shops. customer makes it so easy. get started today at accustoming.com. >> the whole story with anderson cooper, sunday on cnn

>> good afternoon. >> welcome to cnn news central. i'm boris sanchez alongside brianna keilar here in the nation's capital. today, dual legal hearings focus just on former president donald trump in new york. trump is campaigning from the courtroom and capitalizing on the moment the former president directly facing the judge oversee seeing his hush money payment case that judge delivering a major blow to trump's strategy of dragging out as legal challenges, ruling that the republican front runner will face his first criminal trial in just 39 days really in the heat of the presidential election. but rather than focusing on the cases, legal merits a trump once again used the moment to spew baseless conspiracy theories falsely claiming that president biden is running the prosecution. that's right. and in georgia, a key hearing happening as we speak, it's threatening to derail the election subversion case. there against former president trump. and a number of codefendants. this is a pivotal moment from one of the

stronger legal challenges against the former president. as a judge decides whether fulton county da fani willis should be disqualified over her alleged affair with the lead prosecutor cnn's laura coates is outside of the courthouse in fulton county laura, what are you seeing there >> this is such an important day. remember, we are here today to figure out whether finding willis, if she will be disqualified from overseeing this case. remember, if she in fact is as qualified, not just it goes to somebody else. it would go to a whole different prosecution team. it would be appointing to a special team that could be down the line. her whole team would not be able to do this actual case today, we've heard so many moments in the courtroom. the main focus has been about at whether she financially benefited. we've heard from a former friend and employee of the da. we've heard from a former law partner of nicholas wu, nathan wade, excuse me. we've heard from now, nathan wade, who's been on the stand

testifying as to whether their relationships started before he says they started an affidavits and beyond, they've been really pivotal moments here, including from that former friend to fani willis and former da employ, you said? yes, they did begin their romantically should before they actually they did it has consequences. now, why all the consequences right now? because it goes to the matter of whether she financially benefited or not not profited, whether she financially benefited what does that really mean in the end? did she somehow get some benefit some ability to have some gain from having hired this person with whom she was in a relationship. now they don't disagree that they were in a relationship at some point. but when it started and the motivation beyond being higher it's all really important here when it bring in nick valencia because it's so important to think about all that's going on. nick, this is such a consequential moment. i mean, there are a lot of salacious details before i think you've got to come out

here. this is not a housewives episode this is a case involving the former president of the united states. more than a dozen and remaining defendants in a huge rico action about elections of version, right here in fulton county. we're here today about this very important point. i want to go back in for a moment because nathan's on this on this san again from them the documents that the difference between the two document productions, what is what is the difference >> thank records, credit card statements, things like that wouldn't ordinarily be part in course of the 20 records. >> but i got them from the open records portal >> that mean that's where i know i understand. and but the difference in production, ms merchant you've taken taking a look at them and they're actually material to your case? >> yes. >> and we'll way you're all of his horses, judge. >> and then he has like it's just this is what i got from them. it's all of his any voices. and. one of the invoices or reimbursement that eat some things

>> like for the reimbursement i don't really care if they take a reimbursement actually are already admitted. in the exhibit. i did. >> i don't have any problem with the invoices. invoices are clearly for the records and containment and certifications. >> we remove the items that a third are in dispute, then i don't have an objection to their already >> on and >> so you're removing them >> all right. so again, let's have opposing counsel look at a revised exhibit 14, and then all here, whether there's any objection

>> revised exhibit number 14. >> only the invoices that were >> submitted, then it has all right. >> then not seeing any other issues from other council will note exhibits 14 through 18 have been admitted for the record without objection. i think at this point be good to make sure we've got i think one through 18 but the court reporter, others, but do you want me to get them to the witness? >> well, i don't think he's done looking at them. let's just get them all compiled and organists and what the court reporter in case other defense counsel are going to reference them wouldn't it wasn't for him

to have them all as we just need to have one through 18 organized with the court reporter. yeah. >> so you may think all the bathroom i think we ought to do that this is >> all right. as ms merchant is doing that, let me go down the list. mr. sadow >> mr. guild has been asked i like follow up >> let me just come let me just to keep it consistent, i'll go in order so that mr. sadow is deferring then i'll go to mr. stocks mr. durham on zoom >> your honor. all right. mr. mcdougald refer to mr. gil all right. mr. rice? all right. thank you. mr. galen. >> thank you, your honor

