Key Witness For Attorneys Seeking To Disqualify Fani Willis Flops

February 27, 2024
ATLANTA, GEORGIA - FEBRUARY 15: Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis speaks during a hearing in the case of State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump at the Fulton County Courthouse on February 15, 2024 in Atlanta... ATLANTA, GEORGIA - FEBRUARY 15: Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis speaks during a hearing in the case of State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump at the Fulton County Courthouse on February 15, 2024 in Atlanta, Georgia. Judge Scott McAfee is hearing testimony as to whether Willis and Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade should be disqualified from the case for allegedly lying about a personal relationship. (Photo by Alyssa Pointer-Pool/Getty Images) MORE LESS
|
February 27, 2024

The key witness for attorneys seeking to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis disavowed texts he sent claiming knowledge of Willis’ relationship with a prosecutor she hired, instead ascribing it all to “speculating.”

Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee ordered Terrence Bradley to appear on Tuesday, after finding that attorney-client privilege did not bar him from testifying about his knowledge of when Willis’ relationship with Nathan Wade began without violating attorney-client privilege.

But for defense attorneys hoping that Bradley would contradict Willis and Wade’s claim that their relationship began before he was hired, it was a flop. Bradley said he didn’t recall much of what he was asked, claimed that he only spoke with Wade about his romantic relationship with Willis once, and dismissed his earlier claims to mere speculation.

Read our coverage below:

Watch the hearing below.

More Less

The key witness for attorneys seeking to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis disavowed texts he sent claiming knowledge of Willis’ relationship with a prosecutor she hired, instead ascribing it all to “speculating.”

Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee ordered Terrence Bradley to appear on Tuesday, after finding that attorney-client privilege did not bar him from testifying about his knowledge of when Willis’ relationship with Nathan Wade began without violating attorney-client privilege.

But for defense attorneys hoping that Bradley would contradict Willis and Wade’s claim that their relationship began before he was hired, it was a flop. Bradley said he didn’t recall much of what he was asked, claimed that he only spoke with Wade about his romantic relationship with Willis once, and dismissed his earlier claims to mere speculation.

Read our coverage below:

319
Show Comments

Notable Replies

  1. Court seems to move quick when it comes to dragging the sex life of a black women into public.

  2. Avatar for szz szz says:

    So if one witness says that the “relationship” started earlier, and Willis and Wade says it didn’t - who is the judge to believe? Are we going to get into the weeds of when a “relationship” starts? Are they going to determine the first time they went to dinner or the first time they had sex?

  3. Judge is dragging this on for personal benefit more so then Willis having romance.

  4. Avatar for tacoma tacoma says:

    some of these old farts love this stuff.

  5. So…third party speculation based on the word of a disgruntled ex-employee, and some fart in a suit is going to try to make a fire out of thin air.

    Money. What would they do without it.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

313 more replies

Participants

Avatar for daled Avatar for lestatdelc Avatar for ajm Avatar for richardinjax Avatar for srfromgr Avatar for irasdad Avatar for sniffit Avatar for chelsea530 Avatar for tecmage Avatar for harry_r_sohl Avatar for musgrove Avatar for leftcoaster Avatar for dangoodbar Avatar for pmaroneyb Avatar for Anarchy_Bunker Avatar for socalista Avatar for allblues Avatar for jwbuho Avatar for txlawyer Avatar for zenicetus Avatar for trustywoods Avatar for atreat Avatar for john_adams Avatar for jonladdphd

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: