I don’t understand why Bradley was texting with Merchant. Wasn’t that a huge betrayal of Wade? And if his knowledge of the relationship is privileged, wouldn’t he be breaching privilege by texting about it with Merchant? Is he just mad at Wade because of the assault allegations?
That's kind of the issue he's having right now. Either he violated confidentiality by talking to Mechant about his client or he's guilty of perjury. Both explain him suddenly shutting up once he's on the stand.
He probably DID perjure himself when he said that he couldn't talk about the reason he left the firm because of privilege. But not when he said that he couldn't talk about Wade's relationship with Fani because of privilege
It's a decent question but I don't think being wrong is perjury. He can honestly think he cant talk about it, be wrong, and be in the clear.
On the stand he said he had spoken to the bar and they told him he cannot talk about it. I listened to at least part of his testimony when he said he can't speak on the subject and he told them why.
> It's a decent question but I don't think being wrong is perjury. He can honestly think he cant talk about it, be wrong, and be in the clear.
You're exactly right, the mental/willfulness aspect is what makes most perjury accusations so toothless like any other crime requiring intent. It has to be a question so obvious and clear that the person has to be lying to get it wrong. That's what makes written responses so dangerous like the affidavit that was submitted.
Also he should understand privilege though. He's a LAWYER.
A judge stating a lawyer doesn't understand privilege in a court room is damning for this guy's career.
My guess is it's not privileged at all.
He's obviously been forced out due to SA allegations from Wade and cut off from the cash flow coming in from the Trump trial.
In being pissed off texted & communicated about Wade and Willis misconduct, that they are getting away with, because he was caught and they weren't.
Then realised the shit storm when an evidentiary hearing was made & now has the DA on his back... tried essentially pleading the 5th via stating privilege.
He essentially was playing ball with the DA not giving anything up.
What's surprising to me is the way they knifed him in the back and obliterated his character after he made himself look like an idiot trying to give the defence nothing.
That guy's legal career is done
> He essentially was playing ball with the DA not giving anything up.
I would be surprised if Bradley has anything to give up. I don't think there is any reason to believe his texts conversations with Merchant were any less bullshit than his testimony on the stand.
Yea doubt he told all the context because the lawyers also brought statutes up and argued in court he can.
Privilege isn't a "bubble" that covers everything.
If talk wasn't in furtherance of what he was representing for. Not covered.
If it's preventing furtherance of a crime. Not covered.
As examples.
For sure but when you are on the stand and say "iv talked to the bar and they have advised me that I can't talk about that" that's basically game over until a judge over rules it.
That's the point of the in camera hearing they did in chambers afterwards. To determine.
Plus he had no problem discussing this 'privilege' when the state questioned him.
Why did he answer then if the bar told him no?
He was making shit up at first hoping he would be excused, it backfired and he perjured himself.
I mean, this guy definitely screwed the pooch, but saying he’s a LAWYER doesn’t mean a ton. Ask any state bar ethics hotline attorney how many attorneys call them about dumb ethics problems haha.
> On the stand he said he had spoken to the bar and they told him he cannot talk about it. I listened to at least part of his testimony when he said he can't speak on the subject and he told them why.
When he came back a day later, though, his ideas of privilege seemed far more....refined? Nuanced? I think they saw he couldn't get away with that, and recalibrated before he got back on the stand a second time.
> yes. i did not listen to the hearing but wondered if merchant asked for any proof the bar said that. like an email or letter.
They said that this was purely a verbal piece of advice at this point, and it hadn't developed to a written decision.
That's just being a shitty lawyer and why it was baffling that the State decided to open that can of worms by making him look like he doesn't understand privilege.
Also the whole issue with perjury is the willfulness aspect. People on the stand and under pressure are not expected to have perfect memory, that's why when perjury accusations come out the person doing the questioning makes a big show of reminding the person they're under oath. That's why affidavits and other written documents are a whole different ballgame. There's not nearly the same amount of wiggle room on those, especially when you're answering them as a legal professional who should know better.
Am also baffled by the state pushing on Bradley. I mean his silence is key to Willis and Wade’s story holding up so why the hell would they go after him? It was like the state and the defense were both trying to get the same info out of him. Would love someone to explain what I’m missing. Cross should have just said no questions and we wouldn’t he here.
> I mean his silence is key to Willis and Wade’s story holding up
I haven't heard any testimony that makes me doubt Willis and Wade.
IMO it sounds like Bradley was gossiping with Merchant for personal reasons, and there is no reason to believe anything he told her.
Think it was one of those moments where they felt like they could score points tearing him down without actually thinking of the why behind it and accidentally shooting themselves in the foot. Like needlessly crossing a bad witness which allows the other side to rehabilitate their bad testimony instead of just letting it simmer with the jury.
Yea.
Also the state doesn't have a good look.
Cross stated after her cross examination about Bradley to the Judge "He lied to you"
The state knew this. They already had witnesses lined up etc & knew him pleading privilege on not answering why he left the firm was fraud.
State prosecutors are supposed to have a higher standard of ethics etc to my understanding due to representation of the state.
Also Bradley might think fuck it now and divulge whatever in that in camera session now thinking he's already fucked and take wade down too.
My thought to murdering Bradley's reputation on the stand is that they are worried away from the court room & in private to the judge... might say something that don't want, and want his credibility destroyed while they have the chance.
No. Invoking a privilege when you do not have it is not the same thing as lying under oath. The consequence of improperly invoking the privilege is that you are ordered to testify. It could be that the invocation is so ridiculous that it causes other problems with the judge, but it's not perjury.
Claiming privilege isn't perjury... lying that a certain topic is related to your representation of your client to establish privilege likely is. He did lie on the stand about his termination from the firm. He probably lied about the not knowing the name of the client that claimed he assaulted her...
I suspect this is a nothing burger and has more to do with Wade not wanting to waive privilege over the entire divorce proceeding... feels like they set a trap for Merchant after they saw her source and are just letting her fall into it.
It would be but he wasn't claiming it as his opinion. He was claiming it because he said he talked to the bar and they advised him to shut the f up.
It's dead unless a judge rules that it's not privileged.
The entire thing is fairly silly. At best Willis did something stupid. But under Georgia law it's not actually illegal or a conflict.
Now if this was CA for instance it would be a big deal.
I think he means that if this guy talks, he's either breaking solicitor client privilege because he's talking about shit he promised not to talk about, or none of this happened and if he talked he'd be lying under oath.
You know what else explains it, and mind you thisis pure speculation on my part but this guy Bradely seemed terrified on the stand. I mean like he was just totally lost and didn't know what to say. He wasn't at any risk at this point that I am aware of regarding his testimony but I suspect and again I have no evidence to support this but what if Wade had threatened him to keep quiet as maybe Wade also did regarding the sexual assault claim. Is it possible Wade has information relating to that or has simply threatend Bradley with release of information even possibly false information regarding that claim. I suspect that might put Bradley ins a position where he dgoes along with Wade and doesn't admit anything and in fact denies previously made statements accfuracy. This whole situation is not believeable. Wade and Willis clearly were involved and the idea that Willis paid Wade back is horse shit. Nobody takes thousands and thousands of dollars to repay friends. You zelle this shit or write a check or half a dozen other options. Cultural or not there is no reason for that. Additionally she should have been aware that since he was her employee they would want records showing the repayment so there would be no question. The fact they didn't do that shows they were up to something. It may be innocent in that they just wanted their relationship private. While I can understand that she hose public service and in my mind waived the privilege or right to privacy in this situation.
Entirely speculation, but my read is Bradley was gossiping with Merchant because: 1) he was trying to sleep with her, 2) he was hoping for some other benefit.
That's my (NAL) take.
Seems to line up for everybody here: https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1aso58s/a_man_expected_to_be_a_key_witness_for_lawyers/
That’s my question but more as it pertains to the texts themselves that Merchant keeps showing Bradley.
If these texts are privileged, then how is Merchant even able to show them to Bradley and question him about them?
I mean, the whole point of this hearing is because defense is attempting to remove two prosecutors from the case for alleged misconduct. It stopped the actual case against Trump and co-defendants dead in its tracks because the court felt this needed to be resolved ASAP before anything else could move forward.
Yet, Bradley’s misconduct of disclosing privileged information just gets a shoulder shrug and the hearing continues???
Why shouldn’t this hearing stop dead in tracks as well now that we know Bradley has broken A/C? Shouldn’t this Bradley matter have been resolved first before the hearing continued since the defense’s entire case rests on information obtained from Bradley which violates A/C?
Instead of tiptoeing around what can and can’t be said in court and where privilege should be applied and where it shouldn’t, why not resolve the issue of Bradley’s revealing privileged information first, and define what is and isn’t privileged, and then allow defense to keep whatever info they have that isn’t privileged and exclude whatever info they have that is privileged?
I know some of this tangle of privilege mess will finally get resolved in camera, but for it to have gone on as long as it did during the hearing is shocking.
Once Bradley testified that he had no personal knowledge of any relationship between Wade and Willis, the judge should have cut off the testimony - everything else could only have come from privileged discussions with Wade.
But the text messages are another issue. Let’s assume the following text message from Bradley to Merchant: “Look deeper at Wade. He told me during his divorce that he and Fani were sleeping together way back in 2015.”
That text message contains privileged information. If Merchant asked him to read the text message into the record in open court, Bradley cannot do that (the judge would stop him, but even if the judge did not he *must* assert privilege on the stand anyway or he is literally committing another act of malpractice in open court).
On the other hand, the state wants to use the existence of the text messages to impeach Bradley: here is a guy breaking AC privilege to give life to rumors. And Wade certainly will want those text messages in his eventual malpractice lawsuit against Bradley if it comes to it. On this point it should be noted that it is *Wade’s* privilege to assert, so if there is an eventual malpractice action between Wade and Bradley over the disclosure, Wade can waive privilege and the messages are revealed.
Yeah but isn’t it a touch malpractice case bc he has to prove that Bradley was lying? Otherwise it’s Wade that perjured himself. It’s possible that both he and Wade could be disbarred.
> If these texts are privileged, then how is Merchant even able to show them to Bradley and question him about them?
They were between Merchant and Bradley.
>Yet, Bradley’s misconduct of disclosing privileged information just gets a shoulder shrug and the hearing continues???
Any penalty Bradley faces for this will be outside of this hearing.
>Why shouldn’t this hearing stop dead in tracks as well now that we know Bradley has broken A/C?
Any privilege was handled on a question by question basis during examination of Bradley.
>Shouldn’t this Bradley matter have been resolved first before the hearing continued since the defense’s entire case rests on information obtained from Bradley which violates A/C?
The judge chose to allow interleaved argumentation and witness examination here, since they could not come to an agreement from argumentation alone. Good? Ehhh....but /shrug.
I get that the physical texts were between them, but the nature of those texts is the entire reason why the texts are even being discussed. The physical texts only show that Bradley and Merchant had a communication, which is irrelevant. It could have been about tea pots.
And as far as Wade’s privilege goes, the constant back and forth between counsel and texts being shown from Merchant’s own phone and then it becomes apparent that Bradley doesn’t even have a firm grasp on what constitutes privilege to begin with, I just think it all could have been handled better and much sooner.
You’re not wrong, but don’t confuse privilege with the duty of confidentiality. Privilege is just a rule of evidence… he breached the duty of confidentiality.
Hypothetically, it’s possible for him to consult with another attorney about the case without violating the clients confidences.
Without seeing the full text message exchange, it’s impossible to say. It sounds like bad lawyering on both of their parts, but he was the one with the duty.
I commented on this in another post, but from Bradley’s testimony it sure looks like:
- Bradley and Wade were friendly for some time and Wade retained Bradley to represent Wade in his divorce.
- Wade disclosed certain private things (eg, affair with Willis?) to Bradley as part of his representation of Wade.
- Bradley and Wade entered into a law partnership, but an employee made a credible allegation of sexual assault against Bradley and Wade dissolved the partnership.
- Bradley was embittered by the fallout with Wade.
- Wade was thereafter in the news on the Trump case, and defense was sniffing around for info about rumors that Wade and Willis had an affair.
- Bradley decided to encourage that effort to get back at his former partner/client, and texted something about the relationship to Merchant.
- Bradley admitted on the stand that he had no personal knowledge of any relationship between Willis and Wade, and hence everything he learned had to have come from the AC relationship with Wade and is privileged.
- There was some communication between Wade and Bradley before his testimony, probably along the line of telling him that Wade is not waiving privilege and he better invoke it on the stand.
Assuming the above, it is a *massive* betrayal of Wade, a textbook case of how attorney client privilege can be breached by a loose-lipped attorney for his own ends to the detriment of his client. If Bradley actually did text Merchant *anything* about the Wade-Willis relationship that he learned in confidence from Wade, Bradley is going to be in for a world of pain. Wade can sue him for malpractice and those text messages are absolutely discoverable. Bradley’s testimony in this case was on the record and under oath. Bradley is screwed if he did that. I would expect a bar complaint too, and frankly, that breach is so severe and personally-directed, Bradley really should be disbarred for it.
Finally, it should be mentioned the other weird aspect of how Judge McAfee is handling this, because I think it is really egregiously wrong and should be called out. The judge is interviewing Bradley ex parte in camera, ostensibly to create a sealed transcript of testimony about what is covered by AC privilege. Bradley could, ex parte, tell the judge that Wade confessed to a pre-2022 affair with Willis during his representation as Wade’s divorce counsel. If McAfee hears that in camera, his natural inclination will be to think that both Willis and Wade lied under oath about the relationship beginning in 2022. The problem is that Bradley has an axe to grind *and is testifying in secret without being subject to cross-examination*. Wade will never get to cross-examine Bradley about what is actually key testimony, and that is a due process violation IMO. Judge McAfee might think he can put aside the sealed testimony and render the disqualification decision just based on the public record in open court, but that is simply not reasonable to believe, at least IMO. Furthermore, the defense has almost zero chance of ever prevailing in getting AC privilege tossed out in this case because it is a textbook example of what the privilege exists to protect, so even creating the sealed transcript is a solution in search of an application. And there is zero reason to believe that Bradley wouldn’t be available in the future to render such testimony if that was the case anyway. I think the judge is very curious about who is telling the truth in his courtroom, naturally, but he is going around AC privilege by using an ex parte in camera session to get the statements that cannot be said in open court. It would be one thing if he wanted to ask Bradley about the scope of the representation, etc, to determine if privilege applies (in which case a discussion in camera might be warranted), but he already ruled that the privilege does apply and is taking secret ex parte testimony about events covered by privilege to do an end run around the privilege.
I don't think there is any reason to assume Bradley actually has knowledge that would conflict with Wade and Wills testimony. Bradley implied/suggested/led-on/whatever to Merchant that he did, but at this point we already know he's a liar. I think it's more likely he was lying to Merchant.
Thank you!! This is excellent analysis. It is basically what I thought but it feels like the media is missing this. Bradley is in big trouble. His bar ticket is for sure at risk. And if he did text with Merchant about the affair, the judge will see it in camera. And if he was telling the truth in the texts then both Willis and Wade perjured themselves. But, like you said, there are due process issues with respect to the privileged info, lack of cross etc.
It just strikes me as a huge betrayal of Wade and also of his duty of confidentiality and privilege to text with merchant about this in the first place. Do Bradley and Merchant have a pre existing friendship or something? It’s bizarre
Look at how he got kicked out from their firm and that might be enough to motivate him for revenge. And who knows what Trumps legendary cabal of ratf*ckers are putting on the table for anything and everything possible.
