>> harris: so the big question now is will we see the district attorney who is accused of having a love affair and that bringing on questions of inappropriateness, of favoritism, maybe in the office, of impropriety in terms of the case she was pushing against donald trump in election interference because she was having an affair with a man she hired to top the case and paid him more than any other prosecutor in the office. it's so much. nathan wade was her lover. he is on the stand for more at the top of the hour, a few seconds away. will fani willis be on the stand today, too. thanks for watching. "america reports >> john: harris, thanks so much.

any moment now an hearing is expected to resume in fulton county, georgia, hello, john roberts in washington. this is a very interesting day. welcome back, sandra. >> sandra: it has been a very interesting day. good to be with you, john. sandra smith in new york and this is "america reports". explosive testimony detailing the timeline of fani willis' relationship with special prosecutor nathan wade. willis' former friend testified that she had "no doubt" the two of them were in a romantic relationship dating back to 2019, long before wade was hired in the case. >> john: that testimony directly contradicted wade's statements when he took the stand a short time ago. we have an a-team of legal experts. jonathan turley, leo terrell and kerri urbahn. start with you, seems nathan wade is doing everything he possibly can to try to avoid

saying that he and fani willis were an item before he was hired as the special prosecutor. >> i thought the testimony from the witness this morning was devastating, at least potentially if true. obviously she was testifying under penalty of perjury, said the relationship began long before what both wade and willis said in court filings. that's a big problem and i think that would result likely in disqualification. i can't see it not impacting that decision and also just remind our viewers that republican state lawmakers in georgia, i believe it was just last week said they have a number of people who want to testify against their former boss, it could be just the beginning. >> sandra: jonathan, at one point as you were actively tweeting this morning as this was ongoing, wade on the stand in what is now a highly perilous moment for him professionally. what struck you as you watched on? >> well, whoever said election law is boring. i remember back when we would be

debating hanging chads on ballots, this is far more gripping. it is a perilous moment for him. it started out with a witness saying that he lied, that he filed a false affidavit with the court and that wade herself has lied and allowing false statements to be made to the court. he is now denying they had a relationship before 2022. but then it got very odd explained that willis did pay but paid in cash, there's no receipts and it was not a one for one reimbursement. and so it got awfully murky awfully fast. >> john: looks like they are having a discussion over some documents there. leo, this is perilous for nathan wade but the bigger question, is this perilous for fani willis as well? if it can be proven she hired her boyfriend as the special prosecutor and that they both

benefitted financially from it, what happens to her and her case against trump? >> she's out. it's not only bad for nathan wade, it's bad for fani willis and the whole department. the whole district attorney's office. because they are all tainted, john, all in trouble. the judge will have to rule against all of them, in my opinion. >> john: all right, back to the court in just a second but remind you that former president trump's legal cases remain a crucial issue on the 2024 campaign trail and with the south carolina primary eight days away, a week from saturday, i will be in columbia, south carolina for a town hall with presidential candidate nikki haley, she will answer questions directly from voters in her home state about the issues most important to them. sunday night, 5:00 p.m. eastern time with an encore airing at 10:00 p.m.. so, be looking for that this coming weekend. >> sandra: we will certainly be watching for that, and now back live to the courtroom in atlanta. >> i don't have any problem with the invoices, invoices are clear

for the records obtained in the certification. removed the items that are in dispute, i don't have objection to them. >> they are already in in exhibit. >> so again, let's have opposing counsel look at revised exhibit 14 and then i'll hear whether there is any objection.

contains only the invoices that were submitted, the state has no objection to them. >> all right. then not seeing any other issues from other counsel, we'll note exhibits 14 through 18 have been amended for the record without objection. i think at this point it would be good to make sure we've got i think 1 through 18 with the court reporter. >> did you want me to give them to the with it? >> well, if he's done looking at them, let's get them all compiled and organized with the court reporter in case other defense counsel will reference them. it was not for him to have them all, just 1 through 18 organized with the court reporter. >> sorry, take all the exhibits back from him.

>> i think we want to do that. >> thank you. all right. as miss merchant is doing that, down the list. mr. sadolf. >> the court would ask some questions i was going to ask. i would like to follow up. >> let me just keep it consistent, i'll go in order. so deferring and then to mr. stocks. >> defer, too. >> mr. durham, on zoom. >> no, your honor. >> mr. mcdougall. >> refer to mr. gill. >> mr. rice. >> refer to mr. gill. >> thank you. >> thank you, your honor. good afternoon, mr. wade. >> good afternoon, sir. >> a few follow-up questions. i would like to start off with

the exhibit number 4 that you should have up there, those are the interrogatories. >> no, sir. >> they're not up there? >> i asked her to compile them all. now you can grab them. >> yes, sir. >> okay. now, these are the interrogatories that you had filed on may the 30th, 2023 in your divorce case, correct? >> yes, sir. >> now, you went over in part some of those interrogatories but what i want you to do -- i want to get down to the specific language to clear up exactly

what the interrogatories asked for, and exactly what you answered, ok? >> yes, sir. >> now, if we look on the interrogatory that i believe as we indicated really i think on page 2, the one that starts off describe each instance in which you've had sexual relations, you see that one? >> yes, sir. >> all right. now, that interrogatory begins describe each instance in which you have had sexual relations with a person other than your spouse during the course of the marriage, including the period of separation. you see that? >> yes, sir. >> now, these were filed on may the 30th, 2023, correct? >> yes, sir. >> now, at that time you had had sexual relations with miss willis, correct? >> your honor, i'm going to object to the question as phrased. the question improperly at that time certainly asked about his

answer, but object to -- >> i'll ask you to rephrase, i think you can make the same point. >> your honor, it's a specific enter -- interrogatories, if he answered yes and it's a false, so i would ask the court's indulgence, i'm not here to jump into some salacious bedroom situation but this matters, i would ask the court's indulgence. >> the questions have been asked and answered and i understand mr. gilland is coming at it in a different way. but it's not different than what has been asked and answered and information he's seeking. >> i will allow one more but i think you are asking it in a different way, and ask you to stick to the point. >> now, as of may 30, and may i ask the question -- ok, thank

you, your honor. as of may 30th, 2023, you had had sexual relations with miss willis, isn't that correct? >> the interrogatories, sir, asks during the course of the marriage and the period of separation. >> i would ask the court to direct the witness to answer my question yes or no. as of may 30, 2023, had you had sexual relations with miss willis, yes or no. >> i object. >> let's start with at the higher level whether he believes he answered it truthfully and then drill down into why or why not, and maybe end up where you left us. >> but again, your honor, the point is the words matter and we have to establish what did and did not happen. and then he can get whatever explanation he chooses to to what apparently is a false answer but i would like a false answer to my question. >> you may get one. i would like us to start high level before we drill down in

specifics to see whether he actually contradicted that, if i'm making sense. >> interrogatories are explicit, sexual relationships with a person other than your spouse during the course of the marriage including the period of separation. that's pretty simple. >> see if it's something you can get him to admit. >> you did have sexual relationships with someone other than your spouse during the course of the marriage, and the separation, included up to may 30, 2023, isn't that correct, sir. >> my answer is none, is no. >> you are saying you did not have sexual relationships with anyone outside of your marriage in the period of separation, during the period -- and you are answering the question to the interrogatories. >> i'm saying during the course of my marriage i did not have relations with anyone, the

answer is no. >> your honor, we need a yes or no. let's just get down to it. did you or did you not by may 30th, 2023, have had sexual relations with miss willis, yes or no. yes or no. >> yes. >> now, what you did is you answered no to that question, didn't you, or none, correct. >> i didn't answer no to the question you just answered, answered no to the interrogatories question. >> in a pleading in a civil proceeding, your divorce case, right? >> yes. now, excuse me. the next interrogatory, that states as follows, identify any and all occasions ins which you entertained a member of the opposite sex other than your spouse who is not related to you

by blood or marriage, you see that. >> i do. >> now, there are two parts to this. the second part is, i read on, or in which a member of the opposite sex other than your spouse not related to you by blood or marriage entertained you and goes on to say including but not limited to dining, drinking, in restaurants, bars, pubs, hotels, you see that, correct? >> i do. >> now, as of may the 30th, 2023, when you filed the interrogatories, you had in fact entertained miss willis on many occasions, had you not? >> again, during the course of the marriage, the marriage was irretrievably broken in 2015. the answer is still no. >> let's read what it says about the time period required to answer the interrogatory. what it says is, it goes on to