>> good afternoon. this white good afternoon, sir. i'll do i'll follow up questions i like to start off with the exhibit number four that you should have up there. those are the interrogatories >> no, sir >> there they're not up there. remember i asked her to compile them all. now, grabbing if you wanted me >> yes, sir. okay. >> now, these are the interrogatories, the eu had filed on may the 30th, 2023, in your voice case, correct >> yes, sir. now, >> he went over in part some of

those interrogatories but what i want you to do because i want to get down to the specific language to clear up exactly definitely what the interrogatories asked for. an exactly what you answered. okay? yes, sir. now, if we look on the interrogatory that i believed as we indicated, that there really i think on page two the one that starts off, describe each instance in which you've had sexual relations. you see that one? yes, sir >> right. >> now that interrogatory begins, describe each instance in which you have had sexual relations with a person other than your spouse during the course of the marriage including the period of separation, you see that? >> now? >> these were filed on may the 30th, 2023, correct? yes, sir. >> now, at that time >> you had had sexual relations with ms willis, correct?

>> well, i'm going to object to the question asked the question, is properly at that time, certainly asked about his answer, but i object to pharmacy, i just ask you to rephrase, but i think you can make the same point. >> call, your honor, is a specific in and i went down. so words do matter, and i would like him to answer whether or not he'd had sexual relations. witness willis because if he answered yes. and this interrogatory is a is a false and raga tories so i would ask the courts indulgence. i'm not here to jump into some salacious bedroom situation. but this is an interrogatory that matters. so i would ask the courts indulgence because cross questions have been asked and answered several times. i understand mr. gelin is coming at it from a different way, but this question is not substantively different than those that have already been asked and answered in the information that he's all right. >> miguel allow maybe this question one more, but i think

you are asking it in a different way and possibly to stick to the point, right >> now as of may the 30 and mei mei may i ask the question that i okay. thank you. ryan on as of may the 30th, 2023, you had had sexual relations with ms willis, isn't that correct? >> the interrogatory, sir asks, during the course of the marriage and the period of separation gives me my restaurant. i would ask the court direct a witness to answer my question, yes or no. as of may the 30th, 2023, had you or had you had sexual relations with ms willis? yes. mr. galen, let's start with at the higher level, whether he believes he answered truthfully and then we can drill down into why or why not. he doesn't and maybe we'll end up exactly where you left us. >> well, again, your honor, the point of it is the words matter and that we have to establish but didn't did not happen. and then he can get whatever explanation he chooses to. what

apparently is a false answer, but i would like an answer to my question and you may get one. >> i just would ask i would like us to start at a high level before we drill down and specifics to see whether he actually contradicted that interrogatory. if i'm making sense. well, be >> interrogatories are all relatively direct explicit sexual relationships with a person other than your spouse during the course of the marriage, including the period of separation as free, simple. sure. >> let's see if that's something you can get him to admit. >> you did have sexual relationships with someone other than your spouse during the course of the marriage. and i end during the period of separation, which included up to may the 30th of 2023, isn't that correct, sir? >> my answer to this interrogatory is none. there's no >> so you're saying that you did not have sexual relationships with anyone outside of your marriage. and the period of separation has during the period, then you're answering the question to this

interrogatory, correct, sir? >> i'm saying during the course of my marriage, i did not have fixer relations to anyone in this answer's no >> well, again, your honor, i understand. you can proceed, mr. i need to we need a yes or no. let's just get down to it. did you or did you not by may the 30th 2023, have had sexual relations with ms willis? yes or no? yes or no? yes. okay. >> now, what you did is you answered no to that question to ensure none correct? >> i didn't answer no to the question you just asked, i answered no to the interrogatory question. >> and the interrogatory stands that you answered as a pleading cna in a civil proceeding, your divorce case, right? >> yes. >> now, excuse me the next interrogatory let's move there that interrogatory states as

follows. identify any and all occasions in which you entertain a member of the opposite sex? other than your spouse, who is not related to you by blood or marriage you see that >> now, >> there are two parts to this. the second part is i read on or in which a member of the opposite sex other than your spouse, not related to you? my blood or marriage entertained you. and then it goes on to say including but not limited to dining breaking in restaurants, bars, pubs hotels, you see that? correct? >> i do. now as of may the 30th, 2023, when you follow this interrogatory, you had in fact, entertain ms willis on many occasions, had you not? >> again, during the course of the marriage, the marriage was irretrievably broken in 2015, while the lessor's the answer is still no.

