paid when you went out to didn'ter? >> he paid. i paid. >> you both paid? >> okay. let me be real clear. we didn't say oh, the bill is $102. you give $51. i'll give $51. i don't operate like that with my girlfriends or anyone. you call it the bill, i call it the bill. >> did you ever pay him through cash app? >> no. >> just cash? >> yes. we're talking about -- i'm very confused now. >> you have never given mr. wade money through cash app? >> no. >> the only money you have given him outside of a contract is cash? >> i didn't give him money in a contract. that was cute. i didn't give him money in a contract. what happened -- we're going to answer it since you said it. he worked. he worked more hours than he was paid. the county paid him for the work that he did. so don't be cute with me and think you're not going to get an

answer. >> i will ask you about the contract in a minute. i asked you about cash. did you ever pay him anything -- i'm trying to qualify my questions. i'm not talking about the contract with fulton county that was paid. i'm talking about outside of that, did you ever pay him anything other than cash? >> i've only given cash a few times in in the course -- >> let her finish. >> if we went to dinner, i wouldn't give him cash. i probably gave him cash four times. probably the most, $2,500. the least, between 500 and $1,000. >> you never wrote him a check? >> ma'am, i don't have checks. >> okay. so you have no proof of any reimbursement for any of these things because it's all cash? >> the testimony of one witness is enough to prove a fact. are you telling me i'm lying to you? is that what you're intimating

here? >> i'm asking if you have any proof. >> the proof is what i just told you. >> you have no written proof. is that correct? >> so i have some -- probably some transeses in be leads. i probably spent $500 on my card in belize. i spent -- i can't remember. $900 on each of our tickets to go to belize. i did the $700. i probably got some minor expenses in aruba that would be on a card. for the most part for those trips, other than -- so the two cruises, i gave him money for those before we ever left. because they were prebooked. let me answer. >> the question is if you had any written proof. >> i've answered you. that i had written -- >> we can move to the next question if you answered. that was my question. >> i want to make sure that we're clear. for the two cruises -- >> judge, i -- >> don't take over each other.

mrs. merchant, she answered your question. you can ask the next question. you'll have cross to let you clarify your answers. >> thank you, judge. >> knowing your role as district attorney, you know public funds are scrutinized and money is scrutinized. you understand you're under a microscope. you have reporting requirements, all of those types of things. you have no record other than your testimony of the money that you have given mr. wade? >> you asked that question. let's keep going? >> when you took office, you had a tax lien of $4,600. did you pay that with cash? when you made that tax lien whole? >> i probably paid through -- however you pay. >> okay. you said you had amounts of cash. you still had that lien in 2022 when you were going on these trips. so the cash that you gave him that could have been used to pay the tax lien off? >> you're going to tell me how to pay my bills? >> i object.

this is not relevant as to why we're here today. >> mrs. merchant, if you are trying to establish that she was insolvent in some way -- >> i was trying to establish that she did not have these mass amounts of cash that she's talking about, yes. >> all right. reask the question. >> you had a tax lien in 2022, $4,600. >> if you say i did. >> and you did not use this cash that you had to reimburse mr. wade to pay that off, correct? >> no. i went shopping, too. i didn't pay it off. >> you talked about -- you give a lot of interviews to authors and -- >> i would not characterize it as a lot. i have spoken to him -- >> i'm going to object. the question -- >> it's come up. finances are discussed in the book. i'll overrule that. >> thank you. >> you can continue your answer. >> came up with mr. wade as it relates to hearsay statements that he was asked about in

relation so what mrs. willis may or may not have said in relation to an author. >> mrs. merchant has said that inside the book. she made the statement as to her own findings. that's at issue. >> so you gave interviews to the authors of this book, correct? >> once or twice. >> three times just to be comprehensive. i don't know if it was three times. two or three times, i think. >> you were quoted in the book and i'll give you a chance to sea if this is a misquote. when they asked you if you wanted to run for office for d.a., you were quoted, i really don't want to be financially f'd up again. do you remember saying that? >> what that refers to -- >> my question is if you remember saying that. >> i remember saying something similar to that. i'd like to explain what that is. >> that's fine. >> that's not in reference to anything else. it was a huge sacrifice to be direct attorney in fulton

county. i had a municipal court judgeship that paid me $100,000 a year. you have to show up twice a week. the easiest thing i had ever done in life. i had private clients that were paying know represent them. i had a law practice and that. raising two daughters by myself, there were times in life where things were hard. so i was telling people, i don't really want to run for d.a. i'm in a good position. i have this easy job that i enjoy being the chief judge at the city of south fulton. i'm making money at the law firm. i'm not sure that i want to make this sacrifice. why does it have to be me? eventually i prayed. i think that i was the appropriate person. i think that i did that. so when you're referring to that, what i'm saying is, why should i make a sacrifice again? what i was not talking about is being district attorney. once you get elected district attorney, you're in a fine financial position. i make over $200,000 a year.

