Hearings on Trump's criminal cases in New York and Georgia

The first witness to take the stand was the man whom defendants in the 2020 election racketeering case believed could stand up their allegations of impropriety between Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and her top attorney Nathan Wade. But he didn't do that — not even close.

That's because the legal ethics that bind attorneys prevented the witness, Terrence Bradley, from divulging what he knew of Wade and Willis' relationship.

Bradley was Wade's law partner, and also served as his divorce attorney years ago. Wade and his wife separated then filed for divorce in 2021, according to court records. Bradley represented Nathan Wade in the divorce until 2022, according to the record.

Because of that setup, where he was the attorney and Wade was the client, Bradley can't share information he would have known from Wade's divorce proceeding without Wade's permission.

Thus, he told the judge on Thursday he didn't have "independent knowledge" of the Wade-Willis relationship that he could testify to as a witness.

Defendants in the Trump case are trying to unearth evidence in court on Thursday that would show Willis and Wade had a romantic relationship, that Willis benefited from financially, before Willis hired Wade in late 2021 to work on the Trump case.

A key witness in the case to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from the 2020 election subversion case is arguing that he can’t testify about the origins of her personal relationship with her lead prosecutor.

Shortly after taking the stand, the witness, Terrence Bradley, was asked by defense attorney Ashleigh Merchant about when lead prosecutor Nathan Wade began a relationship with Willis. Bradley previously served as Wade’s divorce attorney.

Bradley objected to the question. He cited attorney-client privilege and said he does not have "independent knowledge" of the relationship that he can testify to.

He says he has consulted with the bar, which governs how attorneys can conduct themselves.

The judge has called that into question: Judge Scott McAfee suggested during Thursday’s hearing that Bradley may be taking attorney-client privilege too far.

Judge Juan Merchan is going over potential questions to jurors in jury selection, including their views about the 2020 election and whether they belong to fringe groups. 

Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Josh Steinglass suggested they model some jury questions about news consumption and political affiliations on Judge Lewis Kaplan's method used in the E. Jean Carroll trial.

Trump attorney Todd Blanche strongly pushed back against that idea.

Blanche objected to questions about whether prospective jurors are members of extremist groups like QAnon, Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office responded that they'd be happy to add any other left extremist groups Trump's team wants to list -- Antifa was already on the list.

Blanche also objected to a question about whether prospective jurors believed the 2020 election was stolen, arguing that a question about the election had no relevance to the New York criminal fraud case.

The jury pool is tainted by the media saturation in this city because of coverage of the recent civil fraud trial and the Carroll trial, Blanche argued, which he says contained salacious allegations against Trump.

The lawyers also debated what media outlets should be included on a question about media consumption.

Blanche also said they want to specifically ask jurors whether they have listened to any podcasts or read any books by Michael Cohen or Mark Pomerantz because they specifically discuss facts of this case. Based on a request from Steinglass, Merchan will also ask the jury pool if they've read any books authored by Trump.

Merchan did not rule on the questions that would be included during Thursday’s hearing

As Todd Blanche delivers extended protests during Thursday's hearing on Donald Trump's upcoming criminal trial in New York, it's clear he's partially putting on a show for an “audience of one” – his client sitting several feet to the right of him.

Blanche argued that the trial date was “unconstitutional,” raising concerns about both the three additional criminal trials Trump has as well as the 2024 presidential election.

Trump, sitting alongside Blanche at the defense table, looked on at his lawyer as he argued with the judge.

Judge Juan Merchan dismissed Blanche’s objections, saying that Trump would not be on trial in two places at the same time.

Blanche then tried a new tactic, arguing there had been media saturation of Trump’s trials with the New York civil fraud trial and the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.

Merchan wasn’t having it.

Defense attorneys for Donald Trump also brought up Michael Cohen’s testimony in a separate case, suggesting the Manhattan district attorney should be investigating him for perjury.

Cohen — Trump's former lawyer and a key part of this hush money probe — testified as part of the separate civil fraud case brought by the New York attorney general. (A verdict on that case is expected Friday.)

Defense attorney Todd Blanche, citing Cohen's testimony in the civil fraud case, said that Cohen committed perjury "across the street" two months ago.

During the civil fraud trial, Cohen went back on his claims that Trump told him directly to fraudulently inflate his property values, saying that Trump made clear what he wanted even if he hadn't said it outright.

