A key witness who could upend Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ timeline of her relationship with a prosecutor she hired will testify today, after a judge ordered that he must appear.
Court seems to move quick when it comes to dragging the sex life of a black women into public.
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?
Judge is dragging this on for personal benefit more so then Willis having romance.
some of these old farts love this stuff.
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.
Bradley told her that the relationship began when Wade and Willis were both municipal court judges
“A peep beneath the black robe – next on Sick, Sad World!”
An old litigator ditty, “if you are ahead, for god sakes keep your mouth shut”.
Noting that this is the only relevant issue, at this point in time clearly Willis is winning or it would be over or Willis would be calling witnesses. That is at this time based on the evidence presented, the Judge is clearly siding with Willis.
That said, the fact that the hearing is continuing means there could be evidence that changes that. It is possible the Judge already knows what Bradely is going to say.
But the question is: did Willis receive “substantial” or “De minimis” benefits from hiring Hurd? While granted it is to a great degree subjective, if the personal relationship began after Hurd was hired it will be the latter.
If they lied about when the relationship turned romantic, the implication is that they themselves understood the financial benefits of his hiring were, at best, problematic. But the much, much bigger deal is perjury and their licenses to practice.
And last week’s cell phone evidence was deeply damaging to their claim that it didn’t become romantic until 2022.
The defendants’ lawyers claim to have phone records with geolocation showing Wade spent many nights at Willis’ house before he was hired. I don’t know if this is true, or if the cell tower location is accurate enough to prove that.
It’s all fucking nonsense from the get go. The premise that she was romanticly involved with him and gave him the job so he can spend it on her is insane when you take into account he made more money with his previous job.
Bradley has answered that he does not recall when the relationship began in several different ways now.
If the Trumpees are relying on Bardley and they cannot get through this, it is over.
Whichever one he finds more credible. When presented with two irreconcilable versions of events, that’s what the finder of fact has to decide.
Is he bound to testimony, or can he take into account what he learned from Bradley in chambers (but that the defense’s lawyers can’t seem to get at)?
Whether he made more money in private practice in no way negates any financial interest she may have acquired in the prosecution. If she has such an interest, she’s disqualified. Period.
Stuck with what’s presented as evidence, not what he learned separately in chambers.
Ah so if someone she hired brought her a soda from a vending machine then she has to be dismissed, sounds logical.
After 20 minutes of going in circles, we’ve sort of approached the core of the issue: what basis did Bradley have for texting Merchant that Wade and Willis’ relationship began long before she hired him to prosecute the Trump RICO case?
“I was speculating,” Bradley replied.
Oof.
“I was speculating,” Bradley replied.
IOW:
“Dawg. I saw her and thought… he gotta be tappin that.”
“I was speculating,” Bradley replied.
Oof.
THIS?? THIS is what all the stuff with Bradley and privilege was about???
ETA: Speaking of privilege, had Bradley’s gossiping with Merchant about Willis and Wade not also violated privilege?