>> 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?

>> the only money outside of a contract is cash? >> i didn't give him money in a contract. that was cute, but i didn't give him money in a contract. we're going to answer since you said it. he worked more hours than he was paid. and the county paid him for the work that he did. so don't with cute with me and think you're not going to get an answer. >> i asked you about cash. did you ever pay him anything -- i'm trying to qualify my questions. i'm not talking about the contract of fulton county that was paid. i'm not talking about that. i'm talking about outside of that, did you ever pay him anything other than cash? >> i have only given cash a few times in the course of what we're talking about. if we would go to dinner, i wouldn't give him cash because he paid for dinner. i have given him cash a few times in life. probably four. probably the most money i have handed him is $2,500. the least amount of money is

probably $1,000. >> you never wrote him a check? >> i don't have checks. >> so you have no proof of any reimbursement for these things because it was all cash? >> the testimony of one witness is enough to prove a fact. are you telling me i'm lying to you? >> i'm asking if you have any proof that you paid? >> the proof is what i just told you. >> you have no written proof? is that correct? >> i have some probably some transactions like in belize. i probably spent $500 on my card in belize. i spent $900 on each of our tickets to go to belize. i did the $700, i probably have some minor expenses in aruba that would be on a card, but for the most part for those trips, other than the two cruises, i

gave him money for those before we ever left because they were pre-booked. >> the question was if you have written proof. >> so i have answered you that i have proof. >> if you have any written proof and that was my question. >> i want to make sure that we're clear. for the two cruises -- >> judge, i asked for written proof. >> ask the next question. there's plenty of opportunity to clarify. >> thank you, judge. knowing your role as district attorney, you know that public funds are scrutinized and money is scrutinized and things like that. you're under a microscope. you have reporting requirements. you have no record other than your testimony of the money that you have given mr. wade? >> you have already asked that question. keep going. >> when you took office, you had a tax lien of $4600. did you pay that with cash?

>> i probably paid through pay. >> but you were saying you had had cash, you had that lien in 2022 when you were going on these trips. so the cash that you gave him could have been used to pay the tax lien off? >> you're going to tell me how to pay my bills? >> this is not relevant. >> are you trying to establish that she was insol gent in some way? >>s i was trying to establish that she did not have these mass amounts of cash she was talking about, yes. >> re-ask the question. >> you had a tax lien in 2022. $4600. >> if you say i did. >> you did not use this cash that you had to reimburse mr. wade to pay that off, correct? >> no. i went shopping. >> you gave a lot of interviews.

>> i would not characterize it as a lot. i probably have spoken to them two or three times. >> i think it's already come up that finances are discussed in the boom. i'll overrule that. >> that's the issue. >> you gave interviews to the authors of this book, correct? >> once or twice. >> i don't know if it was three times. two or three times. >> you were quoted in the book, and i'll fwif you a chance to say if this was a misquote. when they asked you about if you theed to run for office for da, you were quoted, i really don't want to be financially fed up again. do you remember saying that?

my question is if you remember saying that? >> i remember saying similar to that. but i would like to explain that. that's not in reference to anything else. it was a huge sacrifice to the district attorney. huge. i was doing just fine. i had a municipal court judgeship. you have to show up twice a week, easiest thing i have ever done in life. i also had private clients that were paying me to represent them. so i was able to have a law practice and that. raising two daughters by myself, there were times in life where things were hard. so i was telling people i don't really run for da. i'm in a good position now. it's easy job that i enjoy being the chief judge at the city of south fulton. i'm making money at the law firm. i'm not sure that i want to make

this sacrifice. why does it always have to be me? eventually, i prayed. i think i was the appropriate person. i think that i did that. so when you're referring to that, what i'm saying is why should make a sacrifice again. what i was not talking about is being district attorney. once you get elected, you're in a fine financial position. i make over $200,000 a year. i ran for judge. when i ran for judge, i took $50,000 of my personal money out of my retirement. that money ended up being lost. and i know when you bet on yourself, you're going to have to bet money on yourself. so what i was talking about is not wanting to go through the personal financial expense of running for office. by no means did i think i was going to be financially in a bad position once i won. let's talk about what i was up against because it's important to understand that comment. i had a district attorney who had been here for 24 years. this is very relevant to what my

