good day, i'm chris jansing, along with my colleague, katy tur. what a day it has been with tremendous legal and political consequences, two hearings, both with huge consequences, in fact, for donald trump and the november election. one of them's pretty cut and try. the basic question was when can we get this thing started? in new york, the judge was straightforward, no more delays. the former president's hush money trial set to go forward a mere 40 days from now. chris, the other one, which is happening as we speak in fulton county is not so cut and dry, very much the opposite. it's getting messy, playing out you could say like a tv drama or even a soap opera. the hearing will start again any moment now, and it's already been pretty contentious, some would say borderline salacious. >> we are waiting for dramatic testimony to continue from special prosecutor nathan wade.

he was forced to testify about his relationship with d.a. fani willis. before this break, wade was grilled on his travel with willis, their expenses, the nature of the time they spenting to spent together and specifically and very importantly when did their relationship began? >> when did your relationship with ms. willis begin? >> 2022. >> when in 2022? >> early 2022. >> so you were appointed in november of 2021? >> yes, ma'am. >> and your relationship started early, what's early? january? february? >> around march. >> around march. >> but you two met at an october 2019 judicial conference, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> that testimony directly contradicts earlier testimony from one of willis's former good friends who said the relationship began well before wade testified it did and predated his hearing by the d.a.

>> you have no doubt that their romantic relationship was in effect from 2019 until the last time you spoke with her? >> no doubt. >> did you observe them do things that are common among people having a romantic relationship? >> yes. >> such as, can you give us an example? >> hugging, kissing, just affection. >> all before november 1st of 2021, correct? >> yes. >> we are going to go right back into the courtroom in fulton county, judge mcafee is sitting once again, and we expect to continue to hear testimony from nathan wade who you just heard in those soundbites we played. let's dive back in. >> 15, 16, 17, and 18, those are documents i recognize. and i don't have any objection to those, they clearly came from fulton county.

exhibit 14 contains several items that did not come from fulton county. i'm handing it to ms. merchant to show that they're not in that group of -- >> i don't know, i got them from you -- >> i can't agree that the documents that are not in the certified bundle are properly admitted as part of the exhibit. >> ms. merchant, would you like to repackage and present to ms. cross defense exhibit 14. >> they're exactly what i got from the county attorney. apparently they didn't want to testify so they gave us a certification but didn't put these in. i got them from them. >> the documents -- the difference between the two document productions, what is the difference? >> bank records, credit card statements things like that that wouldn't ordinarily be part and course of the fulton county records. >> but i got them from the open records portal. i mean, that's -- >> no, i understand. >> but the difference in

production, ms. merchant, you've taken -- you've taken a look at them, and they're actually material to your case? >> yes. >> in what way? >> they're all of his invoices, judge, and he has like a -- it's just this is what i got from them. it's all of his invoices and one of the invoices is a reimbursement that he printed like for the reimbursement. i mean, i don't really care if they take a reimbursement out. they are actually already admitted in the other exhibit i did. >> i don't have any problems with the invoices. the invoices are contained in the certification. if we remove the items that are in dispute, then i don't have an objection. >> they're already in. >> so you're removing them? >> yeah, that's fine. you want to take them out? >> again, let's have opposing counsel look at a revised exhibit 14 and then i'll hear whether there's an objection. on

>> the revised exhibit no. 14 contains only the invoices that the submitted, then the state has no objection. >> we'll note exhibits 14 through 18 have been admitted for the record without objection. i think at this point it would be good to make sure we've got i

think 1 through 18 with the court reporter. >> others, but did you want me to get them to the witness? >> if he's done looking at them, let's just get them all compiled and organized with the court reporter in case other defense counsel are going to reference them. we just need to have 1 through 18 organized with the court reporter. >> oh, i'm sorry. >> so you want me to take all the exhibits back? >> i think we ought to do that. >> thank you. okay. >> all right. as ms. merchant is doing that, let me go down the list. mr. sadow. >> mr. honor, if the court will permit, mr. gillearn is going to ask some questions i was going to ask. i would like to just be able to follow up. >> to keep it consistent, i'll go in order. so mr. sadow is deferring, then

i'll go to mr. stocks. >> i'll defer. >> mr. durham from zoom. >> no, your honor. >> mr. mcdougal. >> i will defer to mr. gillon. >> all right, mr. rice. >> defer to mr. gillen. >> thank you, mr. gillen. >> thank you, your honor. >> good afternoon, mr. wade. >> good afternoon, sir, a few follow-up questions. i'd like to start off with the exhibit no. 4 that you should have up there. those are the interrogatories. >> no, sir. >> remember, i asked her to compile them all. so now you can grab them. >> they're right here.

>> yes, sir. >> okay, now, these are the interrogatories that you had filed on may the 30th, 2023, in your divorce case, correct? >> yes, sir. >> now, you went over in part some of those interrogatorinter. what i want you to do -- because i want to get down to the specific language to clear up exactly what the interrogatories ask for and exactly what you answered, okay? >> yes, sir. >> now, if we look on the interrogatory that i believe as we indicated, they're really, i think, on page 2. the one that starts off describe each instance in which you've had sexual relations. you see that one? >> yes, sir. >> now, that interrogatory begins, describe each instance in which you have had sexual relations with a person other than your spouse during the course of the marriage,

including the period of separation. you see that? >> yes, sir. >> now, these were filed on may the 30th, 2023, correct? >> yes, sir. >> now, at that time you had sexual relations with ms. willis, correct? >> your honor, i'm going to object to the question as phrased. the question is properly at that time certainly ask about his answer, but object to -- >> i'll ask you to rephrase, but i think you can make the same point. >> it's a specific interrogatory. so the words do matter, and i would like him to answer whether or not he had had sexual relations with ms. willis because if he answered yes then this interrogatory is a false interrogatory. i'm not here to jump into some salacious bedroom situation, but this is an interrogatory that matters. i would ask the court's

indulgence. >> ms. cross. >> these questions have been asked and answered several times. i understand mr. gillon is coming at it from a different way. this question is not substantively different than those that have been asked and answered and the information he is seeking. >> i'll allow maybe this question and one more, but i think you are asking it in a different way, and i'll ask you to stick to the point. >> all right. now, as of may the 30 -- may i ask the question that i -- okay. thank you, your honor. as of may the 30th, 2023, you had had sexual relations with ms. willis, isn't that correct? >> the interrogatory, sir, asks during the course of the marriage and through the period of separation. >> excuse me, your honor, i would ask that the court direct the witness to answer my question yes or no. as of may the 30th, 2023, had you had sexual relations with ms. willis, yes or no? >> mr. gillen, let's start with at the higher level whether he

believes he answer it had truthfully, and then we can drill down into why or why not he doesn't. and maybe we'll end up exactly where you left it. >> the point of it is that the words matter and we have to establish what did and did not happen, and then he can give whatever explanation he chooses to to what apparently is a false answer. i would like an answer to my question. >> and you may get one. i would like us start at a high level before we drill down into specifics to see whether he contradicted that interrogatory, if i'm making sense. >> well, the interrogatory is relatively direct and explicit. sexual relationship with a person other than your spouse during the course of the marriage including the period of separation. that's pretty simple. >> sure. let's see if that's something you can get him to admit. >> you did have sexual relationships with someone other than your spouse during the course of the marriage and during the period of separation which included up to may the 30th, 2023, isn't that correct,

sir? >> my answer to this interrogatory is none, is no. >> so you're saying that you did not have sexual relationships with anyone outside of your marriage in the period of separation is during the period and you're answering the question to this interrogatory, correct, sir? >> i'm saying during the course of my marriage, i did not have sexual relations to anyone and this answer's no. >> again, your honor. >> i understand, you can proceed mr. gillen. >> we need a yes or no. let's just get down to it. did you or did you not by may the 30th, 2023, have had sexual relations with ms. willis, yes or no? yes or no? >> yes. >> okay. >> now, what you did is you answered no to that question, didn't you, or none, correct? >> i didn't answer no to the question you just asked. i answered no to the interrogatory question. >> and the interrogatory stands that you answered as a pleading

in a civil proceeding in your divorce case, right? >> yes. >> now, excuse me the next interrogatory, let's move there, that interrogatory states as follows, identify any and all occasions in which you entertained a member of the opposite sex other than your spouse who is not related to you by blood or marriage. you see that? >> i do. >> now, there are two parts to this. the second part is i read on, or in which a member of the opposite sex other than your spouse not related to you by blood or marriage entertained you, and then it goes on to say including but not limited to dining, drinking, in restaurants, bars, pubs, hotels, you see that, correct? >> i do. >> now, as of may the 30th,

2023, when you filed this interrogatory, you had, in fact, entertained ms. willis on many occasions had you not? >> again, during the course of the marriage. the marriage was irretrievably broken in 2015. the answer's still no. >> let's read what the interrogatory toir says about the time period required to answer the interrogatory. what it says is -- it goes on to say, including but not limited to dining and/or drinking at any restaurants, bars, pubs, hotels, or persons homed from the date of marriage to the present. you understand what the word present means? >> i do. >> and present means the filing on may the 30th, 2023. isn't that right? >> it is. >> so as of may the 30th, 2023, you have done a lot -- or you had done a lot of entertaining of ms. willis had you not? >> i had done some, yes.

>> and in fact, under your testimony, you would have said that she had also entertained you. isn't that correct? >> yes. >> and so your answer to this interrogatory is false, is it not, sir? >> no, it's not false. >> well, i hate to dance around -- the answer is yes, you did entertain ms. willis, correct, right? >> yes. >> she's not your spouse at that time or at any time, correct? >> that's correct. >> she's not related to you by blood or marriage, correct? >> that's correct. >> but you entertained her, right? >> yes. >> and during the course -- from your marriage, the period of time up to the present, so the answer would have been, yes, i did entertain somebody, correct? >> during the course of the marriage, no. >> mr. wade -- >> mr. gillen, i think it speaks for itself and we can save that for argument. >> i'll just follow up with one quick question. >> you understand what the word

present means? >> that's been asked and answered. >> i think we did cover that already as well. >> now, what has happened from the time that you filed this court document in may of 2023, let's go over some of the things that you had been involved in in terms of being entertained or entertaining. prior to your filing on the answers on the interrogatories on may the 30th, 2023, we have already established, have we not, that you had paid for a royal caribbean cruise to the bahamas with ms. willis, correct? >> yes, sir, with ms. willis and my mother. >> well, your mother's not a part of this interrogatory. i'm talking about ms. willis, okay? so you paid and caused to be paid approximately $3,335 on

that trip, bahamas trip from october the 28th through october the 31st, correct? >> your honor, objection, i think we've tread this ground several times already. >> mr. gillen, let's cover new ground. >> i was just trying to establish with specificity the things that he had done to entertain or be entertained prior to may the 30th, 2023. i'll try to move through them quickly. >> that's already part of the record in terms of his prior testimony, if you want to link those two things together, you can do that during argument. >> let me discuss this, you indicated that during the course of your explanation concerning the police trip that ms. willis -- ms. willis paid you all that money back in cash. remember? >> yes, sir. >> now, the belize trip had just happened, hadn't it? that occurred march 18th, 2023, right? >> yes, sir.

>> so you're filing this maybe two months after you have gone to belize with ms. willis, correct? >> your honor, again, i believe all of this is already -- >> i think he might be getting somewhere new, we'll see. >> yes, sir. >> so we've got the trip and we've got the trip to belize on march the 18th, 2023. you and ms. willis, correct? >> yes, sir. >> now, two months later, you file the interrogatories that speak for themselves that we've gone over a few minutes ago, correct? >> yes, sir. >> now, the march the 18th, 2023, to state the obvious is before -- excuse me may the 30th, 2023. will you agree with me on that? >> i do! okay so then you tell us that ms. willis paid you in cash all the money for the entire trip. it was a gift for you for your birthday, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and i'm sure you probably have the deposit slips where you

took the cash and deposited the cash into your account, don't you? >> i do not deposit the cash in my account. >> you don't have a single solitary deposit slip that corroborate or support any of your allegations that you were paid by mrs. willis in cash, do you? >> no, sir. >> not a single solitary one? >> not a one. >> now, when ms. willis would pay you in cash, would you scamper down to the atm with her as she drew money out of your account to pay you these thousands of dollars. >> mr. gillen might scamper, but there's been no evidence that mr. wade does. object to the phrasing. >> on that issue overruled. >> did you and ms. wade scamper down to the atm machine and have her draw out, for example, on the belize trip just on your payment would have been $2,794? >> yeah, thank you --

>> ms. wade and i didn't go to belize. >> no, excuse me, ms. willis. i'm sorry. >> did you go down to the atm with ms. willis while she drew out $2,794 to pay you in cash? did you go to the atm with her? >> no, sir, she didn't go to the atm. she carried the cash. >> so she would give you the cash. do you have a little place in your house where you just stack up all this cash that you apparently got to repay you for these benefits that you bestowed on her? >> mr. gillen, if i answered that, i'm putting myself in jeopardy if i tell the world that i have cash someplace in my home, don't you think that could be problematic? >> no, i don't. i want an answer as to whether you have a little cash to your house where you have allegedly taken the money that you got from mrs. willis and put it somewhere? >> no, sir. >> just put it on the hip and kind of walk around money?

