>> good morning, how are you? >> good morning. >> not happy to be here, i'm assuming. >> i am not. >> i understand. thank you for being here. you were subpoenaed to come and testify in this case and you and i have spoken previously about relevant facts surrounding mr. wade and willis's relationship. >> no, we have not. >> we have not texted about those facts? >> through a third party you had given some information, you and i shared texts. our texts were more so about my health, more so about -- if i was okay with what was going on, that i would not be -- whether

or not i was going to be subpoenaed or not and emphatically i would not have been sitting in this position as being called as a witness. so that's what my text chains show, so no. >> we've never talked about willis and wade having a relationship. >> not directly you and i, no. we talked about my health, we talked about as i stated before, other things but not this, no. >> okay. did you text me about wade and willis taking many trips together? >> i object, as it relates to attorney/client privilege. going to object because i haven't seen the text messages

she is trying to impeach the witness with. he made all his representations and said 0 communications relating to the issues that mr. merchant continues to ask about and the only information she has about would be from a third party which is hearsay. >> it is not hearsay. we have had these conversations. if i need to take the stand i will and need to put my phone into evidence, i will. >> the first objection was to privilege on behalf of the state. >> i did not respond to that. thank you, judge. privilege is only communications that are made in furtherance of legal advice. there is no showing whether or not they took a trip to california or that mr. bradley and i talked about that either in person or by text that that is privileged. i'm not asking for any communications mr. wade might have made to mr. bradley in furtherance of legal advise.

>> mr. bradley is asserting privilege. it would be your burden to show the necessary foundation there. is that something you want to take up on this specific question? >> i don't object to foundation grounds. she has not provided any foundation he would have any knowledge of what she is requesting here. his answers were he had no knowledge and now she hasn't laid the foundation in order to continue to ask that question over and over. >> miss merchant? >> mr. bradley, would you abject it falls under the privilege of 106 of the rules and attorney/client privilege is not something that mr. bradley can waive. only mr. wade can waive it regardless of the communications or information improper. mr. wade would have to waive them in order for mr. bradley to continue to testify about any of this relationship until it has been established, when that

privilege should have begun. >> so far i haven't heard anything about a relationship, attorney/client relationship or privilege attaching. that will need to be established whether it falls inside or out of it. i think either miss merchant can take a lead if she wants to. my understanding was that has to fall on the person asserting the privilege. >> except for the attorney is not allowed to violate that privilege or he violated bar rules that would have an opinion regarding when -- [inaudible] that's why i thought perhaps this side bar might be important. >> miss merchant, sounds like you will need to lay a little more foundation to see whether this actually is going to fall under privilege or not. >> what i can do, i was told that ms. urti is in the waiting

room. if he wants to read my texts i have my phone here and i'll talk about other things and maybe if they will have a lot of objections to privilege and hearsay i can lay a foundation with mr. bradley, get him off the start. put up ms. yurti and then mr. wade. when did you and mr. wade first meet? >> probably 1998. >> okay. and did you all have a law firm together? >> we did. >> when did that firm start? >> probably i think it was 2010 we started exclusively working together as a firm, operating as a firm. >> okay. were you incorp rafted as a firm. ? >> not initially, no. he had -- when i passed the bar and hung a shingle in 2007 i

think he had been practicing a few years prior to that. he had his own firm. we had two separate firms. >> at some point did you incorporate together? >> we did. >> do you remember about when that was? >> i do not at this particular moment, ma'am, i'm sorry. >> do you remember if it was administratively dissolved? >> i've been made aware it has been administratively dissolved, yes. i left the firm around two years ago. >> when did you leave the firm? >> august of 2022. >> august of 2022. >> either august or september of 2022. >> so at -- in october of 2019, were you all incorporated as a firm? >> i think we were maybe. yes. >> when mr. wade filed for divorce november 1st or two,

