The Megyn Kelly Show - REVEALED: All the Texts About Fani Willis and Nathan Wade Relationship Between Lawyer and Witness, with Phil Holloway | Ep. 733

Episode Date: February 28, 2024

Megyn Kelly begins the show by revealing exclusive key text messages between lawyer Ashleigh Merchant and witness Terrance Bradley that shine new light on the Fani Willis - Nathan Wade relationship and affair, the way Bradley tried to get out of answering questions about his text messages on the stand, and more. Then Phil Holloway, founder of Holloway Law Group, joins to discuss the breaking news that the Georgia State Senate’s subpoena issued to Merchant for her texts, how the texts reveal what Bradley said about the relationship with Willis, Bradley's behavior on the stand, Bradley questioned on the stand about Willis and Wade having sex in Willis' office, the allegations this happened before the pair claim to have started the relationship, Willis claiming Merchant "lied" and what we know now, and more. Then, in a stunning twist, Megyn reveals ALL the texts about the Willis and Wade relationship revealed between Merchant and Bradley, the various ways it's clear Bradley knows a tremendous amount about the affair and other details, and more. Holloway- https://twitter.com/PhilHollowayEsq Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. We have gotten our hands on the texts. The admissions by Nathan Wade's friend and former lawyer that they did not want you to see. We're going to get to that in one second. This morning, we will dissect the mind-blowing hearing in Fulton County that took place Tuesday afternoon and bring you exclusive information about this case. As I told you yesterday, that hearing could blow up one of the four criminal cases against former President Donald Trump. At the heart of it all, a man named Terrence Bradley.

He's the one-time law partner, divorce attorney, and friend of special prosecutor Nathan Wade. He did not want to be there yesterday, and he made that abundantly clear as he obfuscated and did a whole lot of not recalling things. You don't recall? No, I don't recall. I would say it was the one, but I don't recall. Yes, that's speculation on my part, yes. I don't recall, but why I thought that it started at that time,

I don't know why I didn't say I don't know. I don't recall. I mentioned earlier that I speculated on some things. I mean, it was downright uncomfortable. I believe, and you'll hear me say this throughout the program, that he lied. I believe he lied repeatedly, that's my opinion, about his faulty memory. Now, if you're reading CNN today, they're going to tell you, quote, a Georgia lawyer who had been billed as a star witness in the effort to disqualify Fulton County

DA Fannie Willis did not deliver damaging testimony Tuesday on her romantic relationship with prosecutor Nathan Wade. Oh, CNN, dumb or dishonest? Take your pick. The article goes on to say, quote, most notably, he said he did not know when the relationship began and whether it began after Willis hired Wade to spearhead the prosecution of Donald Trump and his allies. Bradley said he was speculating about the timeline and quote. So sit back and listen as we do the hard work for them and more importantly for you, because when you dig into what was actually said, what wasn't said, and take a look at the evidence that went into the court record yesterday, a lot more was revealed than you would have caught from CNN. Key to this story are the texts that Mr. Bradley and defense attorney Ashley Merchant

exchanged over several months. Texts that prove Terrence Bradley told attorney Merchant, counsel for the defendant, Michael Roman. This is a Trump co-defendant that the D.A. Fannie Willis and the special prosecutor Nathan Wade had been having an affair and that it began prior to Ms. Willis hiring Nathan Wade to prosecute Trump. Something both Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade denied under oath. Nathan Wade was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the taxpayers in Fulton County. Ms. Willis was the one doling out the checks as he whined and dined her and took her on lavish vacations around the world. But when Terrence Bradley, again, former attorney and friend to Nathan Wade, took the stand under oath after having given it all up to Ashley Merchant by text,

he seemingly forgot it all. The man might want to check with a doctor because he's clearly having some early onset dementia if even one of his answers yesterday was true. Suddenly he decided everything he had provided to Ms. Merchant was just, what's the word, speculation. When you told me that their relationship started when she left the DA's office and was a judge in South Fulton, where did you obtain that knowledge from? It was, I was speculating. I didn't have a... No one told me i was speculating no one told you that no one told me that was this speculation when you told me that was that based on things that had been told to you and things that you had witnessed i never witnessed anything so um you know, it was speculation.

I can't tell you anything specific. Is there anywhere in here that indicates that she didn't have knowledge of Bradley? These speaking objections are clearly coaching the witness. When I ask a question, Mr. Bradley is looking at Mr. Wade and his lawyer to wait for them to object. And I've never looked at Mr. Wade or his attorneys. That sounds quite true. As you just heard, Nathan Wade was in that courtroom yesterday as his one time friend and law partner was on the stand. Wade had tried to stop it from happening at all. But the judge ruled this testimony must go forward and that Terrence Bradley

had to testify about the Wade Willis romance and what Terrence Bradley knew about it. The judge listened to him in camera in his chambers on Monday and decided the claims that this was all protected by attorney client privilege were nonsense. These guys were friends and law partners for years before he actually started to help Nathan Wade with the divorce. None of those conversations would be privileged. Not about this. And the judge ruled he had to talk about it. And this was the out he chose.

Can't remember. I want you to know these texts that he was being queried about. They happened last month. This wasn't 10 years ago. He just had these exchanges literally weeks ago. All right. I want you to keep all of what you just heard in mind as our show brings you this next bit of information, courtesy of our first guest, Phil Holloway. He's an attorney down in Cobb County in this area. He knows a lot of these players. And he got his hands on some of

the actual texts. So far, we've only heard the lawyers raise the substance in questions, show them to the witnesses, and then hear some answers. No one has shown us the actual text messages between Ashley Merchant and Terrence Bradley. But Phil Holloway got his hands on some of them and is sharing them with us exclusively. In one exchange about Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade's relationship, look at this. Ashley Merchant says, like, just date. Don't hire him. Do you think it started before she hired him? Terrence Bradley writes back. Absolutely. It started when she left the DA's office and was judge in South Fulton. FYI, folks, this is MK talking. She became a judge in South Fulton in 2019. Okay. Back to the text. Ashley thumbs up

that answer. And then Terrence Bradley adds, they met at the municipal court CLE conference. Ashley responds, that's what I figured when he was married. There's no doubt in his mind, looking at it again. Do you think it started before she hired him? Absolutely. And then he adds, it started when she left the DA's office. By the way, that was 2018. And for a period of months, she went in a private practice. Then she was elevated to judge in 2019. Then in 2020, she became the DA. She'd been in the DA's office as an underling for years. Okay. So when she left the DA's office was 18, when she was judged in South Fulton was 19. And he says in response to, do you think it started before she hired him? Absolutely.

It started when he adds, he fills in, he, he knows he gives the specifics when she left the DA's office and was judge in South Fulton. Oh, and by the way, let me tell you exactly where they met. It was at the municipal court CLE conference. Then we go on January 5th, days before Ms. Merchant filed her bombshell motion to disqualify both of these guys, Willis and Wade, from the case against the former president of the United States, Ashley Merchant texts Terrence Bradley. Look at this. For those of you listening, go to youtube.com slash Megyn Kelly. You can see it all. She texts Terrence Bradley. Is this accurate? She's getting ready to file the motion and she's

clearly offering him a line from it. Is this accurate? Upon information and belief, Willis and Wade met while both were serving as magistrate judges and began a romantic relationship at that time. Terrence responds, no municipal court, municipal court. His correction was they were municipal court judges, not magistrate judges, which is a different thing entirely. He's correcting only the role they had while on the bench, not the rest of this, where she talks about Willis and Wade met and began a romantic relationship at that time. He does not correct that. Just the court that she said they were sitting on. And she did make his correction and she got it right when she filed her motion. I'm not done. The two also texted about that legal filing she was about to drop. It was a bombshell filing. This is Ashley Merchant's first notice to us all that these two have been having an affair. There are alleged kickbacks. They need to be disqualified. This whole thing, which set off an absolute firestorm for the entire case from the beginning of January.

They also texted about the filing and Terrence Bradley directed Ashley Merchant to add him into a footnote in her brief about the amount of money he made from the DA's offices. He worked for the DA's office under contract for a period of time doing what we understand was taint reviews, like where the DA's office gets a bunch of privileged documents on a case and the DA prosecuting the case can't review it. So you get like a taint squad to make sure what gets filed to the DA is, is viewable properly by her, whatever. He was hired by the DA's office for a period of time by contract. And he's saying, add me back in. Uh, you should add me back into your footnote on that. Cause I made some money from the DA's office. Ashley responds to him. I took you out. I can add that back. Good point. Terrence writes, yes, add it back. Ashley, anything else? Anything

that isn't accurate? And Terrence Bradley responds, looks good. Ashley Merchant hearts that. She then asks him, how do you think they will respond? I'm trying to anticipate. And we know from the testimony we heard in court and Ashley Merchant cross-examining him, he said, I think they will deny it. He said, I don't think they'll go after you. I think they will deny it. That's apparently on the next page of texts. Now I want you to know, we looking at these texts and I've got them in front of me. Um, this was all happening at the same time. Like we don't have a date on the third text, but the first two January 5th, uh, at around 11 56 AM. So right before noon. So what we have here is her saying, do you think it started before she hired him? Absolutely.

Here's exactly when it started. That's what I figured. Then she says right, right, right away. Is this accurate on information and belief? They met while both were serving as magistrate judges and began a romantic relationship at that time. He corrects her municipal court. She says, thanks. Then he tells her, add me to that footnote. And she says, good point. I will. And then she says as a follow-up, anything else, anything else that isn't accurate. And he says, looks good. He doesn't say, yeah, there's a lot. Yeah. I don't know. Pick your poison. He's already given up the farm in these first two texts, but he did not say anything is inaccurate other than which court they were sitting on when they met. He says, looks good.

And she hearts it. And then she says, how do you think they'll respond? I'm trying to anticipate. And we know from the cross-examination that he responded to that text by saying, I think they will deny it. That's where we are. Now, take a listen here as former President Donald Trump's lawyer, Sadow, because all the lawyers, Ashley Merchant got a chance to question Terrence Bradley, Sadow did, Gillum, all these different lawyers got a bite at the apple because there are, you know, more than a dozen defendants in this case, and they each get a chance to question,

though the judge shut down, you know, repetitive questioning. Okay, so here's Trump's lawyer, Sadow, questioning Bradley. After the word absolutely, you on your own said it started when she left the DA's office and was judge in South Fulton. They met at the Municipal Court CLE conference. That's what you said, correct? That is correct. So you on your own came up with the whole notion that it started when she left the DA's office and was judge in South Fulton. That's, according to you, that's speculation on your part, correct? Overruled. Answer the question, Mr. Bradley. Yes, that's speculation on my part, yes. Why would you speculate that that's when they started the relationship? What would cause you to put that down as speculation? I don't recall, but why I thought that it started at that time.

Why would you speculate when she was asking you a direct question about when the relationship started? I have no answer for that. But if you didn't know and you were asked specifically as this exhibit shows, maybe you can explain why you wouldn't say, I don't know. I don't know why I didn't say I don't know. You say after in South Fulton, they met at the Municipal Court CLE conference, right? Yes, that's correct. And then Ms. Merchant says, that's what I figured when he was married. Is this accurate? Upon information and belief, Willis and Wade met while both were serving as magistrate

judges and began a romantic relationship at that time. You see, that's what she said, right? Yes. That was in the test. You don't say, I don't know. You simply correct her by saying no municipal court. So I was answering the question of, it was a compound question. And I was, I was answering the question of, it was a compound question. And I was answering the question of,

she wrote magistrate court and I said, no, municipal court. Okay. What's more, the court camera did not appear to pick up something very interesting, but the camera of Fox News did. In this clip we're about to play for you, it appears that Terrence Bradley mutters, oh, dang, to himself. That's how it sounds. I will tell you, could have been someone else whose mic was hot. It appears to be him muttering, oh, dang, when Terrence Bradley is presented with potentially damning texts about the Willis-Wade relationship. Watch.

The first page starts off by saying, Miss Merchant, like just date, don't hire him. Do you think it started before she hired him? You see that? Yes, I see it. Yes. He's being shown the text exchange that reads, Ashley, just like date. Don't hire him. Do you think it started before she hired him? And Terrence writing back? Absolutely. It started when she left the DA's office and was judging South Fulton. Ashley thumbs up that one. And Terrence also adds they met at the municipal court CLE conference. Ashley responds. That's what I figured when he was married. Okay. We went through it. Um, well, if it wasn't Terrence

Bradley saying, dang, it was definitely somebody affiliated, we went through it. Well, if it wasn't Terrence Bradley saying, dang, it was definitely somebody affiliated with the state because it certainly wasn't a defense lawyer saying, shoot, that's bad. I suppose it could have been one saying, dang, we nailed it. This is one of those smoking gun moments that didn't happen, according to CNN. Now, it's also important to note that it appears someone in the Wade Willis sphere may have gotten to Terrence Bradley before he testified. What else explains the complete 180 between the texts and the on-stand testimony? Perhaps he was threatened if he spilled the beans on what he knows. There were suggestions that someone that that someone may be a man named Gabe Banks. Mr. Banks is reportedly a close friend of Nathan Wade's.

Terrence Bradley admits that they spoke to one another. And Banks previously told the judge in this case that he was concerned Terrence Bradley might be, quote, emotional and violating attorney-client privilege. So did Gabe Banks make a phone call to Terrence Bradley saying, sure would be an unfortunate thing if you violate that privilege, Mr. Bradley. Who knows what could happen? We don't know, but we'll play you the soundbite in which this issue came up. By the way, Gabe Banks's wife is the chief of staff to Fannie Willis. You can't make it up. Joining me now, Phil Holloway. He's the founder of Holloway Law Group in Cobb County, Georgia. Phil, welcome back to the show. These are the multiple bombshells here. The number of texts that we're now looking at firsthand,

the cross-examination. And yesterday when we spoke, we were questioning whether when Terrence Bradley got on the stand, he would own the texts and just be honest about what he wrote and why, or whether he would just continue to try to claim privilege on the stand. He did not own the texts. He did not claim privilege. He just miraculously forgot everything, which I suppose he saw as a way out. What did you make of it? Well, you know, it's obvious he didn't want to be there. And as it turned out, and we've been talking about this now for several days, the text messages are, in fact, the star witness, if you will, because the text messages, you know, when we text with our friends and family and colleagues, we're not under the lights of a courtroom.

We're not on the world stage testifying under oath about a matter of very, very high public interest. And so we might be more free to express what we really think. But when you're in court and you've got lots of different things to think about, it might make you, I don't know, maybe forget things, or it might make you be less interested in talking about the subject matter. And so the text messages are used in Georgia. I want to explain so everybody understands. The text messages are what we call a prior inconsistent statement. And under the law, when a witness says something in court and they've said something differently, the judge or the jury, if it's a jury trial, they're entitled to hear that the witness has said one thing and then now saying another.

And so that's called impeachment by prior inconsistent statement. But here's the thing. In Georgia, a prior inconsistent statement itself is substantive evidence. So this text message that you have been talking about, this is now just like a photograph of a crime scene. It is something the judge can use upon which to base any rulings in the case. If the judge has observed the testimony and saw the demeanor of the witness and said, look, I don't think that he was necessarily telling everything that he knew. I think maybe the text messages are more accurate. The judge can use that. If a witness doesn't remember, if a witness is claiming that he may

have been speculating, if he's saying things that are different from what he said before, the judge can discount what he hears in the courtroom and go with the prior inconsistent statement. And so this is something that we will see argued on Friday when we have closing arguments. The lawyers are going to make an argument very similar to what you said so well just now in your opening. These text messages show that Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade did, in fact, have a romantic affair consistent with the timeframe testified to by Robin Yerdy. And of course, we still have the corroboration of the cell phone data.

So all of this, when you put it together, can be viewed and potentially will be viewed by this judge as a fraud having been perpetrated on this court. And if that's the way he rules, then it's probably lights out for Fannie Willis and her prosecution team. The prosecution of the Trump-Rico case will be the least of her concerns if the judge rules that way. And now because of these text messages,

he has something solid to hang his hat on if that's how he wants to rule. I completely agree with everything you just said. I want to spend some time on his absurd attempts to change the meanings of these texts, the meaning of these texts. And by the way, the judge, I watched the whole thing throughout as he was getting pummeled on cross would eventually say, I get it. He'd say to the defense lawyers, I got it. You can move on.

Like, this is not some left wing jury in heavily Democratic Fulton County, which I think went 72 percent for Joe Biden. This is a I think he's a registered Republican. He definitely was in the Federalist Society. He was appointed to this position when there was a vacancy by a Republican governor. And I don't think this guy is a partisan hack. He listened. And when he saw the point when we all were at the point of pulling our hair out after a million, I don't know. I don't remember. I don't recall. I don't recall literally things that he wrote weeks ago. The judge would say,

I got it. You can move on. So I just, I don't think the judge was buying it. Did you? No, I agree. The judge, the judge understands what the parties are trying to say, because look, they've been saying to this, this to the judge in the courtroom, but they also communicate with the court unofficially or through, you know, text, through emails and things like that. So the court knows where they're going. And once you get one or two or three of these prior inconsistent statements, the judge, he gets it, like you just said. And now it's substantive evidence in the case. He just didn't feel yesterday that there was a need to kick a dead horse. In other words, you've made your point. I get it. I know he said something different in the past. I don't want to be here all day. And so I think we did get some

of that from him. He didn't want to plow old ground all over again. So he was able to observe how the witness was testifying and compare it to what was said in these exhibits that were used in court yesterday. And I think that this issue was driven home. So despite the fact that the witness did not give the bombshell testimony from the witness stand, we still got it. We still got that bombshell information because there was a paper trail, or in this case, an electronic text trail that showed that he had made different statements in the past. Here is a cross-examination of, this is Ashley Merchant trying to get to the one text where

he said, looks good, right? That she had sent him the draft motion to disqualify Wade and Willis. And he said, yeah, there's that one change you should make about, uh, the judge, like the court that they were on. And then he said, you should add me to this footnote. Cause there's a footnote in her brief that speaks about, uh, Wade's business partners, his law partners, and any money they made from Fannie Willis. And when Terrence Bradley was Nathan Wade's business partner, his law partner, he made that money. That's some 74 grand, I guess, as a taint lawyer, as I mentioned. Anyway, it appears that Terrence Bradley was saying to an Ashley merchant when she was drafting her motion, better put me back in there.

So other than that, she said, OK, good point. And she said anything else, anything that is inaccurate. And he wrote back, looks good. And now on the stand, he just, he doesn't remember anything about that. He doesn't, doesn't remember. And he's really just saying, looks good about the footnote and definitely not about the whole brief. He's wiggle, wiggle, wiggle. And she tried to nail him down, raising, here's Ashley Merchant and then defense attorney Gillum, who points out the name of the motion that had been sent to a friend of Nathan Wade, former law partner of Nathan Wade's, former

lawyer for Nathan Wade, who still considers himself a friend of Nathan Wade. You've got the defense lawyers contacting you about a motion to disqualify Nathan Wade and Fannie Willis from this case. And this is what you, like, this is the text exchange? Watch. It's not 11. Then I asked you if everything was accurate and you said looks good. Correct? I recall you asking that, but the looks good was applying to the accuracy of the 74,000. That's it. You didn't point anything else out that you found inaccurate in that motion though, correct? No, I did not. Well, let's look at the title of the motion that she sent you. The defendant Michael Roman's motion to dismiss grand jury indictment as fatally defective and motion to

disqualify the district attorney, her office, and the special prosecutor from further prosecuting this matter. Do you remember seeing that in the draft that you read and reviewed? Yes. And it wasn't anything in the title that threw you off. Pretty straightforward speaking title, isn't it? Correct. And you knew that the special prosecutor to whom she was referring in that motion was Mr. Wade, correct? You knew that? Yes.

I'm going to get you to respond to that, but Phil, I understand you have breaking news. What is it? Yeah, I was just looking at it. All right, so this is new. This is broken here. I don't think it's it. Well, I know for a fact it's not been broken anywhere else. The Georgia State Senate has an investigation going on to the into the Fulton District Attorney's Office. There's a committee that's looking into this. Today, they've issued a subpoena.

They've issued a subpoena to Attorney Ashley Merchant for all of her text communications related to this case. I don't know more at this time, but I do know that that subpoena is out and that it's seeking these very things that we're talking about right now on this show. So there's obviously more to come. Other people are interested in this. This is getting the attention of the authorities, not only in the state Senate, but there's ethics things going on here in Georgia. Fannie Willis has a lot that she needs. She's going to have to be on defense for the foreseeable future. But suffice it to say, the Senate is now seeking all of these text communications to see if they can figure out what's going on.

And of course, the court is not the only entity that has an interest in this. As we've seen, we have lots of other government agencies that have at least some dog in this fight in some particular way. The Senate, the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C., Jim Jordan's committee. He sent a subpoena to Fannie Willis. So there's lots going on for her. And like we have said, I don't know if it was yesterday or last week, the truth will come out one way or another. And here it comes. We're going to see the text messages, the legal headaches for Fannie Willis continue

to mount this, the entire text message exchange between Ashley Merchant and Terrence Bradley, subpoenaed now by the Georgia State Senate, which is investigating Fannie Willis's behavior in this case. Where could that go? What power does the Georgia State Senate have over Fannie Willis or any of this? So there are obviously half of the state legislature, which has the capacity to make laws. They can do can do laws that have to do with with ethics. They can do things that have to do with evidence. They can have to do things that have to do with funding, quite frankly, of prosecutors offices. And there's a big move in the Georgia legislature, you know, to have a an entity, an agency, if you will, that conducts oversight of prosecutors throughout

the state of Georgia. They have one that's an oversight for the judiciary. So there's a push to be able to do an oversight on prosecutors. They have something that already exists, but they're making changes and tweaks to it, I think, in the current legislature. So they can make laws, basically, that can impact how not only Fonny Willis, but other prosecutors are able to conduct themselves and run their offices in the future. Here's why, for the immediate purposes, this subpoena is significant. This document, with all the text exchanges, is not yet public. I'm sure the judge has seen it, which is, I'm sure, helpful to Ashley Merchant. But it's not yet public, and yet it's going to be.

Because while there may be a confidentiality order in this case, the Georgia State Senate answers to the people and is going to have to make... There's nothing inherently confidential about this. This is not a lawyer-client communication. This is Ashley Merchant, lawyer for one of the defendants, communicating with Terrence Bradley, potential witness in the case. There's nothing that would protect this other than a protective order by this judge. And once the Georgia State Senate gets its hands on it, we're all going to see all of the texts in full between the two of them. Right now we have highlights. We have a couple of specifics, but I'm sure if you see the whole document front to back it's going to put everything

in context and i guarantee you it's not going to make terrence bradley look like a guy who's sitting speculating reluctant to share it's probably going to show somebody who's very much in on the discussion and wants ashley merchant to have the accurate info for whatever reason about nathan wade yep uh the the the truth will truth will come out. We keep going back to that, and I really don't know any other way to say it. The bigger picture here to me, Megan, is we need to figure out what was the impetus behind this prosecution in the first place? One of the key issues is, was it done for political reasons? Is this a case where you have a Democrat politician using the vast power of her office as the district attorney? Is she using that to prosecute someone who's a

political enemy? Are there people in her office? You had a guest on yesterday from Breitbart, and what they're looking at is whether or not there was a political piece of how this thing started, and is this really a get Trump kind of a case? We've got to have prosecutors who are fair. You can't have prosecutors who single out individuals and target them because they don't like them or because they don't like their politics or they don't agree with how they tweet. You've got to have prosecutors who are fair-minded and objective. And this goes back to the motion to dismiss and disqualify that it's been litigated right now, that we're talking about right now. Because if Willis is

part of that motion, let's not forget, is that she is out on TV, on the radio. She's making herself a star in the public eye, and she's doing it to benefit herself personally and professionally. That's the allegation. That's the claim in part of this motion. She hired a media company to monitor her mentions. Yeah, she hired the media company. And so this is all part of the claim that this is so unfair for all of these reasons that the indictment itself is structurally unsound. And it's structurally unsound because it's not based on fundamental fairness as required by the due process clause. You need look no further than, I will say, Jack Smith, who is definitely partisan and out to get Trump, however, is behaving himself with respect to the public like a normal prosecutor behaves

when they're outward facing. He made one statement. It was, what, a minute long, maybe 90 seconds after one of the indictments. And then we never heard from him again. That is how a normal prosecutor handles crime, where you're looking to put someone behind bars. She can't get herself in front of the cameras and the microphones enough. She wants to be a star. That's been clear from the beginning. And it's come back to bite her in the you know what. I want to get back before we take a quick break. I have other texts that I'm going to show the audience. But to that soundbite we played before your breaking news, where she, Ashley Merchant and Gillum, he represents one of the other defendants, are pointing out the

absurdity of him. She's asking him, was there anything else inaccurate? Anything else? And he's like, no, looks good. Looks good. And now he wants to say, oh, I was only referring to that one footnote when I said looks good. That's it. And Gillum gets up there and says, you looked at this motion that you knew a lawyer for a defendant was about to file. This motion was called Defendant Michael Roman's Motion to Dismiss Grand Jury Indictment as Fatally Defective and Motion to Disqualify the District Attorney, Her Office, and the Special Prosecutor, Nathan Wade, from further prosecuting this matter. Do you remember seeing that? Yes. There wasn't anything in that title that threw you off.

Pretty straightforward, wasn't it? Correct. You knew, you knew that the special prosecutor to whom she was referring was Mr. Wade, correct? Yes. And so now you tell me what credibility this guy has to look at the judge and say, oh, I thought I was only being asked if my

one little footnote that I raised was accurate or not. The way I read, when I read that text message that you were just referring to, I interpret it to mean that he's telling Mr. Merchant that everything, you know, with maybe that one exception about what he was referring to is accurate. And that would include the information about when the affair began. So that's how I took it. That's why it's offered as substantive evidence, because the judge is not obligated to accept testimony from the witness stand. He can go by the text messages because if the text message confirms that, you know, the relevant parts of her emotion, particularly about when the affair began and that kind of thing, if he's confirming to her in the text messages that all that is accurate, the

judge can use that as substantive evidence in the case, Megan, to base his ruling. And, you know, so that's what this is going to be about. And on Friday, you're going to see the lawyers arguing that point to the judge and hammering that point so that hopefully he relies on the prior statements versus the in-court statements. I don't know how he couldn't. I mean, Terrence Bradley was obviously not telling the truth yesterday. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know it. And it was like any civilian could look at it. I guess CNN wasn't able to see it. But any nonpartisan hack can see what he was doing there. There's a lot more. There is a question about, and I'm going to take a break first, but there is a question about

where's the prosecutor? Where's the lead prosecutor? Her name is Anna Cross, who had Terrence Bradley when he was on the stand on Feb 16. She did the cross-examination. Suddenly, she's off the briefs and might be off the case. Why? Why? Stand by. Quick break. Back with Phil next. There are a couple of other text exchanges, and I do want to get to this lead prosecutor on what happened to Anna Cross. Where is she? But let's start with another text exchange. Some we have, like the three that we just went through that we showed to the audience. Some we just heard about during the cross-examination. And this this is one of those or at least this is some information that Terrence Bradley appears to have shared with Ashley Merchant in some way, shape or form about allegedly someone witnessing Wade and Willis having sex in the office place before she was D.A.

Again, before they claimed their affair began. This is SOT 7. Mr. Wade told you that they had sex at the office, though, correct? I don't recall him saying that, no. You don't recall? No. So it's possible he did say that. You just don't remember one way or another?

I do not remember i'm saying that now the longer exchange has her setting that up by saying you remember telling me that wade and willis would rendezvous at this office um and so she's zeroing in on you told me this and then she says mr wade told you they had sex at the office. I don't recall him saying that. You don't recall? No. And then she goes on to say, so it's possible he did say that. And he says, I don't remember. Now you and I both know, Phil, you and I both know if you're Terrence Bradley and Nathan Wade's telling you he's having sex with Fannie Willis at the office, you remember, you remember. It's just yet another example of him. I mean, I guess technically what's he trying to do in our in our estimation? It's our opinion, trying to protect Nathan Wade and trying to not lie in doing it. He doesn't want to get himself a perjury charge. So the only out at this point is I don't recall. Well, the big question about them having sex at the office in my mind, and I was listening closely to this yesterday and I may have missed

it, but I didn't hear anybody talk about when that sex occurred. I mean, other than not remembering, but it's important because if there's some communications that confirm that they were having sex prior to 2022, that's highly relevant and that does move the needle. But if they're having sex at the office in 2022, and Bradley didn't leave there, I think until the summer, maybe June of 2022. So if it was like the first half of that year, then that would be consistent with the testimony that their affair started in 2022. So what we don't know— Just to clarify that, Phil, because that got a little confusing. If the reference is to—if that office, in the reference to,

did you remember telling me that Wade and Willis would rendezvous at that office? If that office is a reference to Wade's and Terrence Bradley's law office. You're saying Terrence left that in early 2022. Is that what you're saying? I think Terrence left the firm in the middle, in the summer of 2022. So what we don't know, and I wasn't clear. Wait a minute. So let me just stop. Before we go too far down this road, I've got Kelly McGuire, one of my producers in my ear. It's a reference to the Evans office, which is, I think, is that Fannie's earlier office? I don't know. I think possibly. Yes. There's also an individual name. She rented an office. What year, Kelly McGuire? Sorry to have this conversation live on the air, but Kelly's been neck deep in all of this. Well,

it's important to get it straight. It was hard to keep straight in court. Okay. Okay. Shoot. Hearing from Kelly McGuire, listen, she's poured over this very carefully that we believe Fannie Willis was renting an office in Evans and that it was as far back as maybe 18, 19. And this is, so this is long before 2022. Okay. And Ashley Merchant is saying, do you remember Wade and Willis would rendezvous at that office? It's a reference to the Evans office, which he had back in 19. Um, and then he says, first, any knowledge I would have received would have come from my client at the time. And then she gets another bite at it. Ashley words and says, wait, Mr. Wade told you they had sex at that office though. Correct? I don't recall. You don't recall. No. So it's possible he did say that. I don't remember him saying that. So she's trying to prove here, Phil, that they were having sex as far back as 19, which is exactly what we heard from star witness Robin Yerty.

Listen here. From everything that you saw, heard, witnessed, it's your understanding that they were in a romantic relationship beginning in 2019. Yes. You have no doubt that their romantic relationship was in effect from 2019 until the last time you spoke with her? No doubt. And did you observe them do things that are common among people having a romantic relationship? Yes. Such as? Can you give us an example? Hugging, kissing, just affection. All before November 1st of 2021, correct? Yes.

And she said 2019. And so this Evans office was 2019. And you tell me where Ashley Merchant would have gotten it, that Willis and Wade were having sex in the Evans office being occupied by Fannie phone or in person between Merchant and Bradley, where maybe he had stated that because I don't think there was a, I didn't hear about them confronting him with a text message talking. She didn't care. Yeah. So I believe that that was based on, you know, you got to have a good faith basis for it. And I've been in that situation where somebody tells me something and I, you know, I don't get it in writing and then they say something different in court. And I, isn't it situation where somebody tells me something and I don't get it in writing. And then they say something different in court.

And isn't it true that you told me last week something totally different? But if they say, no, I didn't tell you that, you're kind of stuck because you don't have any way to prove it. And I think that was the situation she may have found herself in there where there was a conversation that she remembered him making a statement that he didn't even remember the conversation. So she's kind of unfortunately stuck with that answer unless she's got some other way of proving that the statement was made. But that's what I took from it.

Here's another excerpt where she asks him specifically about trips, and she appears to be referencing a text. But again, we don't yet have our hands on the text. I'm just going to read from the transcript that my team put together. Ashley Merchant, did Mr. Wade tell you about the trips that he and Ms. Willis took? Terrence Bradley, no. Bradley, I did not know until you texted that you found that in the deposition of his divorce. And that you found that in the deposition of his divorce. Merchant, the, and that you found that in the deposition of his divorce merchant. Okay. And when you responded, doesn't surprise me. Cause she texted him. Did you know about the trips? And he responded, doesn't surprise me. They took many trips to Florida, Texas, California.

Those are your words, right? And she got an objection to relevance. But let's see, eventually he just said, I don't recall. So she clearly has another text, at least one that says they took these trips. And he says, doesn't surprise me. They took many trips to Florida, Texas, California. And some of these we don't know about. Oh, I haven't heard testimony about a trip to Texas and so on. So the full extent of the relationship and the travels may not yet have been revealed, Phil. And really what we need is the full texts. Yeah, there's obviously a lot of context that's missing here. You know, yesterday, I would have loved for them to be able to have like a projector to be able to publish the contents of these that

we're talking about right now so that it could help us to understand the testimony. But now that we have these texts that we've been talking about, it does provide so much more context. And it's easier, I think, for people to see, you know, how this can be used as substantive evidence. And the judge is not obligated to stick with the testimony that he heard, you know, from the witness stand. Yeah. Yeah, exactly right. So, all right. So here are the things that we still need to get through. There are still additional exchanges. We want to show you some of the, some more of Nathan Wade's, sorry, Terrence Bradley's wiggling on the stand and the obvious lies. We have sort of a spy, the lie clip for the audience to take

a look at. And then we've got to get to whether this prosecutor abandoned ship. And if so, why, why? Because Phil and I now and Dave and Mike and I had Mike Davis has been saying this over and over. So is Phil that if these two are lying, if Nathan Wade's lying, if Fannie Willis is lying and any of their team, they're represented by the state, by Fannie's office, knows that they've put them on the stand. They've lied. They may have ethical obligations of their own to try to get them to reverse the lie or to withdraw from the case that's in the ethical canons. All right, standby, quick break, back with Phil. This is time for one of those Fox News bongs. We would have bonged in with the following information. Boy, do we have an update to bring

to you in this case. I have here in front of me the texts. I've got 31 pages of the text messages sent between Ashley Merchant and Terrence Bradley. We've got them. We've got them right here. We're going to go through them together. Just got them. Obtained by our guest, Phil Holloway. I told you he's breaking big news in this case, and here he breaks it again right here on The Megyn Kelly Show. You heard a couple of them earlier discussed in this show, but we are going to go over them all in order as they happened. Not every single one, because there's 31 pages, we'll be here all day, but the relevant one. Again,

these are some of the texts that Terrence Bradley is now claiming he was merely speculating about. You decide. We'll walk you through them. We'll let you decide. My team's been going crazy on this this morning and the past few minutes trying to get something in order here. The portion of text exchanges we received, we believe this is everything. We believe this is all texts between Merchant and Bradley. That's what we understand at this time. They show Merchant and Bradley texting as far back as September.

Here's September 18th, where Merchant Texts, look at this, we're putting them on the board for you. You guys got to go to youtube.com slash Megyn Kelly to sign up. You can watch all this live when it drops later today. Merchant Texts, any idea who I could get an affidavit from on the affair? Bradley responds, no, no one would freely burn that bridge. We had heard her make reference to this back on February 15th at the hearing. We've never seen it. Merchant responds, okay. If Chris was asked under oath, would he know? Don't know who Chris is. Merchant is likely though talking about Wade's law partner, Chris Campbell. Bradley responds, no. Okay. So the question was, if Chris is asked, would he know?

Bradley says, no. Merchant says, wow, I figured he would. I didn't expect them to be so careful. Bradley responds, he knows, but he won't admit it. I'm sorry, but this is not how someone who knows nothing about an affair sounds. It's like the guy he's caught. Sorry. Like Nathan's caught. Fannie's caught. Terrence is caught giving it up. Ashley Merchant has been an honest broker from the beginning and was wrongfully smeared by Willis. Let's keep going. All right. January 5th, 2024. That that's before Ashley Merchant filed her motion requesting that Wade and Willis and the entire DA's office be disqualified from further prosecuting this case. She texts, I assume you knew about the trips. Wow. Oh, wow. Insane. I'm shocked. And then she goes on. Well, not really, but somewhat. And he writes, no, I didn't. When did it happen? She says, last trip was this summer, May or June. He says, no,

I didn't know I was gone by then. Doesn't surprise me. This is the part we were just talking about. Doesn't surprise me. They took many trips to Florida, Texas. Again, that's new. We didn't know about that. And then she responds and Napa and he writes California and she writes, yep. And then he says, when she moved her, uh, she responds, I can't believe they were so carefree. I'm trying to anticipate her response when I blow this up. And he says something about her daughter flunking out of a school FAMU and moving to California in defense of the daughter. No idea whether that's true. Um, let's say, uh, let's say that she goes on to say, dang, they had a full on relationship. Insane, just insane. And he responds, he went to help her move, move her, meaning the daughter.

She responds why she would hire him is insane. He writes, yes, he's admitting. I agree. It's insane. She hired him. Why would it be insane to hire him if they weren't having an affair? He's saying right here they were having an affair when she hired him, which we knew. It was obvious. That's what the evidence has shown. And this is where the text we went over earlier comes in, which we'd only seen a portion of earlier, where she responds like, just date him. Don't hire him. And she says, do you think it started before she hired him? He responds, absolutely. And then added, it started when she left the DA's office and was

a judge in South Fulton, which we pointed out to you before was in 2019. And then she liked that. And then he said they met at the municipal court CLE conference. She responded, that's what I figured when he was married. Then right after that comes the next text we went over. Is this accurate? It's literally 13 minutes later, she texts, is this accurate? Upon information and belief, Willis and Wade met while both were serving as magistrate judges and began a romantic relationship at that time. He responds, no, municipal court. She says, thank you. He says, listen to this. He says, but you can't put where they met. Not many people know that. I might be one of the only, not even Chris Campbell. Okay. I'm sorry. Again, he doesn't want it to be obvious that

he's the source. He's worried. He knows it doesn't look good for him to be sharing this information about Nathan Wade with whom he has clearly had a falling out because he left the law firm. And we saw in the cross-examination that was done of him on Feb 15 or 16, they accused him of sexually assaulting either one person twice or two people. He denied it. OK, we're going to get to that. But he's clearly helping counsel for the defense in this massive case against Trump and Michael Roman and the others. And he doesn't want to be outed. You can't put that in there where they met. Not many people know it. I might be one of the only ones, not even Chris Campbell. Okay. Let's keep going. She says, I'm not. She also got stuff from the divorce

lawyer. I got a ton of stuff. He says, like, what else? Then he says, when will it drop? He's anticipating it, guys. He's anticipating it. When will it drop? He is screwed. He is so screwed. It's so obvious. The judge has access to all of this. He knows what we know. She says Monday's my filing deadline. You won't be involved at all. Well, that turned out not to be true. He finally turned over his financial documents, which show he paid for Fannie's Delta flight. It has her name on it to California, Napa vacation, and he paid for a Royal Caribbean cruise for them. This is Ashley Merchant finally realizing about all the trips, um, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Then she asks him, this is January 5th. Do you even talk to him anymore? Uh, and then she said, let's say Fannie is the one in most trouble. She didn't get county approval to hire him. She's required by statute to do so. And he seems to be responding to, do you even talk to him anymore? No, I don't. That's also kind of interesting. Okay. Then she says, I can send you a draft. I'm almost done with my

motion. I can send you a draft. Can't wait to hear about your trip. And he says, okay, happy hunting, LOL. I'm sorry, but there's like 180 between this person in these texts and the man we saw on the stand. Happy hunting. Don't identify me. Like offering ideas, volunteering information. It continues. Let's see. To your knowledge, has Nathan ever prosecuted a felony? I can't find a single one. Never in his life has Nathan ever prosecuted a felony? I can't find a single one. Never in his life has he ever prosecuted a felony. She writes, that's what I found too. It's bad. He asks her, send a rough draft. He's asking her to send him the motion. Merchant responds. Oh, let's see. Okay. Promise not to share it. I don't want it leaked before I file it.

I protected you completely by the way. He says, I promise you won't share it. They're working together. There's nothing wrong with that by the way. He's not doing anything wrong. It's what this confirms is what we knew. He had information that was non-privileged from Nathan Wade. He felt more than comfortable sharing it. Maybe the two didn't get along. They haven't talked, he said, in a while. And he obviously wanted Ashley Merchant and the defense to know. He wanted them to know that this is the truth. This is before Wade and Willis have taken the stand to deny it under oath. Maybe Terrence Bradley's thinking they'll admit it under oath. He says to her, they're going to deny it. One thing to deny it privately to a lawyer or to the press, quite another to do so under oath. All right, let's keep going. Um, she says, not that you

need a protection, but I kept you out of it. Let me know your thoughts. Now, of course, she wants to keep him out of it. I gotta have a glass of wine. This is like, it's a lot. She's trying to keep him out of it, but she can't keep him out of it. Ultimately, she's not gonna be able to keep him out of it. Okay, then he says, he responds. This is about an hour and a half after she texted him the motion. He responds, I really appreciate

you keeping me out, but I think you need to add me in the footnote 15 because I had a contract as well. That way it doesn't seem like I was involved. And here it is. Here it is. This is the prelude to the text we went over that where he said, add me to footnote 15 and how much I made. And she says, I took you out. I can add that back in. Good point. This is, this is the prelude to the text we read you earlier where he's saying, I appreciate you keeping me out, but you need to add me back into that footnote because I had a contract as well with the DA's office, he means. And that way it doesn't seem like I was involved. You guys all see it. You know what he's doing. He doesn't want it. Of course he doesn't want it out there that he was helping, but he was helping. Okay. Keep going here. She says, I took you out. I can add it back. Good

point. Yes. Add it back. He says, she says anything else, anything that isn't accurate. He says, looks good. We've been over that. She loved that. Uh, looks good. How do you think they will respond? I'm trying to anticipate. He says, did you look at campaign contributions? I can't remember what we gave her when she was running. Uh, she says, good idea. And Sonia Allen. Now, how will they react to this? She reiterates attack me, give the stupid, no fear or favor speech. He says, no, they will deny it. They won't attack you. Uh, they're going to deny it. And she says, if they deny it, they will become public liars. Um, okay. Let's see. I'm just reading here. One, six, 24. This is a lot of back and forth around 1-6-24.

I am shocked she paid him so much. How did they think they wouldn't get caught? So careless. This is Ashley Merchant. Why not just not pay Nathan? Lord. Terrence Bradley. Arrogance. This is so telling. This is fascinating. I am shocked she paid him so much. How did they think they wouldn't get caught? So careless. Why not just not pay Nathan? Arrogance. Okay, moving on. Okay, she says, I may subpoena the detail. She seems to mean security detail, but wasn't sure if it would help much. Those guys know it all. Here's his response. This is 1-7-24-12-12 PM. Yes, but they changed. You need to subpoena their original detail and current detail. You really want the guys when she was initially elected. And you tell me, audience, was she initially elected prior to hiring Nathan Wade?

Yeah, she was. She was elected in 2020. Why would Terrence Bradley be saying you've got to get her original security detail she had back in 2020? You really want those guys. Why would he be saying that when she's saying I've got to get the detail? Those guys know it all. If the affair wasn't going on in 2020 when she was initially elected, it's right here. The judge has this. He knows what we know. Terrence Bradley saw what Robin Robin Yerty saw this affair was going on for years prior to 2022.

And these two lied. They took the stand. And in my very well-educated opinion, told lies under oath to this judge, to these lawyers, to Fulton County, to all of us. To all of us. He's divulging this with zero questioning by Ashley Merchant. She's not prompting him. What, what, which detail? Tell me when he, that's not what's happening here. All right. Keep it keeping going. Okay. Other than security detail, she writes, can you think of anyone else who can confirm their romantic relationship? Obviously leaving

you and Chris out of the mix, maybe her kids, other coworkers, he responds, her kids. Yes. Where's the Mr. I like, maybe I need to pause here and show the audience. Where's the one, where's the SOT Deb where he's like, I only had one conversation about this. Do we have that cut? Only ever had. Okay. Can I, I just want to play for you. I'm going to interject in the midst of these text messages, what he was saying yesterday on the stand, which was literally, I only ever had one conversation with Nathan Wade, privileged or otherwise, only one about his relationship with Fannie. And now he's like, get the detail back in 2020. They're going to know it all. The trips to Texas.

And here he is saying, yeah, her kids, her command staff will know. Her kids are going to know. I thought you only had the one conversation. And not much happened in the conversation. Watch. Stop five. that during the time you represented Mr. Wade from 2018 on, that you only had one conversation with him in reference to the relationship between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade. Is that correct? Yeah, I think that's fairly accurate. Yes. 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and half of 2022, which is in the vicinity of four to four and a half years, you're testifying under oath you had one conversation about a relationship between Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis.

Is that correct? I don't recall having any other conversation with Mr. Wade about him and Miss Willis. Is it your testimony then that you don't remember any other conversation or there wasn't any other conversation besides the one? I don't recall. I would say it was the one, but I don't recall. I would say it was the one, but I don't recall. I'm sorry, but that's a lie. That's a lie.

It's obvious. He recalls perfectly well. That's why he's saying, get the security detail from 2020. That's why he's saying her kids know, her command staff. That's why when she said anything else wrong in my motion, other than the fact that I took you out of that one footnote,

now I've added you back in. And he says, looks good. That's why. Terrence Bradley was afraid yesterday on that stand to tell the truth. And I don't know why. It could be because he was threatened, which I'm going to get to with Phil in a minute. And it could be because he is worried about getting in trouble with the bar if he did divulge anything privileged, with Nathan Wade, with Fannie Willis, who's the sitting district attorney, whose lawyers cross-examined him about an alleged sexual assault, which he denied. But this woman likes to bring charges with no foundation legally. So wouldn't you be worried if you were Terrence Bradley? I actually feel like I was too hard on him when I was saying he wasn't

believable the other day. I mean, he's not, but maybe the man has good reason. My speculation, but it did come up and cross. Let's keep going. She says, even without evidence of sex, he paid for her plane tickets and her travel. He writes, subpoena them all. Ashley Merchant responds. This is January 8th, 2024. I am nervous. This is huge. He responds, you are huge. You will be fine. You are one of the best lawyers I know. Go be great. It's kind of sweet. They were in a better place then. She's not adversarial to him. Ashley Merchant had no choice but to call him to the stand the way this thing went down. She said, I just filed to unseal his divorce proceedings. The shit show's beginning. He wrote,

okay, LOL. She says, first, are you doing okay? This is fast forwarding to 1-11-24. Are you doing okay? I hope so. Next, do you have an address for the East Point pad or maybe a name for the lady who owned it? Here we go. This is Robin Yerty, folks. This is Robin Yerty. That's where she lived. And remember, we learned the other day that Fannie Willis wound up moving into Robin Yerty's condo for a time and that Nathan Wade allegedly visited her, but Fannie denied it, denied that they were having the affair back then. This is all pre-2022 when they claimed there was no affair, but Yerty said there was. So she says, do you have an address for the East Point pet? It appears here, Ashley Merchant does not yet know the name Robin Yerty, a name for the lady who owned it. He says, I don't, let me see. She says, any leads would be

helpful. He says, do an open records request of all people hired when Fannie took office and who was fired around June of 2022. If you get that, I'll be able to give you the name. And she goes on. It was someone who worked for her. Damn. He writes, she hired a girlfriend like a bestie. It was her place. This is Robin Yurty. Ashley Merchant got the Yurty lead from Terrence Bradley. Robin Yurty, who we just played for you, saying it started as far back as 2019. She saw the affair with her own two eyes and she heard Fannie tell her about it. These two lied on the stand and need to be disqualified and potentially disbarred. And they will be lucky if they are not brought up on felony charges, which requires a fine and or jail time in Georgia. The Georgia State Senate is going to have its hands full.

And so is an independent special prosecutor who needs to be brought going to have its hands full. And so is a, an independent special prosecutor who needs to be brought in to look into these two. We do need a special prosecutor, not against Trump, against Willis and Wade to figure out whether two previously respected officers of the court took the stand and lied under oath, under oath about material facts. That's what would make it perjury. These are material facts. Did they say this affair began in 2022 to cover their own hides, to cover a kickback scheme, to cover unlawful and unethical behavior? It certainly appears that way. Okay. He tells her, do the open records request and I'll be able to figure out who it was.

She hired a girlfriend, a bestie. She hired the man and his girlfriend owner owned it. Goes on. Okay. Then Ashley's found the name. Is it Robin, Robin Bryant, East point connection. Send me a pic. He says she sends her one. Ryan, Robin Bryant, your tea. Terrence responds. Yep. That's her. That's the East Point apartment person. Ashley responds. She is key. Thank you. She also knows all about the media company payments. He says, have you spoken to her? I think he means, and then he says, Robin, meaning Robin, your tea, Ashley merchant. No, but I found her name because I didn't open records for the media company. Just as he told her to do. Fannie hired to track her media. She

was monitoring it and then they yanked her privilege. So I figured it went bad. Speaking clearly here about your tea. Terrence responds, yes, she was fired. Wow. They were college besties, her and Fannie. Terrence, yes. How'd you find her? Lots of time and effort. Ashley responds. I got all of Fannie's emails about the critical media company that lady was close with, Fannie, and then boom, she's gone. So I began to suspect something happened. Terrence Bradley, she's her bestie. Be careful. She's probably still loyal. She was. She had to be subpoenaed. Ashley Merchant introduced her during the hearing two weeks ago by saying she was terrified. But you know what? Robin Yerty

took the stand and did what's right. She appears to have told the truth in this case, notwithstanding her desire not to, and then was smeared as disgruntled by MSNBC and all of Fannie Willis's supporters. He says not many people knew about that apartment. Okay, let's go. Ashley Merchant says they made everyone sign NDAs this week. He responds, I heard, but she's fired, so no NDA. Jeff DeSantis, remember that name? Talked with the Breitbart reporter about that yesterday. Wendell, Jeff DeSantis, deep connections to the DNC,

brought in to Fannie Willis's office shortly after she was elected and shortly before she indicted Donald J. Trump. There's more there. 11, 11, 14, 24. He says, Terrence Bradley says, like she needs to fire Nathan, but she won't. She needs to fire Nathan, but she won't. Ashley responds. Yep. Nope. She won't. But she doesn't dispute it. She will go down in flames for Nathan. Terrence Bradley sends her, he sends her an article with Fannie Willis's church remarks. Remember those where she was like, they say, they say, you know, I played the race card. They played the race card. Apparently Terrencerence Bradley saw that article, too, and saw those remarks and forwarded them to Ashley Merchant.

He says, I hated her pandering to the black church. He was good enough for the white Republicans in good old Cobb County, but not good enough for me. What's the difference? That burned me up, says Terrence Bradley. He didn't like her racial remarks. Good for him. We didn't either. Okay. They move forward. She's talking about how much Fannie's paying the other special prosecutors. Cross, Cross is one of them. There's also Cross, the state's attorney, which we still need to get to. Cross gets 250. Floyd gets 150. No, or is that the cross that we're talking about? I never

actually put that together. Anyway, we'll ask, uh, in one second, then she's Ashley merchant says they went to Australia in December. They did. OMG. They went to Belize, Australia, Bahamas, Napa, Panama city beach, Royal Caribbean, Norwegian cruise lines. These are, these are new ones. Then she says, okay, I'm subpoenaing Chris Campbell and Nathan's office staff. I fear it would look suspicious if I did not also subpoena you, but I plan on putting Nathan and Fannie on the stand and only have others under subpoena for backup. I will leave you out, but think if I don't subpoena you, it would look fishy. What do you want me to do? I'm okay with it, he says. He understands he might have to take the stand

and it might look weird if at least she didn't hit him with a subpoena. She says, it is my hope that they do the right thing before then. He responds on 124.24. You are my friend and I trust you. They will not, meaning do the right thing. Their arrogance is F.

She thinks she won the other day when she didn't have to be deposed. Hold on. Okay. One more. One more. 2-2-24. Jumping forward. She says, I talked to Robin, by the way, she and you may be the only ones who knew about the cohabitation in East Point prior to Fannie becoming DA, which was 2020. Then he says, Gabe called me out of the blue. Remember we told you about Gabe? Gabe is the one whose wife, he's friends with Nathan.

His wife works for Fannie. She says, wow, I wonder if they're circling the wagons trying to reach out to everyone who knew. He says, not sure, haven't called him yet. We'll let you know after the call. She says, interesting, I haven't reached out to him. I haven't sent him a subpoena yet. Is he still friends with Fannie? Response, fishing. Said he read an article that listed me as a source. I asked him to send me the article. She says, fishing, probably read something showing everyone we subpoenaed. I can't imagine he would lie to protect either of them. Terrence responds, he is. She says, going to lie to protect them? He would risk his license for them? That is insane. He responds, he is going to say he doesn't know.

And it ends shortly thereafter. Let me see. Okay, sorry, one other thing. One other thing. She says, this is interesting, 2-4-24, literally no AC privilege for conduct before the divorce. Besides, now that he filed a fraudulent affidavit, keep in mind in this case, Nathan Wade had responded and told the lies, what we think are lies, about when the relationship began. Besides now that he's filed a fraudulent affidavit, you may actually have a duty, she's speaking to his former lawyer and friend,

you may actually have a duty to alert the court to the fraud in the affidavit under the crime fraud because he lied under oath to facts you know to be false i'll look at that and let you know he responds call me when you get this she says let me know when you're free thanks he says okay my god back with me now the man we have to thank for being able to bring this to you, among other things, in this case, wonderful reporting, Phil Holloway, who's, I mean, I don't know what kind of lawyer you are, Phil Holloway, but you're a damn good reporter and journalist. I think you've got two hats to wear, and thank you so much for giving this to us and letting us read this on the air.

Well, it's quite something, and I'm glad you printed it all out because I didn't want to use that much paper. There's a lot in there to digest, and one of the things that I wanted to point out, and you got into some of this, this appears to be a collaborative effort. When Ashley Merchant is preparing to drop this motion to disqualify and is going to allege the affair, she says something in there to the effect of, you know, I'm I'm frightened or I'm scared or I'm nervous or something along those lines. And Bradley goes on to say, you know, like you're one of the best lawyers I know. Go be great. And so he's encouraging her. And that was just earlier this year, if I remember the dates on those. So this puts all of this into, I think, confronted by the witness in court and were confirmed that those were his texts and that things that had to do with a prior inconsistent statement. But if you remember, the prosecutor had objected saying, you know, judge under the rule of completeness,

you don't have all of the context. And so guess what? Okay, here you go. This is all the rest of it. If you want to satisfy about the rule of completeness, here it go. This is all the rest of it. If you want to satisfy about the rule of completeness, here it is. It's all going into the court and into the court record. So it's unclear if the judge is going to be able to consider everything that you just went over, but certainly this does put it all into context. And remember when Anna Cross and others were saying she has no good faith basis for raising these issues. Obviously, we have a good faith basis when this witness is apparently helping her put together her pleadings, helping her investigate the circumstances surrounding this affair. When did it start? Who else knew what

all's going on? You know, so this is one of the places where she's getting her information. This is what lawyers do. And, you know, in Georgia, we don't have the ability to do pretrial depositions with witnesses. If we did, we would have a hearing like yesterday, except there wouldn't be a judge and there wouldn't be a prosecutor objecting to every question. And you can get into a lot of this stuff under oath. So we are limited. Our hands are tied here in Georgia in pretrial discovery in criminal cases. So lawyers have to be creative in how they investigate things for their client. And oftentimes it means finding somebody who has information that's willing to talk to you. And so that's what's going on here. And this is the good faith basis.

Yep. So she had it. And, you know, five of us comes in and says, you know, these, your pleadings, they're all lies. I mean, she says that. And, you know, so this is, we talked yesterday about Ashley Merchant is going to be able to clear the air. She's going to be able to show that she has a good faith basis. And no, she's not lying. So, and this is it.

She's able to, she's able to get it all out. This is absolutely stunning. I have never seen this level of dishonesty by officers in the court in my life. I mean, it's been a while since I've been in the courtroom practicing, but I practiced for 10 years. I've never seen this. I firmly believe, it's my opinion, you had not one, not two, but three officers of the court take the stand and lie. Nathan Wade lied about when this affair began. So did Fannie Willis. I believe they lied about

the cash payments, my opinion. And Terrence Bradley, I believe, was lying when he said he didn't remember any of those things. This is four or five, six weeks ago. This was six weeks ago. He's, you're my friend. I want to help you keep my name out of it. Here's all the stuff that happened today. I don't recall. I don't recall that text message you showed me does not reflect or refresh my recollection at all. Keeps looking at Nathan Wade. I mean, this is outrageous. So, okay. Maybe the judge can't technically consider all this, although I don't know why, why? I mean, this whole thing would be, wouldn't this have been submitted to the judge in connection with the privilege objections that we had to go through?

Wouldn't he have seen this whole thing? I don't I don't think he did. I think that the plan was to ask the witness questions. And if the witness testified differently than would have been expected based on the the text communications that you. And that's, by the way, not the only clearly clearly they were talking, this was just the written text version. There's, you can read, when you read this, you can tell that they're having phone conversations and other things. So the expectation was, is that he would testify to the things that you just went over in this text, lengthy text thread. And so when that didn't happen, he was confronted with some of the texts that would have been meant to directly refute his testimony or to say, look, this is a prior inconsistent

statement. Okay. So let's say, so perhaps I was wrong that the judge knows all the stuff I was reading. He knows a portion of this stuff. But the problem for him is, given the news you just gave us, that the Georgia State Senate has subpoenaed these text messages, which I just read to you, the judge is going to hear that. Like there's, they're about to become a public record and there's no, he doesn't want to embarrass himself. He's still a human being. He's going to see the news articles about all of this and has got to make sure he doesn't look like a fool in going with, well, the CNN version. Terrence Bradley said he didn't remember anything. So I can't really put any weight on this allegation. Like that's not going to happen now. Well, this is this goes back to something

I've said from almost day one. What's this whole thing about the affair and the money and all that broke. If I'm the judge, I'm probably going to halt the proceedings and I'm going to figure out some way to order an independent, thorough investigation because I need to know if I'm the judge, is a fraud being perpetrated on my court? It's not going to happen on my watch. And if it's this serious, you know, I'm not going to leave it to the defense lawyers who are limited in their investigative resources. As good as these lawyers are, you know, we don't have the resources that cops have, that prosecutors offices have, that the attorney general has. I'm going to, if I'm

a judge, I'm going to figure out somebody who has these resources that can bring these people in, question them, find out the truth of the matter. How did this whole thing come up? When was the affair? Did people lie? If a fraud has been perpetrated on my court, I'm going to want to get to the bottom of it. This is a unique situation I've never in my life seen or heard anything like this. I was talking with a judge friend of mine yesterday at lunch. He and I agreed this would be a fantastic ethics kind of exam for law school because it's so complicated and there's so many different ways to look at this, so many angles to go down. We've got to get to the bottom of it, and I think it's going to require an independent investigation at this, so many angles to go down. We've got to get to the bottom of it. And I think it's going to require an independent investigation at this point. Yes, because if there isn't one,

with all due respect to Judge McAfee, who I believe has been doing a good job, he's going to look very foolish if he doesn't have this thoroughly investigated. We may have as many as three officers of the court perpetrating a fraud on the court. And if he just resolves it by saying, oh, not enough evidence to disqualify them, he's going to look like a fool. He can't allow that. That's just for his own dignity, for the dignity of the court, which must be respected lawyers, witnesses in general cannot get away with this. This is well beyond whether these two need to be disqualified. Really, they really need an investigation on whether they should be disbarred,

disciplined at a minimum, and potentially could be facing criminal charges if an independent investigator finds these were material representations made under oath, knowingly false. That's what perjury is in the state of Georgia. Um, these, this is just not Terrence Bradley. I don't recall. I don't recall. I don't recall. It does not get you a perjury charge, which is why he answered that way. But listen, he, he did not do the ethical thing yesterday. He didn't, he, he should have, he should have done what he did in these texts. And if he's embarrassed about it, he should have admitted that it's not a get out of jail free card to say, I don't recall. All right. I gotta got to I got I got to do two things. I got to take a quick break. But we have got to get to what's happening with Anna Cross. She is there are three special prosecutors Fannie brought in. Nathan Wade's one of them. Floyd is another one. And Anna Cross is the third. Anna Cross is the one who took Terrence Bradley's testimony. She did his cross-examination on Feb 16. Nowhere

to be found when he resumed the stand. And her name is not on their most recent filing. Why? How many lawyers in this case are worried about perpetrating a fraud on the court? And who, if anyone, said, I'm not going to be part of it. Coming back with Phil right after this quick break. I'm Megan Kelly, host of the Megan Kelly Show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch the Megan Kelly Show on Triumph, a SiriusXM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably

love. Great people like Dr. Laura Blandbeck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megyn Kelly. You can stream the Megyn Kelly Show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are. No car required. I do it all the time. I love the SiriusXM

app. It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more. Subscribe now. Get your first three months for free. Go to SiriusXM.com slash MKShow to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MK show and get three months free. Offer details apply. Let's talk about Anna Cross.

She was one of the three special prosecutors brought in when the state filed its opposition to the motion to disqualify Willis and Wade. And that was the motion that had Nathan Wade's affidavit saying the affair began only in 2022. And, you know, there's nothing to see here. It was signed first and foremost by Fannie Willis, district attorney. The very next signature on it is Anna Cross, special prosecutor. Then comes Nathan Wade, special prosecutor. Then comes Johnny Floyd, special prosecutor, and so on. So Anna Cross was the next signatory right after Fannie Willis onto that brief. But then, as I point out, even though this woman here was the one we'd been hearing most from during the 15-16 hearing,

she wasn't there when Terrence Bradley took the stand yesterday. And it was her witness, normally the same lawyer, right? She wasn't there. And then I went back and took a look at the state's objection to all those phone records they tried to submit on Friday. The state filed an objection to that, I think late Friday night, looking at the signatory here, who signed that. She's been on all these briefs. This one, Fannie Willis is number one. There's only one co-signatory and it's Adam Abate, who is, he is the chief deputy district attorney, neither of the other special prosecutors, certainly not Anna Cross. And indeed it was this guy, Adam, who was there handling the Terrence Bradley Cross yesterday.

So what happened to Anna Cross? Well, so we don't really know. I don't want to get too far out over my skis. It could be that she's a private lawyer. She's not. This is why this is so weird. There's all these people, you know, Adam Abadi is a full-time employee. He doesn't get paid by the hour. Nathan Wade gets paid by the hour. Anna Cross has a contract. She got paid by the hour. But it's so weird because

you've got these people that are private lawyers, but on the other hand, they're also prosecuting, you know, one of the biggest cases in Georgia history for the Fulton DA's office. Extremely unusual. Anyway, it could be that she's busy. She's got other things going on. She's got her own clients. She's got her own cases. She's got things in other courts and other jurisdictions. And so there was an email that I'm privy to that was recently sent to all the lawyers in the case just in the last few days where Cross had said she was not going to be there yesterday. And she has essentially said that she's unavailable that day because she said it was short notice. And she's unavailable for the next few weeks, I think it is, because of other things that she's working on. So that's really all we know. Whether and when

she comes back, we'll just have to wait and see. But for the time being, you're right, she's not been on any of this. And the timing is interesting because it's right about the time when the defense starts presenting directed evidence that contradicts Bonnie Willis' testimony under oath. When I was an assistant district attorney, if my boss, the DA, had asked me to participate in a proceeding and I thought that he had committed a fraud on the court, I couldn't be a part of it. I would have had to quit. The same way as if a client wants to take the stand and lie, I can't let them do that. A lawyer can't participate in a fraud. And so if she believes that that's what's happening, then I think she would have a duty to withdraw from the case.

On the other hand, if she doesn't believe it, then maybe she's going to come back in two or three weeks. We'll just have to wait and see. But that's what's going on there. It does seem awfully fishy. She's busy. This is the biggest case in the nation that's going on. It does seem awfully fishy. She's busy. This is the biggest case in the nation, but that that's going on right now. She knows that she's busy, too busy to resume her witnesses testimony on the stand. I've got doubts. Uh, I've got to get this in. He,

he, you, you heard what, what Terrence Bradley sounded like in those texts with Ashley, Ashley merchant, take a listen to him stumbling as I believe he was not being honest, on the stand yesterday. All right, this is Sot 10. That's a simple question, Mr. Bradley. You're a lawyer. Did you lie to Ms. Merchant when you told her facts about Mr. Wade and Ms. Millis's relationship. Not that I recall. I don't recall. I mentioned earlier that I speculated on some things. I've testified to what I did know, so I can't recall whether or not I...

No. Mr. Bradley, speculation is kind of a weaselly lawyer word. Let's speak truth here. When you were communicating different details of the relationship between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade to Mrs. Merchant. Did you lie to her about any of those details? I don't recall ever whether any of it was a lie or not. Now, having seen the full text, Phil, I mean, that just is so impossible to believe. You don't recall whether it was a lie when you said, make sure you get the early security detail, the one she had in 2020. They're going to know the most. Her kids know. The level of detail that we've now seen just puts the lie to what he was saying, in my view. Well, he did say, he says, did you lie to Ms. Merchant? Not that I recall. So if he's not lying, if he says he's not lying to Ashley Merchant, then he's not lying when he says he's absolutely certain that the affair began, you know, prior to her taking office.

That's that would be my takeaway. That's the I think it's text exchange where he essentially tells that actually that these people are lying under oath. So this is all, you know, you got to have context. And sometimes in courtrooms, because you have people standing up and making what we call speaking objections and they object, they don't cite, you know, the rule of evidence. They don't cite what the legal basis is for the objection. It's just an objection to slow it down, to throw up a roadblock, to try to derail somebody's train of thought when they're cross-examining. You don't get, sometimes in court, you don't get the whole truth. You don't get all of the context. And so now when you have this information that we've obtained through other sources and other means, we now get to see the whole thing. We got the color context. We can put it all in perspective and we can see what's really going on. So we can

finally understand what looks like the truth is going to be. That's right. And honestly, a reminder to the audience that him saying her kids knew or this person was in an affair or whatever, that doesn't make it so. It's showing what was in Terrence Bradley's head and that it was communicated to Ashley Merchant and gave her a good faith belief for filing this motion. And also shows, I believe, how dishonest he was being in not recalling any detail literally a few weeks after he provided this level of specification on her questions and just volunteering. So, Phil Holloway, thank you again. I'm sure we're going to be back again very soon, and we are going to reach out to the relevant players mentioned in these texts and see if we can't get them to weigh in as well.

All the best, my friend. Always happy to be here. Good afternoon. All right. Don't forget to go follow Bill on X at Bill Holloway ESQ. Tomorrow, for the first time, we are live in person with our pals from the fifth column. That'll be fun. See you guys then. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.