>> on liquefied natural gas. and several foreign policy measures. watch live coverage of the house when members return here on c-span. as we continue our live coverage with two cases under way concerning former president donald trump in new york a judge ruled a criminal trial against the former president will begin march 25. and another hearing under way in georgia in the election interference case there. this hearing on the motion to disqualify the d.a, fani willis, we take you atlanta live here on c-span. >> i would prefer that the court keep under subpoena. i think given the representation of miss merchant, how he intends to proceed, this witness may --

>> all right. understood. in the interest and knowing we may have to bring witnesses back and forth, i think it's in the interest of the presentation of the evidence here, you are still going to remain under the officesling of -- offices of your subpoena. stay in touch with your attorney. we may need you to rejoin us on zoom today or tomorrow. understood? >> ok. >> don't discuss your testimony with any other potential witnesses. you can log off. >> can mr. parker stay on for one moment? >> what reason? >> the state made allegations i misrepresented some things to the court. i'd just like the opportunity to clear that up. that mr. parker is the one that told me they lived together for a month. they called me everything but a liar today. i think it's appropriate for everyone to know where that information came from. >> all right. miss merchant, i think you made your position clear. i don't think we want to get sidetracked on that.

miss merchant, you can call your next witness. take care, mr. partridge. pheu tkpwros. >> -- miss tkpwros. >> motion to quash the subpoenas held in advance waiting for the representation. i believe that the -- miss merchant represented on monday that's truly not accurate. understand the testimony that's now in the record. mr. wade is available, but we have maintained at this time the motion to quash should be granted to understand the court's ruling. >> i'll say, yes, on monday it did seem like the focus was that mr. bradley would be the hook that makes every witness potentially relevant. and we really haven't been able to explore that on the privilege issues that we'll likely have to tackle later.

for now as the evidence in front of the court at the moment is that we have a witness who has said this relationship may have predated the affidavit mr. wade filed. i don't see a way around the relevance of the testimony. i'll deny -- state's motion to quash subpoena mr. wade.

>> nathan wade, n-a-t-h a-n. wade. >> prior to filing this motion to disqualify you and i were friends, correct? >> yes. >> and in fact i supported you when you ran for judge in 2016. >> you did. >> miss merchant, your personal opinions have no relevance. i mean that in the best way. >> that's fine. i will move on. you filed for divorce from your wife on november 2, 2021? >> yes, ma'am. >> and in that divorce proceedings did you file answers such as interrogatories. >>dy. >> interrogatories are where you are responding to things that basically answer the other side is asking? >> yes, ma'am. >> and i've got your complaint for divorce.

for the record the defendant's exhibit 2. the first interrogatories that you answered they were december 27, 2021, is that right? >> there about. >> and those -- you were asked different things. those are sworn, you actually swear to those. you verify them, right? >> yes, ma'am. >> and so that verification is where you are swearing underoath everything is true? >> yes. >> you were asked if you had any documents which relate to the purchase of gifts by you to any person other than the defendant with whom you have or had a relationship, romantic relationship from the date of your marriage, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> you responded under oath you didn't have any documents to that. >> correct. >> you again responded to an interrogatory, updated them on may 30, 2023. >> correct. >> you sent those directly to opposing counsel in the divorce?

>> yes, ma'am. i think so. >> in that one you answered none against that question, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> may 30, 2023, you said that you didn't have any documents showing any purchase of anything with someone you had a romantic relationship with. >> i believe the interrogatory was gifts. >> ok. >> not anything. gifts. >> i'm going to mark -- just for the record i have your complaint for divorce marked as number 2. i have the verification and the interrogatories from 2021, mark those as three. and your may 30, 2023 i'll mark it 4.

thank you, judge. if you take a look at what i marked as 2, 3, and 4. see if you recognize those. >> i do. >> are those that's your divorce complaint and then your 2021 interrogatory and 2023 interrogatory, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> they are a fair and accurate representation of what you filed in that case? >> yes, ma'am. >> i move to admit those into evidence. >> 2, 3, and 4? >> 2, 3, and 4, yes. >> any objection from the state? >> no objection to 3 and 4, subject to miss merchant's representation that 2 is the filing of divorce complaint.

i don't have that in front of me. with that representation, no objection. >> by show of hands any objection from other defense counsel? seeing none, 2, 3, and 4, should be rowmans, 2, 3, 4 admitted without objection. >> does that interprogresstory you filed in 2023, that's one where you said no, you didn't have any documents relating to the purchase of gifts. that you had a romantic relationship with. right? >> which interrogatory? >> number 4, 2023. >> which number. >> number 4. >> so which number interrogatory are you referring to? >> defendant's exhibit be exhibit number 4. >> i have defendant's exhibit 4 here. which number interrogatory are we referring to? a which number out of the questions? >> yes, ma'am.

>> number 24, 25, 26. all of them. >> it's supposed to be numbered. i guess they're all numbered 1. so number 1, number 1 again and then the third number 1.