2021, were you incorporated as a firm? >> we should have been. i'm thinking that we were, yes, ma'am. >> okay. when did mr. wade come to you to file the divorce action in cobb county? >> that's privileged information. >> the timing i don't believe that is. overruled. >> the timing was around 2018. and it was probably december of 2018. i remember it specifically because i was building a house and i noticed that he wasn't wearing his ring. i asked him about it. i had invited him to the house because i was having a -- not a housewarming but people over. he wasn't wearing his ring. i inquired about it. from there we discussed what

would happen and we discussed the divorce and what would happen. >> what would happen with the divorce? >> what would happen over me representing him for the divorce and when he would want to do it, yes. >> when did he retain you? >> well, my memory would be 2018 when he consulted with me about the divorce and told me what he would like to see done and when he wanted to do it. >> do you know when fani willis and nathan wade met? >> specific dates, no. i know it was sometime at a conference. >> municipal court conference?

>> correct. >> and october 2019 if it's been represented in the state's pleadings before that's when they met, does that sound familiar? >> if that's what they are saying, absolutely i know it was at a conference in 20 -- it was at a conference. if you say it's 2019, i will take you at your word. >> what you are sure of it was at a municipal court judge's conference when they were both municipal court judges. >> yes. >> fair to say she became district attorney she was no longer a municipal court judge so it had to have been before that. >> that they met? yes. >> yes. and he was teaching a class at that time as far as you know? >> i will object to leading at this point. >> was he teaching a class at this? >> to my knowledge, he was. >> was ms. willis to your knowledge attending this seminar >> i will object. no personal knowledge. he wasn't present at the municipal court --

>> they put it in their pleadings. we will be here all day. >> we are going to be here all day. >> as you can establish he would have some personal knowledge, then it's a fair question. just need to preface it with that and that's fine. >> thank you. are you aware of when their romantic relationship began? >> i will object. that is privilege. he said he began representing mr. wade in 2018. he met miss willis in 2019 within the bounds of attorney/client privilege. >> understood. miss merchant you need to qualify that question. >> thank you. i'm not asking you to tell me what nathan wade told you in further answer of legal advice. i want to be very clear. if he told you something asking you legal advice i'm not asking you about that. i'm asking what you observed, what you saw, and what you knew outside of what he told you when he was specifically seeking legal advice, okay?

>> i apologize. object on behalf of mr. bradley. he is asserting there is an attorney/client privilege for this case. to make any statements and proffer any information after this relationship began between the attorney and client december 2018 would be improper and he would be violating the rules of evidence associated with the bar license. >> the way was question wag phrased when did he personally observe not involving communications, how does that fall within attorney/client privilege? >> whether we like it or not when we have a client there are a number of items associated with that relationship between attorney and client that come within the purview and lead you to further action and investigation further questions, develop your strategy. we can't talk about mr. wade. it would be inappropriate. the divorce was filed thereafter. during that entire interlude any of these issues could have been

the basis for their relationship to remain privileged. >> miss merchant. >> his observations are not privileged. that's not what the privilege law says i can read you. attorney/client relationship, communications in question relate to the matters on which legal advice was sought. and the communications have been maintained in confidence and there is no exceptions to the privilege. first, number two. this was not in furtherance of legal advice. what he witnesses as a human being is not legal advice. if he witnesses them together it would get rid of the attorney/client privilege because ms. willis is there. additionally exceptions. we can go all day about exceptions to this.

mr. wade we contend filed a false affidavit. that's fraud to the court. if this witness has direct knowledge that's not true that's an exception to attorney/client privilege. >> all right. ms. merchant, if you could reask that question again qualifying it as i think you qualified it as anything outside of anything he learned or was told as a result of his representation. just any observations he made which in my mind as you phrase the question would have included before december 2018 when the first consultation occurred. i think if you can go step-by-step we can handle this. >> judge, i would ask permission we gave the state notice that all these witnesses do not want to be here. they are adverse witnesses. i would like to have leeway to cross them. thank you, judge. mr. bradley, in -- you have

nudge that their relationship began in 2019. >> i do not have knowledge but again i have consulted with the bar as late as yesterday at 4:00. i am not here to -- >> your testimony is you do not have independent knowledge. >> i was advised by the bar 1.6 of confidentiality applies and that i cannot reveal anything that i saw or learned and that if the court is asking me to do that, that an immediate certificate of review should be asked and so i'm not here to misrepresent to the court or to say anything inappropriate or anything. i am here because i also have a law license and i'm not trying

