our relationship wasn't a secret it was just private. not at all i would not have discussed my relationship with anyone else publicly for. >> did have some questions about the invoices pickwick sees of the documents referring to question. >> yes they are what kind of questions are these? >> yes they say what they say that's fine. thank you. >> at this point we will take a break. i'll ask the parties to take a look at you mark that as defense exhibit? >> i have the contract in the invoices i'm about to mark. i just want to make sure the state does not have any objections. cruxes are marked as? >> they are about to be marked

as 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 figures 14 through 18 i will ask the state to take a look at those because of take a look and see if i can match those. >> alright we will address where they are tender for the record we come back and from there we'll turn over to the remainder of defense and counsel the state for examination as well. so to that end let's take 45 minutes will be back. mr. wade you are still under oath i would ask you not to speak with any other witnesses about your testimony or testament is already done to correct yes, sir. >> we will be in recess. [background noises] are right we are back on the record. miss crosser jeff enough time to review the production of documents provided by fulton county question. >> i did.

defense exhibit 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. and so far as exhibit 15, 16, 17, and 18 i do not have any objection to those. they clearly came from fulton county exhibit 14 contains several items that did not come apparently from fulton county. they are not in that group. [inaudible] >> i cannot agree the documents not certified or not properly admitted. >> this merchant would like to repackage and present defense exhibit 14? >> they are exactly what i got from the county attorney. the they gave a certification did not put them in. >> the documents the difference

between the two document productions, what is the difference? >> bank records, credit card statements things like that important force of the record but i got them from the records portal. >> i understand. the difference in production miss merchant you've taken a look at them and they are material to your case? >> yes for. >> there all invoices this is what i got from them at all the invoices one of the invoices is a reimbursement reprinted for the reimbursement i don't care if you take the reimbursement out there already admitted in the other exhibit i did. i don't have a problem with the invoices in the certification. we can remove the items that are in dispute than i do not have objection. >> you are removing them?

>> yes. >> again let's have counsel look at a revised exhibit 14 and we will hear if there's any objection. [background noises] is mick. [background noises] revised exhibit number 14 with

the invoices that were submitted the state has no objection. >> all right then not seeing any other issues from other counsel we will note exhibits 14 through 18 have been admitted for the record without objection. >> at think at this point it would be good to make sure we've got one through 18 with the court reporter. >> to me too get them? >> if you're done looking at them let's get them all compiled and organized with a court reporter in case other defense counsel will reference them. no reason for him we just seem to have one through 18 organized with the court reporter. >> take all of these back? >> i think we ought to do that. >> take all these back? >> i think we ought to do that.

okay. all right as miss merchant is doing that, let me go down the list. >> your honor. [inaudible] i would like to follow up. >> let me just to keep it consistent outgoing order. his deferring i'll go to mr. stocks. mr. durham? mr. mcdougall? i refer to mr. gilbert rex mr. rice? [inaudible] thank you. >> thank you your honor. good afternoon mr. white's frigate good afternoon sir. a few follow-up questions. i would like to start off with exhibit number four that you should have up there. those are the interrogatories. they are not up there? let's remember asked her to compile them all.

[background noises] yes, sir? >> okay. now these are the interrogatories that you had filed on may 30, 20s with her divorce case, correct? >> yes, sir. >> you 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 exec at the interrogatory is asking for in exactly what you answered, okay? >> yes, sir. >> have a look on the interrogatory i believe as we indicated i think on page two

the one that starts off describing each instance in which you have had sexual relations you see that one? >> yes, sir. >> that interrogatory begins to 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? >> yes, sir. >> these were filed on may 30, 2023, correct? >> yes, sir. >> at that time you had had sexual relations with ms. willis, correct? >> i'm going to object to the question. the question. [inaudible] >> just ask you to rephrase i think you can make the same points for. >> your honor specific interrogatory. word to do matter i would like

him to answer whether or not he had had sexual relations with ms. willis because if he answered yes the interrogatory is a false interrogatory i would ask the court's indulgence. i'm not here to jump into salacious bedroom situation. this is in the interrogatory that matters out asked the court's indulgence. christmas cross? >> answered several times i understand he's coming out from a different point this question is not substantive given to those have already been asked and answered with the information. looks i will out this question one more you are asking it a different way let's get to the point. x as of may -- mick mick re- asked the question i think your honor. as of may 30, 2023 you had had sexual relations with ms. willis isn't that correct? what's the interrogatory sir

asked during the course of the marriage and the period of separation question. >> your honor address the court to direct the witness to answer my question yes or no. as of may 30, 2023 had you had a sexual relations with ms. willis? >> let's start with the higher level whether he believes he answered truthfully we can drill down into why or why not a bee will end up exactly where you left us. ask again your honor the point of it is words matter we have to establish what did and did not happen. he can get whatever its explanation he chooses to to what apparently is a false answer but i would like an answer to my question production may get one i would like us to start at a high level before he drill down to specifics to see if he contradicted that interrogatory for making sense. >> the interrogatory is relatively direct and explicit. sexual relationships with a person other than your spouse

during the course of a marriage including the period of separation. that is pretty simple. >> let's see if that something you can get them to admit. >> you did have sexual relationships with someone other than your spouse during the course of the marriage when during the period of separation which included up to may the 30, 2023 isn't that correct sir? >> might answer to this interrogatory is none, no. >> you are saying you did not have sexual relationships with anyone outside of your marriage and the period of separation is during the period you are answering the question to this interrogatory correct sir? what's i'm saying during the course of my marriage i did not have sexual relations to anyone in this answer is no. >> again your honor progress you can proceed. >> we need 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 the ms. willis yes or no? yes or no. >> yes. >> okay you know what you did issue answered no to that question or none correct? i do not answer no to the question answer answered no to the interrogatory question progress interrogatory stands that you answered as a pleading in a civil proceeding divorce case, right? >> yes. >> excuse me. the next interrogatory let's move there. the interrogatory states as follows. identify any and all occasions in which you entertained a member of the opposite other than your spouse who is not related to you by blood or marriage. do you see that? now there are two parts to this. the second part, i read on or a

