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.

file and why do you have the right to object on his behalf for attorney-client privilege >> well, i don't make formal guard. there we go >> and i believe that cheap he's already attempted to answer this question and there was no privilege raised. so he's given a partial answer and now he's about to finish that. so first of all, i don't think it's covered by attorney-client privilege and i'll deal with that if you want me to. but otherwise, he's already answered part of it he doesn't get to say now i'm going to stop so what i was a long preface, but i don't think it ever actually got to what might have been at issue there. so if you can lay the foundation will deal with the objection take a step back >> you realize that an

>> attorney-client privileges the privilege of the client, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and you connection with your representation, at least it's been profit to the court by mr. bradley that it's up to you to decide whether you want to raise the privilege, right? >> yes, sir. it's not up to mr. bradley. >> yes, sir. >> you have the power in order to get to the truth of the matter. do you have the power to waive the attorney-client privilege? do you not? i believe great question. privileges there >> whether he uses it or not, it doesn't matter why mr. said, i think if we're trying to get to the answer to your question, let's figure out were there covers the question you were trying to get to in your if i may finish in your position is you have no intention of waving your attorney-client privilege, correct? that's correct. >> so now can you answer the question why you waited until november 2, the day after you were hired by ms willis to file

for divorce? >> i can. >> okay. >> so again jocelyn had relocated to texas and she had been in texas for months she was only here for a brief period of time to drive my daughter's car back with her. and when she came here to do that, i was able to then get her served okay. >> so your answer as to why you waited until the day after you were hired by ms willis on which would be november 1, 2021, to file the complaint for the divorce on november 2, 2021 your testimony under oath, this because you're she was he was here was here, but had not been here in october and not been here in september, had not been

hearing in august of 2021. >> she had been in texas taking care of her ailing mother. and your testimony, fathers. so the first missed opportunity that i had after speaking with my lawyers to take care of that was the date. it was filed and served because he happened to be here. it had nothing to do with that was purely coincidental. that contract hi, understand. it's purely coincidence, your testimony? yes. >> and understand that this was by agreement between between xi and xi being my wife and die, that we would divorce when the children matriculated out, and that there would actually have been an agreement attached to the piling it became apparent that the agreement wasn't wasn't going to happen and things got a little contentious. so that's when

the privilege of chicken and i was forced to do it when i did it so if i understood correctly, again, you tell me if i'm wrong is it your testimony that your wife was not in atlanta, georgia or the metro area throughout october of 2021 >> no. >> october in october of 2021, she was back and forth between here and texas >> so she was at least on some occasions in the lambda area, but that was during the time when we were working through the consent agreement that fell through >> i think we're pretty far appeal on relevance to answer to the question about the timing of war silent. >> understood this cross, a state where we go from here. >> we're about finish this area since i'm not going to be able to go any further about if we want to call the extra, called the x for that purpose

>> well, we want to discuss whether that's a collateral issue altogether. i'm just saying if i didn't say we will, but okay. all right. so you said that you were aware of the contracts that mr. bradley and mr. campbell had with the fulton county district attorney's office, correct? yes, sir. and how did you become aware of those? >> just through conversation, they >> conversation with who mr. bradley and mr. campbell, you were discussing matters with mr. bradley which were not related to attorney-client privilege, correct? >> related to the contract, yes. okay. but you were having conversations that would not even know if i understood correctly. mr. bradley, was your attorney at the time, correct? >> at what time? >> at the time that mr. bradley received his contract from fulton county, which would've been beginning of january or in january of 2021, right? >> is that the date of his contract?

>> pretty close >> i don't know what the date of his contract was, but if late for my after the date of the filing of divorce, then i'm not talking about i'm not talking about after the date of filing divorce it's been represented to the court that you had an attorney-client relationship with mr. bradley from 2015 forward? >> yes. correct? yes, sir. that is correct. >> when mr. bradley received his contract with fulton county, that was in 2021, correct? >> i don't know. >> we can prove that through other evidence. but at the time that mr. bradley was doing work for fulton county, if i understand you still had an attorney-client privilege, at least you're claiming one with mr. brad, correct? >> yes. >> so when you talk to mr. bradley about matters with his contract in fulton county, those were not covered by your

attorney-client privilege, correct? >> they were not. okay. and that meant that not all communications with mr. bradley were covered by attorney-client privilege, correct? >> will those certainly weren't. well, but my question was not >> all communications with mr. bradley were covered by at least as you've been represented to the court, by the attorney-client privilege, correct? those communications were not so there were communications outside of the attorney-client privilege, correct? >> with mr. >> bradley, if you're asking me if i ever communicate with him outside of the attorney-client privilege. the answer is yes communicated with him outside attorney let's >> finish this up. and did you call it roman number four, which is offense and defense exhibit number four mr. guillen went over with you, your

responses to certain interrogatories may the 30th, 2023. remember that? yes, sir not going back into those the words and the neuroglia tories are already in evidence. so we're not going to do that but the ones that we've gotten gone into, there were two of them your answer to both of those was not correct? >> yes, sir. okay. >> now on january 25th of 2024. >> yes, sir >> you again, we're in a position that you answered those same interrogatories is two that we're talking about. i get specific. we need to but as long as we understand we're talking about the same to right? yes, sir. okay. >> and they are in defense exhibit number six and they are interrogatories. number four and number five. >> okay?

