here.
	What chance of criminal charges for perjury?
	I can't feel that.
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	I mean, I want to see it.
	Viva, in the movie My Cousin Vinny, can the defense actually recall a prosecution witness like Vinny did with Sheriff Farley?
	I don't remember enough, but they can call their own witnesses.
	There's grounds to recall.
	Bottom line, they can do whatever a judge authorizes them to do, assuming it operates the same way it does in Canada.
	You get permission from a judge.
	Your Honor, we need to call back a witness.
	Why?
	Additional information came out that we weren't aware of, or we recently discovered a new fact or something else.
	The judge can basically authorize anything to the extent that procedure doesn't allow for it.
	Okay, so hold on, hold on.
	Okay, we got two minutes.
	People, before we get into this, because you might have seen.
	Did I tick off the tick box?
	Hold on.
	It contains a paid promotion, people.
	And it does.
	People, when you're, you know, you want to avoid unhealthy habits like obsessing over Big Fanny Willis and the trial.
	You want to get into good, healthy habits.
	And most people don't know you're supposed to have between five and seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables a day.
	Brickhouse Nutrition Field of Greens is going to get their money's worth today.
	If you can't get your fruits and veggies, and you should, even if you do, a healthy habit is better than an unhealthy habit.
	People sit back in the afternoon, you suck down a disgusting sucralose-filled Diet Coke or whatever, aspartame.
	One spoonful, field of greens.
	They're powdered greens, desiccated greens.
	It's actual fruits and vegetables.
	It's not an extract.
	It's not a supplement.
	It's a food.
	USDA organic approved, certified.
	One spoonful.
	is one serving of raw fruits and vegetables, the equivalent with all of the antioxidants, all the nutrients.
	You do that twice a day, you get two servings of fruits and vegetables.
	You get a healthy habit, replacing an unhealthy habit.
	You get the super fruits, super greens, and it tastes delicious.
	It looks like swamp water, I always say it, but swamp water is the root of life.
	And it's delicious, and it's a great healthy habit.
	It's easy to travel with.
	I actually got one right here.
	It's easy to travel with when you're out in a place where you don't have raw fruits and vegetables and you want to have that healthy kick in the morning, kick in the afternoon.
	Go to fieldofgreens.com.
	It brings you to BrickHouse Nutrition.
	The promo code VIVA will get you 15% off your first order and free rush shipping.
	The link is in the description.
	And do it.
	It's just delicious and it's great and it's fantastic.
	And I love them.
	I love working with them.
	And I consume it myself.
	Although I have an unhealthy habit of eating way too much fruits and vegetables in any event.
	But it's just the thing you do.
	It's a good alternative to a diet, crappy, chemical-filled energy drink.
	Now, the question is this.
	Where is it?
	Where is it?
	Is this it?
	Is this it?
	This looks like it.
	We don't want to see them.
	Contempt.
	But that could happen, right?
	If he doesn't answer truthfully, he could be held in contempt.
	He could be held in contempt.
	If he chooses not to answer.
	He's already answered untruthfully.
	There could be repercussions for him, right?
	Correct.
	The judge and the court have resources available to them and authority available to him.
	This is stellar legal analysis right here.
	Even though it's a civil sort of component, he has the ability to imprison or put sanctions, financial sanctions.
	Contempt is a quasi-criminal proceeding.
	He could hold him in contempt, of course.
	I'm going to turn this off.
	There's all sorts of things.
	Hold him in contempt.
	Terrence Bradley doesn't want to do that.
	Terrence Bradley already lied.
	He is an ethical attorney.
	Oh, he's an ethical attorney?
	They just accused him of sexual assault the last time.
	I hope that he certainly, you know, just follows the court order and does what he has to do, whether it's comfortable or not.
	Okay, so I'm going to...
	I mean, so of course he...
	I'm going to turn the volume down.
	You know what, I'm going to do this.
	...show up, but to testify...
	Okay, live.
	...if he doesn't show up.
	Disobeying a lawful subpoena is contempt.
	So he's under subpoena, right?
	Disobeying a lawful subpoena is contempt.
	Subpoena power with the fang.
	Subpoena power with the fang.
	That he has to be there and he has to testify, right?
	I like to tell people when I'm talking to them, a subpoena is not a birthday party that you get to RSVP to.
	It is not something that you get to choose to do or not.
	And should he choose not to show up, you know, the court has within its discretion, within its power, the ability to.
	Is this live now?
	What if he's at a doctor's office like he was the last time?
	Is the portion experience open at 1 a.m.?
	Terrence Bradley's coming today and he's going to be chatty.
	That's my prediction.
	How are the audio levels, by the way?
	We don't know what the court's going to sound like yet.
	Dude, it's going to be fireworks from the get-go, is my prediction.
	Bring it on, people!
	Quiet you on A&F.
	It's enough now.
	Hush, hush.
	Are we listening to the right thing?
	We will see, but I do believe he'll show up and I think he will test it.
	Yeah, and you see Judge Scott McAfee taking the bench right now.
	We see the court reporter is in.
	We saw everyone stand up.
	We did, we did.
	This is all powerful observations.
	Which is a pretty typical court decorum, and that includes Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade, who we saw on our screen a few moments ago.
	Let's see if we can listen in.
	Oh, please, let's do that.
	Okay, now, by the way, if you've come here to hear only the hearing...
	You're going to be better off going to another channel.
	There will be commentary.
	There will be gratuitous butt jokes.
	Don't lower it.
	That's right.
	Bring up the volume.
	There we go.
	On behalf of Mr. Meadows.
	Your Honor Jim Durham, on behalf of Mr. Meadows, and he waives his appearance.
	Thank you, Mr. Durham.
	Have we seen Bradley?
	So many people.
	They're the ones on trial.
	Not me, says Fanny.
	Woo!
	Go, Ashley!
	Greg Gillen, Anthony Lake, on behalf of Mr. Schaefer.
	Any wages present?
	On behalf of Mr. Floyd.
	Good afternoon, Mr. Floyd.
	We also wave Mr. Floyd's appearance.
	Thank you, Mr. Coutureoff.
	And on behalf of Ms. Latham.
	Anybody here on behalf of Ms. Latham?
	All right, I know before we'd had Mr. Cromwell.
	Oh, Floyd is one of the defendants.
	I'm sorry.
	I don't know if any other parties have as well.
	I believe Mr. Cromwell is in a deposition in South Georgia.
	Let me see if I can't get better.
	This audio sounds good to me.
	Okay, that's helpful to know.
	Mr. Cromwell, can you hear us?
	All right, well, we'll keep an eye on that to see if he does join us.
	And we'll take it up as it comes.
	So, just a few preliminaries.
	First of all, I'm a bit under the weather, so I'll try to speak up.
	But if anyone can't hear me, just let me know.
	Oh, he's got the Rona.
	Close to the microphone.
	But we are here today, the sole purpose of which is that at the conclusion of the hearing on February 16th, I announced that I'd be meeting with Mr. Bradley and camera to assess...
	The validity of his assertion of attorney-client privilege.
	I've now been able to do that, and I also allowed Mr. Wade the opportunity to weigh in and respond as well.
	And after considering the testimony, not only in camera, but also of what came out at the hearing, that neither Mr. Wade nor Mr. Bradley had met their burden of establishing that the attorney-client privilege...
	Yes.
	as it relates to Mr. Bradley's knowledge of the relationship that existed between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade.
	And particularly that it wasn't established that his specific knowledge came about in furtherance of Absolutely,'cause he was bragging about it.
	So I made that determination, I didn't see any other choice, but to allow the parties to have an opportunity to explore that.
	That topic with him.
	There's really, in my mind, it's that topic only.
	I think if there's anything else we've already covered.
	The date of the relationship and why is it critical?
	With that, is there anything else we need to cover before kicking that off?
	Just, Mr. Wade, he's still a potential witness.
	He's still a potential witness.
	He's still a potential witness.
	Mr. Abadi.
	I believe Mr. Wade was released from subpoena.
	Mr. Wade was released from subpoena.
	Unless he's been resubpoenaed and if there's no knowledge of that, do you have the right to be president?
	Sure.
	I think He's a party.
	He's a defendant.
	He will be allowed.
	At this point, I don't see a means where he would need to be recalled.
	But if it is, then that is something you can take up.
	Okay, where's Bradley?
	Mr. Bradley, through his attorney, informed me that he would be here today in person.
	I don't see him in the gallery.
	Do we know if he's out in the hall?
	Oh, son of a beast.
	Okay.
	All right, if we could call for Mr. Bradley.
	Okay, woof!
	Bradley went for a helicopter ride.
	He won't be back soon.
	There he is!
	Bradley is going to be a little more chatty today than he was the last time.
	That's fine.
	Yeah, there would be no need to exclude Nathan Wade.
	Oh my goodness.
	So they're going to ask questions on the text messages which he claimed privilege over, which the judge reviewed and said there's no privilege that applies to any of this.
	Ask away.
	Terrence Bradley.
	T-E-R-R-E-N-C-E Bradley.
	B-R-A-D-L-E-Y.
	Okay.
	It's on.
	Thank you, Judge.
	Good afternoon, Mr. Bradley.
	Good afternoon.
	Good to see you.
	Sorry, under these circumstances.
	I'm going to just go straight to where we left off before.
	Fonny Willis and Nathan Wade were in a romantic relationship, correct?
	Yes.
	Correct.
	And it began at the time that they were both municipal court judges, correct?
	Objection leading question.
	Overruled.
	Okay, overruled.
	I do not have knowledge of it starting or when it started.
	Terence, you told me that it started when they were both municipal court judges, though, correct?
	That is incorrect.
	You didn't tell me that?
	You never confirmed in writing that it was instead of magistrate court, it was in municipal court when they started dating?
	If you're speaking of the text message, you can go to that text message, and you can read that text message, and I will explain the text message to you.
	Oh, he's had time.
	I did not have a conversation about when it started.
	You asked a compound question...
	Oh my god, has he been prepped?
	...of magistrate court versus...
	I mean, you said it was magistrate court, municipal...
	I mean, you said magistrate court...
	Panic, panic, Bradley.
	...conference, I'm sorry.
	And then you asked another question.
	I said no, municipal court.
	Oh, she better have more text messages.
	I'm referring to a different conversation.
	I asked you, do you think it started before she hired him?
	No, it wasn't.
	This is a speaking objection.
	influencing witnesses.
	All right, perhaps we'll get there, but I think first, Ms. Murchin has the right to draw his attention to the exact, potentially inconsistent statement.
	Thank you, Judge.
	May I approach him?
	Approach the witness.
	Oh, you can tell that he's been prepped.
	Oh, that was a compound question.
	I believe, Ms. Merchant, you tendered, was it the entire text chain as an exhibit?
	I only tendered a few of the texts, but I did give the state their courtesy copies last time of the exhibits.
	Was this one tendered?
	This one was not tendered.
	And I'm happy to tender it.
	Well, we'll just take it as it comes.
	We're at, I think we're at 39. I will wait to mark it, but I think we're at 39. May I approach it?
	Okay.
	Yeah, when I answered that question, what I was answering was that it was not a municipal but magistrate court, but not confirming the date of the relationship having begun.
	I hope she has some text messages that really, black and white, confirm the dates.
	So, Terrence, do you remember telling me that it started when she left the DA's office and was a judge in South Holton?
	I see the message there, but I don't recall.
	I do see that message, but I do not recall.
	You don't recall texting this?
	I look back at my text messages through that we've had.
	I see that message, but I do not recall that, no ma 'am.
	And when I asked you if you thought it started before she hired him, and you responded, absolutely.
	I'm going to object as to the source of the information.
	We'll let him answer the question first.
	This objection influences the witness.
	Based on the arguments of the last hearing, a lot of this is based on gossip, innuendo, assumption, and privileged information.
	I didn't ask him about the source of information.
	Yes, that's exactly it.
	This is an inconsistent fact.
	I can impeach him with any contrary facts.
	Sure.
	Why would it be a relevant impeachment if he actually has no personal knowledge of this?
	If he doesn't.
	Sure.
	So I think you have to lay that foundation so that'll be sustained.
	Do you remember telling me that it began?
	Well, that doesn't address the issue.
	I was just asking if you remember telling me as opposed to the next.
	Sure.
	Do you remember telling me that it began?
	Well, no.
	Then you're going into the substance of it.
	Which we haven't determined whether he actually knows or how he knows.
	How do you do it, Ashley?
	You told me.
	No, that's going to be the same problem.
	In fact, you corrected me when I said magistrate court.
	You corrected me and said it was municipal court.
	Do you remember that?
	Same objection, Your Honor.
	This is the exact same issue, right?
	You're asking if he remembers that.
	He hasn't answered that question yet.
	Right, but the relevance of whether he remembers it.
	Isn't established until we know how he remembers it or why he knows it If that makes sense, this is no it doesn't make sense How he knows it and I'm just asking if he told me that right so I wasn't asking how he knew that I wasn't asking the source of that knowledge I was asking if he told me that The lawyer just gave her a sticky Because it's gossip and
	innuendo, which is what But within the last year, Well, it may not be hearsay.