member of the opposite sex other than your spouse not related to you by blood or marriage entertained you and it goes on to say including but not limited to dining, drinking, and restaurants, bars, pubs, hotels you see that, correct? >> i do. >> as of may the 30th, 2023 when you saw this interrogatory you had in fact entertained ms. willis on many occasions had you not? >> again during the course of the marriage the answer still know. >> let's read with the interrogatory says about the time. required to answer the interrogatory. because what it says is, it goes on to say including but not limited to dining and oort drinking at any restaurants, bars, pubs, hotels or persons homes from the date of marriage

to the present. to understand what present means? >> i do. >> at present means the filing on may the 30, 2023 isn't that right? >> it is. >> as of may the 30th 2023 you had done a lot up entertaining of ms. willis had you not? >> i had done some yes. >> in fact under your testimony you would have said she had also entertained you isn't that correct? >> yes. >> your answer to this interrogatory is false is it not sir? >> no, it is not false. >> i hate to dance around. the answer is yes you did entertained ms. willis, correct? >> yes. >> she is not your spouse at that time or anytime, correct? that is correct because she's not related to by blood or marriage, correct? >> it is correct but she entertained you, right?

>> yes. and during the course from your marriage to the period of time up so the answer would have bent yes, i did entertained somebody, correct? >> during the course of the marriage no. >> mr. wade. >> you've made the point that speaks for itself we can say that for argument. i need help with one quick question you understand what present means? >> we did cover that already as well. >> what has happened from the time that you filed this court document and may of 2023 let's go over some of the things you have been involved in terms of being entertaining or entertaining. prior to your filing on the answer on the interrogatories may 30, 2023 we have already aly established have we not you had paid for a royal caribbean

cruise to the bahamas with ms. willis, correct? >> yes, sir with ms. willis and my mother. >> your mother is not part of this interrogatory i am talking about ms. willis. so you paid cause to be paid approximately $3335 on that trip the bahamas trip from october 28 through october the 31st, correct? >> have done this several times per click is covid new gram perks i am to establish with specificity the things he had done to entertain or be entertained prior to may the 30th 2020 throughout try to move through quickly. >> is part of the record in terms of his prior chest might want to link those things together you can do that through argument. >> so let me discuss this.

you indicated that during the course of your explanation concerning the belize trip that ms. willis paid you all that money back in cash, remember? >> yes, sir. >> the beliefs that trip had just happened, had met? that was in march 18, 2023, right? >> yes, sir. >> you are filing this maybe two months after he had gone to belize with ms. willis, correct? >> again. >> we might be getting somewheri will see. yes, sir. >> whipped up the trip to belize on march 18, 2023. un ms. willis, correct? >> yes, sir. >> two months later to file the interrogatories that speak for themselves we've gone over a few minutes ago, correct? >> yes, sir. march the 18th, 2023 state the obvious is before excuse me may

the 30th 2023 we agree with them that? >> i will. >> okay. then you tell us ms. willis paid you in cash all of mine for the entire trip it was a gift to you for your birthday correct? >> yes. i am sure you probably have the deposit slips were he took the cash and deposits of the cash into your account, don't you? >> i did not deposit the cash in my account. >> you do have a single solitary deposit slip to corroborate or support any of your allegations you are paid by mrs. willis in cash, do you? >> no, sir progress on a single solitary one? >> not a one. now it went ms. willis would pay you in cash which you scamperedr down to the atm with her and she drew money out of her account to pay you these thousands of dollars? >> been no evidence could submit

on this is overruled. >> or jute scamper down to the atm machine and have her draw out for example on the belize trip just on your payment part of me? >> i did not go to belize. excuse me. ms. willis i'm sorry. did you go down to the atm with ms. willis will she drew out $200,794 to pay you in cash that she go to the atm? snow sir she did not go to the atm. she carried the cash forgot she would give you the cash, do you have a place in your house or you stack up all this cash you apparently got to repay you for the benefits that you bestowed on her? >> event answer that i'm putting

myself in jeopardy and tell the world i have cash someplace in my home. that could be problematic for chris no i don't i want an answer if you have cash in your house where you have taken the money you got for mrs. willis and went and put it somewhere, or to put it? >> no, sir progress you just put it on your hip and walked around money? >> it up it on my hip? >> walking around money's been the cash yourself? >> yes i put on my hip and belize and walked around with it. >> you got paid back you take the money in the cash that she gave you and you just carried around with you for spending money around town? >> we have to break down each trip because for example for the crews she paid me the money before we took the crews. so i was here i could put the money in my pocket, put away whatever he 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. >> is not a special place you have all of this because she would be getting from current that you told us about to payback for the benefits you have bestowed upon her? >> the only special place the cash would have gone would've been to one of my children. >> okay. are you aware -- have you discussed these and pleadings with ms. willis? >> no super because there's been no discussion between you and ms. willis about the allegation concerning the benefits you have bestowed upon her is that correct? that's on an accurate reflection of the testimony. overruled. answer the question. >> when you say proceedings are you talking about divorce proceedings we were talking with interrogatories. too that the answer is no go-ahead. >> i am sorry go ahead with your

answer here the complete answer and follow-up records if you are asking me about this hearing the proceedings of this hearing have we discussed financial peace based upon the motion yes. >> so you have discussed the financial peace worded that discussion take place? >> conference room. >> were other people there are real and ms. willis discussing this about what your position is going to be? >> the relevance has to do with suddenly we have a declaration from mr. wade in this case where he says roughly equal and then shows one alleged payment by ms. no mention of cash, none. i need to find out a little bit more about how suddenly we have

a revelation about cash from the witness stand today. >> overruled. >> we part company when you say no mention of cash. if i provided one receipt that did not amount to what you thought was roughly equal the rest of it is cash. >> did you and your declaration sir that was filed in this case, did you tell the court and that declaration that the expenditure you had provided on behalf of ms. willis wasn't paid for back by her in cash yes or no question. >> i believe i did when i said the expenses were split roughly evenly. >> if you could point to me any place in your affidavit were you use the word cash i would appreciate it. >> i did not use the word cash

no, sir progress you did not use the word cash did you pray. >> i did not say she didn't give it to me in cash. >> know you just didn't tell anybody you allegedly got paid back in cash, right? >> i told everyone who asked. today? >> yes, sir. who else was it with you if anyone else when you and ms. willis were discussing how you would be handling the financial component of the motion here today that's the personal benefits?