>> no i want you to be able to see so it's a defense exhibit number six oh i see him sits up there >> i'm told i'm told that you have six. okay? >> here we are okay. >> you would agree with me that in defense exhibit number six, and we're talking about interrogatories of january 25, 2024. >> yes, sir. >> that as two interrogatory number four, that's the same interrogatory. same words that were in the interrogatory that mr. guillen went over, which was dated may 30 of 2023, correct? >> yes, sir >> and your original response? in defense exhibit number six

was none, correct? yes, sir. >> updated response was the plaintiff declines to respond to this interrogatory and asserts his privilege pursuant to ocga section 24, dash five deaths, 505, correct? >> yes, sir. >> you know that 24 dash five dash 505 breaks down into two to privileges, right? >> which is wow, specific. i said i asserted privacy privileged. well, >> that's what i'm asking you. in your updated response, there's no reference to privacy, correct? >> if there is in the code section 2045, there's five or five, but it also comes to privacy let's go with me. >> okay. >> that code section says doesn't know party or witness shall be required to testify as to any matter which may incriminate or tend to

incriminate such party or witness, or which shall tend to bring into me disgrace or public contempt. such party or witness. you'd agree with that, right >> i'm not reading it. >> i'm sorry. i'm not reading it. i don't have it in front of me. >> if if i may >> mr. we can i can take judicial notice that that is what the rule says. if you want to ask him a follow-up question, okay. thank you. >> you are not claiming that your answer to number four, interrogatory number four on january 25, 2024 incriminate you. that is as in fifth amendment privilege. >> right? >> that's correct. >> you're claiming the second part. that it would it would bring infamy disgrace are public contempt, correct >> back to that, i don't think that's the full thing that and also the witness doesn't have in front of them side of that he says several times privacy is upset overruled.

>> i'm claiming privacy >> the privilege that you make reference to is to infamy disgrace, or public contempt upon the witness. right? our party that's a section that you were relying on, correct >> if that's what he says, yes, sir >> i could show you, but i think the court has already indicated he can take judicial notice of the statute, so you assume that what i'm telling you is accurate, okay? >> yes, sir. okay. >> how would an answer of none bring infamy disgrace are public contempt upon you? so as i explained indirect but mr. romans, council the minute she elected to intervene into my divorce proceeding i then started to understand the bigger picture, which was that all the attorneys in the election interference case, were colluding with joy

iceland's divorce lawyer, and because of that, i said privacy. i don't want my divorce proceeding to bleed into this criminal proceeding. i just didn't want that. >> saida, where are we headed with this now? i think i can finish that up by saying you didn't say none. again, you asserted a privilege, correct? >> that's correct. okay. >> and you did the same thing, did you not with number five >> that's correct. is it that is. you didn't say none again? right. >> is the answer to >> the interrogatory number four. as you have it in front of you, is the answer none. is that the truth? >> the answer is tibet interrogatory is as i placed it

at the time, i responded, sir, i'm asking now is the answer to that interrogatory answer none. the answer is still privilege. >> all right? >> so he's apparently electing to apply the same privilege. mr. set out to that exact same question. and i have a case which indicates that we can get beyond that if the court deems that appropriate >> and to what end what end where the privilege actually does not apply. and he knows he must answer the question where does that give us the answers? the question has already kind said everything has to say about the nature of the relationship, how long it lasted, when did end up? no. i think it would prove i think if he is forced compelled by saying none or he answered the truthfully by saying yes and then telling us what it is. that's what i'm believe that's why i'm asking but the interrogatory >> you're referring to the the question contained there two interrogatories. yes, sir.