to lose that. >> mr. bradley, can you finish that thought? you a or learned period without qualification whatsoever? >> i will refer to what i was told by the bar rule 1.6 confidentiality applies and i would be asking for an immediate review of the supreme court. >> that applies to what? >> any communications is what the person at the bar told us. >> any communications >> he did not qualify. >> that's covered. >> well, judge, i don't know. he didn't go into those specifics. but this is what was told -- i was sitting there with my attorneys and this is what was told to us, to state rule 1.6 applies and we gave them the scenario and this is what they

told us to do and this is what i'm doing at this particular point. >> we have no knowledge of the bar was aware of the affidavit mr. wade filed. that changes the privilege. he waived the privilege when he put that in the affidavit. he put the relationship in the -- when the relationship started and put the relationship in the affidavit. that would waive certain amounts of privilege. he disclosed this relationship. what we've gone is we have mr. wade being able to say what he wants about this relationship but we aren't allowed to ask questions to qualify that. so that's not how it works. they either get to admit it or they don't. either privilege or not. >> we were talking about a relationship, though. how does that open to floodgates to what he told an attorney during representation? >> it doesn't. i'm asking his knowledge. they were law partners. as i go through the questions he has knowledge of things that is not something that mr. wade specifically told him.

i think there is a fraud exception to a lot of this. i don't think there was a privilege for most of it. >> he represented he has no knowledge. >> i don't think we've gotten anything to that extent yet. i think we're still making our way through it, which is i think he is taking the position that he is not willing to share anything mr. wade ever told him period, which that's a broader representation of attorney/client privilege than i've ever heard and i think that's what we're trying to parse out. if the relationship starts i've never heard everything that said everything before that point is privileged. do you have something that i should know? >> before that relationship being established, in 2018, december, the last question was related to a point in time after that during which the relationship attorney/client was

already established. he has an opinion from the state bar of georgia that he will be required to testify and ordered by the court to many of these issues. i understand how delicate this is. you can phrase it in a thousand different ways to try to make him saying something. you can't unring a bell he puts out into the universe where he has violated that privilege. we can go back six months from now and say we shouldn't have said that. it's not acceptable. it violates hundreds of thousands of relationships in the state that we rely on. this is an attorney/client issue. we've looked up the relevant laws and we do not have a waiver from the client. the client is present -- >> there is no question we're not barreling ahead. i recognize the privilege. what we have to determine is actually what that privilege, the scope and when it started.

i don't think we've gotten close to that yet. >> i thought december of 2018 mr. bradley testified mr. wade said the divorce proceedings were beginning and >> we have a starting point but does that necessarily foreclose anything from that point on ward? if they started talking about something else entirely? >> post divorce of course not but during the pennsylvania -- observations and other realizations that mr. bradley came into during his representation. to parse it out would put mr. bradley in an untenable position. >> i think we're talking about

two aspects of -- the first attorney/client privilege. first is controlled by state law and statute that deals with communications and purpose. i don't hear that being the objection. the objection is that there are confidential matters under 1.6 which in some form or fashion mean that once you start a relationship attorney/client that everything from that point on is confidential between the two of them. there is no such case law in georgia that deals with confidential information of that kind. attorney/client yes, confidential information no. and i believe what is being argued by counsel is that he has received -- we don't have anything in writing. but he received some oral advice that under 1.6 confidential matters cannot be gone into,

which is according to them everything that occurred between mr. bradley and mr. wade from 2018 forward. there is no such law that protects such confidence. only communications made in purpose. if i'm mistaken i apologize. what we're being told is i don't have to say anything at all about ms. wade once i have an attorney/client relationship with him because it would be deemed confidential and if it seems confidential i can't talk about it. no such case law in georgia. no bar rules to that effect. the court has to say are we talking about attorney/client privilege or confidential information. once you decide it's confidential information you order mr. bradley to testify and then it is up to counsel to decide whether he wants his client held in contempt after you ordered him to testify. >> that's an overstatement. he said he can't testify to anything. the specific question on the