[indiscernible] i don't know how to tell you what number 1 because when you responded you put number 1 on all of them. >> could you point to it? >> i'm talking about this number 1. there are two number 1's and there's no pages number -- [indiscernible] -- they're asking if you have any receipts for restaurant, row tells, bars -- hotels, bars, things likes that. >> the first number 1? >> i believe it's the second number 1. >> the second number 1? ok. >> it asks if you receipts for things like restaurants, bars, hotels, things like that, where you accompanied a member of the

romantic partner. correct? >> it says, identify any and all occasions. >> ok. and so it says to identify any and all occasions where you entertained a member of the other sex, ok, who is not related to blood, including dining, drinking, restaurants, bars, pubs, hotels, all of that. what was your answer to that? >> none. >> none. ok. so may 30, 2023, you prepared this document. >> i did. >> submitted it. >> i did. >> and it says none as far as entertaining a member of the opposite sex. >> it does. >> ok. no hotels, no bars, no

restaurants. >> correct. >> ok. you again updated that, let's see, you updated it on december 22, 2023? i'm going to mark that as number 5 and i have copies. is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> ok. and then you updated it once again on january 26, 2024. correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> ok. may i approach the witness again, judge? >> is that what you're marking as exhibit 6? >> yes, i'm marking 6 as the january 26, 2024, and then number 5 is the december 22, 2023, response. >> are you tendering those at this time? >> yes. >> any objection from any counsel? defense exhibits 5 and 6. >> no objections. >> seeing none others.

>> so now that you have this, let's talk about those for a minute. those were verified. so sworn under oath. and one of them was december 22, and then -- of this last year. so last december. and then was just recently submitted in january, right? ok. in may, may 10, 2023, dejong thompson heard a motion to compel in your divorce case as well, correct? >> yes. >> and you were held in willful contempt -- >> i'm going to object to the relevance. >> his credibility is relevance. if he was held in willful contempt for failing to provide answers and documents, i think it's relevant to this. >> how is that a prior false act or a conviction or anything else? >> i'm not offering it as a prior bad act or something like that. i'm offering it toward his credibility which you get to

determine. if he's made misrepresentations in these pleadings, you're here to determine whether or not he's telling the truth or not. if another court has held him in contempt and that's part of the divorce proceeding, i think it's relevant. >> contempt can be from many different things. failure to produce is not necessarily an act. >> he can explain to that. >> he may not have to. >> i object to the relevance. we're going into divorce mats that are don't have direct relevance -- matters that don't have direct relevance to this. >> i'm not saying that being a proper grounds for impeachment. sustained. >> let's talk about this december 22, 2023, verification. i tapped it for you. again, they asked you if you had any documentations showing proof of this relationship. proof of any relation. correct? >> i'm going to object to this raising of that question. i don't believe it's an accurate read of the interrogtory.

>> let's be precise. >> please, read it. i want to make sure i'm accurate. please read it. >> which number? >> this one actually has a number. i tapped it for you so you should be able to open the rest of the page. it's number 22. the question specifically is, if you have any tangible evidence of any nature in your possession or control or any other person or entity which relates to any manner of your activities to any person with whom you've had a sexual relationship during your marriage, tangible evidence is notes, cards, letters, photos, films, recordings, documents, receipts, invoices and other tangible evidence. >> yes. >> ok. and you answered that you did not have any documents to that effect, correct? >> correct. >> and that was on december 22, 2023? >> yes, ma'am. >> you updated those responses

again after the motion to disqualify was filed, though, correct? >> when was the motion fileed? >> january 8, 2024. when i filed the motion to disqualify you and allege you had a romantic relationship with ms. willis. after that, you updated these responses, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and so your new responses, you now changed your answer from that you didn't have any of this to you're asserting the privilege under 24505, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and both of these are under oath. >> yes, ma'am. >> you also updated your response to the question about spending time with someone other than your spouse for dinner, drinks, things at restaurants, bars, hotels or the other person's home, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> so in december of 2023, you said no to all that and then in january, after i filed my motion, you said privilege to all of that. >> yes, ma'am. >> and just to be clear -- >> i'm going to object to the characterization -- [indiscernible] -- statutory

privilege -- [indiscernible] -- >> i was just about to ask him. so that privilege covers infamy or fifth amendment privilege, correct? >> privacy privilege is what i updated my response to do. once you filed your motion to intervene in my divorce action, i then figured that you were in talks with my former wife's divorce lawyer and because of that i asserted a privacy privilege because i didn't want the proceedings of my divorce to bleed over into the proceedings in this case, which is the case that obviously you're involved in. >> so your answers in december of 2023, that you didn't have any documents about any travel that you took with ms. willis, that wasn't true, though, correct? >> they didn't ask me about any documents regarding ms. willis. >> a romantic partner. they asked you for documents regarding a romantic partner. so i'm sorry, i inserted

ms. willis' name. they asked you for documents about travel with a romantic partner in december, 2023. and you under oath said you did not have any of those, correct? >> i did not. and they asked me about gifts. >> right. >> i never purchased a gift for ms. willis. >> and they asked you about receipts for dinner, receipts for drinks, hotels, bars and restaurants. and you said you did not have any of those. >> i did not and do not have any receipts for any of those things. >> ok. and part of the civil discovery, they say that even if you don't have it in your pocket, if it's within your purview, you have to give it to them, correct. >> i object to the relevance of this. she's asking about statements he made in pleadings. the answers are already in the record and -- >> all right. to the extent you're trying to establish a prior mistruth, ms. merchant, i'll allow you to ask a few more follow-ups but if it's not there, we have to move

