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 attorney/client privilege.

why he decided to file -- >> why do you have the right to object on his behalf for attorney/client privilege. >> i don't make formal -- >> there we go. and -- >> i believe he's already attempted to answer this question, and it was no privilege raised. so he's given a partial answer and now he's about to finish that, so first of all, i don't think it's covered by attorney/client privilege, i'll deal with that if you want me to, but otherwise he's already answered it. >> it was a long preface, i don't think it ever got to what might have been at issue there, so if you can lay the foundation, we'll deal with the objection. >> ok. >> take a step back. you realize an attorney/client privilege is the privilege of the client, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and you, in connection with

your representation, at least as been proffered to the court by mr. bradley, that it's up to you to decide whether you want to raise the privilege, right? >> yes, sir. >> it's not up to mr. bradley. >> yes, sir. >> so you have the power in order to get to the truth of the matter, you have the power to waive the attorney/client privilege. >> your honor, i believe it's an improper question. >> whether he uses it or not, if trying to get to the answer to your question, let's figure out whether it covers the question you were trying to get to. >> and if i may finish. and your position is you have no intention of waiving your attorney/client privilege, correct? >> that's correct. >> so now can you answer the question why you waited until november 2nd, the day after you were hired by miss willis to file for divorce? >> i can. >> ok. >> so again, jocelyn had

relocated to texas and she had been in texas for months. she was only here for a brief period of time to drive my daughter's car back with her, and when she came here to do that, i was able to then get her served. am -- >> so your answer as to why you waited until the day after you were hired by miss willis, which would be november 1, 2021, to file the complaint for the divorce on november 2, 2021, your testimony under oath is because your -- your wife was here. >> was here. >> but had not been here in october or september, had not been here in august of 2021. >> she had been in texas taking care of her ailing mother. >> your testimony -- oh

>> and aging father. so the first opportunity i had after speaking with my lawyers to take care of that was the date it was filed and served because she happened to be here. it had nothing to do with -- that was purely coincidental, that contract. >> i understand it was purely coincidental, your testimony. >> yes, sir, and understand that this was by agreement between -- between she and i. she being my wife and i, that we would divorce when the children metriculated out, and there would have been an agreement attached to the filing. it became apparent that the agreement wasn't going to happen, and things got a little contentious, so that is when the privilege would kick in and i was forced to do it when i did it.

>> so if i understood correctly again, you tell me if i'm wrong, is it your testimony that your wife was not in atlanta, georgia or the metro area throughout october of 2021? >> no. in october -- in october of 2021, she was back and forth between here and texas. >> so she was, at least on some occasions, in the atlanta area. >> but that was during the time when we were working through the consent agreement, that fell through. >> again, i think we are pretty far afield on relevance. the answer to the question about the timing of the divorce filing -- >> understood, miss cross. where are we going from here. >> we are about to finish this area, if we want to call the ex, we'll call the ex for that purpose. >> we might have to discuss whether it's a collateral issue all together. >> i'm just saying if. not we will -- >> ok.

>> all right, so you say that you were aware of the contracts that mr. bradley and mr. campbell had with the fulton county district attorney's office, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and how did you become aware of those? >> just through conversation, they told me. >> conversation with who? >> mr. bradley and mr. campbell. >> you were discussing matters with mr. bradley which were not related to attorney/client privilege, correct? >> related to the contracts, yes. >> but you were having conversations that would not -- even though, if i understood correctly, mr. bradley was your attorney at the time, correct? >> at what time? >> at the time that mr. bradley received his contract from fulton county, which would have been the beginning of january, or in january of 2021, right? >> that the date of his contract? >> pretty close. >> i don't know what the date of his contract was, but if -- if it was after the date of the filing of the divorce, then

yeah. >> i'm not talking about -- i'm not talking about after the date of the filing of the divorce. it's been represented to the court that you had an attorney/client relationship with mr. bradley from 2015 forward, correct? >> that is correct. >> when mr. bradley received his contract with fulton county, that was in 2021, correct? >> i don't know. >> we can prove that through other evidence. but at the time that mr. bradley was doing work for fulton county, if i understand, you still had an attorney/client privilege, at least you are claiming one with mr. bradley, correct? >> yes. >> when you talked about mr. bradley and his contract with fulton county, those were not covered by attorney/client privilege, correct? >> they were not. >> ok. and that meant that not all communications with mr. bradley were covered by attorney/client privilege, correct?

>> well, those certainly weren't. >> my question was, not all communications with mr. bradley were covered by, at least as you've been represented to the court, by the attorney/client privilege, correct? >> those communications were not. >> so there were communications outside the attorney/client privilege, correct? with mr. bradley. >> if you are asking me if i ever communicated with him outside the attorney/client privilege, the answer is yes, i communicated with him outside attorney/client privilege. >> let's finish this up. did you call it roman number 4? in defense exhibit number 4, mr. gillen went over with you your responses to certain interrogatories on may 30th, 2023, you remember that? >> yes, sir.

>> not going back into those, the words in the interrogatories are already in evidence, so we are not going to do that. but the ones that we have gone into, there were two of them, and your answer to both of those was no, correct? >> yes, sir. >> ok. now, on january 25th of 2024. >> yes, sir. >> you again were in a position that you answered those same interrogatories, the two that we are talking about, and i can get specific if we need to, but as long as we understand we are talking about the same two, right? >> yes, sir, yes, sir. >> and they are in defense exhibit number 6 and they are interrogatories number 4 and number 5. >> ok. go ahead. >> i want you to be able to see it. it's defense exhibit number 6.

>> does he have 6 up there? >> i'm told that you have 6. >> ok. >> you would agree with me that in defense exhibit number 6, and we are talking about interrogatories of january 25, 2024. >> yes, sir. that as to interrogatory number 4, the same interrogatory, the same words that were in the interrogatory that mr. gillen went over which was dated may 30th of 2023, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and your original response in defense exhibit number 6 was none, correct? >> yes, sir. >> your updated response was the plaintiff declines to respond to

this interrogatory and asserts to ocga section 24-5-505, correct? >> yes, sir. >> you know that 24-5-505 breaks down into two -- two privileges, right? >> which is why i was specific, i said i asserted a privacy privilege. >> in your updated response, there's no reference to privacy, correct? >> yes, there is, in the code section, 24-5-505. >> that code section says, does it not, no party or witness shall be required to testify as to any matter which may incriminate or tend to incriminate such party or witness or which shall tend to bring infamy, disgrace or public contempt upon such party or

witness. you agree with that, right? >> i'm not reading it. >> i'm sorry? >> i don't have it in front of me. >> if i may. >> mr. sadow, i can take judicial notice that's what the rule says if you want to ask him follow-up questions. >> thank you. you are not claiming that your answer to number 4, interrogatory number 4 on january 25, 2024, incriminates you as in fifth amendment privilege, correct? >> correct. >> you are claiming the second part, that it would bring infamy, disgrace or public contempt, correct? >> object to that, i don't think that's the -- and the witness does not have it in front of him. he said several times privacy [indiscernible] >> overruled. >> i'm claiming privacy. >> the privilege you make reference to is to infamy,

disgrace, or public contempt upon the witness, right? or party? that's the section that you were relying on, correct? >> if that's what it says, yes, sir. >> well -- i could show you but i think the court has already indicated he can take judicial notice of the statute. so assume what i'm telling you is accurate, ok? >> yes, sir. >> how would an answer of none bring infamy, disgrace or public contempt upon you? >> so, as i explained in direct of mr. roman's counsel, the minute she elected to intervene into my divorce proceeding, i then started to understand the bigger picture which was that all the attorneys in the election interference case were colluding with jocelyn's divorce lawyer and because of that, i said privacy. i don't want my divorce proceeding to bleed into this

criminal proceeding. i just didn't want that. >> so you raised a privilege, if i understand, that indicated that your answer would bring infamy, disgrace or public contempt upon you, right? >> your honor, i'm going to object to the relevance of this and asked and answered several times. >> mr. sadow, where are we heading with this? >> i think finish that up by saying you didn't say none again, you asserted a privilege, correct? >> that's correct. >> ok. and you did the same thing, did you not, with number 5. >> that's correct. >> that is you didn't say none again, right? >> correct. >> is the answer to the interrogatory number 4, you have it i want front of you, is the answer none, is that the truth? >> the answer is to that interrogatory is as i placed it at the time i responded, sir. >> i'm asking you now, is the answer to that interrogatory none. >> the answer is still

privilege. >> he's apparently electing to apply the same privilege, mr. sadow, to that same question. >> i have a case that indicates we can get beyond that if the court deems that appropriate. >> to what end? >> huh? >> to what end? >> the privilege does not apply and he must answer the question. >> and where does that get us? even if he answers the question? hasn't he kind of said everything he has to say about the nature of the relationship, how long it lasted, when it ended? >> no, i think if he is forced or compelled to answer the question, he will either answer it falsely by saying none, or he will answer it truthfully by saying yes. and then telling us what it is. thes what i believe, why i'm asking. >> the interrogatory you are referring to, the question there. >> two interrogatories. >> entertaining one and relationships. >> with the specific language in the interrogatories. >> haven't we already covered

that in the other questions we have covered so far? >> we have, but again, the court could -- if i could require or compel an answer as to whether his answer would still be none, we would know whether or not he was telling the truth now. if the answer is no, then obviously there was a time in the past where he was not. it simply requires him to now answer under oath what he refused to answer and claimed i might suggest is a bogus privilege and that you can pierce that privilege because it's a material fact in connection with this case. again, it's a call that your honor makes. i have case law that says you can do that, but it's your discretion. >> miss cross. >> your honor, he's been on the stand several hours and been asked and answered very personal questions, we covered the issues he is making argument and this is probably an argument to make

for later to the court and not a question to the -- [indiscernible] >> so as i see it, the only relevance these interrogatories have to the case really whatsoever would be as either prior, inconsistent or consistent statements and i think the question has been put to him again and again and again, he's answered how he believes he felt his answer should be, and why he answered a certain way, and as it goes to credibility, i think at this point we are arguing weight and i don't really see the value in pushing this issue further. so -- >> all right, just for the record, the case that i was going to refer to is state versus wakefield at 324 georgia appeal, 587. and specifically, let's see, it would it would be 590, in which they talk about this specific privilege. this is a 2013 case, and then a footnote to number -- footnote

3, and footnote 3 says there are times when the materiality of the evidence outweighs the testimonial privilege and goes on to explain what that is. that's what i'm -- >> i see what you are saying we could say that you need to answer the question regardless of the privilege you asserted. at this point i think we covered that grounds and ready to move on. >> based on that, i have nothing else, thank you. >> mr. mccullok, moving through -- on behalf of mr. floyd. mr. cromwell. >> nothing, your honor. >> miss cross. >> thank you, your honor. >> mr. wade, have you still got exhibit number 14 in front of you? the one with all of the invoices, i believe. >> i believe i have them all. >> all right. so you were asked, mr. wade,

about a couple of the invoice items and your testimony, i think, was that the percentage of income post summer counsel appointment in november 2021, the percentage of your income roughly after that time was about 50/50 fulton versus other income from your law practice, correct? >> roughly, yes, ma'am. >> sometimes more, sometimes less. >> yes, ma'am. >> how about your time? i'm interested in the percentage of your time from november 2021 to, let's say, the close of the special purpose grand jury when it was dissolved in january 2023. can you estimate for us the percentage of your time spent on fulton county work versus other work? >> oh, gosh. 99/1. 99% of the time here in this

building working on this case. >> all right. it was as i understood your testimony, it was an intense period in terms of hours while that special purpose grand jury was meeting, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and who was head or manager of the election integrity case during that time for the direct attorney's office? >> i was. >> you were coordinating the efforts? >> yes, ma'am. >> and efforts included not just the proceedings happening in this building, correct? >> correct. >> we don't need to go all through it but representation that 99.9% of professional working time was devoted to this case. >> yes, ma'am. >> and remainder to some other cases ongoing. >> yes, ma'am. >> 2022, i want to focus on that a little bit, if we are looking at the financial affidavits. you have those in front of you as well? >> i do. >> the financial affidavit that was filed in your divorce case

in january 2022, you estimate your monthly income was $14,000 a month, right? >> in 22? >> january' 22. >> yes, ma'am. >> january '23, what did that number come to? >> 9,000. >> how about 2024? >> i don't know. >> that's not one of the ones in front of you? >> no, ma'am. >> your income decreased as a result of your work in this case, correct? >> significantly. >> the structure of the firm, we talked about a lot about that and i don't want to go through it any more than we need to, but 2022, the structure of your firm changed, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> in the early part of 2022 there were three of you, you and mr. campbell and mr. bradley, you split expenses, is that right? >> that's correct.

>> and you profit shared among yourselves, correct? >> correct. >> after mr. bradley left the firm, then there were just two of you, correct? >> that is the cause of the significant change, yes, ma'am. >> so now you have two people bringing in income, correct? >> correct. >> and one of those people, you, is spending almost all of your time devoted to this election integrity case, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and your income from this election integrity case is less than what it was the year before? >> yes, ma'am. >> we talked about the monthly caps, we didn't talk about it, there was talk about the monthly cap included in your contracts indicating there was a certain threshold that you could reach, number of hours a month, and over that amount you were not going to be compensated, correct? >> that's correct. >> all right. you kind of smile when you said that, that's a little bittersweet, isn't it? >> that's bitter, bitter.

>> all right. exhibit 14, is that still there in front of you? >> it is. >> i want you to take a look, please, a collection of exhibits that includes all of your invoices as was represented. look at invoice number 9. in front of you? >> i have it. >> invoice number 9, mr. wade, indicates you performed hours of work you were not compensated before because the cap was reached. >> yes, ma'am. >> what did you do in those circumstances the hours you worked per month were more than the cap that was in your contract that you were permitted to be paid for? >> i was forced to lose that time. i didn't get paid for it. >> ok. and that's what exhibit number 9 shows? >> yes, ma'am. >> and you have tasked hours completed, you noted the time and then 0 beside it because you did not bill for the time. >> yes, ma'am. >> exhibit number 13, can you

flip to that for me? >> i have it. >> is that a similar situation? >> yes, ma'am, it is. >> and what is it on invoice number 13? >> this invoice makes me cry. there's so many hours here that i worked that i could not get paid for. >> you worked those hours anyway, mr. wade? >> oh, absolutely. this is not the type of job that you could walk away from just because you are not getting paid for it. i think there is some professional rules of responsibility to an attorney who is engaged in a case. you have to see it through. so it's not like i could just throw my hands up and say well, i reached my monthly cap, i'm done. i can walk away -- i can't do that. this is ongoing, it's constant, and i have to do the work. >> you look at invoice number 23 for me there in exhibit number 14.

>> yes, ma'am. >> does that reflect a similar situation that hours worked that you were not compensated for? >> yes, ma'am. >> invoice number 24, and 27, can you take a look at those and let us know if it reflects the same situation? >> are you trying to depress me? looking at the money -- it's the same, yes. >> and there's no work around to that, you didn't attempt to work around that contractural cap on your hours. >> oh, no, ma'am. >> all right. you were asked a lot of questions, mr. wade, about the affidavit that was submitted, correct? you recall those questions? >> i'm sorry, i'm stuck on this invoice. you know -- if i was going to get a benefit, i would like that benefit, that -- that's the one i want. that didn't happen. >> that didn't happen, all right. >> and there was no renegotiating your contract to

reflect that those hours should be paid. >> no, ma'am. >> ok. all right. do you have your affidavit there in front of you? >> i do. >> the affidavit, of course, was attached to and provided in support of the state's response to mr. roman's motion, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and you prepared that affidavit. >> i did. >> you signed that affidavit. >> i did. >> all of the allegations and the representations in that affidavit are true, is that right, mr. wade? >> every one of them. >> every one of them. you were asked a lot of questions about line number 34. can you turn to that for me, please, it's on page 4 of that affidavit. >> yes, ma'am. >> can you read it out loud for me, please? >> the district attorney and i are both financially independent professionals expenses for personal travel were roughly divided equally between us. at times i have made and

purchased travel for district attorney willis and myself from my personal funds and other times district attorney willis has made and purchased travel for she and i from her personal funds. examples of district attorney willis's purchasing plane tickets for she and i with her personal funds for our personal travel are attached. >> funds, mr. wade. as you understand the term funds, does that include cash? >> yes. >> does that include credit? >> yes. >> does that include reimbursements? >> yes. >> you didn't represent in your affidavit, mr. wade, that you were including all of the receipts from funds or travel expenses that were paid on your behalf by district attorney willis, correct? >> that's correct. >> you had i think your conversation with miss merchant was you produced the receipt that you had. >> yes, ma'am.

>> are you aware of any other receipts -- [indiscernible] i'm going to mark this as state's exhibit number 1. you testified that district attorney willis purchased and funded the entire trip to belize, her treat to you for a birthday? >> yes, ma'am. >> and you testified that she purchased the plane tickets for you, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> while you may not have had the receipts on hand when you filled out the affidavit, because they were not in your possession, are you aware now that there are receipts and that it reflects the district attorney -- [indiscernible] i have a copy here. do you remember mr. wade, approximately how much, and that's exhibit number 1, do you remember how much the flight was for you, your flight to belize?

and if you don't, i'm not tendering -- just see if it refreshes your recollection as to the amount that that plane ticket cost that was by district attorney -- you may keep it. >> thank you. >> you keep it. does that refresh your recollection, mr. wade? >> it does, thank you. >> approximately how much was the amount of the ticket that district attorney willis purchased for your travel to belize? >> $837.35. >> i'm not tendering it your honor but will leave it with the

court reporter for reference. all right, mr. wade. your testimony here in court today and consistent with your affidavit was that the personal relationship, i think we called it dating today as well, the personal or dating relationship between you and the district attorney began some time in early 2022, march i think was your testimony, is that right? >> yes, ma'am. >> and that march date is not included in the affidavit, the affidavit is less specific but that was your testimony today? >> yes, ma'am. >> and that there was no personal or dating relationship prior to that time, right? >> none. >> mr. wade, direct your attention to 2020. in 2020, were you dating the district attorney.

>> no. >> 2020, that was during the covid pandemic, correct? >> it was. >> was there a situation for you, mr. wade, that made you particularly vulnerable during the covid period? >> yes, ma'am. and in 2020 and a portion of '21, i was battling cancer, and that prevented me from pretty much leaving the environments that are not sterile and i just -- i had health on my mind. >> you were particularly cautious during that time. >> yes, ma'am. >> were you dating anyone in 2020? >> no, ma'am. >> all right, thank you, mr. wade. that's all i have.

>> recross on those points only? >> yes, thank you. all right, mr. wade. the state asked you about how much money you are making now versus before and said you are making significantly less since you started working for fulton county, correct? >> i did say that, but what we are talking about is because this -- the -- now at this point the splitting of the financial obligations in the firm are now there are two people carrying the weight of three. so -- that would scale back on the amount of income, right. amount of -- >> you are splitting the profits 50/50 instead of one-third. >> profits, yes. >> you did testify you are making significantly less now, we heard about it for a few minutes, significantly less now that you are working for fulton county, right? >> yes. >> would you agree with me that $236,000 is more than $184,000? >> absolutely. >> would you agree with me that

$262,000 is more than $236,000? >> absolutely. >> all of these years, despite you saying that you were a three-way partner with wade and campbell and bradley and now two-way with campbell, all of your corporate tax returns are -- for your law firm. >> for my law firm, i also have personal returns. >> i'm not talking about your personal returns, i'm talking about your business returns. >> the question contemplates that my bring-home money is more or less so i want to be clear that it's reflected in my personal returns. >> i didn't ask you anything about bring home money, though, i'm not sure what you are talking about. >> what i'm talking about, your question was the portion of my testimony dealing with earning significantly less money. >> no, no, my question is during -- i'll break it down. during 2019, you filed your business returns, i'm not talking about your personal,

your business returns for the law firm of nathan wade only, correct? >> i filed personal and business. yes, ma'am. >> and even though you said you were partners with bradley and campbell, later on, you filed your business returns, not with them, but as a solo practitioner, correct? >> i see where you are going. there is a different return for the wade bradley campbell entity. >> and i'm not asking about that. what i'm asking about is during the years 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022, you filed a business return for the law firm of nathan wade. >> yes, ma'am. >> and in 2019, you said that the law firm of nathan wade made $184,000, correct? >> i don't know. >> is that -- does that sounds familiar, does that sound about like what you made in 2019 and reported on your taxes as a business law firm? >> if that's what's on the return, that's right.

>> i'm happy i can bring those up [indiscernible] ok. may i approach, judge? >> you may. >> thank you. >> in 2019, gross profit for the law firm of nathan wade is $184,000, correct? >> let's see -- second line, number two, gross profit. >> yes, ma'am. 184, 824, yes, ma'am. >> and 2020, also filed nathan wade, attorney at law, and your gross profit was $230,000, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> 2021, you also filed solo, nathan wade, p.c., attorney at law, $236,000, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and then in 2022 you filed as a solo practitioner, nathan wade, and gross income was $262,000, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> i'm not going to --

[indiscernible] but nowhere in these documents you document you received cash payments from miss willis, correct? >> i don't -- i hadn't looked through them. i would be surprised if there were something in there that said -- >> do you want to look through them? >> listen to the answer. i would be shocked if there was something in there that said i received some cash from miss willis. >> okay. but there is itemized expenditures for travel in here, you did itemize that. >> i didn't itemize anything. >> your accountant itemized it. >> i hope so. you are responsible for your taxes even if your accountant files them. >> i agree. >> you itemized expenses for travel but you did not put anything in there about you being reimbursed for half of that travel. >> well, those are -- those are business returns. >> yes. you used your business card to pay for the travel. >> but i wouldn't put a personal expense on a business return.

>> you used a business card to pay for these personal travel. >> i used an business card to pay for everything and what i do is turn over the statement to the accountant and the accountant then says ok, this expense, that's personal. we'll p ut that over here. this expense is business, put it over here and they reconcile it. so, you wouldn't find a reimbursement from miss willis on a business return. >> ok so they are not anywhere there. >> nor would you find -- go ahead. >> nowhere for any of the cash to be reconciled there, right? >> on the business returns, no, ma'am. >> we talked a lot about the financial affidavits, the state asked you a couple questions about them. you filed one in 2022, and that you stated you only had $5,000 in cash, correct? >> i believe you, yes. >> sworn under oath. >> at the time of the filing, yes, ma'am. >> january of 2024, another one

that you only had $5,000 in cash. >> at the time of the filing, yes, ma'am. >> $5,000 in cash. >> at that time. >> and then also all of the interrogatories, every single interrogatory you filed, four of them, all verified ones, every single one you said you didn't have any cash stored in a safe, a safety deposit box or any other location, the plaintiff rarely carries cash. if plaintiff does carry it, it's a nominal amount. >> right. 2021, you said you don't have cash, 2023, you don't have cash, 2024, you don't have cash, right? >> so you are assuming that -- i received the cash and i stored it. i received the cash and i saved it. >> you didn't put it in the bank. >> what's wrong with receiving the cash and spending it? >> nothing is wrong with that. >> that would contemplate why the response is what it is on the interrogatories.