say including but not limited to dining and/or drinking at any restaurants, bars, pubs, hotels or persons homed from the date of marriage to the present. you understand what the word present means. >> i do. >> and present means the filing on may the 30th, 2023. isn't that right? >> it is. >> so as of may the 30th, 2023, you had done a lot, or done a lot of entertaining of miss willis, had not? >> i had done some, yes. >> and in fact, under your testimony, you would have said that she had also entertained you, isn't that correct? >> yes. >> and so your answer to this interrogatory is false, is it not, sir? >> no, it is not false. >> i hate to dance around -- the answer is yes you did entertain miss willis, correct, right? >> yes.

>> she's not your spouse at that time or any time, correct? >> that's correct. >> she's not related to you by blood or marriage, correct? >> that's correct. >> but you entertained her, right? >> yes. >> and during the course -- from your marriage, the period of time up to the present, so the answer would have been yes i did entertain somebody, correct? >> during the course of the marriage, no. >> mr. wade -- >> i think we have made the point. i think it speaks for itself. >> i'll just follow up with a quick question. you understand what the word present means. >> your honor -- >> i think we did cover that already as well. >> all right. now what has happened from the time that you file this court document in may of 2023, let's go over some of the things that you had been involved in in terms of being entertained or entertaining.

prior to your filing on the answer on the interrogatories on may 30th, 2023, we have already established, have we not, that you had paid for a royal caribbean cruise to the bahamas with miss willis, correct? >> yes, sir, with miss willis and my mother. >> your mother is not a part of the interrogatories, i'm talking about miss willis, ok? so, you paid and caused to be paid approximately $3,335 on that trip, bahamas trip from october 28th through october 31st, correct? >> your honor, objection. we've covered this ground several times already. >> let's cover new ground. >> trying to establish with specificity the things he had done to entertain or be entertained prior to may the 30th, 2023, i'll try to move

through it quickly. >> that's already part of the record in terms of his prior testimony. if you want to link those two things together you can do it during argument. >> let me discuss this. you indicated that during the course of your explanation concerning the belize trip, that miss willis paid you all that money back in cash, remember? >> yes, sir. >> now, the belize trip had just happened, that occurred march 18, 2023, right? >> yes, sir. >> so, you're filing this maybe two months after you have gone to belize with miss willis, correct? >> your honor, again i believe all of this -- >> i think he might be getting somewhere new, we'll see. >> yes, sir. >> all right. so we have the trip and -- we have the trip to belize on march 18th, 2023, you and miss willis, correct? >> yes, sir. >> now two months later you file the interrogatories that speak

for themselves that we have gone over a few minutes ago, correct? >> yes, sir. >> now, march 18, 2023, to state the obvious is before -- excuse me, may 30th, 2023. will you agree with me on that? >> i do. >> so then you tell us that miss willis paid you in cash all the money for the entire trip, it was a gift for you for your birthday, correct? >> yes, sir. >> i'm sure you probably have the deposit slips where you took the cash and deposited into your account. >> i did not deposit in my account. >> you don't have a single solitary slip to corroborate that you were paid by miss willis in cash, do you? >> no, sir. >> not a single, solitary one. >> not a one.

>> would you scamper down to the atm as she drew money out to pay you thousands of dollars. >> he may scamper -- i object [indiscernible] to the phrasing of the question. >> did you and miss wade scamper down to the atm machine and have her draw out, for example the belize trip, your payment would have been $2,794. >> miss wade and i did not go to belize. >> excuse me, miss willis, i'm sorry. did you go down to the atm with miss willis while she drew out $2,794 to pay you in cash, did you go to the atm with her? >> no, sir, she didn't go to the atm. she carried the cash. >> so she would give you the

cash, but do you have a little place in your house you stack this cash to repay you for these benefits you bestowed on her? >> if i answered that, i'm putting myself in jeopardy if i tell the world that i have cash someplace in my home, don't you think that could be problematic? >> no, i don't, i want an answer whether you have a cash drawer in your house where you allegedly have taken the money you got from ms. willis and put it somewhere. >> no, sir. >> just put it on the hip and walk around money? >> did i put it on my hip and -- >> walk around money, spend cash yourself. >> put it on my hip in belize and walk around with it? >> when you got paid back, would you take the money she gave you and carry it around with you for spending money around town. >> so we have to break down each trip because, for example, for the cruise she paid me the money before we took the cruise.