it's the entertaining one. it's whether there were other relationships. right. >> with a specific language that's in the interrogatories. >> sure. >> having >> jordi, how many already covered that and all the other questions that we've had so far >> we have. but again, the court could if i could acquire a compelling answer from him as to whether his answer would still be none then we would know whether or not he was telling the truth. now, if the answer is no, then obviously there was a time in the past where he was not it simply requires him to now answer under oath what he refused to answer and claimed but i might suggest it's a bogus privilege and that you can pierce that privilege because it's a material fact in connection with this case. again, it's a call that, your honor makes. i have the case law that says you can do that, but it's your discretion this cross you, ron make span now for several hours

and gas very it asked and answered. carrie personal questions. cover the issues state one is making argument and probably an argument to make for later to the court and not a question so as i see it, the only relevance these interrogatories had to this case, really whatsoever >> would be as either prior inconsistent, or consistent statements. and to that and i think the question has been put to him again and again and again. he's answered how he believes he felt his answer should be and why he answered a certain way. and as it goes to credibility, i think at this point were arguing. wait, i don't really see the value and pushing this issue further so just for the record, the case that i was going to refer to is state versus wakefield at 03:24, georgia appeal 587. and specifically see it would be

590 in which they talk about this specific privilege. this is a 2013 case, and then they footnote to number footnote three and footnote three says there are times when the materiality of the evidence outweighs to testimonial privilege and it goes on, explains what that is. that's when i'm reading. i see what you're >> saying that we could say that you need to answer the question regardless of the privilege you asserted at this point, though, i think we've covered that ground and we're ready to move on. okay. >> based on that, i have nothing else. thank you. >> okay. mr. mcculloch, anything on behalf of mr. floyd? moving through defense counsel, i'm sorry. i'm looking behind you, mr. mecole, a math floyds elgeyo and you, sir. >> okay. >> mr. cromwell >> all right. ms cross >> mr. wade have you still got exhibit number 14 in front of year all of that believe i have

them all right >> so you were asked mr. wade about a couple of the invoice items and your testimony, i think was that percentage of income post special counsel appointment in november 2021, the percentage of your income roughly after that time was about 50. 50 fulton versus other income from your law practice, correct? >> roughly, yes, ma'am. okay. >> sometimes more. sometimes less? yes, ma'am. all right >> how about your time? i'm interested in the percentage of your time from sap term november 2021. so let's say the close of the special purpose grand jury when it was dissolved in january 2023, you estimate for us the percentage of your time that was spent on fulton county? versus other words. >> oh gosh 9091 99% of the

time. here in this building working on this case >> it was as i understood your testimony, it was an intense period in terms of hours while that special purpose grand jury was meeting, correct? yes, ma'am. >> and who is head or manager of the election integrity case during that time for the district attorney's office you're coordinating the efforts? >> yes, ma'am. >> and those efforts included not just the proceedings that were happening in this building, correct? >> that's correct. >> i don't need to go off through it, but is your representation that 99.9% of the time, that's restricted to 2022 99% of your professional working time was devoted to this case? >> yes, ma'am. >> and the remainder, whatever it was was to some of your other cases that were ongoing? >> yes, ma'am. all right. >> 2022. i want to focus on that a little bit because if we

are looking at believed the financial affidavits, do you have those in front of you as well? i do >> the financial affidavit that was filed in your divorce case in january 2022. you estimated your monthly income at that time was $14,000 a month, right? in 20 to january 22? yes, ma'am. >> january 23, would that number comes >> 9,000 >> about 20:24 i don't know >> is that there in front of you? is that one that's not one of the ones at san front of you? >> no, ma'am. all right. >> as reflected in those financial affidavits, your income decreased as a result of your work in this case, correct? >> significant >> the structure of your firm. we talked a lot about that. now, when i go through it anymore, but then we need to but 2022, the structure of your firm chain is that correct? >> that's correct.

>> in the early part of 2022. >> there were three of you >> you and mr. campbell and mr. bradley, you split expenses, is that right? >> that's correct. and you >> profit shared among yourselves, correct >> correct >> after mr. bradley left the farm than there were just two of you, correct? >> that is the cause of the significant change? yes, ma'am >> so now you have two people bringing in income, correct? >> correct. >> and one of those people you is spending almost all of your time devoted to this election integrity case, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and your income from this election integrity case is less than what it was the year before? >> yes, ma'am >> we talked about the monthly caps or we didn't talk about it. there was talk about the monthly cap that was included in your hahn tracks indicating there was a certain threshold that you could reach number

hours a month. and over that amount, you were not going to be compensated, correct? >> that's correct. >> all right. >> and cat smile when you said that that's a little bit or suite there isn't it? >> that's bitter. bitter. all right. >> exhibit 14. is that so there in front of you? >> it is. i want you to take a look, please. that's a collection of exhibit set includes all of your invoices as was represented. i want you to take a look at invoice number nine. >> yes, ma'am. >> that they're in front of you? i have it invoice number nine, mr. wade indicates that you performed hours of work that you are not compensated for because your cap had been reached? >> yes, ma'am. >> once you take and what did you do in those circumstances when the hours that you worked per month? we're more than the cap that was in your contract that you were permitted to be paid for? >> i was forced to lose that time. i didn't get paid for it. >> okay. >> and that's what exhibit number nine shows? >> yes, ma'am. all right. >> and in exhibit number nine, you've got a task hours that were completed and you just