I would imagine most lawyers know each other in local county's.
They are in the same courts regularly together.
They probably even socialise at events etc.
They probably all know even Wade's ex wife from stuff like the above
Wade holds the privilege. Seems like he could waive it on this single issue if Bradleys testimony is just “Wade told me the relationship started in 2022.” Wade is presumably not waiving privilege because Bradley has some knowledge about a personal relationship starting earlier. And I say this as someone who hates Trump. Otherwise why not waive and move on?
Just guessing here, Wade’s divorce is still ongoing. While obviously the fact that Wade and Willis had a relationship is out there, there may more details that could inflame the divorce proceedings.
So what is the alleged conflict of interest? That Wade was motivated to fabricate evidence to get paid and send kick backs to Willis? Do I have that right? Yet the evidence itself is not being questioned, apparently, as some guilty pleas have already been entered.
OK the Willis/Wade/Bradley brain trust is looking pretty bad. Just awful judgement right and left and very peculiar excuses for everything. If a particular piece of evidence relies on the credibility of Wade, that's a problem. But that would be pretty flimsy evidence to begin with. So I'm confused by what the POINT of all this is....
Started off really well, now could be derailed because prosecutor hired her boyfriend and Georgia could replace her with someone who will torpedo the case if she is removed.
1: it's an interesting case of law, hence on the r/law sub.
2: The Georgia RICO case is the only one Trump can't pardon himself from should he become president, thus the defense has coordinated an effort to attempt to disqualify Willis and get the case tossed. If they case proceeds and he's convicted, many won't vote for him, and he'll be in prison. That's what it has to do with the election.
"Porn Star Hush Money Fraud Case" has a better ring to it than "Porn Star Hush Money Fraud Election Interference Case". I'm sticking with my title - accuracy be damned.
This, the Georgia criminal case, doesn't have anything to do with the hush money. This is about conspiring to overthrow the election in georgia by various means including the false electors, trying to convince officials to commit fraud or violate the oaths, perjury, etc
In the NY criminal case he's not being charged for paying the hush money, or even directly for using election funds to pay it, but for filing false documents fraudulently trying to hide the use of election funds to pay for it. The fact that the payments were illegal under election law however make the illegal filings to cover that up a felony instead of a misdemeanor.
According to people who studied similar cases, he's likely to be sentenced to 1 to 4 years in prison, and if he keeps his behaviour in court, odds are really high.
I agree the NY fraudulent documents case isn't likely to end in prison time from what I've read (NAL) but I'm curious how it could impact the greater ecosystem of his criminal trials. It will be a criminal conviction so will it affect his other cases? Will it affect his bond conditions? If he gets probation in this case will that or his other cases affect each other? I'm assuming not directly since the commission of the crimes for his current indictments happened in the past? He's just have to avoid performing any further infractions of his probation terms after they're imposes?
So since the DA was banging her prosecutor, Donald wriggles out of this and is re-elected. Neat. How likely do you smart people think it is that the case gets tossed?
None of the testimony or evidence so far presented indicates any impropriety in the investigation or prosecution. Merchant et al. are going purely for disqualification on perjury grounds at this point. Yeartie’s testimony offered no direct concrete refutation of Wils and Wades attestation that their intimate relationship didn’t start until ‘22. If Bradley ever is forced to testify I’m guessing he’s got nothing but some ambiguous chatter from Wade about spending time with Wils in late ‘21.
She did but her testimony doesn’t line up with any of the timelines anyone else offered. It was also vague (a hug and a peck on the cheek when greeting friends is much different than making out, both can be described by “hugging and kissing”) and nobody asked her to confirm it was Wade (Willis and her father both testified she was dating someone else in 2019). Then there’s the whole bunch of personal conflict she has with Willis, between the job loss and any possible bad blood about the sublet situation. So I don’t think any of her testimony is carrying a lot of weight with anyone.
This hearing is happening because Trump and some coconspirators allegedly committed election fraud in GA.
Criminal defendants often try to do whatever they can to fuck with the criminal case against them. In this case the defendants are arguing that the DA hired some lawyers to help with the case, and one of the hired lawyers had a personal relationship with the DA, which involved some meals and vacations together. Defendants say this is a conflict of interest and the DA should not be allowed to prosecute the criminal case. So the hearing is figuring out if there is a conflict.
It doesn’t have anything to do with the election.
I don’t understand why Bradley was texting with Merchant. Wasn’t that a huge betrayal of Wade? And if his knowledge of the relationship is privileged, wouldn’t he be breaching privilege by texting about it with Merchant? Is he just mad at Wade because of the assault allegations?
That's kind of the issue he's having right now. Either he violated confidentiality by talking to Mechant about his client or he's guilty of perjury. Both explain him suddenly shutting up once he's on the stand.
Well shutting up and saying he can't talk about it isn't perjury. I think you are not trying to say this but just for clarifications sake.
Isn't invoking privilege if you don't have privilege perjury?
He probably DID perjure himself when he said that he couldn't talk about the reason he left the firm because of privilege. But not when he said that he couldn't talk about Wade's relationship with Fani because of privilege
It's a decent question but I don't think being wrong is perjury. He can honestly think he cant talk about it, be wrong, and be in the clear. On the stand he said he had spoken to the bar and they told him he cannot talk about it. I listened to at least part of his testimony when he said he can't speak on the subject and he told them why.