in the conference room when you were discussing what you perceive to be the situation concerning the -- the benefits for the payments. >> yes, sir. >> was anyone else present? >> no, sir. >> how long did the meeting take? >> 5 to 10 minutes. >> did ms. willis tell us what she was going to say? >> no, sir. >> she would pay you back large sums of cash these trips to the caribbean, belize, california on and on and on. >> objection that question has been answered for. >> exemployering possible bias overruled on that ground.

>> thank you. when you were having this discussion, did you ask her, did you ask ms. willis do you have anything to support the 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 and her filing was representing. >> when she would pay you back in cash, were you aware of her financial situation. >> your honor, relevance. >> we have been bombarded with the book, find me the votes in which -- >> what the measure is the

financial benefit plays material interest and conflict of interest so i think that's relevant. >> thank you. >> i have. >> you have? >> i have. >> in that book ms. willis is tell thing the authors about how financially kind of hidden down on the bottom as she was running for da, do you remember that part of the book? >> so let me qualify the response. i've read the book in parts. i haven't -- i hadn't had the 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 finally she was in bad shape when she was running? did you read that part?

>> no, sir. >> did you ever have discussions with ms. willis about her financial situation which was -- which was in -- in apparently in rough shape prior to her being elected da? >> no, sir. ms. willis made it clear that it was her business. i know nothing about her financial status. i know nothing about how she was before or after the election or even now. i know nothing about her finances. >> she didn't share that with you but chose to share it with the authors of the book that's been published and printed nationally. >> i don't know that she shared it with the author. i don't know that the author is telling the truth. i don't know the author. so i don't know, sir. aye given no interviews. >> so you haven't caulked to them at all? >> i haven't talked to any media.

>> now, as it relates to the -- >> i would like to, though. >> as it relates, no cash deposits, right? >> i didn't say that. >> cash deposits which line up with the money that you have allegedly received from ms. willis to pay you back for part of the trips. >> so here is the thing. in my bank records you will see cash deposits, you will see check deposits. i can't say that you've looked through the bank records and you won't see cash deposits because i have two sources of income, sir. income comes from my private practice, my firm and income comes from 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 testimony. >> no, sir. i didn't go through my bank records at all. >> the money that you received, the money that you received, that is public? >> no, private.

>> now, you would take those public and those public funds were then used to deposit in your account and used to pay for the credit cards for the trips that you would take with ms. willis, right? >> objection as far as characterization of public funds. >> you got money from fulton county for the work that you do, right? >> yes, sir. >> you would send invoices and they would pay you money, right?

>> agree? >> i guess i'm having trouble with the motion that the city of fulton county paid me in funds. i'm not sure the funding source. i can tell you that either the state of georgia or fulton county has written me a check. >> so that would be two entities, public entities? yes. >> and that's public funds from the same source that you would use to pay out on your -- your expenses for the trip that you took?

>> no, sir. i have income coming in from my law firm. i also have income coming in from the funds that we are here discussing now from either the state of georgia and fulton county and/or both. i'm not certain what it is. so to say that -- >> i didn't mean to cut you off, go ahead. >> to say i'm paying a credit card statement from funds coming from fulton county and the state of georgia would not be accurate statement because the funds could have very welcome from private practice. >> what percentage of your income in 2022 came from money where you were working on this case or from your partners working for the fulton county office? >> in 2022 i would say 50-50. >> what about 2023?

>> probably 60-40. >> the money that would be in those accounts, 60% of those in your view are public funds that those money were then use today pay for the expenses that you had incurred for the trips that you took ms. willis on, the cruises, the napa valleys, the -- the bahamas, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and, now, what you -- what you did is that when you -- when you signed on in the -- in november of first 2021 that's when you signed on to be counsel for the anticorruption matters, right? >> yes, sir. >> now, as you k in your engagement letter it doesn't say that you're signing on in your scope of work is to work on the

front special grand jury investigation, does it? >> no, sir. >> it says that you're signing onto work on anticorruption -- the anticorruption unit matters, correct? >> yes, sir. >> with a plural, correct? >> yes, sir. >> in your contract there's 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 the period, you have a contract and then it would expire and then you would have a new contract, correct? >> yes, sir. >> of course, the -- the extension that you received, the first one is in november of 2021 and then you -- there was a a renewal in november 15th, 2022. is that right?

>> sounds right. >> okay. that was right after you got -- right after you took ms. willis to aruba, isn't that right on november the first, 2022 trip to aruba and through november the fourth, 2022, correct? >> what is reup mean? >> your contract was up and in 2015 you and ms. willis signed a new contract for you, right? >> yes, sir. >> when you were taking her to the aruba and on the cruises, resort there, did you discuss reuping of -- signing an extension on your contract? >> no, sir. >> but you make an excellent

point. i'm glad that 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. >> did you send invoices when the first contract expired? >> no, sir. when that expired, that was it. you're saying after the aruba trip you get reuped with a new contract? >> i signed a new contract. >> 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. >> i've been called worse.