so here, put the money in the pocket or put it away whatever i wanted to do with it. other trips she would give me the money there. so at that point, i could either spend it or put it in my pocket or put it in the hotel safe. >> there's no special place that you would have all this cash that you would be getting from her that you've told us about to pay back for the benefits that you have bestowed on her? >> the only special place that that cash would have gone would have been to one of my children. >> ok. >> now, are you aware -- have you discussed these pleadings with miss willis? >> no, sir. >> so there have been no discussion between you and miss willis about the allegation concerning the benefits that you have bestowed on her, is that correct? >> object to the phrasing of benefits bestowed upon her. i don't believe it's an accurate reflection of the testimony or appropriate question. >> overruled, you can answer the

question. >> when you say proceedings, are you talking about the divorce proceedings, we were talking about the interrogatories. that answer is no. go ahead. >> go ahead with the answer, i'll hear the complete answer and then i'll follow up. >> if you are asking me about this hearing the proceedings of this hearing have we discussed the financial piece based upon mr. roman's motion, yes. >> so you have discussed the financial piece. when did -- where did that discussion take place? >> conference room. >> were you -- other people there or you and miss willis discussing this about what your position is going to be? >> objection, relevance of this. >> the relevance has to do with suddenly we have a declaration from mr. wade in this case, he

says roughly equal and then shows one alleged payment by miss willis. no mention of cash, none. so, i need to find out a little bit more about how suddenly we have this -- this revelation about cash from the witness stand today. >> overruled. >> so we part company there when you say no mention of cash. if i provided one receipt that didn't amount to what you would think was roughly equal, the rest is cash. >> well, did you in your declaration, sir, that was filed in this case, did you tell the court in that declaration that the expenditure that you had provided on behalf of miss willis was paid for back by her in cash, yes or no. >> i believe that i did when i said that the expenses were split roughly evenly.

>> if you could point to me any place in your affidavit where you used the word cash, i would appreciate it. >> i didn't use the word cash, no, sir. >> you didn't use the word cash, did you. >> but i didn't say she didn't give it to me in cash. >> no, you just didn't tell anybody that you allegedly got paid back in cash, right? >> no, i told everyone who asked. >> today. >> yes, sir. >> now, who else was with you, if anyone else, when you and miss willis were discussing how you would be handling the financial component of the motion here today, that is the personal benefits? >> i'm going to object to the relevance of that, your honor. >> mr. gilland. >> the relevance, if they know they are going to be called as witnesses, they have been subpoenaed and they are discussing what they are going to say, we have need to know that, the court needs to know that. it goes to the veracity of miss

willis and mr. wade. >> overruled. >> we didn't discuss how we were going to handle testimony. >> my question was, when you were discussing with miss willis in the conference room, when you were discussing what you perceived to be the situation concerning the benefits for the payments, was there anyone else present? >> no, sir. >> how long did the meeting take? >> probably 5 or 10 minutes. >> did miss willis tell you what she was going to say? >> no, sir. >> did you ask her whether she had any bank withdrawals that would corroborate the assertion that she would pay you back in large sums of cash for these trips to the caribbean, belize, california, on and on and on? >> i object, [indiscernible] mr.

gillen needed to know who else was there, potential witnesses that he could cross examine, that question has been answered. >> i think it's still exploring possible bias or motive to shape his testimony. overruled on that ground. >> thank you. now, mr. willis -- excuse me, mr. wade, when you were having this discussion, did you ask her, did you ask miss willis, do you have anything to support these cash withdrawals? >> no, sir. >> did you ask her where she got the cash? >> here -- this is the conversation. i produced my credit card statement that showed what miss merchant in her filing was representing. that was the conversation. >> ok. so when she would pay you back in cash, were you aware of what her financial situation was? did you know what --