	It may not be gossip.
	We haven't really gotten there yet.
	We don't know how he knows what apparently he's telling her, and I think we need to figure that out before we can go any further.
	Yes, and if the source of the information is a witness who testified, then it's not hearsay.
	So, when did the relationship start?
	There you go.
	I cannot answer that.
	When was your first knowledge of the relationship?
	He's already answered that question multiple times.
	No, he hasn't.
	He has no idea the timeline or when it occurred.
	Oh, bull crap!
	He doesn't...
	I didn't ask when.
	I asked his first knowledge.
	He testified he has knowledge that they had a relationship.
	I asked him when he first got knowledge of that.
	I mean, the judge saw the text messages.
	Okay, so if the question is, when did you first get knowledge, I think...
	Answer the question.
	That was the question.
	That was the question.
	Thank you.
	When did you first get knowledge of their relationship?
	I've said over again...
	Can't answer the bloody question straight.
	...that I was not...
	I didn't have any personal information where I could personally say when it started.
	I've said that time and time again.
	So I don't know when the relationship started.
	And that wasn't my question.
	So my question is, when did you first gain knowledge?
	I didn't ask the sources of knowledge.
	They had a relationship.
	You knew it.
	I asked when you first had knowledge.
	We'll get to the how, Mr. Abadi.
	So I'll note the objection.
	He knows they had a relationship.
	When did he first become aware of that fact?
	He said he has no personal knowledge, so it's clear he had to gain the knowledge not from hearsay.
	He could have gained it from Mr. Waite.
	Well, I mean, most of us learn things from hearsay.
	The question of whether it's admissible, right?
	And that's what we've got to get to.
	So...
	I apologize.
	When did you first become aware of the relationship?
	I'm not qualifying what type of knowledge.
	I'm just asking when you first knew about the relationship.
	Dude, it obviously was before...
	I don't know how to answer that.
	I mean...
	Truthfully!
	I can't give you a date if you're asking for a date.
	If you're asking me how did I get the knowledge...
	That's not what she's asking you.
	It would have come directly from a client.
	Right.
	So help me understand...
	Oh my god, this is pathetic.
	Answer that question.
	You don't know the date.
	So that's the answer to the question.
	But I said that five minutes ago.
	Nobody believes you.
	Next question, Ms. Merchant.
	But you don't know the specific date?
	No.
	Do you have a rough idea?
	Can we narrow down the timeline?
	Yeah, 2022?
	Did you gain knowledge in 2019 of this relationship beginning?
	Ooh, that's a good...
	Don't you shut, you shut...
	He said he does not know when he gained knowledge.
	He doesn't know the specific date.
	I'm overruling that.
	I think we can try to see if he can narrow it down based on...
	And by the way, that lawyer who just objected basically told him what to answer now.
	There you go.
	19, I would probably say no.
	I mean, I don't have anything that I'm...
	It's very irritating.
	There wasn't a specific date.
	There wasn't a football game.
	There wasn't something that I can attribute to him telling me whatever.
	And so you're asking for a date.
	You're asking for a year.
	It's still a date.
	And at this time, I am telling you that I do not have the date.
	Let's try this then.
	So you received the contract from Ms. Willis January 2021, correct?
	That's the taint review?
	Is it the taint?
	Yes, I think so.
	The first appearance.
	I think if it was from the exhibits, I think it was 21, yes.
	And I don't want to belabor the point when you were here before.
	Yes.
	If those documents that you looked at last time said January 2022.
	That's okay.
	21. I'm sorry, 21. You're right.
	And it was, I think, renewed in 22. It was, yes.
	So the contract date that we have in the record is January 25th, 2022.
	So using that date, at that point, had they begun their romantic relationship?
	Objection is this.
	I don't know.
	Of 2022.
	January 25th, 2022.
	2021, I'm sorry.
	When you got your first contract.
	I...
	Bullshit, you don't know.
	Yes, you knew that they had a relationship at that time.
	Cue the music, people.
	I don't recall...
	I don't recall what I knew?
	I don't recall any specific dates.
	I don't recall...
	Say the line, Bart.
	Say the line.
	You remember when you got that contract, though, correct?
	I remember I had the contract, yes.
	And you told us last week, or I guess it was the week before now, you told us that Mr. Wade brought you that contract, essentially told you about that contract.
	That is correct.
	So Ms. Willis is not the one that brought that contract to you directly.
	It was Mr. Wade.
	That is correct.
	At that point in time, they were already engaged in a relationship, correct?
	I can't say that.
	Wow, he really has been prepped.
	He just said he does not remember.
	There's nothing specific.
	He doesn't remember the exact date.
	I think the question now is to reference it.
	Did you know that you had a contract, a relationship at that time?
	I agree with your honor.
	She asked that specific question.
	He said he does not remember any specific dates after signing the contract.
	That's exactly what he just said.
	This is asked and answered.
	I know, and we're getting to the end of it.
	So, Ms. Merchant, you don't have much more.
	To pull on here, but he answered that last question, so what's your next one?
	They better have some documentary evidence.
	I didn't hear the answer if they were in a relationship January 25th, 2021.
	I recall the question, and I can't tell you accurately whether or not they were in a relationship at the time.
	You asked me about him bringing me a contract.
	She better have a text.
	I said he did bring me a contract, and that is accurate.
	Do you remember knowing Ms. Willis prior to her taking office as the DA?
	I had very little contact with Ms. Willis.
	I knew her through my business of coming down to Fulton, if that's what you're asking.
	Yes.
	You knew her through the business.
	So you hadn't met her prior to your contract.
	I'm going to object to relevance at this point as to why we do today.
	Sure.
	Judge, he doesn't remember much of anything right now, and so I'm trying to create a timeline to hopefully piece this together.
	All right.
	This is bullshit, by the way.
	You're right, country graph.
	I'm not seeing really the likelihood that that's going to have any success.
	I'll let you ask a few more questions, but if he doesn't have a date, then I don't know that you're going to be able to create one today.
	what are the taxes the judge saw in camera She hit better, says B-Walker.
	Surely she has the texts or something to say.
	What did the judge review?
	At the time that you had this contract, from January 2021 until January 2022, did you come in and out of the DA's office?
	Yes.
	And so were you able to witness Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis interact during that time?
	I'm going to object.
	This has been asked and answered.
	It was addressed at the last hearing about Mr. Bradley's access to and from a specific room to pick up files.
	And Mr. Bradley said that we rarely saw them together.
	But this was...
	I think the only avenue that was closed at the last hearing was his personal knowledge, potentially through...
	Well, actually, no.
	If he testified, it was that he had no personal knowledge.
	It's knowledge that conveyed to him that was cut off at the last hearing.
	That's really the only thing we hadn't been able to explore.
	Unless you're...
	Correct me if I'm wrong.
	Knowledge that was conveyed to him by...
	By somebody else.
	That he claimed at the time was privilege.
	I found that it's not.
	That's what we're here to explore.
	Okay, he just helped her there.
	The knowledge conveyed to him by somebody else was not privileged.
	Who was that somebody else?
	When did Nathan Wade...
	Do you remember telling me that not many people knew where they met?
	She's going to have the same objection to that.
	That's the relevance as to his personal knowledge, which is what 602 requires.
	When did Nathan Wade tell you that he entered into the relationship?
	I'm asking him what he told me.
	But he hasn't yet told you how he knows that.
	And so unless he can establish why he should be testifying on this at all, then there's no relevance.
	And I don't know how he knows that.
	Then ask him.
	That would be the next question.
	Then ask him how he knows it.
	I first have to establish that he said that.
	No, the judge just told you.
	Go the other way around.
	Ask it.
	Don't laugh at the judge.
	When you told me that it started when she left the DA's office and was a judge in South Fulton.
	How did you know that?
	Where did you gain that knowledge from?
	There you go.
	From Nathan Wade.
	Because he doesn't get to claim privilege anymore.
	Shut up with that objection.
	Who told you?
	Nathan Wade.
	I'll repeat the question.
	Oh yeah, I forgot the question too.
	When you told me that their relationship started when she left the DA's office and was a judge in South Who told you that?
	Objection hearsay.
	Objection privilege.
	The lawyer's thinking of an objection right now.
	The other one there.
	I was speculating.
	I didn't have a...
	Where did you get it from?
	Did you make it up?
	Where did you get it from?
	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.
	Oh my God, I was speculating.
	I'm going to object as to the nature of this line of questioning because the witness has made it clear he was speculating.
	I was just speculating.
	When did Nathan Wade...
	Oh my goodness.
	What, Nathan Wade?
	That's not the question!
	Who told you?
	It was speculation.
	I can't tell you anything specific.
	No, I just made it up.
	You can't tell me anything specific as to why you speculated about that?
	This was however many years ago.
	It's one year ago, dumbass.
	No, I don't.
	Oh my goodness.
	I wasn't lying, I was just making something up.
	I don't know if speculation is lying, but I'm...
	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.
	This is the same one that you just showed me.
	It does not.
	Did Nathan Wade ever tell you?
	This is too much.
	Is there anyone here that indicates that he didn't have knowledge of the relationship?
	No, no, 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.
	This lawyer's really testifying for him.
	I just made it up.
	You didn't ask me if I was making it up.
	There you go.
	Finally, Ashley.
	I've been saying it for five minutes.
	No, you're not.
	You're telling the witness what to say.
	Take offense all you want.
	A stuck pig squeals.
	A stuck pig squeals.
	There you go.
	Nathan has testified.
	Still, it's an out-of-point statement being brought in for the truth of the matter.
	No, she's not bringing it up for the truth of the matter.
	She just wants to know what he said.
	Yeah, this would be for impeachment by contradiction, which would be an exception to the hearsay rule, and admissible as substantive evidence, and the privilege issues are overruled.
	There you go.
	And by the way, I've been very good.
	I called those speaking objections a long time ago.
	Sure.
	And that's something I covered in the in-camera hearing.
	And based on what he told me in that in-camera hearing, I don't believe any statements to this effect were covered by president.
	It says Viva's on fire in French.
	And judge, I just want for the record, because sometimes the record doesn't reflect where people are looking, and that when I ask a question, Mr. Bradley is looking at Mr. Wade and his lawyer to wait for them to object.
	And they're clearly interacting somehow.
	And he's taking a long time to object.
	So I just want the record to reflect that, because it wouldn't otherwise.
	It's there now.
	Thank you.
	A question was put to you, Mr. Bradley.
	Judge, one of my lawyers is standing, is sitting right in the back, A. Why is Nathan standing up?
	And I never looked at Mr. Wade or his attorneys.
	That sounds good.
	Why is Nathan Wade standing up?
	The question was put to you.
	Repeat the question, please.
	Yes.
	After the speaking objections.
	I'm sorry, the last question I asked you was, what did Nathan Wade tell you about the relationship?
	What did he tell you?
	Overruled.
	What did he tell you?
	I don't remember.
	Can't remember.
	I recall him stating that at some point they were dating.
	I can't tell you what date that was.
	It was made in confidence.
	We were in the back of our office.
	Overruled.
	Overruled.
	Our offices were the only two in the back.
	There was no one else present.
	This has been overruled.
	That is all I can tell you at this time.
	Made in confidence and I can't remember, so you remember that the confidence was relevant?
	One time?
	One time.
	You only had a conversation with him one time about the relationship?
	Objection.
	Asked and answered.
	Testing credibility.
	Clarify for a thorough and sifting cross, Ms. Merchant.
	I do not recall any other time that he mentioned that they were in a relationship.
	No.
	She better have something black and white on paper.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	So you talked about this one time, and you said you don't know when it was, though, correct?
	That is correct.
	Was it before Mr. Wade, before you got the contract in Fulton County?
	Let's start with that.
	I do not recall.
	And how did this come up?
	Say again?
	How did it come up?
	I do not recall how it came up.
	It was in the back.
	I know where it occurred.
	In our offices in the back, I can't tell you what we were discussing.
	I remember where it occurred.
	In confidence, but no idea when.
	Just the last three years have been a total blank.
	Did you receive an email from me on January 6th?
	Of what year?
	Of what year?
	I think I did, yes.
	Yes, I know I received it.
	I don't know if the date is January 6th because I received it.
	So you remember receiving that?
	Yes.
	And you reviewed it and then you and I spoke about it?
	You recall that?
	I don't remember that.
	Do we speak over the phone or are you saying through a text?
	That's what I'm asking you.
	I can't remember how we communicated.
	Whether it was text to phone or...
	Oh my goodness.
	But you recall us speaking, one way or another?
	One way or another, yes.
	And where I was trying to confirm the facts in that filing.
	I don't know what you were trying to do.
	There was a line of about...
	The accuracy of how much money that my office, the law office of Terrence A. Brackett.
	Guaranteed you there's something else in there as well.
	And whether or not that was going to be in the motion or not.
	Well, there wasn't a discrepancy.
	I had kept that out.
	You asked me to put that back in, correct?
