dollars >> i'm elizabeth wagmeister in los angeles in this >> is cnn

>> cnn breaking news >> and welcome to a special edition of cnn news central. i'm john berman new york, kate and sara are out this morning events in two courtrooms, in two states that could have a huge impact on the legal peril facing donald trump when and if he will go to trial at all in where he might go to trial first >> and i'm kaitlan collins outside of the courthouse in new york or while trump is expected to arrive soon on his way from trump tower here in new york, also where he will learn whether he will face his first criminal trial while seeking the gop nomination. and ultimately a return to the white house. if the judge here rejects trump's longshot requests to dismiss this hush money case. he is expected to set a firm date eight for the trial, which could be as soon as next month, march 25th, 34 criminal charges against trump or what's at stake?

>> and i'm laura coates and atlanta live outside the fulton county courthouse where trump and he has remaining 14 co-defendants are trying to disqualify the da who brought the election racketeering case against them. fani willis, accused of an improperly benefiting from a romantic relationship the man involved. second, to take the witness stand and do so first. and we will see at all when the judge turned the cameras on inside that courtroom. >> so we have teams reporters, and analysts halfway up and down the eastern seaboard first, let's get back to kaitlan collins, who's outside the court in new york where i do understand the trump motor okay. it has arrived perhaps kaitlan, we could see trump any minute >> yeah. john, he has just arrived here and it's notable because there are these two separate still key hearings that are happening here today, but he is choosing to be here at this one in new york, john, that is a decision that he made in closed council with his legal team. also have students,

paula reid here on the scene with me and paul. obviously, we've been covering many of these court cases and situations where donald trump has actually been in the courtroom. he'll be in there again today. and i think for people who are, you wondering and remembering all of the different legal we'll issues facing. have alvin bragg is the manhattan district attorney. he was the first to obtain an indictment of donald trump and he could be the first to actually take him to trial if the judge does dismiss trump's longshot bid to dismiss this case outright based on a few separate legal theories that they're pushing back against this indictment with that's the first thing we're watching for today. >> will this be the >> first criminal prosecution of former president trump? >> because a >> lot of folks forget about this case. the so-called hush money case is being charged sergio dozens of felonies related to falsifying business records in an effort to pay hush money to stormy daniels and adult film star ahead of the 2016 election, we've been focused mostly now on the federal trials because the federal trial, that election subversion trial was on the calendar first, what right now

kaitlan, this is scheduled for march 25th. and what we're watching for today is, does that dick, because if that sticks and the supreme court doesn't intervene, the change jack smith's calendar, then this could be the first criminal trial he faces. now the trump team may also try to drag this out. now, there are certain appeals, so certain arguments they might want to make here to drag this out. but biggest question today is, will this go at the end of march? and what's at the heart of this? paying hush money inherently is not illegal, which is obviously an odd statement to say, but that's what's at the center of this because it happened the day before voters went to the polls. in the 20 2016 election, michael cohen is the star witness here at trump's former fixer. and the essence of this case is that the reason it is a crime and the reason the district attorney believes trump should face the consequences here is that because he covered it up, that it counts as an illegal campaign contribution by falsifying those business records that an upgrades it to that that's the theory that his attorneys have been pushing back on. that's exactly right.

the manhattan da argues that all of these payments were made in an effort to help trump in the election. therefore, technically they are at campaign contribution. they also frame this as 2016 election interference. but trump's lawyers there's have argued as have some legal analysts that this is a quote, zombie case. this was out here again, we're talking about 20:16. here we are eight years later. this was not brought until many many years later, and there are some questions about why it took so long, how alvin bragg will tell you that they have the evidence now to support this case, they're confident in it before president trump argues that this is politically motivated, that bragg brought this for political purposes. >> what does it say to you that trump chose to be here? obviously this is a more imminent threat to very clearly georgia. we still to be determined what's going to happen there. but what does it say to you that when they were looking at which case they should be paying attention to today? he chose to be in this courtroom blindness. i mean, my money would have been on georgia. right. bring the

circus, bring the campaign, bring the attention to georgia because that case in the allegations they're really fit in his whole argument that all of these prosecutions are quote, unquote, corrupt, right but he chose to come here today. this is a far more serious thing for him because he's facing dozens of felony counts. it suggests that maybe he's taking this more seriously, but let's wait and see kaitlan because we know when it comes to court in new york, he tends to act up. he doesn't follow the rules. we've seen in this in the two civil cases over the past few months, you suarez with the judge something no other defendant in their right mind would ever do. and then when the judge pushes back, he goes up his arms and said this whole thing system is rigged. so i'm really curious to see how he handles this because this is a criminal proceeding. this is serious. is he here to take it seriously or is he here to turn it into a campaign? in stop and be allowed murder? >> and he could walk out of here with a trial date of next month. i mean, it could be the most it didn't seem like it was going to happen potentially usually for a little bit because of jack smith's case and washington, which obviously we've been watching that very closely, were just talking

about it last night. but if that case is ultimately delayed until may or june tune this could very well be the first one. i think the other question here though, is, even though this is a criminal case, he may not actually face jail time as a result of it. if it men if the manhattan district attorney's case did was brought to fruition here, that's exactly right. sentencing is always complicated. i mean, this is a hypothetical if he's convicted felonies do come with a possible jail time. but usually first-time offenders only get probation. so even if he is can be tried and convicted here, it's not expected that he would go to jail, but a lot goes in two sentencing and it's almost too far out to sea. but as of now, the legal experts don't predict that he would likely go to prison even if he's convicted in this case. as the jack smith cases, a separate matter >> i'll read we will be out here all day watching this, monitoring this and john, of course, just looking at the scope of all of these cases it is notable that alvin bragg was the first one to get an indictment of donald trump. and now here he is potentially preparing to be the first

prosecutor to go and take the former president to trial? >> yeah. and just so people get a sense of the sequencing right now, we're going to keep the shot up on the screen here of outside the courthouse in new york because over the next few minutes, we're waiting to see donald trump walk in there to see if he says anything as he has been want to do once he enters the courtroom, we won't see anything in new york. we're getting reports as events occur from inside the courtroom will feed you that information as it takes place. what we will see, all of is the hearing in georgia that starts very shortly. let's go outside that courthouse. that's where cnn's laura coates is standing by in this is going to be truly fascinating. >> laura it really is. i mean, the consequences of why we are here today. i really the urgency ever remember, this is finding well, as the da and fulton county who has a one

point in time, 18 defendants, there are 14 remaining co-defendant. she is the da in fulton county. she's the one who brought the rico case against donald trump and 18 other codefendants she hired nathan wade as the special prosecutor to oversee the case. now it's important to note waiting has little prosecutorial experience that will not be at issue today. he's ever tried to felony rico case that won't be an issue today, but will be an issue today is they have admitted to having a romantic relationship the problem with that? while she is now accused or financially benefiting from it. and there have been a host of different motions filed to try to disqualify her from it. and to get this entire case thrown out as well. nathan wade, it's earned more than $650,000 from working on this case. and those defendants and co-defendants are trying to seize on the opportunity. trump has said that wade has used that money to take willis on several lavish vacations. other defendant had the same thing about the issue it's a matter of extraordinary consequence. i want to bring in cnn's nick

valencia here because this is not just a matter of a overall mess or someone trying to suggest nick that this is somehow salacious details the consequences here. if fani willis is disqualified from this, it doesn't then just go what are the next person, right it goes it goes away. >> could and let's be clear, it's not just whether or not they had a relationship, whether or not fani willis personally benefited financially from this it's personal relationship. we know that she was taken out of state. we know that she was taken on lavish vacations cruises, trypsin, napa valley, things like that. so if the judge who's presiding over this case, scott mcafee he's allowed this hearing to go forward. she was trying to quash this hearing. it's now happening. if he sees evidence of willis financially benefited from this, that could lead to grounds for her being disqualified. i it goes without saying laura, this is a nightmare scenario for the da. >> if that happened, i mean, this is going to be almost clinton asking what is is right. the idea of what is romantic, what we're mr. what you should, when did it start? all very important points here

again, because of filings that were made by nathan wade saying what the start date was trying to get a time my mind for the judge, that's one reason the judge said we need to have a hearing because it might very well be that there has been a benefit. so those details going to be very important today. >> is there yet to define what a personal relationship is? so we will hear those details and we will hear from nathan wade likely today. in fact, i spoke to ashleigh merchant. she was a defense attorney who first level these allegations made them publicly. she says she intends to call nathan wade first. she also has a star witness in our back pocket, terrorism, sadly, terrence bradley, he is the former law partner. he actually defended nathan wade during divorce proceedings at one time and he is according to national merchant, he has the goods here. he's the one who is going to prove, according to merchant that fani willis and nathan wade are lying in her words about when this relationship began, who is going to prove according to merchant that fani willis financially benefited from this. and if that happens, i mentioned this nightmare scenario. a lot of people within the sources within the da's office that we've spoken to express a lot of cynicism

that this case, it would even proceed if fani willis is disqualified, who takes over the case? who wants to take this case? safety concerns the political circus surrounding this. we know from our according to fani willis went to two other people before she tapped nathan wade, at least one of those individuals did not want to take the case because of the safety concern and because the politics surrounding this. so who is it's going to step up and take this case. and how long will that take? we should remind our viewers here that fani willis was disqualified from investigating. now, lieutenant governor burt jones because she held a fundraiser for his political rival, charlie bailey. it's been months since she was disqualified from that investigation. still no prosecutor has been named in that case. so what would happen in this case? that's the million-dollar question. well, neck i mean, the part that he wants to understand to a bath, this is if fani willis is his quality it doesn't mean that other people in her office can then take the case. it goes to an independent outside agency that will then decide who will step in as the special prosecutor. and that new team could come in. >> they're not >> required to follow the grand

jury indictment. they could dismiss. they could proceed. they could eliminate some co-defendants as well. el anything really is fair game at that point, right? >> look, that's been three years since this all started, fani willis, basically after she took the job as the da immediately began investigating trump and his co-defendants. and here we are. we're talking about this personal relationship. we're not talking about the solid case that she has. she got an indictment against the former president, a historic indictment against him? and some of his closest allies. we are not sitting here talking about the fake elector scheme of trump and his allies trying to subvert the electoral college. the infamous phone call where trump asked to find 11 thousand more votes. the illegal access of voting data in rural coffee county. we're trump operatives went in and illegally access voting machines. none of that is the topic here. instead we're talking about a personal relationship between two consenting adults and whether or not fani willis financially benefited, but to your point, this prosecuting attorneys, counsel, laura, whoever they find all right. does not have to pick up where fani willis left off. they could do

whatever they want, finding somebody to do that though that's going to be difficult if fani willis is disqualified and there's no timeline, right? today, they could slow walk it, they could try to expedite it, but they've got to get to speed regardless. and of course, really important to think about here, as you mentioned, the underlying case, none of what's death today goes to the heart of the facts alleged against any of the content and some have already pled guilty, by the way, it's right or went so important here to think about is if this if you're a jury, and here we are in fulton county, right in front of this courthouse. you've got jury pools who are going to be watching it. there are cameras in the courtroom who are going to be worn watching to figure out the credibility assessments, not of the witnesses, but of the prosecutors who are bringing this case. so if there is some indication that there has been mistruths in africa david's are courtroom pleadings and filings that does not bode well for the credibility of prosecutors, hoping to have that in the court. >> such an important point and to dovetail off of that no. steve stayed out. the defense attorney for trump, who's a very phenomenal attorney. he's

famous here in georgia and beyond. he has filed a motion saying that fani willis has already prejudice jurors by bringing up the race card. her first comments about this allegation was at a church, a big bethel here. it's church here that has a lot of fame as well. she did not directly address allegations, but she did bring up race and according to see steve sadow, that has prejudice future jurors on this case, that has prejudice, according to sadow, the remaining co-defendant it's in this case, so she's already facing a lot of problems. she would very much like this to go away. she's filed a motion to try to quash the subpoena. there's a chance that we could hear from fani willis today or tomorrow? that's clear. she's not going to want to take the stands, it could be potentially embarrassing revelations that we hear in this courtroom. >> it's certainly could be. and john, when you think about just what is at stake today, the potential disqualified occasion, a fani willis, it is not a certainty this hearing will be very very illuminating. the testimony that we very well, my hearsay, including the first witness, very, very informative how this will lead and what will happen next. this

is why we're here riveted already john. >> yeah. today is absolutely about when and if donald trump will go to trial this year because of the sequence of events happening in these two cases. and many others, we could learn by the end of today, if there is a trial date in any of these cases or if they will be pushed out, perhaps even indefinitely. okay. on the other side of your screen for me, pictures from the courthouse here in new york. let's get back to kaitlan collins, who's standing by outside there. we see a huge law enforcement presence there, kaitlan, not far from where you're standing right now, is there an expectation that trump wants to be seen or heard before this hearing begins >> i think it's an open question. i was in this court house before previously when he was indicted in this case, when it came to enter his not guilty to plea, he did not speak then initially, but then he spoke after he had left. of course, a

lot has happened since then, john, we've seen multiple indictments and multiple moments where he has been inside the courthouse, especially when it comes to this civil trial. that's a big question that we have facing the former president tomorrow. or he did choose to speak to reporters so that's a key question here. i'll tell you what it looks like outside of the courthouse when you do see that there is a massive law enforcement presence here, obviously not surprising given the former president is here, but also some protesters are here, not really more than a handful, a dozen or so. we've seen previously before where there had been a slew of protesters here so we'll continue monitoring that is where well, and paula reid, when we look at this and the nature of this case, i think one thing that stands out is even if it doesn't those the biggest threat when it comes to if there's a prison sentence or what the ramifications are. this is very sensitive for the foreign president because of what it involves and obviously we covered the trump white house together. we were both in

that briefing room as this story was unfolding. once he was already elected and once he was inaugurated, it's a sensitive case. it also because of what's at the nature of this these allegations made by stormy daniels, the fact that michael cohen and the trump team felt the need to make this payment that day before the election because they were they're so worried about the repercussions of it. >> he and it reminds voters, i think of a lot of things about former president trump that he would prefer. they're not focused on, like our history three of adultery here, this alleged affair with a porn star, maybe questionable business practices. i say that because just about a block away, of course, we just went through a months long civil trial we're he has business, the trump organization and former president trump were found liable for fraud. and actually tomorrow we're going to hear about the penalties and whether they can even still do business in the state of new york so this case brings up a lot of those issues and it brings back people like michael cohen, his longtime personal attorney, consigliere, turned nemesis, right? michael cohen as defied before congress, which became the genesis of a

lot of the cases that we've seen here in new york. and michael cohen does not. ms an opportunity to insult hold, or speak out against the former president and his family. he could potentially be testifying in this case. so like you said, it's very sensitive. the allegations go back to 25th 102016, 2017, and it's likely something that the former president would not want to have dredged up in the heat of the campaign season? >> yeah. and of course it very much is. and now they're trying to dismiss it, but that seems like it's going to be rejected. and john, i think it'd be a big part of that is what we're going to hear from the judge. should i whether or not we'd get that firm trial date really speaking? it's to what we're looking at big picture here. i mean, the fact that paul and i are sitting here as trump is preparing to go inside to find out what the date of this is going to look like. laura in atlanta waiting to see the outcome of that hearing. there in the state charges in georgia against trump, but also the decision looming tomorrow. we look at this big picture. i'm sure of all of the legal cases and

legal issues surrounding the former president, which he is spending a ton of money on. it's a really critical 48 hours that we are in right now. all of what we could see the outcome of several of these cases for a former president who, even before he took the white house, had spent decades abating lawsuits and that we could hear from him inside this courthouse any moment when he walks through those those two double doors that you see there? >> yeah, a lot of this, a lot have his legal issues coming to ahead in the next two days particularly the sequencing, particularly when and if in where he will go to trial first on the right-hand side of your screen, you see the courthouse in new york, donald trump. he has arrived. we are waiting to see if he chooses to speak before that hearing begins, and it will be perhaps not the end of the hearing spring when we learn when there was a trial date, if there's a trial date set in the new york criminal case. we're also watching georgia, where the entire federal racketeering case, sorry, state racketeering case against donald trump and all

those other defendants is in peril depending on what a judge decides. you about the prosecution, there is a special coverage on cnn news central, stay with us united states have scans with jake tapper >> sunday, a nine on cnn. >> beautiful and healthy looking. >> it >> shouldn't be a compromise. >> new mathai >> illuminations, 39 year rotating products developed by the experts at bausch and lomb exclusively for the sensitive i area to cleanse nourish, and brighten clinically proven and formulated with clean ingredients and are unique. i bright botanical complex. mathias, i illuminations discover the science of ibd only in the eye care i'll