>> so you spent the cash. because before when it was asked you said you didn't want to disclose where the cash was. privacy reasons. >> no, no, no, i said if i were to store cash in my home, then why would i share that with the world is what i said. i didn't say that i had some cash stored up in some place, that's not the truth. >> and you've talked a lot by split with a third, i split with half, from the check you received from fulton county, july 15, 2022, all the way back to july 2022, not a single check you have received from fulton county has gone into a joint banking account. every single check has gone into your own personal banking account, correct? >> all of them with the exception of the checks into the wubc firm went into my business bank account, solely in my name. >> wbc account, that was closed

in june of 2022. >> correct. >> so everything after june of 2022 was put in a nathan wade bank account, not a corporate bank account with partners. [indiscernible] >> the question before that was yes or no. >> the checks were deposited into firm accounts, law firm accounts. >> law firm of nathan wade p.c.. >> yes, solo practitioner. >> yes, ma'am. >> so not deposited into accounts with campbell or bradley. >> no, ma'am, they were not. however, there were checks written to campbell and bradley that will reflect the third the third the third. >> we have tried to get those bank records but you objected to that. >> i'm going to object to the relevance. >> it's relevance if he says he has the records and he is trying to keep them from us, he does

not bring all the records. there is law that says you can make an inference if some documents are in the party's control and they won't provide them. >> there was no obligation for mr. wade to produce evidence that miss merchant could not find an admissible way to produce. i believe it's irrelevant. we have covered the ground. object to further questioning on this line. >> i'll sustain that. find some new ground here. >> are you willing to waive your privilege with mr. bradley so he can testify? >> i'm not willing to waive attorney/client privilege. >> thank you. >> health questions on -- [indiscernible] i don't want to get into the type of cancer, i want to get into the medical condition itself. i understand you to say that you had cancer in the year of 2020? >> yes, sir.

>> and you explained that because of that in 2020 you were -- kept yourself in a sterile environment? >> i tried, yes, sir. the>> now, what about 2021? >> 2021, just focusing on my health, trying to get back to myself. >> you remember i asked you some questions about hapeville and the condo. >> yes, sir. >> you indicated that prior to november 1st of 2021, you had spent time at the condo, the hapeville condo. >> yes, sir. >> with miss willis, yes, sir. >> and someone else, you said miss urdi? >> yes, sir. >> so you were not concerned -- that was not a sterile environment, was it? >> are you inferring that they are not sterile? of course it's a sterile environment. it's a condo. >> but don't you remember then i followed up and said where else might you have been to show your

cell phone records from hapeville, you said the airport, right? >> uh-huh. >> not a sterile environment, though, the airport. you agree? >> it is not. >> what about restaurants, not a sterile environment, right? >> they are not. >> and the porsche, a porsche what? >> porsche experience. >> that doesn't sound very sterile to me. is that a sterile environment? >> you are inside your vehicle. >> yes, but don't you mingle with others? >> you can. >> yeah, and you were doing all that in 2021 before november 1st. that's what you testified to, correct? >> yes, sir. >> so there's no reason why you couldn't be dating in 2021, is there? >> you mean 2020? >> i said 2021. correct? >> dating, no. >> no reason. >> no reason. >> got it. thanks. >> mr. gillen.

>> nothing, your honor. >> okay. mr. stocks. stockton, excuse me. >> real briefly. you said you started dating early 2022 and also used the term personal relationship. and there was no dating, no personal relationship prior to early '22, is that correct? >> help me understand -- i want to make sure i answer you. so -- so -- let's be clear. 2022 was the start of any intimate sexual relationship with the district attorney. >> and that's what i was -- to be clear, in your affidavit you used the term personal relationship. >> got it. >> today you've used the term dating, and your testimony today is that that includes the term