	I don't.
	I recall you, you were, That might be accurate, yes.
	That might be accurate, yes.
	This is three months ago.
	No, I think...
	We discussed that...
	It should reflect the accuracy, because the accuracy was that I received, I had a contract and received $74,000.
	$74,000.
	And I think you had put in there that Mr. Campbell had received a certain amount, and then you also had put in there that Mr. Wade had received a certain amount.
	But there was not.
	Anything in there originally, and I said that it needed to be accurate, I needed to be accurate as far as that I had received $74,000.
	Right.
	That's correct.
	Because you did not want anyone knowing that you had talked to me.
	Damn good question.
	I wanted you to be accurate as far as the accuracy of our message or your filing.
	And it's impossible.
	So your interest was in accuracy in the file.
	I didn't reach out to you and say, send me a copy of your motion.
	Right.
	I didn't reach out to you to say that I'm going to be in your motion.
	Right.
	I asked you to review it for accuracy.
	For accuracy.
	And I just stated that it was inaccurate.
	And the inaccuracy that you pointed out was the thing about your show, or how much you had made.
	That was the inaccuracy that I saw that jumped out was the fact that I saw that I was left out when you had put the firm the money-wise.
	I did not, when I responded to that, it was for that specific reason.
	Okay.
	And I agreed I would put that back in, that section back in.
	Correct.
	I did put it back in, and I sent it to you again.
	I don't recall getting a second email from you now.
	But you were happy that I put it back in, or that I agreed to put it back in.
	And object as to relevance.
	Yeah, we need to get to more material aspects.
	Yes, Judge, I'm moving along, I promise.
	By the way, I just tweeted out this question, and in the hopes that Ashley or someone might see this.
	So you asked me to put that back in.
	Well, you didn't answer that last question, so it ruled.
	You asked me to put it back in.
	I don't remember.
	I don't remember what I asked.
	You did ask me to put that back in.
	I don't remember what I was thinking.
	Yes, that's correct.
	I said that.
	Yes.
	And then I asked you if everything was accurate, and you said looks good.
	Correct?
	I recall you asking that, but the looks good was applying to the accuracy of the 74,000.
	That's it.
	Okay.
	So when you reviewed the motion, and you specifically pointed out that one thing that you found inaccurate, you didn't point anything else out that you found inaccurate in that motion, though, correct?
	No, I did not.
	And that motion alleged that their relationship began when Ms. Willis was in municipal court.
	If I can reread the motion, but I don't recall, but if that's what it says.
	But my saying that it looks good was when you put back in the $74,000 into your motion.
	Nothing else.
	And that wasn't what I was asking.
	What I was asking is, you didn't tell me that there was anything else inaccurate in the motion, though, right?
	But I didn't state that anything was accurate.
	Other than.
	Other than.
	That one thing.
	It's 74,000.
	Now, when I told you that I had this motion that I was preparing, you asked me to send a rough draft.
	No, that's incorrect.
	May I approach, Judge?
	You bet.
	Which page are you showing?
	They're not page number.
	It's January 6th.
	Yeah, of course.
	I can change this all the time.
	I'm going to get to the super chats and rumble rants and tips afterwards.
	This is frustrating, everybody.
	I get the feeling the judge has seen the texts.
	Presumably there were texts between...
	Oh, maybe she didn't have any texts between Nathan Wade and Terrence Bradley.
	She only had her texts, which they were objecting to on privilege, to say that he had no business telling her that because it was all privilege, and all of a sudden now he can't remember.
	It went from privilege...
	To I can't remember why I said it, and I made it up out of thin air, and when I...
	Okay.
	Shut my big mouth down.
	We ended up talking, and you asked me to send you a rough draft, and I told you, okay, but I didn't want it to be leaked before I filed it.
	That is correct.
	That is correct.
	So you're the one that asked me to send a rough draft.
	If you say so.
	Yeah, now you know why they destroyed it.
	Yes, that's correct.
	took a long time to go on Saturday, January 6th.
	And then...
	You got an email from me with that rough draft at 1025 that same day, correct?
	If you say so.
	If it says 1025, then I know you sent me an email.
	Okay.
	Why he's looking at it, I'm going to object us to ask the name.
	We spin through the fact that you sent him a copy of the motion.
	Speaking objection.
	He specifically said rough draft or not, and then asked about the accuracy.
	He's explained his answer, and I've asked an answer.
	I understand, Mr. Vaughn.
	We're getting there.
	Overruled for now.
	And then I responded when we were talking about that subject that we were talking about.
	I said I took it out, but I can add it back, and you said yes, add it back.
	Do you remember that?
	I was just talking about that one paragraph.
	Let me see the...
	Of course.
	Oh, my goodness.
	What was I about to say?
	Yeah, the lawyer for Terrence Bradley is really...
	It says looks good, but as I stated before, I was responding to you putting me back into the motion for receiving $74,000 in a contract.
	This says, you said yes, add it back, and then I said anything else, anything that is inaccurate, and you responded, looks good.
	So you weren't responding to put it back in.
	And I'm going to object, but this is not his motion.
	He wasn't the affiant of the motion to verify.
	Overruled, Mr. Boddy.
	I've said twice...
	Overruled, Mr. Boddy.
	I've said twice that the looks accurate was, or I've said more than twice, was for the $74,000.
	Sigh
	Do you remember telling me about Nathan and Fani coming to your office and spending time together at your office?
	No.
	I mentioned, I do recall testifying on the 16th that she had come to our office.
	And that was before she was elected as district attorney, correct?
	I recall that that was when she was district attorney.
	Because I said that there was a meeting held at my office.
	And who was at that meeting?
	Now, I can't tell you that.
	I don't recall.
	But you know, Ms. Willis was there and Mr. Wade was there.
	It was at our office.
	Actually, Ms. Willis was there and there were other people there.
	Mr. Wade was not in that meeting.
	He was in the back.
	He remembers all these details.
	Why did she hold it at your office?
	I have no idea.
	You also remember telling me about them spending time together at her law office before she took her job?
	I don't recall.
	I don't recall.
	Do you have something to...
	Well, what I'm asking is...
	So let's back up a sec.
	So Ms. Willis rented a law office from Evans'firm, or Andrew Evans and another lawyer, I think Stacey Evans.
	You have knowledge of that, correct?
	I'm going to object to hearsay.
	How does he know the information?
	That would be the correct question.
	Okay.
	Ms. Mershine?
	I don't really know even how to respond to that.
	Hearsay, I'm asking if he knew that she rented offices.
	He may have been there.
	He may have seen it.
	Well, that lawyer just told him what the lie is going to be.
	I don't know.
	Ms. Willis' office when she was in private practice.
	I've never dealt with where she rented.
	I didn't even know where her office was.
	So if I said something, it's from what someone else told me.
	Do you remember, though, knowing that she rented an office?
	Yes.
	From the evidence?
	Yes.
	That is correct, yes.
	Okay.
	And do you remember telling me that Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis would rendezvous at that office?
	Objection.
	Rendezvous.
	Rendezvous is such a dirty word.
	Testifying for the witness.
	Shut up, lawyer.
	In general.
	The judge had better sanction this guy already.
	He won't.
	Ms. Murchin, I know you're trying to impeach him by a prior inconsistent statement, but unless you can first back up and show why each statement is actually something that he had knowledge of, I don't know if this is going to be relevant.
	And Judge, I'm not even there yet, but again, a speaking objection.
	Speaking objection.
	So now I would anticipate what our response is going to be next.
	Yeah, it's going to be, I don't remember.
	I didn't ask anything that was objectionable, but these objections are coaching the witness.
	I asked if he had knowledge.
	That's it.
	I didn't ask, did someone say this to you?
	I didn't ask, what did this person tell you?
	I asked if you knew.
	Well, no, you're asking if you had knowledge, and then you say of something specific.
	So...
	So?
	Once I get an answer to that, if he has knowledge, then I will follow up with where that knowledge came from.
	All right, well, let's try again.
	Yeah, let's try again.
	So my question is, do you have knowledge of them meeting at that office?
	Objection.
	Foundation.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Overruled.
	Do you have knowledge of them meeting at that office?
	I have no personal knowledge.
	Did you see this?
	That's just...
	No, that's not...
	Knowledge.
	Do you have any knowledge?
	Overruled.
	We don't know where it came from, so he said...
	How do you know, Mr. Bradley?
	How do you know?
	Any knowledge that I would have received would have come from my client at the time.
	Okay, so you had knowledge of this...
	place that Ms. Willis worked.
	That was actually a very good, big answer.
	What did you know about them meeting at that office?
	Objection.
	Hearsay.
	It's not hearsay, Judge.
	How he knows it, and then you ask him.
	Overruled and sit down and be quiet.
	Overruled, sit down and be quiet.
	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, hearsay.
	Objection, your honor.
	Privilege.
	This clearly covers a time after December 2018 that would be covered by the program.
	Overruled.
	He saw the text.
	Overruled.
	He told me.
	Hearsay.
	Okay, well, I'm not saying it's true what he told me, but he told me.
	Do you recall the question, Mr. Bradley?
	Nope.
	I do not.
	Here we ask the question, Ms. Merchant.
	What did you learn from Mr. Wade?
	I would clarify that's where you learned it from.
	About Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis meeting at the Evans office.
	Get it.
	Get it.
	Answer the question now.
	It's a bit of a compound question.
	I would have simplified it.
	On object, asked and answered.
	He's testified that he has an answer.
	Shut up!
	Objection.
	Get the witness out of the room if you're going to do this.
	And his answer may change.
	the question.
	He just told him my answer.
	I can't recall what the conversation was This is terrible.
	I do recall...
	He told me.
	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.
	No.
	Mr. Wade told you that they had sex at the office, though, correct?
	You don't recall him saying they had sex at the office?
	I do not remember him saying that.
	Someone just sighed hard.
	Do you recall that he had a garage door opener to either a house or a condo or something like that of Ms. Willis's?
	I've never seen a garage door opener.
	That's not what she asked you!
	I've never been to Ms. Willis' house.
	Not asked.
	Those weren't the questions.
	Nobody needs an explanation.
	No, I do not have any personal knowledge of him having a garage door opener.
	Let me ask the question again.
	Yes, sir.
	You didn't ask if you had personal knowledge?
	Like, as in you saw it.
	Do you have any knowledge at all?
	From Mr. Wade or any source.
	That he had a garage door opener.
	That he had a garage door opener to access one of Ms. Willis' residents.
	I'll object to any source as to hearsay.
	All right.
	Depends on the source.
	Overruled.
	No, I don't have any knowledge.
	So when you told me that, did you just make it up?
	Do you have something that shows that I told you that?
	Yes.
	Well, we're going to go through all the texts we can, but do you...
	So, was that made up, though?
	I'm going to object because I don't-- I don't recall him having-- Ms. Rogers, just a second.
	I'm going to object under 106 as the rule of completeness.
	I don't have that text message or any text messages that indicate that, Your Honor.
	And I don't have-- if it was a text, we had that conversation.
	I actually think it was when he was on speakerphone and Mr. Merchant was there, but I'm not sure.
	But, I mean, if I'm asked to qualify exactly where that's from, I would get it.
	Okay.
	So, a rule of completeness would be if you need to-- Introduce other texts to show the context.
	If you're saying you haven't seen a copy yet, then I think Ms. Merchant needs to do that before you can decide the next step.
	And that's what I was asking him, if that was something he just remembers making up.
	If he doesn't, then...
	That's fine.
	Well, no, but then show the text.
	Sure.
	So you don't have a text message to that?
	I would need some time to look through, and I don't remember if I have a text to that or if it was during a conversation.
	It was one of those.
	He has now said that he has no knowledge, so on to your next question.
	Okay.
	Unless you can disprove that.
	Did Mr. Wade tell you about the trips that he and Ms. Willis took?
	No.
	You have any knowledge of the trips that he and Ms. Willis took?
	Objection.
	Hearsay.
	Wrong.
	It might have been his scheduling.
	They work together.
	I do now.
	Okay.
	But you did not before this proceeding?
	I did not know until you text that you found that in the deposition of his divorce.
	I mean, not deposition, but something from his divorce.
	Okay.
	And...
	When you responded, doesn't surprise me, they took many trips to Florida, Texas, California.
	Those are your words though, right?
	I'm going to object as to relevance.
	He said he did not know and he actually learned from Ms. Merchant the information.
	He said he learned about certain trips.
	She'd better be able to find a text or something.
	You can tie it down.
	Thank you.
	Someone's going to be looking for that.
	No information about any trips that Ms. Willis...
	Testifying for the witness.
	That he learned it all from Ms. Merchant.
	That was his testimony.
	Sure.
	Judge, I'm allowed to...
	Maybe the conclusion we reach.
	I think she's going to ask more than one question, though.
	All right, Ms. Merchant.
	And if, Judge, 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.
	All right, I've overruled the objection, Ms. Merchant.
	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.
	Oh my gosh.
	It's in one of the ones I gave you.
	Well, at least she's got the text here.
