I’ve been watching the hearing in Fulton County, Georgia. Trump’s lawyers have been going at Nathan Wade’s former attorney (and law partner) Terrence Bradley. Hard. In the earlier televised hearings both Wade and DA Fani Willis emphatically denied having a romantic relationship prior to Wade’s being formally hired as a consultant for the RICO case against Trump. Lawrence and his lawyer raised privilege issues to answering certain questions. After an “in camera” discussion Judge McAfee has agreed to allow additional questioning of Howard.
ABC recently put up an article regarding to how the first round of questions from Trump lawyer Ashleigh Merchant went. I’ll get to that. But right now an attorney appearing via Zoom who from where I sit between his question but especially the character and raised voice when translated says “You are nothing but a lying N****r! I was struck in the earlier proceedings about how a bunch of white lawyers for Trump were hammering at black attorneys. And that it wasn’t a good look. Today is worse. Much worse and what’s going on is downright ugly.
Bradley has admitted to a single statement Wade made to him that he (Wade) and Willis were “dating” but he can’t recall when that happened. He’s also repeatedly said he has no personal knowledge of any relationship (in this context we’re talking about romantic) or observed any interactions that would suggest such a thing. Over and over with Merchant this was asked and answered. As the ABC article noted there were numerous objections but the judge overruled them.
Personally I think he’s been way too indulgent. How many times should a lawyer be allowed to ask the same question? Part of me wonders if the judge is simply trying to let the public see there’s no “there” there but it looks bad. Bradley for his part is clearly a reluctant witness. Not that I blame him for not wanting to be there. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be either. On the other hand, what I fear will be lost in all the noise is Bradley repeatedly pointing out original questions from Merchant (and later Sadlow) were today specific but when originally asked prior to the hearing were compound in nature.
In other words they are cherry picking, and doing a combination of taking specific portions out of context and conflating two people knowing each other for years with them also being romantically involved. Men and women in the modern workplace have faced rumors and innuendo like this for decades, and even more so as women have attained far more than “secretarial” roles in the workplace. Bradley has also stated more than once under questioning his understanding of what is and is not privileged is that single conversation for which no timeline/time frame can be established.
One of the things I don’t get is why the judge, who Bradley has turned to more than once to clarify the point of why this is all going on doesn’t simply confirm that yes, Bradley’s (and his attorney’s) understanding of the scope of what could be asked about was correct. The judge as I say is allowing an awful lot. I suppose he feels Team Trump has a right to try and impeach his testimony but at some point I can’t held but saying WTF?
Here’s how I see it. Bradley was forced out of the law partnership over a charge of sexual misconduct. In an unguarded moment he felt pissed off and shot off his mouth. He now characterizes it as “speculation” but what Bradley clearly doesn’t want to say is “I was thinking about how I got dumped by Wade and while I ‘think’ they had some ‘goings on’ at times prior to Nov. 2021 that’s just an assumption that I should never have expressed.” Let’s face it, it wouldn’t do his current law practice much good.
I think the heart of the matter is a draft motion Merchant had sent to Wade outlining her motion to disqualify. Bradley told her about some incorrect/missing financial information, about some $74k payment. She added it back into her draft and asked if she’d gotten her motion right and he more or less said it looked good. Here’s what it boils down to: Bradley insists under oath he was ONLY referring to the financial information. Merchant’s (and the others) is insisting Bradley agreed the ENTIRE motion was accurate.
What I’m having trouble getting past is a bunch of white Trump lawyers calling the black lawyer (and by extension two others) liars. Especially Steve Sadow. Every part of him wanted to say what I suggested earlier – that he was dying to call Bradley a lying n-word but knew the judge would shut things down right then and there. However, that’s why I say this whole thing has been exactly the kind of sh*t show you’d expect from a bunch of Trump lawyers.
I fear we are in one of those the facts and evidence don’t matter situations. Plenty of legal experts said before this proceeding on whether Willis (and Wade) should be disqualified that even though it was unwise for that romantic relationship to have taken place it wasn’t unethical under the rules and as things developed Willis got no financial benefit. (What’s gotten lost is there’s the implication from Team Trump that Willis got many tens, maybe hundreds of thousand even in “kickbacks” when in fact we’re talking about ten thousand dollars max even if Willis had never repaid Wade a cent for those trips!)
But it’s not a good look. The experts said this whole issue could be averted if Willis (and Wade) recused themselves and handed off the case, and that once the proceeding began it would be too late to have another Fulton County prosecutor take over. That the whole thing would have to be reassigned to another prosecutor from another county meaning this case won’t go to trial until sometime in 2025. If at all.
Frankly, my gut reaction is that the judge agrees with those experts. Legally his ruling will likely be that the defense hadn’t met its burden to force Willis or Wade off the case. He just doesn’t like it. By allowing this to devolved into the sh*t show it turned into he’s exerting pressure on Willis and Wade to voluntarily recuse. And doing enormous damage to both their careers in the process.
I’m pretty angry right now. So my thoughts aren’t as organized as I’d like them to be. Still, what judge McAfee allowed to happen in his courtroom was a disgrace. This whole thing today should have been over in less than half an hour. One thing Bradley said on the stand that made me say out loud “say what?” was that he and Wade were still friends. I rather doubt that’s been the case since Bradley got forced from their law firm. Acquaintances? Sure. But Bradley’s representation of Wade in the latter’s divorce ended soon after. I think it’s fair to say there’s no love lost between the two of them.
