Attorney: “Did you lie to Ms. Merchant about Wade and Willis’ relationship?”
Bradley: “I don’t recall if anything I said was a lie or not.” pic.twitter.com/3EBmvBV9sN— Bad Hombre (@joma_gc) February 27, 2024
I almost dropped my Confederate flag when the witness today - Bradley I think his name is - decided it was in his best interest to testify that he might tell lies about his friend in a case of national importance but that he couldn’t remember for sure if he did tell lies.
It looks like both sides can argue that Bradley has been impeached and is of no use to either side.
Still, anyone can see what corruption is afoot in Georgia. Big time.
This hearing has many jaw dropping moments. Bradley is completely disingenuous. The US justice system is in shambles.
Attorney: “Did you lie to Ms. Merchant about Wade and Willis’ relationship?”
Bradley: “I don’t recall if anything I said was a lie or not.” pic.twitter.com/3EBmvBV9sN— Bad Hombre (@joma_gc) February 27, 2024
Well, Kemp is governor. Corrupt as hell.
when the witness today - Bradley I think his name is - decided it was in his best interest to testify that he might tell lies about his friend in a case of national importance but that he couldn’t remember for sure if he did tell lies
\/
i thought that was the highlight of the whole thing.
i love how the attorny called wade
a WEASEL !!!
Interesting. The cynic in me wonders if he was intentionally trying to get himself impeached and have all of his testimony stricken.
IMHO, that only matters in a jury trial. This hearing is before the judge, who already knows what's going on.
I believe the judge thinks the fact that the prosecution was trying to impeach its own witness means that Bradley knows the affair began before Willis and Wade said it did.
The prosecution lawyers are playing a jury's game. All the objections, "asked and answered," and all that can't erase what the judge heard and saw. The judge can "strike" whatever he wants, but I think he's still going to rule that the evidence is overwhelming that there was a conflict-of-interest in the DA's office that disqualifies them from proceeding further on this case.
They all know that all the judge needs is one piece of evidence to suggest that the affair began before Wade was hired to link Wade's hiring to a conflict-of-interest, then Wade's high pay and vacations become an enrichment scheme, then sleeping with the boss becomes a hostile work environment, and so on.
And... I don't think the judge is going to require proof that is "beyond reasonable doubt" on a case this high-profile. The judge is going to want to ensure that the people bringing such a novel RICO case against a former President (and the poll-leading opposition candidate in the upcoming election), his lawyers, and his aides, are of the highest repute. He will use the "reasonable person" standard of proof, meaning was there enough evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that there was an affair going on.
I think most people who have watched the hearing will conclude yes, there is.
-PJ