>> what john silver's ted dallas trump says, pick up a boatload of grilled, fried or popcorn shrimp and now get even more bank you're bad. when you upgrade the jumbo shrimp. make us your first mate in order ahead to skip the wait. john silver's was wet, amd. >> sometimes i worry my world is getting smaller because of my sight but now i can open up my world with so by small. the bias mode is the first fda approved treatment for people with wet amd that improves vision and delivers a chance for up to four months between treatments which means doing more of what i loved >> binds mole is the >> only treatment designed to block to causing is it what amd who is an ai injection. don't take it if you have an infection, act of ice swelling, or are allergic to treatments

like the buys milk can cause an eye infection or retinal detachment. the lies moment cause a temporary increase in ai pressure after receiving the injection, there's an uncommon risk of heart attack or stroke associated with blood clots, severe swelling of blood vessels in the eye can occur open up your world. >> a chance for up to four months between treatments with the bias ask your dr. okay. ready to ask me? >> one second. i got it. finished my laundry >> its girls like one second. i use rinse what's france to the company that will pick up, wash fold, and deliver your laundry, dry cleaning at the touch. but i do not trust other people with my laundry, rinse guarantees your satisfaction. >> i've been using it for months now with no issues okay. let's watch this wait, i'm gonna do my laundry. >> butter hurry dunn. i'll >> schedules, sign up for rent at rinse.com to get $20 off your first-order >> introducing the all new thera gun relief by theravada. fda registered science-backed percussive therapy that helps relieve aches, reduce tension, and e, stiffness plus our

patented triangle grip helps treat those hard to read spots made for the workout called live. don't like discomfort and pain. hold you back, get your thera gun relief for just 149 plus free shipping and a 60 day money-back guarantee call 18663125, 5, 0, 2, or visit their body.com >> now, the sound of a national treasure, it's the omaha steaks president's day event. and right now are offering 50% off site. why? say you want favorites like fort tender filet, mignon, juicy chicken breast size deserts, and so much more border now and you'll even get our famous burgers free savor the taste of the very best from america's original butcher. say 50% and get freeborn triggers when you visit omaha steaks.com slash tv today. >> it's hard to explain what this feels like >> her moving >> piles of earth just by moving left toeing up to 4,000

pounds with the machine that weighs less than half, that cutting grass. the way in perfecting every inch of your land we could keep trying to put it into words. but nothing compares to experiencing it for yourself you just have to get in the seat learn more at john deere.com slash, getting the seat. >> i, melanie zanona on capitol hill. >> and this is cnn >> okay. you're looking at live pictures from fulton county, georgia inside a courtroom where over the course of today and tomorrow the fate of the georgia case against donald trump and all those other defendants in the election interference case. it really does hang in the balance over issues concerning alleged prosecutorial misconduct, right there on your screen, you just saw him there briefly before we chose to go away their right there on your screen? his nathan wade, he is the lead prosecutor in the case. >> now,

>> the allegations here are some of which are admitted to, is that he has a relationship with fulton county, da fani willis, a personal relationship. and what has been alleged by some attorneys from the defense is that he was hired in some way to benefit her and that she has somehow benefited financially from the payments he has received in this case. and today, one of the things they will discuss is when that relationship started and what's taken place since their personal relationship started over at that table right there you are looking at some of the many attorneys who are there for the defense clients. remember how many there are there this room you're looking at, right there was filled with attorneys with us now cnn senior legal analyst, former assistant us attorney for the southern district of new york, elie honig, cnn legal analyst hang on one second here, guys. donald trump has arrived at this other ring that we're watching today. the courthouse in new york, let's listen to see if he talks to go to trial

on march 20 thank you very much. everything that i've heard and read, even from legal scholars said there's absolutely no cases, it's not a crime. this is not a crime and we do look at what's going on violent crime there's an all-time high i think it's a very, very it's a great delco standard the other they this case gets brought three years ago. there is no case in decided not to bring it to district attorney bragg didn't want to bring it. he said he doesn't want to bring this case, but it's not a crime. we're here for something that is not a crime. nobody's ever seen anything like what it is, is election interference is being run by joe biden's white house. his top person was placed here in order but there make sure everything goes right. this is a terrible time

for our country. this is a real dark period for our country is stopped person hello angelo and some others have been placed into the da's office to make sure that you a good job of election interference. there's never been anything like this in the history of our country with all of this being said, i looked outside, i look into streets and so different from when i left new york, it's so different. it's dirty since crime-ridden. and today you walked down the street and get mugged or you get shot and they have fueling this where literally legal experts, legal scholar said they don't understand that there's no crime and there was no crime here at all. this is just a way of hurting me and the election because i'm leading by a lot, will leading by nobody's ever seen before. and they figured this is their way of cheating. this time, last time they had a different way. this time they have something that's really down and dirty no, frankly, no country does, other than a third world country, a banana

republic so we're going to do our process they want to rush it because they want i get a desperately before the election goes before the election, that's what they want to do. they don't care after the election. >> they wouldn't have brought this >> except for the fact, no way except for the fact that i'm running for president and doing well. if i were doing poorly, they wouldn't have brought it. and frankly, if i didn't run, they would have been extremely happy because they don't like and we're running and they don't like the numbers, the poll numbers have as bd him by a lot. so that's where we are all talk to you later after we don't know what's going to happen one delays, obviously, i'm running for election. >> i >> get how can you run for election to be sitting in a courthouse in manhattan all day long. i'm supposed to be in south carolina right now. >> we are >> other people are and where again, this is where i should be. i shouldn't be at a good house or something that virtually every legal scholar says they don't understand that there's no crime even if he was guilty of something,

there's no crime so i will say that enjoy it. it's a sad thing. it's a sad day for new york. they really do look, i love the city hello, their state. they have to focus on violent crime taking place outside you have a new form of crime that he had migraine prime migrants are trying to beat up our police officers. they tried to do things we've never seen before. actually, we are going to have a problem. but if i call it biden migrant grime, because you have millions of people came into this this country that has been so badly hurt and they're doing things that nobody's ever seen before. so you have violet, my thank prime. and they're after me for doing nothing wrong. you know, i paid almost $300 million in taxes over the period of time, $300 million and they say, oh, let's get talking about, you have people that it's everything is politics in this city,

including decisions and judges and everything else? it has to straighten it out and they have to focus on violent crime, not made up, brian. thank you very much. siloed donald trump manipulating the moment it campaign stop on >> his way inside a manhattan court where he is facing charges. local charges, new york charges, not federal charges, despite what he said, ellie holding a quick factcheck on the legal matter. so first of all, we have to address the tired and tiresome claim that this is all coming out of the biden white house. this is a state case. there's zero evidence whatsoever that joe biden or the administration had anything to do with this prosecution. second of all, donald trump said, quote, this is not a crime. there's a fair debate about how serious this is, but this is a crime if proven as alleged in the indictment, there's some question about whether it would be just a misdemeanor falsification of business records or a higher level felony but under any reasonable construction, if proven, this

is a crime. and the third thing donald trump said that i noted as he said, there's absolutely no case here. this is a debatable case. it will be tried to a jury, but this is a case that has a good faith basis. there's a basis of fact in the indictment. it'll be up to a jury. okay. from new york to georgia, fulton county, which are scott mcafee he is beginning this hearing that could determine whether or not the georgia federal election interference case continues. >> record identify themselves starting with the state and then we'll go through the defendants and the listed order good morning, your honor. i'm ana green cross for the state >> morning getting out of a body >> morning, your honor. andrew evidence for nathan wade form and beginning with from the order of the >> notice and foreign president trump good morning on steve said ali in general, a little >> and he weighs use presence

of the thank you, mr. say down on behalf, mr. giuliani >> stop the ms mr. meadows >> your honor, gender on behalf of mr. meadows. >> all right. thank you, mr. durham. >> on behalf of mr. clark very macdougal derived on mr. cork wesa's appearance of >> and let me go back to mr. durham. mr. durham, does your client also waived his presence as well? >> yes >> but i kept there for mr. giuliani. >> yes. okay. >> all right. on behalf of mr. chew lee richard grice let's thank you >> mr. roman >> warnings out to ashley merchant, john merchant roman yes >> mr. schafer >> morning, >> honored break guillen and anthony way shape or papers, president and mr. floyd air

mccullough on behalf of >> then we also have ms latham morning, your honor, willing to probably over his late from she waves the president >> and did we get that, mr. mecole also as well for mr. floyd just, making sure. okay. thank you mr. floyd is here. okay. i see mr. floyd is present as well >> all right >> my, parents see. anyone. rolling and behalf of the defendants office anyone, else president. >> who believes they may need to be on the record or address any issue coming up in the proceeding seeing, none >> i'm here. date banks witness but i also represent the candle so all right. thank

you, mr. banks >> i want you over for terrence bradley law under subpoena. >> we'll be waiting in the hall. >> all right. and circuit we have you spell your name for the record? >> thank bim. all last name? cho pra all right >> in terms of just a little housekeeping and terms of presenting the evidence, this morning my thought was, as witnesses are called this being mr. romans motion that counsel for mr. roman would be the first and any witness that they call then in order of ilestedt defendants, there would be the opportunity for additional direct or cross-examination. however, you want to characterize it. and then the state eight on the tail end of that. so with that, i would turn it over to ms merchant. is there anything that we would need to take up before calling the first witness? >> we wouldn't all right

>> so to that end, pursuant to rule 615, i would ask that any witnesses subpoenaed are expected to testify at the hearing today that they should remain outside the courtroom and tell called and they shouldn't discuss their testimony with any other witness or watch any kind of lie proceeding or recording the testimony until the evidence is excluded is concluded, or they're excused from being called today. are there any exceptions to this rule that them say any from the defense? no. >> okay. mr. body? yes, your honor prior to starting any testimony statement, just like the address isn't how keeping that are seen as you the court as it relates to what was represented during the previous hearing, as it relates to witness testimony one specifically the testimony of the former law partner of nathan wade that mr. terence bradley and what what the state with life to understand and realize that is that in

preparation for this hearing and speaking to witnesses and doing the additional research as relates to the comments that were represented by counsel specifically, council for mr. roman, mr. merchant, that we've been able to chairman that the claims that the defendant, as asserted and did assert during the last hearing on monday, are not only legally meritless, but are factually unsupported by the statements that ms merchant made to the court what i would say they are patently false. they are regions misrepresentations of what is believed that mr. bradley would say or even knows. and what i would bring some court's attention in my speaking with the defendant's council for mr. bradley mr. copra is that anything that he any knowledge of anything he would have would

be protected under the attorney-client privilege. he would assert that privilege has not the way by mr. wade. more importantly, representation was made to the court that ms merchant spoke to mr. bradley and that mr. bradley represented that he had firsthand knowledge from speaking to a several witnesses, that he would be able to impeach with the statements she represented, that there was a relationship prior to mr. wade being appointed special process jeter and that there was issues with cohabitation that you would be able to directly impeach those witnesses. that is patently false because speaking with mr. chauffeur those are misrepresentations that are not true. they are for the purpose of harassment and undue burden to the district attorney. and lead asked to renew our motion to quash. and the only hearing we street having to the hearing as it relates to sanctions or the defense counsels lack

candor. that's what wired by not only statutory law, the professional rules responsibility, and case law. and we asked to we move into our hearing that that is related to the sanctions. do to misrepresentation and flagrant falsehoods that have been spread throughout the world. and an effort to affect this case and to keep it from moving forward. with that, your honor. that's our request. >> who just small matter of housekeeping that ms merchant 1st. >> the >> witnesses haven't been suppressed for so i just isa questions before we arguments or so we just ask that the leaves under subpoena that was let's start there mr. body. >> well, i agree when testimony starts, the rules of secret rules as sequestration i'm

going to require mr. way to leave, but we haven't started testimony. it says argument. he's lead counsel for the case and he has every right to be sitting at the table. >> okay. and this merchant let's hear from two witnesses federal, it's actually hear some sworn testimony under oath i have made proffers and just like all we're going to get as objection after objection. >> let's see, there >> sam doesn't want the truth >> so very important issue >> and we need out >> witnesses i have a good faith basis and i have a good faith basis. >> and mr. bradley is not my goodness. it is just happens to the evidence. i proffered at the hearing state first tried to keep all of the other witnesses office i was forced proper certain testimony to get over the hurdle to refute their motions to quash they did that. i use mr. bradley testimony to do that. he is not the only witness that can state there was a relationship prior two years to making hired the first witness that i'd like to call