table is what observations do you have for mr. wade and ms. willis from that point on. now, they, the defense and their teams, have made an allegation of some impropriety. that same impropriety could be related to a divorce proceeding on every level. we aren't here to say we're not talking but not talking about his knowledge during his reputation during the divorce. i realize there is a cornerstone of what we do. the state bar rules 1.6. you violate that and the whole thing comes tumbling down. you can't ask that mr. wade enjoyed beer at a ballgame. the question was specifically relating to some impropriety they're trying to dig into. that's privileged. >> more important mr. bradley said he has no independent knowledge relates to what she is

referencing. so there is no basis for her continue to probe into this area. no independent knowledge outside of the attorney/client privilege. >> miss merchant last word. >> mr. bradley if ordered to testify, it is not an issue with the bar. my question was not about attorney/client privilege. i'm careful not to ask anything about mr. wade asked in further answer. i have been informed robin urti is on zoom. we can call and have her testify and put up mr. wade and go through the privilege issue and we don't have these objections, otherwise i'm happy continuing to question mr. bradley. >> you are saying your understanding of the evidence you plan to present that these issues are affected by ms. urti in terms of the scope of the privilege and relationship?

>> no. thank you for letting me clarify that. i think ms. urti will give me enough to get mr. wade on the stand. once i get mr. wade on the stand. i can put mr. wade on the stand and put him on before i call mr. bradley. i may not have to call mr. bradley. >> all right. >> attorney on behalf of ms. urti. we were here for the motion to squash earlier this week. mr. bradley's testimony is so to speak the bridge that was built to involve my client into this matter all together. now it seems as though that's being usurped and now she is

being the foundation for defense counsel's presentation this morning. so we do object to that, judge, and would renew our motion to quash the subpoena. this is completely contradictory to what we had via the hearing earlier this week, your honor. >> mr. partridge, as i recall that did not apply to your client as much. the original motion to quash you filed said she had no knowledge about anything what ms. merchant proffered and what i didn't hear you saying was not the case. at some point mr. urti lived in a residence and shared a residence with ms. willis and potentially mr. wade. she is directly involved. i don't think that needs much in the way of foundation. >> judge, i apologize, your honor to talk over the court. that information, however, your honor, is my understanding came

from mr. bradley and that information was incorrect and i informed the court early this week as well. there was never any time ms. urti and miss willis lived together. there was a sublet outside of her subleting it to mr. willis. ms. urti moved into a different residence per our conversation yesterday. that is exactly what it is. no overlapping or any time they stayed together nor does ms. urti has any information with mr. wade staying at the condo as well with that of miss willis. again i'm renewing. >> luckily i don't have to tell them everything that i plan on introducing a witness for in response to their motion to quash. she has a lot of personal knowledge and when we had a motion to quash i had to get over a good faith basis and

present it through the court. i did not spend four hours everything this woman will testify to. she has personal knowledge. i think she is on zoom. >> is your client with us? >> she is on the zoom platform in richmond county via my conflict. she is on the zoom platform in the waiting room. i believe she may have been admitted. i see a robin on my screen. i assume that is my client. >> miss merchant you want to examine her by zoom? >> that's fine. we'll waive any sixth amendment objections. >> the represent was a good faith basis based on what she learned from mr. bradley. we know that's false, not true. there is no good faith basis and we would renew our objection to quash this. >> that was not in regards to ms. urti.

>> it was not. >> she has personal knowledge of this relationship. >> not represented on monday. no good faith basis to explore this fishing expedition as it relates to ms. urti. this is a blatant -- >> miss merchant. when we went through the motion to quash there were -- you grouped them in two categories. we said they would be impeached by mr. bradley. >> we took ms. urti outside of fulton county differently than her. we took her out separately. she was different than fulton county. there wasn't other issues. again, so we're arguing a motion to quash. i responded to their argument on the motion to quash. did i tell them she is going to testify she has known ms. willis for years and that her middle name is lot reese? i didn't tell them everything she is going to testify to. if you wanted me to i could have

but that has nothing to do shall there is a witness that contradicts what they have said in court and they are doing everything they can to keep her off the stand and keep the truth away from this court. they filed a motion to quash. i showed a good faith basis. if that is mr. bradley or ms. urti or text secting there is no law i have to tell them every good faith basis i have ahead of time. if we did we would never have trials. >> appreciate the argument of counsel. i think the standard on the motion to quash and subpoena is not one where we're required to completely flush out and litigate every reason a witness may be relevant. we'll take these one at a time with ms. urti. deny the motion to quash. and if your election is to call her, that's what we'll do. >> thank you, judge. mr. bradley, you may be excused for now but subject to recall.

