Terrence Bradley full testimony | DA Fani Willis, Nathan Wade disqualification hearing

Please be safe. All right, we are back on the record with 23 sc 188947. If we could have counsel starting with the state, identify themselves for the record for the purpose of today, admin, a body for the state, your honor. All right. And in order of the styling, uh let's start with uh for President Trump. I think we have Mr Sato on Zoom. You do your honor. Good afternoon, Steve Seow for President Trump. We waive his presence and I believe Miss Little is also uh on Zoom and ok, thank you, Mrs, on behalf of Mr Giuliani. I will start on behalf of Mayor Giuliani. I think David Lewis and Joe John Esa may be as well. There we go on behalf of Mr Meadows, Jim D on behalf of Mr Meadows and he waves his appearance. Thank you Mr D on behalf of Mr Clark, your honor. And he also waive his appearance. Thank you Mr mcdougall on behalf of Mr Chilly. Good afternoon, your honor, Richard Rice, President Court Chris and OW is Z and Mr Cheely waits as president. Thank you on behalf of Mr Roman. Good afternoon, Judge Ashley and John Merchant on behalf of Mr Greg Gill and Anthony Lake, on behalf of Mr Scaff and Hes on Mr Floyd morning. Good afternoon. Honor Chris, get your off. And Mr Foy, we also waive Mr Foy's appearance. Thank you Mr Kru and on behalf of Miss Latham, anybody here on behalf of Miss Latham before we'd had Mr Cromwell and I have not heard anything from him. I don't know if any other parties have as well, but I believe Mr Cromwell is in a deposition and in South Georgia, that's all I know. All right, like he joined. Ok. That's helpful to know Mr. Can you hear us? All right. Well, we'll keep an eye on that to see if he does join us. Uh and we'll take it up as it comes. So, uh just a few preliminaries, first of all, a bit under the weather. So I'll try to speak up. But if anyone can't hear me, just let me know and I'll, I'll try to talk uh closer to the microphone. Uh But we are here today. The sole purpose of which is that at the conclusion of the hearing on February 16th, I announced that I've been meeting with Mr Bradley and camera to assess the validity of his assertion of attorney client privilege. I've now been able to do that and I also allowed Mr Wade the opportunity to weigh in and respond as well. And after considering the testimony, not only in camera but also of what came out of the hearing. I found that neither uh Mr Wade nor Mr Bradley had met their burden of establishing that the attorney client privilege uh applied specifically as it relates to Mr Bradley's knowledge of any uh relationship that existed between uh M wills and uh Mr Wade and particularly that it wasn't established that his specific knowledge came about in furtherance of legal advice. So having made that determination, I didn't see any other choice but to allow the parties to uh have an opportunity to explore that uh that topic with him, uh There's really in my mind, it's that topic only. I think if there's anything else we've already covered, I'm not here to do it again. So, uh with that, is there anything else we need to cover before kicking that off? I was just um Mr Wade, he's still a potential witness, um talk to him. Um So me for Mr Black, I believe Mr Wade was released from his subpoena uh when we concluded his testimony the last hearing. So unless he's been Reuben and there I have no knowledge of that, he has every right to be present. Um I think procedurally that would be accurate. And so at, at, at this point, I don't see a uh a means where he would need to be recalled. And uh but if it is, then that is something you can take up all right, Mr Bradley, through his attorney had informed me that he would be here today in person. I don't see him in the gallery. Do we know if he's out in the hall? Ok. All right. If we could call for Mr Bradley, the judge would be permissible to sit in the jury's office. Thank you. All right, Mr Bradley, uh, deputy Scott will swear you in again for me. 12 months. I thought you should be able to see Terrence Bradley T er Ren Ce Bradley, BR ad Ley. Thank you, judge. Good afternoon, Mr Bradley. Good, good to see you. Sorry. Under these circumstances, going to just go straight to where we left off before Willis and Nathan Wade were in a romantic relationship. Correct. Correct. And it began at the time that they were both municipal court judges. Correct, objection, your honor that the overall I do not have knowledge of it starting. Um, or when it started told me that it started when they were both municipal court judges though. Correct. That is in um, it's, you never confirmed in writing that it was instead of magistrate court, it was in municipal court job when they started dating. If you're speaking of the text message, you can go to that text message and you can read that text message and I will explain the text message to you, but you and I did not have a conversation about when it started. You asked a compound question of magistrate court versus, I mean, you, you said it was magistrate court, municipal mag. I mean, you said mag, magistrate court conference, I'm sorry. Um And then you asked another question. I said no municipal court, nothing else. I'm referring to a different conversation. I asked you, do you think it started before she hired him? And I'm going to object, this was covered in the previous hearing where Mr Bradley said he had no personal knowledge of the exact text that this merchant is speaking of and actually used in an attempt to refresh his recollection and he explained exactly what he's explained for the court. So this is uh repetitive and unnecessary. And so I would object to as an answer and relevance. Perhaps we'll get there. But I think first M Merchant has the right to draw his attention to the exam, potentially inconsistent statement. Thank you. So I need your blo for purposes of the record. I believe Miss me you tendered was the entire text chain is an exhibit. I only tendered a few of the text, but I did give the state their, their courtesy copies. Last time was this one tendered. This one was not tendered and I'm happy to tender it just take it as it comes whatever you think. 39 I wait to market. But I think. Hm. Mhm. Thank you. All right. Um So Terrence, do you remember telling me that it started when she left the D A's office and was a judge in South Fulton. I see the message there, but I, I don't recall. Um, I do see that message but I do not recall. You don't recall texting this. I look back at my text messages um through uh that we've had, I see the message but I do not recall that ma'am. And when I asked you if you start, if you thought it started before she hired him and you responded absolutely your honor. I'm going to object to the source of the information that Mr Bradley allegedly gathered this from. Um, there's been absolutely no foundation. Um And based on the arguments at the last hearing that a lot of this is based on gossip innuendo assumption, uh, and privileged information. And at this point, Miss Virgin has not provided a foundation as to how Mr Bradley would have any information that she keeps referring to or I didn't ask him about the source of the information. And under rule 621 I can impeach him with any inconsistent facts. This is an inconsistent fact, I can impeach him with any contrary facts, relevant impeachment if he actually has no personal knowledge of this, if he doesn't. So I think you have to lay that foundation so that, um, do you remember telling me that it began? Well, that's, that doesn't address the No, not. I, I was just asking if you remember telling me as opposed to the. Sure. Do you remember telling me that it began? Well, no, and then you're going into the substance of it, which we haven't determined whether he actually knows or how he knows. You told me. In fact, you corrected me when I said magistrate court, you corrected me and said it was Municipal court. Do you remember that this is the exact same issue, right? If he remembers that he hasn't answered that question yet, right? But the relevance of whether he remembers it isn't established until we know how he remembers it or why he knows him. If that makes sense, I guess not. Sorry how he knows it. I'm just asking if he told me that. So I wasn't asking how he knew that I wasn't asking the source of that knowledge. I was asking if he told me that, but that's the point is how he knows it, source of the knowledge because it's gossip and innuendo, which is what was indicated last year. Well, it may not be here soon. It may not be gossip. We haven't really gotten there yet. We don't know how he knows what he's telling her. I think we need to figure that out before we can go any further. Yes. And if the source of the information is a witness who testified that it's not hearsay. So when did the relationship start? I cannot answer that. When was your first knowledge of the relationship? He's already answered that question multiple times today. He said he has no idea the timeline or when it occurred. I was one of the first questions in this. I didn't ask when I asked his first knowledge, he testified, he has knowledge that they had a relationship. I asked him when he first got knowledge of that. OK. So the question is, when did you first get knowledge? I think we can start there. That was the question. Yeah. Thank you. When did you first get knowledge of their relationship? I've said over again that I was not, I didn't have any personal information where I could personally say when it started. I've said that time and time again. So I don't, I don't know when the relationship started and that wasn't my question. So my question is, when did you first gain knowledge? I didn't ask the source of the knowledge. I didn't ask you to comment on the validity of the knowledge. When you first had knowledge, we'll get to the, how your body. So note the injection over it. I can answer that just for the record. I appreciate your eye. Um But he said he has no personal knowledge. So it's clear that he had to gain the knowledge from, from hearsay. He could have gained it from. Well, I mean, most of us learn things from hearsay. The question of whether, whether it's admissible, right? And that's what we got to get to. So I apologize. OK. Um When did you first get knowledge? I'm not qualifying what type of knowledge? I'm just asking when you first knew about the relationship. I don't know how to answer that to me. So I can't give you a date if you're asking for a date. If you're asking me, how did I get the knowledge? It would have come directly from a client, right. So help me understand. I think you say you can't answer that question. You don't know the date. So that's the answer to the question. But I said that five minutes ago, we have to make it clear. Yes, next question is, but you don't know the specific date. Do you know if it can we narrow down the timeline? Was it, did you gain knowledge in 2019 of this relationship beginning? I'm going to object to this line of questioning as he said, he does not know what he gained. I think I'm overruling that. I think we can try to see if he can narrow it down based on goalposts. Thank you. Um 19. I would probably say no, I mean, I, I don't have anything that I'm, I'm um there wasn't a specific date, there wasn't a football game, there wasn't something that I can attribute to him telling me whatever. And so you're asking for a date you're asking for a year is still a date. And at this time, I am telling you that I do not have the date. Um, let's try this then. So you received a contract from MS Willis. Um January 2021. Correct. Oh, can I see the? Yes, I think so. I think, I think it was from the exhibits. I think it was 21. Yes. And I don't want to believe the point when you were here before, if those documents that you looked at last time. Yes. January 2022. That's 21. I'm sorry. 