mind sets was about this. so i'm trying to answer your question. what i was saying is -- >> let's stick to the finances. >> i spent my own money running. it was nothing. and when i'm talking to those offers, i'm talking about the contemplation of the sacrifice of the run. not the sacrifice of once you become da. the odds were against me. i was likely going to lose the election based on who i was running against. that needs to be in the appropriate context. >> isn't it true that the authors wrote, and you can speak this if you'd like, you were broke after that race. >> the 2018 race, that was a hard race. i wasn't broke like didn't have -- broke is relative depending on where you are, but that hurt to lose that $50,000. sure my mental mind set was like

i just gave $50,000 away. >> so they characterized it you were broke. you had poured your own money into the campaign and weren't able to pay your bills -- your clients couldn't pay their bills to you and you had family and asset forfeiture cases that says you were trying to make it month to month. is that an accurate depiction of your financial situation at that point? >> i would want to read that, but i don't remember clients not being able to pay their bills. >> may i approach? >> i have not read this book. >> so like this here, i have no information about that. >> i just asked about what they represent from their interviews

with you that you were broke and had clients that weren't able to pay your bills. >> i'm sure i characterize myself as leaving that $50,000. i don't know i had the law practice. >> so this is not correct. i didn't have any asset forfeiture cases. i had one case where they took one of my client's money at the airport. i don't know. i did have family law cases. and clients who couldn't pay their bills ain't clients. so no. >> so my question was if this was a fair and accurate representation if they were

trying to make it month to month. >> i don't think it's a fair and accurate representation. i'm certain after the 2018 election i'm still not happy about giving up that $50,000. >> do you know when you paid your tax lien? >> i don't know. >> do you know if you paid it? >> i know i paid some taxes. i don't want to speculate. >> did you tell anyone at fulton county board of commissioners about your relationship with mr. wade? >> no. >> did you disclose your relationship to anybody at fulton county? >> i don't think so. >> as the chief law enforcement officer at fulton county, i assume you're familiar with the cord of ordinances. >> we're not going to cover that in this hearing. okay. >> so are you aware that you're required to disclose any

relationship with someone that you contract with within fulton county? >> objection. >> this would be different because it's potential for impeachment. >> what did you ask me? >> are you aware that fulton county requires you to disclose any relationship with someone you're doing business with? >> i'm not aware. i know often that things are confused with state constitutional officers and county, but i'm not aware. >> so it's not your -- it's your understanding you don't have a duty. >> she answered that question. let's keep going. >> did you keep track of this cash that you paid him? >> i don't understand. >> did you keep track? did you keep a ledger? did you keep track of it? >> i have only given him cash three or four times. there's no ledger. this is friends handing money off to each other. >> so the answer is no.

>> i think you have already asked if there was any written proof and she's answered that. we have covered this. let's move on. who are you referring to when you suggest that the motion to disqualify? >> we're not talking about the forensic misconduct that's been alleged. >> okay. >> just so the record is clear, i don't believe i said it was racially motivated. i have never is saud his motion was racially moivated. that should not be true. >> it would be best if we don't go down that road. >> you once said you'd not engage in a personal relationship with anyone in fulton county, is that correct? >> an employee? >> anyone that worked for fulton county. >> i said an employee. >> so that's the qualification, an employee? >> i think that's the statement i made. if you want to quote me, quote

me acurately. >> so it's your position because mr. wade was not an employee. >> mr. wade is not an employee. he will tail light you that over and over again. >> what you said was you won't sleep with people who work under you? do you not consider mr. wade working under you? >> i consider mr. to be an agent. >> an appointee is what i think of him as. >> your point is on the record. next question. >> do we need any moments? >> i'm ready to go, your honor.

>> i'm going to try to ask you questions that you can actually answer without having to explain. >> yes, sir, my comprehension skills are pretty good. >> we shall soon see. if i heard you correct ily, you moved into what i will refer to as the condo in either march or april of 2021. is that correct? >> some time between february and april, yes. just so we're clear. but in that time period, you're in the ballpark. >> is that condo, would you say -- >> it's in haynesville. >> you moved in there for safety reasons. >> my father, yes, i moved in there. we were concerned. my father was terribly concerned about my continuing to live at the house. so that we're clear, people came

to i my house at 5:00 in the morning about the brutality cases saying i was going to have a wakeup call. there were security threats due to gang cases. and there were concerns due to the very beginning of this looking into that. so for all of those reasons and what was happening, my father wanted me out the house. begrudgingly, i left. >> so the answer to the question was yes for safety reasons. correct? >> those were all of the things that caused the safety concerns. >> i'm not questioning whether they are or not safety concerns. i asked that you moved into the condo for safety reasons. >> yes. >> at the time that you moved into the con doe, be it from february to april of 2021, was your father still living in your house? >> yes. >> i get to explain the answers? >> i don't know if there's an explanation. if was your father still living at your house. the answer is he was or wasn't. >> yes, but you're going to