on. >> thank you. so in 2023, december, you said you didn't have any receipts. mr. i do not have any receipts. i did not have any receipts. >> but you did travel with ms. willis in 2023. correct? >> i ask. >> and you traveled with her in 2022, correct? >> i did. >> and you traveled with her in 2021, correct? >> no. >> so you only traveled with her in 2022 and 2023? >> 2022 and 2023 is what i recall. >> that's what you recall? >> yes. >> ok. so you just don't remember if you traveled with her in 2021? >> 2022 and 2023 is what i recall. >> my question is, did you travel with her in 2021? >> i'm not recalling any traveling in 2021. >> so it's not yes or no, you just don't remember? >> i'm not recalling any travel in 2021. >> so you did not travel with her in 2021?

>> it's been covered. let's keep going. >> thank you. let's see. you filed an affidavit in this case, correct? >> i did. >> ok. i marked that already. i gave it as number 1. may i approach, judge? >> you may. >> thank you. in that affidavit you swore under oath, correct -- >> yes, ma'am. >> and in that affidavit you swore that, first of all, do you recognize the affidavit? >> i do. >> ok. did you sign the affidavit under oath? >> i did. >> and you gave this affidavit specifically to refute the allegations that i had raised. >> yes, ma'am. >> nobody forced to you sign this? >> no, ma'am. >> you chose to sign it? >> i did. >> and you signed it on purpose to admit into court, refute allegations? >> i did. >> you signed it specifically to prove that you were not in a relationship with willis prior

to november, 2021, correct? >> correct. >> and you were a lawyer when you signed it. >> i was. >> and you're still a lawyer, correct? >> i am. >> when were you barred? >> 1999. >> ok. and you believe in your relationship with ms. willis is subject to attorney-client privilege, correct? >> i'm going to object to that. i don't think that's factually correct, i don't think that's a relevant question and i don't think it's appropriate to question this witness about the scope of attorney-client privilege, you've got an attorney who can speak for him for that. questioning the witness isn't appropriate. >> all right. so a lot to unpack there. the question is simply, does he believe there's a relationship that exists in terms of attorney-client privilege between him and ms. willis. >> i asked if he believed his relationship with ms. willis is subject to attorney-client privilege. >> i don't see why a yes or no would be barred.

>> maybe i'm not understanding the question. if the question is, does mr. wade and district attorney willis have an attorney-client relationship -- if the question is, does his relationship with district attorney willis impact his attorney-client relationship with his divorce attorneys, that i don't think is an appropriate question for that witness. the first i believe is a proper phrasing. the second i think there's been a representation that mr. wade doesn't waive anything. asking him particular questions in order to backdoor a waiver is inappropriate. >> all right. if we're just trying to assess where a privilege does or does not exist and we're not actually getting into it, i think that's -- we can establish those, you know, parameters.

but ms. merchant, can you rephrase the question based on that concern and we'll see where we are? >> yes. do you believe, you, that your relationship with ms. willis is subject to an attorney-client privilege? not if you and ms. willis have one, but do you believe that relationship is subject to one? >> i'm going to object to that question as it's phrased. in what context? any conversation with his attorneys is privileged. that i think is clear. what's not clear to me from that question is, is she asking in the context of your communication with your attorneys is that or outside that context? >> right. ms. merchant, i think we need to figure out what are we getting at with it? >> i'm just trying to figure out if he thought it was subject to attorney-client privilege. that's all i was asking. >> i mean, the actions themselves wouldn't be an issue. it's more a communication. >> someone saw them, someone had knowledge of it.

is that a attorney-client privilege? >> i guess i would find a legal opinion on this isn't relevant. we can deal with that as it comes up. sustained. >> in 2022, in this affidavit, you swore that you and willis developed a personal relationship. >> yes, ma'am. >> ok. and you said that that didn't develop until 2022. correct? >> that's correct. >> and that's different from what you said in your pleading in may, 2023. in the divorce case, correct? >> no, ma'am. >> in may, 2023, when you were asked if you had a -- if you'd had any affairs, essentially. you said none. >> that's correct. >> so in may you said you had not -- may, 2023, in the divorce case, you said you had not had a personal relationship, an affair or romantic relationship with anyone. >> that's correct. >> but you told this court in the affidavit that you did have one that started in 2022. so that would have been ongoing at 2023. >> so i think there's a distinction. if you'd allow me to explain. >> please.

>> the interrogtory asked the question during the course of your marriage -- >> or -- it says -- i'm going to request the witness -- [indiscernible] -- >> so my marriage was irretrievably broken in 2015, ma'am. by agreement. my wife and i agreed that once she had the affair in 2015 that we'd get a divorce. we didn't get a divorce immediately because my children were still in school and i refused to allow them to grow up without their father at the time. so we waited. we waited until the youngest graduated and we dropped her off at college and then filed for the divorce. so, if you're asking me about the interrogtory as it relates to having the 2022 relationship with district attorney willis, i

want to say, because my marriage was irretrievably broken, i was free to have a relationship. >> the question was if you'd had a relationship and in 2023 you said you did not. and that is different than you what said in this affidavit. correct? >> no, i said during the course of my marriage. so in -- >> you believe -- >> let him finish. >> so in 2015 my marriage was irretrievably broken. so i did not have a relationship with anyone during the course of my marriage. >> and in that interrogtory they asked you if you had any receipts for travel with someone of the other sex. you said you didn't. you testified to that. but in this affidavit you swore that you had travel expenses and shared expenses on travel with ms. willis.

>> again, during the course of my marriage, i had no relationship or receipts. >> i'm not asking about during the course of your marriage. >> you used your credit card for personal travel with ms. willis and you have receipts that you have to file with your taxes, correct? >> no, ma'am. i filed statements, i turn over the statements. whatever is on the statement, the accountant looks at it, the accountant says, ok, this is personal.

those over here, this is business. goes over here, here are your taxes. >> so you have those statements, we'll call statements instead of receipts. >> i have the statements, yes, ma'am. >> when you answered the interrogatory underoath, you said you did not have anything to show of record with travel of ms. willis. >> i answered the question. i had no receipts. >> but you had statements. >> i ordered the statement, yes, ma'am. >> you did order the statement. ok. and so we're just talking semantics between invoice and statements. >> i'm going to object to the argue meanttive tone of the question. i think it's been asked and answered. >> sustained. >> in, let's see. you also in this affidavit said that no funds paid to you for compensation as your role as special counsel was with willis, correct? >> that's correct. >> and that you never co-habitatted with willis, correct? >> that's correct.

>> by co-habitation, does that metropolitan you never spent the night? >> i spent the night with her during travel, yes, ma'am. >> and so i just want to qualify your use of the term co-habitation. that means you didn't live together. >> that's correct. >> but you did spend the night together. >> yes. >> when was the first time you spent the night together. >> your honor. >> that's the subject of his affidavit, judge. >> right, but it might not be the subject of this hearing. so the question is the nature and extent of the relationship and so if they just spenten night on a single -- spent the night on a single occasion, i don't think we're going to document and detail every single time that happened. >> and i don't intend to do that, judge, but i think what is relevant is when their relationship started and that's what you indicated -- >> why don't we start with that question and go from there. >> that's what i asked. when the first time he spent the night with her was. >> that's a different question, isn't it? >> ok, so let's not talk about when you spent the night. when did your romantic relationship with ms. willis begin? >> 2022. >> when?

in 2022? >> early 2022. >> so you were appointed in november of 2021. >> yes, ma'am. >> and your relationship started early. what's early? january, february? >> around march. >> around march. but you two met at an october, 2019, judiciary conference, correct? >> -- judicial conference, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> describe your relationship at that point then. >> which point? >> 2019. >> i was at a judicial conference to teach a course, if you will, to newer judges. i did that. in 2019. as i was exiting the conference, another judge was standing outside who was a friend of mine, i stopped and exchanged pleasantries with her.

and standing, talking to her at the time was then judge willis. she introduced us at that time. we shook hands, exchanged business cards and i got into my vehicle and left the conference. so that meeting was probably three minutes. >> ok. when was the next time you talked with her? >> didn't talk to her again probably -- maybe a month or a month and a half had gone by. >> ok. so you talked to her november maybe? >> maybe. >> on the phone? >> on the phone. >> ok. how regularly did you speak with her in 2021 on the phone? >> in -- >> i'm sorry, in 2019. i'm so sorry. twaoeufpblt how frequently did you -- how frequently did you speak with her on the phone. >> after the meeting i probably talked to her two or three

times. she would have questions. i was the district rep for the particular district that i sat in and the judges would, when they would have questions, they sometimes would go to the rep. so she was outside of my district, but she would call me, she felt comfortable calling me to ask me the questions. i don't know if you know the racial makeup of certain benches, but it wasn't very diverse. so she felt comfortable calling me for advice and she did that and we had also in common that she was starting a private law practice at the time and i'd already had mine up and going and we talked about balancing the demands of the bench with the private practice. so we didn't talk that often but

when she had questions, mostly legal issues that would come up, she would call me. >> i just want to make sure. because my question was just how many times and you said two to three times, right? ok. and in 2022, how frequently did you speak in 2022? before you were appointed. >> i'm sorry, 2020. how frequently did you speak in 2020? >> 2020 it was more frequent than 2019 obviously. >> more frequent. can you tell me approximately a month how often you spoke with her on the phone? >> your honor, i'm going to object to this. the details. i think -- i guess we're going to go through every time they spoke on the phone instead of generally characterizing the

relationship. [indiscernible] >> i'm not going to go through every time they spoke on the phone. i'm asking for how generally frequently they spoke. >> overruled. >> about how frequently did you speak in 2020? >> per month? >> if it was two or three times that entire year, you can tell me that. if it was more than that, you can quantify it by months. >> no, we spoke on the telephone often. i don't know how many -- i couldn't give you an amount of times. because remember covid happened and the world was shut down. but -- so we spoke on the phone more than 2019, definitely. >> let's qualify. it before her election in 2020,w frequently did you speak? >> you mean as she was campaigning? >> before the election. before -- yes. as she was campaigning. before she was elected. >> two different animals. >> as she was campaigning, before she was elected.