>> let's read what the interrogatory says about the time period required to answer the interrogatory because what it says is it goes on to say, including, you including but not limited to dining and or drinking at any restaurants, bars, pubs, hotels, or persons hummed from the date of marriage to the present you understand what the word present means? i do >> present names. the filing on may the 30th, 2023 isn't that right? >> it is >> so as of may the 30th, 2023, do you have done a lot or you had done a lot of entertaining? ms willis, had you not? >> i then saw him, yes. >> and in fact, under your testimony you would have said that she had also entertained you. isn't that correct? >> yes. >> and so your answer to this interrogatory is false, is it not, sir? >> no, it's not false.

>> well, to dance around the you, the answer is yes, you did entertain as well as correct? right? >> yes >> she's not she's not your spouse at that time or anytime, correct >> that's correct. >> she's not related to you by blood or marriage, correct? >> that's correct. but you entertained it, right? >> yes. and during the course from your marriage, the period of time up to the press. so the answer would have been yes, i did entertain somebody, correct? >> during the course of the marriage, know mr. wade, mr. galen, i think we've we've made your point. i think it speaks for itself and we can save that i'll just >> follow up with one quick question. >> you understand >> what the word present needs your honor. >> that's going to ask i think we do care that already as well. >> okay >> now, what has happened from the time that you file this court document in may of 2023. let's go over some of the

things that you had been involved in in terms of being entertained or entertaining? prior to your filing on the answer on the interrogatories on may that 30th, 2023 we've already established how we not that you had paid for a royal caribbean cruise to the bahamas? with ms wall is correct? >> yes, sir. with ms willis and my mother >> well and mothers, a part of this interrogatory. i'm talking about as well. it's okay. >> so you paid and then cause to be paid approximately 3,303 $5 on that trip bahamas trip from october the 28th through october 31st, correct? >> objection. says this ground several times mr. yotam less let's cover new ground. >> well, i am dr. trying to establish with specificity the

things that he had done to entertain or be entertained prior to may the 30th, 2023. i'll try to move through a clerk. >> well, that's already part of the record. in terms of his prior testimony. and so if you want to link those things, those two things together can do that to an argument. >> well, so let me let me discuss this. you indicated that during the course of your explanation concerning the beliefs trip that ms willis, that ms willis paid you all that money back in cash. remember? >> yes, sir. now >> the police trip had just happened added that occurred in march 18, 2023 >> yes, sir. >> so you're filing this maybe two months after you have gone to beliefs with ms willis, correct >> again, i believe all of this is i think you might be getting somewhere now. we'll see yes, sir. so >> we've got the trip and we've got the trip and to

beliefs on march the 18th, 2023, you and this will is correct? >> yes, sir >> now, two months later, you follow the interrogatories its feet for themselves that we've gone over a few minutes ago, correct? >> yes, sir. >> now the march the 18th, 2023, to state the obvious is before marked as he may the 30th, 2023. will you agree with me on that? i do. okay. so then you tell us that ms willis paid you in cash all the money for the entire trip? that was a gift for you for your birthday, correct? yes, sir. >> and i'm sure you probably have the deposit slips where you took the cash in deposit the cash into your account, don't you? i did not deposit the cash. american. you don't >> have a single solitary deposit slip to corroborate or support any of your allegations that you are paid by mrs. willis and cash.

>> do you know, >> sir. >> not a single solitary one. not a one. >> now >> when ms willis would tell you in cash, would you scamper down to the tia atm with her and she drew money out of her account to pay you these thousands of dollars mr. galen night scamper, that there has been no evidence that survey says, i object to the phrasing. the argument of the nature of >> questions on that issue. overruled >> did you and ms wage scamper down to the atm machine and have her dry out for example, on the beliefs trip just on your payment would have been $2,794. ms clarity, yet pardon me. ms wade and i didn't didn't go to believe >> now, under excuse me, ms wilson, i'm sorry. >> did you go down to the atm with ms willis while she drew out? $2,794 to pay you in cash

that you did the chief did you go to the atm month with no, sir. she didn't go to the atm, see carried the case. oh, and so she would give you the cash. do you have a little place in your house where he just stack up all this cash that you apparently got? to repay you for these benefits to you, bestowed on her >> i missed again, if i answered that, i'm putting myself in jeopardy, that by about tell the world that i have cached someplace in my home not to think that could be problematic. >> no, i don't i want an answer as to whether or not you have low cash war in your house, or you never allegedly taken the money that you got from this as well as in wet and put it somewhere which put no, sir. now, just put it on the happen kind of walk around money did i put it on my hip in walking around money where you would spend the cash herself. let me finish. i put it on my hip and beliefs and walk around with it. >> when you got paid back, would you take the money, the cash that she gave you and would you just carry it around with you for spending money around town? >> so we have to break down