we'll call ms. urti. would you like me to swear her, judge? >> i think we need to make sure. there we go. if we could swear in the witness. >> can you hear us? >> yes, i can. >> all right. raise your right hand, ma'am. do you swear or affirm the testimony you give the court will be the truth and full truth. state your name for the court. >> [inaudible] >> thank you, ms. urti for being here.

can you tell the judge when you first met miss willis? >> in college. so 19 -- that would be 90 or 91. >> and have you been friends since 1990 or 91? >> yes. >> when was the last time you spoke with ms. willis? >> march of 2022. >> okay. from 1991ish to 2022 were you what you consider good friends with miss willis? >> yes. >> and did you all share personal information regularly? >> yes. >> and did you even come and work with her at the d.a.'s office? >> yes. >> and when she needed a place

to stay, did you let her stay at your apartment? it was a condo,y? >> yes. >> do you know when she moved into your condo? >> it was april of 2021. >> great. and you know that ms. willis and mr. wade met in a conference in october of 2019. >> i object to that for how this witness would know that. if miss merchant shay has personal information about that that's something the witness can testify to. >> all right, miss merchant. lay the foundation. >> do you have information that ms. willis and mr. wade met in october of 2019? >> renew my objection. information is not personal information. if the question can be rephrased it may address my concern. >> i want to make sure i understand. they have objected to me calling willis and wade. >> just a matter of foundation,

just rephrase. >> do you have knowledge of when willis and wade met? >> object again. personal knowledge. >> overruled. >> thank you. >> do you have personal knowledge of when willis and wade met? >> yes. she told me they met at a conference. i don't know what conference. >> renew my objection. this is not information from this witness. hearsay that was -- >> she said she told me. >> statement against interest, judge. >> the representation of the witness testimony was that miss willis district attorney willis had a conversation with her. that is not statement against interest. district attorney knows it is not a party opponent in this case. the information that the witness has testified to came from ms. willis and we have a history for that. >> why wouldn't she be considered a party opponent in this context? >> she is a representative of

the state. this isn't private litigation, it is civil litigation. this is -- miss willis is not on trial and is not a party to the litigation and her obligation to pursue criminal charges for the state. >> miss merchant. >> dana: we've been watching this hearing in fulton county, georgia. a stop/start situation partly because the state is trying desperately to try to keep its case together and the woman there that you see on the top right is ashley merchant. she is one -- a lawyer for one of the defendants in this huge case that fani willis brought. andy mccarthy, you are listening as well. all the objections about the witnesses to me -- i'm not a lawyer -- they seem a little over the top coming from the d.a.'s side of the room. what do you think? >> well, i think they're not only over the top, dana, i think

they are strategically potentially disastrous. i think any good litigator, particularly i've seen this again and again in the defense context, if you have bad information, the best thing to do is get it out in one or two questions and try to move on. but if you do it by death of a thousand cuts, then when the admission finally inevitably comes, it is just much more damaging and dramatic than it might otherwise be. i think it's untoward for the state to be fighting so hard to withhold information, personal information about the district attorney when what matters is justice in the case. but just simply strategically the way they are going about it is to me i just as an old litigator i'm kind of like get the bad stuff out and move on. >> dana: thank you. let's listen to how the questioning is going. >> when we spoke you said it was