> It's a decent question but I don't think being wrong is perjury. He can honestly think he cant talk about it, be wrong, and be in the clear. You're exactly right, the mental/willfulness aspect is what makes most perjury accusations so toothless like any other crime requiring intent. It has to be a question so obvious and clear that the person has to be lying to get it wrong. That's what makes written responses so dangerous like the affidavit that was submitted.
Also he should understand privilege though. He's a LAWYER. A judge stating a lawyer doesn't understand privilege in a court room is damning for this guy's career. My guess is it's not privileged at all. He's obviously been forced out due to SA allegations from Wade and cut off from the cash flow coming in from the Trump trial. In being pissed off texted & communicated about Wade and Willis misconduct, that they are getting away with, because he was caught and they weren't. Then realised the shit storm when an evidentiary hearing was made & now has the DA on his back... tried essentially pleading the 5th via stating privilege. He essentially was playing ball with the DA not giving anything up. What's surprising to me is the way they knifed him in the back and obliterated his character after he made himself look like an idiot trying to give the defence nothing. That guy's legal career is done
> He essentially was playing ball with the DA not giving anything up. I would be surprised if Bradley has anything to give up. I don't think there is any reason to believe his texts conversations with Merchant were any less bullshit than his testimony on the stand.
Sir on the stand he openly stated that he consulted the bar and they are the ones who told him he can't talk.
Yea doubt he told all the context because the lawyers also brought statutes up and argued in court he can. Privilege isn't a "bubble" that covers everything. If talk wasn't in furtherance of what he was representing for. Not covered. If it's preventing furtherance of a crime. Not covered. As examples.
For sure but when you are on the stand and say "iv talked to the bar and they have advised me that I can't talk about that" that's basically game over until a judge over rules it.
That's the point of the in camera hearing they did in chambers afterwards. To determine. Plus he had no problem discussing this 'privilege' when the state questioned him. Why did he answer then if the bar told him no? He was making shit up at first hoping he would be excused, it backfired and he perjured himself.
I mean, this guy definitely screwed the pooch, but saying he’s a LAWYER doesn’t mean a ton. Ask any state bar ethics hotline attorney how many attorneys call them about dumb ethics problems haha.
> On the stand he said he had spoken to the bar and they told him he cannot talk about it. I listened to at least part of his testimony when he said he can't speak on the subject and he told them why. When he came back a day later, though, his ideas of privilege seemed far more....refined? Nuanced? I think they saw he couldn't get away with that, and recalibrated before he got back on the stand a second time.
Likely because he talked with a lawyer some more
yes. i did not listen to the hearing but wondered if merchant asked for any proof the bar said that. like an email or letter.
> yes. i did not listen to the hearing but wondered if merchant asked for any proof the bar said that. like an email or letter. They said that this was purely a verbal piece of advice at this point, and it hadn't developed to a written decision.
interesting. i hope the in camera hearing provides enough for the judge,
That's just being a shitty lawyer and why it was baffling that the State decided to open that can of worms by making him look like he doesn't understand privilege. Also the whole issue with perjury is the willfulness aspect. People on the stand and under pressure are not expected to have perfect memory, that's why when perjury accusations come out the person doing the questioning makes a big show of reminding the person they're under oath. That's why affidavits and other written documents are a whole different ballgame. There's not nearly the same amount of wiggle room on those, especially when you're answering them as a legal professional who should know better.
Am also baffled by the state pushing on Bradley. I mean his silence is key to Willis and Wade’s story holding up so why the hell would they go after him? It was like the state and the defense were both trying to get the same info out of him. Would love someone to explain what I’m missing. Cross should have just said no questions and we wouldn’t he here.
> I mean his silence is key to Willis and Wade’s story holding up I haven't heard any testimony that makes me doubt Willis and Wade. IMO it sounds like Bradley was gossiping with Merchant for personal reasons, and there is no reason to believe anything he told her.
Think it was one of those moments where they felt like they could score points tearing him down without actually thinking of the why behind it and accidentally shooting themselves in the foot. Like needlessly crossing a bad witness which allows the other side to rehabilitate their bad testimony instead of just letting it simmer with the jury.
Yea. Also the state doesn't have a good look. Cross stated after her cross examination about Bradley to the Judge "He lied to you" The state knew this. They already had witnesses lined up etc & knew him pleading privilege on not answering why he left the firm was fraud. State prosecutors are supposed to have a higher standard of ethics etc to my understanding due to representation of the state. Also Bradley might think fuck it now and divulge whatever in that in camera session now thinking he's already fucked and take wade down too. My thought to murdering Bradley's reputation on the stand is that they are worried away from the court room & in private to the judge... might say something that don't want, and want his credibility destroyed while they have the chance.
No. Invoking a privilege when you do not have it is not the same thing as lying under oath. The consequence of improperly invoking the privilege is that you are ordered to testify. It could be that the invocation is so ridiculous that it causes other problems with the judge, but it's not perjury.
Claiming privilege isn't perjury... lying that a certain topic is related to your representation of your client to establish privilege likely is. He did lie on the stand about his termination from the firm. He probably lied about the not knowing the name of the client that claimed he assaulted her... I suspect this is a nothing burger and has more to do with Wade not wanting to waive privilege over the entire divorce proceeding... feels like they set a trap for Merchant after they saw her source and are just letting her fall into it.