didn't bill for it. you noted the time and then zero beside it because you didn't feel the county for that time? >> yes, ma'am. all right. >> what about exhibit number invoice number 13? can you flip to that for me >> i have it. >> is that a similar situation >> yes, ma'am, it is. >> and what is it on? exhibit? i'm sorry. invoice number 13? >> this invoice makes me cry there's so many hours here that i worked that i couldn't i couldn't get paid for and you work those hours anyway, mr. wade? >> oh, absolutely. this is not the type of job that you could walk away from just because you're not getting paid for it. i think there's some professional rules responsibility to an attorney who's engaged in a case. you have to see it through. so it's not like i could just throw my hands up and say, well, i reach my my monthly cap. i'm done.

>> i can walk away. i can't do that. this is ongoing. it's constant, not have to do the work you look at invoice number 23 for me there and exhibit number 14 >> yes, ma'am >> is that reflect a similar situation? hours works that you were not compensated for? >> yes, ma'am. >> invoice number 24.27. can you take a look at those and let us know if that reflects the same situation >> are you trying to depress me? >> the money >> this the st. yes. >> okay >> there's no work around to that. you didn't attempt to work around that contractual cap on your hours? >> oh, no, ma'am >> all right >> you were asked a lot of questions. mr. wade about the affidavit that was submitted, correct? you can call those questions. >> i'm sorry. i'm stuck on this invoice that, you know if i was

going to get a benefit, i'd like that that's the one i want that didn't happen >> okay. >> and there was no renegotiating your contract? to reflect that those hours should be paid or any no, ma'am. okay. >> all do you have your affidavit there in front of you >> i do. >> the affidavit, of course, was attached to and provided in support of the state's response to mr. romans motion, correct? >> yes, ma'am. all right. >> and you prepare that affidavit? >> i did. >> you signed that affidavit? >> i did. >> all of the allegations and the representations in that affidavit or true, is that right, mr. wade, every one of them everyone of them? >> you were >> asked a lot of questions about our line number 34. can you turn to that for me, please? it's on page four of that affidavit >> yes, ma'am. >> you read it out loud for me, please? >> the district attorney in both financially independent

professionals, expenses for personal travel were roughly divided equally between us at times, i have made and purchase travel for district attorney willis and myself from my personal funds. at other times, district attorney willis has made and purchase travel for sheet and die from her personal funds. examples of district attorney willis is purchasing plane tickets for xi and with her personal funds for our personal travel. are attached funds. >> mr. wade, as you understand the term, funds, does that include cash >> yes. >> does that include credit? >> yes. >> does that include reimbursements? >> yes. >> you didn't represent in your affidavit, mr. wade that you were including all of the receipts from funds or travel expenses that were paid on your

behalf by district attorney willis, correct? >> that's correct >> you had i think your conversation with ms merchant was you produced the receipt that you had? >> yes, ma'am. >> are you aware of any other receives what are the applicants? >> i'm going to mark in the market as safe >> number one >> you testify, mr. white, that attorney bullets purchased and funded the entire trip to the lease that was her treat to you for a birthday? >> yes, ma'am. >> and you testified that? she purchased that plane tickets correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and while you may not have had the receipts on hand when you feel that the affidavit they weren't in your possession, are you aware now that there are receipts and that it reflects that the district attorney i've got a costume do you remember, mr.

wade, approximately how much? >> and that's against my personal. >> do you remember how the flight was for you? more >> like to bailey's >> and if you don't have that tendering agree this i'm just asking you to take a look at that at that refresh your recollection is to the amount that that plane ticket cost that was extended by district attorney >> you may keep it is that refresh your recollection, mr. wade? it does. thank you. >> approximately how much was the amount of the ticket? district attorney willis purchased for your travel? >> $887.35

>> and i'm not tenure get, your honor. but i will leave it with the court reporter for >> all right. >> mr. wade? your testimony here in court today and consistent with your affidavit, was that the personal relationship i think we've called it dating today as well. the personal or dating relationship between you and the district attorney began sometime in early 2022, march, i think was your testimony, is that right? >> yes, ma'am >> and that march date isn't included in the affidavit. the affidavit is less specific, but that was your testimony today? >> yes, ma'am. >> and that there was no personal or dating relationship prior to that time, right? no.