>> did i put it on my hip. >> just walking around money where you would spend the cash yourself? >> did i put it on my hip in belize and walk around with it? >> when you got paid back, would you take the money and cash she gave you and carry it around with you for spending money around town? >> so we have to break down each trip because, for example, for the cruise, she paid me the money before we took the cruise, so i was here and i could put the money in my pocket or put it away, whatever i wanted to do with it. other trips she would give me the money there, so at that point, i could either spend it or put it in my pocket or put it in the hotel safe. >> there's no special place that you would have all this cash that you would be getting from her that you told us about to pay back for the benefits you have bestowed on her? >> the only special place that that cash would have gone would have been to one of my children. >> okay, now, are you aware --

have you discussed these pleadings with ms. willis? >> no, sir. >> so there's been no discussion between you and ms. willis about the allegation concerning the benefits that you have bestowed on her? is that correct? >> i want to object to the phrasing, benefits you bestowed on. i don't believe that's an accurate reflection of the testimony. >> overruled, you can answer the question. >> okay, when you say proceedings are you talking about the divorce proceedings? because we were talking about the interrogatories, to that question the answer is no. >> go ahead. >> i'm sorry. go ahead with your answer, i'll hear the complete answer, and then i'll follow up. >> if you're asking me about this hearing, the proceedings of this hearing, have we discussed the financial piece based upon mr. roman's motion? yes. >> so you have discussed the financial piece. where did that discussion take

place? >> conference room. >> with were other people there or were you and ms. willis discussing this about what your position was going to be -- >> i don't see the relevance of this. >> mr. gillen. >> the relevance has to do with suddenly we have a declaration from mr. wade in this case where he says roughly equal and then shows one alleged payment by ms. willis. no mention of cash, none. i need to find out a little bit more about how suddenly we have this revelation about cash from the witness stand today. >> all right, overruled. >> so we part company there, when you say no mention of cash. if i provided one receipt that didn't amount to what you would think was roughly equal, the rest of it is cash.

>> well, did you in your declaration, sir, that was filed in this case, did you tell the court in that declaration that the expenditure that you had provided on behalf of ms. willis was paid for back by her in cash, yes or no? >> i believe that i did when i said that the expenses were split roughly evenly. >> if you could point to me anyplace in your affidavit where you use the word cash, i would appreciate it. >> i didn't use the word cash, no, sir. >> no, you didn't use the word cash, did you? >> but i didn't say that she didn't give it to me in cash. >> no, you just didn't tell anybody that you allegedly got paid back in cash, right? >> no, i told everyone who asked. >> today. >> yes, sir. >> now, who else was with you, was anyone else when you and ms.

willis were discussing how you would be handling the financial component of the motion here today, that is the personal benefits. >> objection to relevance, your honor. >> mr. gillen. >> the relevance is if they know that they're going to be called as witnesses that have been subpoenaed and they are discussing what they're going to say, we need to know that. the court needs to know that. it goes to the voracity of mr. willis and -- excuse me, ms. willis and mr. wade. >> overruled. >> we didn't discuss how we were going to handle testimony. >> my question was, when you were discussing with ms. willis in the conference room, when you were discussing what you perceived to be the situation concerning the benefits for the payments. >> yes, sir. >> was there anyone else present? >> no, sir. >> how long did the meeting take? >> probably five or ten minutes. >> did ms. willis tell you what

she was going to say? >> no, sir. >> did you ask her whether she had any bank withdrawals that would corroborate the assertion that she would pay you back in large sums of cash for these trips to the caribbean, belize, california, on and on and on. >> your honor, again, i object, the proffer was that mr. gillen needed to know who else was there. that question has been answered. >> okay. i think it's still exploring possible bias or motive to shape his testimony. so overrule on that ground. >> thank you. now, mr. willis -- excuse me, mr. wade, when you were having this discussion, did you ask her -- did you ask ms. willis do you have anything to support these cash withdrawals? >> no, sir. >> did you ask her where she got the cash? >> this is the conversation.

i produced my credit card statement that showed what ms. merchant in her filing was representing. that was the conversation. >> okay. so when she would pay you back in cash, were you aware of what her financial situation was? do you know what- >> no, sir. >> your honor, i object to the relevance. >> well, your honor, it's relevant because we have been bombarded with a book find me the votes in which -- >> what's at issue is the financial benefit and if that plays a material interest in an actual conflict of interest, so i think that's relevant. >> now, have you read the book "find me the votes"? >> i have. >> you have? >> i have. >> okay. now, in that book, ms. willis is telling the authors about how

financially destitute she was or kind of hitting down on the bottom as she was running for d.a. do you remember that part of the book? >> so let me qualify the response. i've read the book in parts. i haven't -- i hadn't had the time to sit and read the book in its entirety. >> did you read that part about how she's telling the authors about how little money she had and how financially she was in bad shape prior to when she was running? did you read that part? >> no, sir. >> did you ever have discussions with ms. willis about her financial situation, which was -- which was apparently in rough shape prior to her being elected d.a.? >> no, ms. willis made it clear that her financial business was just that it was her business. i know nothing about her financial status.

i know nothing about how she was faring before or after the election or even now. i know nothing about her finances. >> you're telling us that she didn't share that with you, but chose to share it with the authors of a book that's been published and printed and sold nationally. >> it's a fair question for cross. >> i don't know that she shared it with the author. i don't know that the author was telling the truth. i don't know the author so i don't know, sir. >> now, did you give an interview to the authors of that book? >> i've given no interviews, sir. >> so you haven't talked to them at all? >> i haven't talked to any media, none. >> all right. now, as it relates to the -- >> i'd like to, though. >> as it relates to, again, from your bank records that you're aware of, there will be no cash deposits, right? >> i didn't say that.

>> are there cash deposits which line up with the money that you have allegedly received from ms. willis to, quote, pay you back for her part of the trips? >> so here's the thing, in my bank records you will see cash deposits. you will see check deposits. i can't say that you look through the bank records and you won't see cash deposits. i have two sources of income, sir. income comes from my private practice, my firm, and income comes from the contract here with fulton county. during the course of private practice occasionally i will have occasion to deposit cash into my account. >> and in preparation for this hearing and your testimony, did you go through your bank records to find out if you could locate any cash deposits that would

corroborate your testimony? >> no, sir, i didn't go through my bank records at all. >> now, so what you would do, the money that you received or the money that you receive from your work for fulton county, that's public funds, correct? >> no, sir, that's private funds. >> public funds pay you to do work for fulton county, correct? >> tell me what the definition of a public fund is. >> a public fund would be your funds as in not funds, but funds money. public money as in money from taxpayers in fulton county or the state of georgia pay you to do the work that you're doing here in this case, yes or no? >> one or the other i'm certain. >> do you know which one? >> i don't know which one, no, sir. >> now, those -- you would take those public funds and those public funds are then used to deposit into your account, and

they were then used to pay on the credit cards for the trips that you would take with ms. willis, correct? >> i object to the question inso was the occasion of public funds. the witness didn't testimony to that. it's private funds. >> the point of it is you got money -- >> mr. gillen, rephrase. >> let's break it down. you got money from fulton county for the work that you do here, right? >> yes, sir. >> you would send in invoices and they would pay you money, correct? >> yes, sir. >> private money, that money was money from either the citizens of fulton county or from the state of georgia, correct? that's what i mean by public funds, agree? >> i guess i'm having trouble with the notion that the citizens of fulton county have paid me any funds. i'm not certain the funding

source. i can tell you that either the state of georgia or fulton county has written me a check. >> so that would be those two entities are public entities, correct? >> yes. >> that would be public funds, right? right? >> yes. and that -- those public funds are from the same source that you would then use to pay out on your -- on your expenses for the trips that you took ms. willis on, correct? >> no, sir. as i testified to moments ago, i have income coming in from my law firm. i also have income coming in from the funds that we're here discussing now from either the state of georgia or fulton county and/or both. i'm not certain what it is. so to say -- so to say that -- >> sorry, i didn't mean to cut

you off. go ahead. >> so to say that i'm paying a credit card statement with funds coming from fulton county or the state of georgia would not be an accurate statement because the funds could have very well come from my private practice. >> what percentage of your income in 2022 came from money for your working on this case or from your partners working for the fulton county office? >> in 2022, i would say 50/50. >> you think 50/50 in 2022? >> yes, sir. >> what about 2023? >> probably 60/40. >> 60/40. >> yes, sir. >> so the money that would be in those accounts, at least 60% of those in your view would be public funds, that those moneys were then used to pay for the expenses that you had incurred for the trips that you took ms. willis on, the cruises, the napa

valleys, the bahamas, correct? right? >> yes, sir. >> and now what you did is that when you signed on november 1st of 2021, that's when you signed on to be counsel for the anticorruption matters, right? >> yes, sir. now, as you know, in your engagement letter, it doesn't say that you're signing on in your scope of work is to work on the trump special grand jury investigation, does it? >> no, sir. >> it says that you're signing on to work on anticorruption -- the anticorruption unit matters, correct? >> yes, sir. >> matters with a plural, correct? >> yes, sir. so in your contract there is no

specific reference to any specific case. isn't that right? >> that's correct. >> okay. now -- but you didn't sign on for the duration, there was a period, you have a contract and then it would then expire, and then you would have a new contract, correct? >> yes, sir. >> now, of course the extension that you receive -- the first one was in november of 2021, and then you filed -- or excuse me, there was a renewal in november the 15th of 2022. is that right? >> sounds right. >> okay. now, that was right after you got re-upped by ms. willis right after you took ms. willis to aruba. isn't that right, on that november the 1st, 2022, trip to

aruba and through november the 4th, 2022, correct? >> what does re-up mean? >> well, re-up means that you came back. your contract was up, and then on november the 15th, you and ms. willis signed a new contract for you, right? >> yes, sir. >> okay. now, when you were in taking her to aruba and on the cruises, and excuse me, the resort there, did you discuss your re-upping of signing an extension on your contract? >> no, sir. but you make an excellent point. i'm glad you pointed that out. so the trip to aruba, the contract was not in existence then. >> you're saying -- so you're saying that you were not -- >> under contract. >> in your contract, did you send any invoices in for work that you did after your contract -- your first contract

expired? >> no, sir. >> you didn't? >> no, sir. >> when that expired, that was it? so and then you're saying that after the aruba trip, you get re-upped with a new contract, correct? >> i signed a new contract, yes, sir. >> now, was there any modifications on that contract? did you get an extension on the cap that you were limited on the first one? were there any modifications at all, mr. willis? excuse me, i've done that again, i apologize. >> i've been called worse. >> i'm sorry. i've been called worse. >> now, were there any modifications on that? >> do you have the contracts in front of you where you could -- >> i don't have it in front of me but i think ms. merchant -- >> because i believe -- as the work gradually -- as the time of the work gradually increased, the hourly cap would increase.

in other words, starting out, starting out the investigation, it was impossible to anticipate the level of cooperation from -- during the course of the investigation from some of the witnesses, so if you assume that there would be great cooperation with the witnesses in terms of interviewing and speaking and voluntarily speaking with you, it doesn't take as much time. so after getting into it realizing that most of the witnesses were not willing to speak or willing to turn over evidence or information quickly you figure out that this is going to take a little more time than originally anticipated. and because of that, you have to compensate for those hours. >> that's why there was a compensation on your extension?