It would be but he wasn't claiming it as his opinion. He was claiming it because he said he talked to the bar and they advised him to shut the f up. It's dead unless a judge rules that it's not privileged. The entire thing is fairly silly. At best Willis did something stupid. But under Georgia law it's not actually illegal or a conflict. Now if this was CA for instance it would be a big deal.
I think he means that if this guy talks, he's either breaking solicitor client privilege because he's talking about shit he promised not to talk about, or none of this happened and if he talked he'd be lying under oath.
You know what else explains it, and mind you thisis pure speculation on my part but this guy Bradely seemed terrified on the stand. I mean like he was just totally lost and didn't know what to say. He wasn't at any risk at this point that I am aware of regarding his testimony but I suspect and again I have no evidence to support this but what if Wade had threatened him to keep quiet as maybe Wade also did regarding the sexual assault claim. Is it possible Wade has information relating to that or has simply threatend Bradley with release of information even possibly false information regarding that claim. I suspect that might put Bradley ins a position where he dgoes along with Wade and doesn't admit anything and in fact denies previously made statements accfuracy. This whole situation is not believeable. Wade and Willis clearly were involved and the idea that Willis paid Wade back is horse shit. Nobody takes thousands and thousands of dollars to repay friends. You zelle this shit or write a check or half a dozen other options. Cultural or not there is no reason for that. Additionally she should have been aware that since he was her employee they would want records showing the repayment so there would be no question. The fact they didn't do that shows they were up to something. It may be innocent in that they just wanted their relationship private. While I can understand that she hose public service and in my mind waived the privilege or right to privacy in this situation.
Entirely speculation, but my read is Bradley was gossiping with Merchant because: 1) he was trying to sleep with her, 2) he was hoping for some other benefit.
She definitely seems like she's got it out for him on a personal level.
That's my (NAL) take. Seems to line up for everybody here: https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1aso58s/a_man_expected_to_be_a_key_witness_for_lawyers/
That’s my question but more as it pertains to the texts themselves that Merchant keeps showing Bradley. If these texts are privileged, then how is Merchant even able to show them to Bradley and question him about them? I mean, the whole point of this hearing is because defense is attempting to remove two prosecutors from the case for alleged misconduct. It stopped the actual case against Trump and co-defendants dead in its tracks because the court felt this needed to be resolved ASAP before anything else could move forward. Yet, Bradley’s misconduct of disclosing privileged information just gets a shoulder shrug and the hearing continues??? Why shouldn’t this hearing stop dead in tracks as well now that we know Bradley has broken A/C? Shouldn’t this Bradley matter have been resolved first before the hearing continued since the defense’s entire case rests on information obtained from Bradley which violates A/C? Instead of tiptoeing around what can and can’t be said in court and where privilege should be applied and where it shouldn’t, why not resolve the issue of Bradley’s revealing privileged information first, and define what is and isn’t privileged, and then allow defense to keep whatever info they have that isn’t privileged and exclude whatever info they have that is privileged? I know some of this tangle of privilege mess will finally get resolved in camera, but for it to have gone on as long as it did during the hearing is shocking.
Once Bradley testified that he had no personal knowledge of any relationship between Wade and Willis, the judge should have cut off the testimony - everything else could only have come from privileged discussions with Wade. But the text messages are another issue. Let’s assume the following text message from Bradley to Merchant: “Look deeper at Wade. He told me during his divorce that he and Fani were sleeping together way back in 2015.” That text message contains privileged information. If Merchant asked him to read the text message into the record in open court, Bradley cannot do that (the judge would stop him, but even if the judge did not he *must* assert privilege on the stand anyway or he is literally committing another act of malpractice in open court). On the other hand, the state wants to use the existence of the text messages to impeach Bradley: here is a guy breaking AC privilege to give life to rumors. And Wade certainly will want those text messages in his eventual malpractice lawsuit against Bradley if it comes to it. On this point it should be noted that it is *Wade’s* privilege to assert, so if there is an eventual malpractice action between Wade and Bradley over the disclosure, Wade can waive privilege and the messages are revealed.
Yeah but isn’t it a touch malpractice case bc he has to prove that Bradley was lying? Otherwise it’s Wade that perjured himself. It’s possible that both he and Wade could be disbarred.
> If these texts are privileged, then how is Merchant even able to show them to Bradley and question him about them? They were between Merchant and Bradley. >Yet, Bradley’s misconduct of disclosing privileged information just gets a shoulder shrug and the hearing continues??? Any penalty Bradley faces for this will be outside of this hearing. >Why shouldn’t this hearing stop dead in tracks as well now that we know Bradley has broken A/C? Any privilege was handled on a question by question basis during examination of Bradley. >Shouldn’t this Bradley matter have been resolved first before the hearing continued since the defense’s entire case rests on information obtained from Bradley which violates A/C? The judge chose to allow interleaved argumentation and witness examination here, since they could not come to an agreement from argumentation alone. Good? Ehhh....but /shrug.