argue. >> yes because my father is an older gentleman. he was worried about covid. he stayed. >> that's the second time. whenever with we have to put a pause, we stop testifying. you don't have a chance to explain yourself. the question was whether your father was not staying there at the time and you're clarifying that in your answer as well. you can have a brief clarification, but it shouldn't be something that reaches well beyond the question. >> re-ask the question. we'll see is where it takes us. >> thank you, your honor. >> was your father still living in your house at the time you moved to what i refer to as the condo? >> yes, sir, due to his concerns related to covid. >> the safety concern was that

there was potential danger at your house. is that correct? >> yes, my address had been exposed, so there was concerns about potential danger at my house. >> so anyone staying at your house in the time period after you went to the condo was still in danger, correct? >> your objection is speculation. whether someone was still in danger in her condo? >> he want rephrase. >> i was able to understand it. >> i have the objection and then i have -- >> i remember the question is so i can answer it. >> you can now that the objection has been withdrawn. >> there's still a safety concern for people staying at the house. >> yes, i was very concerned

about my father still living at the house. however, if you have dealt with an older gentleman, he was not leaving the house, despite my urging him i thought he should leave as well. he did not want to leave the house because he was particularly worried about covid. that became -- i don't want to -- i was not happy with that decision, but i can't make him leave. he stayed there too long, in my president bush. >> thank you. during that period that you left to go to the condo, did any of your children stay at your house? >> so i don't think they were there at that point. certainly, my baby wasn't there. >> i'm talking about this entire period. i'm talking about, if i remember correctly, you said you stayed there at the condo until january of 2022.

correct? >> yes. >> so i'm asking you in that period, which would be february to april of 2021 until january of 2022, did any of your children stay at your house? >> you don't have to yell at me. i'm able to understand. i would ask you to not yell at me. that being said, i don't actually expressly remember, but i can tell you since i have left my home, there have been times my oldest daughter came in. but i can't tell you with certainty the time window that you have said, if they did or not. i don't want to speulate. there was some time that my oldest daughter came back. whether it was that period or after i left, i'm not sure. >> so if i continue to go into more detail on this, you're not going to be able to give me an answer on whether or not in fact any of your children were still at the house or stayed at your house during that time period. >> what i can give you clarity

of so we are clear is from the time i moved out in februaryish of 2021, after i left there, there was a time period that my oldest daughter came back. but if you're asking if it was that window or after, i just don't have a recollection of that. your kids come and go. so i don't remember the specific time period. i apologize for that. >> did your children ever stay with you at the condo? >> like maybe a night. for a girls night or something, but lived with, no. >> did anyone else stay with you at the condo? >> never. she met her husband and they moved. nobody ever lived with me in the condo. >> my word was stay, not lived. stayed with you at the condo. >> i guess i don't understand the distinction. i think my oldest child, i think

she spent one night with me. but i think that whole time nifs that place, other than that one night, i don't think anyone -- it was a very lonely period in my life. i don't think anyone spent the night other than maybe one night. i remember a picture of my babies sitting on the couch, and i think she spent that night. just a very lonely time in life. >> we'll stay with the lonely theme. did nee tan wade visit you at the condo from the time you moved in until he was hired on november 1st of 2021? >> so i moved out of that condo, but during that time period, i'm sure he came to visit. he came to visit. i can remember us going to a restaurant and him picking me up and ordering some food and

sitting at my table and ooeting. so i remember times he visited me at that condo. >> can you give us an approximation of how many times he visited you at the condo between the time you moved in and prior to november 1 of 2020? >> i don't think often. i don't want to speculate. >> can we say more than 5? more than 10? >> i'm going to tell you the problem i'm having here. let's say more than 10, but i'm not sure that's even accurate. he certainly has come and picked me up and grabbed some food to eat. i don't remember him being in that condo a lot. i'm sorry. you want a number. >> you have given me your best recollection. >> that's all i can give you.