>> yes, sir, the caps. >> a cap. now, if mrs. willis -- excuse me, did ms. willis review your invoices with you when you would submit them? >> never. >> did anyone ever question whether or not you work 24 hours in one day and billed 24 hours in one day. >> i've never worked 24 hours in one day and billed 24 hours in one day. i'm glad you asked me that question because i'd like the opportunity to talk about that. >> i think you should, go ahead. >> so if you look at that invoice where it says 24 hours in one day, it actually doesn't say one day. if you look at the top of the invoice, it says date completed. the date that's reflected on that invoice reflects the date that the work was completed. it doesn't say when it started. it just says this is the date that it's completed. so if you go through the invoices probably around the first five or six, you'll see that that's the billing format. i would bill only after that

particular task has been completed. that's why you see a 24-hour period with the one day there. i kind of wish some of the experts who had opined on that had called me and asked me the question, but there was never a billing of 24 hours in one day. now, probably around the sixth or seventh invoice, you see the format change. i started using a range so that it got less confusing, right? >> i'm confused, so maybe you can correct it for me. >> okay. >> exhibit 14, you've got down a specific day. >> mm-hmm. >> prepared cases for pretrial. november the 5th, 2021, 24 hours at $250 an hour, 6,000. this wasn't about -- this wasn't about a range, it was about the work that you did on november

the 5th, 2021. >> mr. gillen, look at the top of the invoice where it says date completed. >> what i want you to do, mr. wade is focus on the date that you have down there and tell the court what you billed for on november the 5th, 2021. i thought it was already in. >> 14 is in. >> again, mr. gillen. it says completed date, date completed. the dates that you see here are the dates that that work was completed. so on november the 5th, i completed the task of preparing the cases for pretrial. that's the date i completed it. >> just read to me -- just read, if you would, my question was read out loud the entry for november the 5th, 2021, and how many hours you billed that day. just do that for me, if you

would. >> your honor -- >> i can't do that. >> excuse me, i believe the witness is entitled to answer his question. that certainly wasn't the question that mr. gillen asked him. >> the question now is to read a certain entry. >> just read into the record, mr. wade on november the 5th, 2021, how many hours did you bill the citizens of fulton county for on that day? just read it out please. >> i completed the task on november 5th, 2021, 24 hours was billed at $250. >> now, when you talked about your relationship with ms. willis and your testimony is

that it began in 2022, you remember that testimony? >> no, sir. our relationship began in 2019. >> your romantic relationship began in 2022, that's your testimony? >> yes, sir. >> okay. now, when you were re-upped on this contract, you had a romantic relationship already established with ms. willis, yes or no? >> in 2022? >> you were re-upped on november the 15, 2022. you had a romantic relationship with ms. willis? >> i signed the second contract, yes, sir. >> answer my question, please. on -- >> i'm not going to use the words re-upped. >> re-up or whatever you want to call it, your contract on november the 15th, 2022, you had a romantic relationship already existing with ms. willis, yes or no? >> i signed the contract, the

second contract, yes, sir, during the course of a romantic relationship. >> yes or no, you had a romantic relationship with her at the time you signed the extension on november the 15, 2022, yes or no? >> the answer to that question is yes. >> thank you. >> now, this was before the special purpose grand jury released any -- a report, isn't that correct? correct? >> are you asking me if it's before the work was completed or before the special purpose grand jury actually released, publicly released the report? >> your relationship with ms. willis already existed when the special purpose grand jury released its report, correct? >> at the time the report was released, yes, sir, but you understand that the report -- the work had been completed

prior to the release of the report, you understand that? >> and your relationship with ms. willis, of course, was prior to the indictment in this case, correct? >> yes, sir. >> your honor, if i may just ask my folks over here whether there's anything i need to clean up on. >> that's all the questions i have, your honor, thank you. >> your honor, i do have questions. >> i think we went through. >> i had asked your permission, hoefs going to go first on this and i was going to follow up, allow him to go first. that's what i thought i had asked. >> with the understanding next time we're going to keep going in order and not skip around the order. >> yes, that's why i brought it up because i thought that's

what -- >> okay. all right. >> mr. sadow. >> i'm going to try to keep my questions very specific. >> okay? >> yes, sir. and i'm going to also, of course, try not to go back into specific questions that have already been asked, okay? >> yes, sir. >> when did your relationship with ms. willis end? >> 2023. >> can you give us an approximation not by date but by month. >> summer of 2023, forgive me, i'm a man, we don't do the date thing. summer of 2023, i would say june

maybe. >> okay, using the euphemism personal relationship, did you have any personal relationship at all with ms. willis after the summer of 2023. >> i want to make sure i'm answering your question. >> let me rephrase if i might. the way it has been characterized in, for example, the response of the state, and i believe in your affidavit, is there's a difference between a personal relationship and a professional relationship. correct? >> yes, sir. >> okay. i'm not talking about a professional relationship. i'm talking about personal relationship. have you had a personal relationship at all -- and you know what i mean by that -- after the summer of 2023? >> are you asking me if i had intercourse with the district attorney? >> i was trying not to, but i guess the -- if you're going to characterize it as that, the answer would be? >> the answer would be no.

>> so it's been purely professional since the summer of 2023? >> so that's where we're having issues. >> you'll have to explain because i don't know what the issue would be. >> no, i will explain to you. >> thank you. >> you say personal. we're very good friends, probably closer than ever because of these attacks, but if you're asking me about specific intercourse, the answer is no. >> how about if i change it from intercourse to romantic? >> no. >> okay. >> during the direct examination you made a statement -- at least i believe i heard it that characterized the sexual romantic relationship was not a secret. is that correct? >> wait, if you're asking me if people knew that we were having

sex, no, they didn't. >> i'm asking you whether people knew that you were dating, whether you were romantically involved. you said that it was not a secret. >> it wasn't a secret. it was just private. my mother knew, obviously. >> did anyone in the district attorney's office that has worked on this case know that you were dating or had a romantic relationship with district attorney willis? >> i don't know what they knew. >> well, did you tell anyone -- >> no. >> do you have any knowledge of whether ms. willis revealed it to anyone? >> i have no clue. >> so as far as you know from personal knowledge, no one in the d.a.'s team knew, correct? >> that's correct. >> okay. so if it was a legitimate relationship, is there any particular reason why it was kept secret or private? >> it wasn't kept secret, it was kept private. >> and the purpose for that was? >> that's what we chose to do. >> i'm asking you why. not just because you chose.

if you're dating someone, why keep it private? >> a few reasons. the first one is, and i want to say this respectfully in the right way, there are some people who are in the public eye who just don't like it, don't wish to be there. i have tried to have lunch or dinner with her publicly, and i can't count the number of people that would approach the table or would accost us as we were trying to walk into a restaurant and just have lunch or have a meal. it is not secret. it is private. we don't want the world, the world, asking questions or interrupting that time. so we weren't trying to keep anything a secret, mr. saddow, there's nothing secret or

salacious about having a private life, nothing. >> i'm not suggesting that there was. i'm asking questions. when you went on the various trips that have been outlined by mr. gillem, and by ms. merchant, did anyone in the district attorney's office know that the two of you were traveling on personal trips together? >> to my knowledge, mr. saddow now. >> and that was for privacy, according to your testimony. >> privacy, yes, sir. >> okay. did you and ms. willis go to the hapeville condo prior to your relationship starting the beginning of 2022? >> prior to having physical contact, prior to having intercourse, did we got to the condo? >> you keep going to intercourse, i'm trying not to,

fine. but the question would be yes. did you and ms. willis go to the hapeville condo, prior to to november 1st of 2021. >> yes. >> and the purpose for going to the hapeville condo with ms. willis prior to november 1 of 2021 would have been what? >> could have been any number of things. >> that's what i'm asking. so tell me. >> yeah, could have been any number of things because at that time, she had a friend living in that condo, ms. yeartie lived in that condo. >> okay. maybe my question was poorly worded. let me try again. your answer is, yes, prior to november 1st of 2021, you would have gone to the hapeville condo and been there with ms. you woue as indicated for many reasons,

right? >> yes. just list a few of the reasons. >> ms. yeartie resided there, went to visit her, maybe went to talk about a document that i received. >> you would go to the condo to talk about a document that you received? >> absolutely. >> okay. go ahead. >> absolutely. any other reasons? >> none come to mind. >> none come to mind? >> no, sir. >> and would you say that it was frequent. when i say frequent, do you think prior to november 1st of 2021, you were at the condo more than ten times? >> no, sir. >> so it would be less than ten times. >> yes, sir. >> so if phone records were to reflect that you were making phone calls from the same location as the condo, before november 1st of 2021, and it was on multiple occasions, the phone records would be wrong. >> if phone records reflected that, yes, sir. >> they would be wrong? >> they would be wrong. >> yes, sir. >> where did you live during that time period? >> same place i live now.

>> which is not in hapeville. >> it is north of atlanta, the city of atlanta. correct? >> any other reasons you would be in the hapeville area prior to november 1st of 2021? >> let's see, the porsche experience is there. >> i'm sorry? >> the porsche experience is there. >> so that would have been one. >> any other reason? >> yes, sir. the airport is there. >> hapeville. >> yes, sir, delta air lines is headquartered there. let's see. restaurants there. >> okay. >> if that's your recollection, that's fine. i'm not asking you to try to remember everything.

>> okay. did you discuss your affidavit filed in connection with the response with ms. willis? >> no, sir. >> did you know personal knowledge, whether ms. willis reviewed your affidavit before it was included with the response? >> i have no clue. >> so as far as you know, personal knowledge, ms. willis did not know what you said in the affidavit? >> i didn't give it to her. >> that's what i said, you have no personal knowledge. >> no personal knowledge. >> as far as you know, no one else has told you if you didn't or didn't. >> i hadn't asked anyone. >> we have kind of worked this up a little bit, and the numbers could be off, but according to our numbers, $10,000, give or take would have been reflected on your credit card statement in connection with things, potential benefit to ms. willis, okay?

i want you just to assume that. assuming that there was $10,000 that you had on your credit cards, is it your testimony that ms. willis paid you back $10,000 in cash? >> can i object, the characterization of $10,000 for ms. willis's travel i don't believe is an accurate question of what the numbers, at least the summary i have been provided by the defense. i think that's joint travel. is that right, mr. saddow? >> i'll rephrased, i don't want to get bogged down on specific numbers. you would have received thousands of dollars in cash from ms. willis, correct? >> yes, sir. and the thousands of dollars in cash from ms. willis, do you know, i'm not asking you whether she took it out of her pocketbook or took it out of a suitcase. i'm saying, do you know the source of the cash?

>> just that, out of her pocketbook. >> you don't know where she obtained the cash. >> i didn't ask her. >> and the whole time that she was paying you in cash, you never said, hey, why do you have this amount of cash? >> mr. saddow in my practice, people come into my law firm all the time with cash. i don't question where they got it. >> we're talking about the district attorney of fulton county who i'm assuming receives a paycheck. she doesn't get paid in cash. >> just like you assume, i assume she got it from her paycheck. i don't know. >> but of course it's already been -- and i'm not going to go to go back into it, you have not seen any records indicating withdrawals of cash from ms. willis. >> why would i ask her? no, sir. >> all i said is you haven't, right? >> no, sir. >> now, can you explain why you filed for divorce one day after you were hired by ms. willis?

you filed on november 2nd of 2021, you're hired on november 1st of 2021, why the day after? >> you mean one day before. >> you filed for divorce one day after you were hired, right? >> okay. i'll answer your question. >> okay. please. >> so in 2015, when my wife had the affair, we had a conversation that we would divorce right then. again, the better practice at least for my children at the time was to stay in place until the youngest could graduate and matriculate into college. we did that. when she graduated, matriculated into college, at the time my wife had moved back and forth to houston, to texas. so she's in texas. we took our child off to

college. we come back to georgia for a brief period of time, divorce gets filed, she gets served. there we go. now, the reason that date was selected. >> yes, sir, that's what i asked. >> the specific reason that that specific date was selected was because she was only in town for a brief -- >> your honor, this is attorney/client privilege, why he decided to file -- >> and why do you have the right to object on her behalf for attorney/client privilege? >> because. >> all right. there we go. and i believe that 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, and i'll deal with that if you want me to. otherwise, he's already answered part of it. he doesn't get to say, now i'm going to stop. >> well, it was a long preface,

i don't think it ever actually got to what might have been at issue there. if you can lay the foundation, we'll deal with the objection. >> okay. >> take a step back, okay. >> you realize that an attorney/client privilege is the privilege of the client, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and you in connection with your representation, at least as it's been proffered to the court by mr. bradley, 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 general privilege, do you not. >> i believe that's an inappropriate question, privilege is there. >> whether he uses it or not, it doesn't matter why. if we're 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 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 to november 2nd the day after you were hired by ms. willis to file for divorce? >> i can. so again, she had relocated to texas, and she had been in texas for months. she was only here for a brief period of time drive my

daughter's car back. >> to file the claim for the divorce on november 2nd, 2021, your testimony under oath is because your wife was here. >> was here. >> but had not been here in october, and had not been here in september, and not been here in august of 2021. >> she had been in texas taking care of her ailing mother, and her ageing father, so the first opportunity that 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. >> and understand, this was by agreement between she and i, my wife and i. we were divorced when the children matriculated out and that actually had 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's when the privilege kicked 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 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're pretty far beyond relevance, in answer to the question about the timing

of the divorce filing. >> where are we going from here? >> we're about to finish this area. since i'm not going to be able to go further. if we want to call the ex, we'll call the ex for that purpose. >> we'll have to discuss the collateral issue all together. >> i said if. i didn't say we will. all right. so you say that you were aware of the contracts that ms. 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. >> conversation with who? >> mr. bradley and mr. campbell. >> so you were discussing with mr. bradley that were not related to attorney/client privilege, correct? >> related to the contract, yes. >> 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? >> is that the date of his contract? >> pretty close. i don't know what the date of his contract was. if it was after the date of the filing of divorce, then yeah. >> i'm not talking about after the date of the filing of divorce. it's been represented to the court that you had an attorney/client relationship with mr. bradley from 2015 forward, correct? >> yes, sir, 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. at the time that mr. bradley was doing work for fulton county, if i understand, you had an attorney/client privilege, at

least you're claiming one with mr. bradley, correct? >> yes. >> so when you talk with mr. bradley about matters of his contract in fulton county, those were not covered by your attorney/client privilege, correct? >> they were not. >> and that meant that not all communications with mr. bradley were covered by attorney/client privilege, correct? >> those certainly weren't. >> my question was, not all communications with mr. bradley were covered by at least as you have 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're asking if i ever communicated with him outside of the attorney/client privilege, the answer is yes, i communicated with him outside of attorney/client privilege. >> okay. let's finish this up.

and did you call roman number 4 or just defense. >> defense. >> in defense exhibit number 4, mr. gillem went over responses to certain interrogatories on may 30th, 2023, do you remember that? >> yes, sir. >> not going back into those, the words in the interrogatories are already in evidence. we're not going to do that. but the ones that we've gone into, there were two of them, and your answer to both of those was none, correct? >> yes, sir. >> okay. now, on january 25th of 2024. >> yes, sir. >> you again were in a position that you answered those same interrogatories, the two that we're talking about, can get specific if we need to. as long as we understand we're talking about the same two, right?