	Hopefully she goes back and finds the other text about the clicker, the garage thingy thing.
	I don't recall telling you something so specific.
	About a piece of information.
	So detailed.
	I don't think she's blowing it.
	Fornication.
	Oh, I get what your name is.
	But, yeah, she...
	Yeah, I mean, why she wouldn't have all of the texts.
	Unless she didn't have the text and it was just a bluff.
	Oh, so now he remembers.
	Yes.
	Per that, yes, but one of the messages is cut off and you asked about some other 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.
	And so that was to the trips that you asked me about.
	And I think before that, when you mentioned that you found all these trips, I think I said, oh, wow.
	Yes, you did.
	You did not know about all the trips that were taken.
	And you qualified it.
	You said, no, I didn't.
	When did it happen?
	And then the next text, which I can get, or you can look at your phone.
	Whatever refreshes your memory, you said was after you left, after the firm was dissolved, correct?
	Object to relevance, overruled.
	It was after the firm.
	The trips that you said, no, you didn't know about.
	You told me those were after your firm had dissolved, correct?
	I think you mentioned that they were after I left, maybe, or whenever you found them.
	And I said, no, I didn't know about those trips.
	So you believe I mentioned that it was after you left?
	I'm quite sure you have the text message and I will refresh my memory.
	Is it easier for you to refresh your memory with your own phone or with my printouts of screenshots?
	Well, you have the printouts.
	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.
	Would that be easier for you?
	You can just provide the documents.
	Okay.
	Can I have some water, Judge?
	Please.
	Yeah, let me see what we can do.
	Sorry, Judge, I'm just trying to pull out all of the messages that you may need.
	All right.
	Well, I don't really see...
	At some point, we're reaching the cumulative point where we don't need to go through an entire six-month text chain.
	You're making the point that he'd made some comments to you along the way that led you to believe he had more knowledge than today he's testifying that he had.
	And so if you've hit the high points of that, then I don't know what else we can cover that actually moves the needle.
	Okay.
	I'll just move on to the actual trips.
	So you told me that they took many trips to Florida.
	That were crushed your memory.
	You told me that.
	was that based on your knowledge from Mr. Waif?
	That would have been based on anything that my client would have told me.
	I didn't have personal knowledge of whether they went or not.
	The trips to Texas.
	And you're the one that typed to Texas.
	Was that based on your knowledge from Mr. Wake?
	It would have been something that came from the client.
	I cannot tell you that I have any personal knowledge of any trip other than what would have been said by the client.
	Obviously.
	I'm not asking if you went on these trips.
	I'm asking if you have knowledge from Mr. Wake.
	You also typed California.
	Was that something that you gained from knowledge from Mr. Wake?
	It would have been from the client at this particular point.
	Yes, it would have been from the client.
	And when you told me that the trip to California was to move your daughter out there, would that have been something you gave from Missouri?
	Thank you, Chair.
	Any knowledge that I have of any trip would have come from my client at the time.
	Um...
	You told us last week that Mr. Wade used your credit card one time.
	Do you know when that was?
	I do not.
	Well, I think this would be impeachment of Mr. Wade's testimony if Mr. Wade testified that he had never used anyone else's credit card before.
	I object to ask an answer because it was covered during the last year when he acknowledged that Mr. Wade used his credit card.
	But I asked when.
	When, okay.
	I didn't ask, did he?
	I asked, when did he?
	Let's go there.
	I do not have any dates of when Mr. Wade used my credit card.
	I testified that we used the card for business and that throughout the business we would order paper or supplies or filing of depositions.
	I mean, the cost factor of cases is what I said, and that still applies today.
	Did he use my credit card?
	He did, but I can't tell you who he used that card, what the trip was for.
	I can't even tell you at this time where he went.
	But he used it for a trip?
	Yeah, I mean, it was for a trip, but I can't tell you where, when, why, or anything to that nature.
	Correct.
	And he paid you back in cash?
	I never testified that he paid me back in cash.
	I said that he would either pay me back, you know, I said I couldn't remember.
	I do not recall.
	Sometimes he would write checks.
	Sometimes he would pay cash.
	And that still applies today that I do not recall him paying me back cash, but I do recall him paying me back.
	And this was when you were still, before your partnership split up, correct?
	It would have been before I left the firm, yes.
	He wouldn't have used my card after I left the firm.
	Okay, so we can at least narrow down the dates to that.
	Before I left the firm, yes.
	Okay, great.
	And Mr. Wade gave you details about meeting Ms. Willis in Hapeville or East Point, as it was called.
	Objection.
	That's incorrect.
	He did not tell you about that?
	He didn't give me details.
	Oh my goodness.
	He did not tell you about meeting with Miss Willis at an East Point or hateful apartment?
	I don't recall.
	Let me see here.
	I don't want to get killed.
	I don't want to get audited.
	I don't want to get pulled over on the way home.
	So I'm going to have to go with I can't recall.
	At this time, I don't recall.
	What can I do?
	I'm trying my best.
	No, I don't recall.
	Where did you get that information from then?
	It's just like he doesn't recall if he even had that information.
	Oh, that's not what he said.
	That's not what he said.
	So then I asked where he got it from.
	I do not recall where I got the information from.
	Okay.
	You better have some hard evidence.
	We were friends in the sense of I've known him for years.
	Yes, we were friends.
	And you definitely did not want to come and be a witness in this case, correct?
	That is correct.
	And it was after, and we talked about this earlier, that Gabe Banks called you and then Nathan Wade called one of your friends.
	It was after that that you hired Mr. Chopra to assist you in this matter, correct?
	Mr. Chopra.
	Oh, that's his attorney.
	Was it after that?
	Who are you looking at for the answers, sir?
	So, I hired Mr. Chopra, and I hired Mr. Graham.
	Now, Mr. Graham is here, and when I received the subpoena...
	Mr. Graham was here at the last hearing, but he also had to go out of town, but he was president.
	What the hell are you talking about?
	Mr. Graham, I called, and I had started getting calls from media.
	Can we just call this guy Abe Simpson, like Grandpa Simpson?
	And I told him to respond to the media, I think, and that was somewhere around whenever you...
	What the hell are you talking about?
	It was that instance of those calls for Mr. Chopra.
	But I had engaged Mr. Chopra and Mr. Graham at that time.
	Okay.
	What did you just answer?
	I'm going to ask the question again because I didn't get an answer to it.
	After you got...
	The phone call from Gabe Banks and from Nathan Wade to your friend.
	I think it was before that, but however, I think it was before that is what I'm stating.
	When you got to call me from Gabe Banks, you called me immediately.
	Well, actually, you texted me and then you called me.
	Wow, that's pretty wild.
	I didn't call you immediately.
	But I called you.
	Yes, we did speak.
	And you texted me about it as well.
	That is correct.
	His life just flashed before his eyes.
	Then we spoke after Mr. Wade called your friend, and we talked about that as well, correct?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	That is correct.
	And at that point, you didn't mention anything to me about being represented by Mr. Chopra.
	But I didn't mention anything about Mr. Chopra or...
	That is correct.
	Yes, that was only my question.
	Let's see.
	Actually two more Dan better have some Thank you 305 I'm cutting you off.
	Thank you Hopefully somebody else has got something concrete.
	A little disappointed.
	A little disappointed, people.
	That's a beautiful picture.
	Life, it finds the way.
	Although that flower would have been stepped on.
	May I approach?
	I'll show you a little text to refresh your memory.
	Yep, bring on the Trump attorney.
	Ashley's done a great job, so we can't criticize her.
	But now I'm like, I'm just wondering, so the judge only reviewed the text messages between Ashley and Terrence, it looks like.
	So they didn't have any other text messages.
	Couldn't they have compelled him to bring text messages in the subpoena?
	Correspondence?
	Emails?
	Are these supposed to go together?
	Oh, these are two separate dates?
	Okay, all right Okay, so I know we talked about the other occasions where you said the text was just about the footnote.
	But do you recall me asking you, do you think it started before she hired him?
	And you said, absolutely.
	Objection, acid, acid.
	I see that in the text message, yes.
	I see that I said that.
	Do you also recall me asking you how they would react?
	If they would attack me?
	And you said, no, they will deny it.
	Your Honor, objection as to speculation.
	That's a speaking objection.
	He's telling...
	I think it goes to the motivations of the witness.
	He's telling him that...
	He told me that they will deny it.
	I don't know what they would say.
	I was speculating.
	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?
	I don't recall.
	That I want to correct?
	Yes.
	No, I 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 I'm just waiting for the movie scene.
	I didn't know if they wanted to use them.
	Just one more thing, Mr. Bradley, if that is your real name.
	Okay, say it out.
	Come on, say it out.
	I do have a few questions.
	First thing I'd like to know is whether the court reporter has defense exhibits 26 and 27 from the last...
	We have a different court reporter this time.
	We had to have someone else fill in on such short notice, but I can potentially send those to you if you need them.
	Well, I think I have working copies, but I want to make sure that the witness has a copy to look at.
	Okay, this is sounding good.
	All right.
	We can try to work through that logistical challenge.
	This is, you said, 26 and 27?
	I believe that's correct.
	And 26, I think, is the same text messages that Ms. Merchant was just asking about.
	It was two pages.
	I stapled it together, and it is dated January the 5th of this year.
	All right.
	I can turn off a copy now, but why don't we start off with the questions that you have?
	Okay, because that's where I want to start.
	That's where I'm going to start, but I'll see what I can do.
	This is the guy that was yelling at Fanny Willis.
	I'm joking.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Stop yelling at me, Mr. Saito.
	Would someone please think of Terrence Bradley?
	Okay, someone's got to have something black and white.
	How much...
	Oh, Saito, mate.
	Mr. Seyde, why don't we start with your question and we'll see if we actually need to get a copy of those exhibits in front of the witness.
	All right.
	Come on.
	Mr. Bradley.
	Yes, I'm here.
	All of a sudden I've lost you on the screen.
	Oh, come on.
	Boomer!
	You're on YouTube, but you're not on the Zoom itself.
	That means he's watching YouTube in real time.
	That means Sadow is following us on YouTube.
	Yeah, he was on when Miss Merchant was asking questions.
	We need to add a spotlight to the witness stand and a spotlight to Mr. Sadow.
	We don't need all the other boxes.
	There we go.
	Thank you very much.
	We need to add you as well.
	Whoever said boomer, the joke is I don't think it was Mr. Sadow's problem.
	I think they had reached their capacity on Zoom, maybe?
	There you go.
	Now we're ready.
	Now I see the witness.
	Thank you, sir.
	Mr. Bradley, you have referred to Mr. Wade as your client, correct?
	Correct.
	You understand that the court has ruled that communications that you had with Mr. Wade are not privileged, correct?
	No, I'm aware that the court ruled that...
	The text message is between me and Ashley.
	Dealing with the time frame of one specific conversation wasn't privileged.
	Then I'm going to ask, Your Honor, if it's at the limitation...
	Excuse me.
	To clarify...
	Sure.
	Mr. Sado, you asked whether all communications with Mr. Wade, I think, were covered.
	That was not the extent of the ruling.
	The only ones that I deemed were not covered.
	that I'd asked about on the end camera hearing because these are the ones that were relevant were any communications Mr. Wade made regarding the existence or non-existence of a romantic relationship with Ms. Willis.
	Fine.
	Thank you, Honor.
	I understand.
	So, going back to this line of inquiry, when you say you don't have personal knowledge, what I want to ask you to start with is very simple.
	Did you have communications with Mr. Wade about the relationship between Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis?
	It's a simple yes and no.
	Repeat the question, please.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And is it your testimony that during the time you were representing him, which I understood started sometime in 2018?
	Is that correct?
	That's the time frame that I remember, yes.
	Is it your testimony under oath that with regards to conversations with Mr. Wade about his relationship with Ms. Willis, that you only had one such conversation during the time you represented Mr. Wade?
	This is the question.
	This is good.
	One conversation of what?
	Oh, he's got...
	I apologize.
	Yeah, I apologize all you want.
	The only thing I'm asking about is that area that the court said is not...
	You represented him for three years?
	And you had one conversation?
	That you only had one conversation with him in reference to the relationship between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade.
	That was your testimony, correct?
	Yeah, I think that's fair, Lerick.
	Yes.
	Okay, so...
	Out of the entire time, I'm talking about 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021.
	When did you stop representing, Mr. Wade?
	It was a few months after I left the firm.
	All right, give me a date.
	2022?
	I left maybe June, July of 2022, maybe.
	Okay, so that would suggest that for, assuming it's 2018, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, in half of 2022, which is in the vicinity of four to four and a half years, you're testifying under oath you had one conversation about a relationship between Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis.
	Is that correct?
	Bring it, say it out.
	Under oath.
	Perjury.
	Disbarment.
	I don't recall having any other conversation with Mr. Wade about...
	Him and Miss Willis.
	Is it your testimony then that you don't remember any other conversation or there wasn't any other conversation besides the one?
	Yeah, you can sit down and be quiet.
	I think that's a fair question overall.
	I don't recall.
	I would say it was the one, but I don't recall.
	This is damn good.
	You testified that...
	You did have communications with Mr. Wade about him visiting with Miss Willis at a condo or apartment, correct?
	Look at the pen.
	I don't think I testified that I had a conversation.
	I testified that any knowledge that I would have known anything about any condo would have come from that, but I don't recall a conversation.
	Say it again.
	Convince yourself.
	Do you recall any other thing at this point in time under oath that would indicate when the relationship started between Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis?
	That's not what he asked you.
	That's not what he asked you.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	Go ahead.
	I'm going to drill down on that now, okay?
	Yes, sir.
	Drill down on that.
	Mr. Wade was hired as the special prosecutor on November 1st of 2021.
	You're aware of that, correct?
	November 2021.
	I have my contracts to show when I started.
	No one showed me the contract of when he started.
	That's my understanding.
	If he has a contract for November 1st of 2021, then that's correct.
	All right.
	I'm going to...
	I'm going to suggest to you that the record will reflect that the contract between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade was November 1st of 2021, correct?
	I want you just to accept that, okay?
	Objection, he doesn't have to accept anything.
	Is it your testimony that you don't know, under oath, whether or not there was a relationship between Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis before the contract?
	November 2021.
	Listen to this.
	I do not recall any dates of when the relationship started.
	So whether you are pinpointing a date of when his contract started or not, I'm telling you I did not recall any specific date that he flat out said anything about a relationship with Miss Willis.
	Okay.
	Now I want to go, 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?
	See, this is good.
	Not to compare it or poo-poo, Ashley.
	This is good.
	One conversation in four and a half years?
	And your response to that was absolutely, correct?
	I'm going to object, ask, and answer in cumulative.
	All right.
	So, Mr. Jada, I do think we went through a lot of these texts.
	Oh, you better wipe that sweat down.
	Whose phone is that?
	Just a second, Mr. Jada.
	Shut that phone off.
	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...
	Repeat your answer.
	...stated a few minutes ago.
	You could read it back.
	Okay, Mr. Saito.
	You're saying both of these two exhibits weren't already covered by Ms. Merchant?
	Not thoroughly.
	This particular language was not gone into.
	I'm doing it based on the exhibit itself.
	Let's do it this way.
	I now move into evidence defense exhibit number 26. Okay.
	What is it?
	I don't have...
	I have to search through my notes, but does anyone recall?
	Has that one actually been tendered in a minute already?
	It was.
	No, it was only presented to your honor for you to take back into camera ex parte to speak with Mr. Bradley and his counsel.
	Okay.
	Ms. Merchant is indicating that it was admitted.
	I thought Mr. Sadow admitted it, but I'm organizing and putting them back in order.
	This is why it's also good to have multiple terms.
	All right.
	So defense exhibit 26 and 27 are being tendered.
	Actually, only 26 at this time.
	Okay.
	Defense exhibit 6. Any objection from the state?
	26. 26. This is a portrait of justice in action.
	Oh, shut.
	Listen to him.
	Listen to him lead the witness.
	Oh, that's telling the witness what to answer.
	Okay.
	As to foundational authentication, I think Mr. Bradley has recognized them as texts that he sent and received.
	How does the judge let him get away with this?
	I don't know.
	I think I'd overrule on that basis any other objections to their admissibility from any other defense counsel and seeing none.
	Defense Exhibit 26 is now admitted.
	Mr. Seydow.
	Testify.
	Thank you.
	Bring it.
	Let's continue.
	Now I'm publishing it.
	After you said the word absolutely, on your own, you said...
	It started when she left the DA's office and was judge in South Fulton.
	Let him finish the question and be quiet.
	All right, understood, Mr. Abadi.
	I'm going to let Mr. Sato 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 when I said that I was 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. Sedow.
	You said it.
	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 judged in South Fulton.
	They met at the municipal court CLE conference.
	That's what you said, correct?
	CLE is continued learning education.
	Legal education.
	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.
	Speculating.
	And did not have that knowledge from Mr. Wade.
	Is that the 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.
	Overruled.
	Shut up, lawyer.
	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.
	No, it's another one.
	It's another one.
	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 was just trying to be helpful.
	I thought I'd be helpful.
	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?
	Objection, ask and answer.
	Answer it again.
	How did you know 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?
	Stop.
	Just let him answer.
	How did I know when they met?
	Somebody told you that, right?
	When they met?
	Yeah.
	Yes, correct.
	Who?
	Who told you?
	Mr. Wade told me when they met.
	Bam!
	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.
	Oh, okay.
	It's incorrect.
	It's incorrect.
	When did he tell you that?
	Let's go back to the exhibit.
	Toast.
	This is toast.
	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 you just said he told you.
	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.
	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?
	That's correct.
	Well, I don't know what she was thinking.
	It's not, but at the beginning of the text message.
	Seda's crushing it right now, in my humble view.
	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?
	Yes, definitely.
	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.
	Well, he just confirmed that Wade told him.
	I just wanted to be helpful.
	Oh!
	Except for 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.
	This is a...
	Overruled.
	Overruled.
	Be quiet, lawyer.
	Don't tell the witness what to do.
	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.
	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.
	Sing it a lot now.
	Well, Is that a question?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Definitely.
	Why didn't you say it?
	State that again.
	I apologize.
	If you're being asked.
	Lawyer's going to attack.
	As we've just gone through with this text message from Ms. Merchant.
	Yes.
	As the attorney for a co-defendant.
	Yes.
	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?
	Someone's going to have to clip that.
	No, I can't.
	was correct.
	I don't know why I didn't say I don't know.
	What 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?
	I don't know why I said it.
	I don't know why I didn't say I don't know.
	And I can't remember why I didn't say it.
	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...
	He did just say he got specific information from Wade.
	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.
	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 set 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 on whether it starts that way.
	Does the second page have a line in there that says, in South Fulton?
	In West South Fulton, born and raised.
	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 the 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.
	All right.
	So that's what I just read.
	Is exactly what Ms. Merchant said to you in the text, right?
	Yes.
	Yes, that was in the text.
	Is it accurate upon further information?
	Yes, that's there.
	And what did you answer?
	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?
	I don't know why I said that.
	Yeah, so 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.
	Okay.
	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.
	She wrote magistrate court and I said no, municipal court.
	Right, but...
	It's not compound.
	It's one statement.
	I'm sorry.
	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.
	Mr. Bradley, prior to coming into court today...
	Did you meet with any counsel?
	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.
	Sorry.
	I did not meet with anyone outside of my attorneys.
	Did you have any conversation?
	I did not.
	Conversation.
	I did not.
	So you have not spoken Have some text.
	Sell records, please.
	Please have some cell records.
	I've not spoken to the prosecutors.
	I've not spoken to defense.
	Have you spoken to Mr. Wade?
	No.
	Fingers crossed.
	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.
	Hmm.
	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 don't know.
	I think we did cover that one.
	His better answer would have been, I was just trying to be helpful.
	I think that exact question was already put to him.
	Yes, it was.
	Judge is paying attention, which is a good sign, by the way.
	What would be the next one?
	I'm...
	Trying to look.
	Let's go to 27. I have to pee, everybody.
	I've been holding it in this entire cross.
	Defense Exhibit 27. Do you have that now, sir?
	I do, sir.
	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 the 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, Yes.
	Is the email and the text, are those accurate in the interaction that makes up Defense Exhibit 27?
	As it applies to the stapling of the email and the stapling of a text message chain, yes, that is Defense Defendants 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. Abbott?
	Yes, Judge.
	All right.
	Overruled.
	Any other objections from Defense Counsel?
	Seeing none.
	Defense Exhibit 27 is admitted.
	All right.
	Anything else?
	Your Honor, 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 oaths.
	Objection.
	Question of opinion.
	I think that's going to call for an opinion on the credibility of another testifying witness.
	Call for a legal conclusion.
	Then that's all I have, Your Honor.
	Thank you, Mr. Sado.
	Mr. Stockton.
	Just briefly, Judge.
	Did you do it?
	Did you do it?
	Mr. Bradley, do I understand from your prior testimony that Ms. Merchant sent you a motion to review prior to her filing?
	I don't know if it was a motion or an affidavit.
	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 Mrs. 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 that in that text it referred to the me being added back and at that time I said yes looks good.
	You're aware, and you recall, that when Ms. 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.
	I promise you.
	Repeat the question, I'm sorry?
	Yeah.
	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?
	Did you tell Nathan Wade?
	The actual motion that she...
	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.
	I don't remember what I thought.
	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?
	Yes.
	Asked and answered.
	Asked and answered.
	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 combine that with the next question So we're not having to lay Mr. Bradley, you knew that Mrs. Merchant was relying on your review to ensure the accuracy of that motion prior to filing it, correct?
	Yes.
	Oh, shut up already and let him answer what I thought.
	That overrule that, Mr. Friendly?
	No, so...
	No, so let me get rid of the lie.
	Once again, I was excluded from the footnote of that motion and my review of it.
	Absolutely not the question you asked.
	You need to add me back to the footnote because I did have a contract and I did receive $74,000.
	That was not the question.
	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 she was...
	Looking for accuracy.
	No, I did not know that she was relying on me to...
	Not the question he asked.
	For any...
	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?
	Do they not have one text or email between him and Bradley?
	That was left out.
	We've heard this answer over and over 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.
	Objection calls to speculation.
	Wait, he's going to formulate an objection.
	Oh, the guy's waiting.
	How long are we going to get there?
	Repeat your question, I'm so sorry.
	Oh, no, he does this.
	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?
	There you go.
	I've noticed something right now.
	He says, repeat the question, then it's an objection.
	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...
	Any witnesses in this case contact you about Miss Merchant's motion from January the 8th of 2004 until today?
	Good question.
	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 got, Judge.
	Thank you, Mr. Stockton.
	Mr. Durham, if you're still with us.
	No question, Durham.
	Thank you, sir.
	Mr. MacDougall.
	Now, the question is, are they going to cross-examine this guy?
	Oh, well.
	Good afternoon, Mr. Bradley.
	You have certain information about the relationship between Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis that is not privileged, correct?
	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 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 rule.
	Silly question.
	Yes.
	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.
	It's a great meme in our locals.
	Mr. Bradley, at least as of February 15th, when you first testified, you said you still considered yourself a...
	What just happened?
	What just happened?
	I think I said that, yes.
	I think I did, yes.
	And you've been friends with Mr. Wade for over 10 years, correct?
	That would have been fairly accurate, yes.
	Ten years.
	You recall communicating with Ms. Merchant about this case and about Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis' relationship, correct?
	Yes.
	Oh, quiet already.
	Sure.
	We don't delay that foundation.
	Why don't we combine it with the next question where you've got a new point to make.
	Okay.
	Mr. Bradley, when you spoke, when you communicated with Ms. Merchant, did you tell her any lies about Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis' relationship?
	Oh, good question.
	Okay, rephrasing it.
	Can you repeat the question?
	Objection.
	Wait for this.
	Did you tell her any lies?
	This is a good question.
	Did I lie to Ms. What?
	No, I didn't.
	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?
	I didn't lie.
	I was speculating.
	Not that I recall.
	I don't recall.
	Yes or no?
	No, you didn't lie to her.
	You didn't lie to her.
	I mentioned earlier that I speculated on some things.
	I've testified to...
	We were here enthralling.
	I can't recall whether or not I...
	I lied.
	Can't recall whether or not I lied.
	No.
	Mr. Bradley, speculation is kind of a weaselly lawyer word.
	Let's speak truth here.
	There you go.
	Shut up, lawyer!
	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?
	No, no, let him answer.
	I don't think he's answered it yet.
	Let him answer.
	I don't recall ever...
	Lying.
	Whether any of it was a lie or not.
	At the time you were communicating with Mr. Merchant, you were still friends with Mr. Wade, correct?
	Okay.
	I don't recall if it was a lie or not.
	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?
	Yes.
	Correct.
	And you knew that she was going to use that information to somehow benefit and file a motion, benefit her client, correct?
	Yes.
	I did not know that.
	So I did not know why she was doing it.
	So as an attorney yourself, you are testifying here under oath that you had no idea.
	What Miss Merchant was going to do with all the details that you were giving her about Wade and Willis' relationship?
	So, at the time...
	So, let me just get ready to lie.
	I knew that Miss Merchant was gathering information.
	That is correct.
	Okay.
	And did you lie to her when you told her that the relationship began before 2020?
	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?
	Never.
	I don't remember if I said I don't remember.
	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 recall.
	I don't remember.
	Or I'm speculating.
	I don't think I did.
	Let me go flub through the papers.
	Let me just wait for my lawyer to think up an objection.
	Yeah, through 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 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.
	Oh, no, that hasn't been asked and answered today.
	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?
	Objection.
	mentative.
	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 Objection.
	Argumentative.
	I could have.
	I could have, I don't know.
	You tell lies about your friends about a case of national importance.
	Objection, that's true.
	Overruled.
	I could have, I don't know.
	Mr. Radley, 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. Sedow when he was on the screen.