>> do you have the contracts in front of you? >> i don't have it in front of you. >> i believe -- at the work gradually at the time of the work gradually increased the -- the hourly cap would increase. in other words, starting out, starting out the investigation it was impossible to anticipate the love of corporation from the investigation from some of the witnesses and if you assume that there will be great corporation would the witnesses in terms of interviewing, voluntarily speaking with you, it doesn't take as much time so after getting in to it, realizing that most of the witnesses were not

willing to speak or willing to do 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 cap. >> now, did ms. willis review your invoices with you when you would submit them? >> never. >> did anyone have a question whether or not you worked 24 hours in one day and billed 24 hours in one day? >> i never worked 24 hours in one day and billed 24 hours in one day. i would like an opportunity to talk about that. >> i think you should, go ahead. >> if you look at the the invoice 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 a date that is completed. so if you go through the invoices probably around the first 5 or 6 you will see the 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 there. i wished some of the experts would opine on that and there was never a billing of 24 hours in one day. now probably around the sixth or seventh invoice you see the format change. i started using a range so that it got less confusing, right? >> i'm confused so maybe you can correct. in exhibit 14, you've got down a

specific day, cases for pretrial, november the fifth, 2021, 24 hours at $250 an hour. 6,000. this wasn't about -- this was about a range. it was about the work that you did on november the fifth. >> look at the top of the invoice where it says date completed. >> what i want you to do to focus on the date that you have, tell the court what you bill for on november the fifth, 2021. i thought it was already in. >> again, it says completed date. date completed. the dates that you see here are the dates that that work was completed, so on november the

fifth i completed the task of preparing the cases for pretrial. that's the date i completed it. >> just read -- just read if you would, my question was read out loud the entry for november the fifth, 2021 and how many hours you billed that day, just do that if you would. >> that certainly wasn't the question. >> all right, well the question now is to read a certain entry. >> just read into the record mr, 2021 how many hours did you bill the citizens of fulton county for that day. just read it out. >> i completed the task, 24 hours was billed at $250.

>> when you were -- you talked about your relationship with mss that it began in 2022 the, you remember that testimony? >> no, sir. our relationship began -- >> your romantic relationship began in 2022? >> yes, sir. >> when you were reuped on this contract you had a romantic relationship already established with ms. willis, yes or no? >> in 2022? >> reuped in november the 15th, 2022, you had a romantic relationship with ms. willis?

>> i signed the second contract, yes, sir. >> i'm not going to use the words reuped. reup or whatever you want to call it, your account 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 of a romantic relationship. >> yes or no you had a romantic relationship when you signed on november 15th? >> the answer is yes. >> correct? >> are you asking me if it's before the work was completed or before the -- the grand jury

actually released publicly released the report? >> when they released the the report. >> the relationship with ms. willis already existed when the special purpose grand jury released its report, correct? >> at the time the report was released, yes, sir. 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 ask my folks over here whether there's anything to clean up on. that's all the questions, your honor, thank you. >> your honor, i do have --

>> he was going to go first. >> let me -- with the understanding next time we will be going in order and not skip around the order. all right. >> okay. >> i'm going to try to keep my questions very specific. >> yes, sir. >> and i'm going to try not to go to specific questions that have already been asked. >> yes, sir. >> when did your relationship with ms. willis end? >> 2023. >> could you give us an approximation not but 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. >> okay. >> 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 i'm answering the question. >> 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 there's a difference between a personal relationship and a professional relationship, correct? >> yes, sir. >> i'm not talking about a professional relationship.

i'm the talking about a 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 had intercourse with the district attorney? >> i was trying not to but if you're going to characterize it as 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 are having issues. >> okay. you'll have to the explain because i don't know what the issue would be. >> no, i will explain to you. >> thank you. >> you say personal, we are very good friends probably closer than ever because of these attacks but if you're asking me about specific intercourse, the answer is no. >> how about if i change it to intercourse to romantic?

>> no. >> okay. during the direct examination you made a statement i believe i heard it correctly that your personal relationship and now i'm talking about that characterized the sexual romantic relationship was not a secret, is that correct? >> wait. if you're asking me if people knew that we were having sex, no, they didn't. >> i'm asking whether people knew that you were dating, what you were romantically involved. you said it was in the a secret. >> it wasn't a secret. it was private. my mother knew. >> did anyone at the district attorney's office that worked on this case know that you were dating or had a romantic relationship with the district attorney willis? >> i don't know what they knew. >> well, did you tell anyone -- >> no. >> do you have any knowledge of whether ms. willis revealed it to anyone?

>> i have no clue. >> 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. >> if it was a legitimate relationship is there any particularly reason why it was kept private or secret? >> it wasn't kept secret. it was private. >> 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 have accost us as we are trying to walk into the restaurant and have lunch and 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 a secret. nothing secret or solicitous 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. dylan and ms. merchant, did anyone in the district attorney's office know that the two of you were traveling on personal trips together? >> to my knowledge, no. >> that was for privacy according to your testimony? >> privacy, yes, sir. >> okay. did you and ms. willis go to the

hateville condo prior to your relationship relationship starting in 2022? >> prior to having physical contact, having intercourse did we go to the hateville -- >> prior to having intercourse? >> you keep saying intercourse. >> did you go prior to november 1st of 2021, yes, and the purpose for going to the hateville condo with ms. willis prior to 2021 would have been what or prior to november 1 of 2021? >> could have been any number of things because at that time -- >> that's what i'm asking. >> yeah, could have been any number of things because at that time she had a friend living in that condo.

ms. yeardy lived in that condo. >> okay. >> maybe my question was poorry worded. let me try again. your answer prior to november 1st of 2021 you would have gone to the hateville condo and then there with ms. willis correct? >> yes. >> and you would have been there for many reasons, right? >> yes. >> can you give me just a list, few of the reasons? >> went to visit her. maybe went to talk about a document that i had received. >> you would go to the condo about a document that you received? >> absolutely. >> go ahead. >> absolutely. >> any other reasons? >> none come to mind. >> none come to mind. >> no, sir. >> would you say it was frequent when i say frequent, do you think prior to november 1st, of

2021 you were at the condo more than ten times? >> no, sir. >> less than ten times? >> yes, sir. >> phone records reflect that you were making calls from the location of the condo and it was on multiple occasions the phone records would be wrong? >> if phone records reflected that, yes, sir. >> they'd be wrong? >> yes, sir. >> which is not in hateville, correct? >> it is not of hateville. >> north of atlanta? >> it is. >> any other reasons why you would be in the hateville area on multiple occasions prior to november 1st of 2021? >> let's see. >> the porch experience. >> the airport and hateville? >> yes, sir, delta airlines. >> okay.