>> yes, sir. >> and they are in defense exhibit number 6 and they are interrogatories number 4 and number 5. >> okay. go ahead. >> i want you to be able to see it. it's a defense exhibit number 6. >> do you have 6 up there? i'm told that you have 6. >> okay. okay. here we are. you would agree with me that in defense exhibit number 6 and we're talking about interrogatories of january 25, 2024. >> yes, sir. >> that as to interrogatory number 4, that's the same

interrogatory, same words that were in the interrogatory that mr. gillem 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 his privilege pursuant to ocga section 24-5-500, correct? >> yes, sir. >> do you know that 24-5-505 breaks down into two privileges, right? >> which is why i was specific. i said i asserted the privacy privilege. >> well, that's what i'm asking you. in your updated response, there's no reference to privacy, correct? >> yes, there is in the code section, 24-5-505, references privacy.

>> go with me, okay. that code section says, does it not, no party or witness shall be required to testify as to any matter which may incriminate or intend to incriminate such party or witness or which shall tend to bring infamy, disgrace or public contempt on such party or witness. you'd agree with that, right? >> i'm sorry. >> i'm not reading it. i don't have it in front of me. >> if i may, mr. sadow, i can take judicial notice if you want to ask him any follow up questions. >> thank you. you are not claiming that your answer to number 4, interrogatory number 4 on january 25th, 2024, incriminates you, that is as in fifth amendment privilege, right? >> that's correct. >> you're claiming the second part, that it would bring

infamy, displace or public intent, correct? >> also the witness doesn't have it in front of him, i don't know how he could respond to that. >> overruled. >> i'm claiming privacy. >> the privilege that you make reference to is 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. >> i could show you. i think the court has already indicated he can take judicial notice of the statute. assume that what i'm telling you is accurate, okay. >> yes, sir. >> how would an answer of none bring infamy, disgrace or public contempt upon you? >> as i explained, indirect 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 of the attorneys in the election interference case were colluding with joyce lynn'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? >> i'm going to object to the relevance of this. it's been asked and answered several times. >> mr. sadow, where are we heading with this? >> i think i can finish it up by saying, you didn't say none again. you asserted a privilege, correct? >> that's correct. >> okay. 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, do you have it in 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. that's the answer. >> i'm asking you now, is the answer to that interrogatory none. >> the answer is still privileged. >> so he's apparently electing to apply the same privilege, mr. sadow, to that exact question. >> we can get beyond that if the court deems that appropriate. >> to what end? >> that the privilege actually does not apply, and he must answer the question. >> and where does that get us. even if he answers the question, hasn't he already said everything he has to say about the nature of the relationship, how long it lasted, when it ended. >> i think if he is forced or compelled to answer the question, he will answer it falsely by saying none or answer

truthfully and saying yes, and telling us what it is. that's what i believe. that's why i'm asking. >> the interrogatory you're referring to, the question contained there. >> two interrogatories yes, sir. >> the entertaining one, whether there were other relationships, right? >> with the specific language that's in the interrogatories. >> sure. >> haven't we already covered that in the other questions we've had so far? >> we have, but, again, the court could -- if i could require a compel answer from him as to whether his answer would 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 that he was not. it simply requires him to now answer under oath what he refused to answer and claim that 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. >> ms. cross. >> your honor, several hours, it's been asked and answered very personal questions. we covered the issues. mr. sadow is making an argument, improperly an argument to make later to the court and not a question. >> so as i see it, the only relevance these interrogatories have to this case really whatsoever would be as either prior consistent or inconsistent statements, and to that 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're arguing late, and i don't see the value in pushing this issue further. so. >> 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 be 590, in which they talk about this specific privilege. this is a 2013 case, and then a 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 bringing. >> i see what you're saying, we could say you need to answer the question regardless of the privilege. we've covered that ground. and we can move on. >> based on that, i have nothing else. thank you. >> mr. mccullen, anything on behalf of mr. floyd? >> moving to defense counsel. on behalf of mr. floyd, he's elbowing you, sir. mr. cromwell. >> nothing, your honor. >> all right. ms. cross.

>> thank you, your honor. >> mr. wade, have you still got exhibit number 14 in front of you? the invoices. >> 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 special 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 of 2021 to let's say the close of

the special purpose grand jury when it was dissolved in january 2023. you estimate for us the percentage of your time that was spent on fulton county work versus other work. >> oh, gosh. 99/1. 99% of the time here in this building working on this case. >> 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 district attorney's office? >> i was. >> you were coordinating the efforts. >> yes, ma'am. >> and those efforts included not just the proceedings that were happening in this building, correct? >> that's correct. >> we don't need to go all through it, is your representation that 99.9% of the time is restricted to 2022, 99% of your professional working time was devoted to this case?

>> yes, ma'am. >> and the remainder, whatever it was, was to some of your other cases that were ongoing. >> yes, ma'am. >> 2022, i want to focus on that a little bit because if we were looking at, i believe, the financial affidavits, do 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 estimated your monthly income at that time was $14,000 a month, right? >> in '22? >> january '22. >> yes, ma'am. >> january '23, what did that number come to? >> 9,000. >> what about 2024? >> i don't know. >> is that there in front of you? that's not one of the ones that's there in front of you? >> no, ma'am. >> as reflected in the financial affidavits, your income

decreased as a result of your work in this case, correct? >> significantly. >> the structure of your firm, 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 kind of monthly caps, we didn't talk

about it, there was talk about the monthly cap that was included in your contracts indicating there was a certain threshold that you could reach a number of hours a month, and over that amount, you were not going to be compensated, is that correct? >> correct. >> that's a little bittersweet there, 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. that's a collection of exhibits that includes all of your invoices, as is represented. i want you to take a look at invoice number 9. >> yes, ma'am. >> is that there in front of you? >> i have it. >> invoice number 9, mr. wade, indicates that you performed hours of work that you were not compensated for because your cap had been reached. >> yes, ma'am. >> and what did you do in those circumstances when the hours that 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. >> okay. and that's what exhibit number 9 shows? >> yes, ma'am. >> and in exhibit 9, you have hours that were completed. you didn't bill for it. you noted the time and didn't bill the county for that time. >> yes, ma'am. >> what about invoice 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 couldn't get paid for t. so. >> and you worked those hours anyway, mr. wade? >> absolutely. this is not the type of job that you can walk away from just because you're not getting paid for it. i think there's some professional rules of

responsibility to an attorney who's 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, the 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 that reflects the same situation? >> are you trying to depress me looking at the money. >> no, i'm sorry. yes. >> okay. and there's no work around to that. you didn't attempt to work around that contractual 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? do you recall those questions? >> i'm sorry. i'm stuck on this invoice. you know, if i were going to get a benefit, i would like that benefit. 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 or anything. >> no, ma'am. >> 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. >> 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. at 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 for 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. >> your conversation was you produced the receipt. >> yes, ma'am. >> were you aware of any other -- >> i'm going to mark this as state's exhibit 1. you testified mr. willis purchased and funded the trip to beliz. that was her treat for your birthday. >> yes, ma'am. >> you testified she purchased the plane tickets for you? >> yes, ma'am. >> you may not have had the receipts on hand when you filled out the affidavit because they weren't from your possession,

are you aware there are receipts that it reflects that the district attorney -- >> do you remember, mr. wade, approximately how much the flight was for you, your flight to belize? >> i'll just ask you to take a look at that, if it refreshes your recollection as to the amount the plane ticket costs. it was extended by district attorney. by district attorney 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? >> $887.35. >> and i will leave it with the court reporter for her 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 sometime in early 2022, march i think was your testimony?

>> yes, ma'am. >> 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. >> all right. mr. wade, i'm sorry, i'm going to 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. in 2020, and a portion of '21, i was battling cancer. and that prevented me from pretty much leaving environments

that aren't sterile. i had health on my mind. >> you were particularly cautious during that time. >> yes, ma'am. >> were you dating anyone in 2021. >> no, ma'am. >> all right. thank you, mr. wade. that's all i have. >> cross on those points? >> yes. thank you. >> all right. mr. wade, the state asked you about how much money you're making now versus before, and you said you're making significantly less since you've started working with fulton county, correct? >> well, i did say that, but what we're talking about is because now at this point, the splitting of the financial obligations in the firm, now there are two people carrying the weight of three. so that would scale back on the amount of income, right. >> you're splitting the profits 50/50, instead of one-third,

correct? >> the profits, yes. >> so you did testify that you were making significantly less now, we heard about it for a few minutes. significantly less now that you work for fulton county, correct? >> 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 a two-way partner with campbell, all of your corporate tax returns are filed in the law firm of nathan wade. >> my returns, yes. >> for your 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 about bring home money, though, i'm not sure what you're talking about. >> i'm talking about, your question was the portion of my testimony dealing with earning significantly less money. >> my question is during -- and i'll just break it down. during 2019, you filed your business returns, i'm not talking about your personal. your business returns with 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're going. there's a different return for the wade bradley campbell entity. >> i'm not asking about that. 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. >> does that sound 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, yes, ma'am, you're right. >> i'm happy, i can bring that up. i'm not planning on introducing tax returns. may i approach. >> yes. >> thank you. so in 2019, gross profit for the law firm of nathan wade is $184,000, correct? >> let's see. it's the second line number gross profit. >> yes, ma'am, 184,824. >> in 2020, you also filed nathan wade, attorney at law, and gross profit was $230,000, correct? >> yes, ma'am.

>> in 2021, you also filed as a solo nation wade pc attorney at law, gross profit was $236,000, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and then in 2022, you filed as a solo practitioner, nathan wade, and your gross income was $262,000, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> i'm not going to -- nowhere did you document you received cash payments from ms. willis, correct? >> i hadn't looked through them. i would be surprised if there were something in there that said that. >> do you want to look through them? >> listen to the answer. i said i would be surprised if there was something in there that said i received cash from ms. willis. >> there's itemized expenditures for travel in here, you did itemize that. >> i didn't itemize anything. my accountant itemized it. >> i hope so. >> you're responsible for your

taxes even if your accountant files them. >> i agree. >> you itemized your expenses for travel but you didn't put anything in there about you being reimbursed for half of the travel? >> those are business returns. >> yes. >> you use your business card to pay for the travel, right? >> i wouldn't put a personal expense on a business return. >> but you used a business card to pay for these personal travels? >> i used a business card to pay for everything and what i do is turn over the statement to the accountant, and the accountant then says, okay, this expense, that's personal, we'll put that over here. this expense, that's business, we'll put that over here. and they reconcile it. so you wouldn't find a reimbursement from ms. willis on a business return. >> okay. so they're not anywhere there. >> nor would you find, well, go ahead. >> i'm just asking, so there's nowhere for any of that cash to be reconciled there. >> on the business returns, no,

ma'am. >> okay. we talked about the financial affidavits, i know the state asked you a couple of questions about them. you filed one in 2022, and that one you stated that you only have $5,000 in cash, correct? >> i believe you, yes, ma'am. >> that was sworn under oath. >> at the time of the filing, yes, ma'am. >> okay. and then in january of 2024, you filed another one that also swore you only have $5,000 in cash, correct? >> at the time of the filing, yes, ma'am. >> in 2022 and 2024, you only had $5,000 in cash. >> at that time, yes, ma'am. >> and then you also, all of those interrogatories, i'm not going to go through them in pain staking detail, every single interrogatory you filed, four of them, all verified ones, every single one, you didn't have cash stored in a safety deposit box or other location, plaintiff rarely carries cash. if plaintiff does carry cash, it's a nominal amount. >> that's correct. >> so we've got what, 2021, you said you don't have cash, 2023, you said you don't have cash. again in 2022, you say you don't