District Attorney’s office attorney Matthew Colangelo didn't address the claim of an investigation but said the defense will have an opportunity to cross examine Cohen to address those issues which the prosecutor said is the most appropriate way to address that concern.

Heading into court in New York on Thursday, former President Donald Trump claimed President Joe Biden’s White House is running the hush-money case that was brought against him by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. 

“What it is, is election interference. It’s being run by Joe Biden’s White House. His top person was placed here in order to make sure everything goes right,” Trump said. He continued, “His top person, Colangelo, and some others have been placed into the DA’s office to make sure they do a good job of election interference.”  

Facts First: There is no basis for Trump’s claims. First, there is no evidence Biden’s White House has any role in running the district attorney’s case. Second, there is no evidence the White House or the Biden administration had anything to do with senior Justice Department official Matthew Colangelo’s decision to leave the department and join the Manhattan district attorney’s office in 2022 as senior counsel to Bragg. Colangelo and Bragg knew each other before Bragg was elected Manhattan district attorney.

Colangelo and Bragg previously worked at the same time in the office of New York’s state attorney general, where Colangelo investigated Trump’s charity and Trump’s financial practices and was involved in bringing various lawsuits against the Trump administration.

On a minor point, Colangelo was never Biden’s very top official at the Justice Department. Colangelo served as acting associate attorney general in the first months of the Biden administration in early 2021 and then as principal deputy associate attorney general. As acting associate attorney general, he was third in command of the department.

Justice Department prosecutors declined both in the middle and at the end of Trump’s term to pursue federal charges against Trump over the hush money case, CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig reported in a 2023 book. 

Honig reported that federal prosecutors in New York decided against pursuing charges in 2018 on account of longstanding Justice Department guidance that a sitting president can’t be indicted. Honig reported that in January 2021, just before Trump left office that month, federal prosecutors in New York held discussions about possibly reviving the case but again decided not to seek an indictment.

The Fulton County hearing got off to a chaotic start, with confusion over which witnesses would testify about the potential improper relationship between prosecutors that could imperil the case.

Currently on the stand is Terrence Bradley, a former law partner of Nathan Wade. The hearing is all about the personal relationship between Wade and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

Before Bradley was called, the defense attorneys tried to call one of Willis’ friends to the witness stand. The witness, Robin Bryant Yeartie, was subpoenaed but she didn’t show up to the courthouse.

Earlier, the defense attorneys wanted to begin by putting Wade on the stand, but those plans changed at the last minute.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche continued to argue the scheduling of the trial for March 25 is unconstitutional given his other pending cases, as well as the upcoming presidential election.

Blanche said the trial could take Donald Trump and his team into the third week of May.

"That puts us right up to the third week of May where he’s been in court four days a week not preparing for a very significant trial where his insight and strategy is extremely important to the defense,” Blanche said.

"President Trump says it all the time and the media makes fun of him but it's 'election interference' to make President Trump sit here in this courtroom," Blanche added.

Matthew Colangelo, a lawyer for the Manhattan district attorney, called out the tactics from Trump’s lawyers asking each court to delay proceedings because of the other cases in other jurisdictions.

Colangelo suggested there was a pattern of "using the pendency of each proceeding to evade accountability in all proceedings."

Judge Juan Merchan dismissed protests from Donald Trump’s attorney at the judge’s ruling that the former president’s New York criminal trial will begin on March 25.

Trump attorney Todd Blanche said that beginning a trial would be a “great injustice,” arguing that Trump’s attorneys have been focused on Trump’s other potential trials and warning they could overlap.

Blanche complained that he had asked for a discussion on the trial date last fall because of the additional indictments. But Merchan shut down those complaints, saying there was no reason to discuss the trial date until the federal calendar had been clarified.

Merchan said he spoke to Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump’s federal election subversion trial, earlier this month. That trial is now on hold over an appeal on Trump’s presidential immunity claims.

"It would have been an absolute waste of time" to come together in November, Merchan said, because no one knew when the other trials would occur. But now the federal trial is now not happening in March, he said.

Merchan cut off Blanche and told him a conference about scheduling wouldn't have been fruitful.

"You don't have a trial date in Georgia, you don’t have a trial date in Florida," Merchan said.

Merchan also admonished Blanche to stop interrupting him.