Return to Transcripts main page
CNN News Central
Emergency Hearing Begins In Georgia Election Interference Case Against Trump; Star Witness Expected To Testify in Effort To Disqualify Fulton County D.A. Aired 2-2:30p ET
Aired February 27, 2024 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:00:10]
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Hi there, I'm Brianna Keiler alongside Boris Sanchez here in Washington. And in minutes, an emergency hearing is going to begin that could disrupt, might even upend, the Georgia election interference case against former President Trump and more than a dozen other co-defendants. A star witness for them is expected to take the stand in the attempt to disqualify Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis and remove her from the case. Terrence Bradley is the former divorce attorney for Nathan Wade, a prosecutor who had a romantic relationship with Willis.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: And that involvement is the basis for defense attorney's efforts to remove Willis and Wade from the case. The defense says that Bradley could show the court that prosecutors have not been honest about their romance, and specifically when it started. As we wait for the hearing to begin, CNN's Nick Valencia and Zach Cohen are here to fill in the details. Nick, you are outside the courthouse. What can you tell us about what we expecting to see during this hearing?
NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, hey there, Boris and Brianna. This is all going to focus and center around what Terrence Bradley knows about the romantic relationship between Fani Willis and Nathan Wade. The judge wants to know everything that Terrence Bradley knows about when this relationship started and any other details that he can provide. And you remember Ashley Merchant, she's the defense attorney that says that Bradley can prove that Fani Willis and Nathan Wade weren't being fully truthful about when their relationship began.
So what's going to happen? What's really interesting about this all is that this allegation started as a claim that Fani Willis may have financially benefited from hiring Nathan Wade as the lead prosecutor in this case, but it's now morphed into whether or not Fani Willis and Nathan Wade were telling the truth on the stand when they testified just a couple of weeks ago. Guys.
SANCHEZ: Zach Cohen, let's go to you now. Let's take a few steps back, Zach. Walk us through what we learned that led up to this hearing.
ZACHARY COHEN, CNN NATIONAL SECUIRTY REPORTER: Yeah, Boris and Brianna, you'll remember that up until about a month ago, we were all talking about Donald Trump and when he might have to stand trial in Georgia as part of this election subversion case. But that changed in January when one of his co-defendants, Mike Roman, a former campaign official, filed this motion first surfacing these allegations that Fani Willis and Nathan Wade, our top prosecutor, were engaged in this alleged improper romantic relationship.
And look, the judge since then has laid out the threshold for disqualification. He has said that defense attorneys have to prove that Willis benefited financially from that relationship. But he also laid out two other questions that he sought to answer through what we now have three days of hearings. One was, was the relationship romantic? And two, when did that relationship start? Willis and Wade have both acknowledged that, yes, the relationship was romantic, but we were still kind of trying to work through the answer to that second question. When did it start? That is the focus still to this day of the hearing that we're going to hear Nathan Wade testify in.
We've already heard Fani Willis, though, take the stand. Remember earlier this month she gave an unprompted and unpredicted testimony. Take a listen to what she said when she took the stand earlier this month.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FANI WILLIS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF FULTON COUNTY: You've been intrusive into people's personal lives. You're confused. You think I'm on trial. These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020. I'm not on trial no matter how hard you try to put me on trial.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COHEN: So the conversation has clearly shifted from Trump to Willis. And again, we're entering now our third day of evidentiary hearings over this issue of whether or not Fonny Willis will be removed from the case or whether the case could continue on as it was before the allegations first surfaced.
KEILAR: All right, Zach, and here we are. Court has reconvened here. We see Judge Scott McAfee there on the bench. I want to bring in Laura Coates to talk a little bit about what we're seeing and what we're expecting here today.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Well, this is a really striking moment. Remember, we've already seen this person on the stand before, but he had to leave the stand because he's the attorney for Nathan Wade, the lead prosecutor in this case. He's the attorney for the former attorney in the election subversion case, but he's the divorce attorney for him. The question before the court really is, has every form of communication, every conversation, every personal observation, is that all going to be under the attorney-client privilege?