>> headquartered there. >> let's see. >> restaurants there. >> okay. >> if that's your recollection, that's fine. i'm not asking you to try to remember everything. >> okay. >> okay. did you discuss your affidavit filing connection with the response of ms. willis? >> no, sir. >> did you know 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? >> i didn't give it to her. >> you have no personal knowledge? >> no personal knowledge. >> and as far as you know, no one else told you that she did

or didn't? >> i haven't asked anyone. >> the -- we've worked this up a little bit and 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 just to assume that. assuming that there was $10,000 that you had on your credit cards is it your testimony that ms. willis paid you back $10,000 in cash? >> the characterization is $10,000 for ms. willis' travel, i don't believe it's accurate

reflection. >> it's not joint travel. all i'm trying to understand -- i will rephrase it. 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. >> and the thousands of dollars in cash from ms. willis, do you know, not asking if she took it out of her pocketbooks or suitcase, do you know the source of the cash? >> just that, out of her pocketbook. >> you don't know where she obtained the cash? >> i didn't ask her. >> and the whole time that she was paying you in cash you never said, hey, why do you have this amount of cash? >> in my practice people come into my law firm all of the time with cash. i never question where they got it. >> we are talking not about people that come into your law firm, we are talking about the district attorney of fulton county who i'm assuming receives a paycheck. she doesn't get paid in cash. >> just like you assume, i

assumed she got it from her paycheck, i don't know. >> but, of course, it's -- you've not seen any records indicating withdrawals of cash from ms. willis at all? >> why would i ask her? >> why did you file for divorce one day after you fired by ms. willis? why the day after? >> you mean one day before. >> you filed from divorce one day after you were hired, right? >> okay. i will answer your question. >> okay, please. >> so in 2015 when my wife had the affair we had a conversation that we would divorce right

then. for the better practice at least for my children at the time was to stay in place until the youngest could graduate and matriculate into college. we did that. when she graduated, matriculated 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 off to college and we come to georgia for a period of time, divorce gets filed, she gets served. there we go. >> that's why i asked? >> the specific reason that that specific date was selected because she was in town -- >> your honor, this is attorney-client privilege. >> why do you have to the

object? there we go. >> i believe he's already attempted to answer this question and it was no privilege raised so he's given a partial answer and now he's about to finish that. first of all, i don't think it's covered by attorney-client privilege but otherwise he's already answered part of it. he doesn't get to say now i'm going to stop. >> well, i don't think it was a long preface but i don't think it got to what might have been an issue there so if you can lay a foundation we can deal with the objection. >> take a step back. you realize that an attorney-client privilege is a privilege of a client, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and your connection your representation at least has been proper to the court by mr. bradley it's up to you if you want to raise the privilege.

you have the power in order to get to the truth of the matter, you have the power to waive the attorney of client privilege. >> your honor, it's an inappropriate question. the privilege is there. >> whether he uses it or not, doesn't matter why. let's figure out whether it covers the question that you were trying to object. >> if the i may finish and your position you have no intention of waiving your attorney general, correct? >> correct. >> so now can you answer the question why you waited until november 2nd, the day after you were hired to file for doctor? >> i can. so again, joycelin had relocated to texas the 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 which would be november 1st, 2021 to file the complaint for the divorce on november 2nd, 2021, your testimony under oath is because your -- >> she was here. >> your wife was here but had not been here in october and not been here in september, had not been here in august of 2021? >> she had been in texas taking care of her ailing mother and aging father so the first opportunity that i had after speaking with my lawyers to take care of that was the date it was

filed and served because she happened to be here. it had nothing to do with -- that was purely coincidental, that contract. >> i understand it's purely coincidence. >> and understand that this was by agreement between she and i. she being my wife and i that we would divorce when the children matriculated out and that would actually have been an agreement attached to the filing. it became apparent that the agreement wasn't going to happen and things got a little contentious, so that's when the privilege would kick in and i was forced to do it when i did it. >> okay. 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. in october of 2021 she was back and forth between here and texas. >> so she was at least on some occasions in the atlanta area? >> but that was during the time when we were working through the consent agreement that failed through. >> i think we are pretty far on relevance. the answer to the question of the funding of the divorce filing -- >> where are we going here? >> we are going to finish the area since we are not going further. if we want to call the. >> i didn't say we will. >> 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. >> how did you become aware of

those? >> just through conversation. >> 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 context, yes. >> but you were having conversations -- even though 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, began in january 2021, right? >> is that the date of his contract? >> pretty close. >> i don't know what the date of his contract was but if it was after the date of the filing of divorce, then yeah. >> i'm not talking about the date after filing of the divorce, it's been represent today the court that you had an attorney-client relationship

with mr. bradley from 2015 forward? >> yes, sir, that is correct. >> that was in 2021, correct? >> i don't know. >> we can prove that through other -- 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. bradley, correct? >> yes. >> so when you talked to mr. bradley about matters with his contract in fulton county, though were not covered by attorney-client privilege, correct? >> they were not. >> okay. not all communications with m bradley were covered by attorney-client privilege, correct? >> well, those certainly weren't. >> not all communications with mr. bradley were covered by at least as you've been represent today the court by the attorney-client privilege,

correct? so there was communications outside of attorney-client privilege, correct? >> if you're saying if i ever communicate outside of attorney-client privilege, the answer is yes. >> let's finish this the up. as you call it roman number 4, defense exhibit number 4, your response to certain interrogatories, not going back but words in interrogatories are already in evidence.

there were two of them and the answer to both of those was -- >> yes, sir. >> on january 25th of 2024 -- >> yes, sir. >> you again were in a position that you answered those same interrogatories. as long as we understand we are talking about the same two. >> yes, sir. >> they are in defense exhibit number 6 and they are interrogatories number 4 and number 5. >> okay. go ahead. >> i want you to be able to see it. defense exhibit number 6. >> i'm told that you have six.