shortly after the municipal court conference, is that correct? >> yes. >> okay. so you know that their relationship, their personal relationship began shortly after this municipal court conference. >> yes. >> when i say personal, romantic. i just want to make sure we don't get an argument over what personal and romantic. do you take that to mean romantic when i say personal? >> yes. >> and do you understand it that their relationship began in 2019 and continued until the last time you spoke with her? >> yes. >> and you were essentially her best friend during this time, right? >> not best friend, good friend. >> close friend. so would you frequently

socialize with her? >> yes. >> and you saw her at work every day? >> yes. >> so you had a chance to see them interact together on a personal level? >> yes. >> and so from everything that you saw, heard, witnessed, it's your understanding they were in a romantic relationship beginning in 2019? >> yes. >> and when you left the -- let me ask you. you said miss willis came to live with you in april 1st, 2020, or 2021? >> i never lived with her. >> she took over your lease in april 1, 2020, correct? >> no. 2021. >> i had it both ways. i'm glad you clarified. when she took over your lease in april of 2021 it is your understanding she moved out of the house sharing with her

father and started staying at the condo? >> yes. >> and is it your understanding that's because she needed to have her own space? >> yes. >> away from her father? >> yes. >> okay. when you left the d.a.'s office, were you fired? >> no, i resigned. >> okay. >> one moment, sir. can you tell us why you resigned at the d.a.'s office? >> a number of things that were happening. >> what was happening that caused you to resign?

>> -- [inaudible] i guess i was put in a department that i knew had no knowledge about, something happened and i didn't like it, they didn't like it, and that was it. >> okay. did you have a falling out with ms. willis? >> we never spoke after that. >> you never spoke after that. >> and so without going into all the painstaking details, there is no doubt in your mind from 2019 until 2022, ms. willis and mr. wade were in a romantic relationship? >> what's the question? >> you have no doubt that their romantic relationship was in effect from 2019 until the last time you spoke with her?

>> no doubt. >> that's based on your personal observations and speaking with them and seeing them together and things like that? >> yes. >> okay. no other questions. the other folks may have some questions for you. >> if it's more than a couple questions then sure, if not. >> only a couple of questions. >> the court reporter hear me okay? ma'am, let me be very specific. did you talk with miss willis about her romantic relationship with mr. wade? >> yes. >> did miss willis tell you on more than one occasion that she was engaged in a romantic relationship with mr. wade prior to you leaving the district attorney's office? >> did she tell me or did i observe? >> right now did she tell me. >> yes.

>> did she tell you that in the year of 2020? >> yes. >> in the year of 2021. >> yes. >> are you certain that ms. willis told you about the romantic relationship with mr. wade prior to november 1st of 2021? >> yes. >> now, did you also have observations of mr. wade and miss willis together prior to november 1st of 2021? >> yes. >> and were those in a social setting? >> yes. >> and did you observe them do things that are common among people having a romantic relationship? >> yes. >> such as, give us an example? >> hugging, kissing, affection.

>> all before november 1st of 2021, correct? >> yes. >> that's all i have. >> ma'am, did i understand you to say that there was a period of time when you and ms. willis began -- >> no. >> mr. durham. >> nothing from me. nothing. >> nothing. >> good morning. are you -- were you aware in 2021 of any trips, social trips that miss willis and mr. wade took together? >> no. >> are you aware of the social trips that miss willis and mr. wade took together in 2022? >> no. >> and are you aware of them in 2020 or 2021 spending the evening together overnight?

>> no. >> no further questions. >> mr. gillen. mr. mcculloch and mr. cromwell. >> no questions. >> cross. >> we haven't met before, is that correct? >> correct. >> you are able to see and hear me okay? >> yes. >> i want to start with a couple of things. i think you have made it clear that you never lived at the south full con condie, you never lived at that address with district attorney willis, correct? >> correct. >> never at any time. >> never. >> you never observed or have any information about district attorney wade and distinct attorney willis and nathan wade living together correct. do you have any information about that? >> no. >> when they said that

information was sourced to you that's not correct? >> that's incorrect. >> did advertise tricked attorney willis pay rent at the condo while she lived there and you were living elsewhere. >> yes. >> who paid the rent? >> she did. >> nathan wade ever pay the rent? >> no. >> you never told anyone otherwise? i didn't hear your answer. did you ever tell anyone otherwise? >> no. >> all right. let's talk for a second about your term at the district attorney office. you were disciplined several times during your employment there, correct? >> no. >> you weren't written up for poor performance? >> once, not several. >> one time you were written up for poor performance. were you counseled several times about your performance in the district attorney's office that