The answer more broadly is generally no. Just because you're an attorney and you speak to someone, it doesn't mean it's always privilege. It has to be communication in furtherance of getting legal advice. So remember before, the judge was skeptical about any argument that suggested that anything they'd ever talked about in the history of their interaction was going to be subject to the actual attorney- client privilege. Now remember, the attorney-client privilege does not belong to Terrance Bradley. It belongs to Nathan Wade as the client. They've had now what's called an in-camera moment with the judge, which essentially is a fancy way of saying, you and I are going to talk one- on-one, and I'm going to figure out whether what you have to say is actually privileged or not. And if it's not, you better get on the stand. Well, he's on the stand today for this very reason. The question will be, what will he say? I suspect it's going to be about when it started, what he knows, and whether it goes towards the actual burden of whether it actually raises to a level of conflict that makes it impossible for the defendants to get a fair trial.
[14:05:19]
SANCHEZ: A big question in this case, obviously, and the implications for the former president are huge. We're listening in right now to the conversation between Judge McAfee and the lawyers in the room. And right now, at this point, it's been largely procedural. We are expecting Terrence Bradley to appear via Zoom shortly. We also have with us Paula Reid and Gloria Borger. Paula, there is a specific piece of evidence that the defense is going to try to introduce here, and it has to do with cell phone pings related to Nathan Wade and the proximity that he was in to D.A. Willis before their relationship reportedly started.
PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: That's exactly right. The so-called heat map that shows that they were in the same location for a certain period of time. Now, this kind of data is not conclusive to some of the key issues in this case, which is, did they have a relationship? They've acknowledged that publicly, but at what time did that begin? And they're trying to insinuate that because there was so much contact, because there was so much proximity, that that must suggest that perhaps this relationship began sooner than what they've said.
So, if they have data, again, it's not conclusive. I mean, it certainly raises questions. The Trump team released it to much fanfare in recent days. But, yeah, it's not conclusive. But they're going to bring it up, and we'll see what the judge does with it.
COATES: The point is to make it as messy as possible, right?
KEILAR: Yeah, let's take a moment and listen in here, because they're going over this issue of privileges, says the judge, Scott McAfee.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUDGE SCOTT MCAFEE, FULTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT: In my mind, it's that topic only. I think if there's anything else we've already covered, I'm not here to do it again. So, with that, is there anything else we need to cover before kicking that off?
ASHLEIGH MERCHANT, ATTORNEY: Just, Mr. Wade, he's still a potential witness. So, he's still, excuse me, we'll continue.
MCAFEE: Mr. (inaudible). UNKNOWN: I believe Mr. Wade was released from the subpoena when we
concluded his testimony the last year. So, unless he's been re- subpoenaed, and I have no knowledge of that. He has every right to be present.
MCAFEE: Sure. I think, procedurally, that would be accurate. And so, at this point, I don't see a means where he would need to be recalled. And, but if it is, then that is something you can take up. All right. Mr. Bradley threw his attorney to inform 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 hallway?
MERCHANT (?): I see the attorney.
MCAFEE: Okay. All right. If we could call for Mr. Bradley.
UNKNOWN: Judge, would it be permissible to sit in the jury's office?
MCAFEE: That's fine.
UNKNOWN: Thank you.
MCAFEE: All right, Mr. Bradley. Deputy Scott will swear you in again.
(inaudible)
TERRENCE BRADLEY, SPECIAL PROSECUTOR NATHAN WADE'S FORMER LAW PARTNER: I do. Terrence Bradley, T-E-R-R-E-N-C-E Bradley, B-R-E-D-L-E-Y.
MCAFEE: All right, Ms. Merchant.
MERCHANT: Thank you, Judge. Good afternoon, Mr. Bradley.
BRADLEY: Good afternoon.
MERCHANT: I'm 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?
BRADLEY: Correct.
MERCHANT: And it began at the time that they were both municipal court judges, correct?
UNKNOWN: Objection, Your Honor, based on privilege.
MCAFEE: Okay, overruled.
BRALEY: I do not have knowledge of its starting or when it started.
MERCHANT: Terrence, you told me that it started when they were both municipal court judges, though, correct?
BRADLEY: That is incorrect.
MERCHANT: You never confirmed in writing that it was instead of magistrate court, it was in municipal court when they started dating?
BRADLEY: 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. But you and I did not have a conversation when it started. You asked a compound question of magistrate court versus, I mean, you said it was magistrate court, municipal, I mean, you said magistrate court conference, I'm sorry. And then you asked another question. I said no, municipal court, nothing else.
MERCHANT: I'm referring to a different conversation. I asked you, do you think it started? No. Before she hired him.
[14:10:09]
UNKNOWN: And I'm gonna object, this was covered in the previous hearing where Mr. Bradley said he had no personal knowledge of the exact text that Ms. Merchant is speaking of and actually used in an attempt to refresh his recollection. And he explained exactly what he's explaining before the court. So, this is repetitive and unnecessary. And I would object to past answered and relevance at the same time.
MCAFEE: All right, perhaps we'll get there. But I think first, Ms. Merchant has the right to draw his attention to the exact, potentially inconsistent statement.
MERCHANT: Thank you, Judge. May I approach him?
MCAFEE: It's overruled.
MERCHANT: This is the text I gave you.
MCAFEE (?): And for purposes of the record, I believe Ms. Merchant, you tendered, was it the entire text chain as an exhibit?
MERCHANT: I only tendered a few of the texts, but I did give the state their copy, their copy. They're courtesy copies last time of the exhibit.
MCAFEE: Was this one tendered?
MERCHANT: This one was not tendered.
MCAFEE: All right.
MERCHANT: And I'm happy to tender it.
MCAFEE: We'll just take it as it comes, whatever you
MERCHANT: 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 Judge?
MCAFEE: You may.
MERCHANT: All right. So, Terrence, do you remember telling me that it started when she left the DA's office and was a judge in South Holton? BRADLEY: I see the message. There, but I don't recall. I do see that message, but I do not recall.
MERCHANT: You don't recall texting this?
BRADLEY: 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.
MERCHANT: And when I asked you if you thought it started before she hired him and you responded, absolutely.
UNKNOWN: Your Honor, I'm going to object as to the source of the information that Mr. Bradley allegedly gathered this from. There's been absolutely no foundation based on the arguments of the last hearing that a lot of this is based on gossip, innuendo, assumption and privileged information. And at this point, Ms. Merchant has not provided a foundation as to how Mr. Bradley would have any information that she keeps referring to.
MCAFEE: All right, I think that's, -- go ahead, Ms. Merchant.
MERCHANT: I didn't ask him about the source of the information and under Rule 621, I can impeach him with any inconsistent facts. This is an inconsistent fact. I can impeach him with any contrary facts.
MCAFEE: Why would it be a relevant impeachment if he actually has no personal knowledge of this?
MERCHANT: If he doesn't.
MCAFEE: Sure, so I think you have to lay that foundation then, so that'll be sustained.
MERCHANT: Okay. Do you remember telling me that it began?
MCAFEE: Well, that doesn't address the issue.
MERCHANT: No, I was just asking if you remember telling me as opposed to the text.
MCAFEE: Sure.
MERCHANT: Do you remember telling me that it began?
MCAFEE: Well, no, and then you're going into the substance of it, which we haven't determined whether he actually knows or how he knows.
MERCHANT: You told me, in fact, you corrected me when I said Magistrate Court. You corrected me and said it was Municipal Court. Do you remember that?
UNKNOWN: Same objection, Your Honor.
MCAFEE: This is the exact same issue, right?
MERCHANT: Well, I'm asking if he remembers that. He hasn't answered that question yet.
MCAFEE: 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. I guess not. Sorry.
MERCHANT: I'm sorry. I'm just asking if he told me that, 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.
MCAFEE: Right. Sure.
MERCHANT: That's it.
UNKNOWN: But that's the point. It's how he knows it. The source of his knowledge is hearsay because it's gossip and innuendo, which is what was indicated at the last hearing.
MCAFEE: 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.
MERCHANT: Yes. And if the source of the information is a witness who found it, then we can't tell him anything. So when did the relationship start?
BRADLEY: I cannot answer that.
MERCHANT: When was your first knowledge of the relationship?
