Posted on 02/28/2024 1:14:35 AM PST by Libloather
Nathan Wade's divorce attorney, Terrence Bradley, had a candid reaction to a piece of evidence he was presented with while on the stand Tuesday in the financial corruption trial of District Attorney Fani Willis.
Bradley, Wade's former divorce attorney and law partner, took the stand Tuesday, where he was shown a series of text messages in which he spoke about the timeline of Willis and Wade's relationship - one of the central issues of the trial.
A clip shows Bradley muttering to himself 'oh dang' as he reviews a series of texts in which he seemingly confirms that Willis and Wade were dating before Willis hired Wade to help prosecute the George case against former President Donald Trump.
One of Trump's attorneys, Steve Sadow questioned Bradley about a series of texts between himself and Ashleigh Merchant - an attorney for Trump co-defendant Michael Roman.
Sadow pointed to a text conversation in which Merchant wrote to Bradley:
'Like just date, don't hire him. Do you think it started before she hired him?' referring to Willis and Wade's romantic tryst and the timing of Wade's hiring.
It is at this point that Bradley whispered to himself 'dang.'
Sadow reads on that Bradley responded to Merchant's question via text: 'Absolutely.'
Bradley subsequently attempted to deny that he knew the actual timeline of Willis and Wade's relationship and his text had been mere 'speculation.'
Sadow then asked him 'why the heck' he would speculate about when they started dating in a text message.
'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...
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I'd say hangover, but that would be speculating.
-PJ
oh dang indeed
“I bet he paid somebody to take the bar exam for him, posing as him.”
That’s actually a possibility. The State Bar Associations bend over backwards to make sure a good percentage of black candidates pass the Bar. They also hire exam proctors according to DEI principles who might have no problem looking the other way when a test-taker’s identity is questionable.
The institutions we used to think could never become corrupt have been taken over completely by corrupt and low-IQ ignorant individuals. Exhibit A—See Wade and Bradley, and of course Willis.
Or you might be lying but can’t recall. Lol
Wade steered a contract from Fani to Bradley. Was it because Wade owed him money? What witness attorney would volunteer making a $74k amount. He wasn’t asked an amount. Anyone that hires Bradley is a fool.
-PJ
Thank you for the clarification, makes sense.
He was also asked if Wade owed him money, but Bradley evaded the question. He did suggest that if Wade used Bradley's credit card for office expenses, that he paid back the card for those expenses.
It's possible that Wade steered a contract to Bradley to cover those expenses, but those kinds of expenses are usually billed to the client.
My understanding about the $74k was that it was Bradley's share as a partner, and so a contract wasn't "steered" directly to him regarding that specific amount.
But I could be wrong. The whole point of Bradley's testimony was to muddy the timeline of events all around, which in itself is suggestive of guilt.
-PJ
The DA’s office fired a shot across the bow at Bradley last week when they brought up the sexual assault/harassment issues out of the blue. The statute of limitations has not expired and he knows if he says the wrong thing, he could be looking at a criminal referral against him for sexual assault which could mean jail time.
Bump
I worked for many years for a local municipal government (because they owned and operated the airport I worked for). Because of a long-running dispute they had with another jurisdiction over an intergovernmental agreement, I had to serve as a witness and client representative a number of times in litigation between them for breach of contract claims (and was involved in several other, unrelated lawsuits over inverse condemnation claims). Once during a deposition by the opposing attorney, my attorney (who was outside counsel we retained during litigation) just couldn’t help himself and kept muttering portions of answers to questions before I could answer. I’d never seen that before, and the opposing counsel (who I knew well because we had been sparring over the same issue for many years) eventually and rightfully said, “Getting pretty chatty counsel.” It was embarrassing and I knew it was coming because I was thinking the same thing before he finally called him on it.
And it wasn’t like I needed any help; I had plenty of experience testifying. It was actually really distracting. Even after being admonished by the opposing attorney, he still couldn’t help himself and started shaking his head “no” to some questions before I could answer. Again, it was just distracting and a little embarrassing. I certainly didn’t need any “help”, and the more he did it the more I was agreeing with opposing counsel for getting irritated by it. And it surprised me because he was otherwise an excellent attorney (which he should have been, given he came from one of the most high-profile firms representing our industry and he and his firm are very, very, VERY expensive).
On an unrelated side note, one thing I learned as a frequent witness was to be watchful at trial for opportunities that opposing counsel sometimes would inadvertently provide to give a broader answer than they wanted, and in the process provide information that harmed their case. Once in a while they would just get a little sloppy in formulating their questions, which would open the door for me to provide information in my answer that they were trying to avoid.
In most cases, it would be a bad idea for a witness to try to strategically outguess the opposing attorney on cross, and your own attorney could provide the same opportunity on redirect, but I was very experienced at testifying, knew the subject matter and our own legal theory inside and out, and just couldn’t resist sometimes because I knew the opposing counsel well and he had a well-earned reputation for being a total jackass. Funny thing was, I got along with him fine on a personal basis, but when he was in litigation mode he was just unnecessarily aggressive and “jerky.” The last time he cross examined me at trial I actually got him to back off much earlier than he did with all of our other witnesses (none of whom had faced him before, so they got the full inquisition). He knew me so well by then, and I was so practiced at not falling for his leading question phrasing, in addition to gently calling him out a couple of times for pejorative, little snarky digs he added to questions, that he didn’t drag the cross out and even gave me a knowing little smirk as he ended his questioning. He knew I knew what he was doing, so he didn’t pull nearly as much of his gratuitous crap with me as he did with everyone else.
Which is all to say that while as a witness you absolutely should always tell the truth, in doing so if you’re savvy you can toss a little grenade once in a while into the cross examining attorney’s lap, and it’s fun to watch them squirm when it happens. That’s what they get for not formulating their questions tightly enough. On the other hand, Bradley, even though an attorney himself, was anything but savvy. That guy was just a straight up moron who kept pulling the pin on the grenade and dropping it in his own lap.
But since he settled out of court (for $20K IIRC), I would think he had the plaintiff sign contract/agreement releasing him from liability.
Both creepy ‘lovers’ need to be disbarred.
I wonder why the 3rd so called partner, Chris Campbell, wasn’t called. He was in that office.
THIS! This is the actual We Wuz Kangs moment, not the text messages which unfortunately are barely admissable hearsay for construction, and borderline gossip anyway.
Why did no one connect the 74 grand from Wade to Bradley, and yet Bradley owed money to Wade just a short time later?!?
In the case of Fani and Nat....neither seem that bright, and I wouldn’t advise any person (black or white) to use them for legal representation. If the state bar is that screwed up...says a lot for guys sitting in jail or prison."
Leading up to The White Hut (a lot of this happened under Shrub, and was one of the things Buchanan was absolutely spot-on about), neomarxists got complete hold of the ABA, and the accreditation committee immediately began giving out certification to these HBCU-style law schools: Hotlanta's John Marshall (not the Chicago, actual, genuine, school of law) at absolute bottom of the list; St. Thomas and Mitchell Hamline in Minn-St Paul; and in Florida, Florida A&M, and Florida International.
Did you ever lie? Are you lying now?
I’m not NOT lying!
The guy is a lying hood rat, whether he’s in a hoodie or a three piece suit.
Either way he knows if he tells the truth his career as an attorney is over or he’s going to end up dead.
I agree. Re. my tag line.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