>> okay. >> here we are. >> you would agree with me that in defense exhibit number 6 and we are talking about interrogatories of january 25, 2024 -- >> yes, sir. >> as to interrogatory number 4, that's the same interrogatory, same words that were in the enteringtory that mr. guillen went over which was dated may 30th of 2023, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and your original response in defense exhibit number 6 was none, correct? >> yes, sir. >> your updated response was the plaintiff declines to respond to this interrogatory and the search pursuant to section 24-a5-505, correct? >> yes, sir. >> you know that 24-5-505 breaks

down into two, two privileges, right? >> which is why i was specific. the privacy privilege. >> that's what i'm asking you in your updated response there's no difference to privacy, correct? >> yes, there is in the code section 24-5. references privacy. >> just go with me, okay. >> that section says does it not, no party or witness shall be required to testify as to any matter which may incriminate or tend to incriminate such party or witness or shall bring infamy, disgrace or public content on such party or witness, you would 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 i may?

>> i can take jury room notice. >> thank you. you are not claiming that your answer to number 4, interrogatory number 4 on january 25th, 2024 incriminates 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 or public content, correct? >> witness doesn't have it in front of him. i don't know how he can respond -- [away from microphone] >> overruled. >> i'm claiming privacy. >> the privilege that you make reference to is through infamy, disgrace or public content upon the witness, right or party?

>> i then started to understand the bigger pictures which was that the all the attorneys in the election interference case were colluding with joyceline'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. >> so you raised a privilege if i understand that indicated that your answer would bring infamy disgrace or public contempt upon

you, right? >> i'm going to object to the relevance. >> i think i can finish it up by saying you didn't say none again, you asserted a privilege, correct? >> that's correct. >> did you do the same thing, did you not with number 5? >> that's correct. >> you didn't say none again, right? >> correct. >> is the answer to the interrogatory number 4, if you have it in front of you, is the answer none? >> the answer is to that interrogatory is as i placed it at the time i responded, sir? >> i'm asking you now, is the answer to that interrogatory is none? >> the answer is still privilege. >> apparently electing to apply the same privilege out of 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?

to what end? >> the privilege does not apply and he must answer the question. >> and where does that get us? he has everything he has to say about the nature of the relationship, how long it lasted and when it ended. >> i think if he's forced, compelled to answer the question he will either answer falsely by saying none or answer truthfully by saying yes and then telling us what it is. that's what i believe. that's why i'm asking. >> but the interrogatory you're referring to, though, the question contained there. >> two interrogatories. >> the entertaining one and relationships? >> with the specific language that's in the interrogatories. >> we have covered in all the questions we've had so far. >> we have but, again, the court could -- if i could require and compel an answer from him

whether his answer would be none then we would know whether or not he's 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 claim i might suggest is a bogus privilege and you can pierce that the privilege because it's the fact in connection with this case. again, it's call that your honor makes. i have case law that says you can do that but it's your discretion. >> ms. cross. >> asked and answered very personal questions. we covered the issues. >> the only relevance the interrogatories had in this case whatsoever would be as either

prior inconsistent and consistent statements. the question has been put to them again and again. he answers 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 we are arguing, i don't see the value on pushing this issue further. >> just for the record, the case that i was going to refer to is state versus wakefield at 324 georgia appeal 587 and specifically, let's see, it would be 590 in which they talk the about this specific privilege. this is a 2013 case and then they footnote 3. footnote 3 says there are times when the materiality of the evidence outweighs the testimony privilege and goes and explain what is that is. >> we could say that you need to

answer the question regardless of privilege and at this point we have covered that ground and move on. >> based on that, i have nothing further. >> on behalf of mr. floyd. no looking behind you. on behalf of mr. floyd. he's elbowing you, sir. okay. >> nothing, your honor. >> all right, ms. cross. >> thank you, your honor. >> mr. wade, have you still got exhibit number 14 in front of you with all of the invoice? >> i believe i have them all. >> all right. >> so you asked mr. wade about a couple of the invoice items and your testimony, i think, was that the percentage of income

post special counsel appointment in november 2021, the percentage of your income roughly after that time was 50-50 fulton versus other income from your law practice, correct? >> roughly, yes, ma'am. >> sometimes more, sometimes less? >> yes. >> how about your time? i'm interested in the percentage of your time from november 2021 to let's say the close of the special purpose grand jury when it was dissolved in january 23 you estimate for us the percentage of your time in fulton county work versus other work? >> oh, gosh, 99-1. 99% of the time here in this building working on this case. >> it was as i understood your testimony, it was an intent period in terms of hours while the 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? >> i was. >> you were coordinating the efforts? >> yes, ma'am. >> and those efforts included not just the proceedings that were happening in this building, correct? >> that's correct. >> we don't know to go through it is your representation that 99.9% of the time was 2022, 99% of your professional working time was devoted to this case? >> yes, ma'am. and the remainder whatever it was to other cases that were ongoing? >> yes, ma'am. >> 2022, i want to focus on that a little bit because if we are looking at i believe 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, monthly income at the time was $14,000 a month, right? >> in '22?

