Attorney Questioned About Relationship Details In High-Profile Case

• Mr. Bradley's testimony revealed non-privileged information about the relationship.

• Confidential conversation with Mr. Wade was not considered privileged by the court.

• Mr. Bradley acknowledged being friends with Mr. Wade for over a decade.

Fulton County Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade testifies during a hearing on the Georgia election interference case, Thursday, Feb. 15, 2024, in Atlanta. The hearing is to determine whether Fulton Count

AP

A recent court hearing shed light on the details of the relationship between two individuals, Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis. During the hearing, Mr. Bradley, a key witness, was questioned about his knowledge of the relationship and his interactions with others involved in the case.

Mr. Bradley confirmed that certain information he possessed about the relationship between Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis was not considered privileged by the court. He stated that his understanding was based on a confidential conversation he had with Mr. Wade, which the court ruled as not being protected by privilege.

When asked if he had testified to all non-privileged information he knew about the relationship, Mr. Bradley indicated that he believed he had done so. He also acknowledged being friends with Mr. Wade for over a decade and communicating with others, including an attorney, about the case and the relationship in question.

During the questioning, Mr. Bradley was pressed about whether he had lied to the attorney regarding details of the relationship. He stated that he did not recall lying but admitted to speculating on certain aspects. He also mentioned that he was unaware of how the attorney would use the information he provided.

3

Confidential conversation with Mr. Wade was not considered privileged by the court.

3

Mr. Bradley's testimony revealed non-privileged information about the relationship.

3

Mr. Bradley acknowledged being friends with Mr. Wade for over a decade.

Further inquiries focused on specific details shared with the attorney and whether Mr. Bradley had used the term 'speculating' in his communications. He denied using that term and clarified his relationship with another individual, Mr. Banks, who was mentioned in the case.

As the questioning continued, Mr. Bradley was asked about his general practices regarding sharing information about friends and the importance of honesty in such matters. He admitted that he could have lied about a friend but was unsure if he had done so in this particular case.

The court hearing concluded with Mr. Bradley's testimony and no further questions from the attorneys present. The proceedings provided insight into the complexities of the case and the various relationships involved.