>> ok. so during the course of her campaign, we didn't talk as much obviously because she was busy, she had a large jurisdiction to cover. we didn't talk a whole lot. but she did know that i'd gone through the election process. so when things would come up sh-rbgs he would call me and ask me. >> just to be fair, i'm only -- he's not asked and answered. i don't mind him explaining but i just wanted to know how many times. before you talk about every conversation they talked about, i -- >> you have to let him finish his sentence and then redirect him or have me direct hip, i can. mr. wade, you can continue. >> so sometimes it would be like a three-second call, she'd go, you have -- during your election, you have ever seen this? and i would say no, but here's what i would do. and we'd hang up. she had a lot of professionals working for her. but she trusted my judgment so

she called me. they would be brief conversations. but she called me. >> my question was how frequently did you speak with her prior to her election? frequently? infrequently? >> more than 2019. but it wasn't an everyday thing, no. >> in 2021, before you were appointed in november, so january to november, 2021, only time i'm talking about, how frequently did you speak with ms. willis on the phone? >> in 2021, then it became frequent. >> frequent? >> yes. >> but you did not work at the d.a.'s office at that point, correct? >> i did not. >> so the affidavit you submitted, you showed on it, you submitted one record that showed that ms. willis had paid a couple hundred dollars for one flight, correct?

>> say again. >> the affidavit that you submitted to this court showed that ms. willis had paid for one flight, several hundred dollars. is that correct? >> no, ma'am. i think that -- are you drawing a distinction for her paying for a flight or for her actually booking a flight? those are two separate things. >> i'll re-ask it. the affidavit you filed in this court, you alleged that ms. willis paid for one flight, paid for one flight, correct? >> no, ma'am. >> you did not allege she paid for one flight? >> no, what i alleged is that i would travel, it was split roughly evenly. so where you see i have booked the flight or i have paid for a flight with my credit card, what you don't see is that she

covered her own flight, reinbureaused it to me -- reimbursed it to me. the flights you see here are the flights that she would have booked with her own resources, with her own costs. >> and there's one flight, correct? >> one flight reflecting that she actually booked -- ms. merchant. >> let him finish and you can redirect him. >> one flight that she actually booked, yes. the other flights i booked, she paid for. >> so the affidavit, you submitted one flight that she booked and paid for? >> yes, ma'am. >> i'm going to reject to the phrasing of that question. the line in the affidavit does not, as ms. merchant is representing it, it said examples of the district attorney willis purchasing plane tickets for she and i with her personal funds. it certainly did not represent that it was the only example of

the district attorney purchasing flights for mr. wade or for compensating other travel. >> understand. i think that's something you can -- is now on the record but is something you can take on in cross. >> thank you. and just so everybody's clear, all i ask you is, your affidavit, you submitted proof of one flight that she paid for. that's all i'm asking. correct? >> with the explanation, yes, ma'am. >> ok. all i needed. you said in the affidavit that you roughly shared travel, though, correct? >> yes. >> so this sharing travel, you're saying she reimbursed you. >> she did. >> where did you deposit the money she reimbursed you? >> cash. she didn't give me any checks. >> so she paid you cash for her share of all these vacations. >> mr. schafer, you'll step out if you do that again. >> so all of the vacations she

took, she paid you cash for. >> yes, ma'am. >> and you purchased all of these vacations on your business credit card and you included those in deductions on your taxes, correct? >> no, ma'am. >> no. you did not. >> no, ma'am. >> ok. we'll get to that in just a minute then. so the only thing that you have actual documentary proof, not cash, is this one receipt that you attached to the affidavit, is that correct? >> i object to that question. that is a mischaracterization of the assertion that's in the affidavit. >> i'm asking -- >> then he can deny it. i think he can fend for himself. >> is this the only written proof that you have of a trip she paid for? >> that i have? >> yes. >> yes, ma'am. >> ok. so you submitted the one piece of written evidence that you have that she paid for something. everything else is in cash, is that accurate?

>> no. >> that's not accurate? ok. please tell me what other receipts do you have that she showed that she paid for things. >> i don't have them. >> so this is the only receipt that you have to show that she paid for travel. >> that i have, yes, ma'am. >> thank you. in your divorce case, you filed a domestic relations financial affidavit. correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> ok. so the first one you filed was in january, 2022, right? >> there abouts, yes, ma'am. >> those are under oath? >> yes. >> and you also filed corporate taxes in 2022, correct? >> yes. >> and tell me about your business. do you have a partnership or are you a full practitioner? >> as it stands today? >> yes. >> so today i have a separate p.c.

my law partner has his own separate p.c. but we're under the same umbrella, under the same roof. so we share expenses, we share income, we split. >> so are you a partnership? >> we are a partnership in the sense of we share expenses, we share income. >> are you registered with the state of georgia as a partnership? >> so, the w.b.c. firm that included myself, terrence bradley and christopher campbell, we were registered with the state as a partnership. for a short period of time. >> that dissolved in 2023. >> i'm going to object, the witness answered the question. >> do you have something else to add there? >> i did. when things happened and we excused mr. bradley from that partnership, it left christopher

campbell and myself. so now you have two separate p.c.'s under the same umbrella. sharing expenses and income. >> ok. so let me just narrow down my questions then. are you registered and you have been registered at any time in the state of georgia as wade and campbell? >> no, ma'am. mr. ok. you've never been registered a a partnership? >> as wade and campbell, no. but as wade, bradley, campbell, yes, ma'am. >> wade, bradley, campbell was registered on april 1, 2021, and administratively dissolved on september 8, 2023. correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> other than that partnership, you have always been registered as law office of nathan wade? >> yes, ma'am. >> not with chris campbell.

