Prosecutor Nathan Wade's former attorney Terrence Bradley described his past statements as "speculation" when Donald Trump's attorney Steve Sadow confronted him with past text messages Bradley exchanged with another defense attorney that appeared inconsistent with his current testimony.

"That's speculation on my part," Bradley said. "I stated that I was speculating."

Sadow showed him past text messages where Bradley said Wade and DA Fani Willis "absolutely" began their relationship before Wade was hired by Willis.

"It started when she left the DAs office and was [a] judge in South Fulton. They met at the Municipal Court CLE conference," Bradley said in a text message that was entered into evidence.

Claiming he was speculating in that text, Bradley reiterated that he does not have direct information about when the relationship began. He said that between 2018 and 2022, he only spoke with Wade about the relationship once.

"I do not know when the relationship started between Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis. I cannot recall that," Bradley said.

"Is it your testimony that you don't know, under oath, whether or not there was a relationship between Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis, before the contract?" Sadow asked, referring to Wade's November 2021 contract with the DA.

"I do not recall any dates of when the relationship started," Bradley responded.

Sadow, however, appeared incredulous of Bradley and hammered at his claim.

"That's the true explanation because you don't want to admit it in court, correct?" Sadow said.

Bradley did not change his account of the relationship, despite Sadow's repeated questions.

Sadow ultimately concluded his questions by reminding Bradley about the stakes of his testimony.

"You realize that if you were to testify under oath that you knew from Mr. Wade that the relationship between him and Miss Willis existed before the contract on November 1 of 2021 ... that would show that both Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade had lied under oath. You know that don't you?" Sadow said, prompting a sustained objection.

Former President Trump's attorney Steve Sadow is now questioning Nathan Wade's former law partner Terrance Bradley.

Sadow, who is not present in the courtroom, is questioning Bradley over Zoom.

Ashleigh Merchant, the attorney for Trump co-defendant Michael Roman, struggled as she began in her direct examination of Wade's ex-attorney Terrence Bradley as the proceedings quickly got bogged down in objections over privilege.

"A lot of this is based on gossip and innuendo ... and privileged information," the state's attorney said while objecting to Merchant's questioning.

The back-and-forth already appears to be frustrating Judge Scott McAfee, who threatened to limit the testimony.

"Ms. Merchant, you don't have much more to pull on here," McAfee said.

"He doesn't remember much of anything right now, and so I'm trying to create a timeline to hopefully piece this together," Merchant responded regarding Bradley.

While Merchant attempted to ask Bradley about past text messages exchanged -- which have not been entered into evidence -- Judge McAfee limited the testimony.

Bradley himself said he could not recall when Willis and Wade began their romantic relationship.

"I can't give you a date if you're asking for a date," Bradley said. "If you're asking me how did I get the knowledge, it would have come directly from a client."

"At this time, I am telling you that I do not have the date," Bradley responded when Merchant pushed on the question.

Judge Scott McAfee began the hearing by confirming that both Nathan Wade and his former law partner Terrence Bradley did not meet the burden to establish attorney-client privilege "as it relates to Mr. Bradley's knowledge of any relationship that existed between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade."

"I didn't see any other choice but to allow the parties to have an opportunity to explore that topic with him," McAfee said regarding Bradley returning to testify.

Bradley then took the stand.

State attorney Adam Abbate said that allegations that DA Fani Willis financially benefited from her relationship with prosecutor Nathan Wade were "all speculation and conjecture" lodged in order to "harrass and honestly embarrass" her.

Abbate said Willis was subjected to irrelevant questioning on the witness stand that was intended "to again embarrass and harass the district attorney in a way that was very public, in a way that was to impugn her character as it relates to that line of questioning in front of the court, in front of anyone watching the proceedings."

But Judge Scott McAfee pressed the DA's office after they suggested Willis' alleged conflict was theoretical or speculative.

"Aren't we past the speculation and conjecture aspect of this, though?" McAfee asked, saying that "the core of the financial allegation was that there is a relationship, and that money has changed hands."

"I think it was conceded that that balance could run in the district attorney's favor -- is that contested?" the judge asked.

The DA's office responded that they did contest that, saying the costs paid by each party were "equal."

But the judge pushed back again, saying the bottom line remained: "It's no longer just a theory that money changed hands."

"It's no longer speculation or conjecture," the judge said.

Willis, seated at the prosecution table, appeared alert and highly engaged during Abbate's arguments, visibly nodding or shaking her head at points.

She at one point scribbled down a note and passed it to Abbate, during his presentation of arguments on behalf of the DA's office.

At the end of his arguments, Abbate mounted an impassioned plea for the judge to dismiss the defendants' claim that Willis sought to live a lavish lifestyle on the taxpayer dime -- citing her relatively humble accommodations during a visit to Napa Valley: a DoubleTree Hotel.

"Most people, when they go to Napa -- if they want to lavishly experience Napa -- stay at the Ritz Carlton, the Four Seasons, things of that nature -- not a DoubleTree. So the allegations and assertions that Miss Willis was living the lifestyle of the rich and the famous is a joke," he said. "An absolute joke."

Abbate added there was "no validity" to arguments that the speech Willis made at the church would prejudice a jury.

"For all the reasons before Your Honor, this motion should be denied because the legal requirements by that are required in order for the district attorney to be disqualified have not been satisfied," Abbate concluded.