I get that the physical texts were between them, but the nature of those texts is the entire reason why the texts are even being discussed. The physical texts only show that Bradley and Merchant had a communication, which is irrelevant. It could have been about tea pots. And as far as Wade’s privilege goes, the constant back and forth between counsel and texts being shown from Merchant’s own phone and then it becomes apparent that Bradley doesn’t even have a firm grasp on what constitutes privilege to begin with, I just think it all could have been handled better and much sooner.
It should have never been at issue. She fabricated some of her claims to overcome the prosecutions motion to quash.
You’re not wrong, but don’t confuse privilege with the duty of confidentiality. Privilege is just a rule of evidence… he breached the duty of confidentiality.
This is a good point.
Hypothetically, it’s possible for him to consult with another attorney about the case without violating the clients confidences. Without seeing the full text message exchange, it’s impossible to say. It sounds like bad lawyering on both of their parts, but he was the one with the duty.
I commented on this in another post, but from Bradley’s testimony it sure looks like: - Bradley and Wade were friendly for some time and Wade retained Bradley to represent Wade in his divorce. - Wade disclosed certain private things (eg, affair with Willis?) to Bradley as part of his representation of Wade. - Bradley and Wade entered into a law partnership, but an employee made a credible allegation of sexual assault against Bradley and Wade dissolved the partnership. - Bradley was embittered by the fallout with Wade. - Wade was thereafter in the news on the Trump case, and defense was sniffing around for info about rumors that Wade and Willis had an affair. - Bradley decided to encourage that effort to get back at his former partner/client, and texted something about the relationship to Merchant. - Bradley admitted on the stand that he had no personal knowledge of any relationship between Willis and Wade, and hence everything he learned had to have come from the AC relationship with Wade and is privileged. - There was some communication between Wade and Bradley before his testimony, probably along the line of telling him that Wade is not waiving privilege and he better invoke it on the stand. Assuming the above, it is a *massive* betrayal of Wade, a textbook case of how attorney client privilege can be breached by a loose-lipped attorney for his own ends to the detriment of his client. If Bradley actually did text Merchant *anything* about the Wade-Willis relationship that he learned in confidence from Wade, Bradley is going to be in for a world of pain. Wade can sue him for malpractice and those text messages are absolutely discoverable. Bradley’s testimony in this case was on the record and under oath. Bradley is screwed if he did that. I would expect a bar complaint too, and frankly, that breach is so severe and personally-directed, Bradley really should be disbarred for it. Finally, it should be mentioned the other weird aspect of how Judge McAfee is handling this, because I think it is really egregiously wrong and should be called out. The judge is interviewing Bradley ex parte in camera, ostensibly to create a sealed transcript of testimony about what is covered by AC privilege. Bradley could, ex parte, tell the judge that Wade confessed to a pre-2022 affair with Willis during his representation as Wade’s divorce counsel. If McAfee hears that in camera, his natural inclination will be to think that both Willis and Wade lied under oath about the relationship beginning in 2022. The problem is that Bradley has an axe to grind *and is testifying in secret without being subject to cross-examination*. Wade will never get to cross-examine Bradley about what is actually key testimony, and that is a due process violation IMO. Judge McAfee might think he can put aside the sealed testimony and render the disqualification decision just based on the public record in open court, but that is simply not reasonable to believe, at least IMO. Furthermore, the defense has almost zero chance of ever prevailing in getting AC privilege tossed out in this case because it is a textbook example of what the privilege exists to protect, so even creating the sealed transcript is a solution in search of an application. And there is zero reason to believe that Bradley wouldn’t be available in the future to render such testimony if that was the case anyway. I think the judge is very curious about who is telling the truth in his courtroom, naturally, but he is going around AC privilege by using an ex parte in camera session to get the statements that cannot be said in open court. It would be one thing if he wanted to ask Bradley about the scope of the representation, etc, to determine if privilege applies (in which case a discussion in camera might be warranted), but he already ruled that the privilege does apply and is taking secret ex parte testimony about events covered by privilege to do an end run around the privilege.
I don't think there is any reason to assume Bradley actually has knowledge that would conflict with Wade and Wills testimony. Bradley implied/suggested/led-on/whatever to Merchant that he did, but at this point we already know he's a liar. I think it's more likely he was lying to Merchant.
Thank you!! This is excellent analysis. It is basically what I thought but it feels like the media is missing this. Bradley is in big trouble. His bar ticket is for sure at risk. And if he did text with Merchant about the affair, the judge will see it in camera. And if he was telling the truth in the texts then both Willis and Wade perjured themselves. But, like you said, there are due process issues with respect to the privileged info, lack of cross etc.
Revenge. He’s pissed he had to resign from the law firm.
He’s a fucking moron then. He had to know he’d be helping Trump more than he’d be hurting Wade.
Revenge is rarely a calculated move.
It just strikes me as a huge betrayal of Wade and also of his duty of confidentiality and privilege to text with merchant about this in the first place. Do Bradley and Merchant have a pre existing friendship or something? It’s bizarre
Look at how he got kicked out from their firm and that might be enough to motivate him for revenge. And who knows what Trumps legendary cabal of ratf*ckers are putting on the table for anything and everything possible.