>> how many times did any of the prosecution team come to that condo between the time you moved in and november 1st of 2021? >> i don't think anna has ever been to that condo. >> what about any other prosecutor that's involved in the prosecution of this case? >> i don't think any of them have? >> just mr. wade? >> that's correct, sir. >> but it was a lonely time. >> yeah, that 2021, you have a lot of guilt about this time period in my life. let me tell you why. it was a lonely time. i was very appreciaive to the citizens for giving me this responsibility and this duty. but what i very, very quickly learned is that this is a very isolating job. and 2021 was a lonely time. i turned 50 in 2021. probably one of the worst birthdays i ever had. i spent it alone. so have a clear recollection of

2021 being lonely. >> did mr. wade ever visit you at the condo in the time period i'm talking about producer to november of 2021 when she was at the condo. >> we didn't share the condo at the same time. >> so the answer would be no. >> we never stayed there together so it was an impossibility. >> we need to get clarification on this. she stayed in that place. there may have been a time that we and mr. wade visited her, but we never lived there together. just we're clear. >> i'm going to have to try again. >> was she still living in the condo when you moved in? >> not a day. >> so what i'm -- we never lived together.

>> my question, i'm trying to understand that after you moved in to the condo, she was out of the condo. >> she got a house. >> that's all i'm asking. she's not in the condo? >> we never stayed a day together in the condo. all of her stuff was out of the condo, and some of my stuff was moved into the condo. so we never stayed there together. no, sir. >> so when i ask you about mr. wade visiting the con doe, when you were staying there, she wasn't staying there, correct? >> that would be correct. >> she wouldn't be at the condo. >> no, she would not have been. >> had it would be you and mr. wade alone at the condo. correct? >> yes. >> there weren't any other witnesses to you and mr. wade at the condo. >> yes. >> no security. none of your security detail.

>> she said it was just her and mr. wade. >> you made your point. let's move on. >> who in the prosecution team prior to i guess the motion being filed by the defendant, who in the prosecution team knew of your personal relationship and now i'm talking romantic with mr. wade? so sir, i am extremely private. >> all i asked is who knew? if the answer is no one knew, that's fine. >> am very private. when i supervised, they didn't no who i was dagt, but i was dating somebody. i kept something private. that's my private life. it's not any mystery to anyone. it's like a woman doesn't have the right to keep her private life private. i'm speaking on this because

there have been all these intimations. >> you still haven't answered the question. >> what was the question? >> did anyone else know? >> i don't think so. i certainly didn't go out telling my business to the world. >> so the best of your recollection, you didn't inform anyone on the prosecution team that the individual that you had chosen to lead the prosecution team had a personal relationship with you? >> that's inaccurate. you stated the person i chose we had a personal relationship. we had a friendship. we have all these distinguishing factors. when i chose him in november of 2021, let's get this straight. mr. wade was not my first choice. that's no insult to him. because of the way you phrased the question, you said when i chose him, i didn't inform

people of a personal relationship. we have defined personal as romantic. >> you hired mr. wade the first time on november 1st of 2021, correct? >> yes, sir. >> at the time you hired mr. wade, there had never been a romantic relationship with mr. wade before you hired him, correct? >> i'm not talking about it. i'm saying romantic relationship doesn't necessarily have to be just sex. it can be dating, it can be holding hands, it can be any of those things that one might call romantic.

>> i don't consider my relationship to be romantic before that. i'm not a hand holder so no. >> if i understand your testimony, there was no there was no ro mant you can relationship for mr. wade until early in 2022. whether it be january or february or march, early in 2022, correct? >> i would say between february and april. >> you didn't see the need, if i understand, to tell any of the people on the prosecution team when you had established a

romantic relationship with mr. wade that the lead prosecutor, that if the man that was basically giving orders to others was dating or having a romantic relationship with you, correct? >> just to prove or attempting to show there's an issue on credibility about the relationship. the failure to have informed anyone on her team that she was having a romantic relationship with the lead prosecutor, i suggest it gives rise to that inference. >> the inference that? >> that they were concealing this because it's been characterized to the court. >> overruled. >> i just want to make sure that

we're clear. >> at least that time period. >> i'm not talking about -- >> i want to be clear. my credibility is being evaluated here. we were friends. we hung out prior to november of 2021, in november of 2021, i hired him. i do not consider our relationship to have become romantic until early of 2022. i don't know a date in time. i'm saying some time between february and april of 2022. very early april of 2022. i know that trip i discussed was like the first week of 2022. that the relationship had become roen mantic. i hope that answered your question. i can't have it where we're saying something differently. >> you have established the timeline. the question was at the time did you tell any other prosecutors? >> i never told people.