>> no, sir. >> your honor, i object to the relevance. >> your honor, it's relevant because we have been bombarded with a book "find me the votes." >> what's at issue is the financial benefit and if it's a material interest in conflict of interest, i think it's relevant. >> had you read the book "find me the votes." >> i have. >> you have. >> i have. >> ok. now, in that book miss willis is telling the authors about how financially destitute she was or kind of hidden down on the bottom as she was running for d.a. >> let me qualify the response. i've read the book in parts. i haven't -- i hadn't had the time to sit and read the book in its entirety. >> did you read that part about

how she's telling the authors about how little money she had and financially she was in bad shape prior to when she was running? did you read that part? >> no, sir. >> did you ever have discussions with miss willis about her financial situation which was -- which was in -- apparently in rough shape prior to her being elected to d.a.? >> no, sir. miss willis made it clear her financial business was her business. i know nothing about her financial status or how she was before or after the election or even now, i know nothing about her finances. >> telling us she did not share that with you, but chose to share it with the authors of a book that's been published and printed and sold nationally. >> i think it's a fair question for cross. >> i don't know she shared it with the author. i don't know the author was telling the truth. i don't know, sir. >> did you give an interview to

the authors of that book? >> i've given no interviews, sir. >> you haven't talked to them at all. >> i haven't talked to any media, none. >> now as it relates to the -- >> i would like to, though. >> as it relates to -- again, from your bank records that you are aware of, there will be no cash deposits, right? >> i didn't say that. >> are there cash deposits which line up with the money you have allegedly received from miss willis to "pay you back" for her part of the trips? >> here's the thing. in my bank records you will see cash deposits. you will see check deposits. i can't say that you look through the bank records and you won't see cash deposits because

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

>> tell me what the definition of a public fund is. >> a public fund would be funds as in not fund, but funds money, public money as in money from taxpayers either in fulton county or the state of georgia to pay you to do the work that you are doing here in this case. yes or no. >> one or the other i'm certain. >> you know which one? >> i don't know which one, no, sir. >> now, those -- you would take those public funds and those public funds would then deposit in your account and then used to pay for the -- on the credit cards for the trips that you would take with miss willis, correct? >> i object to the question so far as the characterization of public funds. the witness did not testify to that and i believe there is testimony for that. once it's paid to mr. wade, it's private funds. >> mr. gillen, rephrase. >> you got money from fulton

county for the work you do here. >> that's right. >> you would send in invoices and they would pay you money. >> yes, sir. >> the private money, that money was money from either the citizens of fulton county or from the state of georgia, correct? that's what i mean by public funds, agreed? >> i guess i'm having trouble with the notion that the citizens of fulton county have paid me any funds. i'm not certain the funding source. i can tell you that either the state of georgia or fulton county has written me a check. >> so that would be -- those two entities are public entities, correct? >> yes. >> that would be public funds, right? right? >> yes. >> and that -- those public funds are from the same source that you would then use to pay out on your -- your expenses for

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

working for the fulton county office. >> in 2022, i would say 50/50. >> you think 50/50 in 2022? >> yes, sir. >> what about 2023. >> probably 60/40. >> yes, sir. >> the money in those accounts, at least 60% of those would be public funds, that those monies were then used to pay for the expenses you incurred for the trips you took miss willis on, the cruises, the napa valleys, the bahamas, correct? right? >> yes, sir. >> and now what you did is that when you -- when you signed on in november 1st of 2021, that's when you signed on to be counsel for the anti-corruption matters,

right? >> yes, sir. >> now, as you know, in your engagement letter, it doesn't say that you are signing on and your scope of work is to work on the trump special grand jury investigation, does it? >> no, sir. >> it says that you are signing on to work on anti-corruption, the anti-corruption unit matters, correct? >> yes, sir. >> matters, with a plural, correct? >> yes, sir. >> so, in your contract, there is no specific reference to any specific case, isn't that right? >> that's correct. >> ok. now, but you didn't sign on for the duration, there was a period -- you have a contract, and then it would expire and then you would have a new contract, correct? >> yes, sir. >> now, of course the extension that you received, the first one was in november of 2021, and

then you filed, excuse me, there was a renewal and november 15th of 2022, is that right? >> sounds right. >> ok. now, that was right after you got re-upped by miss willis right after you took miss willis to aruba, isn't that right? on that november 1st, 2022, trip, to aruba, and through november 4, 2022. correct? >> what does re-up mean. >> well, re-up means you came back, your contract was up, and then on november 15th you and miss willis signed a new contract for you, right? >> yes, sir. >> ok. now, when you were in -- taking her to the aruba, and on the cruises, and excuse me, the

