A Fulton County judge has ruled that special prosecutor Nathan Wade’s former law partner and divorce attorney, Terrence Bradley, must retake the stand in former President Donald Trump’s Georgia election interference case to testify on topics not covered by attorney-client privilege, sources familiar with the matter confirmed to ABC News.
Following a meeting with Bradley on Monday, Judge Scott McAfee notified attorneys in the case via email that some communications between Wade and Bradley do not fall under attorney-client confidentiality, the sources said.
Michael Roman and several other co-defendants in Trump’s election case are seeking Willis’ disqualification from the case on the grounds that she benefited financially from a “personal, romantic relationship” with Wade, who she hired for the case.
Willis and Wade have admitted to the relationship but said it “does not amount to a disqualifying conflict of interest” and that the relationship “has never involved direct or indirect financial benefit to District Attorney Willis.”
The defense contends that Bradley has evidence that Wade and Willis’ relationship began before Wade was hired, which would contradict what Willis and Wade told the court. Bradley largely declined to answer questions from the defense during a Feb. 15 hearing on the matter, citing attorney-client privilege.
Witness Terrence Bradley looks on from the witness stand during a hearing in the case of the State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump at the Fulton County Courthouse on Feb. 16, 2024 in Atlanta.
Pool/Getty Images
His return to the stand could potentially lead to significant revelations as the defense continues its effort to disqualify Willis from the election case and have the charges dismissed.
Bradley could be required to testify as early as Tuesday.
Trump and 18 others pleaded not guilty in August to all charges in a sweeping racketeering indictment for alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in the state of Georgia. Four defendants subsequently took plea deals in exchange for agreeing to testify against other defendants.
The former president has blasted the district attorney’s investigation as being politically motivated.
A recent development in the ongoing legal battle over the 2020 presidential election has seen a judge ordering Nathan Wade’s attorney to testify again in the case involving former President Donald Trump. This decision comes as a significant development in the case, which has been closely watched by both supporters and critics of Trump.
The case in question revolves around allegations of voter fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election, which Trump and his legal team have been vigorously pursuing in an attempt to overturn the results. Nathan Wade, a key figure in the case, has been at the center of these allegations, with Trump’s legal team claiming that he played a crucial role in orchestrating fraudulent activities during the election.
In a surprising turn of events, the judge overseeing the case has now ordered Wade’s attorney to testify again, raising questions about the credibility of the evidence presented so far. This decision suggests that there may be new information or developments that could potentially change the course of the case.
The decision to compel Wade’s attorney to testify again is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it indicates that the judge is taking the allegations seriously and is willing to delve deeper into the evidence presented by both parties. This could potentially lead to a more thorough examination of the facts and a more informed decision on the case.
Secondly, it raises questions about the credibility of the evidence presented by Trump’s legal team. If new information comes to light during the attorney’s testimony, it could potentially undermine the case being made by Trump’s legal team and weaken their argument for overturning the election results.
Overall, this latest development in the Trump election case highlights the complexity and contentious nature of the legal battle surrounding the 2020 election. As the case continues to unfold, it will be interesting to see how this new testimony will impact the outcome and whether it will bring us closer to a resolution in this highly contested and divisive issue.