>> january 22? >> yes, ma'am. >> january 23, where did that number come from? >> 9,000. >> how about 2024? >> i don't know. >> is that there in front of you? that's not one of the ones in front of you? >> no, ma'am. >> so as reflected in the financial affidavit your income decreased? >> significant. >> the structure of your firm, we talk a lot about that and i don't want to go through it anymore than we need to but 2022, the structure of your firm changed? >> that's correct. >> in the early part of 2022 there were 3 of you, you and mr, you split expenses, is that right? >> that's correct. >> you profit shared among yourselves, correct? >> correct. >> all right. after mr. bradley left the firm then 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 the election integrity case is less than what it was the year before? >> yes, ma'am. >> we talked about monthly cap and we didn't talk about it, there was talk about the monthly cap that was included in your contracts indicating there was a certain threshold that you could reach number of hours a month and over that amount you were not going to be compensated, correct? >> that's correct. >> and that's a little bitter-sweet, isn't it? >> that's bitter, bitter. >> exhibit 14. is that still there in front of you? >> it is. >> i want you to take a look, please, a collection of exhibits, that includes all of your invoices as represented. i want you to take a look at

invoice number 9. >> yes, ma'am. >> is that in front of you? >> i have it. >> invoice number 9 indicates that you performed hours of work that you were not compensated for because your cap had been reached? >> yes, ma'am. >> i want you -- what did you do in those circumstances when the hours that you worked per month were more than the cap that was in your contract that you were permitted to be paid for? >> i was forced to -- to lose that time. i didn't get paid for it. >> okay. and that's what exhibit number 9 shows? >> yes, ma'am. >> all right. and in exhibit number 9 you've got hours that were completed and you didn't bill for it, you noted the time and zero beside it because you didn't bill the county for that time? >> yes, ma'am. >> what about exhibit -- invoice number 13? can you flip to that for me? >> i have it. >> is that a similar situation? >> yes, ma'am, it is. >> what is it on exhibit -- i'm sorry, invoice number 13?

>> this invoice makes me cry. there are so many hours here that i worked that i couldn't -- i couldn't get paid for. >> and you worked 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 and responsibility to an attorney who is engaged in a case. you have to see it through. it's not like i could throw my hands and well, i reached my monthly cap, i'm done. i can walk away. i can't do that. this is ongoing, it's constant and i have to do the work. >> you look at invoice number 23 for me there in exhibit number 14. >> yes, ma'am. >> does that reflect a similar situation, hours of work that you were not compensated for?

>> yes, ma'am. .. .. you have your affidavit there in front of you. >> ideal.

>> the affidavit that was attached to and provided in support of the motion. correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> you prepare that affidavit. >> i did. >> you signed that affidavit. >> i did. >> all the allegations are true, is that right? >> every one of them. you are asked a lot of questions about line number 34. can you turn to that for me, please. >> yes, ma'am. >> the district attorney and i are financially independent professionals expenses for personal travel divided equally between us. at times i've made in purchased travel for district attorney willis and myself from my personal phone at other times district attorney willis has made in purchased travel for she and i from her personal funds. examples of this purchasing

plane tickets for she and i for our personal travel. >> as you understand the term fund, does that include cash? >> yes. >> does that include credit? does that include credit reimbursement? >> stating that you were including all of the receipts from the funds or travel expenses that were paid on your behalf. correct? >> that is correct. >> producing the receipts that you had. >> yes, ma'am.

[inaudible] >> the way district attorney willis purchased. >> yes, ma'am. are you aware now that there are receipt and that it reflects the district attorney's? >> you remember mr. wade? remember how big the flight was?

>> i ask you to take a look at that. take a look at that city amount that that plane ticket cost. >> thank you. >> how much was the amount of the take -- ticket that they purchased? >> $835.30. >> okay.

your testimony here in court today is consistent with your affidavit. the personal relationship i think we call it dating today as well. between you and the district attorney began sometime in early 2022, march i think with your testimony, is that right? >> yes, ma'am. that was your testimony today? >> yes, ma'am. no personal for stating the relationship prior to that time. >> right. >> the drug sent to 2020. was there a situation for you

that made you particularly vulnerable during the covid. >> yes, ma'am. in 2020 and a portion battling cancer and that prevented me from leaving environments. i had health on my mind. >> yes, ma'am. >> were you dating anyone? >> no, ma'am. >> thank you. that is all i have. >> all right. the state asks you about how much money you are making now

versus before. you are making significantly less than when you are working for fulton county. >> i did say that. now at this point the splitting of the financial obligation. now there are two people carrying the weight of three. scaling back on the amount of income. >> you are splitting the profits 5050. >> yes. >> specifically less now that you have worked with the county. would you agree it is more than $180,000? >> that is true. $262,000 is more than $246,000. >> all of these years a three year partner all of the

corporate tax returns are filed, correct? >> we were talking about your business returns. the question contemplates that it is more or less so i want to be clear that it is respected in the personal concerns. your question was the question of my testimony dealing with argument significantly less normal. >> i will just break it down. during 2019 you filed your business returns. >> i filed personal and business yes, ma'am.

partners with kathy and campbell later on, you filed your business returns not with them but as a fellow practitioner. correct? >> wade bradley campbell entity. >> i am not asking about that. during the years 2019, 2020, 2021 in 2022, you filed a business return to the law firm of nathan wade. >> yes, ma'am. >> in 2019 you found $184,000. is that correct? does that sound familiar? is it reported on your taxes? >> if that's on the return, yes, ma'am, you are right. >> may i approach? thank you.

in 2019 the law firm of nathan wade is $140,000. correct? >> let's see. second line, number two. yes, ma'am. >> 2020 you also filed nathan wade attorney-at-law and your first.200 30,000 dollars. correct? >> yes, ma'am. the attorney-at-law for $136,000 correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> yes, ma'am. >> i have not looked through

them. >> do you want to look through them? >> listen to the answer. i would be shocked that i would see some cash from this willis. >> expenditures for travel in here. you did itemize that. >> i did not itemize anything. >> you are responsible for your taxes. >> i agree you did not put anything in there about you being reimbursed for half of that travel. >> those are business returns. >> i would not put a personal expense on the business return. >> needing that to pay for these >> i use a business card to pay for everything. i turned over the statement to

the accountant and the accountant then says it is personal. we will put that over here. that is business, we will put it over here and they reconciled it you would not find a reimbursement from this willis on a business return. nor would you find -- go ahead. >> there is not any cash to be reconciled there. >> on the business returns, no ma'am. >> asking you, found one in 2022 you stated you only have $5000 worth of cash. correct? in january 2024 you filed another one that you only had $5000 in cash. correct? >> yes. >> you only have $5000 in cash. >> at that time, yes, ma'am.