21. You're right. It was, I think renewed in 22. It was. Yes. So the contract date was that we have in the record is January 25th, 2022. So using that date at that point, had they begun their romantic relationship of 2022. January 25th, 2022 2021. I'm sorry when you got your first contract, I, I don't recall, um I don't recall any, any specific uh dates. No. You remember when you got that contract though, correct? I remember I had the contract. Yes. And you told us last week or I guess it was the week before. Now you told us that Mr Wade brought you that contract essentially told you about that contract. That is correct. So this will, this is not the one that brought that contract to you directly. It was Mr Way. That is correct. At that point in time, they were already engaged in a relationship that I can say that of what Mr Bradley just said, he just said he does not remember. There's nothing specific, remember the exact date. I think the question now is to or tie it to maybe some other event that he might remember. I agree with your honor. She asked that specific question. He said he does not remember any specific days after signing a contract. That's exactly what he just said. We're getting to the end of it. So, Miss Merchant, you don't have much more to pull on here, but he answered that last question. So what's your next one? Um And, and I, I didn't hear the answer if they were in a relationship. January 25th, 2022. I recall the question and I can't tell you actively whether or not they were in a relationship at the time you asked me about him bringing a contract. I said he did bring me a contract and that is accurate. Do you remember prior to, do you remember knowing Miss Willis prior to her taking office as the DX? I had very little contact with Miss Willis. Um I knew her um through my business of coming down to Fulton, if that's what you're asking. Yes, you knew her through the business. Um So had you had met her prior to your contract? I'm going to object to relevance at this point as to why we're here today. Judge, he doesn't remember much of anything right now. And so I'm trying to create a timeline to hopefully piece this together. All right. Well, um I'm not seeing really the likelihood that that's going to have any success. I'll, I'll let you ask a few more questions, but if he doesn't have a date, then I don't know that you're gonna be able to create one today. Ok. Thank you. So, the time that you had this contract from January 2021 until January 2022 did you come in and out of the das office? Yes. And so were you able to witness Mr Wade and Miss Willis and her act during that time the last year about Bradley's access to and from a specific room to pick a file? And Mr Bradley said that he rarely saw them together, but this was, I think the only avenue that was closed at the last hearing was his personal knowledge, potentially through. Well, actually, no, if he testified that he had no personal knowledge, it's knowledge that conveyed to him that was cut off at the last hearing, that's really the only thing we hadn't been able to explore unless you correct me if I'm wrong, that was conveyed to him by, by somebody else that, that he claimed at the time was privileged. I found that it's not, that's what we're here to explore. Do you remember telling me that not many people knew where they met an object as to relevance as to his personal knowledge, which is what 602 requires. We're back to the same point. This merchant, his personal knowledge is what I'm asking him what he told me. But he hasn't yet told you how he knows that. And so, unless he can establish why he should be testifying on this at all, and there's no, and I don't know how he knows that that would be the next question, but I know it, I first have to establish that he said that no, you don't, you could go the other way around. Um When you told me that it started when you left, when she left the DAS office and was a judge in South Fulton. Where did you gain that knowledge from? Oh, I'm going to object because his testimony a few minutes ago is that he did not recall making that statement. All right, I'll overrule that Mr Bradley answer the question. If you can repeat the question when you told me that their relationship started when she left the DAS office and was a judge in South Fulton. Where did you obtain that knowledge from? It was I was speculating. Um I didn't have a um no one told me I was speculating, no one told you that no one told me that you were speculating based on things that had been told to you or things you had observed. So I'm going to object as to the nature of this line of questioning the witness has made it clear, he was speculating as to how or what he knew and if it's speculation, it's inadmissible for the support. But the motivation for his reason for speculating would be admissible. So, over rule, that was this speculation when you told me that was that based on things that had been told to you and things that you had witnessed, I never witnessed anything. So, um, you know, it, it was speculation. I can't tell you um anything specific. If that's what you're you're asking, you can't tell me anything specific as to why you speculated about that. This was however many years ago. I mean, I don't recall but no, I, I don't have any. I don't know if speculation is lying, but I, well, let me just show me where in the text says you're speculating, you ask me if I was speculating, guessing. I didn't ask you to tell me if it says anywhere here, if this is the same one that you just showed me does not. And you're welcome. If you need to look at your text, is there anywhere here that in the case that you have knowledge of, I'm going to object the question, your honor, directed counsel to uh explore is where he got the knowledge he's explored that he said it's speculation and he didn't get it from any source other than his own speculation. I think we're flushing that out. And uh I think it's her right to a little leeway on this if she's an adverse witness. Thank you. Judge objections are clearly coaching witness because he's regurgitating offense to that. I'm objecting based on the law making a record for the court. So II, I take offense to that comment. It's not the case. All right. Well, I think we can start with uh, objection, the grounds and the rule number and then if I need more, I'll ask. Thank you. All right. Thank you. What did Nathan tell you about the relationship objection hearsay? Nathan has testified. It still, he says an out of court statement being brought in the truth of the matter as certain. So he said this would be for impeachment by contra, which would be an exception to the hearsay rule and amissible substantive evidence and the privilege issues are over. Thank you. Well, I, I think you guys have objective but we don't know what he's talking about. So we've already established that December 2018 was the date of the privilege and that's something I covered in the in camera hearing. And I'm based on what he told me in that in camera hearing. Uh I don't believe any statements to this effect covered by and judge, I just want for the record because sometimes the record doesn't reflect where people are looking. And that when I ask a question, Mr Bradley is looking at Mr Wade and his lawyer to wait for them to object and they're clearly interacting somehow in the court. So I just want the record to reflect that because it wouldn't. Otherwise it's question was put to judge, one of my lawyers is standing, is sitting right in the back a on that rabbit hole. You can look wherever you want. And I never looked at Mr Wade or his attorneys. That sounds, or the question was put to repeat the question, please. Yes. So I showed you, I asked you, I'm sorry. The question. The last question I asked you was, what did Nathan Wade tell you about the relationship, same protection and that's already been ruled upon. I recall him stating that at some point they were dating. Uh I can't tell you what date that was. It was made in confidence. We were in the back of our office. Our offices were the only two in the back. There was no one else present. That is all I can tell you at this time. One time, one time you only had a conversation with him one time about the relationship, objection asked and answered. No, I think that's a clarify for their own sifting cross, Miss Merchant. I do not recall any other time that he mentioned uh that they were in a relationship. No. Um You may have. Ok. Um So other than so you talked about this one time, um And you said you don't know when it was though, correct? That is correct. Um Was it before Mr Wade before you got the contract in Fulton County. Let's start with that. I do not recall. Ok. And, um, how did you come up? Say again, how did it come up? I do not recall how it came up. Um, it was in the back. I know it was, I know where it occurred, um, in our offices in the back. I can't tell you what we were discussing prior to that. Ok. Did you receive an email from me on January 6th? Um, with a motion attached? I think I did. Yes. Yes, I know. I know. I, I received a, I don't know if the date is January 6th, but yes, I received it. Yes. Um, so you remember receiving that the date, um, and you reviewed it and then you, you and I spoke about it. Do you recall that? Did we speak over the phone or are you saying through a text? You, I can't remember, um, whether it was text the phone or, but you recall us speaking one way or another one way or another. Yes. And where I was trying to confirm the facts in that filing, I think I remember, um, there was a line of about, um, the accuracy of, um, how much money that my office, the law, the law office of 10 A Bradley, uh, had received. Um, and whether or not that was going to be and the motion or not. Well, there wasn't a discrepancy. I hadn't kept that out, but you asked me to put that back in. Correct. I don't, I, I recall you. Um that may be accurate. Yes. And you thought because you thought it might be suspicious if you were left out of promotion. No, I, I think we discussed that it should reflect the accuracy because the accuracy was that I received. Um I had a contract to receive 74 grand, 74,000. Um And I think you had put in there that Mr Campbell had received a certain amount and then you also have put in there that Mr Wade had received a certain amount, but there was not anything in there originally and I said that it need to be accurate. I need it to be accurate as far as that I have received 74,000 because you did not want anyone knowing that you had talked to me no object for relevance. We buy it. I wanted you to be accurate as far as the accuracy of our message or, or your filing. OK. So that was your, so your interest was in in accuracy in the file. I didn't reach out to you and say send me a copy of your motion. I didn't reach out to you to say that you were that I'm gonna be in your motion, right? I asked you to review it for accuracy accuracy. And I just stated that it was inaccurate and the inaccuracy that you pointed out was the thing about your family or how much you had made. That was the inaccuracy that I, I saw that jumped out was the fact that, um, I saw that I was left out when you and put the firm. Um, the money wise, I did not, I did not. Um, when I responded to that, it was for that specific reason. OK. And I agreed, I would put that back in that section back in and I, I did put it back and I sent it to you again. Uh I don't recall getting a second email from you now, but you were happy that I put it back in or that I agreed to put it back in to relevance. We need to get to more material aspects. Yes, judge, I'm moving along, I promise. So you asked me, you did ask me to put that back in. Well, well, you didn't answer that last question. So ruled you did, can you confirm, you did ask me to put that back in for it to be accurate? Yes, that's correct. I said that um yes. And then I asked you if everything was accurate and you said looks good, correct. I, I recall you asking that but the looks good was applying to the accuracy of the 74,000. That's it. OK. Um So when you reviewed the motion and you specifically pointed out that one thing that you, that you found inaccurate, you didn't point anything else out that you found inaccurate in that motion though? Correct? No, I did not. And that