UNKNOWN: Your Honor. He's already answered that question multiple times today. He said he had no idea the timeline or when it occurred. That was one of the first questions that this person asked.
MERCHANT: 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.
MCAFEE: Okay. So, the question is, when did you first get knowledge? I think -- okay, we can start there.
MERCHANT: That was the question.
MCAFEE: All right.
MERCHANT: Thank you. When did you first get knowledge of their relationship.
[14:15:09]
BRADLEY: I've said over again 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, I don't know when the relationship started.
MERCHANT: And that wasn't my question. So, my question is when did you first gain knowledge? I didn't ask the source of the knowledge, didn't ask you to comment on the validity of the knowledge. I asked when you first had knowledge.
MCAFEE: We'll get to the how my Albani (ph), so I'll note the objection overrule it, you can answer that just for the record.
UNKNOWN: Just for the record, I appreciate your Honor, but he said he has no personal knowledge so it's clear he had to gain the knowledge not from hearsay.
MERCHANT: He could have gained it from his weight.
MCAFEE: Well, I mean, most of us learn things from hearsay, the question of whether it's admissible right and that's what we got to get to.
BRADLEY: I apologize.
MERCHANT: Right, when did you first get knowledge? I'm not qualifying what type of knowledge, I'm just asking when you first knew about the relationship.
BRADLEY: I don't know how to answer that. I mean, so 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, it would have come directly from a client.
MERCHANT: Right.
BRADLEY: So, help me understand.
MCAFEE: I think you say you can't answer that question. You don't know the date, so that's the answer to the question.
BRADLEY: But I said that five minutes ago.
MCAFEE: We have to make it clear. Yes, sir, next question is Merchant.
MERCHANT: But you don't know the specific date.
BRADLEY: No.
MERCHANT: Do you know if it can we narrow down the timeline? Was it, -- did you gain knowledge in 2019 of this relationship beginning?
UNKNOWN: I'm going to object to this line of questioning as he said he does not know when he gained.
MCAFEE: All right.
MERCHANT: He doesn't know the specific date.
MCAFEE: Sorry Ms Merchant. I'm overruling that. I think we can try to see if he can narrow it down based on goal posts.
MERCHANT: Thank you. Bradley: Nineteen, I would probably say no. I mean, I don't have
anything that I'm, -- 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.
MERCHANT: Let's try this then. So you received a contract from Miss Willis, um, January 2021, correct? BRADLEY: Can I see the, -- yes, yes, I think so.
MERCHANT: Okay.
BRADLEY: -- I think, I think -- it was from the exhibits, I think it was '21. Yes.
MERCHANT: And I don't want to belabor the point. When you were here before
(CROSSTALK)
BRADLEY: Yes.
MERCHANT: -- if those documents that you looked at last time
BRADLEY: Yes.
MERCHANT: January 2022, that's okay,
BRADLEY: Twenty-one.
MERCHANT: I'm sorry, '21. You're right.
BRADLEY: And it was, I think, renewed in '22.
MERCHANT: It was. Yes. So, the contract date was that we have in the record is January 25th, 2022. So using that date, at that point, had they begun their romantic relationship?
BRADLEY: Of 2022?
MERCHANT: January 25th, 2022, 2021. I'm sorry, when you got your first contract.
BRADLEY: I don't recall. I don't recall any specific dates.
MERCHANT: You remember when you got that contract though, correct?
BRADLEY: I remember about the contract, yes.
MERCHANT: 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.
BRADLEY: That is correct.
MERCHANT: So Miss Willis is not the one that brought that contract to you directly, it was Mr. Wade?
BRADLEY: That is correct.
MERCHANT: At that point in time, they were already engaged in a relationship though.
UNKNOWN: I'm going to object, --
(CROSSTALK)
BRADLEY: I can't say that
UNKNOWN: -- the authorization of what Mr. Bradley just said. He just said he does not remember, there's nothing specific, --
(CROSSTALK)
MCAFEE: he doesn't remember the exact date. I think the question now is to reference it or tie it to maybe some other event that he might remember.
UNKNOWN: 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.
MCAFEE: Sure.
UNKNOWN: This is asked and answered.