have cash, and 2024, you don't have cash. >> you're assuming that i received the cash and i stored it. i received the cash and i saved it. what's wrong with receiving the cash, ms. merchant and spending it. >> nothing is wrong with it. >> that would contemplate why the response is what it is on the interrogatories. >> that you spent the cash. before when it was asked, you said you didn't want to disclose where the cash was for privacy reasons. >> i said that 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. because that's not the truth. >> and you've talked a lot about this i split with a third, i split with half. from the check you received from fulton county, july 15th, 2022, all the way back for july 2022, not a single check that you've

received from fulton county has gone into a joint bank account. every single check has gone into your own personal bank account. >> all of them with the exception of the checks that were going into the wbc firm went into my business bank account which is solely in my name. >> right. your wbc account that you're talking about, that account was closed, though, in june of 2022. >> correct. >> everything after june of 2022 was put in a nathan wade bank account, not a corporate bank account. >> i'm going to -- >> i think the question right before that only needed a yes or no. >> no, ma'am, the checks were deposited into firm accounts. law firm accounts. >> law firm of nathan wade pc. >> yes, ma'am. >> as a solo practitioner. >> yes, ma'am. >> so they were not deposited into accounts with campbell or bradley. >> no, ma'am, there were not. however there were checks written to campbell and bradley

that will reflect the third, the third, the third. >> and we have tried to get those bank records but you have objected, correct? >> we subpoenaed bank records and you objected to those. >> it's relevant if he says he has these records but he tried to get them, and is trying to keep them from us, and didn't get all the records. you can make an inference if some documents are within the party's control and they won't provide them, there's an inference that they're not positive. >> your honor, there was no obligation for mr. wade to produce evidence that ms. merchant could find admissible. i believe it's irrelevant. we have covered the ground, and i object to further questioning on this line. >> i'll sustain that. ms. merchant, let's find some new ground here. >> okay. thank you. are you willing to waive your privilege with mr. bradley so that he can testify? >> i'm not willing to waive attorney/client privilege.

>> okay. thank you. >> the health questions that were asked, and i can ask from here. i don't want to get into the type of cancer. i don't want to get into the medical condition itself. did 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 kept yourself in a sterile environment? >> i tried, yes, sir. >> 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 a condo. >> yes, sir. >> and you indicated that prior to november 1st of 2021, you had spent time in the condo, the hapeville condo? >> yes, sir. >> with mr. willis right, and

mr. yeartie, so you were not concerned it was sterile. >> are you inferring that ms. yeartie and willis is not sterile. >> of course it's sterile, it's a condo. >> don't you remember i follow up, and i said where else might you have been. the airport, not a sterile environment, the airport, do you agree? >> it is not. >> what about restaurants, not a sterile environment, right? >> they are not. >> and the porsche, you said something about a porsche what? >> porsche experience. >> that doesn't sound very sterile to me. is that a sterile environment? >> you're inside your vehicle. >> yeah, but don't you mingle with others? >> you can. >> and you were doing all of that in 2021 before november 1st, that's what you testified to, correct? >> yes, sir. >> so there's no reason you

couldn't be dating in 2021, is there? >> you said 2020, mr. sadow. >> 2021, correct? >> dating, no. >> no reason. >> no reason. >> thanks. >> mr. gillem. >> i don't have anything, your honor. >> mr. stocks. >> stocksman. >> stocksman, excuse me. >> briefly, you said you started dating in early 2022, and also used the term personal relationship. and there was no dating and no personal relationship prior to early '22, is that correct? >> help me understand. i want to make sure i answer you. so let's be clear. 2022 was the start of any

intimate sexual relationship with the district attorney. >> and that's what i was wanting to make clear. in your affidavit, you used the term personal relationship, and today you used the term dating, and your testimony today is that that includes the term basically physical or sexual or intimate relationship, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> and there was nothing, according to your testimony, there was none of that prior to. >> that's correct. >> not seeing anyone else, cross, redirect, can this witness be excused? >> one moment. >> judge we might need him to come back. >> you may sit down, mr. wade, and please don't discuss your

testimony with the other witnesses. >> did she mention subpoena, judge, let me say this, that 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 that on the record. >> understood. >> thank you. >> any other witnesses? >> we would call fani willis. >> ms. cross. >> i am going to move to the motion to quash the district attorney. there's been now lots of testimony from mr. wade. i don't believe that there could be a showing for the need for the district attorney to testify. for all of the reasons that were cited in the state's initially, it's a tremendously high burden to call opposing counsel. particularly given the cumulative nature that would be the subject of the personal details that mr. wade has testified to. >> what do you think you can

establish and have through the testimony of ms. willis and let me stop there? >> conflict in the evidence. now that mr. wade has testified, the fist one is cash, in and of itself. >> what's the conflict there? >> he testified that he didn't have receipts, but we don't know if ms. willis has receipts. >> we don't know. there's no conflict. we just don't know. >> we don't know, right. it's a question not a conflict. and there's a lot of issues with reasons. the first one would be the receipts. you know, whether or not these cash payments, payment receipts. the belize trip, whether or not she paid for the entire thing in cash. mr. wade doesn't have knowledge of that. a lot of things we couldn't remember, so now it goes to ms.

willis, unfortunately. that he testified that she insists on paying her own way, gave some cash. miami trip, thought it would balance out. a couple of other trips we didn't get 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. the best friend testified it happened in 2018, and mr. wade testified the relationship began to become romantic in 2022. that is a conflict in and of itself. right there, 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 didn't use cash,

the term cash in the affidavit, but he told anybody who would ask about the cash and he specifically discussed this and the response. >> all right. so you've highlighted the areas you would like to go into. i think the central question may be what is it other than i'm just really curious what she has to say that you have to put on the record. that's what i would like to go through, ms. cross. >> you have identified, ms. merchant hasn't identified inconsistencies, she's identified areas of area. the testimony from mr. wade is it's not inconsistent, it's

unrebutted. a compelling need to call, given the record that's before the court, i don't believe it's relevant. >> your honor, very briefly, ms. willis needs to testify. her best friend or good friend has directly contradicted the declaration that was made by mr. wade attached to the response, and it wasn't just the declaration of mr. wade was filed by the district attorney by her assistants here. she owns that. that affidavit is owned by her, and there are deep concerns that that affidavit is false and ms.

willis knew it was false, and she needs to come in here if she wants to tell us about the cash, oh, yeah, we got cash. i don't have any deposit slips, don't have any record of it, maybe ms. willis can say, here, all my records where i paid $10,000 in cash back to mr. wade. we need to know that. also, ms. willis's financial disclosure, let's not forget that. we're talking about two people who went to extraordinary lengths to hide their relationship. to hide the nature of their relationship. extraordinary. the district attorney needs to take the stand and she needs to tell this court, and this courtroom why she filed financial closures in 2022, identifying prohibited sources

which mr. wade clearly is a prohibitive source. did you get gifts and benefits. now, we have seen all of this, we have seen the trips. we've seen all of the things around $10,000 in cash. yet for the financial declaration for 2021, filed in april of 2022, and the financial declaration for 2022, which was filed 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 here and say, why didn't you tell on the disclosure forms so people will know the nature of the relationship between prohibitive sources and the public official. in this case, the district attorney. who happens to make a decision to hire someone, and end up

being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for his firm, and none of that is revealed, and the answer is, oh, it's unrebutted. he's explained, it's all in cash. and obviously, you know, we are advocates in our position, but that explanation of cash does not pass the smell test or the straight face test. she needs to go on the record. she filed this motion with his declaration. we have seen what happened here. two or three more sentences. we need to have the full picture as we have gotten through mr. wade of his false interrogatories. serious business for anybody, and then suddenly he's changing it. she files her financial declaration,s same problems. we need to go over all of this and to explain exactly what happened. we ask the court that the court

allow ms. willis to be called, interrogated on these matters. >> and i will too, your honor. >> just a moment, ms. willis. >> so ms. cross, i don't know if you want to speak with ms. willis, maybe they're withdrawing the objection to the motion? >> we have a motion to -- >> or does ms. willis want to take the lead here? >> a motion to cross ms. willis. >> okay. so the position of the district attorney at this point is that she's no longer contesting the subpoena. called as the next witness. >> i need the three filings of ms. merchant.

does the court have the filings for ms. merchant. >> the pleadings, yes, your honor. >> 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 one. >> the only copy i have is going to have my notes on it. if we don't have a clean copy. >> can we have a five-minute break, you know. >> i'll sit here and wait for them. . >> did we elect someone? who's actually making the copy.

>> you got it? ms. cross is doing it. so we are watching fulton county right now, and we've been observing the testimony of wade and we're about to fwet get the testimony of fani willis, the d.a., regarding her relationship with her special prosecutor, and whether it was above board, whether it started after she hired him, or whether it began before, and the key question, chris, is that if it began before she hired him, there's a question of propropriety. >> a question that was asked to him repeatedly that he categorically denied, in fact, he said that he had cancer and it was a time when it was covid that he had to stay out of those kinds of environments that he wasn't dating anyone at this time. it is testimony that earlier today from a former friend and colleague of fani willis was contradicted who said beginning very shortly after the time that they met at a conference.

>> in 2019. >> december of 2019, well before that, they started a personal relationship and she said she witnessed examples of the personal relationship, hugging, kissing, just the way that people in a relationship act. but also, second part of this, besides whether they're in the relationship is follow the money. >> yeah. >> because the big question has been whether or not, somehow by enriching himself because nathan wade was hired to be a special prosecutor in this case, whether or not he used that money to take her on vacations. >> yeah, and if he did use that money, that means that she would have a conflict of interest. this is the argument that she would want him to be employed for longer, extend out this case so she could benefit financially for the money she was paying him for his advice. again, we're waiting for d.a. fani willis to testify and that is going to be a giant moment. it's a five-minute break they're taking right now, as they make some copies of some documents

that she's going to need in front of her while she's being question. you can see she came in hot. she does not want to be there. clearly does not want to be testifying about a romantic relationship that she has with her special prosecutor, a romantic relationship, by the way, which is putting the entire case in jeopardy because, and we have our legal team here, lisa rubin, katherine christian, because if it's found that it's an improper relationship, it's not just fani willis that can't try the case, it's the entire d.a., the entire team. >> and the lawyer for the office, for the d.a.'s office, wanted to say she doesn't need to testify. there's no reason for her to testify. next thing you know, fani willis is there, she's walking up past the table and the last thing she said before she went to sit, i want to go. >> yeah. >> but again, let's talk about it. if she testifies, it doesn't go well, say the case gets taken from her and her office, what happens? >> there's a prosecuting counsel in georgia.

the case goes to the prosecuting counsel. it has a single member who's in charge and the decision maker. held then assign the case to one of georgia's other 49 district attorneys. but i will caution you that that doesn't mean that the case will move along at the same clip. it's not clear that the case will move along at all. >> they could drop the case. >> they could drop the case but they could also stall the case. that's what we've seen so far with respect to the investigation of lieutenant governor burt jones who was in fani willis's sights, she was disqualified from investigating him in 2022 because she held a fundraiser for his democratic opponent, and at that point in time, the case got handed over to the prosecuting counsel, it's had the case for over six months and a number of media outlets have written about this. the case hasn't been assigned to anyone. and it's hard to figure out who this case could effectively go to. >> when you talk about that case, it begs the question,

she was asked, why were you so sloppy with this, investigating this person, when you had a political fundraiser for their opponent. you have a conflict, can't get into it, and it raises a question about the entire situation. >> the testimony hasn't started yet, but we are watching inside this courtroom. this is video, i'm sorry. this is a moment ago. we're going to go back once it does begin, not to be confused by her sitting there right now. why is she in this position in the first place? a position to jeopardize the entire case? >> as i have been watching all day, i have been shaking my head because the reality is if as soon as this professional relationship became personal, mr. wade left the case, removed voluntarily, got off it, we wouldn't be here today. as soon as it turned personal, that's when it should have been you're no longer on the trial team. as he's sitting there, i'm saying, why is he still on the trial team. . it's unforced error, bad

judgment, i believe it does not go to the guilt or innocence of mr. trump or the codefendants, however it's very bad. it just looks horrible, and i think in that case, the judge said what were you thinking, and you can ask the same question again. d.a. willis, excellent d.a., expert in rico, what were you thinking? >> can we push back on that for a second. in the jones situation, you can see why she needed to be disqualified, there's a rational for it, a conflict with him, by endorsing his opponent, there is an apparent conflict of interest, that she seems motivated to get him. if she was motivated to hire nathan wade because she thought the money paid to him by the fulton county council would reverberate to her, it's not clear how any of the defendants in this case past or current were hurt by that decision. it's a terrible thing for the