motion alleged that their relationship began when Miss Willis was in musical, if I can read, reread your motion. But, um, I don't recall but if that's what it says, but I did, I did my saying, um, that it looks good was when you put back in the 74,000 um, into your motion. Ok. And that's, that wasn't what I was asking what I was asking is you didn't tell me that there was anything else inaccurate in motion though, right? But I didn't state that anything was accurate. But other than the 74,000. Now, when I told you that I had this motion that I was preparing, you asked me to send a rough draft. No, that's incorrect. What, which page are you showing? Page number? It's um, January 6th. Sure, you can stop the medicine. Yeah, and we see this. So, um, we have been talking and you asked me to send you a rough draft and I told you, ok. But I didn't want it to be leaked before I filed it. That is correct. That is correct. So you're the one that asked me to send a rough draft? Yes, that's correct. Yes, that's correct. And that was at 1008 on Saturday, January 2nd. Um, and then you got an email from me with that rough draft at 1025 that same day. Correct. Yes, you need to look at it. If, if it says 1025 then, um I know you sent me an email. Um, and why he's looking at it. I'm, I'm gonna object us to ask the name. We've been through the fact that he set up a copy of the motion, whether he specifically said rough draft or not. And then asked about the accuracy. He's explained his answer and I uh we're getting there ruled for now. Um And then I responded, when we were talking about that footnote that we were just talking about, I said, I took it, I took it out but I can add it back. And you said, yes, add it back. You remember that I am that yes. And then I said anything else, anything that isn't accurate? And you responded looks good. You recall that. Let me see the and there I, I don't know where the exhibits are. Um They were admitted. Mhm That will refresh your memory. It says it looks good. But as a, as I stated before, I was responding to you putting me back into the motion for receiving $74,000 in a contract. Well, that's not what this says. This says. You said yes, add it back. And then I said anything else, anything that is in accurate and you responded looks good. So you weren't responding to put it back in your honor. I'm going to object to his motion. He wasn't the a of the motion to verify this. I've said twice. Rule about it. I've said twice that the looks accurate was, or I've said more than twice was for the 74,000. Do you remember telling me about, um, Nathan and fa coming to your office and spending time together at your office? No, I mentioned, um, I do recall testifying on the 16th that she had come to her office and that was before she was elected as district attorney. Correct. I recall that that was when she was district attorney because I said that there was a meeting held at my office and who was at that meeting? Now, I can't tell you that I don't recall, but, you know, Miss Willis was there and Mr Waite was there, it was our office. Um, actually, uh Miss Willis was there and there were other people there, Mr Wade was not in that meeting. He was, he was in the back. Uh I wasn't even in that meeting. Why did she hold it at your office? Now? I have no idea. Um You also remember telling me about them spending time together at her law office before she took, took her down. I don't recall. Do you, I don't recall. Do you have something to? Well, what I'm asking is she, so let's back up a sec. So this Willis rented a law office from the Evans F or Andrew Evans and another lawyer. I think Stacy Evans, you have knowledge of that. Correct. I object to you if, well, how does he know the information? That would be the correct question? Ok. Um, mm, I don't really know even how to respond to that. Um, here say I'm asking if he knew that she rented, may have been, there may have seen a business card or something at some point. I think you can answer that. I've never been to Miss Willis's office when she was in private practice. I've never dealt with where she rented. I didn't even know where her office was. So, do you remember though, knowing that she rented an office from the, you know the correct? Ok. And do you remember telling me that Mr Wade and Miss Willis would rendezvous at that office? I'm gonna to again hearsay as to how he knows that information. He said he has no personal knowledge. He did not say he has no personal knowledge. She hasn't even answered it. He said in general he had no personal knowledge. So it's not been established the source of how he would know this because he said he's never been to her office if you, I know you're trying to impeach him by prior consistent statement. But unless you can first back up and show why each statement is actually something that the knowledge of it. I don't know if this is gonna be and judge, I'm not even there yet. But again, a speaking objection. And so now I, I would anticipate what our response is going to be next. Um I didn't ask anything that was objectionable, but these objections are coaching the witness. I asked if he had knowledge, that's it. I didn't ask, did someone say this to you? I didn't ask, what did this person tell you? I asked if you knew? Well, no, you're asking if you had knowledge and then you say something specific. So once I get an answer to that, if he has knowledge, then I will follow up with where that knowledge came from. Well, let's try again. So my question is, do you have knowledge of them meeting at that office? Objection Foundation. Ok. All right, overruled. Do you have knowledge of the meeting at that office? I have no personal knowledge. If that's what you're asking, I didn't ask that yet. I asked if you have any knowledge that would be that if it came from Mr where it came from. So he said, how do you know Mr, how do you know any knowledge that I would have received would have come from my client at the time? Ok. So you have knowledge of this place that, that Miss Willis worked. What did you know about them meeting at that office? Objection hearsay. It's not hearsay, judge how he knows it. And then you ask the next question, she's, he's already asked the next question. Can you repeat the question, how do you have knowledge? What knowledge did? But you just told us, she told us Mr Wade told you, so tell us what Mr Wade told you about Miss Willis and Mr Wade meeting at the Evans office objection, your honor and privilege. This clearly covers the time after December 2018, that would be covered by the privilege. Um Overall, do you recall the question Mr Grant? I do not here. We asked the question. What did you learn from Mr Wade? I just clarified that for you on about Mr Willis. Mr Wade and Miss Willis meeting at the Evans office together. I don't object to ask and answer. He's testified. He had one conversation with Mr Wade in the back of his office. His answer may change the question. I can't recall what the conversation was. Um I do, I do recall um knowing that they would, that he would go down to the office or had been down to the office, but I can't tell you in what capacity or win or any of that. No, Mr Reid told you that they had sex in the office. Is that correct? I don't recall him saying that. No, you don't recall. So it's possible he didn't say that you just don't remember one way or another. I do not remember saying that. Um and do you recall that he had a garage door opener to either a house or a condo or something? Like that of this Wallace's, I've never seen a garage door opener. I've never been to Miss Willis's house. I've never been to and I'm trying to explain, I've never been so, no, I do not have any personal knowledge of him having a garage door opener. Let me ask the question again. I didn't ask if you have personal knowledge. Like as in you saw it, do you have any knowledge at all from Mr Wade or any source that he had a garage door opener to access one of Miss wills' residents? And I object to any source as to hearsay. All depends on the source. The ruled. No, no, no, I don't have any knowledge. So when you told me that, did you just make it up? Do you have something that shows that I told you that? Yes, we, well, we're going to go through all the text. We can. But do you, so was that made up though? But I'm gonna object because I don't, I don't recall him having I reject it or 106 is the rule of completeness. I don't have that text message or any text messages that indicate that your honor. And I don't have if it was a text, I, we had that conversation. I actually think it was when he was on speaker phone and Mr Merchant was there. But I'm not sure. But I mean, if I'm asked to qualify exactly where that's from, I would OK. So rule of completeness would be if you need to introduce other texts to show the context. If you're saying you don't, haven't seen a copy yet, then I think miss me need to do that before you can. And that's, that's what I was asking him. If he, if, if that was something he just remembers making up. If he doesn't, then that's fine. But he referenced text messages and started to go into her packet of papers. So you don't have a text message that I don't, I would need some time to look through and I don't remember if I have a text to that or if it was during a conversation. It was one of those he has now said that he has no knowledge. So on your next question. Ok. Did Mr we tell you about the trips that he and Miss Willis took? No. Do you have any knowledge of the trips that he and Miss Willis took objection hearsay overruled? I do now. Ok. But you did not before this proceeding. I did not know until you text that you found that in the um deposition of his divorce, I mean, not, not deposition but something from his divorce. Ok. And when you responded, um doesn't surprise me, they took many trips to Florida, Texas, California. Those are your works though, right? As the relevance. He said he did not know when he actually learn from his merchant. The information he said he learned about certain trips from me. OK. You can tie it down. But thank you, we'll see no information about any trip that Miss Willis and Mr Wade took that. He learned it all from this merchant. That was his testimony. The conclusion we reach, I think she's going to ask more than one question. All right, this version and just so we can be clear if he said more than one version, that's all relevant. We're allowed to talk about the different versions that he's told. Do you remember telling me that it didn't surprise you that they took the trips that I found in the divorce file because they took many trips to Florida, Texas, California. And then you told me that they took the trip to California when she moved her daughter there because she failed out of fan. You remember that? I don't recall that. But if, um I, I don't recall, OK, judge me a perch. It's, it's in one of the ones I gave you just take a look at that and let me know if it refreshes your memory. So now can you just first let me know if that refreshes your memory? So it's true that you told me that they took many tips to Florida, correct? Um For that. Yes, but one of the messages is cut off and you asked about some of the trips and I said, no, I didn't, I think, and that was specific to at the top of that, it says, no, I didn't. And so that was to the trips that you ask you about. And I think before that when you mentioned that you found all these trips, I think I said, oh, wow, you did. And you did not know about all the trips that were taken and you qualified it, you said no, I didn't. When did it happen? And then the next touch which I can get or you can look at your phone or whatever, whatever refreshes your memory you said was after you left, after the phone was dissolved, subject to relevance. It was after the firm, the, the, the trips that you said, no, you didn't know about. You told me those were after your firm had designed them, correct. I think you mentioned that they were after I left maybe or um whenever you found them. And I said, no, I didn't know about those trips. So, so you