it robin dirty, not mr. bradley. no privilege issues. >> let's start with your honor, we have argument matters to be drawn we want to do it like i can stand up with inflation. let's just been said by mr. avante or are you going during his merchandise? this point we just need to know that the courts protocol. >> sure. so i think at this point, we just need to take his issues one at a time. and as you've joined the motion, i think defense counsel would have the opportunity the weigh in, but again, at any point, if i'm just hearing the same thing over and over again from each separate defense counsel, i'm going to reserve the right to say thank you. >> i appreciate that. all right. they ask you about >> and of course, we are monitoring right now this hearing that is happening in georgia, you can see the defense and the prosecutors, they're both making their argument myths, but we do want to bring you an important update that is happening in the courtroom here in new york. and manhattan in the first criminal

case that was brought against former president donald trump, we adjust the judge has rejected trump's request to dismiss this case against him, and they have set a date march 25th will be the first criminal trial based on what we know right now against former president donald trump, he was indicted last march on 34 counts of falsifying business records, ultimately doing that that was an illegal campaign contribution on the prosecutors. in the according to the prosecutor's argument. and now we have learned march 25th will be the day date of that court case. and paula reid and kristen holmes are here with me outside of this courthouse. obviously, this was a longshot bid, but i think what's key is what trump said right before you went in so that courtroom basically knowing that this was going to happen, as he said, he's also going to seek to delay this date that it was just said that's exactly right. and that's what they're doing right now. i think that the judge said, look, jury selection is going to start on march 25th. his lawyer, todd blanche, is advocating for a delay. he's calling it, quote, a grave

injustice to begin the trial well, then and he says it is a completely different landscape for president trump since of course, there have been additional indictments since this one came down, not only as he juggling these other criminal cases, but also a campaign and you and i were talking earlier, i had two questions, right? well, we get a date. we have a date now we'll see if it sticks and then how will trump behave and it was clear from his remarks that he's going to turn this case into a campaign rally. he is going to cry election interference. and i expect that we'll probably hear from him every day talking about how unfair this case is. >> i will say trump's team does not want to go to trial. anyone who tells you differently is not being honest with you. sorry about that. >> but if they are going to go to trial and a criminal case, this is the one that they he won because they believe that they can paint this as political. now, there's no cameras in the courtroom. it's going to require him making remarks that he owns properties here. he's going to be in new york. this is the case they believe is the most impactful that they can paint as political. >> what i think one important part though, is trump did make

a point outside of the courtroom when he said multiple things that were not true thank claiming that this is election interference when it's essentially the reverse that is being argued against him obviously a tried and true tactic of his to accuse people what he himself is accused of but he did say that there is no crime at the heart of this and making a hush money payment is not inherently illegal, but the new and novel theory that is being tested and going to be tested potentially as soon as march 25th is the alvin bragg's argument here that because he falsified business records to make a payment that was related to his campaign by paying off stormy daniel's that it was an illegal campaign contribution. as right. and sources close to the prosecution sayyed, they view this as an election interference hey, it's because they say that these payments were made to help donald trump's chances in the 2016 election. and therefore, this was a campaign contribution and should have been documented as such why he's charged with falsifying business records. look, that's an open question.

intelligent minds disagree about whether they will ultimately prevail on that legal theory even in front of a friendly manhattan now, unlike our colleagues down in georgia, of course, we don't have cameras in the courtroom. we are relying on updates from our colleagues inside the courthouse and it's interesting because they're talking about how there actually been conversations between this judge and judge tanya chutkan, who's the judge overseeing the federal case in dc, and it's gonna be interesting to see if trump picks up on that because that's completely reasonable. nobel for two judges to talk about. hey, i had to trial scheduled. of course, the january 6 case has been moved. this one, they're hoping to go forward. it's really interesting to see if trump's now starts to accuse the judge so just of any sort of collaboration because this is becoming really a topic of discussion where they can put this on the calendar that there's been coordination and what their complaint what we're reading this live feed right now is that they are arguing against this march 25 trial to trump's attorneys are saying that would be a grave injustice. as they called it, talking about that march 4 trial date that was initially that by judge chutkan in the

federal election interference case, which is now off the books, they're using that even though right now, we don't know when right? they're arguing that this shouldn't start march 25 because of a trial date that now no longer exists because if they don't even know when it will happen, remember they were celebrating when that came off the books because that was a case that they were also very concerned about that as a federal case in dc, that they believe that she wants to bring before the election and that they believe could cause problems for donald trump i do want to point out one other thing that trump said, just talking about using these as campaign stops in one of the things he said was that he could be out in south carolina campaigning. well, he actually could be he they waived his appearance of you here. he doesn't have to be here, by the way, after this. he's going back florida for days. so he's not going to south carolina right after this. he's choosing think to be are choosing to use these legal appearances as campaign stops. >> and it's interesting, we're getting some updates from our colleagues inside this, is where we're getting this information and the judge just cut off trump's attorney bernie

as they're sparring about the scheduling, saying, look, you don't have a trial date in georgia, true? they're currently talking about possibly disqualifying the prosecutor. she says you don't have a trial date in florida which is expected. there is one on the calendar is expected to push back and he doesn't have a trial in dc. so the judge is just rejecting this argument from trump's lawyers that they can't go to trial in this case. the late march. >> john, a notable moment. i mean, we are 46 minutes into this when we started this hour talking about the moment here and what this looks like, we have now large all right >> kayla, sorry to cut you off, but they are calling the first witness in fulton county, georgia. here. >> this is the courtroom and the case that >> will decide when maybe even if the various federal interference charges in georgia will go to trial, if there was prosecutorial misconduct between fani willis, the fulton county district attorney, and nathan wade, the lead prosecutor in that case. have

acknowledged that they had a personal relationship at issue is whether xi financially benefited from that personal relationship in the course of the case the first witness has been called for waiting for that witness. stick the stand. i believe it is a friend of fulton county, da fani willis, who will be on the stand. nathan wade, the lead prosecutor, has left the courtroom because other witnesses who might have to testify, him and sequester, let's listen for a second. >> i think the last exchange we'd had is that you can join us via zoom and apparently has elected not to do so. so i don't really know what else we can do with that. he was noticed that the hearing we provided them a link and we haven't heard from it at all. >> so i think we need to go forward >> all right? >> we have business documents that were certified in filed yesterday evening. sorry about this morning. emails council yesterday we wanted to make sure that this was part of the

record before you testimony >> the seating >> all right. and so in your mind, this satisfies full and counties subpoena in this case >> okay. if you could add that to ms merchant and we'll take it from there. >> and i don't know what ms monroe you can just provide some ms merchant and have you could just stay on call. will let you know if we need you again. okay? thank you. >> all right. >> we're bringing in maturity >> okay >> we are waiting for the first witness. to be called into the courtroom. here it is. robin brian urinate, a friend of fulton county, da fani willis. let's go to laura coates outside the courtroom so what's been happening so far,

john, we had an initial motion to quash, again, saying a last ditch effort. can we just drop this hearing can be moved past this? the judge said, no, this is going to proceed. the person they're now calling a longtime friend of fani willis, the da at the core and heart of this entire matter. and a former employee of the da's office, this is going to go forward. we're going to be rac nathan wade. the witnesses are asked to stand outside of the courtroom before their own actions. she wanted to testify. that tells you they don't want them tipped off or to add the information that they are asking you about in advance. they want them to have a fresh essentially moment here and not having moving everything relied on nick. this is really important, arad and right now, they tried one more time to say, let's not be here. the judge said we are here. they are going to die doubled down on this, and the defense attorney bringing this very motion seems very, very intent. >> well, they couldn't make it any more clear. the da's office is that they don't want to be here, they don't don't want to do this. they feel that

ashleigh merchant has brought this not in good faith. they believe that this is focused instead on this spectacle, this circus, and not necessarily getting to the bottom of whether or not fani willis financially benefited from this personal relationship or not, but rather to create a circus environment surrounding this case. they don't want to be here and they can hey, get any more clear. so again, like you said, last ditch effort to try to get this motion quash to try to keep wade from testifying today. >> surprising because we thought that it was maybe nathan wade is the very first witness. he's actually he was in the courtroom. right? the rats are supposed to wait outside the courtroom. he is in the courtroom. he's not going to go force. does that surprise you that he is not going to be the first word and testify. >> it does there's been a lot of back-and-forth over the last several days. yesterday, i spoke to asher merchant and she told me that her intention was to bring nathan wade first, that she was going to start with him. in fact, when i talked her, she was sketching out her examination of cross-examination of him. now that we see that robin gorani is going to go first it's interesting though, laura, because earlier in a hearing on monday, a hearing to try to quash this hearing the judge has said he wants terrence

bradley to go first and bradley is the so-called star witness of ashleigh merchant, the one that evidently has the goods that can prove that former law partner anything? paid fraternity brother, i believe as well. >> that's right. former law partner, fraternity brother, a man that represented him as well during his divorce proceedings in part. and this is the person who merchant believes would be able to prove that fani willis is lying about when this relationship started, and that's important because she says that this relationship began before he was hired as this special prosecutor in this case in a legal brief, fani willis said that this personal relationship began in 2022. who's telling the truth here? we saw a tense start to this day already, laura when back-and-forth with the da's office and merchant, they're accusing her of basically bringing gossip to the courtroom. >> they talk about sanctions potentially. again, sir, the judge said that she is now how i noticed that they obviously had this feeling about her, you know, interestingly enough, if the person who is a former law partner and fraternity brother of nathan wade would testify as some might argue thank you if he represented a minute

abortion, there's gonna be attorney-client privilege but it would be the nature of his knowledge prior to that relationship. that'd be the issue here right? at of having an attorney brittney at one point in your life does not say that everything is ever told this person is not is going to be covered. it could be very much fair game here. >> that's such an important point and that's what you saw the da's office? how did you here, say that some of the questions are probably going to be attorney client privilege and they want to stop this before it starts. they are adamant that this is not a good faith effort by merchant and i want to speak on merchant a little bit because a lot of people may not be familiar with she's the attorney bringing this case she's the one that first level of these allegations, she made them public about a month ago. merchant is not one of these so-called fringe conspiracy theorist, election denier attorneys. she has a tremendous amount of respect in neighboring cobb county. i've spoken to several people who know her they say she would not have brought this if she didn't have the goods. and i've been speaking to her, she says she knows nathan wade personally, and she really weighed this before she brought these allegations. she said there was the personal trouble

that she had in whether or not she wanted even bring these allegations, but she had the obligation as a defense attorney to give her client, mike roman, the former trump campaign official the absolute best defense. and in her eyes, bringing forward these allegations was that best defense? >> well, again, this john is going back the idea of disqualification not the heart of the allegations against the co-defendants in this case, but obviously, if fani willis were to be disqualified as a result of his ally nations and this action being broad, it would have the effect john, of having the entire team disqualified and the team that would come in next is not beholden, is not required. hired to follow what she wanted to do. the grand jury indictment and beyond, it could be very consequential. this is why this is so important today >> laura, we are waiting for that for what first witness? robert brian, you already robin brian urinary to come into the courtroom and take the stand. she's a friend of fani willis. you will be the first to testify. we haven't i georgia courtroom. we're going to talk mostly about that in a second

because these events are going on. but first i'm with elie honig, jennifer rodgers, and michael moore, three esteemed attorneys. i want to go back quickly to the major news that was just made it in new york and make one thing clear, donald trump just lost what he was trying to do today. he lost in what he was trying to do any lost very quickly his motion to dismiss the case. he was rule against very quickly in a trial date was just set for march 20. >> this is >> real this is happening now. it's 39 days away from today. they're going to start picking a jury about a mile from here down at the courthouse. and donald trump wants to avoid this, even though it's probably from his perspective, the least serious of the four cases he's still going to have a criminal trial happening according to this schedule. reconfirmed just now, in march, and i want to make an important point when we look at the overlap between the criminal case in the political calendar, donald trump, as the defendant, has to be in that courtroom. it's not optional. we've seen him sort of dip in and out of the e jean carroll case, the other civil case he has to be there. and this means if this goes as planned and the estimates seemed like this will be a two month or so trial. he will be off the campaign trail

in the courtroom in manhattan, march through april into may. and if jack smith's case gets back on track, we're looking at a summer trail. he could be essentially pulled off the campaign trail for 56 months consecutively, right in the heart of this it's campaign. >> and the thing is, remember, the courtroom is the campaign traveled john trump. he may not be unhappy with the fact that he'll go speak in front of those cameras every day on the way in there and jennifer, he is he presented a novel legal theory on his way in today. he said even if i am guilty of something, there is no crime, which in a way might be the campaign slogan for donald trump. even if i am guilty of something, there is no crime that's the type of statement that may get him in trouble with a jury as this continues. >> yeah. he's i think conflating a few things there. this notion of it's a misdemeanor if you falsify business records, it only becomes a felony if you do do that to cover up or commit another crime. so he's kind of getting his legal jargons missed mixed up there. but one important thing here, this has been on the calendar for a long time, but now it's done. there

is no delay from here, right there's going to be no appeals. there is no way like we saw in the federal election interference case goes up to the supreme court. that's not happening here this date, unless you have a longer than expected jury selection or something is going to happen. we're not seeing any more delays from here on out. so that's why it's such a big loss. michael moore, anything in the fact that the judge, juan merchan here vault right away. i mean, we were expecting a two-hour hearing here, maybe some arguments back and forth. now, this started today. this hearing started. he said, trump, your motion is rejected. right. and we're starting the trial march 25th. yeah. >> i wasn't surprised by that. and actually, when you heard trump making statements before we went into the courtroom, this may be the only time he's listened to his lawyers and they probably had already told him he was going to lose his motion, but gaza essentially conceded it go in and going into the courthouse. so i think it was a quick issue. no question. it was going to be denied and said, now, we're off i do think he will continue to use the courtroom as his campaign stump. i mean, that's what that's proceeds through it i think we will see that the idea that it's taking him off

the campaign trail, in this case, it might not apply because this is the campaign trail. kaitlan collins on the campaign trail outside the courthouse in new york. let's go back to her yeah, it looks a lot different than the campaign, charles that we've seen in the past, john, but it very well may >> be that and it's notable because this isn't the heart of what they here are arguing about right now inside that courthouse behind us. and paula reid and kristen holmes, essentially, what's happening in there, which is remarkable to me as, you know, politically trump is so angry that nikki haley is still in the primary that she has not dropped out yet, even though it's all but effectively over as what people look at what the numbers are right now, they are making the argument that this trial they say would be unconstitutional for to start march 25 and go onto six weeks as the judge is predicting, because it would be in the middle of this primary process that is still underway right now, primary process that they don't believe is actually happening, even talkanyone on trump's campaign. they believe he's going to be the nominee by mid-march, which

actually makes all hello, this poor striking that you will have if their math is right, it republican nominee, it's not just donald trump for his criminal trial. it's probably he's the first time i republican nominee will be having a criminal trial in the middle of a campaign cycle. but yet, we know that trump's lawyers are going to use whatever they can to try and delay these trials. we have seen it time to time again. >> of course, john is we're monitoring what's happening inside this courtroom. i know obviously there's a lot of developments also happening there in georgia as well. >> yeah. let's get right back to that core been fulton county where the first witnesses taking the stand, they've changed tactics here. the first witness is teran's bradley, the former law partner, to nathan wade. and there are some arguments being fielded here before he does testify. let's listen didn't having a restated with people >> and judge, i've carefully crafted my questions to avoid any privileged information. but if they think that i'm invading that, then i welcome an objection and i'm happy to address it. >> looks see how it goes and

again, mr. brownlee, i'll ask if you can just give a pause in between each question to allow counsel the opportunity to object before answering >> thank you, judge. was the witness warner drowning? >> i believe it was. great. thank you. i'm sorry. >> good morning. it's radley. how are you? >> good morning >> not happy to be here. i'm assuming >> i am not. >> i understand. thank you for being here. >> wasn't punctual. >> right? you were subpoenaed to come and testify in this case. >> i was >> and but you and i have spoken previously about relevant facts surrounding mr. wade and his relationship. >> no, we have not. >> we've not we've not texted about those facts >> drue a third party you were given some information uni >> shared texts >> our text, we're more so about my health more so about

whether or not that emphatically, i would not have been sitting in this position as being called as a witness. so that's what my text chain show. so no >> that we've never talked about willison wade having a relationship not directly you and i know we talked about my health. we talked about as a state for other things, but not this, no. >> okay. >> did you text me about