	What's the next question, Mr. Rice?
	Looking at you on the screen?
	I think it's clear.
	Thank you, sir.
	Argumentative there.
	Good afternoon, Mr. Radley.
	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.
	We'll see.
	We'll see.
	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 two 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.
	Motion to disqualify.
	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?
	I don't remember if I saw that.
	Do you remember seeing that in the draft that you read and reviewed?
	Yes.
	Oh!
	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?
	Kind of.
	It's a little bit of a hint.
	Yes or no?
	This is good.
	I read the title of what the motion was.
	You knew what she was doing.
	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?
	Shut up!
	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?
	Yes.
	He knew that?
	Yes.
	Because you read the motion, you said you reviewed it, correct?
	Yes.
	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 response instead.
	His opinion of how he handled it.
	I don't see, again, this really being necessary to go through it line by line.
	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 the problem.
	It very much is.
	And 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.
	Don't need to draw straws next time.
	I'll go with that.
	All right.
	Anything else?
	Thank you, Ron.
	That's all I have.
	Okay, good.
	That was good.
	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. Kucherov?
	I'll let you know when we're able to proceed.
	Shine that big spotlight right on him.
	Oh, Lordy.
	We're at, by the way, just so you know, over 15,000 on Rumble.
	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...
	Dude, let the guy go to the bathroom.
	He's got to pee.
	...to log in.
	So after Mr. Kuturov, just in terms of timing, Mr. Abadi, do you have any expectation of how long your, if any, questioning would last?
	No questions.
	I don't imagine my questioning would be very long.
	Okay, well, let's get back in at 4 o 'clock.
	See if they're going to come back to the sexual assault accusations.
	And now the dramatic zoom on the Seal of Georgia, 1776.
	Constitution, justice, wisdom, moderation.
	If only any of these people could live by any of these principles, the world would be a better place.
	Okay, so what I'll do is I'm going to take this out.
	Well, that's been somewhat uneventful.
	It's been good.
	I was hoping for more.
	What's going to happen Friday?
	I think that's going to be it for witness testimony, so Friday's going to be closing arguments, or summation, as they call it.
	What a flipping liar.
	The judge gets it 100%, and bear in mind, we're dealing with credibility as to when the relationship started.
	Bear in mind, Yurdy, the very credible first witness of this case, testified as to when the relationship started.
	This, guys, I can't remember why I didn't, I do not recall.
	Why I did not tell her, I do not recall.
	Glorious.
	Glorious in its abject stupidity.
	So we got here from the Stu's Music Box.
	So Bradley admits telling lies.
	Fannie admits to campaign finance violations.
	Taking money from the campaign.
	I missed that the first time around.
	Yeah, I took some campaign cash and I had it at my house.
	And Wade IRS fraud.
	Wow.
	Just wow.
	Way to go, Viva, from Edmonton, says Roxy.
	Thank you very much.
	I don't recall meeting Viva as we ate poutine, says Seize the Day.
	I remember that.
	Fru Fru Featherstone says, The National Bar Association told this guy not to talk.
	He knows better than to ignore the NBA's advice.
	Digimoto says, This is magical.
	What a show.
	Anyone with a couple of functioning brain cells can see it.
	I just would have thought they would have had concrete text messages that were much more damning than the ones which we basically knew existed but were not admitted as evidence because of the raising of privilege.
	Where were you lying then or are you lying now?
	Those questions never get very far, Patriot.
	But look, I think the judge knows.
	How can one absolutely speculate?
	Says Piano Dean.
	It's a load of steaming crap.
	I don't recall what I don't recall.
	Says Pasha Moyer.
	And then Zerosopher says, when judged on screen, watch his face when bad answers happen.
	He doesn't like it.
	He's trying to keep himself safe from fallout.
	But it is in support of Fanny.
	And that's why he isn't stopped the other lawyer.
	We're going to see where this goes.
	I've made my prediction.
	They're getting booted.
	Oh, how is it not privileged?
	This was Tracy Bradley.
	Are you related to Terrence Bradley, Tracy?
	The question was the privileges to the start of the relationship with Nathan Wade.
	The judge said, no, that's not privileged.
	And then the other stuff, which was a broader, was in fact privileged and they kept that there.
	But I also flagged that because I thought you might have been related to...
	Terrence Bradley.
	If you are, in fact, related to Terrence Bradley, tell him I'd love to have him on the channel for an interview.
	Jeff, we got that.
	Thank you.
	Wade looks like he got caught with Fannie in his parents' bed.
	TJM.
	Then we got to Sure would be a shame if the sexual assault investigation was opened.
	Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, says Stick.
	I know exactly what you're talking about as to the threats they can have against Terrence Bradley.
	This is why people hate lawyers.
	So freaky.
	First of all, I've hated lawyers for a long time.
	And thank you for the hair.
	I actually brushed it yesterday, and today is just like the perfect day of fluff and not too greasy.
	Bradley was threatened with a Clinton helicopter ride.
	Yeah, we know about that guy.
	Super sticker Robin Montaigne.
	The president has more reliable memory than this guy.
	Poor man, says WJRG.
	What do we got here?
	What did I just do?
	The president?
	Was he told before or after Wade filed divorce?
	So I put that out there.
	He would have said, I don't recall.
	Viva's hair is majestic.
	Thank you very much.
	I'm convinced he was threatened with a helicopter.
	I changed my mind, says Scott Gage.
	All right, now I believe I've gotten to all of these beforehand.
	What I'm going to do here is go over to Viva Frye on the rumbles, and we're going to take some of these sweet, beautiful rumble rants top to bottom.
	Wilson Ann says...
	Oh,@wilsonand273 is a scammer.
	Remove them.
	Let's see, let's scroll down here.
	I did remove a couple of people who were clearly scamming.
	I'll have a look for that one in a second.
	I don't see it.
	See, this one here, I know that I booted for this live stream.
	I know that that's purely a bot.
	Okay, well, I'll get to the other one afterwards.
	Fiona is my biatch says not everyone graduates at the top of their class.
	C. Biden, for instance, these lawyers are pathetic.
	And then we got Fiona is my biatch says Viva.
	Oh, he's just looking at the screen.
	No, don't do that.
	Don't do that.
	Jingle Jolly is now a monthly supporter.
	Welcome to the channel, Jingle Jolly, where everyone is thoroughly above average and anyone watching absorbs the knowledge and the humor and the insights through osmosis or transposes.
	Isoldon says, Viva, I think they're setting up for him.
	I'll tell you what I'm hoping.
	I hope...
	What's his name?
	Sadow.
	Sadow is Trump's lawyer who just filed that motion with the additional AT&T cell phone stuff between Fannie Wade and Nathan...
	Fannie Wade?
	No, Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade.
	When he asked Terrence Bradley, have you had any...
	Telephone calls, correspondence with, you know, X, Y, and Z. I don't know.
	Maybe they got other info with another AT&T request.
	Or maybe they're now going to go verify that information to see if he flat-out lied under oath because that's a demonstrable thing.
	Although he would have to be tremendously stupid to actually go while, you know, testimony pending and have discussions with anybody on the other side.
	But they're not very smart, so they might very well have done it.
	Viva, he said it earlier while, quote, mumbling.
	That he knew because his client told him, review your video for it.
	No, no, I called it up when it happened.
	He said it.
	Nathan Wade told me.
	And I said, boom.
	The chat said, boom.
	Constructionist.
	I do remember, I do recall, but I ain't telling anything at y 'all.
	This is painfully the stage of baffling with BS.
	Yep.
	W. Claxton says, can I get away with murder if I just forget doing it?
	No, but if it's classified documents and you're a well-meaning old man, no one will prosecute you because, you know, they'll just acquit you.
	W. Klassen, if you can't remember why the conversation came up, it cannot be attorney-client privilege.
	Good point.
	I. Critical.
	Why haven't they requested Wade be sequestered while this witness is on the stand?
	They did at the beginning, and the explanation that the judge gave is that Wade is no longer under oath.
	They don't foresee him being called back as a witness, so it couldn't influence his testimony.
	I would have thought that Wade is a party to this.
	In that he's a defendant being requested for disqualification, so he would have a right to be there.
	I don't know if they said that as well, subsidiarily.
	Viva, go back to the video on edit.
	Bradley said earlier that he found out by his client telling him exactly...
	For sure, no, no.
	I thought I commented in real time when that happened.
	Fried Pie says, Why does Willis and Wade have...
	What does Willis and Wade have on him so he'll keep protecting them?
	Well, someone brought it up earlier.
	Just the threat of another sexual assault.
	Criminal investigation.
	Bear that in mind.
	They accused him of sexual assault and it was just, you know, ethics and why he left the firm.
	If they got Trump on a 25, 30-year-old fabricated hallucination from a batshit crazy woman, you know, filed because of a law that just changed specifically so she could file that lawsuit, they can get on this.
	And by the sounds of it, he doesn't exactly have clean hands or clean whatever because he allowed $20,000 that he had in escrow.
	At Wade's law firm to be transferred to the employee who allegedly accused him of alleged sexual assault.
	So, that would be why.
	That's what he's protecting against?
	Criminal prosecution for sexual assault.
	Construction, it says, I don't remember.
	I don't recall.
	I don't remember anything at all.
	I got that.
	Viva, thanks for going live, Viva.
	I cannot wait to see what comes out of today.
	This was from 208.
	Well, unfortunately, it's not what we thought was going to happen, or at least not to the extent.
	Where's the female attorney for the defense, Anna Cross?
	Yep, I haven't seen her today.
	We're here because of her.
	I don't think they want her back in the courtroom.
	Cooper, Cooper True says, oh no, not going anywhere.
	The commentary is almost as good as the trial.
	And we've got fried pie.
	Did you hear about Jeff DeSantis, the Dem operative, on Fannie's DA office, direct ties to DNC Biden?
	Yeah, I don't know what more direct ties we needed than Nathan Wade.
	Meeting with the White House.
	But, dude, I haven't heard about that.
	I screen grabbed it.
	I'll have a look later on.
	Trefenius says, "Just want you to know that I found you during the Canada Truckers drive in.
	In fact, I have thank you truckers on the back of my van." And I've got...
	I've got to figure out...
	Oh, does anybody know a software, like an app, that would allow you to do a real-time auction?
	Because I'm gonna auction.
	I've got two of these stands, and I'm gonna auction one of them for...
	I think I know the good cause that I'm going to auction it for, but what I was coming to get was this.
	I want to talk to the truckers.
	I want to show you things.
	Thank you.
	Uh-oh.
	How do I stop this?
	It's back.
	It's back.
	Sorry.
	You may proceed.
	Okay.
	Mr. Bradley, did you use any documents to prepare for your testimony today?
	No.
	No, I did not.
	Only the motion that I already had.
	Last time you spoke with Gabe Banks.
	The day that...
	I don't have the date, but it was the date of whenever the phone call happened.
	You know his wife, Kyra Banks, works for the DA's office, right?
	Tyra Banks?
	Yes, correct.
	When was the last time you spoke to Mr. Wade?
	Objection.
	I spoke to Mr. Wade personally in a year, two years actually, when I left the firm.
	Oh, wow.
	Why would he have said they were friends?
	I never...
	My interaction with Ms. Willis was never where I would pick up the phone and talk to her that she would...
	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...
	I knew of her from my, she was in a 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...
	Yeah, compound question.
	Cumulative, asked and answered throughout the...
	All right, Mr. Sherrod, I think we covered this ground on the...
	16th about the contracts.
	Are you going somewhere else with this?
	Did the audio change?
	I'm only hearing it in mono now.
	Okay, you may proceed.
	You got a contract from the office not knowing or having a good working business relationship with Ms. Willis.
	Good point.
	That's correct.
	Why'd you get it?
	Nathan Wade.
	That's good.
	I don't know how it came about, but it was presented to me.
	At the office about the contract, correct?
	That's a good point.
	Who presented it to you?
	Nathan Waid.
	Yes.
	Bam!
	And he owed you money, you said at one point.
	Say that again?
	He owed you money, you said, at one point.
	He owed you money at one point?
	I don't recall saying that he owes me money.
	Did he owe you money at some point?
	At one point.
	Yes.
	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 in the past?
	Yes.
	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?
	Yeah, the two years is 2024.
	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 2022, around June, August dates of 2022.
	Other than your...
	One last question.
	Other than your attorney, who did you speak with today about giving testimony?
	Nobody.
	In this case, today.
	I spoke to my attorneys Charles Graham and B.C. Chopra.
	I have nothing further, Your Honor.
	All right.
	He did say that he owed money.
	He paid back for the credit card.
	Did Mr. Cromwell ever join us by Zoom?
	Do you think he...
	Oh, no, he never had a relationship with...
	Okay.
	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.
	I have no questions.
	All right.
	Mr. Bradley, you can step down.
	Thank you, sir.
	Judge, you want these exhibits?
	Give them to the clerk.
	Well, all right.
	That lacked the explosiveness that we were hoping for.
	And just by way of proffer, what about the text?