>> it's a way i'm sorry. >> i'm going to direct your attention to >> 2020 in 2020 where you dating the district attorney know who thousand and 20 that was during the covid pandemic, correct >> it >> was there a situation for you, mr. wade that made you particularly vulnerable during the covid period >> yes, ma'am. and in 2020 and a portion of 21. i was battling cancer and that prevented me from pretty much leaving the leaving environments that are sterile. and i just i had helped on my mind. >> you're particularly cautious during that time? >> yes, ma'am. >> well you dating anyone in 2020 >> no, ma'am

>> thank you, mr. way. that's all i have. >> let's machinery cross on those points only >> all right. mr. wade, the state asked you about how much money you're making now versus before, and you said you're making significantly less since you've started working for fulton county, correct? >> well, i did say that, but what we're talking about is because this now at this point, the splitting of the financial obligations and firm are now there are two people carrying the weight of three. so that would scale back on the amount of income, right? amount of practice. >> while you're splitting the profits, 50, 50 though instead of one-third, correct. >> the profits, yes. okay. >> so but you did testify that you making you're making significantly less now we heard about it for a few minutes, significantly less now that you worked for fulton county, right? >> yes. okay.

>> would you agree with me that $236,000 is more than $184,000? >> absolutely. >> would you agree with me that $262,000 is more than $236,000? all of these years, despite you saying that you were a three-way partner with weighed in campbell and bradley and now to a part with campbell. all of your corporate tax returns are filed in the law firm of neva-b, though, correct? >> my returns, yes, ma'am. yes. for your law firm >> former law firm, because also have personal returns, right? >> i'm not talking about your personal returns. i'm talking about your business returns. >> but but the question contemplates that my my bring home money is more or less so i want to be clear that is reflected in my personal returns. >> i didn't ask you anything about bringing home money though. i'm not sure what you're talking about. >> what i'm talking about is your question was the portion of my testimony dealing with earnings significantly less

money, know now my question is during and let me just break it down. during 2019, you filed your business returns. i'm not talking about your personal your business returns for the law firm of nathan wade only, correct >> file personal and business? yes, ma'am >> and even though you said you were partners with bradley and campbell later on, you filed your business returns, not with them, but as a solo practitioner, correct? >> i said we want there's a different return for that way. bradley campbell entity. >> and i'm not asking about that. what i'm asking about is during the years 2019, 2020, 2,021.2022 you filed a business return for the law firm of nathan wade? >> yes, ma'am >> and in 2019, you said that the law firm of nathan wade made 140, $184,000, correct >> i don't know

>> is that does that does that sound familiar? does that sound about like what you made in 2019? and reported on your taxes as a business law firm? >> that's what's on the return. yes, ma'am. you're right. >> and i'm happy i can bring those up. i've got one copy. i'm not letting all right. >> may approach, judge. >> thank you. >> so in 2019 gross profit for the law firm of meeting made is $184,000, correct? >> let's see >> the second line number to grow >> yes, ma'am. hundred and 8,048.24? yes, ma'am. >> and then in 2020, you also filed nathan wade, attorney at law. >> and your birth profit was >> $230,000, correct >> yes ma'am >> 2021. you also filed as a solo nathan wade, pc, attorney, a larger first profit was $236,000, correct? >> yes, ma'am.

>> and then in 2022, you filed as a practitioner, nathan wade, and your gross income was $262,000, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> i'm not going business and got here. >> but nowhere in these documents, you document that you received cash payments from as well as, correct? >> i don't i hadn't looked through them. i'd be surprised if if there were something in it said they want to look, throw listen to the answer. >> i'd be >> shocked if there was something in there that said that i receive some cash from ms willis >> but there is itemized expenditures for travel in here. you did itemize that? >> i didn't itemize anything. my itemized it. >> i hope so. >> but you're responsible for your taxes even if your account biles them, right? >> i agree and so you itemized your expenses for travel that you did not itemize you didn't put anything in there about you being reimbursed for half of that travel >> well, those are those

business returns? >> yes. you use your business >> card to pay for the travel, right? >> but i wouldn't put a personal expense on a business return, but the business card to pay for >> these are used to be trapped. i use a business card to pay for everything. and what i do is turn over the statement to the accountant. the accountant then says, okay this experience that's person will put that over here. this expense that's business. we'll put that over here and they reconcile it. and so you wouldn't find a reimbursement from ms willis on a business return. >> okay. so they're not anywhere there nor would you find well, go ahead. >> i'm just asking so there's no there's nowhere for any of that cash to be reconciled. they're right >> on the business returns. no, ma'am. >> okay. >> we talked a lot about the financial affidavits. i know the state asked you a couple of questions about them. you filed one in 2022 and that one you stated that you only have $5,000 in cash, correct? i