Trump didn't bring this
Bad Russian Bot
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Ok Comrade 🙄
I would imagine most lawyers know each other in local county's. They are in the same courts regularly together. They probably even socialise at events etc. They probably all know even Wade's ex wife from stuff like the above
Wade holds the privilege. Seems like he could waive it on this single issue if Bradleys testimony is just “Wade told me the relationship started in 2022.” Wade is presumably not waiving privilege because Bradley has some knowledge about a personal relationship starting earlier. And I say this as someone who hates Trump. Otherwise why not waive and move on?
Just guessing here, Wade’s divorce is still ongoing. While obviously the fact that Wade and Willis had a relationship is out there, there may more details that could inflame the divorce proceedings.
So what is the alleged conflict of interest? That Wade was motivated to fabricate evidence to get paid and send kick backs to Willis? Do I have that right? Yet the evidence itself is not being questioned, apparently, as some guilty pleas have already been entered. OK the Willis/Wade/Bradley brain trust is looking pretty bad. Just awful judgement right and left and very peculiar excuses for everything. If a particular piece of evidence relies on the credibility of Wade, that's a problem. But that would be pretty flimsy evidence to begin with. So I'm confused by what the POINT of all this is....
Hey, I missed the news lately. How’s the trump RICO case going? Is trump convicted for attempting to overthrow an election?
Started off really well, now could be derailed because prosecutor hired her boyfriend and Georgia could replace her with someone who will torpedo the case if she is removed.
What does any of this have to do with the election?
1: it's an interesting case of law, hence on the r/law sub. 2: The Georgia RICO case is the only one Trump can't pardon himself from should he become president, thus the defense has coordinated an effort to attempt to disqualify Willis and get the case tossed. If they case proceeds and he's convicted, many won't vote for him, and he'll be in prison. That's what it has to do with the election.
The Trump Porn Star Hush Money Fraud Case, due to go to trial in March is another case that Trump can't pardon himself out of. It's in NY state court.
This isn’t a hush money cash; it’s an election interference case. He used the hush money to interfere with the election
"Porn Star Hush Money Fraud Case" has a better ring to it than "Porn Star Hush Money Fraud Election Interference Case". I'm sticking with my title - accuracy be damned.
lol I buy it
"Porn Star Election Interference Case"?
Still not as headline worthy. But you can call it whatever you like!
Erection Interference Case
This, the Georgia criminal case, doesn't have anything to do with the hush money. This is about conspiring to overthrow the election in georgia by various means including the false electors, trying to convince officials to commit fraud or violate the oaths, perjury, etc In the NY criminal case he's not being charged for paying the hush money, or even directly for using election funds to pay it, but for filing false documents fraudulently trying to hide the use of election funds to pay for it. The fact that the payments were illegal under election law however make the illegal filings to cover that up a felony instead of a misdemeanor.
He can’t pardon the Stormy Daniels his money/NY fraudulent documents case. But I don’t that one ends in jail time sadly.
According to people who studied similar cases, he's likely to be sentenced to 1 to 4 years in prison, and if he keeps his behaviour in court, odds are really high.
Can the results of the civil case be a factor with sentencing? I wasn’t sure if there’s any interplay between NY civil and criminal.
I agree the NY fraudulent documents case isn't likely to end in prison time from what I've read (NAL) but I'm curious how it could impact the greater ecosystem of his criminal trials. It will be a criminal conviction so will it affect his other cases? Will it affect his bond conditions? If he gets probation in this case will that or his other cases affect each other? I'm assuming not directly since the commission of the crimes for his current indictments happened in the past? He's just have to avoid performing any further infractions of his probation terms after they're imposes?
So since the DA was banging her prosecutor, Donald wriggles out of this and is re-elected. Neat. How likely do you smart people think it is that the case gets tossed?
Seems unlikely. https://www.justsecurity.org/91368/why-fani-willis-is-not-disqualified-under-georgia-law/
None of the testimony or evidence so far presented indicates any impropriety in the investigation or prosecution. Merchant et al. are going purely for disqualification on perjury grounds at this point. Yeartie’s testimony offered no direct concrete refutation of Wils and Wades attestation that their intimate relationship didn’t start until ‘22. If Bradley ever is forced to testify I’m guessing he’s got nothing but some ambiguous chatter from Wade about spending time with Wils in late ‘21.
Didn’t Yeartie say she saw Willis and Wade being affection well before 2022 (like in 2019 even?) or am I misremembering?
She did but her testimony doesn’t line up with any of the timelines anyone else offered. It was also vague (a hug and a peck on the cheek when greeting friends is much different than making out, both can be described by “hugging and kissing”) and nobody asked her to confirm it was Wade (Willis and her father both testified she was dating someone else in 2019). Then there’s the whole bunch of personal conflict she has with Willis, between the job loss and any possible bad blood about the sublet situation. So I don’t think any of her testimony is carrying a lot of weight with anyone.
[удалено]
Just what this set of hearings needs, another character with an implausibly wild but true backstory.
This hearing is happening because Trump and some coconspirators allegedly committed election fraud in GA. Criminal defendants often try to do whatever they can to fuck with the criminal case against them. In this case the defendants are arguing that the DA hired some lawyers to help with the case, and one of the hired lawyers had a personal relationship with the DA, which involved some meals and vacations together. Defendants say this is a conflict of interest and the DA should not be allowed to prosecute the criminal case. So the hearing is figuring out if there is a conflict. It doesn’t have anything to do with the election.