what i was talking about, i ran for judge. when i ran for judge, i took $50,000 of my personal money out of my retirement and that money ended up being lost. i know when you bet on yourself, you're going to have to bet money on yourself. so what i was talking about is not wanting to go through the personal financial expense of running for office. by no means did i think that i was going to be financially in a bad position if i won. let's talk about what i was up against. it's important to understand that comment. i had a district attorney who had been here 24 years. >> judge -- >> this is very relevant as to what my mind set was about. so i'm trying to answer your question. so what i was saying -- >> relate to finances. >> it's about my finances. nobody put me in this seat. i had already run for office once. i had spent $50,000 of my own money running. it was nothing. when i'm talking to those

offers, i'm talking about the contemplation of the sacrifice of the run. not the sacrifice of once you become d.a. the odds were against me. i was likely going to lose the election based on who i was running against. so that needs to be in the appropriate context. >> isn't it true that the authors also wrote and you can dispute this if you'd like, that you were broke after that race? >> the 2018 race? >> yes. >> that was a hard race. i wasn't broke like i didn't have any -- so broke is relative depending where you are. that hurt to lose that $50,000. so i'm sure my mental mindset was like i just gave $50,000 away. >> right. so they characterized it from your conversations with you that you were broke, you poured your own money and you weren't able to pay your own bills because of -- i'm sorry. your client couldn't pay they bills to you and you had a paltry array of family and asset forfeit sure cases. this said you were trying to make it month to month. is that an accurate depiction of

you remember financial situation at that point? >> i would want to read that. i don't remember clients not being able to pay their bills. >> may i approach, judge? >> you may. >> i have not read this book. >> so like this fact here, her ex-husband, fred, had run into a financial -- i have no information about that. >> i didn't ask you about that. i asked if you -- what they represent from their interviews with you that you were broke and you had clients that weren't able to pay their bills. >> can you show me where this is? that's where you put the tab. that's where i read. >> broke. didn't pay their bills. >> that -- i'm sure i characterized myself as broke as leaving that $50,000. i don't know that i had -- i

didn't have -- >> mrs. merchant. >> this is not correct. i didn't have any asset forfeiture cases. i had one case where they took my client's money at the airport. i don't know if that's what -- i don't know. paltry array -- i did have family law cases. that's what they're talking about. clients that couldn't pay tear bills ain't clients. so no. >> so my question was just if this was a fair and accurate representation where it says you were trying to make it month to month. >> no, i don't think that is actually a fair and accurate representation. i'm certain that after the 2018 election oh 0 i'm still not happy about having given up that $50,000. >> do you know when you paid your tax lien? >> i don't. >> you don't? do you know if you paid it? >> i know i paid some taxes. i don't know -- i don't want to speculate.

>> did you tell anyone at fulton county board of county commissioners about your relationship with mr. wade? >> no. >> did you disclose your relationship to anybody at fulton county? >> no, i don't think so. >> as the chief law enforcement officer of fulton county, i assume that you're familiar with the county code ordinances? >> i said we're not going to cover that in in hearing. >> i'm sorry, judge? >> i said we wouldn't go over the county regulations. >> i won't -- let me ask this then. are you aware that you're required to disclose any relationship with someone that you contract with in fulton county? >> object. to the courts's prior ruling. >> would this be different? it's a potential for impeachment. >> yes. >> what did you ask me? mrs. merchants, if you'd reask the question. >> are you aware that fulton county requires you to december

close any relationship with somebody you're doing business with? >> i'm not aware. oftentimes things are confused with state constitutional officers in county. i'm not aware. >> so it's your understanding that you don't have a duty -- >> she's answered that question. let's keep going. >> did you keep track hoff this cash that you paid him? >> i don't understand. >> did you keep track of the cash? did you keep a ledger? >> i only gave him cash three or four times. there's no ledger. this is friends handing money off to each other. >> so the answer is no? >> you've already asked if there's any written proof whatsoever. she's answered that. we covered this. let's move on. >> who were you referring to when the -- >> we said we're not talking

about the misconducts that been alleged. >> just so the record is clear, i don't believe i said that his motions racially motivated. i don't want that to stay there. i never said his motion was racially motivated. that should not be true -- >> it would be best if -- we don't need to go down that road. we're going to save that for argument. >> you said you would not engage in a personal relationship with anybody that world in fulton county is. that correct? >> an employee? >> anyone that works for fulton county. >> i think i said and employee. >> that's the qualification you give, an employee? >> that's the statement that i made. if you want to quote me, quote me accurately. >> so it's your position because there wade was not an employee -- it's your position he wasn't an employee? >> mr. wade is not an employee. he will tell you that over and over again. >> hold on a minute, judge.