>> can you to ask the same question over ms merchan >> my half-measure, bradley, we do have this falls under the privilege 1.6 the attorney-client privilege is not something that >> rather. >> wait for barbosa information or communications proffered by the client.

>> mr. >> wade would have to wait them in other foods for bradley to continue to testify about this relationship? until it's been established when that privilege shouldn't have >> and so far though i haven't heard anything about it, relationship about an attorney-client relationship, about a privilege ever attaching. and i think that's going to need to be established before we can actually determine the scope of it and whether this falls inside or out of it. so i think either ms merchant can take the lead if she wants to, but my understanding was that generally has to fall on the person

>> operating is from >> and were you all actually

incorporated as a firm >> not initially know. he had when i pass the bar and i hang was shingle in 07 i think he had been practicing a few years prior to that. he had his own firm. we had two separate firms at some point, did you all incorporate though together? >> we did >> do you remember about when that was >> i do not at this particular moment or ma'am, i'm sorry. >> do you remember if it was administratively dissolved? >> i've been made aware that has been administratively dissolved. yes, i left the firm around two years ago. >> what did you leave the farm august of >> 20 i think it was august of 2022 okay. well, you see the august or september of 2022. >> okay. august, september. >> so in october 2019, were you

all incorporated as a firm >> i think we were maybe, yes. >> and when mr. wade filed for divorce, november 1 or second, 2021, or you all incorporated as a firm? >> we should have been i'm thinking that we were yes, ma'am. okay. >> when did mr. wade come to you to file the divorce action in cobb county >> that's privileged information that the timing and the beginning of the privilege. i don't believe that is so the timing was around 2018 and it was probably december of 22,018 remember it specifically because i was building a house and i noticed that he wasn't wearing his ring i asked him about it. i had invited him to the house because i was having

a not a house warming, but people over he wasn't wearing his ring. i inquired about it from there >> we discussed what would happen and we discussed the divorce and what will happen. >> well, what happened with the divorce? >> what will happen over over me representing him for the divorce and when when he would want to do it? yes. when did he retain you? >> well my memory may be 2018 when he consulted with me about the divorce until me what he would like to see done. and when he wanted to do it do you know when fani willis and nathan wade met specific dates?

know. i know it was sometime at a conference municipal court conference, correct and october 2019, if if it's been represented in in the state's pleadings before that. that's when they met. does that sound familiar? >> if that's if that's what they're saying, then absolutely. i know it was at a conference in 2000 i mean, it was at a conference. i don't if you say it's 2019, i'll take you to work. >> okay. so it was added what you're sure of though is it was at a municipal courts judges conference? >> yes. when they were both municipal court judges >> yes >> that's fair to say. since she became district attorney she was no longer municipal court judge, so it had to have been before that that they met? >> yes. yes. >> and he was teaching a class at that seminar as far as you know? >> i'm going to this deleting this point under >> was he teaching a class at this seminar? to my knowledge, he was and was ms willis to

your knowledge, attending this seminar, >> your honor, i'm going to object. he has no personal knowledge. he wasn't present at they put it in their pleadings. we are going to be here all day. >> we aren't going to be here >> you can establish that he would have some personal knowledge that's a fair question. so you just need to preface it with that. and that's fine. thank you >> are you aware of when they're >> romantic relationship began? >> i know i'm going to object to privilege. she says that he began representing mr. wade in 2018. he met ms willis in 2019. that's clearly within the bounds of attorney-client privilege, but there's understood, mr. body. so i think ms merchant, you need to qualify that question thank you >> i'm not asking you to tell me what nathan wade told you in furtherance of legal advice. okay. so i want to be very clear. if he i told you something asking you legal advice, i'm not asking you

about that. i'm asking about what you observed. what you saw, and what you knew outside of what he told you when he was specifically seeking legal advice for you apologize. >> again on mr. bradley, he's asserting that 20 client privilege associated with this case when removed 1.6 the drawing inference and statements that will be other proper of information after this relationship began between attorney and client december 2018 would be improper and you would in fact, the violating rules about his bar license so the way the question was phrased was just saying, what did he personally observe outside of the relationship? not involved in communications. how does that fall within attorney-client privilege? >> your honor. we like it or not, when we have a client, there were only member of items associated with that relationship between attorney and client that come within your purview and the rugae from your action program investigation further questions develops your strategy. we can't talk about mr. wade on

any level. it would be inappropriate. >> the divorces filed sometime >> thereafter during that entire inner loop, any of these issues could in fact, that basis well, their relationship to remain privilege >> this merchant judge, his observations are not privileged. that's not what the privilege law says. and i can i can read you the attorney privilege attorney-client privilege attaches where and this is the law. this is the rule there's an attorney-client relationship that communications in question relate to the matters on which legal advice was sought and the communications have been maintaining confidence. and there's no exceptions to the privilege. >> first a number to the second prong. this was not in furtherance of legal advice. that's not in further into legal advice. what he witnesses as a human being is not in furtherance of legal advice. unless i mean, if he witnesses them together, it would get rid of the attorney-client privilege because ms willis is there additionally, though

exceptions, we can go all day about exceptions to this fraud to the court. that's an exception >> mr. wade we contend >> has filed a false affidavit with this court that is fraud to the court. if this witness has direct knowledge that that is not true then that's an exception to attorney-client privilege >> all right? >> ms mirjana if you >> could re-ask that question again, qualifying it as it's i think you've qualified it as anything that outside of anything he learned or was told as a result of his representation, it was just any observations he made, which in my mind as you phrased the question would have included before december 2018 when this first just consultation occurred? i think if you can go step-by-step, we can handle this in, judge, i would just ask permission >> we gave the >> state notice under 611 that all of these witnesses do not want to be here. they are

adverse witnesses. i understand. yes. that's i'd like to have lee went to be able to cross the thank you, judge. >> all right. mr. robin? >> yes, ma'am. >> in you have knowledge that their relationship began in 2019? >> i do not have knowledge, but again, i have consulted with the bar as late as yesterday at 04:00 i am not here to your testimony is that you do not have independent knowledge. >> i cannot i was advised by the bar. there were 1.6 of confidentiality applies and i cannot reveal anything that i saw what learned and that if the court is asking me to do that that in an immediate certificate of review should be asked and so i'm not here to misrepresent to the court or to

say anything. inappropriate or anything. i am here because i also have a law license and i'm not trying to lose that. >> and so mr. barely, can you finish that thought? there's saw or learned? >> just period without qualification whatsoever judge. i'm going to refer to what i was told by the bar they rule 1.6, a confidentiality applies and i would be asking for an immediate review of the supreme court. sure. but applies to what any communications is what the person at the bar told us any communications like he did. he did not qualify to mr. wade. that's covered >> well, judge, i don't know >> he didn't go into those specifics. but this is what was told i was sitting there with my attorneys. and this was what

was told to us to state the rule 1.6 supplies and we gave them the scenario. and this is what they told us to do. and this is what i'm doing at this particular point object and we have no knowledge of the bar was aware of the affidavit that mr. wade filed, but that's significantly changes the privilege he waived the privilege you put that in the affidavit, so that's on the reasons i wanted to call him as a waiver. he put the relationship in the when the relationship started and put the relationship in his affidavit, he put a lot of information in that affidavit that would waive certain amounts of privilege. so he disclosed this relationship. so basically what we've got is we've got mr. wade being able to say what he wants about this relationship but then we're not allowed to ask questions to qualify that. so that's that's not how it works. they either get to admit it or they don't either privileged or it's not just talking about a relationship though. how does that open the floodgates, anything has ever told an attorney during representation?

>> it doesn't. and i'm not asking him that. i'm asking for his knowledge which they were law partners. and as i go through the questions, i think he has knowledge of things that is not something that mr. wade specifically told him. i also think there's a fraud exception to a lot of this, even if there was a privilege. but i don't think there was for most of it your honor, but he talked he hasn't acknowledged >> i don't think we would actually gotten anything to that extent. i think we're still making our way through it, which is i think he's taking the position that he's not willing to share anything mr. wade ever told him, period which that's a broader representation of attorney-client privilege than i've ever heard. >> and i think that's what we're trying to parse out is if there's the relationship starts, i've never heard anything that said everything before that point as privileged, geoff, something that i should know. yes, sir. >> that's fine with that relationship

>> last >> question was directly related to a point after that relationship. the client are you staff? >> he has taken from plague more jordan he's going to be required to testify about the core. >> many of these issues. >> and, judge, i >> understand how delicate this is. >> you can phrase it in >> 1,000 different ways to try to make him say something like you can't unring a though, that he puts out into the universe where he has violated that privilege, would make it to go back six months from now and say, oh, we shouldn't said that it's not acceptable, it violates hundreds of thousands of relationships in this state that we rely on an order to the justice system to function. this is an attorney-client privilege issue. we've done over diligence. we can as far as looking up the relevant law, relevant predation we do not have a waiver from the client. the client is present

>> there's there's no question why we're not barreling ahead of it because i recognize the privilege. what what we have to determine is actually what that privilege, the scope of it and when it started and i don't think we've even gotten close to that yet. >> i apologize. december 2018 mr. brando testified the right is one of the in the divorce proceedings before beginning issues then product by safe have to potentially if i've been so we haven't we have a starting point. but does that necessarily foreclose anything from that point onward? if they started talking about something else entirely, most divorce, of course not >> but during the >> pendency would absolutely her tail especially as it has to do with observation attendance in watching together, or other realizations that mr. bradley came into joining me, see if his representation harsh the parse it out. we put mr. bradley and

an untenable position because this means everything. >> okay. ms say? no. >> your honor. i think we're talking about two aspects. arguably the first to find the attorney-client privilege, which is controlled by case law and statute which deals with communications are i don't hear that being the objection. the objection. >> there are >> confidential matters under 1.6, which in some form or fashion meaning that once you start a relationship every client, that everything from that point on is confidential between two. there's no such case law in georgia that deals with confidential information that attorney client yes. confidential information. >> and i >> believe what's being argued by counsel radwan is that he has received of course, we

don't have anything in writing, but he's received some oral advice that under 1.6 confidential matters cannot be gone inches, which is everything that occurred between mr. bradley and mr. way from 2018 for there's no such law that protect such competence. >> only >> communications made in for five mistaken. i apologize. but i think what we're being told is i don't have to say anything at all about mr. wade. once i have an attorney-client relationship with him because it would be deemed confidential. if it's deemed confidential, i can't there's no such case. law to that effect in georgia. there is no bar rules that effect the only thing that the court has to do is say, are we talking about attorney-client privilege or pure confidences of an expert information once you decide as confidential information order. mr. bradley to testify and then it's up to his counsel to

decide whether he wants to have this biden held in contempt after you've ordered him tested and judged her statement? >> we have not said that he can't testify to anything the civic question on the table is what observations do you have? plaintiffs are weighing in this willis from that point on. now >> they defense and their teams have made an allegation of zone and propriety that same impropriety to be related to a divorce proceeding on every level. when i hear to say what talking we're going to see what i'm talking about, things that came with his knowledge associated within representation during the divorce i realized there's an evidentiary >> we are listening inside the courtroom in fulton county. here is what is going on. it all comes down to attorney client privilege. the person who was on the witness stand right now is the former law partner of nathan wade, who also was his counsel in his divorce proceeding. the attorney who is trying to get

fani willis is qualified, is trying to establish any communications outside of an attorney client relationship. why you're hearing a back-and-forth right now is all about when it started and whether communications in general are going to be covered or they're very limited in scope. now remember the privilege means for communications that you have in furtherance of legal advice. it's not everything that is covered. if i were to have an observation as an attorney, if i were to say what color shirt was that person wearing, what are they a fan of in terms of music? because you're the person's attorney does not mean that it's all communication. it's now covered. the attorney you're hearing right now is trying to establish that all the conversations that she's asking about are outside of the scope of an attorney client relationship. there's a lot of pushback including from the bar the bar association, who often gives advice to attorneys about what they can say and what they cannot. they're hearing a lot about them called rural 1.6. that's about confidential communications. bradley is

saying that he had advice from the bar that said he is not allowed to give out any information and has a very wide scope. he's talking about now. it's strange credulity to suggest that everything you have ever said to somebody before and after an attorney client regime has been established would be covered, but that's the argument in the court today. and the judge is trying to get the parameters in place. he is right now. you remember this testimony is so crucial. this witness is supposed to be the one to tell you about the existence of a relationship. >> they >> begin in the getting relationship when it started and whether the affidavit and filings that were made to the court or truthful or not. if he does not able to get the information in if that attorney cannot do this witness get it in, and fight another person and get it or they cannot make their case. it's a very important when we're hearing more right now from the judge it is so to speak, the bread

that was built to involve my client is she already hints in this >> matter altogether now it seems as though that is being usurped and now she is being the vote foundation for the defense counsels presentation this morning. so we do object to that, judge. and would renew our motion to quash the subpoena because this is completely contradictory to what we had via the hearing earlier this week, yana judge, merchan mr. partridge, as i recall, that did not apply, your fine as much the original motion to quash that you filed said she had absolutely no knowledge about anything. what ms merchant proffered and why didn't hear you saying was not the case, is that at some point maturity lived in a residence and shared a resonance with ms willis and potentially mr. wade at some point. so i think she's directly involved in the center of this. i don't think that really needs much in the way of foundation

