175

Texts show prosecutor's ex-law partner gave info for effort to remove Fani Willis from election case (apnews.com)

submitted 4 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Attorneys for Donald Trump and other defendants in the Georgia election interference case hoped that lawyer Terrence Bradley would provide key testimony in support of their effort to remove Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis — and they had good reason for their optimism.

Over several months, Bradley had been in touch with Ashleigh Merchant, a lawyer for Trump co-defendant Michael Roman, according to hundreds of text messages produced by Merchant as evidence and obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday.

Through the texts, Bradley fed Merchant information and made suggestions to help her prove that Willis had dated Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor hired for the election case. As Wade’s former law partner and onetime divorce attorney, Bradley was well positioned to know things, and the texts seem to back that up.

But when he took the stand to testify under oath in mid-February, Bradley initially refused to answer most questions, asserting attorney-client privilege. On Tuesday, when the judge compelled him to testify after determining some of his communications with Wade weren’t privileged, he repeatedly said he didn’t know or couldn’t remember crucial details. CNN reported on the text messages Wednesday.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] normanwall@lemmy.world 41 points 4 months ago

Weird, what's this guys motivation? And then why his change of tune? We're missing something key here

[-] anon6789@lemmy.world 27 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

This article does feel a bit light on the details. I found this MSN article, which is an opinion piece, but lays out just who exactly all these people are and their relationships with each other.

It seems Bradley worked with Wade, but was fired for sexual harrassment. There is another person, Robin Yeartie, who was also let go from the DA's office. Both of them are the only 2 people saying Wade and Willis were dating before they made it public. Both have a potential grudge, worth slinging mud while not under oath, but since both were lawyers, now the reality of what perjuring themselves in a case this big would do to them seems to have hit home and they've developed amnesia.

Based upon his testimony throughout the evidentiary hearing, it seems Bradley decided to share gossip and innuendo that he had heard from other sources, none of which is attributable to Wade or Willis and, more importantly, at this juncture none of which has been confirmed to be true and accurate.

In fact, every defense attorney who took a run at Bradley during that hearing struck out. Bradley didn’t budge. He even admitted while on the stand that he might have told lies about Wade.

ETA: For anyone not reading the article, the text messages in the headline are not anything along the lines of proof showing they had a relationship, just Bradley ranting about how he was sure there was something, of which he has now changed his tune and says he may have overstated things, and these texts are now, I believe, are trying to be used by the Trump team to get Bradley to cooperate with them again.

Frankly, The Office did this whole dating impropriety thing much better...

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

I would guess that Roman's lawyer was particularly aggressive about finding dirt on the DA, and got in contact with this guy, who was happy to oblige (because he doesn't like the rest of them) until he realized he was about to hand Donald Trump a huge win. Might not be the best career move for him.

[-] MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

or he was about to have to perjure hisself so pissing hisself on the stand looked like a better deal

[-] KillerTofu@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

Probably money.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago

It's okay to not know something. You're not required to have an opinion on why something may have happened

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 8 points 4 months ago

I'm thinking he never thought his involvement would become public? Maybe he has some personal issue with Willis or positive relationship with someone on the other side but doesn't want it to be as career- and life-defining as publicly being the person who got Trump off the hook for his political interference.

[-] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago

Probably not being prosecuted for rape.

this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2024

175 points (99.4% liked)

politics

18080 readers

2896 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News