>> you said you won't sleep with people that work under you. do you not consider mr. wade working under you? >> i consider mr. wade to be an agent. >> an agent? >> all right. >> an appointee is what i think of him as. >> your point, mrs. merchant, is on the record. next question. do we need any moment? mr. sadow? >> no, i'm ready to go. >> all right. >> i'm going to try to ask you questions that you can actually answer without having to explain. okay? >> yes, sir. my comprehension skills are good. we should do all right. >> we shall soon see. if i heard you correctly, you moved in to what i will refer to

as the yearti condo in march or april of 2021. is that correct? >> late february and april. yes. just so we're clear. yes. in that time period, you're in the ballpark. we're in the ballpark. >> okay. is that yearti condo, would you say that is in hapeville? >> it is in hapeville, yes, sir. >> you moved in there for safety reasons? >> my father -- yes. i moved in there. we were concerned. my father was terribly concerned about me continuing to live at the house. so that we're clear, people came to my house at 5:00 a.m. saying i was going to have a wake-up call. there was security threats due to gang cases and that was at the very beginning of this. looking into that. so for all of those reasons and what was happening, my father wanted me out of the house. begrudgingly i left.

>> so the answer to the question was question for safety reasons? correct? >> those were all of the things that caused the safety concerns. i'm sorry -- >> i'm not questioning whether they are or not safety concerns. i just asked that you moved in to this condo. yearti condo for safety correct? >> yes. >> at the time that you moved in to the condo, be it from february to april of 2021, was your father still living in your house? >> right. because my father -- >> that's all i asked you. >> i get to explain the answer. >> i don't know if there's an explanation. if i ask you was your father still living at your house, the answer is either he was or he wasn't. >> yes. you're going to get to argument at the end -- >> i'm not going to argue anything. >> i'd like to explain why. because my father is an older gentleman, he was worried about covid and he stayed. >> that's the second time. when we have to put a pause, you stop testifying.

you don't have a chance to explain yourself. the question is whether or not your father was staying there at the time. you're clarifying that in your answer as well. you can have a brief clarification. but it shouldn't be something that reaches well beyond the question. mr. sadow, you can reask the question. see where it takes us. >> thanks, your honor. was your father still living in your house at the time that you moved to what i would refer to as a yearti condo? >> yes, sir, he was due to his concerns related to covid. >> okay. the safety concern was that there was potential danger at your house. is that correct? >> yes. my address had been exposed. yes, there was concerns about potential danger at my house. >> okay. so anyone staying at your house in the time period after you went to the yearti condo was still in danger, correct? >> i'm going to object. >> no, no.

>> i think you have to -- it's your attorney, mrs. willis. sorry. your objection is speculation. >> yes. >> to the question of whether someone was still in danger -- >> i can -- >> letmer answer the question. >> mr. sadow want to rephrase. >> i was able to understand it. >> i've got the objection and then i have -- >> i'll withdraw the objection. move forward. >> i remember the question. i can answer it. >> you can now that the objection has been withdrawn. can you try to answer question? >> yes. >> is there still a safety concern for people staying at the house? >> yes. i was very concerned about my father still living at the house. however, if you have dealt with an older gentleman, he was not leaving the house despite my urging him that i thought that he should leave as well. he didn't want to leave the house. he was particularly worried at his age about covid. that became -- i don't want to

say -- i was not happy with that decision of my father's but i can't make him leave. he stayed there too long in my opinion. >> thank you. during that period that you left to go to the yearti condo, did any of your children stay at your house? >> so i don't -- i don't think that they were there at that point. certainly my baby wasn't there. >> i'm talking about this entire period. we're talking about, if i remember correctly -- you'll correct me, i'm sure, you said that you stayed there at what i would call the yearti condo until january of correct? >> yes. >> okay. so i'm asking you in that period, which would be february to april of 2021, until january of 22, did any of your children stay at your house? >> you don't have to yell at me. i'm able to understand. so i would ask you to not yell at me. that being said, i don't

actually expressly remember. but i can tell you since i have left my home, there's been times any oldest daughter came in. i can't tell you with certainty the time window that you've said if they did or not. so i don't want to speculate to that. there was some time that my oldest daughter came back. whether it was that period or after i left the yearti residence, i'm not sure. okay? >> so if i continue to go in to more detail on this, you're not going to be able to give me an answer of whether or not in fact any of your children were still at the house or stayed at your house during that time period, correct? >> what i can give you clarity of so we are clear is from the time i moved out in februaryish of 2021, after i left there, there was a time period that my oldest daughter came back. if you're asking me was it in that window or after, i don't have a recollection of that. you know, you kids come and go.

so i don't remember the specific time period. i apologize for that. >> did your children ever stay with you at the yearti condo? >> like maybe a night. >> okay. >> like for a girl's night or something. live with? no. >> did anyone else stay with you at the yearti condo? including mrs. yearti? >> never. mrs. yearti never lived in the condo. she met her husband and they moved. they weren't married. never ever lived in the condo. >> my word was stay, not lived. stayed with you at the window. >> i guess i don't understand the distinction. no one -- i think my babies, my oldest child, i think she spent one night with me. maybe my oldest and youngest. i think that whole time i was in that place, other than that one night, i don't think anyone ever -- a very lonely period in my life. i don't think anyone ever spent the night other than maybe one night. i remember a picture of my babies sitting on the couch in

that place. i'm thinking she spent that night. but just a very lonely time in life. >> okay. we'll stay with the lonely theme for a minute. did nathan wade visit you at the yearti condo from the time you moved in until he was hired on november 1 of 2021? >> so i moved out of that condo. during that time period, yeah, he came to visit. he came to visit. yeah, i can remember us going the restaurants, lickety-split. i can remember one at lickety-split and sitting at my table and eating. i remember times he visited me, yes. >> can you give us an approximation how many times mr. wade visited you at the condo between the time you moved in and prior to november 1 of 2020? >> i don't think often, but i

don't want to speculate. >> can we say more than five? more than ten? >> i'm going to tell you the problem i'm having here. let's say more than ten, but i'm not sure that that is even accurate. he certainly has come and picked me up. grabbed some food to eat. remember him being in that condo a lot. >> okay. >> i'm sorry. you want a number. what -- >> you've given me your current and best recollection. how many times did any of the prosecution team -- how many times did anna cross come to that condo between the time you moved in and november 1 of 2021? >> i don't think anna has been there. >> what about any other prosecutor involved in the prosecution of this case? >> i don't think any of them have. >> just mr. wade?

>> that's correct, sir. but it was a lonely time? >> oh, my god. yeah. that 2021 be -- i have a lot of guilt about this time period in my life. let me tell you why. it was a lonely time. i was appreciative for the citizens giving me this responsibility and this duty. what i very, very quickly learned is that this is a very isolating job. 2021 was a lonely time. i turned 50 in 2021. probably one of the worst birthdays i've ever had. i spent it alone. so i have a clear recollection of 2021 being lonely. >> did mr. wade ever come visit you at the condo prior to november of 2021 when mrs. yearti was at the condo? >> so mrs. yearti and me were -- we didn't share the condo at the same time. >> so the answer would be no?

>> we never stayed there together. it's impossibility. >> it's impossibility? >> yeah. >> now, mrs. -- so that -- mrs. yearti -- we need to get clarification on this. mrs. yearti stayed in that place. may have been a time that me and mr. wade visited, went and saw mrs. yearti. but me and mrs. yearti never lived there together, just so we're clear. >> maybe that was clear. but i'm going to have to try again. >> okay. >> was mrs. yearti still living in the condo when you moved in? >> not a day. >> okay. >> that was a misrepresentation in this. why never lived together. i never lived with mrs. yearti. >> my question though, i'm trying to understand, that after you moved in to the condo, mrs. yearti had been -- she was outs of the condo, right? >> she'a house. >> she's not in the condo. >> mrs. yearti and i never stayed a day together in the condo. all of her stuff was out of the

condo and some of my stuff was moved in. we never stayed there together. no, sir. >> so when i ask you about mr. wade visiting the condo when you were staying there, mrs. yearti wasn't staying there, correct? >> that would be correct, yes. >> she wouldn't be at the condo, correct? >> no, she would not have -- >> it would be you and mr. wade alone at the condo, correct? >> yes. >> that is there weren't any other witnesses to mr. wade and you at the condo, correct? >> yes. >> no security, none of your security detail? >> objection. she said it was her and mr. wade. >> you made your point, mr. sadow. let's move on. >> yes, your honor. when in the prosecution team prior to i guess the motion being filed by defendant roman, who in the prosecution team knew of your personal relationship

and now i'm talking romantic with mr. wade? >> sir, i'm extremely private. >> all i asked is who knew. if the answer is no one knew, that's fine. i asked you who knew. >> answer it and explain, mrs. willis. >> i'm very private. when i supervised mr. body and mr. mcafee, they didn't know who i was dating. but i was dating somebody. i kept something private, that's my private life. it's not any mystery to anyone. it's like a woman doesn't have the right to keep her private life private. i'm speaking on this because there's been all of these intimations. >> you still didn't answer the question. >> i'm sorry. what was the question. >> is there anyone else that knew about it. then you can explain. >> i don't know. i don't think so. i certainly didn't go out telling my business to the world. >> so the best of your recollection, you didn't inform anyone on the prosecution team

that the individual that you had chosen to lead the prosecution team had a personal relationship with you? is that corrected? >> that's inaccurate. your question is inaccurate. >> what is -- >> you stated that the personal i chose, we had a personal relationship. so we had a friendship. we have all of these distinguishing factors. when i chose him in november of 21 -- let's get this straight. mr. wade was notice my first choice. that is no insult to him. because of the way you phrased the question, you said when i chose him, i didn't inform people of a personal relationship. we have defined personal as romantic. it is an inaccurate way to state the question -- >> then i will certainly restated it so it is very accurate. >> okay. please do not yell at me. >> you hired mr. wade for the first time on november 1 of 2021, correct? >> november of 2021, yes, sir.

>> okay. your testimony is whether one accepts it or not, your testimony is that at the time you hired mr. wade, there had never been a romantic relationship with mr. wade before you hired him, correct? >> yes, my testimony is that we were very good friends, but not -- we're talking act sex. >> i'm not talking about -- i'm saying romantic relationship doesn't necessarily have to be just sex. it can be dating, i can be holding hands, it can be any of those things that one might call romantic. i'm asking you whether or not prior to november 1 of 2021 there was a romantic relationship with mr. wade. very simple. it's either a yes or a no. >> i don't consider my relationship to be romantic before that. i'm not a hand holder. >> that's fine. let's move beyond november 1 of

2021. i understand your testimony there was no romantic relationship with mr. wade until early in 2022. whether it be january or february or march, early in 2022, correct? >> i would say sometime between february and april. yes, sir. >> all right. now, i'm asking you about that time period when it became romantic. >> yes, sir. >> thank you. >> you didn't see the need if i understand to tell any of the people on the prosecution team when you had established a romantic relationship with mr. wade that the lead prosecutor, that is the man that was basically giving orders to others was dating or having a romantic relationship with you, correct? >> i'm going to object to relevance at this point. >> is this somehow relevant.

>> we're attempting to show there's an issue about the credibility of the relationship. the failure to have informed anyone on her team that she was having a romantic relationship with the lead prosecutor i suggest gives rise to that inference. that's the relevance for this. >> the inference that -- >> the inference that they were concealing this because it was not -- it's been characterized to the court. in fact it started earlier than what they say. >> all right. overruled, mr. sadow. >> i want to make sure we're clear. from at least 2020, me and mr. wade were friends. at least that time period. >> i'm not talking about -- >> no, no. i want to be clear. my credibility is being evaluated here, right? we were friends. we hung out. prior to november of 2021. in november of 2021, i hired him. i do not consider our

relationship to have become romantic until early of 2022. because i don't what date and time. i'm saying sometime between february and april of 2022. very early april of 2022. i know that trip that i discussed with you is like the first week of 2022, that the relationship had become romantic. i hope that answered your question. i can't have it where, you know, we're saying something differently. >> you established the time line. the question originally was at the time -- at that time did you tell any other prosecutors -- >> i never told people at work who i'm dating. >> mr. sadow? >> did you take any trips to d.c. with mr. wade? >> never. >> did you ever -- did you take -- okay. so you have no what i call personal trips or business trips to d.c. with mr. wade? >> i never went to d.c. with mr. wade, personal, business or otherwise, never. i've never been in the direct of

columbia with mr. wade or maryland, virginia, the dmv action they call it. >> so i ups it, to be clear, any trips that you would have taken to see d.c. -- >> that was a clear answer. >> huh? >> that was a clear answer. she said no. >> twice. >> you have a variation to bring up? >> i'll ask it. we'll see. did you take trips to d.c. that were nonbusiness during the time period that this case or this matter was under investigation? >> i'm going to object as fore relevance as it relateds to the matter that we're here before. >> the question already asked is did you take personal or business trips. she said -- >> that was with mr. wade. this i asked her alone whether she took -- >> okay. >> relevance. >> what would be the relevance? >> trying to understand if we have an ability to show a

personal trip? which mr. wade is there at the same time. i understand her answer. okay? i understand her answer. but we have documents, we have records that -- >> your honor, i'm going to object to the documents that -- >> this could be something not part of the record yet. there's other things discussed in this case. they have evidence that mr. wade may have been in dc at the same time. if you want to ask about that specific date, you can do that. >> i reference the court that that was not asked of mr. wade. anything about any trips to d.c. >> sure. so that's going to limit its merit and impact on credibility. mr. sadow, ask the question. >> i understand your testimony you never took a trip to d.c. with mr. wade personal or business. >> that's correct. >> were you ever in d.c. at the same time as mr. wade only personal or business? >> no. me and mr. wade have not been to d.c. at the same time. however, since mr. wade has been on this case, he's been to d.c.

since mr. wade has been on to this case, i've been to d.c. what has not happened we have not been in the district of columbia at the same time. now, the only thing i'm not sure about with what you asked me is if i've been the d.c. personally because i've had a lot of personal friends in that area. i know that i have been to d.c. i did an interview at howard university. i went to d.c. for that. seems like i've been to d.c. -- i went to d.c. for the global summit. yeah, those were two separate trips. >> my next question is based on her opening the door. therefore i'll just ask it and your honor can decide. when you went to d.c., did you go to the white house? >> i did not get to the white house. >> i'm going to gets i think way. next question. >> you indicated your best recollection is that your relationship with mr. wade, the

romantic relationship, ended -- you left it in august of 2023. that sound right? >> that's the heart conversation. >> we've covered this. next question. >> you characterize it as a tough conversation, correct? >> yes. >> i'm not going to get into the conversation. >> you should. >> if he doesn't want to, we won't go there. mr. sadow, next question. >> it's hard to say no when you have that opportunity. all i'm going to say, was it preindictment in this case? >> so -- >> we know the timeline the indictment was delivered. >> the physical relationship ended preindictment. >> is that when you were talking about the tough conversation? >> the -- i'm not sure that the tough conversation didn't happen till after. the physical relationship. so i'm sure if you ask mr. wade,