>> judge. >> i apologize honor. to talk over the court that that information, however, yana is my understanding, came from mr. bradley and then information was incorrect. i have informed the court early this week as well, there was never any time that majority and ms willis lived together. there was a sublet i'm a condo that was willis resided in that had absolutely nothing to do with that. if ms she already outside of majority subletting, it to ms willis, mentioned already actually moved into a different residents per our conversation with ms merchant yesterday that is exactly what it is. so there was no overlapping or anytime that they stayed together, nor does ms you already have any information as it relates to mr. wade staying at that condo as well with that of ms willis. so again, i'm renewing. >> we don't inherit again, mr.. >> luckily, i don't have to tell the state or them everything that i plan on

introducing a witness for in response to their motion to quash, she has a lot of personal knowledge and when we had a motion to quash, i had to get over a good faith basis and i presented that to the court i did not spend four hours going for everything that was warming is going to testify. >> he has personal knowledge, >> but she actually here i think she's on zoom what i understand mr. partridge, mr. darcy is your client, with us? >> she is. she's on the zoom platform beyond her since i'm in richmond county via my conflict. >> the next amendment, the directions. >> that's fine. only objective >> was

>> that was not in regards to maturity, just certainly was it wasn't like the 20-minute mark she has personal knowledge of this relationship, not what was represented on monday or no knowledge came from mr. bradley. she has no good faith basis to explore this vision. fishing expedition as it relates to this this is a blatant mr. abbas ms merchant do believe that when we went through the motion of quash, there were you group them into two categories in each one of them, we said that they were going to be impeached by mr. bradley >> there were well, we took mr. already outside of fulton county, judge, so we talked about fulton county differently then this uri you took place you're out separately. she wouldn't front then fulton county because there wasn't other issues and again, we're arguing a motion to quash. i responded to their argument on the motion to quash.

>> do >> did i tell them that she's going to testify that she's known ms willis for years and that her middle name is litres no, i didn't tell them everything she's going to test it by two. i don't like if you wanted me to, i could have. but that has nothing to do. there's a witness that contradicts what they have said in court they're doing everything they can to keep her off the stand and keep a truth away from this court. they filed a motion to quash. >> still a good faith basis. there's no law that says i have to tell them every single good-faith basis i have ahead of time. if we did, we wouldn't ever have trials. >> arm as merging. appreciate the argument, council. i think these on a motion to quash the subpoena is not one where we're required to completely flush out and litigate every reason to witness may be relevant so we'll take these one at a time with ms i'll deny the motion to quash. and if you're election

election and to proceed in your presentation of the evidence is to call her. >> then that's what we'll do. >> thank you, judge. mr. riley, you may be excused for now. thank you. but subject to recall we will call this uri >> what we have just seen now is the former law partner, fraternity brother and counsel for nathan weighed leave the witness stand. he might come back, but they're not going to deal with the issue of attorney-client privilege right now there instead calling via zoom the witness they wanted to call initially, you already this is somebody who was executive assistant of fani willis, who now they're saying actually has personal knowledge of any relationship to start of it, other information that would actually give more color to what they're trying to prove here. why she is more impactful at this juncture than say mr.

bradley, is that there was not an attorney-client relationship so there's never the parameters to define whether what you're talking about in court is in fact subjects that attorney-client privilege and problematic. and remember, the attorney-client privilege does not belong to the attorney it belongs to the client, nathan wade is not allowed to happen. let's listen in. college. >> so 19 or 91 >> and have you been friends since 1990 or 91? >> yes >> when was the last time you spoke with ms willis >> march of 20. march of 2022, from 1991 till 2022, were you what you would consider good friends with? as well as yes and did you all share personal information regularly >> yes

>> and did you even come and work with her at the da's office >> yes >> and when she needed a place to stay a did you let her stay at your apartment? your it was a condo, right? >> condo, yes. >> do you remember approximately when she moved into your car? >> it was april 2021. okay. great. >> and you know that ms willis and ms wade he'd met at a conference in october of 2019. >> i'm going to object to that, your honor, without a foundation for how this witness would know that if ms merchant can establish he had personal information of that then certainly that's something the witnesses can testify to. but if it's sheer, ms cross. all right merchant degree laid the foundation do you have information that ms willis and mr. wade met in october of 2019? >> i'm going to renew my objection, your honor. information does not source to personal information. if the

question can be rephrased, then that may address my concern >> so, judge, let me i just want to make sure that i understand so they've objected to me calling listen, wage was just a matter of foundation. if you can just rephrase. >> do you have knowledge of when willis and wade matt i'm going to object again, personal not overruled. >> thank, you >> do you have personal knowledge of when willis and wade met >> yes. okay. she told me that they met at a conference. i don't >> know what i'm going to renew my objection, your honor. clearly, this is not firsthand information from this witnesses hearsay that was she said she told me, yes, it's its statement against interest, judge, if ms willis just boss, i'm sorry. >> okay. mr. cross? >> the representation of the witness, testimony to witness was ms willis district attorney willis had a conversation with her >> there is no statement >> against interest. district attorney willis is not a party opponent in this case. >> that

>> information that the witnesses testified you came from ms villas, and there's we have a years i've decades. >> why wouldn't you? she'd be >> considered a a party opponent in this context >> is a representative of the state, your honor, this isn't private litigation or civil litigation. obviously, the closer where this is. >> ms willis is not on trial. ms willis has not is not party to the litigation outside her obligation to pursue criminal charges for the state ms merchan, i guess i guess it's it's evolved into a hearsay objection. >> yes, judge. and we plan on calling ms willis to the stand. she's under subpoena. so here's say will be cured. if there was a hearsay objection as to far as that issue but we do still think that it's a statement against interest. >> ms willis has filed a document that states that they met at this municipal court conference. >> so i think maybe i can streamline little bit state will stipulate that district attorney willis and mr. wade met in october 2019 at the

judicial conference that we've been talking about. there's no reason to get it secondhand from this witness. that that's true. >> all right. you accept the stipulation was merchan? >> yes. >> all right. my permanent than >> two to ask questions about that since it's now not hearsay >> if it's just do a stipulation that was just that basic fact. i don't think we need a question if there's a follow-up, i think is admissible. go for it. >> ms erd you have personal knowledge that ms willis and mr. wade began their romantic relationship soon after this time that they met at the municipal court >> i'm going to object to that question. that certainly is a leading question. no foundation has been laid for how this witness would have personal knowledge of that. and until that's happened in the state, objects judge. >> you do a yes or no and then follow up with how she knows >> do you know if ms willis and mr. wade started dating in october of 2019?

>> i don't know if it was october. of 2019 >> could it possibly be november of 2019 >> could possibly. okay >> and when we spoke, you said it was shortly after the municipal court conference that correct? >> yes. okay. >> so you know that their relationship, their personal relationship began shortly after this municipal court conference? >> yes. >> and when i say personal romantic is that i just want to make sure we don't get in an argument over what personal and romantic is later when i asked you personal, do you take that to mean romantic? >> yes >> and do you understand it that their relationship began in 2019 and continued until the last time you spoke with her? >> yes

>> and you were essentially her best friend during this time, right >> that desperate good friend. okay. close friend and so would you frequently socialized with her >> yes >> and you saw at work every day? >> yes. >> so you had a chance to see them interact together on a personal level >> yes. >> and so from everything that you saw, heard, witnessed, is your understanding that they were in a romantic relationship beginning in 2019 >> yes >> and when you left the da, i'm sorry. let me ask you. you said that ms willis came to live with you in april of 2021? i'm sorry, april 1, 2020 or 2021 >> i never >> okay. i'm sorry. she took over your lease in april april 1, 2020, correct? >> no, 2021. 20. okay. i'm i

had it both ways, so i'm glad you clarified so when she took over your lease in april 1, 2021, it's your understanding she moved out of the house that she was sharing with her father and started staying at the condo yes and is it your understanding that that's because she needed to have her own space >> yes. >> away from her father? >> yes >> okay. >> when you left the da's office, was it where you fired >> know i resign. he resigned. okay. >> one. >> can you tell us why you resigned to the da's office >> the number of things i was happening a number of things

that were happening. is that what you said, ma'am? >> yes. >> okay >> what was >> happening that they caused you to resign as a spiral of things. so i guess the lash is i was put in a department that i knew had no knowledge about something happened and i didn't like it. they didn't like it. >> and that was it. >> okay >> did you have any falling outs with ms willis? >> well we never spoke after that university of craft about okay >> so >> you're without going into all the painstaking details, there's no doubt in your mind that from 2019 until 2022 ms

willis and mr. wade we're in a romantic relationship let's the question. >> you have no doubt that there romantic relationship was in effect from 2019 until the last time you spoke with her? >> no. dow >> and that's based on your personal observations and obs and speaking with them and seeing them together and things like that >> yes. >> no other questions. thank you. the other the other folks may have some questions for unisphere so don't go to >> if it's more than a couple of questions than shar'ar. but if now you count, court reporter, hear me. okay? >> very specific. >> did you talk with ms willis about her romantic relationship with mr. way? >> yes. >> ms willis, tell you on more than one occasion that she was engaged in a romantic relationship with mr. wade prior to you leaving? >> district

>> attorney's office >> did she tell me on did i observe >> i'm straight right now with to tell me >> yes. >> did she tell you that in the year of 2020 >> yes. >> in the year of 2021? >> yes. >> are you certain that this way told you i'm sorry, ms willis told you about romantic relationship with mr. way prior to november 1 of 2021? >> yes >> now, did you also have observations of mr. wade and ms willis together prior to november 1 of 2021? >> yes. >> and are those observations were those in a social setting? >> yes. >> 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 qizan this infection. >> all we're all before november 1st of 2021, correct? >> yes. >> that's all i have. >> stocks >> man thank you to say that there was a period of time with you in this those live began know >> mr. durham know nothing for me here on it, which we do go nothing, your honor. mr. rice >> morning, ms he already are you were you aware in 2021 of any trips? social trips that ms willis and mr. wade took together >> no >> you aware of any social trips that ms willis and mr. wade took together in 2022?

>> no >> are you aware of them in 2024, 2021, extending the evening together overnight? >> no >> mr. guillen know like mr. mccullough and mr. chroma of questions you're on this cross i. >> do ask some questions. thank runner. >> is already we haven't met before. is that correct >> correct. >> you're able to see and hear me. okay >> yes. all right. >> i want to start with a couple of things now. i think you've made it clear that you never lived and we'll call it the south fulton address. the south fulton condo that you releasing you never lived at that address with the district attorney willis, correct? >> permanent. >> and never at anytime? >> never. all right >> you never observed or have any information about district attorney wade and district

attorney willis and nathan wade living together, correct >> correct. >> you have any information about that? >> no, i don't. >> anybody said that that information was sourced to you then that's incorrect >> that's incorrect >> did district attorney willis pay rent at that establishment at that condo while you while she lived there and you were living elsewhere? >> yes. >> who paid the rent? >> she >> nathan wade, ever pay the rent? >> know and you never told anyone otherwise >> i didn't have to i didn't hear your answer there. ms erd, did you ever tell anyone otherwise? >> no. >> all right >> let's talk for a second about your time at the district attorney's office. you were disciplined several times in the district attorney's office during your employment, their correct? >> no. >> you weren't written up ever for poor performance. is unity

once next several one time you written up for poor performance where you counseled. several times about your performance in the district attorney's office that was sub-par. >> know >> the district attorney tell you that your performance was insufficient and that you were going to be fired? >> no. >> that never happened >> no. maybe where we went at the end what's the question >> the. question is already was did the district attorney ever counsel you on your poor performance in the district attorney's office prior and informed me that you were going to be fired and we >> know how to answer that. >> i'm looking for the truth

>> i don't really know. i mean, the situation happened wasn't my fault. and i though was gone resign or be like, so you understood that that was the situation you could resign or you could be let go correct yes you were not welcome to stay >> no >> the conversation where you were informed that you could resign or you could be fired that conversation was not the first conversation you had with the district attorney about your poor performance in the office, correct? >> well, it was kind of a spiral, but no >> yeah, it was whatever the situation was question understood, mr. sadow was gross >> ms >> the >> circumstances of your leaving the district attorney's office, ended your

friendship with the district attorney willis, correct? >> yes. >> you all haven't spoken since >> all right. i want to talk about the representations that she made here. this morning, ms uridine, about any relationship between attorney willis and mr. wade? i want you to tell me what was the first time >> any let me ask you this way. you said that district attorney willis personally informed you of the romantic relationship. is that what you testified to >> yes. >> when did that conversation that you purport to have to recall? when did that happen? >> i mean, i don't have a month or day. we talking just talking in general

>> you'd like, to keep this witness under subpoena, but does all the questions i have right now? >> all right. thank you, ms cross? >> and i mean, redirected, sorry. >> all right. on those points only the state asked you a lot about when you were let go, when you resigned did something happen as far as purchasing that you didn't feel comfortable with purchasing thing? things through the county from ms willis that caused you to not be comfortable working there anymore >> no >> i didn't tell you how to testify here today, though, right? rent and everything you've testified to is from your personal knowledge? >> yes. okay. >> and you've told the truth here today? >> yes. okay. >> judge, i believe she's only under my subpoena and i'm fine releasing her from that oh, on sorry. the question by show of