believe you know, that was sworn under oath at the time of the filing? yes, ma'am. okay. >> and then in january of 2024, you filed another one that also swore that you only have $5,000 in cash, correct? >> at the time of the filing, yes, ma'am. okay. >> so in 2020, 2.20, 24, you only had $5,000 in cash at that time? >> yes, ma'am. >> then you also all of those interrogatories. i'm not gonna go through them in painstaking detail, but every single interrogatory you filed, their four of them, all verified ones. every single one. you said you didn't have any cash stored in a safe a safety deposit box, or any other location. plaintiff rarely kairys cash if plaintiffs does carry caches the nominal amount, correct? >> that's correct. >> okay. >> so we've got what, 2021. you said you don't have cash 2023. you said you don't have cash again in 2023, you said you don't have cash. and then in 2024, you don't have cash, right? >> so you're assuming that i received the cash and i stored it? i received the cash and i saved it. was right, steven, what's wrong with receiving

the cash, ms merchant and spending it? >> nothing's wrong with it. so he didn't bet. that would contemplate while the responses, what it is on the interrogatories that you spent the cash that's because before when when it was asked, you said you didn't want to disclose where the cash was? >> no, no, no, no, no, no privacy reasons. no. well, i said that if i were to store cash in my home, then why would i share that with the world is what i said. i didn't say that i had some cash stored up in some place because that's not the truth >> and you've talked a lot about this i split with a third, i split with half from let's see, from the czech you received from fulton county july 15, 2022 so back all the way that for july 2022, not a single check that you've received from fulton county has gone into a joint banking account. every single check has gone into your own personal banking account, correct? >> all of them with the exception of the checks that we're going into the wbc firm

went into my business bank account, which is solely in mind my name, right your your your wbc account that you're talking about, that account was closed though in june of 2022? >> correct. so i went after june of 2022 was put in a nathan wade bank account, not a corporate bank account with heart disease i think the question right before that only needed a yes or no. >> so no, ma'am the checks were deposited into firm accounts law. firm accounts law firm of nathan wade, pc? >> yes, ma'am. as a solo practitioner? yes, ma'am. okay. so they were not deposited into accounts with campbell or bradley? >> no, ma'am. they were not think however, there were checks written to campbell and bradley that will reflect the third the third the third. >> and we've tried to get those bank records, but you've objected to those, correct? >> you've tried to get what >> bank records we subpoenaed bank records and you've objected to all of those, right

>> your honor, i'm going to object to the relevance. >> it's relevant if he's saying he has all these records, but yet we've tried to get them and he's trying to keep them from us but he doesn't bring all of the records. you can make an inference if there's a law that says you can make an inference if some documents or within the party's control and they won't provide them that there's an inference that they're not positive. >> that's correct, your honor. >> no obligation for mr. way to produce evidence that ms merchant couldn't find it disavowal way i believe it's irrelevant. we've covered the ground that and i objection for the questioning all right. >> sustain that, ms merchant, let's find some new ground here. >> okay. thank you. >> are you willing to waive your privilege with mr. bradley so that he can testify. >> i'm not willing to waive attorney-client privilege. >> thank you. >> when we on question to help questions, we're asking >> can i can ask me from here i don't want to get into the type of cancer i want to get into

the medical condition itself. then i understand you have to say that you had cancer in the year 2020. >> yes, sir. >> play that because of that in 2020, you were kept yourself in a sterile environment >> i tried, yes, sir >> now, what about 20:21? 2021. just focusing on my health, trying to get back to myself. >> remember, i asked you to questions about take bill >> this a condo you indicated that prior to november 1 of 2021, you've spent time at the condo hey, bill condo with ms boyle. that's right. >> yes, sir. and with someone >> else, you said ms year, t maturity? yes, sir. okay >> you are not concerned that was not a sterile environment, was it? >> are you inferring that maturity and da willis is not

sterile? of course, it's history environment is a condo >> but don't you remember that? i followed up and said, where else might you have been to show your cell phone records from hate-filled when you said the airport right? >> not a sterile >> environment though the airport, you agree it is not. ok. what about restaurants? not a sterile environment, right? >> there? >> and the poor, she said something about a porsche. what of course, experience that doesn't sound very sterile to me. is that a sterile environment where you're inside your vehicle? >> yeah. but don't you maybe with others >> he can. yeah. >> and you were doing all that in 2021 before november 1 that's what you testified to, correct? >> yes, sir. there's no reason why >> you couldn't be dating in 2021, is there? >> do 2020, mr. sadow? >> 2021. >> grab dating

>> no no worries. no reason >> mr. okay. mr. stocks stocks, excuse me >> just real briefly you started at early 2022 so use the term personal relationship and there was no dating, no personal relationship prior to early 20. is that correct? >> helped me understand. i want to make sure i answer you. so so let let's let's be clear. 2022 was the start of any intimate sexual relationship with the district attorney. >> okay. and that's what i was okay.