was sub par? >> no. >> did the district attorney tell you that your performance was insufficient that that you were going to be fired? >> no. >> that never happened? >> no. maybe when we were at the end. what's the question? >> the question was did the district attorney ever counsel you on your poor performance in the district attorney's office and tell you she would like you to be fired? >> i don't know how to answer that. >> i'm looking for the truth. >> i mean, a situation happened that wasn't my fault and i either was going to resign or be

fired. >> you understood that was the situation, you could resign or be let go. >> yes. >> you were not welcome to stay. >> no. >> and the conversation where you informed that you could resign or you could be fired, that conversation was not the first conversation you had with the district attorney about your poor performance in the office, correct? >> it was kind of a spiral but no. >> yeah, it was. whatever the situation was -- >> excuse me. objection. >> understood. ms. cross. >> the circumstances of your leaving the district attorneys office ended your friendship with district attorney willis, correct? >> yes. >> you haven't spoken since? >> no.

i want to talk about the representations that you made here this morning about any relationship between district attorney willis and mr. wade. i want you to tell me what was the first time -- let me ask it this way. you said she personally inform you of the romantic relationship. is that what you testified to? >> yes. >> when did that conversation that you remember when it did happen? >> i don't have a month or a day, but just talking in general. >> i would like to keep this witness under subpoena. that's all the questions i have right now. >> thank you, ms. cross. >> i have redirect.

>> on those points only. >> yes. the state asked you a lot about when you were let go, when you resigned. did something happen as far as purchasing that you didn't feel comfortable with purchasing things through the county for miss willis that caused you to not be comfortable working there anymore? >> no. >> i didn't tell you how to testify here today though, right? >> right. >> and everything you've testified to is from your personal knowledge? >> yes. >> and you've told the truth here today? >> yes. >> okay. judge, i believe she is only under my subpoena and fine releasing her from that subpoena. >> a show of hands from other counsel starting here. >> i believe i was -- [inaudible] ms. willis made to her. she brought it up on cross examination on several

occasions, did miss willis say this and inform you of this. i want to ask her about what ms. willis told her about her romantic relationship. >> take those one at a time and i don't know about a complete opening of the door. we'll see where we go. >> the first time you spoke to miss willis about her relationship, romantic relationship with mr. wade, do you happen to remember what miss willis said in essence, not word for word but in essence what she said? >> no. >> do you remember the first time she told you in whatever words were you there was a romantic relationship? >> i don't. >> is this the conversation you had with your best friend on going over a period of time and common knowledge to you that there was an ongoing relationship between miss willis and mr. wade? >> what's the question? >> i'll ask it again.

is the nature of your then relationship with ms. willis such that you were having these ongoing conversations best friend-time conversations about her relationship with mr. wade? >> i don't remember. >> without getting into too much detail is there any doubt at all that mr. wade and ms. willis had a romantic relationship as was told to you prior to november of 2021? >> she was already asked that question. >> i didn't know >> she said no doubt. >> all right. any other defense counsel by a show of hands? seeing none, last recross from ms. cross, anything else? >> not at this time. we would like the witness to remain under subpoena. >> she is under my subpoena and i'm releasing her.

>> i would prefer the court keep her under subpoena given the represent of miss merchant how she intends to proceed today this witness may need to be recalled. >> understood. in the interest and knowing we may have to bring witnesses back and forth, i think it's in the interest of effective presentation of the evidence here you will still remain under the subpoena and so please stay in touch with your attorney. we may need you to rejoin us on zoom at some point today or tomorrow, understood? >> okay. >> they will discuss your testimony with any other potential witnesses all right? >> all right. >> you can log off. >> can mr. partridge stay on for one moment? the state made some allegations that i misrepresented some things to the court and i just like the opportunity to clear that up. mr. partridge is the one they -- i just think it is appropriate for everyone to know where that information came from.