>> hands from other council, starting with mr. sadow i believe the doors that open down to ask this particular witness about statements as well as made to her she brought it up on cross-examination on the company patients in this willis say this or in phobia with that. so i have to now ask her questions correctly about what visible it was told her about romantic relationship i think we'll take those one at a time. >> question. my question that we can address those to see. i don't i don't know about a complete opening of the doorbell. >> we'll see where we go the first time that you spoke to ms willis about her relationship, romantic relationship with mr. wade. you haven't to remember what ms willis said, in essence, not word for word in essence, what you've said? >> no. >> do you remember the first time she told you whenever worked for you that there was a romantic relationship? >> is this the >> kind of conversation that you had with your best friend ongoing over a period of time

in which it was common knowledge to you that there was an ongoing relationship between this wells and mr. wade? >> what's the question? >> i'll ask him is the nature of your venn relationship with ms willis such that you were having these ongoing conversations? best friend type conversations about her relationship with mr. way down, remember >> not getting any further in much detail is there any doubt adult that mr. wade, ms willis and romantic relationship as was told to you? prior to november of 2020 shift, she was already asked that question by ms merchant. i just didn't know whether that needed she said she said no, no doubt. >> all right. any other defense >> counsel by show of hands? >> seeing none last recross from ms cross. anything else? >> not the time you're on it,

but we've asked the witness remain under subpoena and subject to recall that she's under my subpoena and i'm releasing they want to subpoena her gross >> i would prefer that the court keep render subpoena given the representation of ms margin, given how she intends to proceed today than this witness may need to call all right. >> understood in the interests and knowing that we may have to bring witnesses back-and-forth. i think it's an the interests of effective presentation of the evidence here ms you already you are still going to remain under the auspices of your subpoena and so please stay in touch with your attorney. we may need you to rejoin us on zoom at some point today or tomorrow. understood >> okay. all right. don't discuss your testimony with any other potential witnesses. all right? >> all right. you can log off. >> and, judge, i'd ask can mr. partridge stay on for just one moment? >> for what reason >> the state i made some allegations that i misrepresented some things to

the court, and i just liked the opportunity to clear that up, that mr. partridge is the one that told me that they lived together for a month. they've they've called me everything but a liar today. and so i just think that it's appropriate for for everyone to know where that information came from. or ms merchant, i think you've made your position clear. that's i don't think we wanted me to get sidetracked on that all right. ms much, do you can call your next witness? >> mr. be excused, as well, please. all right. take care, mr. partridge. >> all right >> ms gross? >> so we've been hearing the testimony of the former assistant or a friend of finding willis and a former employee of the district attorney's office. we're hearing a lot of back-and-forth. she did confirm that she in fact, had personal knowledge that nathan wade, and fani willis had been in a personal romantic relationship? as early as 2019 up until they stopped communicating following her resignation from the da's office in 2022. really important testimony coming in today, although she was challenged a number of times on

the reason she resigned trying to establish some kind of an ax to grind. nick valencia is here with me right now. nic, there were some pretty important moments, just an honor testimony. and by the way, she's they're under subpoena. no one seems to want to be in this courtroom, not mr. bradley, not nathan wade, not fani willis certainly not this witness via zoom as well. tell me about the most important moment to you took a lot of time for us to even get to this. yet know what seemed to want to testify or talk. it's really important because leading up until today, ashleigh merchant, the defense attorney for mike roman, who brought these allegations to light. she said she proved can prove to lives one, that they cohabitate it, that fani willis and nathan wade live together. the other is that she can prove that they are misrepresenting when this relationship began. and it's very important ford and what we just heard here, this was teed up to be a major de, defining day. and we just heard some very dramatic testimony that seems to contradict specifically what fani willis put in a written legal brief responding in court in writing, submitting this document to court saying that

this happened, this relationship, this personal relationship, began in 2022. what we just heard, something that contradicts that. we heard that it actually began in 2019 and that is very important. >> i was surprised though for the questioning. there wasn't more information that was extracted about the nature of why she believed that she could kept being asked, is there any doubt in your mind? i mean, they should have gone further. what did you see when did you see affection, hugging and kissing, but there should have been more testimony about this very notion also, the cohabitation part of this neck we know that she was leasing an apartment of some kind of sublet to fani willis through her own testimony, she did not say they go habitated, was not aware of the actually living together but she said she was aware of finding was leaving her father's home to then have her own space the intimation, of course, is the why she wanted her own space that was not brought out natural testimony let me know and we'll potentially hear more of that from other witnesses because there was the safe house that was brought up in legal filings where it is alleged that fani willis and nathan wade cohabitating they're by ashleigh merchant and her in

her briefs and her filings. >> but do we know if that quote unquote, safe house was actually that we have nathan wade coming into the courtroom by the way. as watch him. as he's coming into the stands but listen to what he might be saying. remember everyone had to be out of the courtroom until they had to testify. here. he is taking the stand about to have the oath thanks. nathan wade, in a tha nwa de. >> good morning, mr. wayne. >> good morning. >> prior filing this motion to disqualify you and i were friends yes. and in fact, i supported you when you ran for doj in 2016, you did. i wear your shirts? my kids wear your shirts. >> merchant finds your personal opinions have no relevance i mean, them the best way that's really fine. >> thank you >> totally. fine. thank you. >> you filed >> for divorce from your wife on november 2, 2021? >> yes, ma'am.

>> and in that divorce proceeding, did you file answers, things such as interrogatories or did okay. so interrogatory are where you responding to things that basically answers that the other side of asking yes, ma'am >> and i've got your complaint for divorce. i'm just going to market for the record as defendant's exhibit to the first interrogatories that you answered, those were december 27, 2021. is that right >> about in those you were asked different things, but those are sworn. you actually swear to those, you verify them, right? yes, ma'am. okay. >> and so that verification is where you're swearing under oath and everything in it true? >> yes, ma'am >> and let's see the you were asked if you had any documents which relate to the purchase of gifts by you to any person other than the defendant with whom you have or had a relationship, romantic

relationship from the date of your marriage, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and you responded under oath that you didn't have any documents to that. that's correct. >> you again, responded to an interview regulatory you updated those responses on may 30, 2023 and you actually send those directly to opposing counsel. and the divorce yes ma'am >> but in that one, you answered none against that question, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> so may 30, 2023, you said that you didn't have any documents showing any purchase of anything with someone that you had a romantic relationship with >> i believe the interrogatory was gifts not anything >> and i haven't i'm going to mark. okay. so just for the record, i've got your complaint for divorce marked as number two. i've got the verification and the interrogatories from 2021. i'm

going to mark those as three. and then you're may 30, 2023. i'm going to work for judge me effort to witness >> that is >> just for thank you, judge >> all if you take a look at what i marked 23.4 you recognize i do and are those that's your divorce complaint and then you're 2021 interrogatory enter 2023. interrogatory, correct? >> yes, ma'am. okay. are they a fair and accurate representation of what is filed in that case? >> yes, ma'am. add moved to

admit those into >> and this is 23.4, it's 23.4, yes. >> all any objection from the state? >> the divorce >> want no objection to 3.4 and subject to ms merchants representation that too is a filing of divorce. i just don't the horse complaint. i don't have that in front of me. that subject to that representation. >> all right. and by show of hands, any objection from other defense council seeing none doing his 23.4 >> this should be romans flowable. just saw him to 3.4, admitted without objection. >> that interlocutory that you filed in 2023. that's the one where you said no, that you didn't have any documents relating to the purchase of gifts that you had a romantic relationship with someone, right? number, which interrogatory number for 2023. what's number in the interrupt number four so which number

interrogatory are you referring to? >> it's defendant's exhibit number four? >> i have defense exhibit four here, >> which number >> interlocutory are we owe? >> which number out of the questions? >> yes, ma'am >> 24, 25, 26 >> having >> it's supposed to be number

>> i guess they're all numbered one. so number one? number one again. and then the third number one >> i don't know how to tell you what. number one, because when you responded, you put number one on all of them. >> point to it >> i'm talking about this number one, where there's two number one >> okay. >> and then page number, but it is the second page. >> all right >> you're asking if you have any receipts for restaurants, hotels, bars, things like that

>> the first number one, i believe it's the second number one. second number one. >> okay >> not asked to you. if you have any receipts for things like restaurants, bars, and hotels, things like that? where are you accompanied? a member of the other sex romantic partner >> correct >> identify any and all occasions and so it says to identify any and all occasions where you >> entertained a member of the other sex who's not in related to blood and including dining, drinking restaurants, bars, pubs, hotels. all that and what was your answer to that?

>> none? >> not okay. so may 30, 2023 prepared you prepared this document? >> i did submitted it, and >> it says none. as far as entertaining a member of the opposite sex. >> okay. >> no hotels, no bars, no restaurants? correct. okay >> you again updated that. >> let's say you updated it >> on december 22, 2023 i'm gonna mark that as defendants number five. >> and i have copies >> is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. okay. >> and then you updated at once again on january 26, 2024, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> not one my personal witness, again, judge, is that what you're marking his defense exhibit six? >> yes, judge. i'm marking number >> six is the january 26, 2024 interrogatory. and then one not

one. >> and then number five is the december 22, 2023 interrogatory response. >> all right. are you tendering those at this time? yes >> i the objection from any council does defense exhibit 5.6? yes. no object thank you. must cross same amount. others >> lot so now that you have those, let's just talk about those for a minute. those were verified. so sworn under oath. >> okay. >> and one of them was december 22, and then of this last year, so last december and then one was just recently submitted in january, right? >> okay >> in may may 20, let's see, may 10, 2023, doj thompson heard of motion to compel in your divorce case as well, correct? >> yes. >> and you were actually held in a willful content. >> i'm going to object to the

relevance. >> merchant. >> his credibility is relevant charge. and if he was held in woelfel contempt for failing to provide answers and documents. i think that's relevant to this court. >> how is that a prior false act or chronic conviction or anything else allowed for impeachment and those lebanon's i'm not offering it as a prior bad act or something like that. i'm offering at towards his credibility, judge, which you get to determine if he's made misrepresentations in these pleadings you're here to determine whether or not he's telling the truth or not. so if another court has held him in contempt and that's part of the divorce proceeding. i >> think it's relevant, but just contend generally can be for many different things like a failure to produce is not necessarily a false act, right? >> right. and he's welcome to explain that it may not have to. >> ms cross >> i object to the relevance of that. that's clearly not in a proper impeachment >> were >> going pretty far afield into divorce matters that don't have any direct relevance. anything that maybe for the fourth object to the relevance of that mean for all right, we're not seeing that being a problem for impeachment

>> sustained. >> let's talk about this december 20 2023 verification. i tapped it for you again they asked you if you had any documentations showing proof of this relationship, proof of any relationship, correct? >> i'm going to object to the phrasing of that question that i don't believe that's accurate. read of the interrogatories. >> let's be precise. and as merchant you please read it. i want to make sure i'm accurate. please read it. >> which number? >> this one actually has a number. i tapped it for you, so you should be able to open right to the page. it's number 22 the question specifically is if you have any tangible evidence of any nature in your possession or control or any other person or entity which relates to any manner of your activities to any person with whom you've had a sexual relationship? >> during your marriage. tangible evidence is notes, cards, letters, photos, films, recordings, documents, tapes, video recordings, receipts invoices, and other tangible evidence

>> yes >> and you answered that you did not have any documents to that effect, correct? >> correct. >> and that was on december 22, 2023 >> yes, ma'am >> you updated those responses again after the motion to disqualify was filed, though, correct? >> when was the motion filed? >> january 8, 2024. when i filed the motion to disqualify you and alleged that you had a romantic relationship with ms willis yes. after that, you updated these responses, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and so your new responses, you now change your answer from that. you didn't have any of this to your asserting a privilege under 245505, correct? yes, ma'am. >> and both of these or under oath >> yes, ma'am >> you also updated your response to the question about spending time with someone other than your spouse for dinner, drinks things that

restaurants, bars, hotels, or the other person's home, correct? >> yes ma'am >> so in december of 2023, you said no to all that. and then in january after i filed motion, you said privilege to all that fifth amendment privilege? >> yes, ma'am. okay. >> and i just to be clear, wasn't it? >> i'm going to affect the characterization that fifth amendment privilege back to a privilege. and that's why >> it's why i was just about to ask him that privilege covers infamy or fifth amendment privilege, correct. >> so it was a privacy privilege is what? updated my response to do once you file your motion to intervene in my divorce action, then figured that you were in talks with my former wife's divorce lawyer. okay. and because of that, i asserted a privacy privilege because i didn't want the proceedings of my divorce to bleed over into the proceedings in this case, which is the case that obviously you're involved

in your answers in december of 2023, that you didn't have any documents about any travel that each up with ms willis that wasn't true they didn't ask me about any documents or regarding ms willis a romantic partner >> they asked you for >> documents regarding a romantic partner, so i'm sorry. i inserted ms willis's name. let me rephrase the question. >> they asked you for >> documents about travel with a romantic partner in december 2023? so under oath said you did not have any of those, correct? >> i did not. okay. and they asked me about gifts, never purchased a gift for his lips. >> and they asked you about receipts for dinner, receipts for drinks, hotels, bars, and restaurants. and you said you did not have any of those? >> i did not. and do not have any receipts for any of those things. okay. and part of the >> civil discovery, they say that even if you don't have it in your pocket, if it's within your purvey, you gotta get it and give it to them, correct? >> i'm going to object to get into the relevance of the questions about the scope of civil discovery. i think she's

asked him about statements he made them pleadings >> the answers >> are already in the record and to the extent you're trying to establish a prior ms truth ms merchant, all i ask a few more follow-ups, but it's not there. we have to move on. thank you. >> so in >> 2023, december, you said you didn't have any receipts >> instead of being south carolina and other states? campaigning, i'm stuck here tonight, shouldn't interference case. nobody's ever seen anything like it in this graduates a disgrace disgrace. hello situation, action i will just have to figure it out i'll be here during the day and i'll be campaigning during the night. a biden should be doing the same i'll be sleeping. this is all from the doj. this all comes out of washington they're

coordinated with the district attorney and the case tomorrow, which is the rick deal, is all coordinated with the district attorney and it's coordinated with the attorney general of new york, letitia james i wanted to be ashamed whatever itself to scam paying for years of trying to get trump without knowing anything about me. it's all a rigged it's a rig state, it's a rig city as a sham. >> what they ought to do is hello up and take care of the violent crime and the migraine crimes that's destroying people and killing people. not a case that everybody says you. take a look in that affidavit >> lose swore under oath, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and in that affidavit, you swore that well first of. all do you recognize the affidavit >> i do. >> okay. >> did you sign the affidavit under oath? >> i did. >> and you gave this affidavit

specifically to refute the allegations that i had raised yes, ma'am. >> nobody forced you to sign this? >> no, ma'am. >> you chose to sign it? >> i did. >> and you signed it on purpose to admit into court refute allegations. >> i do. >> you signed it specifically to prove that you were not in a relationship with willis prior to november 2021, correct? >> correct >> and you were a lawyer when you signed it, and you're still a lawyer that correct. when were you barred >> 1999 i and you believe that your relationship with ms willis is subject to attorney-client privilege, correct >> i'm going to object to that, your honor. i don't think that's factually correct. i don't think that's a relevant question, and i don't think it's appropriate to quiz question this witness about the scope of his attorney-client privilege you've gotten an attorney who can speak for her for that, but questioning a witness appropriate all right. so a lot to unpack there