believe I mentioned that it was after you left, I'm quite sure you have the text message and I will refresh my memory. Is it easier for you to refresh your memory with your own phone or with my printouts of screenshots? Well, you have a judge. The reason I'm asking is because I'm getting objections that I've cut things off and it's just the nature of how you have to print out screenshots. So in order to avoid that, I'm happy for him to refresh his memory with his own phone if that would be. Well, I don't know if he's accepting your offer or not. So, would that be easier for you? You can just provide the documents? Ok, see you. Yeah. Can I have some motor jets, please? Yeah, I'm sure we can do. I'm just trying to pull out all of the messages that you may need. All right. Well, um, I don't really see at some point we're reaching the cumulative point where we don't need to go through an entire six month text chain. You're making the point that he'd made some comments to you along the way that led you to believe he had more knowledge than today. He's testifying that he had. And so if you've hit the high points of that, then I don't know what else we can cover that actually moves the needle. Ok, I'll, I'll just, I'll move on to the actual trips then. So you told me that they took many trips to Florida that refreshed your memory. You told me that was that based on your knowledge from Mr Wade, that would have been based on anything that my client would have told me. I didn't have personal knowledge of whether they went or not. Um, the trips to Texas and you, you're the one to take Texas, was that based on your knowledge from Mr Wade? It would have been something that came from the client. I cannot tell you that I have any personal knowledge of any trip. Um Other than what would have been said by the client. Obviously, I'm not asking if you went on these trips. I'm asking if you have knowledge from Mr. Um, you also typed California, was that something that you gained from knowledge from Mr Wayne? It would have been from the client at this particular point. Yes. And you told me that the trip to California was to her daughter out there. Would that have been something you from, Mr Thank you, Jeff. Any knowledge that I have of any trip would have come from my client at the time. Um, you told us last week that Mr Wade used your credit card one time. Do you know when that was? I do not? Well, I think this was the impeachment of Mr Wade's testimony. Mr Wade testified that he never used anyone else's credit card before during the last year that used his credit card. I didn't ask, did he I asked, when did he let's go there? I do not have any dates of when Mr Wade used my credit card. Um, I testified that we used the card for business, um, and that, um, throughout the business, we would order paper or supplies or um, filing of depositions. Uh, I mean, the cost factor of cases is what I said. Um, and that still applies today. Did he use my credit card? He did, but I can't tell you who he used that card, um, what the trip was for. I can't even tell you at this time where he went but he used it for a trip. Yeah, it was, I mean, it was for a trip but I can't tell you where, when, why or anything, uh, to that nature. Correct? And he paid you back in cash. I never testified that he paid me back in cash. I said that he would either pay me back. Um You know, I said, I can remember, I do not recall. Sometimes he would write checks, sometimes he would pay cash and that still applies today that I do not recall him paying me back cash, but I do recall him paying me back. And this was when you were still before your partnership split up, correct? It would have been before I left the farm. Yes, you wouldn't have used my card after I left the farm. So we can at least narrow down the dates to that before I left the firm. Yes. Ok, great. Um And Mr Reid gave you details about meeting Miss Willis in Hate or East Point as it was called. That's in. He did not tell you about that. She didn't give me details. He did not tell you about meeting with Miss Willis at an East Point or hateful apartment at this time. I don't recall. No, II I don't recall. Where did you get that information from? Then? He testified, he doesn't recall if he even had, I asked if he got it from Mr Waite and he says he doesn't recall. So then I asked where he got it from. I do not recall where I got the information from. Ok. Um, and you and Mr Wade were friends as well as business partners, correct. We were friends, um, in the sense of I've known him for years. Um, yes, we were friends and, um, you definitely did not want to come and be a witness in this case. Correct. That is true. And um it was after and, and we talked about this earlier, the gate banks called you and then Nathan Wade called um one of your friends. It was after that, that you hired Mr Chopra to assist you in this matter, correct. Was it after that? Um So I heard Mr Chopra and I heard Mr Graham, now Mr Graham is here and um when I received a subpoena, Mr Graham was here at the last hearing, but he also had to go out of town, but he was present Mr Graham, I called um and I had started getting calls from media and um and I told him to respond to the media, I think, and that was somewhere around whenever you um subpoenaed me. So it was, I can't tell you that um it was that instance of those calls for um Mr Chopra. Um but I had engaged Mr Chopra and Mr Graham at that time. Um, so I'm gonna ask the question again because I didn't get an answer to it after you got the phone call from Gabe Banks and from Nathan Wade, I think it was before that. But, um, however, I, I think it was before. That is what I'm stating. Um, when you got the call from a Banks, you called me immediately. Well, actually you texted me and then you called me. I didn't call you immediately. Um But yes, we did speak and you texted me about it as well. That is correct. And um then we spoke after Mr Wade called your friend and we talked about that as well. Correct. That is correct. And at that point, you didn't mention anything to me about being represented by Mr Chopra, but I didn't mention anything about Mr Chopra or uh that is correct. That, that, that was only my question. Um See two more text me. We're going two questions. Thank you. 305. I cut you off. Thank you. NH Let me show you um total text to refresh your memory. And then are these supposed to go together? Oh, these are 22 separate dates. Ok. All right. So I know we talked about the other occasions where, where you said the text was just about the footnote. Um But do you recall me asking you? Um do you think it started before she hired him? And you said? Absolutely. Do you recall that I see that in the text message? Yes. Ok. And um do you also recall me asking you how they would react, that they would attack me? And you said no, they will deny it your honor objection as to speculation as to how he thinks they will react. I think that goes to the motivations of the wits overall. And you told me that they will deny it that's written in there. Yes, I just want to one last opportunity. You're an officer of the court, correct? And you're under oath today. Is there any of your testimony from today or the previous days that you want to correct that I want to correct? Yes. No, I told you everything that you answered, everything that you asked. Thank you. Just the just for the record they were tendered for, they need to be tendered at some point part of the record. All right, let me turn to Mr, if you're with us on Zoom. Thank you. Honor. I do have a few questions. First thing I'd like to know is whether the court reporter has defense exhibits 26 and 27. From the last we have a different court report. At this time, we have to have someone else filling on such short notice, but I can potentially send those to you if you need them. Well, I think I have working copies but I want to make sure that the witness has a copy to look at all right, we can try to work through that logistical challenge. This is, you said 26 and 27 I believe that's correct. And 26 I think is the same, um, text messages that Miss Merchant was just asking about. It was two pages. I stapled it together and it is dated January the fifth of this year. All right. Uh, I can print off a copy now but why don't we start off with the questions that you have? Ok, because that's where I, that's where I'm gonna start. But I'll, I'll see what I can do to work through it. Yeah, I know too. You can. All right, Mrs, why don't we start with your question? And we'll see if we actually need to get a copy of those exhibits from the witness. All right. Now, Mr Bradley. Yes, I'm here all of a sudden they've lost you on the screen. Um There we go. Well, you're on the zoom, you're on youtube, but you're not on the zoom itself but not that I can see. Um I'm, I'm here. I can hear you. No, I know. I think his visuals may be a little different. So, hold tight, Mr Seow, we could try to correct that he was on, he was on when Miss Merchant was asking questions, we need to, we need to add a spotlight to Mr uh to the witness stand and the spotlight to Mr Seow. And we don't need all the other boxes. There we go. Thank you very much for the old time as we said, that we need to add you as well. All right now we're ready. Thank you, sir, Mister Bradley. You have referred to Mr Wade as your client. Correct. Correct. You understand that the court has ruled that communications that you had with Mr Wei are not privileged. Correct? No, I'm, I'm aware that the court ruled that um one specific uh dealing with the time frame of one specific conversation wasn't privileged. Then I'm going to ask your honor if, if a set for a limitation, the to clarify. Sure, Mr, you asked whether all communications with Mr Wade, I think we covered. That was not the extent of the ruling. The only ones that I think were not covered and that I'd asked about the camera hearing because those are the ones that were relevant. Were any communications Mr Wade made regarding the existence or non existence of a romantic relationship as well? I beg your honor. I hope dear. So going back to uh this line of inquiry when you say you don't have personal knowledge, what I wanna ask you to start with it very soon. Did you have communications with Mr Wade about the relationship between Mr Wade and Miss Willis? It's a simple, yes or no. Yes. OK. And is it your testimony that during the time we were representing him, which I understood started sometime in 2018. Is that correct? That's the time frame that I remember. Yes. Is it your testimony under oath that with regard to conversations with Mr Wade about his relationship with Miss Willis that you only had one such conversation during the time you represented Mr Wade? One conversation of what I apologize. The only thing, the only thing I'm asking about is that area that the court said is not privileged, which is the relationship between Mr Wade and MS Willows. You've testified that during the time you represented Mr Wade from 2018 on that you only had one conversation with him in reference to the relationship between Miss Willis and Mr Wade. Is that correct? Yeah, I think that's fair. Yes. Ok. So out of the entire time we're talking about could be 2018, 2019, 2020 2021. When did you stop representing? Um Mr Wade? It was a few months after I left the firm. Alright. Give me a part of the time I left maybe. Um June, July 2022 maybe. Ok. So that would suggest that for assuming it's 2018, 2018, 2019, 2020 20 21.5 of 2022 which is in the vicinity of 4 to 4.5 years. You're testifying under oath. You had one conversation about a relationship between Mr Wade and Miss Willis. Is that correct? I don't recall having any other conversation with Mr Wade about him and Miss Willis. Is it your testimony then that you don't remember any other conversation or there wasn't any other conversation besides the one object to answer? I think he's drilling down. I think it's a fair question. Overall. I don't recall. Um I would say it was the one but I, I don't recall. You testified that you did have communications with Mr Wade about him visiting with Mr Willis at a condo or apartment. Correct? I don't think I testified that I had a conversation. I testified that any knowledge that I would have known anything about any condo would have come from that. But I don't recall a conversation about that. I, I do not recall the conversation about that. Yeah. Do you recall any other thing at this point in time under oath that would indicate when the relationship started between Mr Wade and Mr Wilkes. I do not know when the relationship started between Mr Wade and Miss Wilson. I cannot recall that I can't. Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead. I'm gonna drill down on that now. Ok. Yes, sir. Mr Wade was hired as the special prosecutor on November 1st of 2021. You're aware of that, correct? I have my contracts to show when I started. I, no one showed me the contract of when he started. But uh, so, but if, if he has a contract for November 1st of 2021 then that's correct. All Right. I'm gonna, I'm gonna suggest to you that the record will reflect that the contract between M Willis and Mr Wade was November 1st of 2021. Correct. I want you just to accept that. Ok. Is it your testimony that you don't know under oath whether or not there was a relationship between Mr Wade and Miss Willis before the contract, I do not recall any dates of when the kind of when the relationship started. So whether you are pinpointing a date of when his contract started or not, I'm telling you, I did not recall any specific date that he flat out said anything about a relationship with Miss Willis. OK. Now, I wanna go based on what you've just said. Let's go to the, what was defense exhibit 26. OK. In defense exhibit 26 which I showed you last time was two pages of text messages between you and Miss Merchant, correct? All right. Now, the first page starts off by saying Miss Merchant, like just date, don't hire him. Do you think it started before she hired him? You see that? Yes, I, I see it. Yes. And your response to that was absolutely correct. I'm gonna object as the All right. So, um Mrs, uh I, I do think we went through a lot of these texts. We, we didn't go through this whole one just a second. Let's say that. All right. Um I'm sorry to say that. Uh you said we didn't go through this particular one. We went through, we stopped right there. I want to go. I went, I answered because she, this is the exact language that she just stated a few minutes ago. You can read it back. OK. Listen to it. Are you saying both of these two exhibits weren't already covered by this merchant. It was not gone, this particular language was not gone into, I'm doing it based on the exhibit itself. Um But let's do it this way. I now move into evidence defense exhibit number 26. All right. And I don't have, I have to search through my notes. But does anyone recall that one actually been intended in a minute already? No, it was only presented to your honor for you to take back into camera ex parte to speak with Mr Bradley and his counsel. OK. Merchant is indicating that it was, but I'm organizing in the back order. So I think it might be easier to the cop. The 26 and 27 are being tendered actually 26 at this time. OK. Defense of the six and the object from the state 2626. I'm gonna object as it relates to foundation and authentication. It was used to uh during the last hearing for the purposes of uh refreshing his recollection and it's my recollection is that it didn't refresh his recollection, but I renew my objection as to acid and cumulative. OK. Uh As the foundation of authentication, I think Mr Bradley has recognized that in this text that he sent and received. So, um I think I, I rule on that basis. Any other objections to their admissibility for any other Defense Council and see defense exhibit 26 is now admitted, Mrs. Thank you. All right, let's continue. Now, I'm publishing it after you said the word absolutely on your own. You said it started when she left the das office and was judged in South Fulton. I'm going to say I have a few minutes on this and we'll go from there. But I, well, I'm sorry, I did answer this. I answered it for Miss. Um I stated that I was speculating the judge, someone objected to the speculation and, but this was the exact same language when I said I was asking the question in a slightly different manner and I'm gonna give him a little bit of leeway to do that. So Mrs, all right, I hesitate to have to start back where I was. But after the word, absolutely. You on your own said it started when she left the D A's office and was just in South Fulton. They met at the municipal Court cle conference. That's what you said. Correct. That is correct. Now, it's your testimony at least so far that when you on your own gave those two statements in the text that you were merely speculating and did not have that knowledge from Mr Wade. Is that your testimony under oath? Yes, that's what I testified to. Yes, sir. So you on your own came up with the whole notion that it started when she left the DAS office and was judged in South Fulton. That's according to you. That's speculation on your part. Correct. Overall. Answer the question. Mr Brown. Yes, that's, that's speculation on my part. Yes. Right. It had nothing to do with what Mr Wady had told you. Correct. I answered your question. I was speculating to uh the answer. That is correct. So maybe you can tell the court in your own words. Why in the heck would you speculate in this text message and say that it started when she left the D A's office and was a judge in South folk? Why would you speculate and say that in a text? I knew they had met um at the municipal court um conference. Um How do you know that I'll stop you right there. How did you know that? I answered that? The last at the last uh II, I knew that when you, I'm asking you questions and you are in a situation where you get to give answers. I'm asking you, how did you know that? How did I know when they met? Somebody told you that? Right? When they met? Yeah. Yes. Correct. What's wrong with you? Mr Wade told me when they met him. So you had more than one conversation about the relationship between Mr Wade and Miss Willis because he told you where he met her and correct. It's incorrect. It's incorrect. Let's go back to, let's go back to the exhibit. Why would you speculate that? That's when they started the relationship. What would cause you to put that down as speculation? I don't recall. But, um, why I thought that it started at that time, um, but I do recall that he only met her and I testified to that, that he met her in, at that conference, which was in 2019. You knew that Ashley Merchant represented a defendant in this case where you were text messaging with her. Correct? Yes, I did. Yes. And you knew that the reason she was asking you questions about Mr Wade was because she was trying to show when the relationship began. Correct. Mm No, that's not, it's not giving her the text message. Yes. But what, what messages were before this message before? She said that I can't answer that question because I don't have them. All I have is what's in front of you. And it's that she says, do you think it started before she hired me? So you knew as the counsel for a defendant in this case that Miss Merchant was asking you specifically about the knowledge that you had regarding the timing of the relationship between Wade and MS Willis, correct? Um I mean, based on this Yes, I, I see what it was is and in response to that, you answered directly on your own, what you now claim to be speculation. Right? That's correct. So I ask you one more time before I move to the next part of this, why would you speculate when she was asking you a direct question about when the relationship started? I have no answer for that except for the fact that you do, in fact know when it started and you don't want to testify to that in court. That's the best explanation. That's the real, that's the true explanation because you don't want to admit it in court. Correct. No, I have no direct knowledge of when the relationship started. You, I'm not gonna go back through that again. Well, if you didn't know and you were as specifically as this exhibit shows, you can explain why you wouldn't say. I don't know. Is that a question you're asking me a question to ask definite question. Um, state that again, I apologize if you're being asked as we've just gone through with this text message from this merchant as the attorney for a co-defendant. And she's asking you about the relationship and she's clearly asking you about the timing. Why wouldn't you just have said in response? I don't know when it started. I, I don't know why I didn't say, I don't know. Maybe again, it's because you know what the truth is and that's why you answered exactly the way you did it in defense. Exhibit 26. Correct. No, I can't sit here and tell you that what you just stated was correct. Right. What do 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 as opposed to putting down what you actually knew. That's what you want the court to believe. Correct. That was a lot. So, can you break that down? I apologize. You're asking me, do I want the court to just believe, who believe that? Instead of saying nothing you decided on your own to speculate? Yes, I speculated. Yes, I, I've stated that I speculated. Yes, sir. That's what you want the court to believe. Correct. That's correct. Ok. Now, then when you go to the next page of that, OK, you see it starts the best that I can see. It starts in South Folk. Is that what you have in front of you? Second page? The second page that I have says, that's what I figured. Ok, I that may be cut off from the one that I have, but it's, I'm looking at, uh my opening set line says in South Fulton, is that on your second page? Um No. So the if you're going in order of the, um, page is, no, neither page starts with South Fulton. Now, I don't get caught up in whether it starts that way. Does the second page have a line in there that it says in Southport? Oh, yes, I apologize. So, yes, that's fine. Yes, I just wanna make sure that we're on the same page. Um, you say after in South Fulton they met at the municipal Court cle conference, right? Yes, you see that. Yes, that's correct. And then this merchant says, that's what I figured when he was married. Is this accurate upon information and Belief Willis and Wade met while both were serving as magistrate judges and began a romantic relationship at that time. You see, that's what she said, right? No, I mean, so it says they met at Municipal Court Cle the only other thing here says that's what I figured when he was married. There's no response for me on that day. And then there's another response. Um, I mean, I guess a question that says, is this accurate? Ok. That's what I, I was just, that's what I just went over with you. Ok. So I don't have, um, anything in that. Is this accurate at all? Um, I can show court it was just, it just says, is this accurate with the question mark? I don't have anything following that you don't have after that upon information and belief Willis and Wade met while both were serving as magistrate judges and began a romantic. I apologize. Uh, it goes to the next page. I apologize. No problem. Just wanna make sure. No, no, I, I see that now. Yes. So that's what I just read is exactly what Miss Merchant said to you in the text, right? Yes, that was in the test. Is, is it accurate upon further information? Yes, that's there again. Since you have told us that you were speculating when you gave the answer that we went over with previously on this one, you don't say, I don't know, you simply correct her by saying no municipal court, right? Yes. So they, she asked, was it accurate? And I said it wasn't accurate. No, it wasn't accurate. It was municipal court, right? And when you said it wasn't accurate, it was municipal court. You didn't say no, that's not accurate. They didn't start a Roman romantic relationship at that time. Correct. No, but I was referring to the municipal court. No, it wasn't accurate as it applied to the I was answering the no