Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Key Witness Testifies Amid Effort To Boot Trump Prosecutor Fani Willis. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired February 27, 2024 - 15:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[15:30:00]

STEVE SADOW, DONALD TRUMP'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Defense Exhibit 27. Do you have that now, sir?

TERRENCE BRADLEY, NATHAN WADE'S FORMER LAW PARTNER AND DIVORCE ATTORNEY: I do, sir.

SADOW: All right. Would you look at it and tell me whether or not the Defense Exhibit 27 appears to be accurate, because I want to see to introduce it into evidence.

It consists of an email to you from Ms. Merchant and the text response from you, correct?

BRADLEY: 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.

SADOW: All I've asked you right now is, is the email and the text, are those accurate in the interaction that makes up Defense Exhibit 27?

BRADLEY: As it applies to the stapling of the email and the stapling of a text message chain, yes, that is Defense Exhibit 27. This is accurate.

SADOW: OK. I would move Defense Exhibit 27 in. I believe it was treated the same here as 26 last time.

SCOTT MCAFEE, JUDGE, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA SUPERIOR COURT: Same objections, Mr. Abadi (ph)?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, Judge.

MCAFEE: All right, overruled. Any other objections from Defense Counsel? Seeing none, Defense Exhibit 27 is admitted.

All right. Anything else?

SADOW: Your Honor, I don't know. Yes, I don't know whether you'll find this objection, but we're not all asking it, obviously.

MCAFEE: All right.

SADOW: Mr. Bradley, you realize that if you were to testify under oath that you knew from Mr. Wade that the relationship between him and Ms. Willis existed before the contract in November 1st of 2021, that if you testified that you knew that from Mr. Wade, that would show that both Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade had lied under oath. You know that, don't you?

MCAFEE: I'm going to -- I think that's going to call for an opinion on the credibility of another testifying witness, so I don't think that would be an appropriate question.

SADOW: Then that's all I have, Your Honor.

MCAFEE: Thank you, Mr. Sadow. Mr. Stockton.

ALLYN STOCKTON, ATTORNEY FOR RUDY GIULIANI: Just briefly, Judge.

MCAFEE: We'll see.

STOCKTON: Mr. Bradley, do I understand from your prior testimony that Ms. Merchant sent you a motion to review prior to her filing it?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection. It calls for cumulative answers.

MCAFEE: All right, I'm going to give them just a little bit. All right. Mr. Stockton, maybe this is going somewhere else.

STOCKTON: Did, did Mrs. Merchant send you a motion prior to January 8th of 2024 for you to review?

BRADLEY: That is correct.

STOCKTON: And did you in fact review that motion?

BRADLEY: That is correct. And did you indicate to Ms. Merchant that the contents of that motion seemed OK to you?

BRADLEY: 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, when I -- 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, you're -- what you all are trying to merge together is the fact that I was asked about the contract and that -- and that contract was a $74,000 and me being added back to that.

So when I said, and I think before that in that text, it referred to me being added back and at that time I said, yes, it looks good.

STOCKTON: And 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?

MCAFEE: We are covering, I think the last five or six questions we've covered ground. Let's get to that.

STOCKTON: I'm trying to get there, I promise you. MCAFEE: OK.

BRADLEY: Repeat the question. I'm sorry.

STOCKTON: She asked you not to disclose that motion to anybody until she filed it, correct?

BRADLEY: I think so. I think that was in the text messages.

STOCKTON: And you knew, in fact, it was her intention to file that motion, correct?

[15:35:00]

BRADLEY: The actual motion that she, that was sent?

STOCKTON: Yes.

BRADLEY: I knew that she was going to file a motion. Yes. I do not think that that was the final draft or it could have been that she was working on it. But yes, I knew that she was going to file some motion. Yes.

STOCKTON: And you knew that she presented that motion to you for your review, so that she could make sure it was accurate, correct?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm going to object. All this is asked and answered.

MCAFEE: All right. Noted. I think Mr. Stockton's getting to the next point, so why don't we just ask that one?