east trip because for example for the crews, she paid me the money before we took the crews. so i was here and i could put the money in my pocket put it away wherever i wanted to do with it. other trips she would give me the money there so at that point, i could either spend it or put it in my pocket or put it in there. there's no special place that you would have all this cash that you would be getting from her that you've told us about that to pay back for the benefits that you have the stowed on her. >> the only special place that they catch would have gone would have been to one of my children. >> okay >> now, are you aware? >> have you discussed these pleadings with ms willis >> no, sir. >> so there has been no discussion between you and this wells about the allegation concerning the benefits that you have bestowed on her? is

that correct? appraising the benefits certified, i don't believe that's an accurate reflection of the testimony >> overruled >> and you can answer the question. >> okay. when you said proceedings, are you talking? going about the worst proceedings because we were talking about the interrogatories to that question. the answer is no. if you're at go ahead. >> i'm sorry. >> go ahead with your answer. here. the complete answer then i'll follow up. okay. if you're asking me about this hearing, the proceedings of this hearing, have we discussed the financial piece based upon mr. romans motion yes >> so you have discussed the financial piece when did that where did that discussion take place >> conference. room were you other people there or were you in this willis discussing this about what your position is going to be mr. yellen, and the relevance has to do with with

suddenly we have a declaration from from mr. wade in this case where he says roughly equal and then shows one alleged payment by ms willis no mention of cash. >> none >> so i need to find out a little bit more about how suddenly we have this, this revelation about cash from the witness stand today >> overrule. >> so we part company there. when you say no mention of cash, if i provided one receipt that didn't amount to what you would think was roughly equal? the rest of it is cash. >> well, did you and your declaration, sir, it was filed in this case? >> did you tell >> the court and that declaration that the expenditure that you had provided on behalf of ms willis

was paid for backed by her in cash, yes or no? >> i believe that i did when i sit that the expenses were split roughly evenly. if you could point to me >> any place in your affidavit or use use the word cash. i would appreciate. >> i didn't i didn't use the word cash. no, sir. >> no. you didn't use the word cash, did you? >> but i didn't say that she didn't give it to me in cash. >> no. you just didn't tell anybody that you've allegedly got paid back in cash right? >> now i told everyone who asked today yes, sir. >> now who else was was with you if anyone else when you and this will for discussing how you would be handling the financial component of the motion. here today. that is the personal benefits and irrelevance of mr. young the relevance is if they know that they're going to be called

>> as witnesses, they've been subpoenaed and they are discussing what they're going to say we need to know that the coordinates to know that it goes to the veracity of mr. willis and excuse me, that ms willis and mr. wade rule >> we didn't discuss how we were going to handle testimony of my question was, when you were discussing with ms willis in the conference room when you were discussing? what you perceive to be the situation concerning the benefits for the payments? yes, sir. >> was there anyone else present? no, sir. >> how long did the meeting take >> probably five or ten minutes >> if ms willis tell you what she was going to say? >> no, sir. >> did you ask her whether she had any bank withdrawals? it would corroborate the assertion that that she would pay you back and large sums of cash for these these trips to the

caribbean believes california on and on and on. >> your honor, i object the processor of when the last mental projection was made was that mr. guillen needed to know who else is there are these? he witnesses that you can cross examine. that question, hasn't answered. >> okay. >> i think it's still exploring possible bias or motive to shape his testimony. so overrule on that ground. >> thank you >> now now, mr. willis, excuse me, mr. wade? when you were having this discussion, did you ask her did you ask us well we have anything to support these cash withdrawals. >> no, sir. >> did you ask her where she got the cash? >> this is the conversation i produced my credit card statement that showed what ms merchant in her filing was representing that was the conversation >> okay. >> so when she would pay you

back in cash were you aware of what her financial situation was? you know what? >> no, sir. yeah. i object to the relevance. >> well, your honor, is for all been because we have been i'm bombarded with a book. find me the votes in which what's at issue is the financial benefit. and if that plays material interests and i actual conflict of interests. so i think that's relevant. thank you. >> now have you read the book? find me the was >> i have. you have? i have >> ok. now in that book, ms willis, is telling the authors about how financially destitute she was kinda hidden down on the bottom as she was running for da. do you remember that part of the book? >> so let >> me qualify that response. i read the book in parts. i have

i hadn't had time to sit and read the book in its entirety. >> did you read that part about how she's telling the authors about how little money she had and how her to financially she was in bad shape. fraga, when she was running, did you did you read that part? no, sir >> did you ever have discussions, witness walls about her financial situation which was which was in apparently in rough shape hey, prior to being elected da no, sir. ms willis made it clear that her finance or business was just that it was her business side know nothing about her financial status. i know nothing about how she was fairing before or after the election or even now. i know nothing about our finance telling us that she didn't che that share that with you, but shows to share with the authors of a book that's been published in printed and sold nationally.

>> i think it's a fair question for cross. >> i don't know that she shared it with the author. i don't know that the author was telling the truth. i don't know the author so i don't know, sir. okay. now, did you give an interview to the authors of that book? >> i've given no interview, sir. >> so you haven't talked to them >> at all or haven't talked to any media. all right know now, as it relates to the i like to though, as it relates to again, from your from your bank records that >> you're aware of, there'll be there'll be no cash deposits, right? >> i didn't say that >> are there a cash deposits for its lineup with the money that you have allegedly received from his willis to quote, pay you back for her part of the trips so here's the thing in my bank records. you will see cash deposits. you will see check deposits. i

can't say that you look through the bank records and you won't see cash deposits because i have two sources of income, sir. >> i >> income comes from my private practice, my firm in income comes from but the contract here with fulton county during the course of private practice, occasionally, i will have occasion to deposit cash into my account. >> and in preparation for this hearing. and your testimony, did you go through your bank records to find out if you could locate any cash deposits that would corroborate your your testimony? no. i didn't go through a bank records at all >> now >> so what you would do >> the money that you've received of course, the money that you receive from your work

for fulton county, that's public funds, correct >> no, sir. that's private funds as my public funds. >> hey, you to do work for fulton county, correct >> tell me what the definition of a public fund is? >> a public fund would be are funds as a not fund, but funds money public money as in money from taxpayers by the fulton county or the state of georgia, pay you to do the work that you're doing here in this case? yes or no? >> one of the other uncertain. you know, we've wanted to case i don't know. it's one. no, sir. >> now, those you would take those public funds and those public funds would then use deposit in your account and they were then used to pay for the on the credit cards for the trips that you would take? with ms willis, correct? >> i object to the question. so far as the characterization of public funds for witnesses and testified that and i believe there's been any evidence to that once his patroness the weight on it the point of it is, is that you guy, mr.

gallons rephrasing now, let's break it down. you got money from fulton county for the work that you do here, right? >> yes, sir. >> you would send in invoices. they would pay you money correct? >> yes, sir >> those month that the private money that money was money from other citizens of fulton county or from the state of georgia, correct that's what i mean by public funds agreed? >> i guess i'm having trouble with the notion that the citizens of fulton county had paid me any funds. i'm not certain that funding source i can tell you that either the state of georgia or fulton county has written me a check so that would be those two entities are public entities, correct? >> yes. >> that would be public funds, right right. yeah. yes.

>> and that those public funds are from the same source that you would then use to pay out on your on your your expenses for the trips that you took ms willis on, correct? >> no, sir. as a testified to moments ago i have income coming in from my law firm also have income coming in from the funds that we're here discussing now from either the state of georgia fulton county and or both. i'm not certain what it is. so to say so to say sorry, i didn't go ahead. so to say that i'm paying a credit card statement with funds coming from fulton county or the state of georgia would would not be inaccurate statement because the funds could very well come from my private practice what percentage of your income in

2022 came from >> money or you're working on this case or from your partners working for the fulton county off in 2022? i would i would say 50. 50. >> you think 5,050.20, 22? yes, sir. what about 20:23 probably >> 60, >> yes, sir. >> the money that would be in those accounts at least 60% of those in your view of the public funds, that those monies were then used to pay for the expenses that you had incurred for the trips that you took ms willis on the cruises? >> the >> map of valleys, the bahamas crime, right? yes, sir. okay and now, what you what she did is that when you when you signed on in the november 1 of

2021 that's when you signed on to be counsel for the anitra anti-corruption matters, right? >> yes, sir. >> now as you know, in your engagement letter it doesn't say that you're signing on and your scope of work is to work on the front >> special grand jury >> investigation doesn't know, sir. it says that you're signing on to work on antique anti-corruption the anti-corruption unit matters, correct? yes, sir. >> matters. and with a with a pleural, correct >> yes, sir >> so in your contract, there is no specific reference to any specific case, isn't that right? >> that's correct. okay. now but you didn't sign on for the duration there was a period. you have a contract and then it would then expire, then you would have a new contract,

correct? yes, sir. >> now, of course the extension that you received, the first one was in november of 2021 and then you file or excuse me, there was a renewal and november the 15th of 2022, is that right? >> sounds right okay. now >> that was right after you got re-upped buy ms willis? right after you took ms willis to aruba isn't that right? on that november the 1st? 2022 trip to aruba. and through november the fourth, 2022? correct. what is re-upped mean about rehab that you came back your contract was up and then on november the 15th you in this world signed a new contract for you, right?