basically physical or sexual or intimate relationship, is that correct, sir? >> correct. >> and according your stimony, none of that prior to [indiscernible] >> that's correct. >> that's all i've got, judge. not seeing anyone else, miss cross, redirect? miss merchant, can this witness be excused? >> judge, we ask to keep him under subpoena. we might need him to come back. >> all right, you may step down, mr. wade. and please don't discuss your testimony with any other witnesses. >> she mentioned subpoena, judge. let me just say this. there was an inference made that i was somehow evading service of a subpoena. >> we can take that up. i don't think we need to have it on the record. understood, though. >> thank you. miss merchant, any other wits --

witnesses? >> we would call fani willis. >> miss cross. >> quash the district attorney. there's been now lots of testimony from mr. wade. i don't believe there can be a showing for the need for the district attorney to testify as well. for all of the reasons that were cited in the state's motion to quash initially. it's a tremendously high burden to call opposing counsel. i don't believe, given the cumulative nature that would be the subject of the personal details that mr. wade has now testified to. >> miss merchant, what do you think you can establish and have through the testimony of miss willis? and stop there. >> conflict in the evidence, judge. now that mr. wade has testified there's a conflict of multiple different issues [indiscernible] on the first one is the reimbursement issue, the cash, that opens the door in and of

itself to miss willis testifying. >> what's the conflict there? >> that he testified that he didn't have receipts but we don't know if miss willis has receipts. so, that's one issue. >> we don't know, so there's no conflict. don't know. >> so it's a question, not a conflict. what else. >> that is a question. and a lot of different issues with different reasons. first one would be the receipts. you know, whether or not these cash payments were payment receipts, belize trip, whether or not she paid for the entire thing in cash, mr. wade does not have knowledge of that. and a lot of things he could not remember so now it goes to miss willis, unfortunately. that he testified that she insists on paying her own way, gave him some cash, in quotes, some cash, miami trip, booked it, thought it would balance out. a couple of other trips that we did not get any information about, tennessee, alabama, georgia, all of those could be

financial benefits, we don't know. he didn't know. he was very vague about that. hearing her best friend testify it happened in 2019, and now mr. wade has testified the relationship began to become romantic in 2022, i think is what his testimony was. so, that is a conflict in and of itself. that's a big conflict. we have also got more receipts, but the biggest thing about the conflict is when the relationship started. he said he talked with willis in the conference room after we filed our motion, he specifically did not use cash, the term cash in the affidavit, but he told anybody who would ask about the cash. and he specifically discussed this in the response. i think we have a right [indiscernible] >> all right. so you have highlighted the areas you would like to go into. i think the central question may be what is it other than just

really curious what she has to say to have to put on the record. so that's -- that's what i would like to go through. miss cross. >> your honor, i think you have identified, miss merchant has not -- she has identified areas of inquiry. the testimony in the record from mr. wade is not inconsistent. it's unrebutted. and so i don't believe given the testimony of mr. wade and the extent of the questioning of him that there is any reason at this point to go into the district attorney herself. i know the court has read all the pleadings. it is such a compelling need, the language of the case law, compelling need given the record that's before the court i don't believe it has met. >> your honor, very briefly,

miss willis needs to testify. her best friend or good friend has directly contradicted the declaration that was made by mr. wade attached to the government's response and wasn't just the declaration of mr. wade. it was filed by the district attorney by and through her assistance here. she owns that, so the affidavit is owned by her and there are deep concerns that that affidavit is false. and miss willis knew it was false and she needs to come in here, the first time we heard about the cash, oh, yeah, we got cash. don't have any deposit slips, don't have a record of it, maybe miss willis can say here all my records i paid $10,000 in cash back to mr. wade.

we need to know that. also miss willis's financial disclosure. let's not forget that. we are talking about two people who went to extraordinary lengths to hide their relationship, to hide the nature of their relationship. extraordinary. district attorney needs to take the stand and she needs to tell this court and this courtroom why she filed financial disclosures in 2022 identifying prohibited sources which mr. wade clearly is a prohibited source, did you get gifts and benefits. now we have seen all this. we have seen the trips. we have seen the -- all of the things that total up to around $10,000 in cash. yet on the financial declaration for 2021, which was filed in april of 2022, and the financial

declaration for 2022 which was failed in april of 2023, there is no listing of any gifts whatsoever over $100 from a prohibited source. it cries out for her testimony. she needs to be able to get up there and say why didn't you tell on the disclosure form so that people would know the nature of the relationship between prohibitive sources and the public official, in this case the district attorney. happens to make a decision to hire someone that ends up being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars or his firm and him, and none of that is revealed. and the answer is, oh, it's unrebutted, he has explained, it's all in cash. let her get up and let's -- obviously, you know, we are advocates on -- in our position. but that explanation of cash does not pass the smell test or