MCAFEE: I know and we're getting to the end of it. So, Miss Merchant, you don't have much more to pull on here, but he answered that last question, so what's your next one?
MERCHANT: And Judge, I didn't hear the answer if they were in a relationship January 25th, 2021.
MCAFEE: Do you recall the question?
BRADLEY: I recall the question and I can't tell you actually whether or not they were in a relationship at the time. You asked me about him bringing me a contract. I said he did bring me a contract and that is accurate.
MERCHANT: Do you remember prior to -- do you remember knowing Miss Willis prior to her taking office as the D.A?
[14:20:09]
BRADLEY:
BRADLEY: I had very little contact with Miss Willis. Um, I knew her, um, through my business of coming down to Fulton. If that's what you're asking, yes.
MERCHANT: Yyou knew her through the business, um. So, had you had met her prior to your contract? UNKNOWN: I'm gonna object to relevance at this point as to why we're here today.
MCAFEE: Sure.
MERCHANT: Judge, he doesn't remember much of anything right now, and so I'm trying to create a timeline to hopefully piece this together.
MCAFEE: All right, well, 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.
MERCHANT: Okay, thank you. So the time that you had this contract from January 2021 until January 2022, did you come in and out of the D.A.'s office?
BRADLEY: Yes.
MERCHANT: Okay, and so were you able to witness Mr. Wade and Miss Willis interact during that time?
UNKNOWN: 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 he rarely saw them together. But this was
(CROSSTALK)
MCAFEE: I think, the only avenue that was closed at the last hearing was his personal knowledge, potentially through -- well, actually no, if he testified is 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 correct me if I'm wrong.
(CROSSTALK)
MERCHANT: Knowledge that was conveyed to him
(CROSSTALK)
MCAFEE: -- by somebody else that he claimed at the time was privileged. I found that it's not; that's what we're here to explore.
MERCHANT: Okay, do you remember telling me that not many people knew where they met?
UNKNOWN: I'm going to object to relevance as to his personal knowledge, which is what 602 requires.
MCAFEE: Yeah, we're back to the same point, Miss Merchant.
MERCHANT: His personal knowledge is what I'm asking him, what he told me. But he hasn't yet told you how he knows that, and so if unless he -- you can establish why he should be testifying on this at all, then there's relevance.
MERCHANT: And I don't know what how he knows that
(CROSSTALK)
MCAFEE: Well then ask him.
MERCHANT: That would be the next question.
(CROSSTALK)
MCAFEE: Then ask him how he knows it.
MERCHANT: I first have to establish that he said that.
MCAFEE: No, you don't, you could go the other way around.
MERCHANT: When you told me that it started when you left, when she left the office and was a judge in South Fulton, where did you gain that knowledge from?
UNKNOWN: Oh, I'm gonna object because his testimony a few minutes ago is that he did not recall making that statement.
MCAFEE: All right, I'll overrule that, Mr. Bradley, answer the question if you can.
BRADLEY: Repeat the question.
MERCHANT: When you told me that their relationship started when she left the D.A.'s office and was a judge in South Fulton, where did you obtain that knowledge from?
BRADLEY: I was speculating. I didn't have a -- no one told me, I was speculating.
MERCHANT: No one told you that?
BRADLEY: No one told me that.
MERCHANT: You were speculating based on things that had been told to you or things you had observed?
UNKNOWN: So, I'm going to object as to the nature of this line of questioning because the witness has made it clear he was speculating as to how or what he knew, and if it's speculation, it's inadmissible before the court.
MCAFEE: All right, but the motivations for his reason for speculating would be admissible, so I'll overrule that.
MERCHANT: Thank you Judge. Was this speculation when you told me that? Was that based on things that had been told to you and things that you have witnessed.
BRADLEY: I never witnessed anything, so, you know, it was speculation. I can't tell you anything specific if that's what you're asking.
MERCHANT: You can't tell me any specific as to why you speculated that.
BRADLEY: This was, however many years ago, I mean, I don't recall, but no, I don't.
MERCHANT: Did you have any reason to lie to me?
BRADLEY: I don't know if speculation is lying.
MERCHANT: But let me just -- show me where in this text says your speculation.
BRADLEY: You didn't ask me if I was speculating or guessing.