because he's a male, he would say we ended june or july. physical contact ended then. just in my mind, being a woman, it's over when you have that like hard conversation. i think women and men think differently. >> i think the answer to mr. sadow, your question, she was not sure if it was before or after the indictment. >> i'm not sure that that was her answer. i'll see if i can get specific. >> that's what i said. that's what i said. >> next question, mr. sadow. >> say one more? the romantic relationship ended before the indictment was returned, yes? or no? >> to a man, yes. >> to a man, yes. to you no? >> she's explained this mr. sadow? she's explained this. >> did the forthcoming indictment have anything to do with that? >> or was it just a coincidence? >> mr. -- let's go on and have

the conversation. >> i'm asking you whether or not -- >> absolutely nothing to do with this. it's interesting that we're here about this money. mr. wade is used to women that as he told me one time, only thing a woman could do for him is make him a sandwich. we would have brutal arguments about the fact that i am your equal. i don't need anything from a man. a man is not a plan. a man is a companion. so there was tension always in our relationship, which is why i give him his money back. i don't need anybody to foot my bills. the only man who has ever foot my bills completely is my daddy. >> is there anything else you'd like to add to that? >> no. >> you sure? >> i'm sure we'll talk about it further. >> we're not going -- >> no back and forth. next question. >> my next question is something that i would -- a has to do with the -- what i have characterized as the church speech. let me just tell you what the

question is. i know that's -- >> you can preserve if question for the record. then we'll move on. >> that's correct. thank you. >> when you gave what i have referred to as the martin luther king weekend church speech, you know what i'm referring to. >> a great honor of mine. a great historic african american church. yes, i do. >> did you have hands written notes with you that you were reading from during the speech? >> on second thought, mr. sadow, because you might have a number of questions about, this why don't we bullet point what you'd want to ask and preserve it for the next topic. since i had laid out before the forensic misconduct -- >> do i not get an answer for that? >> that's right. >> did you read you remember speech? >> for everything -- >> you want me to stay out of it now? >> you can do it in a bullet form. if you want to cover what you would have asked. it's not in a question and answer format.

>> so should i do it now or -- >> do it right now so it's fresh on your mind. >> i'm going to ask her did she prepare the speech, did she have notes, did she read the speech, when did she write the speech. who was she referring to when she talked about others, what was she referring to when she said they, who she was referring to when she spoke in terms of that is -- >> i would love to answer those questions. >> well, mrs. willis, you can do that in some other format. for today, i decided we're not going to cover. >> who is she talking about playing the race card and why she didn't tell the people at the church that she was -- that she had had a personal/romantic relationship with the all due respect the way it was characterized, black man that she was referring to and the black man that she referred to was that mr. wade. that's that area of inquiry. >> noted for the record. next topic.

>> okay. i realize that you've testified that you have no records with regard to cash payments. >> yes. >> correct. >> would your bank records reflect that you with drew cash from your bank accounts during the time period of 2020, 2021, 2022 or 2023? i'm not asking -- i asking whether they would reflect that you with drew cash from any of your bank accounts. >> so the exact amounts? >> no. just that you did. >> of course i with drew money throughout that time period throughout my life. i have withdrawn money from the bank. >> talking about cash. that you'd go to a bank or you go to an atm and you take cash out. >> either that way or you go to

publix and you oversay and go to another store and overpay. yes, both through that. yes, of course they will reflect that at times. >> and so those records, if we have them, would show that, correct? >> that throughout the course of my life, i took out money? >> i was very specific. >> yes. during the course of that time period, i would have taken money out, yes. >> do you have a problem -- >> yes. >> you don't want the bank records to be made available for the court and the court alone -- >> i'm going to object to the relevance. this has already been addressed earlier as relates to other questions. this is improper. he's doing it for the purpose of harassment. >> i'm going to sustain it on relevance. mr. sadow, if that's something you want to follow up privately, you can do that. >> okay. last area briefly. >> yes, sir. >> you had contact with mr. wade in the year 2020, correct?

>> i had some contact with mr. wade. >> would you explain when you say some contacted. tell us -- talking about 2020. >> i had some contact with mr. wade in 2020. one of the reasons your allegations are so preposterous or mrs. merchants that you have -- >> ma'am, i didn't ask you about the allegations. i asked you about your contact. that's all i asked you. i appreciate you want to say something. i'm interested in did you have contacteds with mr. wade in 2020. your answer so far has been yes, correct? >> very limited contact because mr. wade had a form of cancer that makes your allegations somewhat ridiculous. >> i appreciate the characterization. >> i'm not going to emasculate a black man -- >> i'm not going to what? >> i'm not going to emasculate a

black main. >> let's get back on track. >> i'm trying to, your honor. >> would you tell us in the occasions in 2020 that you had contact with mr. wade -- >> i'm sorry. i thought i answered that. yes, there were times in 2020 i had contact. but 2020 was a year i was running for office. a year that he was going through serious medical issues. i didn't have much contact. i certainly had contact with him in 2020. >> did you go out to eat with him. >> maybe. probably. >> did you visit him in any location? his office, or did he visit you in your office? in 2020. >> i am sure he -- i'm sure -- that's a very good question. i'm sure he came to 750 in 2020. >> 750 is -- >> my office. not often.