the straight-faced test. she needs to go on the record. she filed this motion with his declaration. we have seen what happened here. 2, 3 more sentences. we need to have the full picture as we have gotten through mr. wade of his false interrogatories, serious business for a lawyer, for anybody. and then suddenly he's changing. she files her financial declarations, same problem. we need to go over all of this and explain exactly what happened. we ask the court that the court allow miss willis to be called and interrogated on these matters. >> and i would, too, your honor. >> just a moment, miss willis. so miss cross, i don't know if you want to speak with miss willis, maybe they are withdrawing the objection to the motion? >> motion to -- >> or does miss willis want to

take the lead here? >> withdraw the motion to quash miss willis, based on -- >> ok. so, the position of the district attorney at this point is she is no longer contesting the subpoena, miss merchant has called her as the next witness. >> i would ask -- i need three documents in front of me, the three filings of miss merchant. >> three filings. does anyone have the three filings of miss merchant? >> you say the filings, you mean the pleadings? >> pleadings, yes, your honor. >> i think we can locate those for you in the supplemental. >> i want the one filed on january 8th, the one filed

immediately after we filed ours, and the final one. >> if you want to take a break to get them, i can make a copy. i think we have them. >> the only copy i have will have my notes on it. if we don't have a clean copy. >> let's have a five-minute break, your honor. >> i'll sit here and wait for them. >> who is making the copy? you have it? okay.

>> there's a break because she had a question. now they're scrambling to address her concerns. >> john: that was a big moment there. that was almost a hunter biden moment. remember when hunter showed up in the hearing on capitol hill? they were talking about fani willis and the objection, trying to quash for her to appear as a witness. she said i'm here. i'm ready to take the stand. let's bring in kerri urban that was interesting. >> shocking. nobody expected miss willis to show up in person. she says i'm no longer contesting the subpoena. i'm happy to give you information. wonder why. she must not think things are going well for her boyfriend. why else would you take the stand, subject yourself to all of the rules and penalty and perjury and all that. but her friend -- >> john: not to mention the

uncomfortable questions. >> and her good friend that was the that willis and wade had this relationship. and this cash payment is murky and strange and doesn't -- it's odd. so maybe she wants to address that. >> sandra: at one point we did see him sweating on the stand. there are quite a few moments that stood out, kerri. what happens next now? >> they're all going to take a crack at asking her questions. we'll get to hear from her. the two key lines of questioning that everybody wants to go down, why is your friend, someone that you live with, saying that you're lying basically about when your relationship started and of course, again, sandra, that's a problem. one, they put it in a court filing and two, if they did lie about it, there's all kinds of ethics issues that come with that. the disqualification that could come as a result is probable. if they did in fact lie about

that. >> john: what about this idea of the cash? the issue is when did the relationship start and did anybody benefit financially as a result of that relationship? if you buy everything in cash and you don't have any receipts, there's no paper trail. at the same time, it's suspicious that you're making your transactions in cash. particularly in you're working for the government. >> correct. what makes it especially bizarre is that if you are trying to avoid the appearance of impropriety by making sure you're both pairing your fair share giving the working relationship that's happening, why in the world would you do it with cash that is not traceable. there's no records. it defeats the purpose for why they were doing it in the first place. that's why the attorney raised the question or just said this doesn't pass the smell test given the obvious suspicious nature of it. maybe that's when she decided,

all right, i'm going to address this myself. we'll see what she says about that. >> sandra: as jonathan turley points out, she appeared irate when she took the stand there. >> again, a very bad day for the democrats law fair campaign against former president trump. this is a very bad look at a minimum, whether it has actual legal consequences remains to be seen. there she is. >> john: what do you expect the line of questioning will be on this? we got a glimpse of it. ashley merchant wants to know more about the cash. craig gillan is talking about the contradiction of what robin yearti said. where do you expect the questioning to go? >> it's two main buckets, what the friend said about the relationship, she observed them hugging and kissing and said willis told me herself they were in this relationship a long time and the cash. the two big topics that they

will lean on. >> sandra: kerri kupec urbahn, thanks for sticking with us. quite a few unexpected moments, john. >> john: yeah, nathan wade clearly was on the hot seat. answering a lot of questions that he never thought that he would have to answer. this idea saying he never had an affair during his marriage, but then he backdated of when his marriage ended. the divorce came through in 2022. he said it was 2015 when he and his wife decided there were irreconcilable differences but for the good of the children, they were going to stay together. >> heard that a couple times. great to be with you. set your dvr, never miss "america reports." i'm sandra smith. >> john: i'm john roberts. we will see you again tomorrow. the court proceedings continue with martha maccallum and "the story" right now. martha? >> martha: what a breaking news afternoon. get ready. fani willis, the person wh