MERCHANT: I didn't ask you, but tell me if it says anywhere here --
BRADLEY: No
(CROSSTALK)
MERCHANT: -- that this is speculation.
BRADLEY: If this is the same one that you just showed me, it does not.
[14:25:19]
MERCHANT: And you're welcome if you need to, to look at your texts. Is there anywhere in here that indicates that you didn't have knowledge of the relationship?
UNKNOWN: I'm going to object. The line of questioning your honor directed counsel to explore is where he got the knowledge. He's explored that. He said it's speculation and he didn't get it from any source other than his own speculation.
MCAFEE: Sure. I think we're fleshing that out. And I think it's her right to have a little leeway on this if he's an adverse witness.
MERCHANT: Thank you, Judge. And Judge, these speaking objections are clearly coaching witness because he's regurgitating.
UNKNOWN: I object and take offense to that comment. I'm objecting based on the law and I'm making a record for the court. So, I take offense to that comment. It's not the case.
MCAFEE: All right. Well, I think we can start with objection, the grounds and the rule number. And then if I need more, I'll ask.
MERCHANT: Thank you.
MCAFEE: All right.
MERCHANT: Thank you. What did Nathan tell you about the relationship?
UNKNOWN: Objection. Hearsay.
MERCHANT: Nathan has testified. It's not hearsay.
UNKNOWN: It's still hearsay. It's an out of court statement being brought in for the truth of the matter asserted. So, hearsay.
MERCHANT: Judge.
MCAFEE: 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.
MERCHANT: Thank you, Judge.
UNKNOWN: Well, I think he just overruled the privilege objection. But we don't know when he's talking about. So, we've already established that December 2018 was the day of the privilege. Sure.
MCAFEE: 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 privilege.
MERCHANT: 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 in the court. So, I just want the record to reflect that because it wouldn't otherwise.
MCAFEE: It's there now.
MERCHANT: Thank you.
MCAFEE: A question was put to you, Mr. Bradley.
BRADLEY: Judge, one of my lawyers is standing, is sitting right in the back, A and
(CROSSTALK)
MCAFEE: (inaudible) You can look wherever you want.
BRADLEY: And I'd never looked at Mr. Wade or his attorneys. That's just not true (ph).
MCAFEE: All right. Mr. Bradley, question was put to you.
BRADLEY: Repeat the question, please.
MERCHANT: Yes. So I showed you. Or I asked you, I'm sorry. The question, the last question I asked you was, what did Nathan Wade tell you about the relationship?
UNKNOWN: Same objection, Your Honor.
MCAFEE: And that's already been ruled upon. BRADLEY: 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. Our offices were the only two in the back. There was no one else present. That is all I can tell you at this time.
MERCHANT: One time?
BRADLEY: One time.
MERCHANT: You only had a conversation with him one time about the relationship?
UNKNOWN: Objection. Asked and answered.
MCAFEE: No, I think that's a clarify for a thorough and sifting cross. Ms. Merchant.
BRADLEY: I do not recall any other time that he mentioned that they were in a relationship. No.
MERCHANT: So other than, -- so you talked about this one time and you said you don't know when it was though, correct?
BRADLEY: That is correct.
MERCHANT: Was it before Mr. Wade, before you got the contract in Fulton County? Let's start with that.
BRADLEY: I do not recall.
MERCHANT: Okay. And how did it come up?
BRADLEY: Say again?
MERCHANT: How did it come up?
BRADLEY: I do not recall how it came up. It was in the back. I know it was, I know where it occurred. In our offices in the back. I can't tell you what we were discussing prior to that.
MERCHANT: Okay. Did you receive an email from me on January 6th with a motion attached?
BRADLEY: I think I did. Yes. Yes. I know -- I received -- I don't know if the date is January 6th. Yes, I received it. Yes.
MERCHANT: So, you remember receiving that?
BRADLEY: Yes.
MERCHANT: -- Aand you reviewed it and then you, you and I spoke about it. You recall that?
BRADLEY: Did we speak over the phone or are you saying through a text?
MERCHANT: That's what I'm asking you.
BRADLEY: I can't remember whether it was text to phone or text to Phone.