>> affidavit used the term >> personal relationship. >> it's got to use the term vague. >> and >> your testimony today is that that ince basically physical or sexual or intimate relationships that correct? >> yes, sir. >> and there was nothing corddry testimony there was none of that priority? >> that is correct. >> all right. not seeing anyone else across the redirect. >> all right. ms merchant can swim to excuse i'm did we ask ask for >> keeping motors might need him back after all right. >> are you misled down, mr. wade business discuss your testimony with the other witnesses. >> she mentioned subpoenaed. let me just say this. that wasn't an inference made that i was somehow evading service.

other than subpoena. you can take that up. i don't think we need to have on the record i'm still no. >> thank you. >> all right. ms merchant, any other witnesses? yes. i would call fani willis >> all right. ms cross, you and i am going to adapt and removed there's been now. lots of testimony from your ways. i don't believe that there can be a showing for the need for that for any to testify as for all of the reasons that were cited in the state's motion to quash initially tremendously high-burden know while opposing counsel, i don't believe it's the met particularly given the cumulative nature that would be the subject of personal detail. that is the way it's not testified why what do, you think you can establish and have through the testimony of ms willis and >> let me put me stop there. >> conflict in the up and stretch. now mr. wade has

testified there's a conflict in multiple different on the first one is an embarrassment issue on the cash that would be the door so here's goal is testifying. >> well, what's what's the conflict there >> he testified that he didn't have receipts but we don't know who's willing so that i wanted so we don't we don't know. so there's no conflict. we just don't know. so it's a question, not a conflict. but what what else >> and there's a lot of different issues reasons. the first one would be the receipts >> whether or not these cash payments >> at the believes trapped, whether or not she paid for the entire thing in cash >> and have knowledge of that. remember, a lot of things he couldn't remember. so now it goes to school. it's unfortunate that. he testified that she insists on paying her way, gave him some cash that's the boat. some cash miami trip booked it abroad. it would

balance out couple of other trips that we didn't get any information about tennessee, alabama, georgia, all of those could be financial benefits. we don't know. he didn't know but it was very vague about that year or even best friends testified that it happened in 2019. now, mr. wade has testified that the relationship began to become romantic and that is a conflict in and of itself, right there. that's a big conflict. >> we've also got more receipts but the biggest thing about the conflict is when the relationship starting he said he talked with willis in the conference room after we filed her motion specifically didn't use cash, the term cash in the affidavit, but he told anybody who would ask about the cash and he specifically discussed this >> and there were challenges. >> we have a right to all

right. so you've highlighted the areas you'd like to go into. so i think the central question maybe what is it other than i'm just really curious what she has to say. you have to put on the record. so that's that's what i'd like to go through ms cross i think you've identified misfortune, hasn't hasn't advice inconsistencies identified areas of inquiry. >> the >> testimony in the record from mr. wade is not inconsistent. it's unrebutted i don't believe given the testimony of mr. wade and that extent of the questioning of him, that there is any reason at this point to go into the district attorney herself? again i know the court spread all the pleadings at it really is such a compelling need is the language of the case bought a compelling need to call a person counsel, given

the record that's now before the i don't believe i was going very briefly. willis leads to testify best friend or good friend as directly contradicted the declaration made by mr. wait attached to the government's response and wasn't just the declaration of mr. way was filed by the district attorney by and through her her here. >> she owns that and so that affidavit is owned by her and there are deep concerns that that affidavit is false. and then this willis knew it was false and that she needs to come in here he wants to tell us about the first time you've heard about the cash. oh, yeah. we got don't have any deposit slips. go and have a record of

it. >> maybe as well as him say, here, all my records right. paid $10,000 in cash. that to mr. wade. we need to know that. >> also this this will assist that financial disclosure. let's not forget that. we're talking about two people who went to extraordinary legs to hide. their relationship, to hide the nature of their relationship. extraordinary. >> to district attorney needs to take the stand. and she needs to tell this court and this court room why she filed financial disclosures in 2022? identifying prohibits horses, which mr. wade clearly is the source. >> did you get >> gifts and benefits? >> now, we've seen all this seeing the trips. we've seen all of the things that they total up to around $10,000 in

cash. yet on the financial declaration for 20 21, which was filed in april 2022 and the financial declaration up for 2022, which was filed in april 2023 >> there is no listing any any gifts whatsoever over over $100 from a prohibited stores. it cries out for her testimony he needs to be able to get after and say, why didn't you tell the on the disclosure form so that people will know the nature of the relationship we prohibited sources and the public official in this case, the district attorney who happens to then make a decision to hire someone ends up being paid hundreds of thousands the dogs were in sperm and him. and none of that is revealed. and the answer is, oh, it's unrebutted. he's explained it's all in cash. let her get up and let's obviously we are

advocates on our position. but that explanation of cash does not pass. the smell test or the strange the phase test needs to go on the record. she filed this motion with his declaration we've seen what happened two or three more sentences. >> we need to yeah the full picture as we've gotten through, mr. wade of his faults interrogatory serious business for lawyer or candy bar. >> and then suddenly he's changing. >> she files her >> financial declarations. same problems. we need red here to go over all of this and to explain exactly what happened we asked the court that the coronal buyout is close to be called interrogated on me abu to your honor. >> just a moment, as well as so, ms cross, i don't know if you want to speak with ms

willis now, sounding like maybe they're withdrawing. >> leave. the objection to the motion and even motion two or more is my smallest want to take the lead here >> a motion to quash based on okay. so the >> position of the district attorney at this point is that she's no longer contesting the subpoena. ms merchan's callers. next witness? >> i would ask any three documents in front of me. no. refiling. some is merchant does >> anyone have the three filings of ms marchant doesn't the court had the three filings of ms martin. >> can you say the

