Lawyers representing Donald Trump and his co-defendants in a Georgia election interference case subjected a crucial witness to intense scrutiny on Tuesday, aiming to undermine Fani Willis, the Fulton County district attorney prosecuting the former president. The defense sought to discredit Willis by questioning Terrence Bradley, described as a “star witness” by the trial judge, regarding his knowledge of Willis’s alleged affair with Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor appointed by Willis to handle the case.
However, despite being labeled as a pivotal witness, Bradley’s testimony failed to provide conclusive evidence regarding the timeline of the romantic relationship between Willis and Wade. Specifically, Bradley stated that he couldn’t recall when he became aware of Wade’s affair with Willis, frustrating the defense team’s efforts to establish that Willis engaged in a conflict of interest by hiring Wade.
The defense’s objective was to demonstrate that Willis initiated a romantic involvement with Wade, who was married at the time, before appointing him as the special prosecutor on November 1, 2021, to oversee the investigation into Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia. Such testimony would contradict assertions made by Willis and Wade, who claimed that their relationship commenced later, thereby refuting allegations of a conflict of interest.
Despite extensive questioning by defense attorneys, Bradley’s responses did not yield the desired outcome. Moreover, attempts to elicit potentially damning testimony were hindered by legal constraints surrounding attorney-client privilege, as Bradley had previously represented Wade. Following an unfruitful initial appearance, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee ordered Bradley to undergo further testimony on Tuesday.
Anticipation was high for Bradley’s testimony, especially after defense attorneys presented text messages suggesting Bradley’s awareness of an earlier start to the affair between Willis and Wade. However, Bradley’s testimony fell short of confirming these suspicions, with his responses often characterized by speculation rather than concrete evidence.
Despite Bradley affirming certain statements made in text messages, he ultimately labeled them as speculative, distancing himself from assertions that could potentially discredit Willis and Wade. Defense attorneys, meanwhile, repeatedly challenged Bradley’s credibility and motives, insinuating that he was attempting to retract his previous statements to avoid implicating himself in legal proceedings.
Notably, Bradley’s testimony contrasted with that of another witness, Robin Yeartie, who claimed to have knowledge of Willis and Wade’s relationship dating back to their initial acquaintance in 2019. Yeartie’s testimony, which included personal observations of the couple’s affectionate behavior, provided a different perspective on the timeline of their affair.
In response to Bradley’s testimony, attorneys representing Fulton County sought to discredit him by highlighting a personal dispute between Bradley and Wade, suggesting potential bias. However, McAfee did not indicate how Bradley’s testimony would influence his decision regarding the motion to disqualify Willis, Wade, and the DA’s office, or the potential dismissal of the case altogether.
As the legal proceedings continue, the credibility of key witnesses and the integrity of the investigation into Trump’s alleged election interference remain under scrutiny, with the outcome poised to have significant implications for the ongoing legal battle.