>> yes, sir. >> okay. >> now, when you are in taking her to the aruba and on the cruises and there excuse me, the resort there did you discuss your reupping of the signing an extension on your contract? >> no sir but you make an excellent point i'm i'm glad you pointed that out so the trip to aruba the contract was not in existence then you're saying so you're saying that you are not under contract in your contract, did you send any invoices in her work that you did after your contract, your first contract expires? >> no, sir. >> he did? no, sir. know when that expired? that was it. >> so then you're saying >> that after the aruba trip you get re-upped with a new contract, correct? >> i sign a new contract, yes >> was there any modifications

on that contract? did you get extension on the cap that you were limited on the first one, were there any modifications at all, mr. willis excuse me? >> i've done that again. i apologize. >> i've been called worse. >> i'm sorry. >> i've been called worst >> were there any modifications on that >> do you have the contracts in front of you where you could i don't have it in front of me, but i think that because i believe the as the work gradually >> as the time of the work gradually increased the hourly cap would would increase. in other words, starting out starting out the investigation, it was impossible to anticipate the level of cooperation from during the course of the investigation from some of the witnesses so if you assume that

there would be great corporation with the witnesses in terms of interviewing and speaking and being voluntarily speaking with you. it doesn't take as much time so after getting into it realizing that most of the witnesses were not willing to speak, go are willing to turn over evidence or information quickly, you figure out that this is going to take a little more time than originally anticipated. and because of that, you have to compensate for those hours. that's why there was a compensation on your extension? >> the caps. >> now if mrs. willis skinny, ms wells review your invoices with you when you would submit them? never did anyone ever questioned whether or not you

worked 24 hours one day and build 24 hours in one day. >> i've never worked 24 hours in one day. and bill 24 hours in one day. okay. and i'm glad you asked me that question because i liked the opportunity to talk about that. i think you should go ahead so if you look at that invoice where where it says 24 hours in one day, it actually doesn't say one day. if you look at the top of the invoice, it says date completed. the date. that's reflected on that invoice reflects the date that the work was completed. it doesn't say when it started. it just says this is the date that is completed. so if you go through the invoice is probably around the first five or six, you'll see that testability format. i would bill only after that particular task has been completed. that's why you see a 24 hour period with the one day their kind of wish some of the experts who had opined on that had called me and asked me the question. but there was never a billing of 24 hours in one day

now, proudly around the sixth or seventh invoice, you see the format changed. i started using a range so that it got less confusing, right >> i'm confused. so maybe you get corrected. okay >> exhibit 14 you've got you've got down a specific day prepared cases for pretrial. november the 5th 2021, 24 hours at 250 an hour, 6,000. know. >> this wasn't about this was about a range. it was about the work that you did on november 5. >> you want >> mr. galen, look at the top of the invoice where it says date completed. >> what i want you to do, mr. wade is focused on the date that you have down there until

the court what you build for on november the 30th 2021. >> we going to i thought it was already and i 14 exam >> again, mr. galen, it says completed date. date completed the dates that you see here are the dates that work was completed. so on november the 5th i completed the task of preparing the cases for pretrial. that's the date i completed it. >> judge. took me just read a few. word that my question was read out loud entry for november the fifth, 2021. and how many hours you build that day? just just do that for me if you would know, i can't do that. excuse me. i believe entitled to answer his question, ask them it wasn't the question that >> all right. well, the question now is to read a certain interests. >> just read into the record, mr. wade on november the fifth, 2021 how many hours did you

bill the citizens of fulton county for on that day? just read it out, please. >> i completed the task on >> november 5, 2021, 24 hours was billed at $250 >> now, >> when you are you talked about your relationship with ms willis and your testimony is that it began in 2022. you remember that testimony? >> no, sir. i relationship began in year one, man taking relationship began in 2022? >> yes, >> ensure testimony. yes, sir. >> okay. now when you were

re-upped on this contract you had a romantic relationship already established with ms willis? yes or no in 2022? >> you. know, >> ria. out, on november the 15th, 2022, you had a romantic relationship with ms wolf? >> i signed the second contract. yes, sir. >> that's for my question, please. >> on i'm not going to use the words ria find on the rehab or whatever you want to call it your contract on november the 15th, 2022, you had a romantic relationship? >> already >> existing with ms willis? yes or no? >> i signed the contract. the second contract? yes, sir. during the course romantic relations, yes or no, you had a romantic relationship with her at the time that you signed up the extension on november the 15th? in 2022? yes or no? the answer to that question is yes. thank you.

