[W:574]Trump investigator offers cellphone data casting doubt on Fani Willis relationship timeline

[Taylor]

Today, Terrence Bradley (Wade's lawyer and friend) was back. He couldn't remember anything and claimed his texts where he had discussed the Willis/Wade relationship and when it began - were all just "speculation" on his part. He was sweating through most of it and he spent much of the time in really long pauses trying to figure out how not to answer. He spent the entire time looking over at his attorney who was objecting to literally everything.

So many lies around this now - waiting for that first domino to fall.

 

[mike2810]

Yeah, like I would know. DFon'tbe ridicuilous. The weather? Grandkids?

Of course you do not know. Yet, you seem to speculate and bring suspicion to the meeting. Trump would be proud.

 

[anatta]

anyone watching this soap opera?

Bradley said he was "speculating." "I never witnessed anything," he said.
He later acknowledged that "at some point" Wade told him he was dating Willis. "I can’t tell you what date that was," Bradley said, adding that the remark was "made in confidence." He wouldn't give a time frame for the conversation he had with Wade,

Sadow got him to acknowledge that he was aware that Merchant was representing a defendant in the election case and asked why he "speculated" about such a thing given the circumstances. "I have no answer for that," he replied.

"Why wouldn’t you have said, ‘I don’t know’?" Sadow continued. "I don’t know," Bradley said.
"Maybe it’s because you know what the truth is," Sadow said.

Nathan Wade's former divorce attorney says he can't remember key details in hearing over Fani Willis misconduct allegations

The judge overseeing the Georgia election interference case recently said Terrence Bradley's communications about Willis weren't covered by attorney-client privilege.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[anatta]

An objective mind isn't even required. Any mind at all knows they are lying.

whats the bar to disqualification of Willis (and maybe the case). Conflict of interest? direct evidence they were in a relationship -despite their wiggle room otherwise (perjury).

If these 2 grifters get to prosecute a former POTUS that would be a new low even for for lawfare

 

[Atomic Kid]

Everything I say is my opinion. My opinion isn't based on nothing.

But yet you are going around here suggesting that the opinions of others that differ from yours are somehow based on nothing much compared to your own.

There isn't any good reason for someone to not have the same opinion other than tribalism.

Do you mean as in not having the same opinion as yours? If there is anyone here who may be engaging in some form of tribalism it's you. You have been going around practically brow-beating anyone who disagrees with or refuses to accept your opinion/assumption that Willis had lied as being an indisputable fact. Whereas I have been consistent in my own opinion as to

It must be rough going through life not being able to ever assume that someone is lying unless you have proof.

Do you know what the definition of "assume" is? To accept something to be true without question or proof. And when making such a serious charge such as alleging someone has committed perjury you better have some definitive proof because the legal bar you will have to clear is a high one as the burden of proof is squarely upon you. So you better have some and it better be good.

I don't want Trump's team to win.

Neither do I. On that, we can agree.

Willis is going to be prosecuted for lying on the stand.

Another assumption

yea i'm listening to today's testimony.

Bradely is lying on the stand today.

And the proof he is is what?

I couldn't care less about why they are lying.

Another assumption.

I have no concern about proving anything, the truth is going to come out.

No surprise there as having an assumption or opinion doesn't require you to have any such concerns about having proof. Right? That's not how it works in a courtroom.

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

What an interesting thing to say considering the issue with Willis and Wade has nothing to do with the actual case against Trump and its charges. You don't think chasing stories about vacations and who was dating who aren't rabbit holes? If this were a case of some kind of issue with the charges themselves, that's one thing, but this is all about removing the DA as a delay tactic, because this would punt the case back to the state and they would have to find a new prosecutor to take up the case. That person and their team would have to examine the entire case and all of its evidence, which would push this way out.

The flip side of this is why you wouldn't be concerned with a presidential candidate doing the things Trump is accused of doesn't answer to the charges he's facing.

These people don't seem to be able to understand your point. Fanni Willis behavior is not one bit relevant to the Trump charges. He's gonna see his day in court and will face a bunch of criminal charges. Don't care if Bozo the clown is the prosecutor, the evidence against Trump is overwhelming. No decision by the judge will change htat fact.

 

[uptower]

They may not have a choice because Willis can’t stop perjuring herself about this issue. The judge was ready to let it go and now she got caught in perjury before the court on an ethics hearing

As I said, Willis being gone will have zero relation to Trump's case. The county will just appoint another prosecutor.

 

[ElChupacabra]

These people don't seem to be able to understand your point. Fanni Willis behavior is not one bit relevant to the Trump charges. He's gonna see his day in court and will face a bunch of criminal charges. Don't care if Bozo the clown is the prosecutor, the evidence against Trump is overwhelming. No decision by the judge will change htat fact.

The danger is if in the chaos of all this she gets booted off the case because of getting some information wrong or outright perjuring herself, which while not relevant to the case, achieves the goal nonetheless. This is typical "cherry bomb in the toilet", and if Willis finds herself off the case, it's likely not to get tried until well after the election. If Trump wins, then the case is gone. Of course, what does not disappear is everything that happened and the "law and order" crowd will have that massive albatross of hypocrisy around their neck.