>> correct. >> thank you. so the affidavit that you filed in your divorce case, the first one in 2022, i think i'm up to number 7. i'm going to give you a group of exhibits so we don't have to go back and forth. i'm marking the 2022 as 7. i'm marking the 2024 as 8. i'm marking the credit card statements as 9. and your taxes as 10. >> i object to the taxes to the relevance of them at this point. relevance of this entire structure is unclear to me -- [indiscernible] -- relevant to the issues under the court's consideration but in so far as talking about tax returns and other things like that, certainly that should be retkabgted and i would object to the relevance of it. >> i agree they should be

redacted but i don't agree to the relevance. i'm marking them so everyone can follow. >> what is the event relevance -- eventual relevance that you're getting at here? >> i'm going to ask him because one of the things we have to show is a personal and financial interest. he's talked about how he was reimbursed for these things and so i have a right to go into the veracity. >> all right. >> so let's see. 7, 8, 9. and then 10. all right. so right now i'm just going to show you what i've marked. as these exhibits.

can i approach? >> you may. >> i'll show you what i marked as 7, 8, 9 and 10. so these are sworn -- i'm first going to ask you about the domestic relations financial affidavit. these are filed under oath, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and the most recent one that you filed was filed on january 26, 2024?

>> yes, ma'am. >> so a few weeks ago? >> yes, ma'am. >> and in that one you said that you made $9,500 each month, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> you said that in 2022, well, in 2022 in this case alone, isn't it true you were paid $303,000, over $303,000? by fulton county. >> i see where you're going. so -- >> and i just ask him to answer the question. if he wants to sphraeup it, i have no problem with that. >> just answer the question asked. >> in 2022, isn't it true you were paid over $300,000? >> no, ma'am, that is not true. >> you were not paid over $300,000 by fulton county? >> no, ma'am i not. >> ok. how much were you paid in 2022 then? >> what i was beginning to explain was, fulton county wrote

a check to my firm. >> ok. >> what happens at that point is the checks are then deposited, as you have the bank statement, you see that. and then they are disbursed. between the three of us. so there was mr. bradley, there was mr. wade and there was christopher campbell. 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. so when you ask me if i was paid $300,000, the answer is no. i got 1/3 of that that went to my personal firm. now, once the money was distributed to my personal firm, obviously the expenses come out of that and i get at the end of the day whatever the profit is. so i did not get $300,000. no, ma'am. >> let me just clarify. my question was not did you put in your pocket $300,000.

my question was, was the law firm of nathan wade paid over $300,000 in the year 2022? >> again, 1/3 of that came to the law firm of nathan wade. >> so you're saying that the law firm of nathan wade did not receive checks from fulton county government over $300,000 in the year 2022? >> that's a different question. 1/3 of the $300,000 came to nathan wade. >> ok. again, not asking what went in your pocket. i'm asking, was the law firm of nathan wade paid over $300,000 in 2022. >> object, asked answered a. >> i think you're dancing around the point there. >> that's fine. i can move on, judge. thank you. so you said that they were disbursed amongst all of you. or put into an account with all of you. so it's your testimony that for

2022, every check you received from fulton county government went into an operating account with you, bradley and campbell? >> no, no, no. that's not what i testified to. so, the way bradley and campbell -- wade, bradley and campbell firm established an account when we decided to purchase a building in 2022. at that point every piece of income that came into the entity went into that account. and then after expenses were paid, it was 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. once that was dissolved, then the funds would go into a different account. my account, one of my accounts. and then i would disburse the funds between now attorney campbell and myself, 1/2 and 1/2. >> ok.

>> does that make sense? >> it does. let me be more direct then. so the operating account you have for wade, bradley and campbell, the checks from fulton county, from january of 2022 until june 17, 2022, those checks were deposited in that operating account. >> yes, ma'am. >> starting on july 15, 2022, the check you received from fulton county, up until may 26, 2022, all went to an escrow account that you had at fifth third bank, correct? >> not all of them. some of them, yes. >> so it's your testimony that some of your checks from july 15, 2022, up until may 26, 2023, some of them went into an account outside of fifth third bank? >> objection to the relevance of the financial transactions. >> how much he made is highly relevant in this case. it's the personal financial business and where the money was

and, i mean, it's a follow-up on other things that he testified to. there why is how much he money he made relevant? >> because he represented -- it's very relevant. he filed an affidavit with the court with another court, he told another judge that he made $9500 a month. that's what he swore to. >> so this entire inquiry is to establish that prior consistent statement? >> yes. >> i'll give you a minute or two more to try that. but we're going to have to move on. >> thank you. so i know you're saying that you only got 1/3 of the $300,000. but you were paid -- the firm was paid over $300,000 in 2022, correct? >> it's not what i'm saying. the numbers are there, it's the truth. the funds were paid, they were divvied between the three of us, going into an operating account,