>> now the this was before the special purpose grand jury released any a report, isn't that correct? >> correct. >> are you asking me if it's before the work was completed or before the special purpose grand jury actually released publicly released the report when they were two different report it relationship with this ms rule, is there already existed when they special purpose grand jury released its report, correct? >> at the time we report was released? yes, sir. >> you understand that the report the work had been completed prior to the release of the report, you understand that and your relationship with ms willis? of course, was prior to the indictment in this case, correct? >> yes, sir.

>> your honor, if i may just ask my folks over here whether it's something i need to clean up on that's all the questions, your honor, i have. thank you >> i'm said i think we went through no, i and ask permission. >> he was going to go further on this >> one follow up the around him to go first that's what i thought i had. >> all right. let me the understanding next time we're going to keep going. an order and skip around the order. >> all right, that's why i bought it off. >> okay. >> all right >> mr. sadow >> i'm. going to try to keep my

questions very specific. >> yes. >> yes. and i'm going to also, of course, try not to go back into specific questions that have already been asked okay? yes, sir. >> when did your relationship with ms willis end? 2023. >> can you give us an approximation of not by date, but by month >> summer 2023 forgive me i'm a man. we don't do the date thing summer 23, i would say june maybe using the euphemism personal relationship did you, have any personal relationship at all with ms willis after the summer of 2023 >> i want to make sure that i'm answering your question.

are you because let me let me rephrase if i might >> the way >> it has been characterized and for example, the response of the state and i believe in your affidavit is there's a difference between a personal relationship, any professional relationship correct? yes, sir. okay. >> i'm not talking about a professional relationship i'm talking about the personal relationship. have you had a personal relationship at all and you know what i mean by that? after the summer of 2023, are you asking me if i intercourse with the district attorney >> i was trying not to, but i guess if you're going to characterize it, is that the answer would be the answer would be no. so it's been purely professional since the summer of 2023. >> so that's where we're having issues you'll have to explain because i don't know what the issue would be. no, i will explain to you you say

personal were very good friend probably closer than ever because of these attacks. but if you asking me about specific intercourse, the answer is no. >> how about if i change it from intercourse to romantic >> no. >> okay. >> during the direct examination, you made a statement, at least i believe i heard it correctly, that you personal relationship and now i'm talking about that characterized the sexual romantic relationship was not a secret. that correct weight if you're asking me if people knew that we were having sex. no. they didn't >> i'm asking you whether people knew that you were dating, whether you were romantically involved, you said that it was not a secret? >> oh, it wasn't a secret. it

was just private. my mother knew obviously, they did anyone in the district attorney's office that has worked on this case know that you were dating or, had a romantic relationship with district attorney willis? >> i don't know what they knew. >> well did you tell anyone know do you have any knowledge or whether ms willis revealed to anyone? >> i have no clue. >> so as far as you know, as far as you know, from personal knowledge no one in the da's team knew, correct? that's correct. okay. >> so if it was a legitimate relationship is there any particular reason why it was kept secret or private >> wasn't kept secret. us kept private. >> and the purpose for that was it's why we chose to do i'm asking you why they're not just because you chose what if you're dating someone, why keep it private >> so two reasons. the first one is and i want to say this

respectfully in the right way there are some people who are in the public eye who just don't like it don't wish to be there. i have tried to have lunch or dinner with her publicly, and i can't count the number of people that would approach the table or would it cost us as we're trying to walk into a restaurant and just have lunch or have a meal it is not secret. it is private. we don't want the world. the world asking questions or interrupting that time so we weren't trying to keep anything secret, mr. sadow. it does nothing secret or salacious about having a private life nothing not suggesting that there was i'm asking the questions. when you went on the various trips that have been outlined by both mr. gillan and

buy ms merchant anyone in the district attorney's office know that the two of you were traveling on personal trips together? >> to my knowledge, mr. sadow know >> again, that was for privacy, according to your testimony? >> privacy, yes, sir. okay. >> did you and ms willis go to the hape ville condo prior to your relationships starting? beginning of 2022 >> prior to having physical contact. proud of having intercourse, do we go to the hate-filled condo? again, you keep going to intercourse. i'm trying not to be find the answer to that question would be yes. did you and ms willis go to the hate-filled condo? prior to what i want to say, november 1 of 29th, 2021? >> yes. >> okay. and the purpose for