municipal court, meaning if when she said, is that accurate, it was to the municipal court and not magistrate court. Ok. But you didn't say that the rest of what she asked, you was accurate, you didn't say no, that's inaccurate. That's not true. That's not accurate. You simply said the only thing that wasn't accurate was municipal court should be there instead of magistrate, right? So I was answering the question of it. It was a compound question. Um And I was, I was answering the question of she wrote Magistrate Court and I said no municipal court, right? But it's not compound. It's one statement. I'm sorry. I know that's ok. I know the feedback and the delay is, is complicates things, but I think you've adequately made your point here and I don't think we need to belabor it much longer. Let's move on to the next issue. Ok. Thank you. Honor, uh, Mr Bradley prior to coming into court today. Did you and your lawyer meet with anyone from the district attorney's office? I mean, not, not that I know I'm aware of though. I did not need to anyone. Sorry, I did not meet with anyone, um, outside of my attorneys. Did you have any conversation conversation? I did not. So you have not spoken if I understand you correctly prior to coming into court today, you have not spoken with the prosecutors now, right? I've not spoken to the prosecutors. I've not spoken to defense. Have you spoken to Mr Wade? No. So as far as just getting into the courtroom today, there's been no contact or conversation in it with any of the parties we just went over right there has not been any contact with defense or the state at all. I, I think I have basically just one or two more questions. Why would you see the need to speculate when you were texting with MS Marchant. I, I think we didn't cover that one, Mrs that, that I think that exact question was already put to him. What would be the, what would be the next one? Me, I'm, I'm trying to look, let's go to the 27th defense exhibit 27. Do you have that now, sir? All right. Would you look at it and tell me whether or not the defense exhibit 27 appears to be accurate because I want to seek to introduce it into evidence. It consists of an email to you from Miss Merchant and the text response from you. Correct? But the text response was not in response. So yes, it does consist of the email and a text response. I'm not saying that the text response applies to the entire email that was sent. II I, all I've asked you right now is, are the, yes, is the email and the text? Are those accurate in the interaction that makes up defense exhibit 27 as it applies to the stapling of the email and the stapling of a text message chain. Yes, that is defense uh defendants exhibit 27. This is um I it's accurate. Ok. I would move the defense executive 27 and I believe it was treated the same way as 26 last time. Same objections. Mr Yes. All right, overruled any other rejections from defense counsel seeing non defense exhibit 27 is admitted I don't know. Yeah. I don't know whether you find by subjection but or not, I'll ask it. It. Obviously, Mr Bradley, you realize that if you were to testify under oath that you knew from Mr Wade, that the relationship between him and MS Willis existed before the contract in November 1st of 2021 that if you testified that you knew that from Mr Wade, that would show that both Miss Willis and Mr Wade had lied under oath. You know that, don't you? I think that's going to call for an opinion on the credibility of another testifying witness. So I don't think that would be an appropriate question and that's all I have here. Thank you, Mrs. Now, Mr Stockton, just brief me. We'll see Mr Bradley. Um Do I understand from your prior testimony that Miss Merchant sent you a motion to review prior to her filing answers? I'm gonna give him just a little bit. All right, let's talk. Maybe this is going somewhere else. Did, did Mrs Merchant send you a motion prior to January 8th of 2024 for you to review that is correct. And did you in fact review that motion? That is correct. And did you indicate to Miss Merchant that the contents of that motion seemed ok to you? Well, so you're referring to exhibit 27 which as I stated a few minutes ago, one is an email, one is a text chain So in the text chain, when II I never responded to the email, I never responded, looks good or anything to the email that was sent to me. However, in the text chain, um you're what you all trying to merge together is the fact that I was asked about um the contract and um that and that contract was a $74,000 and me being added back to that. So when I said, uh, and I think before that in that text, um, it referred to the M me being added back and at that time I said, yes, looks good. And you're aware and you recall that when Miss Merchant presented you with that motion, she asked you not to disclose it to anyone until she filed it. Is that correct? Uh, we are covering, I think the last five or six questions we've covered ground. Let's get to that point. I'm, I'm trying to get that. I promise you the brief question. I'm sorry. She asked you not to disclose that motion to anybody until she filed it. Correct. I think so. I think that was in the text message. Yes. And you knew, in fact it was her intention to file that motion, correct. The actual motion that she, um, that was sent. Yes, I knew that she was gonna file a mo a motion. Yes. Um, I do not think that that was the final draft or it could have been that she was working on it. But yes, I knew that she was going to file some motion. Yes. And you knew that she presented that motion to you for your review so that she could make sure it was accurate. Correct. I'm gonna all this is as noted. I think Mr Stockton is getting to the next point. So why don't we just ask that one? Is that correct? Did you, uh we combine that with the next question? So we're not having to lay bit by bit every single Bradley. You knew that Mrs Merchant was relying on your review to ensure the accuracy of that motion prior to filing it, correct speculation as to what he knew that Miss Merchant knew overrule that Miss Brennan. No. So once again, I was excluded from um the footnote of that motion and my review of it and I said, hey, you need to add me back to the footnote because I did have a contract and I did receive 74,000. Um And if I may help you out, let's talk just about that part of the motion that deals with the relationship between uh the district attorney, Willis and Mr Wade. When you reviewed that, you knew that she was that. No, no, I did not know that she was relying on me to for any, any um relying on me for any accuracy other than um what was put in there. That was 74,000. Mr Bradley if there was something patently false in that motion, you would have told Miss Merchant, wouldn't you? I can't say that I would or wouldn't have, I don't, I don't know what I would have told Miss Merchant. If there was something pat patently speculative, you would have told Miss Merchant, wouldn't you? I don't know what I would have told Miss Merchant. I, she asked me, was it accurate? Um, we were discussing the 74,000 that was left out again, if I may direct you just to that portion, dealing with her, the relationship between uh Mrs Willis and Mr Wade. You didn't, you didn't tell her that there was anything patently false in that because you didn't see anything patently false in that motion as it relates to the relationship. Repeat your question. I'm so sorry. You did not inform Mrs Merchant that there was anything patently false in that motion that was that you were presented with as it concerns the relationship because you did not see anything that was patently thought. Correct. All right. Next question Mr Stockton to stand and you didn't see anything that was speculative in there. Did you sustain stock? I just want to ask you one more question. I'm coming out from the other way that Mr Sadow did, did anybody from the District Attorney's office or any witnesses in this, this case contact you about Miss Merchant's motion from January the eighth of 2004 until today did anyone contact me about her motion? Yes. From the District Attorney's office or any, uh, witnesses or anybody else involved with the case besides the defense. Other than the call that I, the only personal call that I had was with gay banks. I've never spoke to anyone else and to my knowledge, he's not a part of it, so that's all. Thank you, Mr Stockton. Mr Durham, if you're still with us. No, thank you, sir, Mr macdougall. Good afternoon, Mr Rader. You have certain information about the relationship between Mr Wade and MS Willis that is not privileged. Correct? Well, that was my determination. So I think he disagrees with it. So we're going to say his opinion is a little irrelevant on that point. Do you understand that the court has ruled that certain information that you have about the relationship between MS Willis and Mr Wade is not privileged. I have the court's ruling as I understood it and as my lawyers and I understood it of the privilege not existing was based off of a conversation that was had in my office in the back of my office, which was confidential with Mr Wait. Now, that's what was asked of me on yesterday and that's what the ruling to my knowledge unless I'm being corrected here now and saying that it's more it was that particular piece that the judge said did not have privilege and have you testified already today to the sum total of your knowledge of the relationship that is outside the scope of the privilege according to the court's ruling. Can you say that again? I'm sorry, I didn't understand it referring to what you understand to be the information that is not privileged. Have you testified to the sum total of that information? I think I have. Yes, I've, I think I've testified to, to that. Yes. All right, sir. That's my questions. Thank you, Mr Rice. Thank you, Mr Bradley Bradley. At least as of February 15th. When you first testified, you said you still considered yourself a, I think I said that. Yes, I think I did. Yes. And you've been friends with Mr Wade for over 10 years, correct. That would have been fairly agree. Yes. And you recall communicating with Miss Merchant about this case and about Mr Wade and Miss Willis relationship, correct? Object as to past and, and cumulative by all three previous. Let's, we can put the foundation when we combine it with the next question where you've got a new point to make Mr Bradley. When you spoke, when you communicated with Miss Merchant, did you tell her any lies about Mr Wade and Miss Willis's relationship? Then I lie to miss one. That's a simple question, Mr Bradley. You're a lawyer. Did you lie to Miss Merchant when you told her facts about Mr Wade and Miss Willis's relationship? Not that I recall. I, I don't recall. Um I mentioned earlier that I speculated on some things. Um I've testified to what I did know. Um So II I can't recall whether or not I, no, Mr Bradley, speculation is kind of easily lawyer word. Let's speak truth here under oath at this point. Your honor relevant question, Mr Question Mr Rice, Mr Bradley. When you were communicating different details of the relationship between Miss Willis to Mrs Merchant, did you lie to her about any of those details? Asked and answered twice? I don't think he's answered it yet. I don't recall ever. Um whether any of it was a lie or not. Well, at the time you were communicating with this merchant, you were still friends with Mr Wade. Correct. Yes. And at the time you were communicating with Miss Merchant, you knew that she was talking to you in her role and capacity as an attorney in this case. Correct. Correct. And you knew that she was going to use that information to somehow benefit and file a motion benefit her client. Correct. I did not know that. So I did not, I'm sorry. So as as an attorney yourself, you are testifying here under oath that you had no idea what Miss Merchant was going to do with all the details that you were giving her about Wade and Willis's relationship. So at the time, no, I did not. I knew that Miss Merchant was gathering information. That