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

The danger is if in the chaos of all this she gets booted off the case because of getting some information wrong or outright perjuring herself, which while not relevant to the case, achieves the goal nonetheless. This is typical "cherry bomb in the toilet", and if Willis finds herself off the case, it's likely not to get tried until well after the election. If Trump wins, then the case is gone. Of course, what does not disappear is everything that happened and the "law and order" crowd will have that massive albatross of hypocrisy around their neck.

Trump will not win. First criminal conviction will be announced in early May. And the Georgia case is scheduled to start in early June. Trump can try delay tactics...until he can't

 

[PoS]

Hahahahah. She’s dumber than Kamala.

 

[samiam5211]

But yet you are going around here suggesting that the opinions of others that differ from yours are somehow based on nothing much compared to your own.

Do you mean as in not having the same opinion as yours? If there is anyone here who may be engaging in some form of tribalism it's you. You have been going around practically brow-beating anyone who disagrees with or refuses to accept your opinion/assumption that Willis had lied as being an indisputable fact. Whereas I have been consistent in my own opinion as to


Do you know what the definition of "assume" is? To accept something to be true without question or proof. And when making such a serious charge such as alleging someone has committed perjury you better have some definitive proof because the legal bar you will have to clear is a high one as the burden of proof is squarely upon you. So you better have some and it better be good.

Neither do I. On that, we can agree.

Another assumption

And the proof he is is what?

Another assumption.


No surprise there as having an assumption or opinion doesn't require you to have any such concerns about having proof. Right? That's not how it works in a courtroom.

I'm not in a courtroom there bud. None of us are.

I hope Trump dies in prison.

 

[VySky]

View attachment 67495207

And to think she used up one of her race cards.

She screwed around and found out.

 

[Airyaman]

Trump will not win. First criminal conviction will be announced in early May. And the Georgia case is scheduled to start in early June. Trump can try delay tactics...until he can't

August 5th.

Georgia prosecutors propose Aug. 5 trial date for Trump

Prosecutors in former President Donald Trump's election interference case in Georgia on Friday proposed starting the trial on Aug. 5, 2024, just months before the November U.S. presidential election.

www.reuters.com

 

[Taylor]

how does one get ones cell phone data? something is not adding up

With a subpoena

 

[TamleeB]

I believe that Wade fired him from the law firm...I sort of doubt they remained friends after that.

I wasn’t aware that Wade “fired” him, I thought that Bradley resigned? I did read that Wade left the law firm after being accused of the sexual assault of a fellow employee.

 

[ClaraD]

I wasn’t aware that Wade “fired” him, I thought that Bradley resigned? I did read that Wade left the law firm after being accused of the sexual assault of a fellow employee.

He was fired by Wade. Wade has never been accused of sexual assault...Bradley was...and he was fired for it.

 

[Airyaman]

I wasn’t aware that Wade “fired” him, I thought that Bradley resigned? I did read that Wade left the law firm after being accused of the sexual assault of a fellow employee.

You didn't read that.

Wade’s ex-law partner was accused of sexual assault

Terrence Bradley said he parted ways with Nathan Wade’s law firm after being accused of sexually assaulting an employee there.

www.ajc.com

 

[hooligan]

That's your opinion, which again, clearly shows bias here. But that's ok.

No, it's not an opinion. It's a fact. I even gave you a cite from a local-to-Atlanta expert witness.

 

[hooligan]

In communications with the defense, he made specific allegations. When he got on the stand, he siad he was merely speculating and he just couldnt remember what he based those 'speculations' on. I suspect the judge will go by what the texts said and not how he tried to weasel out of them to protect his friend

Your suspicions are noted - the testimony in the court was under oath. The text messages? Not so much. I know which story I'd put more faith in.

 

[hooligan]

I believe that Wade fired him from the law firm...I sort of doubt they remained friends after that.

Correct. Bradley testified he hadn't spoken to Wade since he "left" the firm.

 

[TamleeB]

He was fired by Wade. Wade has never been accused of sexual assault...Bradley was...and he was fired for it.

And Yes…you are correct, I meant to say that Bradley was accused of sexual assault. But, I had not read that Wade fired him, but that Bradley had resigned from the law firm over the accusations.

 

[hooligan]

SMH I wonder who got to him.

Of course you do. The wonderful thing about conspiracy theories is that you can always simply expand the conspiracy to fit new information.

 

[ClaraD]

Correct. Bradley testified he hadn't spoken to Wade since he "left" the firm.

and a powerful motivator for him to try to get Wade in trouble...wtf was he doing contacting Merchant anyway? Then she called him to the stand and he had to admit it was just gossip that he speculated about...because he was under oath...

 

[TamleeB]

You didn't read that.

Wade’s ex-law partner was accused of sexual assault

Terrence Bradley said he parted ways with Nathan Wade’s law firm after being accused of sexually assaulting an employee there.

www.ajc.com

Yes…in my response, I meant to say that BRADLEY had been accused of sexual misconduct, and instead said Wade. I apologize for the confusion in my response.

 

[ClaraD]

And Yes…you are correct, I meant to say that Bradley was accused of sexual assault. But, I had not read that Wade fired him, but that Bradley had resigned from the law firm over the accusations.

He fired him...Bradley still is trying to claim he didn't do it...even though he tried to buy the victim's silence...that is one powerful motivator to lie about the person who fired you..