going to the hate-filled condo with ms willis prior to 2021 would have been what? prior to november 1 of 2021 could have been any number of things because at that time it's what i'm asking to tell me. yeah. could have been in a number of things because at that time, she had a friend living in that condo. maturity lived in that condo >> it maybe it was my question was poorly worded. let me try again. >> your answer is yes. prior to november 1 of 2021, you would have gone to the hate-filled condo and been there with ms willis, correct? >> yes. >> and you would have been there as you indicated for many reasons, right? >> yes. can you give me just list a few of the reasons? wet to visit her maybedocument that

received. >> it would go to the conduct and talking about a document that you receive? absolutely. okay. go ahead. >> any other reasons? >> none come to mind? none come to mind? no, sir. >> and would you say that was frequent? when i say frequent, do you think prior to november 1 of 2021, you were at the condo more than ten times? >> no, sir. >> so it'd be less than ten times? yes, sir. >> so a phone records were to reflect that you were making phone calls from the same location as a condo before november 1st of 2021. and it was on multiple occasions to phone records would be wrong if phone records reflected that? yes, sir. they'd be wrong, maybe wrong. okay. >> did you where did you live during that time period? >> same place i live now, which is not >> in hate, bill, correct it is not in april. >> it is north of atlanta, the city of atlanta, correct? >> it is. okay. >> the other any other reasons why you would be in the hate-filled area on multiple

occasions prior to november 1 of 2021 >> let's see, the porsche experiences there. i'm sorry, the post experiences there. so that would've been one. any other? >> yes, sir. >> the airport is there airport and hate-filled yes. or delta airlines is okay. according there. let's see restaurants. there >> you have if that's your recollection, that's fine. i'm not asking you to try to remember everything, but if okay >> did you discuss your affidavit filed in connection with the response with ms willis >> no, sir. >> did. you know a personal

knowledge whether ms willis reviewed your affidavit before it was included with the response? >> i have no clue so as far as you know, personal knowledge, ms willis did not know what you said in the affidavit? >> body give to her >> that's what i said. you have no personal knowledge? no personal knowledge. as far as you know, no one else has told you that she did or didn't? i hadn't asked me one >> the we've kind of work this up a little bit in the numbers could be off, but according to our numbers $10,000 give or take would have been reflected on your credit card statements in connection with things potential benefit to ms willis? okay. >> i >> want you to just to assume that of the ten assuming that there was $10,000 that you had your on your credit cards is it your testimony that ms willis

paid you back $10,000? in cash? >> not my acrobat >> object >> characterization of >> $10,000 for ms willis's travel. >> i don't believe them what the numbers at least the summary that i've been provided by joint travel. is that right, mr. sadow, sorry. >> it's not joint travel but all i'm trying to understand, i'll rephrase because i don't want to get bogged down on specific numbers. >> you >> would have received thousands of dollars in cash from ms willis, correct? >> yes, sir. okay. >> in the thousands of dollars in cash from ms willis, do you know? not i'm not asking you whether she took it out of her pocketbook or she took it out of a suitcase. i'm saying do you know the source of the cash? >> just that out of her pocketbook? yes. they don't know where she obtain the cash. i didn't ask her. the whole time that you she was paying you in cash. you never said, hey, why do you have this

amount of cash while mr. mr. sadow in my practice, people come into my law firm tom with cash and never questioned where they got it. >> yeah. but we're talking not about people that come into your law firm. we're talking about the district attorney of fulton county, who i'm assuming receives a paycheck she doesn't get paid in cash. >> so just like you assume, i assume she got it from her paycheck. i don't know. okay. but of course, it's already been not going to go back into it. you've not seen any records indicating withdrawals? >> of >> cash from ms willis at all. why would i asked her? i said if you haven't, right? no, sir. okay. now >> can you explain why you filed for divorce one day after you were hired? buy ms willis, you filed on november 2 of 2021. you're hired on november 1st of 2021, wyhe the day after you being one day so you filed for divorce

>> one day? after you were higher, right >> okay >> i'll answer your question. okay. please. >> so in 2015, when my wife had the affair we had a conversation that we would divorce right there again, the better practice at least for my children at the time was to stay in place until the youngest could graduate m matriculate into college. we did that when she graduated with circulated into college at the time, my wife had moved back and forth to houston to texas. so she's in texas. we take our child after college. we come back to georgia for a brief period of time the voice gets filed. she gets served. there we go.