	Just to admit, so when other people asked about the text, some of them were in the record today, so I organized them.
	They're the ones that have been talked about today.
	Yeah, did you get the one with the garage clicker?
	Okay.
	And do we need Mr. Bradley for that?
	I don't believe so.
	Have you marked them?
	Yes.
	Have you showed them to the state?
	I gave a copy to the state, but so these are...
	Mr. Bradley, just hang out just for one second, just to make sure.
	I'll give you all of them.
	Oh yeah.
	And while he's looking at that, Mr. Bradley handed me defense exhibit 23, 24, 25. I didn't realize that they were in my folder.
	Oh, is that from the hearing?
	From on Friday?
	All right, well, thanks for returning those.
	Let me make sure...
	Oh, all right, well...
	We've got 23, 24, 25. Anything else in your binder?
	All right, good.
	Okay, and have we come to any conclusions on-- I'm sorry, how did you mark it?
	I marked it as-- 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.
	The next messages that weren't referenced today are confronted.
	Okay.
	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 this whole 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 texts.
	They can admit all of them if they want them complete.
	All right.
	How about...
	I'll just do this.
	I understand the desire 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 are referenced in testimony.
	Page number them and then reference the numbers.
	But just so it's on the record, we have the complete.
	Text change, 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 change.
	So take a screen recording of the video and scroll through it.
	Okay.
	And then submit the video.
	Text messages I know that I saw that are not in what is reported to be states to the 39. Okay.
	All right.
	Ms. Merchant, what about that?
	I let them take screenshots of the ones that they thought weren't there, and he sent them to himself on my phone.
	I have also offered...
	Screen, record, scroll through it all, and submit the video.
	Yeah, Mr. Rice.
	This is so annoying and boring.
	The entire text chain is in a continuous conversation.
	Those particular parts, given the witness's testimony, should be admitted to some evidence of fire in the statements of this testimony today.
	It would be up to the government and the state if they then would introduce the rest of it.
	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.
	Yeah, this is boring procedural crap.
	This is what's insufferable about court.
	This is all just a question on how to file the text messages that were referenced.
	Oh yeah, I found a way out, man.
	And then everyone's got to be so artificially polite with each other.
	Get him out.
	Tell us what happens on Friday.
	What's the schedule?
	It's going to be closing arguments.
	Yes, that's right.
	You did good, Terence.
	You saved your ass.
	Better leave the state.
	Maybe leave the country.
	Okay, so, um, yeah, this is, um, so, no, no, we're basically done for the day now.
	I'll have some comments that I'll go, questions that I'll get to, but in as much as I can answer them.
	We're done for the day, and then the only question is, we're coming back March 1st, and the only question is, are there other witnesses, or is it going to be summation or closing arguments?
	No, but you can't really weasel around.
	Other than saying, I don't recall.
	I don't recall.
	I don't recall.
	You could answer that to everything.
	Oh, did you say this here?
	I don't recall.
	If it says it there, I said it, I guess, but I don't recall.
	Oh, yeah.
	But he did specifically say...
	Oh, he just gave everyone COVID.
	Oh, shoot.
	I can't believe this doctor, this judge is not wearing a face mask.
	That bastard.
	I do like the judge, and I think he's going to get it right.
	And that girl, by the way, if you see in the front there, she's now just dictating into a microphone everything that's being spoken so they can transcribe the hearing.
	So where are we with defense exhibit 39?
	Oh, it might be helpful if you looked at that thing, what we're talking about, but I can front a camera.
	Great, I know.
	So, exhibit 26, I put in so that it would make sense, so you could read it.
	You know when you're reading a text and it's a conversation?
	Sure.
	They're upset that they're not in order now, I guess.
	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?
	What is it?
	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 text.
	And they might as well just be in the record.
	And he authenticated all of them.
	All right.
	And Mr. Rice?
	Not just in the record, Judge.
	They should be admitted in substantive.
	Okay, good.
	It's easy enough.
	Oh, shut up with the authentication.
	one of them's already going to plead it.
	But otherwise, just having a omnibus here are all the relevant text messages exhibit.
	And page number them so you can reference them in arguments.
	Any kind of objection like that.
	Yes, because they didn't authenticate that all of the text messages were...
	Oh, bullcrap.
	Weasel.
	I think that's the problem.
	When you don't, for example, if the state was to provide, I guess, just a specific text chain from a cell phone extraction, 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.
	And then, 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.
	No, but, oh, well, that's bullcrap.
	She offered you all of it.
	I can 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 offered all of the information to you.
	...that she didn't confront the witness with would be my objection, but...
	The relevance can only be determined if we have the full chain.
	But she's determined which ones are relevant.
	So give it all.
	Give it all.
	And if you find something relevant, ask the...
	Yes.
	Yes.
	That's not what this question was.
	Did she offer it?
	That's not the containment of that entire package.
	Optional completeness.
	You'd like us to do it in a contract.
	That's just that chain.
	Miss 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.
	Someone said I'm behind.
	How far behind are we?
	I can read them.
	And while I'm reading them, Mr. Gillen, what did you have to add?
	3.1.
	Apparently, Miss Merchant has...
	Cat.
	Maybe I'm a minute behind at most.
	of what they now would be the larger perspective on.
	Oh, this is so painful.
	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 to the rule of completeness to the admissibility of the other emails that they had.
	So the real issue here is their failure to comply with the rule of completeness once they have the material from the last hearing that they could screenshot of.
	Well, isn't that what he's doing now?
	He's complaining about admissibility now.
	I don't think that he is.
	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, the witness had been asked about.
	And that's what she's trying to do.
	Let's see if I can get a better audio from the court.
	All right, Mr. Abadi, last point here.
	I had a very limited time with Ms. Merchant's cell phone.
	I only had time to literally find one part of the text message to then send to myself before Ms. Merchant demanded her phone back.
	So I did not have the opportunity to screenshot every...
	Oh, hold on a second.
	Guys, I'm going to do this.
	Hold on.
	I'm going to stop and switch it over here.
	Give me 30 seconds.
	Not even...
	Not here.
	I think it's this one.
	Incomplete.
	That's on them.
	This one's on Ms. Merchant.
	All right, Mr. Abadi.
	Last point here.
	I had a very limited time with Ms. Merchant's cell phone.
	I only had time to literally find one part of the text message to then send to myself before Ms. Merchant demanded her phone back.
	This is a load of crap.
	She offered all of it.
	This is so stupid.
	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.
	Take a screen video of it all.
	You 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.
	So they're inadmissible evidence.
	missed the opportunity.
	Oh, shut your Weasley mouth.
	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 with him.
	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.
	Not allow the evidence.
	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.
	Good.
	Okay, so I'll wait back to hear from you all on Exhibit 39. What happens Friday?
	What happens Friday?
	Is there anything else to take up before we discuss Friday?
	There you go, okay.
	I've got to tell you, that lawyer was trying to say...
	I see a nun.
	I believe I asked and put it out there among defense counsel to be considering how they would like to...
	To determine that, and I can email the court when we're done with that, but we are going to make it as efficient as possible and break it up.
	Break it up in terms of subject matter or something like that?
	Or who pleads it.
	Yeah.
	It's going to be all day Friday.
	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.
	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 interest of our respective clients.
	Hopefully we can.
	We can communicate with the court.
	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, 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 counter arguments 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 Okay, good.
	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. Satan.
	I'm alive and well with a quick question.
	That suggests that we do not have to have a witness present on Friday with a cell phone, correct?
	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 and 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.
	Okay.
	Ms. Murchin?
	I just wanted to know if the court wanted us to focus our arguments on anything in particular.
	Any questions you wanted us to try?
	You do what you think is necessary.
	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.
	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.
	Thank you, Honor.
	I know we have other motions to hear 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 the disqualification.
	Sure.
	I thought we had scheduled hearings on the murder.
	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.
	Some trials starting next week.
	In the next two weeks, we've got some of our homicide trials already scheduled, so I'm going to be following up with y 'all to schedule the rest of the pretrial motions that we have.
	He's going to draft his ruling.
	We have on Friday the 1 o 'clock on the issue of disqualification.
	That's right, all things disqualification.
	Anything from the state or any other defense counsel?
	I think from the state.
	All right, thank y 'all.
	All right, we're off the record.
	Okay, well, that was cool.
	Not as blockbuster as we thought, but Terence Bradley is just...
	He's not lying because equivocal statements can't really be deemed to be lies.
	They're just, I don't remember.
	I don't remember.
	I don't remember.
	What's going on here?
	Refresh.
	Did we lose the feed?
	Is it over?
	Brickhouse Nutrition.
	Hey, I know this thing!
	Okay.
	So that's it.
	Field of Greens got a little refresher reminder at the end.
	So that is it, people.
	That's the day.
	All right.
	Now, what did we learn?
	Let's close this up here so I don't have to worry about the sound coming up.
	There were some super chats and some rumble rants and some tips in our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community that we're going to get to.
	What did we learn?
	Bradley's a bad liar.
	Super sticker from CR.
	Thank you.
	Hey, I don't recall works for testifying before Congress, so why not here?
	His memory is so bad he could be president, says Mr. Buttons.
	Then we've got, dude, you are the Tony Romo of the courtroom, and he's making $20 million per year for his commentary.
	Tony Romo.
	Am I going to be an idiot for not knowing who that is?
	Football quarterback.
	Tony Romo commentary?
	Commentator?
	Well, then, yes, I am the Tony Romo of the courtroom, sir, and I'm going to screen grab that and refresh my memory to make sure that I demand more from the YouTubes and the Rumbles.
	I'm joking.
	Did he just say he took the court papers home?
	Is that allowed?
	That's just exhibits.
	The exhibits were already filed as far as I understood, but it's a printout of an email, so not a big deal at all.
	It's not like he's doctoring evidence or anything like that.
	Let me see here.
	Hey, Viva.
	Be cautious shilling gold.
	These companies are very scammy.
	Transferring the retirement account into gold is a major red flag.
	Thanks for everything.
	Well, thank you for the...
	I'm going to ask the question.
	Thank you for the super chat.
	Viva, isn't it possible that Trump team's lawyers have the phone records of Bradley already?
	Or will?
	Can they use his testimony to subpoena them for impeachment?
	They're asking those questions a lot.
	I notice that they're asking those questions a lot.
	And so, I don't know when would be the best...
	You presume they don't have the information right now, otherwise they would have contradicted him on the stand immediately.
	If they discover information that confirms that he was lying on the stand, a motion, what is it called?
	Order to show cause, motion for contempt.
	Ask him if he's seen them with Yerdy around.
	So they could, in theory, use that information or acquire that information later.
	And then what?
	I mean, perjury would be the number one.
	Contempt, maybe.
	This is from Robert.
	It says, disqualification isn't their fear here.
	It's the dismissal of the indictment and seeing how bad the corruption is in the Attorney General's offices.
	Yeah.
	And if they, you know, bring in a DA from another county and that DA comes in and says, okay, well, we're not dismissing the charges.
	We'll just disqualify Fannie and Nathan.
	You got to get another district attorney and corrupt prosecutor willing to take these charges.
	And so the whole reason is they might have only gone with Fannie and Nathan Wade because these are the only two nincompoops dumb enough to do this.
	Governor Barnes didn't want to take it up.
	Sure, it wasn't his hourly rate.
	He's got mouths to feed and he's, you know, 100 years old and wants to enjoy his retirement.
	Also probably doesn't want to destroy his reputation over a bullshit prosecution like this.
	So the judge has potentially seen that knows more.
	He must consider a Digimoto.
	Not sure what you mean by that, but subpoena Willis' guards and...
	Wade's ex-wife.
	Oh, that would be so good.
	All right, and that's it for there.
	Now, let's bring on the rumble.
	There were a couple of rumble rants over here.
	Oh, yeah, we got in the house.
	No, you let the witness testify and then impeach them later.
	Like when someone is being deposed, just let them talk and dig the hole deeper.
	You can't impeach them if they've been released from their subpoena.
	So you might be able, if they lied and you get damning evidence that he was on the phone with weight or whatever, you could go for contempt.
	But, you know, I may be wrong about this.
	You can't impeach them once they're no longer under oath.
	And you have a damn good reason to call them back.
	So maybe they can find...
	Something based on the answers.
	Me to the Jesus.
	Can we expect a motion tonight?
	Trying to think of what motion we would be able to get.
	Like, they find a new witness?
	I'll have to think about that.
	I mean, look, this is Friday is scheduled.
	They're going to be all-day arguments.
	We'll see how they divvy it up.
	Oh, that was from me to the G. Rockahorses, I seem to remember saying it was a bad idea for her to hand them her phone when it was the only copy.
	Just naive boomers.
	If she has not already screen-recorded scrolling through all of those texts, emailed it to her, and uploaded it to the interwebs unlisted as a video, she is, in fact, a boomer.
	Circus 2024.
	Only Fulton County can pitch this tent, says Silverfest.
	Ha!
	And then we've got PS34 is now a monthly supporter.
	Welcome to the channel, PS34.