STOCKTON: Is that correct?

MCAFEE: I'm not sure we combined that with the next question, so we're not having to lay bit by bit every single time.

STOCKTON: Mr. Bradley, you knew that Mrs. Merchant was relying on your review to ensure the accuracy of that motion prior to filing it, correct?

BRADLEY: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Speculation as to what he knew that Mrs. Merchant knew, that he knew.

MCAFEE: I'd overrule that, Mr. Bradley.

BRADLEY: No. Once again, I was excluded from the footnote of that motion. And my review of it, and I said, hey, you need to add me back to the footnote because I did have a contract, and I did receive $74,000.

STOCKTON: 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 -- that Mrs. Merchant --

BRADLEY: No. I did not know that she was relying on me for any accuracy other than what was put in there about the $74,000.

STOCKTON: Mr. Bradley, if there was something patently false in that motion, you would have told Mrs. Merchant, wouldn't you?

BRADLEY: I can't say that I would or wouldn't. I don't know what I would have told Ms. Merchant.

STOCKTON: If there was something patently speculative, you would have told Mrs. Merchant, wouldn't you?

BRADLEY: I don't know what I would have told Mrs. Merchant. She asked me, was it accurate? We were discussing the $74,000 that was left out.

STOCKTON: Again, if I may direct you just to that portion dealing with 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.

BRADLEY: Repeat your question. I'm so sorry.

STOCKTON: 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?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection. Asked and answered. Cumulative.

MCAFEE: All right. Next question, Mr. Stockton. Sustained.

STOCKTON: And you didn't see anything that was speculative in there either, did you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Asked and answered. Cumulative.

MCAFEE: I know. Sustained, Mr. Stockton.

STOCKTON: I just want to ask you one more question. I'm coming at it from the other way that Mr. Sadow did. Did anybody from the district attorney's office or any witnesses in this case contact you about Ms. Merchant's motion from January the 8th of 2004 until today?

BRADLEY: Did anyone contact me about her motion?

STOCKTON: Yes. From the district attorney's office or any witnesses or anybody else involved with the case besides the defense?

BRADLEY: Other than the call that I -- 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, so.

STOCKTON: That's all I got, Judge.

MCAFEE: Thank you, Mr. Stockton. Mr. Durham, if you're still with us.

DURHAM: No question, Judge.

MCAFEE: Thank you, sir. Mr. MacDougald.

[15:40:00]

HARRY MACDOUGALD, JEFFREY CLARK'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good afternoon, Mr. Bradley.

You have certain information about the relationship between Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis that is not privileged. Correct?

BRADLEY: 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.

MACDOUGALD: Do you understand that the court has ruled that certain information that you have about the relationship between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade is not privileged?

BRADLEY: 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 in saying that it's more, it was that particular piece that the judge said did not have privilege.

MACDOUGALD: And have you testified already today to the sum total of your knowledge of the relationship that is outside the scope of the privilege according to the court's ruling?

BRADLEY: Can you ask that again? I'm sorry. I didn't understand it.

MACDOUGALD: Referring to what you understand to be the information that is not privileged, have you testified to the sum total of that information?

BRADLEY: I think I have. Yes. I think I've testified to that, yes.

MACDOUGALD: All right, sir. That's my question. Thank you.

MCAFEE: Thank you, Mr. MacDougald. Mr. Rice. Thank you.

RICHARD RICE, ROBERT CHEELEY'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Mr. Bradley, at least as of February 15th, when you first testified, you said that you still considered yourself a friend.

BRADLEY: I think I said that, yes. I think I did, yes.

RICE: And you've been friends with Mr. Wade for over 10 years, correct?

BRADLEY: That would have been fairly accurate, yes.

RICE: And you recall communicating with Ms. Merchant about this case and about Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis' relationship, correct?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: An object as to past and answered in cumulative by all three of the previous.

MCAFEE: 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?

RICE: OK. Mr. Bradley, when you spoke -- when you communicated with Ms. Merchant, did you tell her any lies about Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis' relationship?