>> all of those interrogatories. every single interrogatory you filed all verified once, every single one you said you did not have any cash stored in a safe, safety deposit box or any location. if the claimant does carry cash it is a nominal amount. >> that is correct. they don't have cash again in 2023 saying you don't have cash. i received the attackers. >> nothing is wrong with it. >> contemplating why it is what it is. >> so you spent the cash. before you said you did not want to disclose where the cash was. >> no, no, no.

if i were to store cash in the home, then why would i share that with the world is what i said. i did not say that i had some cash stored up in someplace because that is not true. >> you have talked a lot about this from, let's see, the check you received from fulton county july 15, 2022. all the way back to july 2022 they have gone into a joint banking account. every single check on into your own banking account. correct. >> all with the exception of going into the wbc firm when into my business bank account which is solely in my name. >> right. your wdc account that you are talking about, that was closed in june of 2022. >> asking to put in the nathan wade bank account not a

corporate bank account. >> so, no, ma'am. the checks were deposited into firm accounts. >> nathan wade pc. as a formal practitioner. accounts with campbell oh bradley. >> no, ma'am, they were not. there were checks written that would reflect the third, the third, the third. >> we try to get those bank records but she objected to those. >> what bank record? >> you deducted all of those. >> that is irrelevant. >> relevant if you say you have all of these records. trying to keep them from us but does not bring all the records. there is a law that says you can make an inference. if they are within the parties control they will provide them.

>> no obligation to produce evidence that they could fund admissible wages. covering the ground. >> thank you for saying that, ms. merchant and let's find some new ground here. >> are you willing to waive your prolific so that they can testify. >> okay. thank you. >> getting into this type of answer. i want to get into the medical condition itself. saying that you had cancer in the year 2020. >> yes, sir. >> because of that protecting yourself in a sterile environment.

>> 2021. >> i want to ask you some questions. they spent time. >> you said -- >> yes, sir. >> are you friends. of course it is a sterile environment. you said the report, right? the airport. do you agree?

>> it is now. what about restaurant. it is not a sterile environment. >> that does not sound like it to me. is that a sterile environment? 2021 before november 1. after you testified you'd correct? there is no reason why you could not be dating then. >> 2020. okay. >> correct? >> dating, no. no reason. >> thanks. >> okay. mr. sachs. excuse me. >> just real briefly.

you started dating early 2022. using the term personal relationship. no dating and no personal relationship prior to early 2022 is that correct? >> i want to make sure that i answer you. so, let's be clear. 2022 was the start of any sexual relationship. >> in the affidavit personal relationship. >> that includes the physical sexual or intimate relationship.

>> please be excused. the mac keep in mind. she mentions, let me just say this, i was somehow evading service on the subpoena. thank you. >> okay. also testimony from wade.

for all of those, the reasons that were cited initially to the opposing counsel. it is personal details. >> what do you think you can establish through the testimony of this willis. and let me stop there. >> there is multiple for the reimbursement issue. they have matters in and of itself testifying. >> what is a conflict there? >> testifying that they did not have receipts.

>> so we don't know. there is no conflict. we just don't know. >> there are a lot of different issues with different reasons. you know, whether or not the statement was received. whether or not she paid for the entire thing in cash. a lot of things that they could not remember. paying her own way. miami balancing out. a couple of other trips that we did not get any information about. all of those could be financial benefits, we don't know. he did not know. the best friend testified that it happened at his house in the

19th and no mr. wade testified a relationship began to become romantic and 22. a big conflict. we also got more receipts. the biggest thing about the conflict is when the relationship started. he said he talked in the conference room after he filed a motion. specifically cash in the affidavit. he told anybody who would ask about the cash. he specifically discussed this. >> okay. you've highlighted the areas you would like to go into. what is it other than i'm just really curious what she has to say, to put it on the record. >> this person completely

identified areas of inquiry. the testimony in the record from mr. wade is unrebutted. i do not believe given the testimony and the extent of the questioning of him that there is any reason at this point. it really is such a compelling lead, a compelling need now before i don't believe it. >> very briefly, needing to testify the best friend are good friend directly contradicted the declaration that was made by mre

response. and, the operation that mr. wade filed by the district attorney for her assistance. he owes that. that affidavit is owned by her and there are deep concerns that that affidavit is false. and then this rule is false. she needs to come in here and tell us about the cash earlier when he got cash. no record of it. maybe will -- ms. willis saying here is my record, $10,000 in cash to mr. wade. we need to know that. also, miss willis financial disclosure. we are talking about two people

that went to extraordinary lengths to find -- to hide their relationship. extraordinarily. district attorney taking the stand and taking this court and this court will file financial disclosures in 2022 identifying the stories. have they seen all of this? you have seen all of the things around $10,000 in cash. for the financial declaration for 2021 and the financial declaration of 2022 which was filed may 2023. there is no listening of any whatsoever over $100.

it cries out for her testimony. needing to get out here and say why did you not tell us disclosure forms for the nature of the relationship between sources and the public official. hiring somebody for $1000 and none of that is revealed. he has explained it all in cash. obviously there are advocates in this position. she needs to go on record. she filed this motion. we have seen what happened here.

we need to have the full picture serious business of anybody. talking about these changes. explaining exactly that. the court allows to be called and interrogated payment just a moment, miss willis. so, this cross, i don't know if you want to be miss willis. sounds like maybe they are withdrawing the objection to the motion. >> a motion. >> does miss willis want to take the lead here? >> we crossed the motion. >> okay. >> the position of the district

attorney at this point is she is no longer contesting the subpoena. call your next witness. >> i would ask, three documents for this merchant. do we have the three filings? >> you meant the pleadings? >> yes, your honor. >> how about the one filed on january 8. the one filed easily after we filed hours? >> i can make a copy. i think we have them.