resort there, did you discuss your re-upping of signing an extension on your contract? >> no, sir. but you make an excellent point. i'm glad you point that out. so the trip to aruba, the contract was not in existence then. >> you are saying -- so you are saying that you were not -- >> under contract. >> your contract, did you send any invoices in for work that you did after your contract, your first contract expired? >> no, sir. >> you didn't. >> no, sir. >> when that expired, that was it. so, and then you are saying that after the aruba trip you get re-upped with a new contract, correct? >> i signed a new contract, yes, sir. >> was there modifications on that contract, extension on the cap limited on the first one,

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

interviewing and speaking, and voluntarily speaking with you, it doesn't take as much time. so after getting into it, realizing that most of the witnesses were not willing to speak or willing to turn over evidence or information quickly you figure out that this is going to take a little more time than originally anticipated, and because of that, you have to compensate for those hours. >> that's why there was a compensation on your extension. >> yes, sir. >> the caps. >> a cap. now, did mrs. willis -- excuse me, did miss willis review your invoices with you when you would submit them? >> never. >> did anyone ever question whether or not you worked 24 hours in one day and billed 24 hours in one day? >> i've never worked 24 hours in

one day and billed 24 hours in one day. i would like the opportunity to talk about that. >> you should go ahead. >> if you look at the invoice where it says 24 hours in one day, it actually doesn't say one day. if you look at the top of the invoice, it says date completed. the date that's reflected on that invoice reflects the date that the work was completed. it doesn't say when it started, it just says this is the date that it's completed. so if you go through the invoices, probably around the first 5 or 6 you'll see that's the billing format. i would bill only after that particular task has been completed. that's why you see a 24-hour period with the one day there. i kind of wish some of the experts who opined on that called me and asked me the question but there was never a billing of 24 hours in one day. now, probably around the 6th or 7th invoice you see the format changed. i started using a range, so that it got less confusing, right?

>> i'm confused, maybe you can correct it for me. in exhibit 14, you've got -- you've got down a specific day, prepared cases for pretrial. november 5, 2021, 24 hours at $250 an hour, 6,000. now, this wasn't about -- this wasn't about a range, it was about the work that you did on november 5th. >> mr. gillen. look at the top of the invoice. where it says date completed. >> i'm going to want you to do is focus on the date that you have down here, and tell the court what you billed for on november 5th, 2021. i thought it was already in.

14 is in. >> again, mr. gillen, it says completed date, date completed, the dates that you see here are the dates that that work was completed. so on november 5th, i completed the task of preparing the cases for pretrial. that's the date i completed it. >> just read -- >> just read if you would, my question was, read out loud the entry for november 5th, 2021, and how many hours you billed that day. just do that for me, if you would. >> i can't do that. >> excuse me, i believe the witness is entitled to answer his question. that wasn't the question -- >> well the question now is to read a certain entry. >> just read into the record, mr. wade, on november the 5th, 2021, how many hours did you bill the citizens of fulton county for on that day? just read it out, please. >> i completed the task on

november 5th, 2021, 24 hours was billed at $250. >> now, when you -- you talked about your relationship with miss willis and your testimony is that it began in 2022. you remember that testimony? >> no, sir. our relationship began in -- >> your romantic relationship began in 2022, is that -- >> yes, sir, yes, sir. >> is that your testimony? >> yes, sir. >> now, when you were re-upped on this contract, you had a romantic relationship already

established with miss willis, yes or no. >> in 2022? >> re-upped on november 15, 2022. you had a romantic relationship with miss willis. >> i signed the second contract, yes, sir. >> answer my question, please. >> i'm not going to use the words re-up. >> signed up -- re-up or whatever you want to call it, your contract on november 15, 2022, you had a romantic relationship already existing with miss willis, yes or no. >> i signed the contract, the second contract, yes, sir, during the course of the romantic relationship. >> yes or no, you had a romantic relationship with her at the time you signed up the extension on november 15, 2022. yes or no. >> the answer to that question is yes. >> thank you. >> now, this was before the special purpose grand jury released any -- a report, isn't

