Testifying on Tuesday, the Georgia attorney, hailed as a “star witness” in TrumpWorld’s campaign to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, revealed his previous statements about Willis’s alleged improper personal relationship with the lead lawyer in the case against Donald Trump since 2019 were just “speculation.”
Speculation or Evidence?
Terrence Bradley, speaking at a Tuesday hearing, stated, “I do not have knowledge of it starting or when it started,” in reference to Willis’ relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade. “I never witnessed anything. So, you know, it was speculation.”
Unreliable Memory
Bradley, who used to be Wade’s law partner, also mentioned his inability to remember when he first heard about the relationship, challenging the defense team’s narrative that the relationship began after Willis chose Wade to head the case.
Undermining Defense Strategies
The Washington Post reported that Bradley’s statements during the testimony could potentially undermine the defense’s campaign to dismiss Willis over accusations of a romantic relationship with Wade from the case of election subversion.
Revisiting Past Statements
In court, Bradley seemed to walk back several of his earlier statements about the relationship to Ashleigh Merchant, attorney for Trump’s co-defendant Mike Roman.
Forgetting Under Oath
Faced with past text messages between him and Merchant, Bradley admitted to forgetting the exchanges, emphasizing his statements were speculative. However, he did recall “one conversation” where Wade mentioned a romantic involvement with Willis.
Questioning Integrity
During the testimony, Trump’s attorney, Steve Sadow, called out Bradley for dishonesty after Bradley described a January 2024 text exchange with Merchant—where he suggested Willis and Wade had been an item since 2019—as mere speculation.
Why Speculate?
Sadow challenged him, “Why in the heck would you speculate?” to which Bradley had no rebuttal, simply stating, “I have no answer for that.”
Silence in Court
Sadow sharply countered, suggesting Bradley did know the precise start of the relationship but chose not to disclose it in court. “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,” Sadow argued.
“That’s the true explanation. Because you don’t want to admit it in court, correct?”
Dodging Direct Answers
When Merchant later introduced Bradley’s correspondence into evidence, highlighting his allegations about the relationship, Bradley dodged direct answers, simply stating, “I don’t recall that.”
An Excerpt of the Conversation
Merchant presented to the court a snippet of her exchange with Bradley where he requested the inclusion of information regarding his consultancy payments from the district attorney’s office in her motion to disqualify Willis.
Accurate Representation
This move was interpreted as Bradley’s attempt to conceal his identity as a source. However, Bradley countered this claim, asserting his intention was merely to help Merchant present an “accurate” account of the payments received by Wade and his partners for their assistance to the DA.
Skepticism of Legal Effectiveness
Following the hearing, legal analysts have expressed skepticism about its effectiveness in strengthening the case for Willis’s removal.
Spreading Gossip or Facts?
Katie Phang, an MSNBC legal analyst, took to X (previously Twitter) to express her views on Terrence Bradley’s involvement, characterizing his actions as spreading “idle, salacious gossip” about Nathan Wade, his former client, to Michael Roman’s defense attorney,
The Burden of Proof
She pointed out that while Bradley’s gossip fueled the defense’s efforts, he failed to provide any concrete evidence regarding the start of Wade and Willis’s relationship, simply because he had no such knowledge.
Legal Distractions
Phang criticized Bradley for giving the defense a pretext for what she termed a “sideshow,” yet noted he offered “zero evidence” of any personal financial gains for Willis from Wade’s appointment.
Disqualifying Arguments
Echoing a similar sentiment, Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis commented on the lack of sufficient evidence for disqualifying Willis.
Gossip, Discipline, and Legal Ethics
“I think gossiping and inducing someone to make a motion should trigger bar discipline,” Kreis noted. “And I think the state should admit that the defense had a good faith basis to press their claims and calling for sanctions was wrong.”
Read Next: What Really Causes Donald Trump’s Skin to be So Orange
Former President Donald Trump’s distinctive orange skin has captivated attention, sparking curiosity about its evolution from average pale over the years:
What Really Causes Donald Trump’s Skin to be So Orange
21 of the Biggest Lies in American History
Dive into the shadows of American history as we explore 21 of its biggest lies that have left an indelible mark on the nation’s narrative:
21 of the Biggest Lies in American History
32 Things We Once Highly Respected but Are a Complete Joke Now
Discover the amusing downfall of once-respected entities in our changing world:
32 Things We Once Highly Respected but Are a Complete Joke Now
23 of Donald Trump’s Most Hilarious Moments as President
Explore the lighter side of Donald Trump’s presidency with 23 hilariously memorable moments that left the nation in stitches:
23 of Donald Trump’s Most Hilarious Moments as President
27 Things MAGA Movement Ruined Forever for People
How the MAGA movement left its mark on individuals and disrupted certain aspects of our everyday life forever:
