"I have no answer": Experts say TrumpWorld's "star witness" sank their case against Fani Willis

The Georgia attorney conceived as a "star witness" in TrumpWorld's bid to disqualify Fulton County District attorney Fani Willis testified on Tuesday that it was only "speculation" when he told a defense lawyer that Willis had been engaged in an improper personal relationship with the lawyer she appointed to spearhead the Georgia election interference case against former President Donald Trump since 2019.

“I do not have knowledge of it starting or when it started,” Terrence Bradley said of Willis' relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade during a Tuesday hearing. “I never witnessed anything. So, you know, it was speculation.” Bradley, a former law partner of Wade, also said he could not recall when he learned about the relationship, confounding claims made by the defense team which said the relationship started after Willis selected Wade to lead the case.

As noted by The Washington Post, Bradley’s claims could imperil the defense team's attempts to oust Willis from the election subversion case with allegations of a romantic relationship between Willis and Wade. The Post also reported that Bradley during his testimony attempted to backtrack on several statements he made regarding the relationship to Ashleigh Merchant, a lawyer for Trump co-defendant Mike Roman. When Merchant on Tuesday referred back to the text messages between herself and Bradley, Bradley said he did not remember the correspondence, also noting his claims had been speculation. He additionally shared that he could recollect "one conversation" in which Wade said he was romantically involved with Willis.

Trump lawyer Steve Sadow at one point during the testimony accused Bradley of lying after Bradley said a January 2024 text conversation between himself and Merchant, in which Bradley claimed Willis and Wade had been dating since 2019, was speculation.

“Why in the heck would you speculate?” Sadow asked

“I have no answer for that,” Bradley replied.

“Except for the fact that you do, in fact, know when it started, and you don’t want to testify to that in court. That’s the best explanation,” Sadow retorted. “That’s the true explanation. Because you don’t want to admit it in court, correct?”

Merchant eventually presented correspondence with Bradley to the court, citing numerous claims made by Bradley about the nature of the supposed relationship. Bradley remained evasive when confronted with the texts and email, testifying, “I don’t recall that."

Merchant also showed the court an excerpt of a conversation with Bradley in which he asked her to include details about payments he had made as an outside attorney consulting for the district attorney’s office in her motion to disqualify Willis, suggesting that Bradley did so to avoid being identified as a source. Bradley rejected the allegation, stating that he had simply wanted to assist Merchant in being "accurate" about the funds Wade and his partners had received for helping the DA, according to the Post.

Legal experts argued that the hearing failed to bolster the attempt to remove Willis.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

"My take on Terrence Bradley is he shared idle, salacious gossip about his former client, Nathan Wade, with the defense attorney for Michael Roman. Bradley is a yenta. But it's exponentially worse because he also happened to be Wade's lawyer," tweeted MSNBC legal analyst Katie Phang. Still, "Bradley didn't provide any evidence of when Wade and Willis began their relationship because, as he testified, he did not have any knowledge of that timeline," she wrote.

Phang criticized Bradley for giving the defense "their basis to launch this sideshow" but added that he "provided zero evidence as to any personal financial benefit that Willis gained from Wade being appointed."

Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis agreed that he doesn't think the "evidence is there for disqualification."

"I think gossiping and inducing someone to make a motion should trigger bar discipline," he added. "And I think the state should admit that the defense had a good faith basis to press their claims and calling for sanctions was wrong."