Cordial as in professional courtesy isn’t the same thing as friends. After all this I’m guessing the bare minimum of professional tolerance is the best these two will ever have if they find themselves on the same case in the future. And that one or both will try to avoid that ever happening.
That’s all for now. Court is supposed to reconvene before the end of the day. I’d like to make clear this is first hand reaction/opinion from me on the things I said were brought out in court. It will be interesting to see how the pundit class treats this come this evening.
One last item. I just heard MSNBC legal analyst Katie Phang say Bradley passed along (to Merchant) innuendo and gossip but “that’s not evidence.” (Or, as I already put it Merchant caught Bradley on a bad day when he was in something of a mood about Wade and he shot off his mouth in a stupid-ass slinging of b.s. to “get back” at Wade for dumping him)
The judge doesn’t like it that team dingleberry has not met the burden of proof necessary to force Willis or Wade to recuse themselves. WTF?!? Who gives a rat’s ass what the fool on the bench likes or dislikes and why in the f*ck would a judge worth their weight in cat litter at least let their likes or dislikes get in the way of law, burden of proof, or any other legal matter going on in their courtroom? I get it, judges do have some leeway for ordering respect, issuing gag orders, etc. but not liking that attorneys accused of something they quite obviously did not do do not have to recuse themselves? The question I have to ask is this: is trump blowing you judge “I don’t like this”? Or did he throw a few bucks at you and being a fool, you’ll do anything up to and including making shit of your reputation, for a few bucks.
Cannon, this fool in a robe, the criminals on the u.s. s. court…I’d ask how we arrived in this sad state of legal affairs but at least at the federal level we can point a finger at one person–McConnell. Not a day goes by when I am not mightily embarrassed to be an american.
He is white and inexperienced. These are two Black attorneys. He is thinking about how it will it look to.his Conservative GOP pals at the country club will react.
I spent 12 miserable years in GA. The Civil.War only ended last week in their eyes and they are still pissed about desegregation.
The ghost of Lester Maddox of– ax handle fame and a former governor of GA– is haunting that courtroom.
Another public ‘lynching’ by the rich white boys caught red handed on a phucking RECORED PHONE CALL to deflect away from the actual facts of the actual case. Typical Trump bullshit and how the so called legal system favors the WHITE RICH BOYS!!!
I didn’t mention, but probably should have the original hearing. The difference between the way Trump’s lawyers treated Bradley, then Wade and then Willis and the next day Willis father – all of them black vs. the way they treated another witness who actually was far more helpful to Willis than their “case”, former Gov. Roy Barnes was sickening. As I said on the balance he was more effective for Willis but they treated him with the utmost deference and respect.
I don’t know if I’ll write more about this but hours later I’m still seething over how judge McAfee let this whole thing get out of control. Perhaps he had no choice but to hold a hearing if the rules were such that the burden for at least making the challenge were met. However, there’s a difference between meeting the minimum standard and beginning to present actual evidence in court to back things up. (that was Trump’s problem with all those election lawsuits – lots of wild claims by Trump attorneys on courthouse steps but when it came time to show even the minimal amount needed to get a case started they had nothing but the wild claims and knew better than to make unsubstantiated claims in court.
Still, both before and today it seemed to me (admittedly NOT an actual lawyer) that too many times the same questions got asked. Sure, trying to rephrase a bit to see if someone trips up on the stand is common. But over, and over and over? And then over and over some more? The judge should have shut that shit down. Same today.
Just after I published this I saw Andrew Weissman in a panel discussion (which also brought out the fact we are talking about a small sum of money Willis is alleged to have taken from Wade) say this was an inexperienced judge who allowed himself to go down a legal rabbit hole. He IS young and not all that experienced for those who haven’t followed the case.
So I still say it’s a sh*t show and if Trump’s lawyers have been the monkey’s flinging the feces it’s because this judge hasn’t slapped them down by saying after a given point had been covered “We been over that counselor. Move on and if you don’t have anything else sit down. And the rest of you? Same thing. Don’t waste the court’s time getting up at the podium and covering the same ground.” And then when someone tried tell them to consider themselves officially warned and that sanctions/contempt was in store if they ignored him again.
What this case needs is a judge Kaplan type who ran a tight ship in the second Carroll trial. Someone who would tell even a former President who acted up that if he continued he’d be removed from the courtroom! Trump was fit to be tied but I think he looked at judge Kaplan and thought “Geez – THIS guy might actually do it and seems serious enough I don’t want to find out.”
Instead we have a young judge who will never again have a case of this magnitude. And who might, emphasize might (as I said in the article) be letting some “It doesn’t seem like there’s any legal/ethical reason for force Willis off this case, but she should have handed the case over to someone else in her office for appearances sake” infect his thinking. He’s allowed to think whatever the hell he wants, but he shouldn’t let it affect how he does his job up there on the bench.
Oh and the fix is in as usual. This judge was a member of the Federalist society while at UGA. Is it any wonder he’s allowed the defense to smear two black professionals when it’s clear it’s supposed to be about FINANCIAL GAIN!!!! Goddamn legal system. As I know from personal experience there is NO JUSTICE SYSTEM…JUSTA SYSTEM PUT IN PLACE BY RICH WHITE GUYS FOR RICH WHITE GUYS! I rest my goddamn case.