>> the the question is simply the does he believe there's a relationship that exists in terms of attorney-client privilege between him and ms willis is that accurate? >> but it was i asked if he believed his relationship with ms willis is subject to attorney-client privilege. >> okay. i don't see why yes or no would be barred. >> i'm maybe i'm not maybe i'm not understanding the question. if if the question is does mr. wade and district attorney willis has an attorney client relationship? it is not there's no foundation for that if the question to the witnesses does his relationship with district attorney willis impact >> his attorney-client relationship with his divorce attorneys that i don't think it's an appropriate question for that for that witness. >> first, >> if the first i believe is a proper praising, the second, i think there's been a representation that mr. wade preserves and doesn't wave anything. so i think asking him particular questions in order to potentially backdoor a

waiver is inappropriate all right. >> if we're just trying to again, assess where a privileged does or does not exist and we're not actually getting into it. i think that's we can establish those you know parameters, but ms merchant, can you rephrase the question based on that concern and we'll see where we are. >> yes. >> do you believe you that your relationship with ms willis is subject to an attorney-client privilege? not a few. and ms willis have one. but do you believe that that relationship is subjected to i'm going, to object to that question as it phrased, in what contexts any conversation with his attorneys is privileged. >> that i think is clear what's not clear to me from that question is is that ms martin asking in the context of your communication with your attorneys, is that is that outside that context? >> right >> especially

>> i think we need to figure out what what are we getting out with this. i'm going to try to figure out of he thought that their relationship is subject to an attorney-client privilege. i mean, it's been a started. i think it's gonna be asserted and that was all his asking. >> i mean, the the actions themselves wouldn't be at issue. it's more communication >> someone saw them, someone had knowledge of it. is that attorney-client privilege? i want to i guess i would fund his legal opinion on this is it relevant? we can deal with that as it comes up. so sustained >> in 2022, in this affidavit you swore that you and willis develop a personal relationship? yes, ma'am >> and you said that that didn't that didn't develop until 2022, correct? >> that's correct. >> and that's different from what you said in your pleading in may 2023, in the divorce case, correct? >> no, ma'am. >> in may 2023, when you were asked if you had a if you'd had any affairs essentially you said none. >> that's correct >> so in may, you said you had not in may 2023, in the divorce

case, you said you had not had a personal relationship on a fair a romantic relationship with anyone? >> just correct. >> but you told this court in the affidavit that you did have one that started in 2022? so that would have been ongoing at 20:23. >> so here i think there's a distinction. if you allow me to explain the interrogatory asked the question during the course of your marriage or to date, it actually says request that the witness be committed >> mr. wade so my marriage was irretrievably broken in 2015. ma'am, by agreement my wife and i agree that once she had the affair in 2015 that we'd get a divorce we didn't get a divorce immediately because my children were still in school and i refuse to allow them to grow up without their father at the so we waited waited until

the youngest graduated and we dropped her off at college and been filed for divorce so you're asking me about the interrogatory as it relates to having the 2022 relationship with disk attorney willis i want to say because my marriage was irretrievably broken i was free to have a relationship >> so the question though was if you had had relationship and in 2023, you said you did not, and that is different than what you said in this affidavit, correct? >> no, ma'am. i said during the course of my marriage, so we believe that to let it finish, ms motion. so in 2015, my marriage was irretrievably broken so i did not have a relationship with anyone during the course of my mac >> and in that interrogatory, they asked you if you had any receipts for travel with someone of the other stacks up

until the time you were answering? is that correct? yes, ma'am. >> and you said that you didn't you've already testified to that earlier, but in this affidavit, you said you swore that you had travel expenses and shared expenses on travel with ms willis? >> again during the course of my marriage, i had no relationship or receipts. >> i'm not asking about during the course of your marriage on i'm going to ask me for witnesses to answer the question. >> i have no problem with unanswered >> as it relates to receipts today. i don't have any receipts, man so you don't have any travel receipts available to you for any travel that you did with ms willis? >> i don't have any receipts. no, ma'am >> no receipts that you're you used your business credit card for these trucks, correct? >> i use my credit card for everything. >> okay. yes

>> you use your free kid's tuition? >> yes, ma'am. >> use it for personal travel with ms willis? >> yes, ma'am. >> you have receipts from those business credit cards that you have to file with your taxes, correct >> no, ma'am. >> no. >> i filed a statement. i turn over the statement and whatever is there on the statement the accountant looks at it in the account, says, okay, this is personal. those over here, this is business goes over here. here you texas. >> so you have those statements will call them statements and center seats. you have the statements. >> i had the statement just but when you answer the interrogatory under oath, you said you did not add anything to show the records of travel with ms willis >> i answered the question. i had no receipts, ma'am, you had no receipts, but you had statements. i ordered the statement. yes, ma'am. you did order the statement? it's okay and so we're just talking to semantics between invoice and statements or receipt. i'm sorry. >> object, your honor, to the argumentative tone of the question. i believe it's been asked and answered

>> all right. so say in let's see >> you also in this >> affidavit said that no funds paid to you for compensation as your role as special counsel was shirts willis, correct? >> that's correct. >> and that you never cohabited with willis, correct? >> that's correct >> by cohabitation, does that mean that you never spent the night with willis? >> i spent the night with her during this, ma'am. okay. >> and so when i just want to qualify your term, your use of the term cohabitation, that means you to live together that's correct. but you did spend the night together >> yes. >> when was the first time he spent the night together? >> your honor. >> that's the subject of his affidavit, judge. >> right? but it might not be the subject of this hearing. so the question is, the nature and extent of the relationship and so if they just spent the night on a single occasion, i don't i don't think we're going to document in detail every single time that happened. >> i don't intend to do that,

judge, but i think what is relevant is when the relationship started and that's what you are indicated on one, we start with that question and go from there and that's what i asked when the first time he's he spent the night with her was that's that's my. >> that's a different question >> okay. so let's not talk about when you spend night. when did your romantic relationship with ms willis begin >> 2022. >> when? in 2022? >> early 2022 >> so you were appointed in november of 2021. >> yes, ma'am. >> and your relationship started early whats early january, february around march. around march >> but g2 >> met at an october 2019 judicial conference, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and describe your relationship at that point then >> which point so i was at a judicial conference to teach a course, if you will to newer

judges i did that in 2019 as i was exiting the conference another judge was standing outside who was a friend of mine i stopped in exchange pleasantries with her and standing talking to her at the time was then judge willis. she introduced us. at that time. we shook hands, exchanged business cards and i got into my vehicle and left the conference so that meeting was probably three minutes. >> when was the next time you talked to her? >> didn't talk to her again probably maybe a month or month-and-a-half. it gone by >> okay. so you talk to her november maybe maybe on the

phone. >> on the phone. okay. >> how regularly did you speak with her in 2021 on the phone? >> in >> 2020, i'm sorry, 22,019. i'm so sorry. 2019. how frequently did you speak with her on the phone >> 2019 after the meeting, i've probably talked to her two or three times. she would have questions i was the district rep for the particular district that i said in the judges would when they would have questions, they sometimes would go to the red so she was outside of my district, but she would call me. she felt comfortable calling me to ask me the questions. i don't know if you no the racial makeup of certain benches, but it wasn't very diverse. so she felt comfortable calling me for advice and she did that and we

add also in common that she was starting a private law practice at the time, and i'd already admine up and going and we talked about balancing the demands of the bench with their private practice. so we didn't we didn't talk that often, but when i had questions, load, mostly legal issues that would come up. she would call me >> i just wanna make sure because my question was just how many times and you said two to three times, right. okay. >> and in 2022, how frequently did you speak in 2022 before you were appointed? >> perhaps as much as timeline 2022. >> i'm sorry, 2020, 2020. how frequently did you speak in 2020? >> to bomb the 20? it was more more frequent than the 19 obviously, but more frequent. can you tell me approximately a month how often do you think

you spoke with her on the phone? >> i'm going to object to the granular detail and i think reagan certainly answer everyone's you, but if we're going to go through every time they took on the phone generally characterized the relationship. it would be more detailed judge, i'm not going to go through every time they spoke on the phone. i'm asking for generally how frequently they spoke at that level. that's fine overruled. >> about how frequently did you speak in 2020 >> per month? >> i mean, if it was two or three times that entire year, you can tell me that if it was more than that, then you can quantify it by month. >> no, no, no. we spoke on the telephone often i, mean, i don't know how many. i couldn't give you amount of time because remember covid happened and the row we sit down but we spoke on the far more than 2019. >> okay. let's let's qualify

it before her election. in 2020 how much how frequently did you speak? >> you've been asked she was campaigning before the election, before? yes. as she was campaigning before she was elected it's two different animals. >> she was campaigning before she was elected. >> okay. so during the course of her campaign we didn't talk as much, obviously because he's busy. fulton county is a large two sticks in the cover but we didn't talk whole lot. but she did know that i've gone through the election process. so when things would come up of course is about she would call me and asked me so just i'm only witness version, judge. actually, he's not answering, asked and answered. and i mean, i don't mind him explaining, but i just wanted to know how many times. i mean, if we talk about every conversation they talked about i'll let you let them finish his sentence and then refusing to redirect him

or have me directed my can mr. wade? you can continue. yes. >> so so >> sometimes it will be like a three-second car. she would go have you done your election? have you ever seen this? and i would say no, but here's what i would do and we'd hang go she had a lot of professionals working for her, but she trusted my judgment, so she called me be brief conversation, but my question was, how frequently did you speak with her prior to her election? frequently infrequently >> more than 2019 >> but it wasn't everyday thing. no >> in 2021 before you were appointed in november. >> so >> january to november 2021, only time i'm talking about how frequently did you speak with ms willis on the in 2021, then it became frequent? frequent? yes.

>> but you did not work at the da's office at that point, correct? i did not so the affidavit that you submitted >> you showed on it, you submitted one record that showed that ms willis had paid a couple of hundred dollars for one flight, correct? >> so again, >> the affidavit that you submitted to this court show that ms willis had paid for one flight several hundred dollars is that correct >> no, ma'am. i think that are you drawing a distinction >> or >> her paying for flight or for her actually booking a flight. because those are two separate things. >> i will read. i'll re-ask it the affidavits you filed in this court you alleged that ms willis paid for one flight >> paid for one flight,

correct? >> no, ma'am. you >> did not allege she paid >> for one flight no matter what i what i allege what i alleges that i would travel was split roughly evenly. so where you see, i've booked the flight or i've paid for flight with my credit card what you don't see is that she covered her own flight reimbursement to me that the flights that you see here are the plight that she would have booked with her own resources when her own car and there's one flight, correct >> one flight thing that she actually blend twice merchant >> but i'm >> finished and then you can redirect him one flight that she actually booked? >> yes >> the other flights i booked, she paid for so the affidavit you submitted one flight that she booked in paid for

>> yes, ma'am. >> i'm going to object to the phrasing no question that line in the affidavit is not as urgent, is representing it. >> it >> said examples of the district attorney district attorney willis purchasing plane tickets for xi and i with her personal funds were attached as an exhibit. is certainly did not represent that it was the only example of the district attorney purchasing its lights for mr. wade or for compensating other travelers >> understand this cross. i think that's something you can now on the record, but also something you can take on cross >> and just so everybody is clear all i asked you is you're affidavit, you submitted proof of one flight that she paid for it. >> that's all i'm asking >> with the explanation. yes, ma'am >> all i need it >> you said in the affidavit that you roughly shared travel though, correct? >> yes, ma'am. okay.

>> so this roughly sharon travel, you're saying she reimbursed you she did. and where did you deposit the money? she reimbursed you >> i was cash. she didn't she didn't give me any checks >> she paid you cash for her share of all these vacations for shafer, you step out if you do that again? yes, ma'am. >> okay >> and so all of the vacations that she took, she paid you cash for yes, ma'am. >> and you purchased all of these vacations on your business credit card, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and you included those in deductions on your taxes, correct? >> no, ma'am. >> no. you did not? >> no, ma'am. okay >> we'll, get. to that in just a minute then. >> let's see >> so, the only thing that you have actual documentary proof, not cash is this one receipt that you're attached to the affidavit, is that correct? >> yeah. i object to that question then is this characterization of the assertion that is in the affidavit i'm asking you can deny it.

>> i think you can been for himself >> ms murcia, is this the only written proof that you have of a trip she paid for it? >> i have, yes. yes, ma'am. okay. >> so you submitted the one piece of written evidence that you have that she paid for something. everything else is in cash. is that accurate? >> no. >> that's not accurate. okay please tell me what other receipts do you have them that show that she paid for things? >> i don't have them >> so this is the only receipt that you have to show that she paid for travel? >> i have, yes, ma'am. thank you. >> in your divorce case, you filed a domestic relations financial affidavit, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> the first one you filed was in january 2022, right? >> they're about >> this man and those are under oath. >> yes. >> and you also filed corporate taxes in 2022, correct >> and tell me about your

business or you do you have a partnership or a us solo practitioner >> as it stands today? >> yes. >> so today i have a separate pc my law partner as its own separate pc. >> okay. so what we're under the same umbrella, under the same roof, so we share expenses. you share income and we split. >> so are you a partnership >> we are a partnership in the sense of we share expenses. we share income. >> are you registered with the state of georgia as a partnership? >> so the wbc firm that included myself, tears, bradley, and christopher campbell. we were registered with the secretary of state as a partnership for a short

period of time >> when the write in 2029 i'm going to object to witness the answers, questions from mr. wade, just, something else to add. there >> when things happen and we excuse mr. bradley from that partnership it left christopher campbell and myself. so now you have two separate pcs under the same umbrella sharing expenses and income high >> so let me just narrow down my questions. then >> are you >> registered and have you been registered at any time in the state of georgia as wade and campbell where? >> no, ma'am. >> you've never been registered as a partnership as weighed in campbell? no mating campbell? yes. thank you. but that's way bradley campbell? yes, ma'am >> wade bradley campbell was

registered on april 1, 2021 and administratively dissolved on september 8, 2023, correct? >> yes, ma'am >> other than that partnership, you have always been registered as law office of nathan wade? >> yes, ma'am. >> not with chris campbell? >> correct >> thank you >> so the affidavit that you filed in your divorce case, the first one in 2020 i'm up to number seven. >> i'm going to show you a group of exhibits, so we don't have to go back and forth. >> a marking the >> 2022 as seven a marking the 2024 is eight i'm marking the credit card statements as nine. and your taxes is ten >> objection to taxes the

relevance of them at this point? relevance of this entire business structure. clear to me as other impeaching are relevant to the issues that the courts under the court's consideration, but insofar as i'm talking about tax returns and other things like that, certainly that's should be redacted. and i would object to the relevance of it. >> i agree they should be redacted. i don't agree to the relevance, but i haven't tried to tend to them yet, judge i'm just marking them right now so that everyone can follow. >> all right. and what is the, the actual relevance that you were getting at here? >> well, i'm going to ask it's going because one of the things that we have to show in this case as a personal and financial interests. so and he's talked about how he was reimbursed for these things. and so i have a right to go into the veracity of this so let's see, 78 all right. >> so right now i'm just going to show you what i from arch

>> as these exhibits from the us be driving >> copy >> care approach stretch. >> sorry, you what i marked his robert, i ask correct >> so so these are sworn.