BRADLEY: Did I lie to Ms. --?

BRADLEY: 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?

BRADLEY: Not that I recall. I don't recall. I mentioned earlier that I speculated on some things. I've testified to what I did know, so I can't recall whether or not I -- no.

RICE: Mr. Bradley, speculation is kind of a weaselly lawyer word. Let's speak truth here. You're under oath.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Argumentative at this point, your Honor, I have some relevant questions.

MCAFEE: Let's find a question, Mr. Rice.

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?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection asked and answered twice.

MCAFEE: I don't think he's answered it yet.

BRADLEY: I don't recall ever whether any of it was a lie or not.

RICE: Well, at the time you were communicating with Ms. Merchant, you were still friends with Mr. Wade, correct?

BRADLEY: Yes.

RICE: 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?

BRADLEY: Correct.

RICE: And you knew that she was going to use that information to somehow benefit and file a motion and benefit her client, correct?

[15:45:00]

BRADLEY: I did not know that. So, I did not -- oh, I'm sorry. RICE: So, as an attorney yourself, you are testifying here under oath that you had no idea what Ms. Merchant was going to do with all the details that you were giving her about Wade and Willis' relationship.

BRADLEY: So, at the time, no, I did not. I knew that Ms. Merchant was gathering information. That is correct.

RICE: OK. And did you lie to her when you told her that the relationship began before 2021?

MCAFEE: I don't think we need to drill into specifics. He's covered it at a high level. I don't think we're going to get much out of this.

RICE: 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?

BRADLEY: I don't recall.

RICE: Well, you've looked through a whole lot of text messages. Do you remember ever seeing any communication from you that said, I don't remember?

BRADLEY: Yes, 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.

RICE: 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?

BRADLEY: No, I never used the word speculating, no.

RICE: And the only thing that's changed between then and now is that phone call from Nathan Wade's friend, Grave (ph) Banks, correct?

BRADLEY: 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 Gabe Banks.

RICE: So you never told Ms. Merchant that you were worried that they were threatening you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection, asked and answered when he was asked this on February 16th and today.

MCAFEE: Mr. Rice, we've covered this.

RICE: And just to be clear, you didn't attend college with Mr. Banks, did you?

BRADLEY: I did not attend college with Ms. Banks.

RICE: When you referred to him as your fraternity brother, y'all just both happened to have pledged the same fraternity, different colleges, different chapters.

BRADLEY: Well, that's what we consider fraternity brothers, yes.

RICE: And as a normal course of your relationships with your friends, do you pass on lies about your friends?

BRADLEY: Have I passed on a lie about a friend? Is that what you're asking?

RICE: Is that something you normally do, Mr. Bradley? Do you tell lies about your friends?

BRADLEY: Have I told lies about friends? I could have, I don't know.

RICE: Do you tell lies about your friends about a case of national importance?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection, asked.

MCAFEE: All right, overruled.

BRADLEY: I could have, I don't know.

RICE: Mr. Bradley, I notice you're not looking at me.

BRADLEY: I'm looking at you on the screen only because I was accused of, and I did the same thing to Mr. Sadow when he was on the screen.

MCAFEE: What's the next question, Mr. Rice?

RICE: No further questions, Judge. I think it's clear. Thank you, sir. Mr. Gillen.

CRAIG GILLEN, DAVID SHAFER'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good afternoon, Mr. Bradley. A few questions. A lot of folks have taken up the questions that I wanted to ask, but I've got a few left here.

We'll see. We'll see. You said you, Mr. Bradley, you said you didn't know what Miss Merchant was going to be doing with the motion that she sent you. Do you remember that testimony a few minutes ago?

BRADLEY: I think I said I didn't know that. I knew that she was gathering information, yes.

GILLEN: Well, let's look at the title of the motion that she sent you.

BRADLEY: That was sent on the 6th.