>> miss merchant, i think you have made your position clear. that's -- i don't think we want to get sidetracked on that. all right. miss merchant, call your next witness. >> can i be excused as well? >> take care, mr. partridge. >> your honor the motion to quash mr. wade's subpoena was knelt advance waiting for the representation. i believe that good faith basis that miss merchant represented on monday i think that's not accurate. understand the testimony that is now in the record. mr. wade is available but we have maintained at this time that the motion to quash should be granted but i understand the court's ruling. >> i will say yes on monday it did seem like the focus 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 have to tackle again later. for now, as it the evidence in front of the court at the moment is we have a witness who has said this relationship may have pre-dated the affidavit that mr. wade filed. i don't see a way around the relevance of his testimony. i deny the state's motion to quash the subpoena of mr. wade. miss merchant. >> bill: as we wait for nathan

wade, who is an n all likelihood one of two star witnesses in this matter here. the former employee of fani willis testified said she had no doubt their romantic relationship began in 2019 and continued until at least 2022. how significant? >> very. this is not a good day for the democrats campaign against donald trump. the fact you have someone who says she was a very good friend of the district attorney. she worked in the office. and is giving testimony under penalty of perjury that their relationship began far before what willis and wade put in their court filings is a problem. this is on top of the fact that willis, of course, as we know hires a man and makes him -- >> dana: here we have nathan wade coming into the courtroom and about to take the witness stand. so buckle up, everybody.

it will be an interesting set of questions as he is sworn into the court. let's listen. >> my name is nathan wade. >> good morning, mr. wade. >> good morning. >> prior to filing this motion to disqualify you and i were friends, correct? >> yes. >> and i supported you when you ran for judge in 2016. >> you did. >> i wore your shirts, my kids wore your shirts. >> in your personal opinions have no relevance. i mean that in the best way. let's get to the point. >> thank you. you filed for divorce from your wife on november 2, 2021. >> yes, ma'am. >> and in that divorce proceeding, did you file answers, things such as interrogatories. >> i did. >> and so interrogatories where you are responding to things

that basically answers the other side is asking. >> yes, ma'am. >> and i've got your complaint for divorce. i will mark it for the record as defendant's exhibit 2. the first interrogatories that you answered were december 27th, 2021, is that right? >> thereabouts. >> and those you were asked different things but those are sworn. you swear to those and verify them, right? >> yes, ma'am. >> and so that verification is where you are swearing under oath that everything in it is true. >> yes, ma'am. >> and let's see. 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 romantic relationship and you responded you didn't have any documents to that. >> that's correct. >> you again responded to an interowing tore updated those

responses may 30th, 2023 and sent those directly to opposing counsel in the divorce. >> yes, ma'am. i think so. >> but in that one, you answered none against that question, correct? >> yes ma'am. >> so may 30, 2023 you didn't have any documents showing any purchase of anything with someone that you had a romantic relationship with. >> i believe the interago towering was gifts. >> i have your complaint for divorce marked as number two. the verification and interrogatories from 2021 marked as three and then your may 30th, 2023 i will mark as four. judge, may i approach the witness? >> you may. >> thank you.

>> that is number four. this is three. okay. thank you, judge. all right. if you take a look at what i've marked as two, three and four, does the state recognize these. zwloo i >> i do. >> that's your divorce complaint and then your 2021 interowing tore and 2023 interrogatories, correct? are there a fair and accurate representation of what is filed in that case? >> yes. >> i move to admit those in evidence. >> two, three and four? >> it's two, three and four, yes. >> any objection from the state?

>> no objection to three and four and subject to miss merchant's representation that two is a filing of differ oars. i don't have that in front of me. >> by show of hands any objection from other defense counsel? seeing none, exhibits two, three, four admitted without objection. >> so that interrogatories that you filed in 2023 is 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? which number? >> number four. >> so which number are you referring to? >> defendant's exhibit no. 4. >> i have that here. which number? >> which number out of the

questions? >> yes, ma'am. >> hold on. it is number 24, 25, 26. >> it's supposed to be number -- i guess they're all numbered one. number one, on