ATLANTA– Lawyers for Donald Trump and other defendants in the Georgia election interference case were hoping attorney Terrence Bradley would provide key testimony in support of their efforts to oust Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis — and they had good reason for their optimism.
Bradley had been in contact with Ashleigh Merchant, a lawyer for Trump co-defendant Michael Roman, for several months, according to hundreds of text messages produced into evidence by Merchant and obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.
Through the text messages, Bradley fed Merchant information and made suggestions to help her prove that Willis had had a relationship with Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor hired for the election case. As Wade’s former attorney and former divorce attorney, Bradley was well positioned to know things, and the lyrics seem to support that.
But when he took the stand to testify under oath in mid-February, Bradley initially declined to answer most questions, citing attorney-client privilege. When the judge forced him to testify Tuesday after finding that some of his communications with Wade were not privileged, he repeatedly said he did not know or could not remember crucial details. CNN reported on the text messages on Wednesday.
Merchant filed a motion on January 8 to remove Willis and Wade and their offices from the election case and to dismiss the charges against Trump and fourteen others. She alleged that the accusers had been in a relationship before Wade was hired in November 2021, and she said Willis paid Wade large amounts of money and then unfairly benefited from his earnings when he took her on vacation.
“I’m nervous,” Merchant texted Bradley the day she filed her motion, adding, “This is huge.”
He responded with a series of encouraging messages: “You are huge,” “You will be fine,” “You are one of the best lawyers I know,” “Be great.”
The text exchanges show that Bradley willingly provided information to Merchant at least from mid-September to early February. But when Merchant questioned Bradley on Tuesday, asking if he remembered telling her certain things, he said he did not, saying he had speculated or that she had misinterpreted his messages.
“I have no direct knowledge of when the relationship began,” Bradley said on the stand, repeating several versions of that during the hearing.
At one point, Merchant was visibly frustrated and told Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, “Judge, he doesn’t remember much at this point.”
McAfee has scheduled oral arguments Friday on the motions to disqualify Willis and her office from the election case. It is not clear whether lawyers for Trump and some of his co-defendants have met their burden to show that Willis and Wade’s relationship created a conflict of interest.
Willis and Wade acknowledged the relationship in February, but said it began after Wade was hired and ended last summer. Both insist the relationship has not caused conflict and had no bearing on the election interference case.
A grand jury in Fulton County indicted Trump and 18 others in August on charges related to their efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election won by President Joe Biden in Georgia. But the details of Willis and Wade’s relationship have completely overshadowed these charges for nearly two months and could remain a distraction even if the judge does not remove Willis and her office from the case.
Early in the text exchange, on September 18, Merchant asked Bradley if he knew anyone who would be willing to write an affidavit about Willis and Wade’s relationship.
He replied, “Nobody…nobody would willingly burn that bridge.”
In mid-December, Merchant texted Bradley to say she had “received more confirmation about Fani and Nathan,” but couldn’t get anyone to speak up.
On January 5, just three days before she filed her motion, Merchant texted Bradley that Wade had taken Willis on a cruise and a trip to California’s Napa Valley, saying she assumed Bradley knew about it. He replied that he did not and asked when the trips took place. But then he said he wasn’t surprised, adding that they had taken other trips together.
That same day, Merchant asked whether Bradley believed the relationship had begun before Willis hired Wade, and he replied, “Absolutely.”
The next day they discussed a draft of her motion that she had sent him. He told her to include the money paid to him by Willis’ office in a footnote detailing the money paid to Wade’s firm.
After making that change, she asked, “Anything else?” Is there something wrong?”
He replied: “Looks good.”
That particular altercation caused a lot of frustration among attorneys during Tuesday’s hearing. They questioned Bradley about why he wrote that, but insisted he could not remember key information from the motion.
The texts show Bradley confirming information for Merchant and suggesting documents she should request or people she should subpoena. Although he sometimes wanted to make sure certain information could not be traced back to him, he said he was “okay” with being subpoenaed to testify.
Before submitting her request, Merchant assured him that she had protected him “completely,” adding, “Not that you needed protection.” She said she planned to put Willis and Wade on the witness stand and was only sending subpoenas to Bradley and others as a backup.
“I hope they will do the right thing before then,” Merchant wrote on January 24. Bradley said he didn’t think they would do that and called Willis and Wade “arrogant.”