>> the >> i'm first going to ask you about the domestic relations, financial affidavit. these are forming are filed under oath, correct? and the most recent one that you filed was filed on january 26, 2024? >> yes, ma'am. so a few weeks ago? >> yes, ma'am >> and in that one, you said that you made $9,500 each month, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> you said that in 2022 well, in 2022, in this case alone, isn't it true you are paid $303,000? over $103,000? i was paid, yes. in this case, phone county by fulton county >> i see where are you going? so judge, i just know the answer the question. if he wants to explain it, i've got no problem with that.

>> mr. wade just listened to the question asked and just ask answer the question i asked in 2022 isn't it true you were paid over $300,000? >> no, ma'am. that's not true. >> you are not paid over $300,000 by fulton county? >> no, ma'am. i was not >> how much were you paid in 2020 to them? >> so what i was beginning to explain was fulton county wrote a check to my firm. what happens at that point is the checks are then deposited as you have the bank statements, you see that and then they are dispersed between the three of us. so there was mr. bradley, there was mr. way, and that was christopher campbell third. third. third >> so when you >> asked me if i was paid $300,000, the answer's no i got a third of that that went

to my personal firm now, once the money was distributed to my personal firm obviously the expenses come out of that and i get at the end of the day, whatever the properties so i did not get $300,000. no, ma'am. >> let me just clarify. my question was not did you put in your pocket $300,000? my question was, was the law firm of nathan wade paid over $300,000 in the year 2022 again a third of that came to the law firm, nathan wade. >> so you're saying that the law firm of nathan wade did not receive checks from fulton county government over $300,000 in the year 2022 that's a different question third of the 300,000 came to natan wave again, not asking what what in your pocket. i'm asking where

was the law firm of nathan wade paid over $300,000 in 2022. >> objects passing i, know i've been dancing around the point there, so i don't time ms marsha time. i can move on, judge. thank you >> so you said that they were dispersed amongst all of you? are put into an account with all of you. so it's your testimony that for 2022, every check you received from fulton county government went into an operating account with you, bradley and campbell? >> no, no, no, no. >> that's not what i testified to so the way bradley and campbell firm established an account, when we decided to purchase a building in 2022. at that point every piece of income that came into the entity went into that account. and then after expenses were paid, it was split the third a third. a third. >> right once that was

dissolved, then the funds would go into a different account. my account, one of my accounts. and then i would disperse the funds between. now, attorney campbell and myself, one-half and one-half >> it does. >> let me maybe more direct than so the sunnova is operating account that you had for weighed broadly and campbell? yes, ma'am >> the checks were fulton county from january of 2022 until june 17, 2022? those checks were deposited in that operating account? >> yes, ma'am >> starting on july 15, 2022 the checks, you receive from fulton county up until may 26, 2022. all went into an escrow account that you had it fifth third bank, correct? >> no, not all. >> somebody hold them some of them, yes. >> so it's your testimony that some of your checks from july 15, 2022, up until may 26,

2023. some of them went into an account outside of the third bank no, no, no. >> object to >> the relevance of financial transactions >> how much money he made is highly relevant in this case, the personal financial, business and where the money was. and i mean, it's just a follow up on other things that he's testified to. >> and why is how much money he made relevant? >> because he represented in an up it's very relevant. he filed an affidavit with the court saying with another court, he told another judge that he made $9,500 a month that's what he swore to and all right, so this this entire inquiry is just to try to establish that prior inconsistent statement? >> yes. all right >> i'll give you a minute or two more to try that, but i have to move on. >> thank you. >> so i know you're saying that you only got a third of the $300,000, but you were paid over the firm was paid over $300,000 in 2022, you're

correct ms martin it's not what i'm saying. the numbers that they're it's the it's the truth the funds were paid. they were deby between the three of us going into an operating account expenses paid out of it at the end of that, the 9,000 figures which have so that's where you got the 9,000 figure from yes, ma'am >> and let's see let's >> prior to when you filed for divorce and november 2021 you would use mr. bradleys credit card to pay for things with ms willis, correct? and then

paying back in cash >> i've never used mr. bradleys credit card. >> never use his credit card. >> never for transactions to anything with ms willis out to dinner or anything like that? >> because i've never used mr. bradleys credit card. i've never used anyone else's credit card. not even my father's and we have the same name >> and you'd pay payback if you ever did you someone's credit card, you'd payback in cash that correct? >> ma'am. i've never used someone else's credit card >> can you take a look at the bank records that i gave you? >> that's the largest. have you have for the record, which exhibits this? >> it is exhibit hold on, judge >> exhibit nine it should be the largest section >> before there starts right. things from that exhibits

haven't been tendon i didn't i maintain my relevance objections. >> all right. let's see what the next question is and maybe then the objection is gonna be highly relevant >> okay. >> that an accurate copy of your capital one statements that you provided in discovery to is that an accurate reflection of your capital one records? >> good. i provided in discovery to home to your divorce lawyers or so that you provided in the divorce proceeding, is a question to the recognize. if i sight i'm asking if it's a statement. >> thanks. i think that is the question. >> well, i mean, it's a thick document, but i believe you if you say that this is this is what my wife's divorce lawyer gave you. i believe it your names on every page of that document correct? on every page, pretty much every patient, not every page. >> no, it's not every paying >> for all capital one bank records show just take your

time, look through what, tell me if there's anything that you think is not yours. >> there appears to be. >> okay >> and those bank records show that you paid for travel with ms willis >> yes, ma'am. okay. yeah. i'm i'm going to object the relevance of these documents and the well, i think are you tendering exhibit nine? >> i'm going to, judge, and they're highly relevant to the lease. >> asked him a question about the contents of it, but haven't been admitted yet. so why don't we start there? >> thanks. >> those, show travel that you and ms willis took. >> well, so you're asking about the contents of something that hasn't been admitted yet. >> i'm asking him if that's what it shows because i know that they're going to object on relevance. >> well, first we got to see if you've authenticated it. perhaps and before we get into other details of what's in it, i think i can tell you to be admitted. >> i moved to admit them. >> all right. object on relevance. relevance. all and on that overruled. >> ms merchant. thank you

>> those records demonstrate that you paid for travel where soften this lula's, correct >> they should >> okay. >> and let's just talk about that travel. >> okay. >> the first trip is believes in march 2023 that a trip that you took with ms willis or you asked did you take a trip with ms willis in 2023 tamales? >> i did. >> did you take a trip to california where those willis in 2023? >> i did did you pay for those trips on that credit card >> i use the credit card to book the travel, but understand. >> she paid you back cash. >> well, let me say this. let's take the beliefs trip for example, you started there. that was a birthday gift to me. so i paid nothing for that, true? >> zero >> so the charges that are on your card, she gave you cash for

>> she did. okay. >> so all of the charges the witnesses the question, oh, did i did. okay. >> i wanted to get into the charges on the car because so traveling with, her is a task. you can probably imagine the attention that that happens so for safety reasons she would limit her transactions i mean, the magic trying to walk through an airport or sidr restaurant or do anything so that there was no there's no attempt to conceal is a credit card everything is here so and that's not what i asked. okay >> what i asked was the charges for believes in march 2023 on

that credit card, those are things you purchased to go with ms ms willis to believes those are things that we booked with my cart that she paid. yes. yes. >> those shop on your credit card? they do >> and you're saying that she paid you cash to reimburse you for all of that? she did and she paid you cash for both of your portions are just hers? >> both. >> okay. so that trump believes just believes she paid you for everything on believes the entire trip >> so >> the food tattoo parlor, all that stuff she paid for i'm going to get the question. >> there was no there was no tattoo parlor in believes the charges. >> there's a there's attaching parlor on the charges. i'm not getting into what it was for. i'm just asking if everything that's on that card related to believes she paid you back for she paid for, yes, ma'am. okay. >> let's talk about california in may 2023 you all went to

california together? yes. >> and you booked plane tickets? >> yes. and her name was on this plane tickets? >> they were >> and so i know you said that you were worried about security and things like that, but that wasn't her name when she traveled, she had to use her name. oh plane. tickets? yes, ma'am. >> okay. >> and you paid for those planes, i guess. and you paid for hotel. >> so >> again, the card? yes. >> you used your credit card? i'm not asking about afterwards. it happened. i'm asking did you use your credit card to book your flight and hotel to california? i did >> and there's a lot of uber's on there as well. >> for california, did you pay >> for those uber's as well? >> yes >> didn't you read napa and you're saying that ms willis, are you saying that this was paid you back for them? yes. >> did she pay for the entire trip or did she pay for her half of the trip? >> the napa trip >> she paid for >> the excursions. so the

expenses sort of balanced out to mean there was never let me be clear. there was never a time when i would say hey, i bought dinner. dinner cost $25 you need to give me $25 if you've ever spent any time with ms willis, you understand that she's a very independent proud woman, objects. so she's going to overrule mr. wade she's going to insist that she carries her own weight and it actually was a point of contention between the two of us. she is going to pay her own way so let me re-ask the question to make sure that you answer it. in california trip that you paid for saying that she did not pay you back for cash. instead, she paid for excursion prince and you believe that was roughly half? >> she gave me some cash. yes. what i'm saying is the

everything that we did when we got into napa she paid for the trip that she booked on her credit card in miami. did you pay her cashback for your half of that >> no >> so you never pay her back for the tickets she bought for, you know, i would say i did pay her back because they were times when i would pay for dinner. >> okay. she would pay for dinner. it would balance out. but in a relationship, ma'am, you don't particularly men we don't go asking back for anything. so you're not keeping a ledger of things that you pay for versus the thing that she's paid for, which is why i said that it was a point of contention because she it's very emphatic and adamant about this independent, strong woman thinks she mandate that she pay your own way but she's the

district attorney of fulton county and she has to file financial disclosures disclosing any gifts with anybody that she does business with in fulton county, correct >> but i don't know. >> perfect let's talk about tennessee booked a cabin in august 2023 and paid for a cabin in tennessee. that's when you paid for it? i don't know when the trip was. can you tell us about that? >> august of 2023, he booked a trip for $1,481.54 sets >> or you are you asking me? did i take that trip with ms willis are you asking me if i was just asking you to acknowledge that that is correct from the records that you paid for a cabin in tennessee, do you recall hopefully you can do it from your memory. do you recall paying for a cabin? six months ago $1,400.81 and tennessee >> where where are we now? >> webpages that i'm just asking from your memory, do you remember paying for a cabin in august not if any, asked about

a particular transaction and then you can answer whether he remembers or not >> i don't. mr. white, >> i'm not asking you to go through 1,000 pages of records. i'm asking if you remember paying for a cabin six months ago in tennessee know you remember booking a cabin? >> a book, lots of cabins >> did you go to a cabin with ms willis ever? ever ever >> no >> never gone to cabinet. >> know you ever gone to

tennessee with ms willis? >> yes. >> okay. when was that >> that was around 20 too early 2022. >> early 2022? >> it was it was a day trip >> okay. so you didn't spend night? >> so it was a day trip we would drive there. have lunch dropped back the reason we would do that is because the attention see people get any peace of mind going locally. so we get my car and drive to some place of the path and have

lunch and flatband >> is that when you went to feigning go and jaffer, georgia? know that's that's in georgia. i don't i don't i don't recall going to failing gop with her. >> so the tennessee day drip day trips were not were only tennessee yes. >> okay. did you ever do these day trips in georgia >> do we drive anywhere in georgia? yeah. you were talking about daydream i'm talking about outside of the metro area day trips that you were just talking about, these trips you were talking about the ones that you were an only asking about the ones you were just talking about, are all of those in tennessee? >> no. we drove to alabama before. >> okay. >> you drove alabama did you go anywhere in georgia? north. georgia

>> i'm going to object let's addresses attention in some way to a timeframe or location, then i think it might be easiest to the witness accurately. >> it's merchant i think if you don't have the specific details yourself, we need to start getting in to specifics or more, maybe proudly phrase questions just be exploring around and definitely isn't. >> is it fair to say that you've taken so many trips with her, you don't even really remember all the places you've gone so many trips you're having trouble remembering going. if you went to north georgia or not, were you asking me about specific places and i want to be candid in my responses so i have to. jog my memory because these are places that i have frequent, but not with her. so i want to make certain that if there was ever a time that she accompanied me that was candid in that response

>> aruba october 2022 >> business records. should he get for these? maybe a little faster. but did you did you take a trip with her to aruba in 2022 >> yes, ma'am. so that's rubric trip was it was a package deal there. we my mother had recently retired and decided to take my mother on a cruise. okay >> and the second leg after the cruise concluded da willis and i went to aruba. so that was 01 trip, if you were okay. >> so my question was, did you go with the a willis >> to aruba in 2022? >> i did. >> thank you. and you paid for that trip using your business credit card, correct?

>> i did. >> and you paid for a cruise as well? correct? >> that's the cruise i was referencing with the a willis, my mother and myself. >> okay. because there's two cruises, so let's just talk about the first one. the first one was you took bassem with your mother >> yes. >> and so you introduced the a willis to your mother if that trip you all took a cruise together, three of you? >> yes. >> after the cruise was done, you and be well as flew to aruba together and your mom play >> yes. you paid for all of this with your credit card on your business credit card? >> i did >> and are you saying that ms willis, paid you cast back for that? >> she did no. but let me make this distinction though. because the number that you're looking at reflects that three people on the cruise ship, there were things that my mother and ideas just the two of us that da willis didn't do >> and i'm not attributing that. i did