>> filings you might the pleadings to pleadings. yes, your honor. okay. are there we can load the paint. those for him to suffer mental i want the one filed on january the eighth. one filed immediately after we filed ours. and the final one if you want to take a break to get them, i can make a copy. i think we have one >> the only copy i have is going to have my notes on it. so if we don't have a clean cabinet, have a five-minute break down. >> all right? >> i'll sit here >> high drama in the courthouse in fulton county, georgia, as there was a debate between the prosecution and the defense in donald trump's election subversion case in fulton county over whether da fani willis should testify about allegations of a conflict of interests that the defense team

for donald trump and his cohort of co-defendants are making about the da in an intense debate, ultimately, judge scott mcafee, not even having to weigh in on the decision because to the appearance shock of folks in the courtroom, the district attorneys stood up, the camera, panda her and she said, quote, i'm ready to go. >> the >> prosecution wave their objection to her testifying, and now we're watching those moments again now now we're expecting that she is going to testify after a five-minute break. >> that's right. she was asking for the filings of ashleigh merchant, the attorney who has been doing so much of the questioning and people have copies, but they've written notes on them. so that's not going to do the trick they need to get her clean copies of this so laura coats but it seems like what are going to be drilling down here? drilling down on here, and there's a lot of things, but in particular, having to do with her cash

reimbursements. and most significantly, the timeline of the relationship because he former employee and friends and in the district attorney's office, robin year t had earlier said that she believed without a doubt that the relationship and started in 2019 and we just heard testimony from nathan wade. he said 2022 first of all, this isn't a stunning, an extraordinary moment. >> we're >> about to have the da for fulton county the one who is bringing rico charges for more than a dozen, including the former president united states, who has an active rico charge right now in case involving a huge case out here in georgia getting ready to take the sand is are you sat down in the sand and why because she is gonna be testifying about the nature of her relationship with one of the lead prosecutors, nathan wade, the timing of it, whether

she personally, financially we benefited from that existing relationship, whether there is a conflict of interests according to georgia ethical obligations and laws that would require her to be disqualified. and not just her her entire team, which would then put this case on a very different trajectory to maybe not be tried before the election if at all, brianna this is an extraordinary moment and of course, i'm here with nick valencia right now on this very important issue, nic, the fact that she is testifying, first of all, my mind, a little bit blown because she is getting ready to expose herself for a number of reasons. there are many reasons to never want to take the stand. she will now have to answer questions about private matters in front of a potential jury pool. well, and dare i say the world and it's all about whether should be disqualified. >> this is mortifying. this has many an absolutely mortifying day for the fulton county district attorney's office. consider this. this is an investigation that's in three years in the making. she

essentially started this as soon as she took this job, she had indictments leveled against the former president. she had 18 co-defendants at 11 point everyone processed through the ritz on rice street, the fulton county jail. we saw president trump could come through here we see legal analysts say what a strong case she has instead, we're not talking talking about the fake elector scheme to subvert the electoral college. we're not talking about the infamous phone call where trump called the secretary of state here, brad raffensberger and said, find me 11,000 more votes. we are not not talking about the illegal accessing of voting data in rural coffee county. instead, what are we talking about? we're talking about a relationship which and what appears to be two consenting adults. but it also appears though that they may have some credibility issues that defense attorneys are drilling down on this. did this did they ms characterize or contradict themselves? selves in these sworn legal written briefs that they handed over to the court. that is something that has been a focus today. we knew that the presiding judge, scott mcafee, was very, very interested in whether or not she personally benefited from this personal relationship now

though it seems that credibility is an issue here today, laura no prosecutor wants their credibility in question, getting ready to plan a case of this magnitude, got to go real quick break here. we'll come right back. fani willis will be on the stand it's hard to explain what this feels like >> you're moving piles of earth just by moving left >> turn up to form thousand pounds with the machine that weighs less than half that cutting grass. >> the way >> in perfecting every inch of your land he could keep trying to push they 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 with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, my skin was no longer mine. >> my active psoriatic arthritis join symptoms held me back don't let symptoms to fine. you emerge as you withdrawn via most peow