GILLEN: Excuse me. Do you remember reading the defendant, Michael Roman's, motion to dismiss grand jury indictment as fatally defective and motion to disqualify the district attorney, her office, and the special prosecutor from further prosecuting this matter? Do you remember seeing that in the draft that you read and reviewed?

BRADLEY: Yes.

[15:50:00]

GILLEN: So when you tell this court that you didn't know what she was up to or what she was going to do, she kind of gave you a hint, didn't she? In the title of the motion that she sent for you to read, didn't she? Yes or no?

BRADLEY: I read the title of what the motion was.

GILLEN: It wasn't anything in the title that threw you off. Pretty straightforward speaking title, isn't it?

BRADLEY: Correct.

GILLEN: 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?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm going to object to speculation.

GILLEN: You knew that, didn't you?

MCAFEE: I'll overrule.

GILLEN: Yes or no?

BRADLEY: When she sent that motion, yes.

GILLEN: OK. And you knew that the special prosecutor to whom she was referring in that motion was Mr. Wade, correct? You knew that?

BRADLEY: Yes.

GILLEN: Because you read the motion. You said you reviewed it, correct?

BRADLEY: Yes.

GILLEN: And we're not going to go over all of them. 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.

MCAFEE: All right. Yes, Mr. Gillen, you know, I can appreciate what you're doing. I think that's something you can do at argument. He said as a whole that he got the motion, and he's had his responses to his opinion of how he handled it. I don't see, again, this really being necessary to go through it line by line.

GILLEN: Well, a little indulgence, Your Honor. I'm not going to go and, you know, this isn't going to be, you know, 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.

MCAFEE: You know, again, 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'd never objected to anything in there or raised it.

GILLEN: That's a problem and always ending up last --

MCAFEE: It very much is. And next time I ask, I'll reshuffle the order.

GILLEN: Well, you know, we did earlier with Mr. Wade --

MCAFEE: I hear you.

GILLEN: -- and then that was kind enough. And then the Court said we had to go.

MCAFEE: I'll need to draw straws next time.

GILLEN: There we go. I'll go with that.

MCAFEE: All right, anything else?

GILLEN: Thank you, Your Honor. That's all I have.

MCAFEE: OK. We had Mr. Kachouroff potentially still on Zoom.

CHRIS KACHOUROFF, HARRISON FLOYD'S ATTORNEY: Yes, Your Honor, and I have just a few questions.

MCAFEE: All right. Could we add a spotlight to Mr. Kachuroff? I'll let you know when we're able to proceed.

BRADLEY: Judge, before he starts, can I take a five-minute rest room?

MCAFEE: Absolutely. Yes, we've been going two hours. So let's come back at 4 o'clock. I'll also note for the record that we received a notification from Mr. Cromwell on behalf of Ms. Latham, and he said he was waiving her presence. And I don't know if he later decided to join us by Zoom, but I don't think he was electing to log in.

So after Mr. Kachouroff, just in terms of timing, Mr. Abadi, do you have any expectation of how long your, if any, questioning would last?

KACHOUROFF: I don't imagine my questioning will be very long.

MCAFEE: OK. Well, let's get back in at 4 o'clock. Mr. Bradley, you can just step out of the jury room.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: They are taking a short break in Fulton County, Georgia, after just scathing, intensely emotional and personal testimony by Terrence Bradley. This is all part of an effort by the defense in the Georgia election subversion case against Donald Trump and his co-defendants to boot the main prosecutor, the district attorney in Fulton County, Fani Willis, off of this case. There are accusations that she had an inappropriate relationship with a prosecutor that she hired on that case, Nathan Wade.

Brianna, some very intense personal relationships bleeding into the courtroom here. Ashley Merchant -- Ashley Merchant, I should say, specifically referenced multiple text messages that Terrence Bradley had sent her in September of last year, in which he apparently had mentioned to her that there was a relationship that started between Willis and Wade before she hired him to be the lead prosecutor in this case.

During his testimony, Bradley essentially said that he didn't remember why he had said that. He said that that was speculation. Merchant essentially responded saying that he doesn't remember much of anything right now.