is correct. Ok. And did you lie to her when you told her that the relationship began before 2020 I think we need to drone the specifics. She's covered it at a high level. I don't think we're gonna get much out of this. Mr Bradley. Isn't it true? The only thing that has really changed. Well, when you were speaking to Miss Merchant, whether by text or by telephone, you never said to her that I don't remember or that I'm speculating, correct. I don't recall. Well, you've looked through a whole lot of text messages. Do you remember ever seeing any communication from you that said, I don't remember. Um Yeah, through the messages that um I don't have all the messages in front of me, but no, II, I don't recall if I ever said I don't remember. Do you recall seeing any text messages where you replied to her or gave her details where you said I am speculating about this detail. No, I've never used the word um speculating. No. And the only thing that's changed between then and now is that phone call from Nathan Wade's friend Greg Banks, correct? No. Well, Gabe was my friend. Um and I, I actually stated that um the first day that I was here was that um I've known Gabe for a few years and that um we were not were, but we are um fraternity brothers. Um And so I never said that uh um that anything changed behind gay Banks. So you never told Miss Merchant that you were worried that they were threatening. You. Objection, asked and answered like he was asked this on February 16th and today the rice we carry this and just to be clear, you didn't attend college with Mr Banks, did you? I did not attend college with Mr. When you referred to a mu fraternity brother, y'all just both ha happened to have pledged the same fraternity, different colleges, different chapters. Well, that's what we consider fraternity brother. Yes. And as a normal course of your relationships with your friends, do you pass on lies about your friends? Have I passed on a lie about a friend? Is that what you're asking? Is that something you normally do, Mr Bradley? Do you tell lies about your friends? Have I told lies about friends? I, I could have, I don't know. Do you tell lies about your friends about a case of national importance in our overall, I could have, I don't know Mr Riley. I, I notice you're not looking at me, I'm looking at you on the screen only because I was accused of and I did the same thing to Mr Seagal when he was almost the next question, Mr Rice. Um No further questions, but I think it's clear. Thank you, sir, Mr Gill. Good afternoon, Mr Radley. Um A few questions a lot of folks have taking up the questions that I wanted to ask, but I, I've got a few left here. We'll see, we'll see. You said you, uh Mr Radley, you said you didn't know what M Merchant was going to be doing with the motion that she sent to you. You remember that testimony a few minutes ago? Um I think I said, I didn't know that she was gathering information. Yes. Well, let's look at the, at the title of the motion that she sent. You. Do you remember reading on the, excuse me? Do you remember reading the defendant Michael Romans motion to dismiss grand jury indictment as fatally defective and motion to disqualify the district attorney, her office and the special prosecutor from further prosecuting this matter. Do you remember seeing that in the draft that you read and reviewed? Yes. So when you tell this court that you didn't know what she was up or what she was going to do, she kind of gave you a hint, didn't she in the title of the motion that she sent for you to read, didn't she? Yes or no? I read the title of what the motion was. There wasn't anything in the title that threw you off pretty straightforward as speaking title, isn't it correct? So you knew that what she wanted was information from you so that she could then file a motion to dismiss the grand jury indictment to motion to disqualify the district attorney and her office and the special prosecutor from further prosecuting the matter, right? Speculation. You knew that, didn't you overall the house? Yes or no. When did she sent that motion? Yes. Ok. And you knew that the special prosecutor that to, to whom she was referring in that motion was Mr Wade. Correct. He knew that. Yes, because you read the motion, you said to review it. Correct. Yes. And we're not going to go over all of the, you know, number one because we don't have time and number two that the court would let me. But, but there are a few things that I do want to ask you about uh in that response in, in that aspect. Now, in that motion that you said you reviewed on page six of that motion. Well, on page five, it starts off with how do we know this? And there's a question mark. All right. Yeah, Mr Gillan. Um you know, III, I can appreciate what you're doing. I think that's something you can do in argument. He said as a whole that he got the motion and he's had his responses to his opinion of how he handled it. I don't see again this um really being necessary to go through it line by line, a little indulgent, your honor. I'm not going to go, you know, this is going to be, you know, a 40 minute death march through the motion. I would like to ask about a few bullet points that they capture under this and then I'll move on. But I wouldn't ask the court's indulgence in that respect. You know, again, I think, I think he, I think we've covered it and I think that you'll be able to argue that was in that motion and that he had a chance to review it and he never objected to anything in there. So that's the problem very much. It is the next time the order. Well, you know, we did earlier with Mr Wade and then I hear you, I was kind enough and then the court said we had to go to draw straws next year. I'll go with that. Ok. We had Mr potentially still on Zoom. Yes, your honor. And I have just a few questions. All right, could we add a spotlight to Mr Couture if I'll let you know when we are able to proceed? Ok. Just before we start. Can I take a five minute question? Uh Yeah, we've been going two hours. So let's come back at four o'clock. I'll also note for the record that uh we received a notification from Mr Cromwell on behalf of Miss Latham and he said he was waiving her presence. Uh And I don't know if he later decided to join us by Zoom, but um II, I don't think he was electing to the log in. So, uh after Mr off, just in terms of timing, uh Mr Abadi, uh do you have any expectation of how long you, if any questioning would last? I don't imagine my question would be that long. Ok. Well, let's get back in it at four o'clock, Mr Ra, you can just step out of the room. Mr So with us, I am your honor. All right, then let's go back on the record with Mr Bradley here and everyone else is here as well. You may proceed. Uh Mr Bradley, did you use any documents to prepare for your testimony today? No, I did not. The last time you spoke with Gabe Banks the day that um I don't have the date, but it was the date of whenever the phone call happened and you know, his wife, Kyra Banks works for the DAS office. Right. Yes. Correct. When was the last time you spoke to Mr Wade? I haven't spoken to Mr Wade personally and a year two years, actually, when I left the firm, Miss Willis, I never, um my interaction with Miss Willis was never, um where I would pick up the phone and talk to her that she would um or anything like that. So you, you didn't hang out with Miss Willis, you didn't have a personal relationship with her? No, I never had a personal relationship. I've mentioned before that I went to a dinner that was after she um, was elected, um, that was at a steakhouse, but it was some 75 to 100 people there. So you knew of her, you just didn't have a, a business relationship or a personal relationship with, or at least a close one I knew of her from my, she was in the das office and I had criminal cases, but I did not personally know her. No, and not having known her, not really hanging out with her. Uh, you've got a contract from her office. I'm gonna just object as to cumulative asked and answered throughout the alternative. I think we covered this ground on the 16th about the contracts and you have a, are you going somewhere else with us? I am judge if you give me a little LA, ok. You may proceed. You got a contract from the office not knowing are having a good relationship. Are good working business relationship with Miss Willis. That's correct. Uh That's because Nathan Wade steered that contract to you. I don't know how it came about but it was presented to me um at the office by the contract. Correct? Who presented it to you, Mr Wade? Yes. Um Is that and he owed you money? You said at one point, say that again owed you money at one point. I don't recall saying that he owes me money. Did he owe you money? At one point? Not that I recall saying that Mr Wade owes me or owed me money. I don't recall ever saying that I didn't ask whether you ever said that I said, did he owe you or did he owe you money in the past? No, he didn't owe me money. And so you, he steered this contract to you to your office and you weren't really talking to him. You haven't talked to him for two years. The contract was in 2021. I didn't leave until 2022. So you didn't talk with him the whole time I left in 2022. I haven't really spoke to him since 2022 is what I stated when I left June of um of 2022 around June, August dates of 2022. Other than your one last question, other than your attorney, who did you speak with today about giving testimony in this case? Today, I spoke to my attorney Charles Graham and BC Chopra and I have nothing further your honor. Uh And again, I'll just double check to make sure, did Mr Cromwell ever join us by Zoom? He has no questions. All right. Thank you. So, just for the record, Mr Cromwell has been apparently watching the proceeding. He wa his client's presence and didn't have any other questions as well. So turning it over to Mr and I have no questions. All right, Mr Brother, you can step down. Thank you, sir. Um Because you want these exhibits, uh take you, excuse me. And just by way of pro what about the text? Just to admit when other people asked about the text, some of them were in the record today. So I organize them. They, the ones that have been talked about today, I just organize them. I just wanted to reference to them. Ok. And do we need Mr Bradley for that? I don't believe so. Have you marked them? Have you showed them to the state? I gave a copy to the state. But so these are just for one second to make sure I give you all you can speak and looking at that, Mr Bradley handed me defense exhibit 23 24 25. I didn't realize that they were, oh, is that from the hearing? Thanks for checking those. Let me make sure that the point to detail because of your, your heart beat a back person. Ok. So I've got 23 24 25. Anything else in your binder? Good. Ok. And have we come to any conclusions on uh what? I'm sorry, how did you mark it? I marked it. I think we're up to 39. Surprisingly, the student defense exhibit 39 is tender and a minute without objection. I'm sorry. Messages that were referenced today are confronted with Mr Bradman. So these are additional text messages. Yeah. So what, so what I did was they objected that they weren't complete because like the first part of the text wasn't there. It was just like, oh, there was something before that that was said. So what I did was I spent the whole time trying to line them up. So that I had the beginning of the text and then based on their objection, they have all the texts, they can admit all of them if they want them. II I, how about I'll just do this. Just I understand the desire just to have the complete text chain uh just for purposes of completing the record. You know, I think that there's no point in having him sit here and authenticate every single one of them. So I'm willing to admit it as a courts exhibit. And only the exhibits though that have been previously tendered in reference of testimony would be ones that actually are relied on for making any findings. But just so it's on the record. We have the complete text change. Should that