expenses paid out of it, at the end of that, the $9,000 figure is what you have. >> so that's where you got the $9,000 figure from? >> yes, ma'am. >> and let's see. prior to when you filed for divorce in november, 2021, you would use mr. bradley's credit card to pay for things with ms. willis, correct? and pay him back in cash. >> i've never used mr. bradley's credit card. >> you've never used his credit card? >> never. >> for transactions to anything with ms. willis, out to dinner, anything like that? >> i've never used mr. bradley's credit card. i've never used anyone else's credit card. not even my father's and we have

the same name. >> and you'd pay back, if you used someone's credit card, you'd pay back in cash, correct. >> ma'am, i've never used someone else's credit card. >> can you take a look at the bank records that i gave you. it's the largest tab you have. >> what number is this? >> it is exhibit -- hold on, judge. exhibit 9. it shubt largest section -- it should be the largest section you've got. >> i maintain my objection. >> let's see what the next question is and maybe the objection is going to be highly relevant. >> is that an accurate copy of your capital one statements that you provided in discovery to --

is that an accurate reflection of your capital one records? >> that i provided in discovery to whom? >> to your divorce lawyers? or that you provided in the divorce proceedings? >> is the question does he recognize it by sight? >> i'm asking if it's his statement. >> i think that is the question. >> well, i mean, it's a big document but i believe you if you say that this is what my wife's divorce lawyer gave you, i believe you. >> your name's on every page of that document, correct? >> on every page? >> pretty much every page. >> no, it's not on every page. >> they're all capital one bank records. >> they are. >> take a your time. look through it. tell me if there's anything that you think is not yours. >> they appear to be. >> and those bank records show that you paid for travel with ms. willis. >> yes, ma'am. >> your honor, i'm going to object to the relevance of these

documents. >> i think -- are you tendering exhibit 9? >> i'm going to. they're highly relevant to the -- >> we've asked him about the question of the context of it. let's start there. >> thanks. those show travel that you and ms. willis took. >> so you're asking about the contents of something that hasn't been admitted yet. right? >> i'm asking him if that's what it shows because i know they're going to object on relevance. >> first we have to see if you've authenticated it, perhaps. and before we get into other details of what's in it, i think -- >> i can tender them. that's fine. i move to admit them. >> object. on relevance. >> all right. on that, overruled. >> thank you. those records demonstrate that you paid for travel with yourself and ms. willis, correct? >> they should. >> ok. and let's just talk about that travel. >> ok. >> the first trip is beliz in march, 2023 -- belize in march, 2023. is that a trip you took with ms? >> are you asking --

>> did you take a trip with ms. willis in 2023 to belize? >> i did. >> did you take a trip to california with ms. willis in 2023? >> i did. did you pay for those -- >> did you pay for those trips on that credit card? >> i used the credit card for the travel but understand -- >> she paid you back cash. >> well, let me say this. let's take the belize trip, for example. that was a birthday gift to me. so i paid nothing for that trip. zero. >> so the charges that are on your card, she gave you cash for? >> she did. >> ok. so all of the charges -- did you have more? >> i did. i wanted to get into the charges on the card because -- so, traveling with her is a task.

you can probably imagine the attention that happens. so for safety reasons, she would limit her transactions. i mean, imagine trying to walk through an airport or sit at a restaurant or do anything. so there was no -- there's no attempt to conceal, it's a credit card, everything is here. >> that's not what i asked. >> ok. >> what i asked was the charges for belize, those were things you purchased to go ms. willis -- with ms. willis. >> those are things i booked with my card that she paid, yes. >> so those show up on your credit stkphard. >> they do. and you're saying she paid you cash to reimburse you for all of that. >> she did. >> and she paid you cash for

both of your portions or just hers? >> both. >> ok. so that trip, belize, she paid you for everything. >> the entire trip. >> so the food, all that stuff, she paid for? >> i'm going to -- >> there was no tattoo parlor in belize. >> there's a tattoo parlor on the charges. i'm not getting into what it was for. i'm just asking if everything that's on that card related to belize, she paid you back for? >> she paid for, yes, ma'am. >> let's talk about california in may, 2023. you went to california together. and you booked plane tickets. >> yes. >> and her name was on those plane tickets. >> they were. >> and so i know you said you were worried about security and things like that, but that was in her name. when she traveled, she had to use her name. >> the plane tickets, yes, ma'am. >> and you paid for those plane tickets and you paid for a hotel.