that correct correct? >> are you asking me if it's before the work was completed or before the special purpose grand jury actually released, publicly released the report? >> when it was -- released the report. the relationship with miss willis already existed when the special purpose grand jury released its report, correct? >> at the time the report was released, yes, sir, and -- you understand the report -- the work had been completed prior to the release of the report. you understand that. >> and your relationship with miss willis, of course, was prior to the indictment in this case, correct? >> yes, sir. >> your honor, if i may just ask my folks over here there whether is anything i need to clean up

on. that's all the questions, your honor, i have. thank you. >> he was going to go first and then i was going to follow up. i allowed him to go first, that's what i thought i asked. >> all right, let me -- with the understanding next time we are going to keep going in order and not skip around the order. >> that's why i brought it up, because -- i thought -- >> ok, all right. i'm going to try to keep my questions very specific, ok? >> yes, sir. >> and also of course try not to go back into specific questions that have already been asked, ok? >> yes, sir.

>> when did your relationship with miss willis end? >> 2023. >> can you give us an approximation of not by date, but by month? >> summer 2023. . forgive me. i'm a man, we don't do the date thing. summer '23, i would say -- june maybe. >> ok. >> using the language personal relationship, did you have any personal relationship at all with miss willis after the summer of 2023? >> i want to make sure that i'm answering your question. are you -- because -- >> let me rephrase if i might. the way it has been characterized and for example, the response of the state and i

believe in your affidavit, is there's a difference between a personal relationship and a professional relationship. correct? >> yes, sir. >> i'm not talking about a professional relationship. i'm talking about the personal relationship. have you had a personal relationship at all, and you know what i mean by that, after the summer of 2023? >> are you asking me if i had intercourse with the district attorney? >> i was trying not to, but i guess -- if you are going to characterize it as that, the answer would be -- >> the answer would be no. >> so it's been purely professional since the summer of 2023. >> so that's where we are having issues. >> you'll have to explain. i don't know what the issue will be. >> i will explain to you. >> thank you. >> you say personal. we are very good friends. probably closer than ever because of these attacks.

but if you are asking me about specific intercourse, the answer is no. >> how about if i change it from intercourse to romantic? >> no. >> ok. >> during the direct examination you made a statement, at least i believe i heard it correctly, if you -- personal relationship and now i'm talking about that characterized the sexual romantic relationship was not a secret. is that correct? >> wait. if you are asking me if people knew that we were having sex, no, they didn't. >> i'm asking you whether people knew that you were dating, whether you were romantically involved. you said that it was not a secret. >> oh, it wasn't a secret, it was just private. my mother knew, obviously. >> did anyone in the district attorney's office that has worked on this case know that you were dating or had a

romantic relationship with district attorney willis? >> i don't know what they knew. >> well, did you tell anyone -- >> no. >> do you have any knowledge whether miss willis revealed it to anyone. >> i have no clue. >> as far as you know from personal knowledge, no one in the d.a.'s term knew. >> that's correct. >> so if it was a legitimate relationship, is there any reason why it was kept secret or private? >> it was kept private. >> and the purpose for that was? >> it's what we chose to do. >> i'm asking you why, if you are dating someone, why keep it private? >> so a few reasons. the first one is, and i want to say this respectfully in the right way, there are some people who are in the public eye who just don't like it, don't wish

to be there. i have tried to have lunch or dinner with her publicly, and i can't count the number of people that would approach the table or would accost us as we are trying to walk into a restaurant and just have lunch or have a meal. it is not secret, it is private. we don't want the world -- the world asking questions or interrupting that time. so we weren't trying to keep anything a secret, mr. sadow. nothing secret or salacious of interesting a private life, nothing. >> i'm just asking the questions. when you went on the various trips outlined, did anyone in the district attorney's office know that the two of you were travelling on personal trips together? >> to my knowledge, no.