ever be an issue? For some reason? Any thoughts about that? Mr B, my only thought this is not the complete text change. I looked to briefly look in this merchant's phone when she allowed us to have it for seconds minutes. And um there are text messages I know that I saw that are not in what is important to these states to the 39. What about that? I let them screenshots of the ones that they weren't there and he sent them to himself on my phone. I also offered to hook my phone up to whatever it is. My phone is an iphone, this is an Android. I can't download like you could in a normal text. I told them. If they had a system to get all of my text, they can have every single one. We can definitely do that your honor text that she's submitting now and tendering into evidence. They are specific parts of the conversation. The entire text chain is a continuous conversation. So 601, those particular parts given the witness's testimony should be a sub evidence to fire and the statements with this testimony today, it would be up to the government, the state if they want to introduce the rest of it. Sure. I think that's a fair point that if you had been confronted with a particular text, that could have been the opportunity to admit it as a prior consistent statement for impeachment. And some of them were, but apparently some of them were not, I'm taking out there. So it's going to, I'm taking out the ones that they said he was with and I'm just going to the one that he was. That's fine. It just makes it more confusing for this. All right. So we have a newly marked newly compiled 39. Let's see what the state thinks about. All right, regardless if that's now what is being discussed again. I don't see a need for Mr Graley to be here any longer. So I'm gonna excuse him at this point. Mr Brown Judge. May we be? Of course? Yes, that's right. Thank you on hm. The last time I did it was with this girl that you can confront him with them. Ok. So, so where are we with Defense Exhibit 39 if you look at we're talking about. But I, I know so I put in so that it would make sense. So you could read it, you know, when you're reading a text and it's a conversation. Sure, they're upset that they're not in order now, I guess, I don't really understand. But if you want to look at them, you can, well, let me, let's start from the beginning. What is the purpose of defense exhibit? 39? These are the ones that I showed him and that I showed him today. So there were a lot of follow up questions on it. And so I realized, OK, well, they should just be in the record because other people are referring to my text and they might as well just be in the record and he authenticated all of them. So, and Mr Rice, not just in the record judge, they should be admitted to sub prior statement. OK. All right. So to that end, Mr body, is there a particular text message in there you think was not? Thank you. I understand you're saying, well, maybe one of them has already been admitted. So, uh but uh otherwise, uh just having a omnibus here are all the relevant text messages exhibit. Is there an authentication objection? Is there any other kind of objection like that? Yes, they didn't authenticate that all of the text messages were from him and between um m merchant or the context of him. So I think that's the problem when you don't. For example, if the state was to pro provide, uh I guess just a specific text chain from a, a cellphone extraction, there would be an objection because the state would be making the determination as to what is to be, what is relevant. Really, all the information should be turned over and it's for the parties to object in your honor to determine which parts of the conversation are relevant or not. I don't have all of the conversation. The conversation starts in September. And then, so there's a few text messages, September and then we jump to January Miss Merchant has determined that that jump in between is not relevant. That's, it's not appropriate. It's for your honor to determine what's relevant and not. And I can't make an objection as to what I don't know. I can tell you what I've read. It seems as if there are definitely parts that are missing that would make certain parts of the text message. She's attempting to admit that she didn't confront the witness with would be my um objection, but only the relevance can only be determined if we have the full chain. So she's determined which ones are relevant. That's your job. Sure. So, uh did she didn't, she just try to do the full chain as an exhibit just a moment ago. No, we, we don't have the full chain. The full chain is text messages that begin in September and continue down. That's not contained in that entire package. They're on her phone. She'd like us to do it in just that chain. To me, the technology. Yeah, not a problem. And I offered that when we were here before and I was told they didn't have that technology, but let me just go through them one by one, it might be easier. I was trying to just do it quickly. So the first just say to me, I can read them all. Mr G, what did you have to? Great point on? Apparently this merchant has uh is allowed the, the state to, to take screenshots of what they now intend would be the larger perspective on. And I disagree with them about uh the rule of completeness, but it's their job when something is admitted that if they have an objection because the context is, is not appropriate, they then move and the state to move rule of completeness, the invisibility of the other uh emails uh change that they had. So the real issue here is their failure to comply with the rule of completeness once they have the material uh from the last hearing that they just screenshot such well. Isn't that what he's doing now? Because now they're being tendered, you know, I don't think that he is, uh it, it seemed to me what was happening here is this, this person has tried several different ways to get it in. She wanted everything in and they objected to that and she wanted the segments in that had been, uh, the, the witness had been asked about and that's what she's trying to do. My point is is that if they're at the time of, of the frame moving complete, this is at the time of the tendering if they want to 10 or something to show that it should be included to be complete, that's on them. Not on this merchant Mr body. Last point here, I had a very limited time with this merchant cell phone. I only had time to literally find 11 part of the text message to then send to myself before miss me demanded her phone back. So I did not have the opportunity to screenshot every act or every missing part of the conversation to then do as Mr Gillum is saying that should be done, but it can't be done if I don't have the information. So you don't have the complete packet. And there are many of the text message uh screenshots that you have printed out that were not used to confront Mr Bradley or refresh his recollection. So there inadmissible evidence. If anyone missed the opportunity, it was the defense counsel to confront him. All right. Uh I don't think we need to go back and forth any further Miss Merchant, you've offered, you said to print out a complete chain of every text exchange with Mr Bradley. Since you began corresponding, I'll give you the chance to do that and you can follow up by email with that exhibit. That would be the complete chain without any deletions or removals. And we'll have that marked as defense exhibit 39 in Court Friday at 157. Um When Mr Abadi texted himself the screenshots, I literally wrote him. Do you want any other screenshots? I have nothing to hide. You can download my phone if you want. So I, all right, we're done. Ok. So, uh I'll wait back to hear from you all on exhibit 39. Uh And uh is there anything else to take up before we discuss, uh Friday? Um, just kind of throwing it open to the floor, uh seeing, uh uh I believe I asked and put it out there among defense counsel to be considering how they would like to organize their arguments on Friday. Uh Has there been any decisions reached on that? I know the court when we're done with that, we are going to make it as efficient as possible and break it up, break it up in terms of like subject matter or something like that. Yeah, that, that the idea. Well, I'll start with, what is it that you're asking for? We'll start there. I was kind of curious. Well, I don't think we can answer that right now, number one, the court said, look, if you divide it up, then we can go with that, uh, or if you can divide it up, then I'll give each defense counsel a specific period of time tomorrow. We'll find out when we need, whether or not we can divide it up, uh, in a way that serves the interests of our respective clients. Hopefully we can, we can communicate with the court. I also like to hear from you. Um, to the point of I think the state recently filed um their own motion to II, I think it formally said to reopen the evidence as to another witness. I only got to read it very briefly or I don't know if that was just saying in the alternative, we'd like to reopen the evidence. I don't know, maybe someone can clarify that. But my thought there and, uh, what I think we ought to do Friday and what I would like to do on the issue of the cell phone analysis and this other affidavit filed by the state today is that uh both parties by any party rather can make whatever arguments they want based on a proffer, any counter arguments they want to make based on a proffer, they would not be admitted into evidence at this point. And at this point, I need to start hearing the arguments in the law and what we've heard so far. And if I think I'm able to reach a ruling based on that I will. However, if I think that the proffer is going to make a material determinative point, we can reopen the evidence at that point. But the bottom line is on Friday, I do the intention is that we're still sticking with argument, but the parties are free to address some of these issues that have been brought up post hearing if they'd like to your honor. Excuse me? Sorry. Let me start with Mr I'm alive and well, with a quick question that suggests that we do not have to have a witness present on Friday or the cell phone Friday would just be argument and counsel can proffer why they think it's significant. And if once I've heard the law on the argument of counsel, I decide that that is going to have some material bearing on the outcome, then we will, we can reopen the evidence and have it properly admitted and authenticated and subject to cross examination. Thank you. Ok. Mm. Um, I just wanted to know if the court wanted us to focus our arguments on. Uh, well, actually, uh I think what I'm more likely to do is, is more along the lines of what I suggested before is give you all a, a time block and you use the time however you think is more effective. Uh Once you think it's your strongest argument, I don't, um, a lot has been covered and there's a lot of the motions that were covered in the evidentiary hearing that I would plan to rule on at the same time as well. So I leave that to, you know, we, we do, I thought I just said this as a whole. So if you have arguments about forensic, anything like that, this would be, that would be the time for that argument. As I consider that part. I thought we had, you know, No, I mean, I talked about that and then things evolved. So we didn't actually send out a notice, adding any other motions, but we do need to, we have some trials starting next week, the next two weeks, we've got um, some of our homicide trials already scheduled, so I'm gonna be following up with you all to schedule the rest of the pretrial motions that we have. So the only argument is that we have on Friday would be one o'clock on the issue of That's right. All things disqualification, uh anything from the State or any other defense council, not the same. Alright, thank you.

Channel: 11Alive

Views: 215,316

Keywords: ga-trump-investigation, news, special-reports, syndication, watch, watch-utility

Id: vRCCnxB94Z4

Length: 141min 6sec (8466 seconds)

Published: Tue Feb 27 2024