>> so, again, the card, yes. >> you used your credit card and i'm not asking about after what happened, i'm asked did you use your credit card to book your flight and hotel to california? >> i did. >> and there's a lot of aoubers on there as well for california. did you pay for those ubers as well? >> yes. we were in napa. >> and you're saying that ms. willis, are you saying that ms. willis paid you back for that? >> yes. >> did she pay for the entire trip or did she pay for her half of the trip? >> the napa trip? >> yes. >> she paid for the excursions. so the expenses sort of balanced out. there was never -- let me be clear. there was never a time when i would say, hey, i bought dinner, dinner cost $25, you need to give me $25. if you've ever spent any time

with ms. willis, you understand that she's a very independent, proud woman. >> i object. >> so she's going to -- >> overruled. mr. wade. >> so she's going to insist that she carries her own weight. it actually was a point of contention between the two of us. she is going to pay her own way. >> so let me re-ask the question to make sure that you answer it. the california trip that you paid for, saying that she did not pay you back for cash, instead she paid for ex turgss and you believe -- excursions and you believe that was roughly half. >> she gave me some of cash. but what i'm saying is the -- everything that we did when we got into napa, she paid for. >> the trip that she booked on her credit card in miami, did you pay her cash back for your half of that? >> no. >> so you never paid her back for the ticket she bought for you? >> i would say i did pay her back because there were times

when i would pay for dinner, she would pay for dinner, it would balance out. but in a relationship, ma'am, you don't, particularly men, we don't go asking back for anything. so you're not keeping a leger of things that you pay for versus the things that she paid for. which is why i said that it was a point of contention because she was very emphatic and adamant about this independent, strong woman thing so she paid her own way. >> but she's the district attorney of fulton county and she has to file financial disclosures disclosing any gifts with anybody that she does business with in fulton county, correct? >> i don't know. >> ok. let's talk about tennessee. you booked a cabin in august, 2023. and paid for a cabin in tennessee. that's when you paid for it, i don't know when the trip was.

can you tell us about that? >> august of 2023? >> yes, you booked a trip for $1418.54. >> are you asking me did i take that trip with ms. willis or are you asking me -- >> first i was asking you to acknowledge that that is correct from the record, that you paid for a cabin in tennessee, do you recall -- hopefully you can do it from your memory, do you recall paying for a cabin six months ago, $1,400.81 in tennessee. >> where are we now? what pages is that? >> i'm asking from your memory. do you remember paying for a cabin in august? >> ask being a particular transaction -- >> answers when he can remember or not. >> i'm not asking you to go through 1,000 pages of records. i'm asking if you remember paying for a cabin six months ago in tennessee. >> no. >> you remember booking a cabin?

>> i booked lots of cabins. >> did you go to a cabin with ms. willis ever? >> ever? >> ever. >> no. >> never gone to a cabin with ms. willis? >> no. >> you have ever gone to tennessee with ms. which will is. >> yes -- with ms. willis? >> yes. >> when was that? >> that was around 2022, early

2022. >> early 2022? ok. >> it was a day trip. >> ok. so you didn't spend the night? >> it was a day trip. we would drive there, have lunch, drive back. the reason we would do that is because the attention, she couldn't get any peace of mind going locally. so we'd get in my car and drive to some place off the beaten path and have lunch and drive back. >> is that when you went to fainting goats with her? it's in jasper, georgia. >> no, that's in georgia. i don't recall going to fainting goat with her. >> so the tennessee day trips were not -- were only tennessee?

>> yes. >> ok. did you ever do these day trips in georgia? >> did we drive anywhere in georgia? >> yeah, you were talking about -- >> of course. yeah, we drove -- >> i'm talking about outside the metro area. day trips that you were just talking about. these trips you were just talking about. the ones that you were only ask -- i'm only asking about the ones you were just talking about, are all of those in tennessee? >> no. we drove to alabama before. >> ok. >> and back. >> you drove to alabama? >> yes. >> did you go anywhere in georgia? north georgia? >> i'm going to object to directing his attention in some way to a time frame or location, it might be easier for the witness to accurately answer. >> if you don't have the specific details yourself, we need to start getting into specifics or more broadly

phrased questions. it can't just be exploring around indefinitely. >> is it fair to say that you've taken so many trips with her you don't really remember all the places you've gone? >> so many trips? >> you're having trouble remembering going -- if you went to north georgia or not. >> you're asking me about specific places and i want to be candid in my responses so i have to jog my memory because these are places that i have frequented but not with her. so i want to make certain that if there was ever a time that she accompanied me, that i was candid in that response. >> ok. aruba, october, 2022. can i have the business record for these? it might be a little faster. did you take a trip with her to aruba in 2022? >> yes, ma'am. that aruba trip was -- it was a

packaged deal there. my mother had recently retired and decided to take my mother on a cruise. and the second leg after the cruise concluded, d.a. willis and i went to aruba. so that was all one trip, if you will. >> ok. so my question was, did you go with d.a. which will toys aruba in 2022 -- willis to aruba in 2022? >> i did. >> thank you. and you paid for that trip using your business credit card, correct? >> i did. >> ok. and you paid for a cruise as well, correct? >> that's the cruise i was referencing with d.a. willis, my mother and myself. >> ok. and -- because there's two cruises so let's talk about the first one. the first one was -- you took, that's the one with your mother. >> yes. >> so you introduced d.a. willis

to your mother that trip. you also took a cruise together, the three of you. you flew to aruba together after that and your mom flew home and you paid for all of this on your business credit card? >> i did. >> and are you saying -- [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] >> we're going to leave this hearing in georgia but you can continue watching it online at c-span.org or on our free video app, c-span now. as we head back to washington, d.c., to take you live to the u.s. house. work is expected on a bill to repeal all import and export restrictions on liquefied natural gas and several foreign policy measures. you're wafrping live coverage of the -- you're watching live coverage of the house on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the a prayer will be offered -- the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, pastor zach terry, first