>> and again, that was for privacy, according to your testimony? >> privacy, yes, sir. >> did you and miss willis go to the capeville condo prior to your relationship starting beginning of 2022? >> prior to having physical contact, prior to having intercourse, did we go to the hateville condo? >> you keep going to intercourse, i'm trying not to, but fine. the answer to that question would be yes. did you and miss willis go to the hateville condo prior to november 1st of 2021? >> yes. >> and the purpose for doing to the condo prior to 2021 would have been what? prior to november 1st of 2021? >> could have been any number of

things. at that time -- >> that's what i'm asking, tell me. >> could have been any number of things. because at that time she had a friend living in that condo, miss urdi lived in that condo. >> ok. maybe my question was poorly worded. let me try again. prior to november 1, 2021, to the condo, you would have been there with miss willis. >> yes. >> and indicated for many reasons, right? >> can you give me -- list a few of the reasons. >> miss urdi resided there, went to visit here, maybe went to talk about a document that i o. >> any other reasons?

>> none come to mind. >> and would you say it was frequent, do you think prior to november 1st of 2021, you were at the condo more than ten times? >> no, sir. >> so less than ten times? >> yes, sir. >> so if phone records would reflect that you were making phone calls from the same location as the condo before november 1st of 2021, and it was on multiple occasions, the phone records would be wrong? >> phone records reflected that, they would be wrong. >> they would be wrong. >> where did you live during that time period? >> same place i live now. >> not in hapeville, right? >> correct. >> north of atlanta. >> it is. >> any other reasons you would be in that area on multiple occasions prior to november 1, 2021? >> let's see, the porsche experience is there.

>> i'm sorry? >> the porsche experience is there. >> that would be one. >> airport. >> airport, hapeville. >> yes, sir, delta airlines is headquartered there. let's see -- restaurants there. >> okay. >> if that's your recollection, that's fine. i'm not asking you to try to remember everything, but if that's -- >> ok. >> ok. did you discuss your affidavit filed in connection with the response with miss willis? >> no, sir. >> did you know, personal knowledge, whether miss willis reviewed your affidavit before it was included with the response? >> i have no clue. >> so as far as you know,

personal knowledge, miss willis did not know what you said in the affidavit? >> i didn't give it to her. >> that's what i said. you have no personal knowledge. >> no personal knowledge. >> and as far as you know, no one else told you if you didn't or didn't. >> i didn't ask anyone. >> and we have kinds of worked this up a little bit, and the numbers could be off. but according to our numbers, $10,000, give or take, would have been reflected on your credit card statements in connection with things, potential benefit to miss willis, ok. i want you just to assume that. of the -- assuming there was $10,000 that you had on your credit cards, is it your testimony that miss willis paid you back $10,000 in cash? i'm not -- >> object. the characterization of $10,000 for miss willis's travel, i

don't believe is an accurate reflection of what the numbers, the summary i've been provided by the defense would reflect. i think that's joint travel, and so is that right, mr. sadow? >> it's not joint travel. but i'll rephrase, i don't want to get bogged down. you would have received thousands in cash from miss willis, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and not asking whether you she took it out of the pocket book or a suitcase, do you know the source of the cash? >> just that out of her pocket book, yes, sir. >> you don't ne where she obtained the cash? >> i didn't ask her. >> the whole time she was paying you in cash, you never said hey, why do you have this amount of cash? >> mr. sadow, in my practice, people come into my law firm all the time with cash. i never questioned where they

got it. >> we are talking not about people that come into your law firm, we are talking about the district attorney of fulton county, i'm assuming receives a paycheck, she does not get paid in cash. >> just like you, so i assume she got it from her paycheck. i don't know. >> ok. but of course, you've not seen any records indicating withdrawals of cash from miss willis at all. >> why would i ask her -- >> i didn't ask -- all i said is you haven't, right? >> no, sir. >> now, can you explain why you filed for divorce one day after you were hired by miss willis? you filed on november 2nd of 2021, you are hired on november 1st of 2021, why the day after? >> you mean one day before? so -- >> you filed for divorce one day after you were hired, right? >> ok. i'll answer your question. >> ok, please. >> so in 2015 when my wife had

the affair, we had a conversation that we would divorce right then. again, the better practice, at least for my children at the time, was to stay in place until the youngest could graduate and go to college. we did that. when she graduated, went to college, at the time my wife had moved back and forth to houston, to texas. so she's in texas. we take our child off to college, we come back to georgia for a brief period of time, the divorce gets filed, she gets served, there we go. now the reason that date was selected. >> yes, sir, that's what i asked you. >> the specific reason that that specific date was selected was because she was only in town for -- >> your honor, this is attorneyt