He Said, She Said

By Ron Signore

Fani Willis and Nathan Wade. This really is one story that just keeps on giving. I was wonderfully surprised on 2/27 in the afternoon to see CSPAN was broadcasting another part of the hearings in Fulton County. This story has me boggled because I just am not sure where the end game ends up being.

On this day, Nathan Wade’s former business partner and original divorce attorney, Terrance Bradley, was recalled to the stand. This was driven by a closed door, ex parte discussion between Judge McAfee and Bradley on the 23rd of February where McAfee was trying to understand not only what evidence Bradley even had, but whether he understood the grounds of attorney client privilege.

The fact that an officer of the court who practices law has to be schooled on the basic ethical code of an attorney is enough for me to be screaming to disbar this man. While you watch his testimony from two weeks ago or on the 27th, Bradley just comes across as non-reliable. He appears to struggle with what questions are being asked constantly. However, the most damning piece of his testimonies is some of the inconsistencies. Now, some of his testimony seemed clear and confident. Other times, one could wonder how this guy ties his shoes in the morning. The disturbing piece to me, as someone who admits he is rooting for any outcome that keeps prosecuting Cheeto Boy, is that he seems to have some information that could really point out the truth.
We constantly listened to the back and forth…and forth…and back, between the lead attorney for the defense, Ashleigh Merchant, Bradley, his attorney, the prosecution, and the judge on little specifics of how a question is asked to get whatever information is being questioned. Frankly, it was annoying. However, Merchant insists that she had communication via text and conversation with Bradley that contradicts his testimony. Without a formal quote, she argues and has proof of communication from Bradley that alludes to confirming the beginning of Wade and Willis’s romantic relationship prior to him being hired.

This is where I find myself extremely conflicted. Bradley’s testimony certainly seems impeachable. It also seems there may be some bad blood between Wade and Bradley after their partnership dissolved in late 2022. But now we see the ethical dilemma. Wade and Willis adamantly deny a romantic relationship, at least the consummation of one, prior to Willis hiring Wade. Bradley has knowledge that he is driving to be blocked by attorney client privilege, which in my opinion, he already broke with whatever private communications he and Merchant had prior to the filings of this accusation. Or does he? His continuously shaky testimony really puts on a display of guessing. Is that a result of his IQ? Is that a result of trying to back pedal?

Judge McAfee has an interesting job in this whole process. Chump’s team has to prove a clear misconduct by conflict of interest. Based on testimony, it is a lot of phishing for potential details than it is cold hard facts being provided. The amount of what he said/she said and speculative testimony and evidence is enough to fill a book. The defense has submitted nearly 40 articles of evidence that have been tendered, but based on the evidence aligning with the testimony, I truly cannot see how there is a definitive answer one way or another.

Would Willis and Wade risk charges of perjury for what may ultimately be truthful? This is what I am wondering as I play defense attorney for Willis and Wade for the closing arguments. There has been an open admission to a romantic relationship. There has been open admission of a relationship that wasn’t romantic. There has been a professional relationship before and after Willis hired Wade in November ‘21. In my eyes, there is enough reasonable doubt, which isn’t necessarily needed for this proceeding, for McAfee to find himself having to make a judgement based on circumstantial evidence that really isn’t definitive proof.

It is understood that the crux of this beyond the relationship is that Willis hiring Wade and then going on trips with him benefits her. Almost like money laundering. Based on her appearance of certainty to her testimony, and consistency, I have a hard time thinking that was the reason for his hire. This is a career case for all. Let’s say there was a romantic relationship prior to when they define it in their testimony, would she risk hiring an incompetent lawyer solely because of a romantic relationship? For all she has fought for, I just do not see that as the motive for his hire.

What I really just cannot wrap my head around is how this impacts this specific case against Chump. He was indicted on evidence, legit evidence. The concern of her misconduct isn’t a conflict of interest against Chump. If anything, this should be concerning for Fulton County. If they brought reprimand or allegations leading to charges of Willis’ misconduct by hiring Wade, then fine. Try it. But the fact that this could lead to their disqualification, which is only of interest to the defense. It is a smart tactical move finding a loophole to either stall or dismiss the case. If it is dismissed, we need to know if it will be dismissed with or without prejudice. The speculation of the details of these testimonies doesn’t cry out any misconduct against the prosecution, just alleged misconduct by way of a relationship and questions around the perception of that as a whole. NOT THE CASE.

McAfee is a conservative judge. However, in my opinion, whatever this man rules as a verdict, I will accept. Observing his demeanor, his judgement with proceedings, and his reputation for applying the law without bias has shown in my eyes. You can see his frustration through certain objections, you can also see how he guides the attorneys on both sides to help frame a question in an acceptable manner to try and get to the details of all testimony.

All I know is we have a nominee for the presidency that has 91 indictments of criminal charges against him, this case specifically on corruption with efforts to defraud the US and overturn the election. Yet, we sit here waiting for the judgement of Fani Willis over trips estimated around $10k that she insists she paid for. In that retrospect, it really appears like a circus of events. I will say it again, if she is found guilty of these misconduct charges, I will accept it and be happy we held corruption accountable. What I will be disappointed in, and struggle to accept, is a dismissal with prejudice. We need to hold all corruption accountable, but one that undermines our democracy should be top of the list.

Click Here to Order Boxing Interviews Of A Lifetime By “Bad” Brad Berkwitt