maybe once or twice. maybe i went to his office once or twice. maybe once. >> and the purpose for going to his office would have been what? >> maybe we would have went to mellow mushrooms for pizza or maybe he would have come for lunch. i'm sure we went by each other's office. but not often. next topic a lot. we were grinding. trying to make a living. >> i understand what you said about the cancer. i'm not going into that. but when you were going out with him to restaurants or when he would come to your office, right? those were not sterile environments, were they? >> very sterile? >> the restaurants were stirile environments. >> a lot of time we wouldn't eat there. >> i'm listening to you. take to it where? >> maybe eat at our office. didn't happen much. that's what i'm trying to explain to you. my office in 2020, nobody was coming in. i was stir crazy. i would still go into my office.

you remember, when i started this, i said i am not even sure if we came to each other's offices. i'm trying to be overcautious. so i think i can recall him at 750 a couple times. i just don't recall him at 750 once but let's say twice. i have seen his office -- i remember all the awards in the lobby. i'm not sure in 2020 i went. i'm not sure i went in 2020 at all. i want to tell you yes. i'm not sure. i have a distinct recollection of him at 750. i actually don't have a distinct recollection of me at his office in 2020. but maybe i went to his office in 2020. maybe. >> did you have ongoing phone conversations during 2020 with mr. wade is this. >> yeah, i talked to -- yes. absolutely. >> yes. no question about that?

>> no question i talked to him on the phone in 2020. >> i understood -- and this is -- maybe i was confused. the belize trip was for -- >> it's his 50th birthday. >> he turned 50 march 18 of 2023. if you look at the dates of the trip, we were there about six days. we stayed at two different locations. >> you paid for it? >> 100%. not only -- i paid for the hotel. i paid for the flights. i had a birthday luncheon for him. i paid for massages. i paid for everything. >> were those payments be reflected on your credit card? >> i paid for it cash. >> paid it in cash? >> cabs. cabs. i'm telling you all the different things. >> i'm asking you whether or not those payments would be reflected on credit card bills of yours. >> there was about $500 that i think is reflected on a debit card. my recollection is i took about

four in cash with me. >> 400 or $4,000? >> 4,000. remember, i handed him 2,500. the rest was just the money we spent -- i probably gave 30 or 400 to this taxi driver. >> he would driver us every day around the two or three days we went. it was my trip money. >> you had to be clear to end this up, the $4,000 that you just told us -- >> i didn't give it all to him. i gave 2,500 to him. >> i didn't ask you that. that 4,000 is part of your -- my words, cash horde that you had collected over time? >> cash what? >> horde. >> i thought you said something different. >> i wouldn't say that under any circumstances to you or anybody. cash horde. >> i would not classify it in that way. i had money in my house, yes, sir. >> when you had money in your house --

>> look, i'm speaking too loosely. i had money wherever i was staying. so i was not referring to my house at 750. i had money wherever i laid my head, yes, sir. that was my fault that wasn't clear. >> when you were add what we have said the yearti condo during the time period we've always discussed, that's where you would keep your cash? >> when i stayed there, yes. >> that's all i have. thank you. >> all right. want to see if we can get through a few more defense counsel before breaking for today. mr. stockton? >> i'm alan stockton. i don't think we've had the pleasure of meeting. >> pleasure to meet you, sir. >> madam d.a., you described these various trips. mr. sadow asked you about going to washington. did you and mr. wade go to new york?

>> i have gone to new york. i've gone to new york twice since i've been district attorney. i'm trying to think if it's two or three times. i went to do a domestic violence thing there for sure. i was honored and i went to the apollo there. those are the only two trips that come to mind. i went. he was not with me. >> you said that he was a world traveler and had been on many -- >> he had been to six. >> had you been on any of those continents with him besides this one. >> where is belize? what continent is that? i'm not being funny. i don't know. with the -- >> belize with him, i've been to the bahamas with him, aruba with him. don't embarrass me. i'm not sure what continues -- continents those are -- >> but not australia -- >> i don't want to go to australia.

i know he took a trip in december to australia. i have no idea, you know. i don't know anything about that trip. >> when mr. wade began working with your office, he had two other gentlemen that worked in his firm with him. is that correct? >> yes. terrence bradley worked for him an chris campbell worked for him. not for him. they worked with each other. >> did you understand what their partnership arrangement was? >> no. >> did he ever make you aware of how fees were divided >> no. >> now since you have been district attorney, the two gentlemen that worked with mr. wade in his firm, they also had contracts with your office. is that correct? >> i probably had -- >> i don't know if we have covered this. i don't know what the relevance of her testifying to this. >> i've had -- i'm sorry. >> let's figure this out. >> judge, respectfully, based on

mr. wade's testimony, he had an interest in those contracts. >> sure. and then how is that going to impugn mrs. willis? >> i don't know if whether or not she knew she was giving him that benefit. that's what i was trying to explore. >> okay. maybe we can start with that question and if she doesn't know about it, the ins and outs of the contracts wouldn't be as relevant. >> just to lay a foundation for that -- >> see where it takes us. go aheads. >> the two gentlemen that were in mr. wade's us a, did they have what i think has been referred to as a taint contract? >> let me be clear. i'm going to get the names wrong. when i first became d.a., the office was not properly staffed. so i did -- i'm spliced any lawyer would take it. i did a contract for like $60 an hour to help us out with first appearance. that lasted a few months. okay?

