Judge: Law partner must testify about Wade's relationship with Willis

[Jose Garcia]

Source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution

A judge has determined that Nathan Wade’s former law partner and divorce lawyer must tell the court what he knows about the special prosecutor’s relationship with District Attorney Fani Willis – a decision that could produce more bombshell testimony as defense attorneys seek to disqualify the DA from prosecuting the Fulton County election interference case.

Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee’s chambers notified attorneys in the case by email late Monday that certain communications Terrence Bradley had with Wade are not protected by attorney-client privilege, according to numerous people who read the email. Bradley could be compelled to testify as soon as Tuesday afternoon. McAfee’s decision followed a closed-door meeting between the judge and Bradley on Monday that lasted nearly an hour and 20 minutes.

A spokesman for Willis said the DA’s office cannot comment except in court.

Defense attorneys are seeking to disqualify the entire DA’s office because of what they have called an “improper” romantic relationship between Willis and Wade. The defense attorneys say Willis benefitted financially by hiring Wade because he paid for trips they took together with money he earned from the case.

Read more: https://www.ajc.com/politics/judge-wades-law-partner-must-testify-about-relationship-with-willis/FQLTCWX75JBG7AX3O4GVWEMFHE/

[bluestarone]

1. Just gotta ask what the hell did the judge see or hear that would force

More testimony? (especially since they were at the closing argument stage) Maybe they can appeal this judges decision? (i know another delay, BUT if they can appeal, maybe they should.

[spooky3]

2. This judge is really out of control. So much irrelevant bs is being

Explored.

[EndlessWire]

6. I don't think he's out of control.

I think he's thorough. Let tRump's little heart go pitter-patter as he imagines he gets the whole DAs office thrown off the case. Or, maybe the Judge is doing what all the Judges have done so far: tie up loose ends to prevent any sort of appeal overturning what they decide. Maybe he just determined that there is no client privilege for Wade. We don't know what the Judge and Bradley talked about for 90 minutes.

In any event, we'll find out what it means. I was concerned when Wade said the defendant interfered with his divorce. Maybe that's not allowed. The Judge wants to get something on the record. Maybe we're still good to go.

[spooky3]

11. Jill Wine Banks and Katie Phang, among others, disagree with you

Post by @jillwinebanks

View on Threads

/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

[EndlessWire]

12. Not really. n/t

[FBaggins]

7. It was left open at the hearing

The judge didn’t close the evidentiary stage and the end of the hearing - he explicitly left open that this could happen after he spoke to Bradley (if he determined that the privilege claim must fall) - and possibly left open a line of inquiry related to the phone records that were recently produced.

[Historic NY]

3. Can we also hear about the sexual relationships of the lawyers and the judge.

This is even stupid for Georgia standards.

[nowforever]

4. I guess lying

Is where this Judge draws the line. I cannot imagine this Judge would hold a hearing if it wasn't pertinent

[oldmanlynn]

5. Im worried that Bradley has information about willis and wade

Im worried that Bradley has information about willis and wade that contradicts what wade and willis claimed. However i think they need to show that a romantic relationship is different than just friends or friends with benefits.

If the judge sinks willis participation then tgis trial will be kicked to the republican attorney and it will be delayed.

I hope i am wrong. There is alot of smoke even if they sexed for 3-4 years it doesnt change whether willis benefited or not.

[FBaggins]

8. Obviously Willis/Wade are worried too

The state went from backing Bradley in his claim of privilege - to accusing him of lying and trying to impeach his presumed testimony in advance.

[moniss]

9. There is also the possibility that

Bradley has been compromised.

[BootinUp]

10. doesn't sound good. nt

[Novara]

13. Entertaining this entire thing as a "conflict of interest" is preposterous in the first place

They're both on the same fucking side.

The only thing I can hope for is that the judge is being extremely thorough to avoid being reversed on appeal. However, damage is being done every day this is treated as a legitimate conflict. It is not.

[FBaggins]

14. They may be well past that

Lying under oath to the court causes its own problems (particularly when prosecuting someone before the same court for a similar crime). We can’t then say that it doesn’t matter because the substance of the lie isn’t relevant.

[Kaleva]

15. I agree

[Novara]

16. This is a they say/they say thing. There's no hard proof of lying.

How are they going to prove anyone was lying under oath? Even having phone records only proves that calls were made, not the content. They could be legitimate business calls.

Unless someone comes up with physical evidence that Willis and Wade are lying about dates, no one can prove it.

And it's still not a conflict of interest. They are being dragged through the mud for nothing.

[MichMan]

19. The standard is the preponderance of evidence, not 100% absolute proof

I'm not getting a good feeling about this.

If Mr. Bradley confirms what Ms. Yeartie testified, that would make the statements under oath by Willis and Wade problematic. Someone isn't being truthful, and it will be up to the judge to determine whom to believe.

The phone calls could absolutely be legitimate business calls. It does seem rather unusual that there would be so many, and at all hours of the night, but who knows? Now, if there were a similar number of calls to the two other prosecutors working on the case during that time period, that should be easy to prove and would negate the whole issue.

As for the cell phone records of times and locations, it absolutely could be that Mr. Wade was frequenting other establishments in the area and was not at Ms. Willis condo. Not sure how many of them are open for business at 3AM. He also testified that he used his business credit card for nearly all his transactions, so he should have those records showing he was at bars, restaurants, or other places he mentioned like the airport or the Porsche Driving Experience instead.

It seems stupid that something like this could cause them to be removed from the case, but courts take untrue statements by officers of the court pretty seriously compared to other witnesses. As much as it would suck, sometimes if something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck

[FBaggins]

20. Not really

As Willis correctly said - she isn't on trial here. If she were being prosecuted for perjury you would probably be correct. The evidence doesn't approach proof beyond a reasonable doubt (thought it still could).

But she isn't on trial. All the defense has to do is convince the judge that they're probably lying. Which seems likely at this point.

[MichMan]

18. The legal system holds prosecutors and other officers of the court to a much higher standard than others

[Marthe48]

17. Wake me up when the prurient hearing is over

rwnj don't want anyone to be in an adult relationship, but get off on the details. They really can screw up a wet dream.

[Kingofalldems]

21. Oh no! Another fail for Trump cultists:

Link to tweet