	And now, when I say welcome to the channel, welcome to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, where everyone is above average.
	We've got S. Laird in the house over at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, who says, Viva, are you staying on YouTube all day?
	The chat is stalled here, so I'm getting off.
	Yeah, well, this was my second stream of the day in any event, but these lives, stay on both because it's the best way to drive the traffic to vivabarneslaw.locals.com and Rumble.
	By the way, did I mention that we were still on Rumble?
	Yeah, hold on a second.
	I just lost what I was getting at there.
	Where was I?
	Here we go.
	Okay, we got Charles Markham says they should look at the level of calling and texting after the relationship ended.
	Well, you can presume you know the answer to that.
	It's not going to reveal anything.
	What's great?
	They confirmed a massive amount of calling and texting before the contract when they said they didn't have a relationship.
	A romantic knock-in-boots one.
	Michigan Winter Days says, This has got to be Ashley Merchant's best year as a lawyer.
	Took a BS case and went on the offensive, which exploded in the prosecution's face.
	Exposed so much to everyone.
	She still hasn't accepted my invite on Twitter, which I find very insulting.
	I say.
	I say.
	What the what?
	Okay, so that was good.
	Yeah, no, she's proven herself to be audacious and skilled.
	So we got...
	Hold on, this has got to be...
	Okay, then we got MSM.
	Oh, MSM CPA says, will Trump attorney question him as well?
	Yes, we saw that.
	That was Sadow who did it.
	Did a good job.
	Cliff Norman.
	Says, Viva, what say you?
	Wade and Fannie are trying to stay our jail and disbarment.
	Stay out of jail and disbarment.
	Appearance of an unfair prosecution has probably been established.
	I think so.
	I think it's been established everywhere, even in New York.
	In my opinion, Bradley is probably being blackmailed with something awful.
	It's not even Mandelichi.
	It's right there.
	Sexual assault.
	Blackmail him with a criminal prosecution.
	We know that they would prosecute Trump for nothing.
	They've got definitely more in terms of sexual assault allegations against Nathan Bradley than they did of Rico against Trump and his attorneys and counterparts.
	So yeah, they've got something awful.
	I think it's sexual assault and they threaten criminal prosecution.
	You'll go to jail.
	Forget your 20 G's that we took out of your escrow.
	Also, read Breitbart's article about Jeff DeSantis.
	For Fannie's DA office, a thousand percent.
	You're not the only person who's been mentioning it.
	Jayash62 says, somebody missed a very important question.
	He made a point to specifically mention that when Wade and Willis met at the conference, he was, quote, married.
	Why would he specifically mention that if it was just an off-chance meeting?
	Now, I think he was just trying to say, like, lend credibility to the fact that it wasn't a sexual relationship at that time because he was still married.
	You know, unhappily so.
	All right, we've got Paracleric says, not till after the trial, Viva, says Paracleric.
	I think that might have to do with the criminal charges.
	Gypsy Muse.
	Okay, I am not really clear on what we accomplished over the last three hours except wasting taxpayer money.
	They were allowed to ask...
	Okay, so we didn't accomplish much because I don't think we got anything new out of today that we didn't get previously.
	The judge looked over the text messages between merchants, And Bradley, where he was invoking privilege as to questions about the text messages relating to when the relationship started.
	And the judge said, I've looked them over.
	There's nothing privileged in there.
	And so you get to ask those questions on that specific issue and nothing else, which gave Nathan Bradley.
	When did the judge order that?
	Totally brain farting here.
	Oh yeah, no, that was after, so that was a week.
	It'll be two weeks on Friday.
	And so the judge said, look, you can ask more questions on that.
	His knowledge as to when they established their fornication relationship.
	And he had a week and a half to prep.
	I don't recall.
	It was speculation when I gave you that definitive factual detail.
	Unsolicited.
	I was speculating.
	Had no basis for even knowing why I said it.
	I don't even know why I said it.
	I don't even know why I didn't say I don't know because I've been saying it so much today.
	So what we got out of it is he's a flipping liar.
	He's a flipping liar.
	What we got out of it today is his explanation for having offered a very matter-of-fact specific detail that was unsolicited.
	He now says he didn't have any personal knowledge of it.
	He has no idea why he offered that.
	What was the word he looked?
	He said speculation.
	No idea why he offered that speculation and that he had no personal knowledge of when they got into their relationship.
	That's it.
	So what we established today, he's a godforsaken liar and a joke.
	But maybe they won't go after him criminally.
	Although they still will, because what the hell was he texting with Merchant, knowing damn well what she was looking to do with that motion, which was quite clearly specified in the header.
	It's not on YouTube anymore, not since...
	Oh, I would never give YouTube a cent.
	It's not on YouTube or not since Google bought it.
	Not a typo.
	Go Ogle.
	Okay, so that's what we accomplished today at Gypsy Muse.
	It was a fun day.
	I thought they would have had actual text messages or emails between Bradley and Wade.
	And I'm curious as to why...
	I'll ask Barnes or maybe I'll ask Gouveia because they'll probably know better.
	But when they subpoena him, they say, come testify, bring with you certain documents.
	Subpoena Duchess Tecum.
	Why wouldn't they ask for correspondence between Wade and Bradley as relates to...
	Oh!
	Oh!
	That's it!
	I just had it!
	This is the motion that they're going to have.
	Call back Bradley.
	Issue a motion, a motion, a subpoena duches tecum, to bring with you documents.
	Now that we've established...
	Correspondence between Bradley and Wade as relates to the date of establishing the relationship are not privileged.
	Get some emails.
	Get some text messages.
	All of them.
	Bring with you any and all text messages, emails that relate to, pertain to, or confirm the date of the relationship between Fannie Wade and Nathan Wade.
	Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade.
	And I don't think he would get to so easily claim solicitor-client privilege because now that they said, well, it's not privilege communications as it relates to the date of the relationship.
	They might argue that was only between his text with Merchant and Bradley.
	But make the argument.
	We only want text messages that would confirm the date between Wade and Bradley.
	And I'm surprised they didn't ask for that in the first place.
	I don't want to know everything your lawyer-client privileges.
	I want...
	Late night booty call text messages.
	Oh yeah, I just got back from fanny's cell, so I'm so tired.
	I left at 4.45.
	I don't know if you heard, I got there at 12.35 and we made nookie all night long and then I left at 4.50.
	I'm so tired.
	So tired, Bradley.
	He's going to say we haven't spoken in the last two years since I left the firm.
	He left in 2022, so there could have been an overlap.
	That's what I would do.
	That would be my motion if anybody's watching this.
	We'll see if that happens.
	I won't hold my breath.
	Oh, so that's it.
	And that's it.
	We'll see what happens.
	I'm going to bring this up because this is funny.
	I got an ad for this.
	It was Obama.
	Our greatest president of all time, Joe Biden, needs your support from American shitbag.
	Then we got all good guy says, fuck Joe Biden.
	And then we got, our President Joe Biden needs your support, Biden 2024, from American Shitbag.
	I think that's a troll, guys.
	And then, no, okay, then we got that.
	Okay, this message was brought to you by Joe Biden.
	Joe Biden's...
	Hold on.
	We are totally doing something funny right now.
	Oh, I can't get the...
	You know what I can do, however?
	I can go all the way to here.
	See my beautiful face.
	There we go.
	And I'm going to screen grab this, you see?
	And I'm going to go post that and say I got a smashing endorsement from none other than Joe...
	I can scroll back out.
	Here we go.
	Look at this.
	This is looking good.
	Now we've got it.
	Like this.
	Rants.
	Screen grab.
	Viva Frye.
	Bada bing.
	Bada boom.
	Up.
	Let's go down here.
	Bada bing.
	Bada boom.
	There we go.
	Got a smashing endorsement from the best president ever.
	Who could ever remember that he was never president?
	All right, people.
	So that's what happens.
	What day is this day?
	It's Tuesday, Wednesday.
	I seem to recall I have scheduled things this week.
	I've scheduled a podcast for Thursday evening, and then I'm scheduled to be on with Dr. Drew Thursday evening and Kayla Pollack talking about her situation, her lawsuit against Moderna.
	I have to make sure I don't forget things.
	And that's it.
	Go back to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Viva, what about the cell phone data?
	SLaird456.
	So what's going to...
	That is now an exhibit.
	Did they not have to have the expert testify?
	Are they going to have a response to that?
	SLaird, it's a good question.
	What happens now procedurally with that?
	You had...
	You had them file that as a supplemental exhibit, and presumably, in order to admit it as evidence, you're going to have the expert testify, and then presumably they're going to have to find a way to contradict.
	I'm not going to answer that question right now because I don't know the answer definitively.
	Life is hard.
	It's harder if you're stupid.
	Paracleric meme.
	FBI used it in Washington.
	Doug LaAffan.
	Okay, then we got...
	Patty F. Weber says, I thought the fraternity brothers, twin brothers of a different mother, would have a wink-wink elbow move type of text about booty calls with Fonny in 2019.
	Probably.
	Oh, yeah.
	Okay, and we got, somebody missed a very important question.
	Okay, no, I got that, Jay Ash.
	So that is, that's all that we have for the day, people.
	I think it was a very fruitful day.
	It's 4.40.
	Might still have time to go fishing, people.
	Catch a fish.
	Or get some sunlight, because I've been sitting on my butt.
	When did I start sitting on my butt?
	At about 12.15.
	Yeah, I'll go stretch out my legs.
	Everybody, stay tuned.
	All good stuff coming.
	Let me go to the chat in vivabarneslaw.locals.com, see if I don't miss anything.
	No question.
	Thank you, says Maria36.
	It is not expert testimony.
	The judge said to give him a proffer and he'll decide to accept it or not.
	Thank you.
	Okay, well, that is the answer.
	Yeah, but I'm curious to know how they're going to undermine that.
	Yeah, okay, so they're going to proffer it and the judge will believe...
	Okay, thank you.
	And then we've got Tupac Amaru says...
	They are going to proffer, and if the judge believes that information will move his opinion, he will reopen it.
	Okay, fantastic.
	Viva, is anyone covering the 29th Amos trial?
	Well, it's not going to be...
	This is from Gypsy Muse.
	From what I understand from Barnes, it's not going to be broadcast.
	The question is going to be whether or not there's going to be a live-tweeting lawyer there.
	It's in Pennsylvania.
	See who we know in the area.
	We'll see.
	One thing's for certain, Barnes is going to be there and maybe we can do a follow-up immediately after.
	Patty F. Weber says, Thank you, Viva.
	Sitting on the fan, he says, Dougal, Dougal, Dougal, a fan.
	I get that one.
	Isn't geofencing admissible since cell phone location data tower pings are available without a warrant?
	Apparently it is.
	And then if necessary, expert witness can testify when reopened.
	Okay, good.
	Everybody?
	It's been wonderful.
	I'm gonna go stretch the legs and actually maybe try to cast a...
	Do I try to, like, fill the next four minutes so that we can end on three hours on the nose?
	The answer to that is gonna be no, because I gotta go snip and clip some highlights from this now, and then get ready to do my evening summary.
	For the people who don't have three hours to sit on their fannies and watch what was...
	Mildly uneventful, but nonetheless fantastic.
	So we're going to end it.
	Thank you all for being here.
	Rumble.
	Viva Fry on Rumble.
	Thank you all.
	I can leave the chat open a little bit on Rumble.
	That's what I'll do.
	I'll leave the live chat going on Rumble because there's still 12,000 people in there.
	Cecilia14 says, fish for my dad, Viva.
	He loved to fish.
	Cecilia?
	Did you guys see the, I'm going to do that.
	I will take that as an order and not a recommendation.
	Did I post a picture of the fish that I caught earlier today?
	Here it is.
	This is the fish that I caught yesterday.
	I bought a new fishing rod.
	A rod, not a reel.
	Now, I'm not going to pretend that I'm not a little superficial.
	I was kind of, I love the fact that the rod had an American flag on it.
	I love the fact that it said, in God we trust on it.
	And I love the fact that it was made in America, and I believe it was Missouri.
	And I caught a fish, a beautiful fish, off the second cast.
	So Cecilia, I'm going to go abide by your command right now.
	And I'll end this.
	Thank you all for being here, and I'll see you tomorrow.
	The fish wasn't that big.
	And no, that's not a fly rod.
	It's just a bait casting rod, because someone rightly pointed out that I was fishing with a...
	No, sorry, that's a lure casting rod, and I was fishing with a bait rod on a spinner, which doesn't make for nice, smooth casts.
	So I went out and got a lure casting rod for my spinner rod, and it casts very smooth, and it's beautiful.
	So all that to say, I'll leave the chat open on Rumble Viva Fry.
	I'll leave the chat open for a bit on vivabarneslaw.locals.com, and I'll try to pop in there when I go fishing.
	And I'm going to end it on StreamYard.
	So that I can now save the file, snip clip, and I will provide an evening nightly summary tonight.
	Sure as sugar, people.
	Get out and go enjoy whatever's left of the day.
	And thank you all for being here.
	Peace out, people.

▲