so i can't remember if bradley or campbell had that. i'm sure we can have records and i can tell you which one. i can't remember now. i like their experience. one had been -- bradley was a probation office. campbell was a police officer an a defense attorney. a reason i'm telling you this. that contract like i said, department last long. it was just us aggressively hiring, hiring, hiring. as soon as i got where i felt like i had first appearance, enough lawyers for that, i let them go. then we had what is called a filter contract. it was not filter for this particular case. i do have a lawyer who does the filter for this election interference case. when we're talking about filter the contract, they had, that neither one of them has any longer, i now have another lawyer that does that for me. it was only for police officer brutality cases. it's for what i call the -- when i first got to be the d.a., i had the whole unit was called

anti-corruption. dealt with elections and police brutality cases. i took a trip to houston and visited the direct attorney there. they divided their work up. i thought the way she did it was better than me. i made a civil rights unit. they did what we would classify as civil rights cases. those are specifically the police brutality cases. when i first took over, i was told paul had not filtered five cases. that was a joke. it ended up being the 101 cases, they weren't filtered. which is why i hired two of them. eventually we got it down enough that it was one of them. and then now i still have one lawyer that does it. but now i've been able to cuts those cases down to like 30. >> can you tell me -- help me understand what the purpose of the filter is. >> yes, sir. so what a filter is, police officers make statements in the

line of duty. you are not allowed as the prosecutor to know what those statements are if they're done in the furtherance of their employment. in fact, if you know what those statements are, you're basically disqualified from the case. you can't have it anymore. so what our policy, i pay them a $50 flat fee. they pick the case up from the gbi. that's where those cases go to. and then what they are to do is to go through the entire files. so the body cam, the -- which is important. sometimes they'll make a statement to their supervisor and it's on body cam. in the police reports, where they write things. it would be easy if it was just some statement of the police officer. what you find out is these statements are embedded in it. so what your filter lawyer does is they go through it, they either redact it out electronically or they cross it outs and then once it is crossed out, then they provide it to my team and then we're able to look

at it. that was not being done appropriately when i became district. i thought that it had -- mr. howard had some chinese wall thing that i didn't think worked at all. where allegedly those cases were properly redacted. that ended up being a joke. so the five cases really turned in to i'm not going to say all 101, but a vast majority. that is the work that mr. bradley and mr. campbell did for me. they did a really good job. all of those cases that we originally came with, they're done. they're not just done for mr. bradley land mr. campbell. they're done through my office. life is not stagnant. there's been new police cases. i have a lawyer that is doing that work now. that doesn't work for me. that's same kind of deal. i have another lawyer that does filtering for this case. completely separate. >> so in the same private office, you had a filter contract, then you had somebody

else having pedalling first appearances and so forth and then a special prosecutor. is that correct? >> i'm just not -- ultimately the answer to your question is question. but i'm not sure that they did it at the same time. the first appearance contract, even 60 or $90. i don't know how i convinced them to take that. but i think because it was for such a short amount of time. and then i think i pay my filter lawyers, which i still don't know how i get away with about $150 an hour. i want you to understand, the a.g. pays special prosecutors $1,000 an hour. so i'm a tough negotiator. paul was paying people up to 375 an hour. i won'ts pay anyone more than 250 is my max. i have a lot of lawyers for what i have that work at 250. i cap them every month. >> would you agree that if the two weather gentleman and his

firm were splitting fees in equal thirds, would you agree that he would benefit from the contract and also from the other first appearance contract? >> i would agree he would make money, yes. to make money as a benefit. >> just a thought, yeah. >> are you still with us on zoom? >> mr. mcdougall, questions? >> why don't you go ahead and make your way up? >> good afternoon, ms. willis, how are you? >> how are you, mr. mcdougall? i think this is our first in

personin-person meeting. >> i am referring now to exhibit number 21. >> yes, sir? >> your financial disclosure form for 2022. >> yes, sir. >> and it has a question which requires you to disclose any gifts or favors from a single prohibited source in the aggregate amount of $100 or more. do you see that? >> i don't, but i believe you. >> it would be paragraph 103. >> yes. >> and what is your understanding of a prohibited source for this form? >> i believe there is some classification. they give you $100.

>> all right, if you look under there, subparagraph two, it defines it as someone that you know or should know is seeking to do or is doing business with accounting, correct? >> yes, but -- >> that includes mr. wade as of the date that you filled out this form. >> yes, but he never gave me a gift of $100 or more. the only thing i would say that maybe went over that, but i don't think we did, but if we went to dinner, but i don't think i have ever eaten $100 worth of food at a restaurant because i would not pay him back if we went o to lunch or dinner. trips i paid him back for it. i never thought about the money until y'all brought it up. i was giving him the money back because i was the district