public of fulton county who elected her. the optics are awful. vote her out of office. it's not clear what conflict of interest is. >> it's the appearance of impropriety. >> use of public funds, if she's paying somebody and benefitting from the money as well, can you argue that this is her trying to pay herself double. >> there's no proof of that. she had a salary, he had a salary, in fact, his income decreased by being on this case. you can't say the money paid for the trips. >> what they were trying to point out is we don't know where the money came from, the way nathan wade said it happened was for different reasons. she's a woman who wants to show she is independent. there were security concerns. she didn't want people to know where she was going, he paid for things. she got the money and paid him back in cash, to which craig gillem said did you have a cash ward in your house, asking him

that. part of the argument here, right, that they need to hear from d.a. fani willis is where did that money come from, did you pay him back in cash, and do you have any records because a big question here was can you prove that what you're saying is true? >> right. can you prove that the expenses were evenly provided. i want to go back to something katie asked, is this a misuse of public funds. if that could be proven here, the legal question for purposes of the indictment is there a conflict of interest with the actual defendants here that would be disqualifying. so even if there's a misuse of public funds, there are political solutions to that, other legal solutions. disqualifying her, might not be the appropriate solution. >> we're waiting, once fani willis comes back in, the testimony comes in, we're going to go there. this is video from moments ago. it does illustrate that she was coming in hot rngts clearly not happy to be in the position

she's in. let's bring in katie phang outside of the courthouse for us in atlanta. katie, what are your thoughts? >> reporter: i want to talk about two things, and they're kind of the critical issues for judge mcafee in this instance. one, we heard testimony from a former disgruntled employee of the d.a.'s office that fani willis and nathan wade began their personal relationship in october of 2019. you're about to hear from d.a. fani willis who i expect is going to say, no, that is not correct. in fact, she's probably going to corroborate what nathan wade said, which is under oath, the relationship didn't start until march of 2022. if you're judge mcafee, you have to weigh the credibility of the former disgruntled employee of the office of fani willis and two sworn members of the georgia bar. are they willing to risk their law licenses more to prosecute this rico case. the other issue is the following. lisa touched upon it briefly. georgia law does not support a disqualification at this time. the judge will weigh the

credibility, the truthfulness he's hearing from witnesses. but georgia law requires an actual, not a speculative, and theoretical conflict. it has to exist. a conflict of interest and the only way that the finances would implication fani willis in this instance is if she has some type of personal financial stake in the guilt and conviction of a defendant. we haven't heard any evidence, and that's what i finally want to say. this is an evidentiary hearing. this is when the innuendo and rumors stop and when the evidence has to be put up and so far we haven't heard anything other than testimony from that former employee this morning that would suggest that perhaps what was submitted in that affidavit by nathan wade is incorrect. >> why did judge mcafee call this hearing, the evidentiary hearing. the burden you're proposing that you say exists in georgia is a pretty high burden, and again, we haven't even touched on that, and we are six hours into this? >> reporter: yeah, so the reason why the evidentiary hearing

occurred is because based upon the representations made by the lawyer from michael roman in court a couple of days ago, she proffered in good faith, and included it in the filings that were done as to what would be said if these witnesses were to testify. based upon that, the judge found the threshold level to get in the door, get in the court to have the evidentiary hearing had to take place. there's a reason why mcafee cautioned everyone on the defense said, and said you better start with a witness that's going to create relevancy for the testimony of wade and willis, you heard from the former employee, briefly from terrance bradley, the former divorce lawyer for nathan wade. nathan wade has refuted under oath what has been presented thus far. let's hear what d.a. fani willis has to say. i doubt she's going to say anything that is counter to what nathan wade has said so far. >> the judge is seated again, and we are watching in the meantime, i want to go to greg

bluestein. we saw fani willis coming in. we saw her looking like she wanted to be able to refute, to answer some of the questions that were asked and were put very pointedly to her former boyfriend. tell me what you know about -- >> here she is. >> she's coming back in. what are you expecting from they are? >> her credibility has been questioned so she seems ready to go. i can't wait to hear what she has to say, but her credibility is on under fire, and she has a chance to go and refute and defend herself against all of these allegations, and we have seen, she's not shy about defending herself. >> let's go in there and listen, as, again, just a huge moment. d.a. fani willis is being questioned. you saw her wink just there. not clear who she's winking to. but she wants to defend her credibility. greg bluestein was saying. >> i do apologize, hannah.

do me a favor. >> yes. >> district attorney fani, last name is willis. >> how did you know to come into the courtroom right then? >> because there were people. i was pacing in my office, and i heard someone yell, his testimony done. it only made sense to me that i would be your next witness. and i've been very anxious to have this conversation with you today. so i ran to the courtroom. >> so as soon as you heard that mr. wade was done testifying, that's when you just assumed you would be the next witness. >> it only makes sense. >> did you listen to any of the testimony. >> i've been in my office

pacing, ma'am. >> did you listen to any of the arguments? >> i did hear the arguments this morning. it's ridiculous to me that you lied on monday and yet here we still are and i did listen to that argument. >> all right. so that was it, just the argument, no testimony. >> i listened to the argument this morning, where did an excellent job pointing out how dishonest you were with the court on monday, and i'm actually surprised that the hearing continued. but since it did, here i am. >> great. so let's talk about, first let's just talk about what you did in preparation for today. did you meet with mr. wade at all, once the motion was filed, did you meet with mr. wade and talk to him about the motion that i filed to disqualify you? >> on this first january motion? >> yes. >> i don't know if you can say talked about it. i probably had some choice words about some of the things that you said that were dishonest within this motion.

i don't know that it was a conversation, as you know, mr. wade is a southern gentleman, me not so much. >> my question was, did you have a conversation. >> i didn't have a substantiative conversation. >> you did not. >> i read this motion, skimmed it more so, and i probably said some choice things to him about some of the lies that were told. >> okay. >> in the media. we used to be in a date and time where you had 60 minutes, and people did stories, and they verified information, and you had this great reporting. but it seems today that a lawyer lies and it's printed for all the world to see. >> i want you to answer the question i asked. >> asked and answered. >> i tell you what happened. i read the motion, i'm sure i told him what my opinion of it is, and past that, we had no substantiative conversation. >> you did not.

>> correct. >> is there something you didn't understand. >> i want to make sure that you did not have a meeting with him in the conference room to discussion the motion. >> so in the conference room of my office within this week, you produced some financial documents. that financial document was given to me. and i'm not even sure who's given it to him, by me and i think he showed me a document in our conference room, but as far as a substantiative conversation, i would not have -- i don't believe i've had any conversation with him that is substantiative related to this. i have had conversations with him since you filed the motion. but they wouldn't be substantiative to this. he sent me very nice sermons that have been done, and so we've had conversations about did you listen to that sermon. you know, things of that nature. and i would say they were in relationship to this because i think he did it to be kind.

>> okay. let's start back in 2019. >> yep. >> so you and mr. wade met in october 2019 at a conference? >> that is correct. and i think in one of your motions you tried to implication i slept with him at that conference, which i find to be extremely offensive. i stayed at that conference, mr. wade was my teacher. i did not meet him when he taught the class. i was standing outside talking to lisa reed, mr. wade walks up and they hug each other. they have some brief conversation, she introduces us. >> i'm going to object. we kind of thought that when you asked question, you would answer the question. not a speech. so i object to the speech. >> i agree. >> i'm able to explain my answers. >> i believe she's able to explain her answers. >> i can handle it. i'll ask you to listen to the question, and keep the answers confined to the questions the best you can. you'll have more than enough

ample opportunity when the state -- >> it's highly offensive when someone lies on you, and highly offensive when they try to implicate you slept with somebody the day you met them. >> you'll have the opportunity to explain all of that. >> thank you, judge. so again, my question was you all met at that conference, though, right? >> we did. as i stated, he taught the class. i did not meet him when he taught the class. i walked out of the class, and i'm not sure if it was that exact class, but we were standing in the vestibule, like outside of the class, me and judge reeves were having a conversation. she had worked at a law firm i worked at back in 1996. >> we're getting way afar. i don't mind her explaining her answers but i literally just asked if they met at the conference. >> she's explaining how you met with mr. wade, which is the question asked. >> if you want more concise answers, perhaps you could lead

the witness. >> i will. >> isn't it true you met mr. wade october 2019. >> we have gotten to the point mr. willis is treated hostile. >> i want to be here. i'm not a hostile witness. i very much want to be here sfl not so much. your interests are opposed to ms. merchant's. >> ms. merchant's interests are contrary to democracy, your honor, not to mine. >> i appreciate it. >> if we can keep things moving. next question please. so we've confirmed when you met, after that -- >> i get to explain my answers. when i met him, judge reeves introduced us, he handed me his business card. i'm unsure if i handed him my business card, we exchanged information. he said if you ever need any help, give me a call, and he walked to the parking lot. >> so after that, you started dating shortly thereafter. >> that's a lie.

that's one of your lies. . >> do you know robin yeartie. >> i know her as robin bryant. robin did not go to my college. she went to the college of -- i went to howard university. she went to morgan state. i met her through some people i knew. in college we hung out a bit, not much because she was in baltimore, and i was in washington, d.c., but we hung out a bit. after college, i lost contact with her. i probably didn't see robin again until maybe seven or eight years ago, a chance meeting here in atlanta, but we did not have a consistent relationship from when i left college and came to law school in atlanta. eight to ten years ago, just by happenstance, i ran into her. she was in atlanta. >> so you have been friends with robin for 30-something years. >> did you hear my answer, madame? >> yes. and i'm asking if you have been

friends with her for 30 something years. >> we certainly hung out and partied together in college. she was from the d.c. area. wasn't close but she was in the girlfriends that party together. and then like i said, i ran into her about ten years ago in atlanta, georgia. but we didn't talk throughout that time period. i didn't see her. i didn't even know where she was. when i ran into her, i was surprised she was in atlanta. and so, yes, i have known her probably since 1990, 1991, but we have not maintained a consistent relationship that whole time. >> for the last ten years or five, whatever you would like to classify it as have you been friends with her? >> i have not spoken to robin in over a year. i certainly do not consider her a friend now. i think that she, you know, there's a saying, no good deed goes unpunished and i think she betrayed our friendship.

>> let's narrow down the time line. my questions are going to be from the time period of 2019, until she no longer was employed for you, the last time you all talked, so all of my next questions are just focused on that time frame, okay. >> yes, ma'am. >> up until she left your office. >> yes, ma'am. >> during 2019, you all were friends, correct? >> yes. we knew each other in 2019. >> during 2020, you all were friends, correct? >> yes, we were friend during that time period. >> and such good friends that when you needed a place to stay, you asked if you could take over her lease. >> that's a lie. >> that's not the way you characterize is it wrong. >> i asked if you asked if you could take over her lease. >> i did not! you moved into her apartment? >> her condo in april of '21. the circumstances were that robin met her husband. they wanted to move into another and separate place. she wanted to get rid of her condo. my father was living with me at

the house. because of this case and because of my stance on gangs, my life was being threatened regularly. my father urged me to leave our home. at the same time, as luck would have it, robin wanted to give up her lease because she wanted to move in with this new man she met, who eventually became her husband, and so as life circumstances work, my dad was begging me to leave the house. he was afraid for me, afraid for his grandchildren, she wanted someone to take over her lease so she didn't have to pay a fee or get abandoned and so i don't remember when but probably march or april of '21, i move in and take over her lease. >> did you pay her or pay the leasing agent? >> i don't know who the leasing agent was. i paid her. >> did you use cash or card? >> sometimes i would give her cash, but mostly i paid her via cash app, that would be the most convenient thing. i would not only give her her

rent but when the utilities would come in, i need 70 bucks, a hundred dollars, whatever it was. we never had a problem with money, whatever she told me it was, i never asked to see a bill, never questioned her, i gave it to her. >> what percentage would you say you paid cash, versus cash app. >> the vast majority of cash app. what percentage, i'm not going to ask that. the vast majority was cash app. there would be times, this bill came in, 70 bucks. >> did you have a monthly rent amount that you paid her? >> i can't remember. it was 14, $1,500, i can't remember what it was. and it would vary. i don't understand to this day. but like i said, i never questioned her. whatever she said it was, that's what i paid. moved out in late january or early february of '22. >> february '22, is that what

you said? >> january, february of '22. i believe it's january, but i paid her half the rent february of '22 is what i remember. and because i was offering to pay the whole rent even though i didn't live there, i didn't think it was right. i ended up just paying her half the rent. >> so that's after you moved out, you said you paid her half the rent. and the time that you said you had to move out of your house because you were scared, did your dad stay at your house? >> my father was concerned, we were both concerned. >> he stayed there. >> he was 80 years old, scared to death of covid. my father is an older man. i wanted him to move out. we had some discussions about him moving out, and what he decided was the risk of covid was more dangerous than the risk of people that were threatening. typical man, more worried about his daughter and his grandchildren than his own safety. you'll get to meet him, and you'll understand. he doesn't scare too easily.

>> so his grand kids were living at the house as well at that time. >> i don't know how old your children r but when you have adult children, they leave and they come back. they leave and come back. there had been periods of time they're there, they come, whatever they want to do. children do what children do. as long as their mother has a house, they'll come to it. unfortunately now the threats because of this case have gotten so extreme, i just pay a mortgage and no one lives there. >> that's what i was going to ask you. when you moved out in i think you said april of 2021, you left your dad and wo kids at the house. >> my dad and two kids were not at the house, ma'am. >> they didn't still live at your house. >> my younger daughter certainly did not live there. my oldest daughter would come back and forth, i can't say month to month when she was there and not there. i know that she has been there post me moving out. at this time no one is at my house. >> so at some point after you moved out for the safety

reasons, at least one of your children did come back to the house. >> can we get to the relationship or the financial benefit. >> sure. yes. so we were back at 2021, so you were still friend with mr. yeartie then, were you also friends with mr. bradley. >> i've never been friends with mr. bradley. >> you've never been friends with mr. bradley. >> i don't consider us to be friends. i don't dislike mr. bradley, but i don't consider us to be friends. >> is he someone that you would have in your phone and you would message? >> i might have text messaged him. >> would you text message him and mr. wade on the same conversations. >> i don't recall doing that, but if it happened, it wouldn't surprise me. >> that wouldn't surprise you, the threat of you. how frequently do you think the three of you would have text? >> i wouldn't think very often, but you're asking me to recall, i don't know what time period

you're asking me to recall. i'm not going to speak to that, i don't know the answer to that. i don't want to speculate as to how often that would happen but it's not out of my practice to text two people on one text message. so if you told me that happened and showed it to me. it wouldn't surprise me. although i have no recollection of it. >> but there would be some record of it in your phone or the phone records would have records of the text. >> i know you said sometimes you paid ms. yeartie cash. when you went on vacation with mr. wade, let's go one by one. let's start with the first one. what's the first time you went on vacation with mr. wade? >> i think the first time we went on vacation was around april of '22, and a vacation is stretch. but i'm trying to be

comprehensive. i recall april of '22, his birthday is march the 18th. so that would have been his 49th birthday. i took him to like tennessee for the day. i think we went to a museum. i think we might have stayed the night. i'm not sure. but tennessee is hard to call a vacation, but i'm trying to be inclusive, and like i said, i don't think -- i know it wasn't more than a day. i think that's what i did, i'm telling you, i think there's a possibility that we stayed that night. in april of '22. >> who paid for the hotel? >> i think i did. it was his birthday. >> and would you have used a credit card? >> probably maybe a debit -- >> when i started dating mr. wade, it was right around then. >> april 2022? >> '22, yes.

it's not like in grade school, you send a letter and check it. i don't know the day we started seeing each other. it was early '22 is my recollection. >> early '22, and you went to florida on vacation as well? >> i don't recall going to florida on vacation with him. >> you never went to florida with mr. wade. >> when we went to get on the cruise ship, we went to miami. >> that's the only time you went to florida with him. >> i think we went to miami and spent the night. that's my recollection. i think we spent one night so we wouldn't miss the ship. >> who paid for that hotel? >> in miami? >> mm-hmm. >> i don't remember that. >> and how did you get to miami? >> we would have flown. and we've done that so that i'm clear, we have done that twice. i think one time we stayed, and i honestly can't tell you, did we stay when the ship left or

did we stay when the ship came back. there's two cruises out of miami. there's one that's in that october time period that was with his mom and another that was a new year's eve trip. i know i paid for the new year's eve trip because the tickets were 697 each, and i thought this is ridiculous that the tickets are $700 to go to miami, but when you travel during new year's eve, they get you. >> so let's back up and talk about the first time you went to florida with mr. wade. that was the time you said you stayed in miami in the hotel the first time. >> that's the time. i'm not sure. i'm not sure of two things. i want to make sure my testimony is clear. i'm not sure if we stayed in miami on the october trip. i'm not sure if we stayed in miami on the december trip. i can't remember that. and i also don't remember so that the record is clear, i don't remember if the necessity was as we got on the ship or we got off the ship, but i do remember there was a night spent

in miami because either, whatever, i don't remember. but i think there was a night spent in miami. >> that cruise is the one that you took in october, right? >> if you have something to refresh my recollection, i'm intentionally trying to not be difficult but i don't want to make up something. i know that on one of those two trips we stayed in miami. i am not sure right now. >> you misunderstood. i was not asking you which night you stayed in miami. i'm asking if you took a cruise in october 2022 with mr. wade. >> and his mom. >> and his mother, that'swhat i was asking. is that the first time you met his mother is on that cruise? >> royal caribbean? >> we've taken two cruises, i don't know what the ships were. >> but he paid for the flight and the cruise on royal caribbean that time? >> yes, he is the original one that does it.

mr. wade is a world traveler. i'm not as versed as him. he's been to six of the seven continents, and so he has both a personal travel agent, and he also has a cruise travel agent. i don't know anything about either of those kind of travel agents. so he is the one that would book the travel. but we need to be clear when we're talking about just because he booked it, doesn't mean, like i don't consider him having taken me any place, let's be honest. the only point he's ever taken me, his 50th birthday, i took him to belize. i don't want to discuss his personal business, but i'm happy mr. wade is still here with us, and i did 50 big, very big. so still on that october royal caribbean cruise. >> ma'am, if you do me a favor. i don't know what cruise ship what time. so if you'll help me and say

october cruise with mama or the new year's eve trip with his sisters, i'll be able to communicate. i don't know which ship. >> october cruise with mama, that's what i'm talking about. he paid for the cruise and flights for that trip. >> so he called his cruise agent, and he booked that through them because he has a cruise agent. he also has a regular agent. i don't know the cruise agent's name. >> i wasn't asking about his travel agent. >> he paid for those. >> he did not. i gave him his money back. >> i was about to ask that. >> initially he paid that. >> he called his cruise agent. he has his card on record. >> initially he paid for the flight to miami, and the cruise. >> it was a package the lady did for him. >> and i'll get to the reimbursements and all that. i'm trying to confirm he paid for the flight and the cruise in october.

>> and i think that when you say that things that way, i want this record to be abundantly clear that he calls his travel agent, he calls his cruise agent, they do whatever he tells them, they're on a first name basis, they do it, and then he tells me how much it is. and i give him the money back. just like you're asking me about the money with robin. i don't do my friends like that: if you tell me it's a g, you're going to get a thousand dollars. i didn't make him produce receipts to me. i gave him the money back. >> isn't it true he paid for the cruise and the flight on his credit card? i'm not asking about reimbursement or after. he used his credit card to buy the cruise and buy the flight, correct? >> i have no idea how he paid for it, if it's a credit card, a debit card. certainly he called his cruise agent. how many people have a cruise agent. he calls his cruise agent, tells them where he wants to go, they tell him what's booked. you have to remember he paid for

that initially was me, him and his mother. >> and then after that cruise, you all flew to aruba and spent a couple of days in a hotel there. >> right. and his mother was not happy that we left her behind. >> he initially paid for that. >> for aruba, yes, ma'am. let's talk about both of those. he initially paid for it. did you pay him back? >> for the cruise and aruba. i gave him the money before we went on the trip. >> you gave him cash before you went on the trip? >> mm-hmm. >> when you got cash, would you go to the atm? >> no. >> so fulton county pays you direct deposit, i assume. >> yes. fulton county and the state of georgia both pay me direct deposits. >> so the cash you would pay him, you wouldn't get it out of the bank. >> i have money in my house. >> you have money in your house, so it was just money that was there? >> when you meet my father, he's going to tell you as a woman,

you should always have, which i don't have, you should have at least six months in cash at your house at all times. now, i don't know why this old black man feels like that, but he does. when we were growing up, my daddy had three saves in the house. my father bought me a lock box, and i always keep cash in the house. i don't do it to the degree my father would do it. he would probably be ashamed with me, but i always have cash at the house. that has been, you know, all my life. if you're a woman and you go on a date with a man, you better have $200 so if that man acts up you can go where you want to go. when you go on a date, you should have cash in your pocket. >> so my question was where did that cash originally come from if it didn't come out of the bank? >> cash is fungible, i have had cash for years in my house. for me to tell you the source of

when it comes from, you go to publix, you get $50, and throw it in there. it's been my whole life. i took out a large amount of money on my first campaign, i kept the cash of that. to tell you, i just have cash in my house. i don't have as much today as i would normally have, but i'm building back up now. you put money in, it's a very good practice. i would advise it to all women. >> you can't identify when you came into the cash or where the cash came from. >> i didn't say i couldn't identify. nobody gives me anything. i am sure that the source of the money is always the work, sweat and tears of me. what you asked me before is when did the money go in there. what i am trying to tell you is, so i got divorced in 2005 from my husband. no, no, no, it's important. you said where did the money come from, and i need to tell you where the money came from. for many many years, i have kept money in my house. that money in my worst days has probably only been 500 or a

thousand dollars. at my best days, i had $15,000 in my house cash. at all times there's going to be cash in my house or wherever i'm laying my head. >> the money you paid mr. wade, the cash in october of 2022, you do not know where that money came from. >> i do know where it came from. it came from my sweat and tears. >> you know which job it came from, did it come from fulton county or a private job? >> what are you talking about? it could have come from a private job because before i was d.a., i was in private practice. so i earned money during that time period that's probably in there. >> you don't know where it came from? >> what do you mean i don't know where it came from. >> i know the situation. we we can move on. >> you are mischaracterizing my testimony greatly, i'm not going to allow you to mischaracterize my testimony. i know that i keep money in my house. the amounts of money i gave mr. wade, it was never that serious. i don't think i've ever handed

him more than $2,500 in a reimbursement. we're not talking about $20,000 in cash. i don't have $20,000 in cash right now. the most i ever gave him, i know i gave him $2,500 when we went to belize because we went to hotel and then we went to a second hotel. that $2,500 i actually gave him while we were still in belize. i know that the aruba trip, the one that u yo described with his mom, i think i gave him about $2,000 for that trip for like total. >> his mom went to aruba with you? >> i consider that to be one trip. we got off a cruise ship and went to aruba. i cannot remember is that the time we had to stay in miami to wait for the flight for aruba. i consider that one trip. we didn't come back to atlanta and leave. we flew down to miami, got on a cruise ship. spent a couple of days with his mama. we came back to miami, that day

or the next day, we flew to aruba, spent a few days and come back. went two places, it was one trip. >> let's talk about the california trip. is that when you were moving your daughter out to california? or did you have two trips to california? >> my daughter doesn't live in california. >> did she ever live in california? >> i'm not discussing to you the location of my child. >> how many times did you go with mr. wade to california? >> once. >> you stayed in napa valley, and he paid for the plane tickets and hotel. >> i gave him much less cash, 4 or $500, and i paid for a bunch of stuff. we did duodifferent wine tours that you do, which are pretty expensive. he likes wine. i don't really like wine to be honest with you. i like grey goose. i bought him a bottle of wine,

and the sippings you do. four or five different places you go. i remember we went to this place that they do pairings, that was the most expensive thing we did while we were there. they would pair champagne, chocolate, and caviar. it was like three different things, sweden, russia, some place else. that was the most expensive thing we did that trip, and i paid for that. >> did you pay cash? >> for us doing that. >> yeah. but that trip did not cost me a lot of money. i might have took like $750 in cash on me because we weren't gone very long. >> i only asked if you paid in cash. i don't need to know the amounts. >> when i travel, i always take cash. >> and is the cash that you keep in your house or keep it in the condo you were working in. >> at that point, it wouldn't be at my house. and i'm sorry if i was not

clear. the money would be wherever i laid my head. i wouldn't leave the money at the house. if i was unclear, the money is where i stay. >> how much did you pay for your trip to panama? >> to where? >> panama, i believe. >> i may have the location wrong. >> i never went to panama. mr. wade went to panama with his frat brother. >> oh, he went to panama with his frat brothers. so tell me about, let's see. i've got belize. >> in october we went on the cruise with his mom. we got back from the cruise with his mom and we went to aruba. i consider that one trip. second trip, new year's eve, we went on a cruise to the bahamas, that's the second trip. i want to make sure i get this right. third trip, 100% on me, i think he might have spent $200 on that entire trip. we went to belize.

that was my trip that was, you know, his 50th. and then napa valley, we went around may. i don't know the dates but it seems to me like it was close to mother's day. >> and those are the only trips? >> so that the record is complete, i can remember one time driving to where were we, south carolina, and we met my sister for lunch with her man. >> when was that? >> i don't know. but we didn't stay the night there. people could consider that a trip if you drive somewhere and come back. that was insane. it was like five hours to drive. we ate lunch and drove right back. i can remember driving to some little town in georgia. i don't even know where i was. i had never been there before or after. there's some boat you can get on over to like a slave thing, if that gives anyone any reference. we didn't do that. i remember doing that.

i remember driving one time to charlotte. we had lunch. again, we drove to charlotte, met my girlfriend for lunch, and drove right back. that's a trip. we didn't stay the night there. but i just want to be complete in my testimony. we drove someplace, had lunch, drove back. i don't remember another driving someplace distant for lunch and coming back to charlotte to see a girlfriend. to meet my sister in south carolina. we bent by ourselves when i told you about that remote place in georgia. we could have driven someplace else and had lunch and came back. that's all that comes to my recollection right now. there could have been another place we drove and had lunch. my security team was very clear to me, i'm not to be out and about in atlanta without them, and so for me to do something just very normal that a normal

person would get to do if they weren't prosecuting this case, i got to drive four hours to do. >> that's what i was going to ask you, did your security detail take you to and from your house? >> i haven't been able to enjoy my home. >> did they take you to and where you lay your head? >> history ever happened ever. >> your security team has never taken him. >> from my house? >> that's a lie. >> i asked if they have taken him. >> i'm telling you that's never happened. >> my security team has never taken mr. wade from any place where i have lived and brought him here. never, not once. not ever. >> have they ever taken the two of you together? >> to where? >> anywhere. >> we've left this building and gone to lunch but i go to lunch so rarely that that is a very

rare occasion. i'm sure, and let me be clear, it wouldn't just be mr. wade. i'm sure my security team has taken me to lunch, probably been a time i have left here 7:00, gone to get something to eat, and i don't know that they would have taken him or he would have driven himself, but they've taken me to do that, but we're talking very few. very far in between. most days i don't even eat lunch and when i do, it's because my assistant has heated up some bagged something, and i eat through meetings and. >> during the time you were dating, would your security team take you two together anywhere? >> no. >> never? >> if there was a lunch that occurred that i just described. if there was a meal that occurred that i just described, anything outside of that and it needs to be very clear, not often. once, twice. because i want to be over

inclusive. i'm saying once or twice. i'm not certain that it happened, but i would rather be over inclusive with you. >> your office objected to us getting delta records for flights that you may have taken with mr. wade. >> i'm going to object. >> i object to you getting records. you've been intrusive into people's personal lives. you're confused, you think i'm on trial, these people are on trial for stealing an election in 2020. i'm not on trial. >> i object to getting any personal records of mine. >> we're not dealing with privilege of a witness. >> i'm not dealing with privilege. we had offered to put them in camera for the court to review. >> that's nothing to do with the witness. >> okay. you have to file as part of your job something called an income and financial disclosure report, correct? >> that's correct. >> and you filed your first one, so you filed two to date, is

that right? >> is it two or three. i probably would have filed '21, '22, maybe i haven't filed '23, isn't it due june of the next year. >> april, i believe. you filed the first one, april 15th, 2022, and your second one, april 17th, 2023, does that sound familiar? >> i don't remember the dates but you're an officer of the court, i'm going to hope you're telling the truth now. >> may i approach the witness. >> you may. >> i've given the state a copy. >> can somebody bring me some, yeah, my eyes are getting a little old. s are getting a little old >> those are the ones you filed. >> this looks like me for sure. yes, ma'am. yes, ma'am. >> we move to admit '20 and '21.

>> you need to delineate. >> '20 and '21, it accounts for the time period, that is defendant's exhibit 20. defendant's exhibit 2021, it accounts for the time period, january the 1st, 2022, through december the 1st of 2022. >> any objection to exhibits '20 and '21. >> without objection. >> when did your relationship, your personal relationship with mr. wade end? >> our personal relationship ended in this year. >> so let's be very clear so that we don't mix words. i don't want to mix word. >> mr. wade is my friend right now. mr. wade, i would say has been my friend since 2020. and he started out as like a mentor and professional colleague. he became my friend and somebody that i really respected.

i feel very indebted to mr. wade for taking on the task of this job. and he is certainly my friend and one of the people that i respect the most. so if you ask about a personal relationship, i consider myself to have a personal relationship right now, mr. wade. i consider myself to have a personal relationship with anna cross. i consider myself to have a personal relationship with mr. abad i. >> let me clarify that. i have a personal relationship with him as we speak right now. >> a romantic relationship. >> i don't think that's what you're asking. >> when did your romantic relationship with mr. wade end? >> me and mr. wade, we are good friends. my respect for him has grown over these seven weeks of attacks. we are very good friends.

i think but for these attacks, it would have been a friendship that as life goes, we would have stopped having. i think that you have cemented that we will be friends until the day we die. >> could we just have an answer to the question. >> you asked about a personal relationship. >> she asked when the romantic relationship ended, that's the question. >> sometime in i would say late summer of 2023. this is what you're really asking about, the salaciousness about it. >> i'm just asking about your romantic relationship, when you stopped dating. >> i think that me and mr. wade -- so he's a man, he probably would say june or july. i would say we had a tough conversation in august. and so men in relationships at the end of physical intimacy,

women in relationships when the tough conversation takes place. >> where did he come to, i guess, the condo, condo, apartment, would he come and stay at that condo or visit you. >> what condo, what apartment, i want to be clear. >> not your house. you classified one as house, one as condo. i want to use those terms. >> because of this case, i got to move. and so -- >> if you could ask a more precise question. >> please, give me the time period we're talking about. >> did mr. wade visit you at the place you laid your head? >> when? >> let me tell you which one you lied, right here, righter. >> no, no, no, this is the truth. >> judge. >> it is a lie. it is a lie. >> ms. willis. >> we're going to take five minutes. we'll be back in five.

>> so that has been a sight to behold, that testimony, right there. just a ton of lines that will be remembered, there were a lot of salacious and fiery lines. the one where she said i am not on trial, and she pointed to the lawyers in the room. she said these men, who they're defending, they're the ones on trial for trying to steal an election. you're confused. you think i'm on trial. >> and the way she walked in, she said very clearly later what we interpreted from her body language which is that i am not a hostile witness. i want to be here, and in the way she answered the questions, in the way she fully was telling her story, clearly she wanted to get a lot of things settled that she felt were grossly misrepresented. melissa redman, let's bring you in and get your take on what you

heard from d.a. fani willis? >> it's evident that she's upset, she had her integrity called into question. she felt like this was an opportunity to defend herself, to defend her decision making, defend her integrity while she's prosecuting this case, which has nothing at all to do with her personal lives, and i think that's what we still have to remember here, what this evidentiary hearing is supposed to be about, whether there was a financial, a personal interest that rises to the level of disqualification, that the reason she is pursuing this case has something to do with a personal relationship or any financial gain she may or may not, you know, depending on which part of the testimony you believe even so i think she's ed ofed by all of the details that have come out and at this point, we're going to talk about it, let's just talk about it and put it all out there for everyone to see. the determination would have to consider that of the judge.

>> i think you're right to point that out. this is an evidentiary hearing. you're supposed to show that somebody has been harmed here. we are waiting for that evidence. so far according to legal minds that we're talking to, we have not seen that evidence. fani willis, she has gotten a lot of criticism for this relationship, for putting this entire case in jeopardy because of the relationship. she hasn't spoken about it publicly. she did talk to a church and was fiery and spoke about it vaguely. this is her opportunity to address it head on. you can tell that she doesn't want to be there, but she did want to address it. let's just play what she said at the very beginning of her testimony. this is when you knew that she was there in her mind to set the record straight. >> i had some choice words about some of the things that you said that were dishonest within this motion. so i don't know it was a

conversation is a gentleman. me, not so much. >> so i mean, that's how we knew we were in for something. do you think she's pulled this back? there's been some criticism about nathaniel and the way he testified seemingly cagey at moments, not being able to recall a lot. she's had a very sharp memory. she had an explanation for the cash, which raised eyebrows. why would you be paying back this man in cash? who uses cash nowadays? >> i thought it was a compelling part? there's lots of. >> there were places she drew the line. not wanting to talk about where her daughter lives right now. but the stm on the whole was calmer than i expected it to be when she first walked in, but also incredibly detald. i thought her portrayal of why she pays for things in cash and has cash on happened was

compelling. it was a life lesson she learned from her father and joked about the a way that she was raised by that old life. and. >> if you want to look at the legal part of this which is if she benefitted from the miring of nathan wade to be the special prosecutor, did you find her credible? >> yes, and the defense oversold this. there was no evidence other than the woman who was a former employee, that's their evidence. anyone who has an elderly black parent know it's about keeping cash because you never know when you're going to need it. she's been very credible. >> the da is still on the stand. they were taking a short break. once her testimony begins begin, which should be momentarily. we'll go right back in there. can we get back to the question of evidence and harm. can you go over that again. what the defense has to show in order for the judge to rule she has a conflict and can no longer

oversee this case. >> the two sides disagree of the legal standard. if you listen to the defendant a., they are saying the conflict of interest that gets raised here has to be one that directly impacts the defendant and calls into question the integrity or even the lack of bias of the prosecutor. you might say all prosecutors are biassed. thr trying to prove their case. they are trying to show that she hz a particular interest or motivation to go after these folks. and a financial interest and that financial interest, even if it exists, is not enough to show that these defendants were prejudiced by relationship between nathan wade and fani willis. >> even if that were to be the case, which you it's not, multiple times she said everything was -- let's go back

to the courtroom. the judge is speaking. >> this being a room mostly full of lawyers, who have spent their lives in a courtroom. we all know what professionalism looks like, what decorum looks like and devoting ourselves to the rule of law and proper ed a vo ka sit. i would urge everyone to keep those principles in mind starting with the fact that we won't talk over each other. from there, we'll get through this. >> thank you, judge. how often did mr. wade visit you at a place where you were living between 2019 and 2021? >> are you going to start with the lie that he lived with me in south fulton, a home he's never been to, that's one lie you told. >> judge, i didn't ask her about that. >> i want you to ask a precise question. i think she's saying and

answering that he did not live live with her. why don't we break that up into smaller parts. >> i didn't ask about living. >> we're talking about professionalism. we're talking about professionalism. she put in three differentment documents. >> you'll have an opportunity to respond. >> in 2019 -- >> he's never been to zut fulton. >> i i lived in south fullton. he's never been to my residence in 2019. ever. not once. >> 201, he's never been to your residence? >> i lived in my home in south fullton before i started getting the threat that we're here, a house i paid for with my own sweat and tears. i'm no longer able to live there. in 2019 i did. in the two months of 2019 that i knew mr. wade, three months, october, november, december, mr.

wade never came to my house in south fulton. i lived there in 2020. he never came to my house in 2020, let alone live with me, as you put falsely in these documents. in the first three months of 2021, when i could still enjoy my home, mr. wade never came to south fulton. it is certainly a lie he lived with me. >> so in 2020, did mr. wade ever visit you at a place? >> he has never been to my home in south fulton. 2020 was before i knew that a phone call was going to be made and i was going to have abandon mutt home. as a result, he never visited, lived at, came to or has seen south fulton. >> you qualify that with your home in south fulton? >> that's where i lived in 2020. >> did he ever visit you at a place you resided? >> i don't understand.

in 2020 i lived in south fulton. that's the only place i lived. that's before i had to abandon my home, judge. and at my home in south fulton, he never came there. if you don't come some place, you can't live there. >> that would be my first time i have to caution you to listen to the questions as asked. and if this happens again and again, i'm going to have no choice but to strike the testimony. we need to break this down. the question is asking whether you lived other than south fulton. >> i did not live anywhere but south fulton, georgia, in 2020. that was before i began my prosecution of the case. it was my plan to only live there. >> did mr. wade ever visit you at the condo you leased? >> he visited that condo, yes. >> he did? >> yes. >> did he spend the night at

that condo? >> no. >> just visited? >> yeah, but he did visit, for sure. >> did you ever go out to eat together other than the lunches you talked about during 2019 or 2020? >> i would think we probably went to lunch, but it wouldn't have been -- let me think. 2019, i'm going to say we probably broke bread someplace in 2019. i don't remember it, but it seems like we would have broke bread in 2019. i'm going to say yes, although i have no recollection. but it seems like i go out to eat and drink with pretty much everyone. i'm going to say yes. >> outside of the vacations that we have already talked about, did you ever go out to dinner with mr. wade? >> i mentioned to you -- >> during that time period, we're asking very vague questions.

>> we need to be more specific with our questions. >> it's not so much i think you can elect between leading and opening a questions, but we are still wandering about. i think we need to get back on track of focusing on the financial benefit of the relationship. >> my next question if you did go out to dinner, who paid when you went out to dinner? >> he paid, i paid. >> you both paid. >> let me be clear. we didn't say, oh, the bill is $102. you give $51. i'll give your 51. i don't operate like that with my girlfriends or anyone. he caught the bill, i caught the bill, whomever. >> did you pay him through cash app? >> only through cash? >> i'm very confused now. >> have you given him money through cash app?