[15:55:00]

Repeatedly, attorneys for the defense tried to press him and corner him, and he appeared to have a difficult time answering pretty rudimentary questions.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Yes, that's right. And what is clear also over the course of these questions was that this is a pretty small legal community in Fulton County. These are folks who know each other well.

And certainly in those text messages, it seems that Mr. Bradley shared a lot of information that in retrospect, he perhaps wishes he had not shared. And it really, you could tell in those questions as he was trying to push back and evade giving answers, eventually -- as we bring in our chief legal affairs correspondent, Paula Reed, and our senior political analyst, Gloria Borger. Eventually, Paula, it seemed that the judge was, you know, letting a lot of those objections be overruled that would have protected Terrence Bradley from some of these questions. And he wanted to get down to some of the facts of what he might have known here.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: That's exactly right, which is why the judge has let this testimony go forward today.

Look, this could have been consequential for either side, and it clearly wasn't. It doesn't appear that we have any additional evidence or any additional clarity on when exactly this relationship started. Though it is pretty clear that Mr. Bradley, as a witness, does not come off as credible. But if someone's at home and has spent the last two hours watching this, my concern is that it just seems chaotic and confusing.

And if you're worried about the integrity of the justice system, as former President Trump wants you to be, to think the whole thing is corrupt, this does potentially add to those concerns. That he didn't answer the questions directly, these allegations, while it may not result in a disqualification of Fani Willis, I don't think it does anything to really instill trust in the criminal justice system.

SANCHEZ: Gloria, to the point -- go ahead.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: He just seemed to have amnesia. He had what appeared to be pretty detailed conversations with Ms. Merchant, which she remembered in great detail, and, you know, some of them were salacious. And he doesn't remember anything.

He didn't remember any dates, and, of course, the key to this was trying to find out when Fani Willis and Mr. Wade first got together, whether it was before she hired him or not. And he didn't recall anything. And it really strains credulity here.

And one of the attorneys, I think, made the right point, which was, look, you said these things and you did these things and had a lot of these conversations, but you just don't want to swear to it in court.

And if you're just listening to this for the last two hours, I think that's what it appears to be.

SANCHEZ: So, Paula, what happens next? Are we anticipating that the prosecution in this case is going to want to question Terrence Bradley?

REID: It did appear that there were going to be additional questions. Mr. Bradley asked for a break just to use the restroom. He's been on the stand for two hours. It does appear there will be additional questions, but there appears to be evidence that the judge wanted to hear.

He wanted this testimony, even though there were concerns about privilege, as he contemplates this larger question of whether Fani Willis will be disqualified.

Now, most experts agree that it is unlikely that they have met the threshold to disqualify her, but ultimately it will be up to the judge. And that's a final decision that we don't expect, probably for a few more weeks.

KEILAR: Gloria, there's the trying to legally invalidate this, get Fani Willis kicked off the case, but there's also this attempt to politically invalidate this. And I wonder if you think that some of what you saw today goes to that end that certainly former President Trump and other defendants' lawyers wanted to achieve.

BORGER: Well, it seems like a situation, I think you were alluding to it at the beginning, Brianna, which is you have a bunch of -- it's a small community. You have a bunch of lawyers who gossip with each other and tell each other things that, in fact, should be confidential. And that was exposed today in this courtroom. And I think if you want to have faith in the judicial system in Fulton County, this doesn't give you much hope.

And that is why he was such a reluctant witness to say anything because, of course, Mr. Wade had been his client and he was talking about things he shouldn't have been talking about. So, you know, really the reputation seems to be frayed on all sides, to tell you the truth. KEILAR: Yes, it does. Paula, Gloria, thank you so much to both of you

for your analysis there. "THE LEAD" with Jake Tapper starts right now.

JAKE TAPPER CNN HOST: And welcome to THE LEAD. You have been watching one of the star witnesses in the case in which the Trump team is trying to push to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. This witness was ordered back to the stand just a short time ago. This push, of course, Trump and some of his co-defendants trying to impeach her, essentially.