BREAKING: Judge decides if Nathan Wade's former lawyer will take the stand again

Her dress is on backwards

BREAKING: Judge Scott McAfee has determined that Terrance Bradley, the former lawyer and friend of Nathan Wade will take the stand again and testify on information in the case that is not protected under attorney-client privilege. This will likely be a huge deciding factor in how McAfee will rule.

The Fulton County, GA District Attorney, Fani Willis insists vehemently that her "personal relationship" with her former paramour Nathan Wade, did not take place before she hired him on the Trump RICO election interference case. But telephone records strongly suggests otherwise. The outcome of Judge Scott McAfee's decision will determine whether Wade will try the case as charged and possibly have either Willis, Wade, or both disbarred and the case thrown out altogether. In other words, what Willis claims about Trump et al, is what she is on trial for. She says she is not on trial, and technically she's right, but let's face it--she's on trial for her career and possibly later charged with perjury.

Right now the issue is the cellular data from AT&T by Trump's attorneys. Trump is just one of the 19 defendants charged by Willis in her sprawling racketeering case, and her lover, Wade, has no experience with these types of cases yet is being paid over $650,000 for his time--more than her own attorneys under her.

The phone logs show almost 12,000 texts and 2,000 phone calls between Wade and Willis, prior to Wade being hired by her. That is definitely a bad look.

The phone data also allegedly shows no less than 35 wee hours visits by Wade to Willis' apartment in Atlanta's Hapeville neighborhood.

Willis, who seems to think people are gullible, says the analysis  “was not filed in good faith but instead is nothing more than another attempt to garner salacious headlines in the media.” So facts don't matter, eh?

Incredibly, she speculates whether former President Trump “illegally obtained cell site location information, which is generally only obtainable after a finding of probable cause and issuance of a search warrant.” 

Trump’s legal team says a private detective in their employ gained the phone records through a lawful subpoena. [Can we get an LOL?]

The content of the texts remains private, but if the correspondence proves an affair that antedates Wade’s appointment, that would contradict the claim both prosecutors have made — under oath — that their intimacy began only after Wade was named special prosecutor and could not have been the motivation for his hiring. Trump and other defendants said that the outlandish payments Wade has received — and spent on joint trips — amount to an incurable conflict of interest.

The decision as to whether the phone records will be entered into evidence is Judge Scott McAfee’s to make, and he will likely do so ahead of a March 1 hearing he has called for further argument on the disqualification question. Willis, in a Friday filing, argued that they “do not prove anything relevant” and “do not prove, in any way, the content of the communications between Special Prosecutor Wade and District Attorney Willis.”

In legal terms, this is what is known as "grasping for straws."

Willis labels Trump’s submission, which is founded on an analysis by a private investigator, Charles Mittelstadt, as “unqualified opinion evidence.” She also claims that Mr. Mittlestadt’s qualifications have not been fully vetted but it turns out that he's fully qualified. [See legal term definition above.]

Trump’s attorneys responded that the analyst’s credentials are not at issue — instead, the ballast of the claim that Willis and Wade are lying are “data that was produced by AT&T in response to the lawfully issued subpoena.”

Sensing the danger to her stewardship of the case shown by the phone logs, Willis writes that the “records do nothing more than demonstrate that Special Prosecutor Wade’s telephone was located somewhere within a densely populated multiple-mile radius where various residences, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, and other businesses are located.”

So perhaps he was getting drunk, getting laid, or having a bite to eat at 3 a.m.

Willis adds that the proffered pieces of evidence “do not prove that Special Prosecutor Wade and District Attorney Willis were ever in the same place during any of the times listed.” Her filing also notes that “on multiple relevant dates and times” Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade were “VISITING THE THREE CRIME SCENES WHERE A MASS MURDER MOTIVATED BY RACE AND GENDER BIAS HAD TAKEN PLACE.”

And if you believe that, you might be a woke liberal.

On Monday, Judge McAfee met in camera, with a former law partner of Wade, Terrence Bradley. 

Bradley also handled Wade’s divorce from his wife of 26 years, Joycelyn, who just wasn't doing it for Wade anymore. 

The defendants maintain that Bradley possesses information showing that Wade’s extramarital affair with Willis predated his appointment to the case. Bradley admitted on the stand that he left Wade’s employ due to accusations of sexual harassment.

There might just be a "Perry Mason Moment." Stay tuned.

Tweet