>> did you take any trips to d.c. with mr. wade? >> never. >> did you ever take -- you have no personal trips or business trips to d.c. with mr. wade? >> i never went to d.c. with mr. wade. >> so as i understand it, let's be clear. any trips you would have taken to see d.c.. >> that was a pretty clear answer. >> she just said no. >> you have a variation or something new to bring up. >> i'll ask it and we'll see. did you take trips to d.c. that were non-business during the time period that this case or this matter was under investigation? >> objection.

rel advance. >> the question asked personal or business trips. >> that was mr. wade. this i asked her alone whether she took. >> trying to understand whether or not we have the ability to show personal trip in which mr. wade is there at the same time. i understand her answer. i understand her answer, but we have documents, we have records. >> this could be something that's not part of the record yet, but i think there's been other things discussed in this case. they have evidence that mr. wade may have been in d.c. at the same time. if you want to ask that about that specific date.

>> you never took a trip to d.c. with mr. wade. >> that's correct. >> i have been to d.c. since being on this case. what has nod happened is we have not been in the district of columbia at the same time. the only thing i'm not sure about is if i've been to d.c. personally. i have a lot of personal friends in that area, but i know that i have been to d.c. i did an interview at howard university. i went to d.c. for that. teem seemed like i have in d.c. for the global summit. those were two separate trips. >> my next question is based on

her opening the door and i'll just ask it and your honor can decide whether it's appropriate. when you went to d.c., did you go to the white house? >> i did not go to the white house. >> there you have it. next question. >> you indicated your best recollection was your relationship with mr. wade, a romantic relationship ended -- you left it at august of 2023. does that sound right? >> that's a hard conversation. >> you character rised it as a tough conversation, correct? >> yes. >> i'm not going to get into the conversation. >> you should. >> if he doesn't want to. >> it's hard to say no. all i'm going to say is was it

preindictment in this case? >>. >> we know the timeline the indictment was delivered. >> so we're clear, the physical relationship ended pre-indictment. >> is that when you were talking ab the tough conversation? >> i'm not sure that the tough conversation didn't happen until after, but the physical relationship, i'm sure if you asked wade he would say we ended june or july because physical the contact ended then. just in my mind being a woman, it's over when you have that hard conversation. i just think women and men think differently. >> i think the answer to your question was she's not sure whether it was before or after the indictment. >> i'm not sure that that was her answer, but let's see if i can get specific. >> that is what i said. >> the romantic relationship ended before the indictment was

returned, yes or no? >> to a man, yes. >> to you no? >> she's explained this. >> did the forthcoming indictment have anything to do with that? >> it had absolutely nothing to do with this. it's interesting that we're here about this money. mr. wade is used to women that as he told me one time, the only thing ament woman can do for him is make him a sandwich. we would have brutal arguments about the fact that i am your equal. i don't need anything from a man. a man is not a plan. a man is a companion. and sos there was tension always in our relationship, which is why i would give him his money back. i don't need anybody to foot my bills. the only man who has foot my bills completely is my daddy.

>> anything else you would like to add to that? >> no, but i'm sure we'll talk about it further. >> no back and forth. next question. >> my next question is something that i would have to do with what i characterized as the church speech. let me just tell you what the question is. >> represerve the question for the record. >> when you gave what i referred to as the martin luther king weekend church speech, you know what i'm referring to. >> a great honor of mine, that's an historic african-american church. >> did you have handwritten notes with you that you were reading from during the speech? >> on second thought, because you might have a number of questions about this, why don't we bullet point what you want to talk about this and move on to the next topic.

i laid out forensic misconduct. >> do i not get an answer for that? >> did you read your speech? >> no, for everything related to -- >> you want me to stay out of it now. >> we can do it in a bullet form. cover what you would have asked, but it's not in a question and answer mat. >> do it at this point? >> do it right now. >> i'm going to ask her about did prepare the speech, did she have notes on the speech, read the speech, when did she do write the speech, who was she referring to when talking about others, who she was referring to when she said they, who she was referring to when she spoke in terms of their? sfwr i would love to answer those questions. >> you can certainly do that in some other format, but for today, we decided we're not going to cover.

>> who was playing the race card and why people had respect the way it was character rised, the black man she was referring to was that mr. wade? that's that area of inquiry. >> noted for the record. next topic. >> i realize that you have testified that you have no records with regard to cash payments. >> yes. >> would your bank records reflect that you withdrew cash from your bank account during the time period of 2020, 2021, 2022 or 2023? i'm not asking you -- i'm asking whether they would reflect that you withdrew cash from any of your bank accounts?

>> so the exact amounts -- of course, i withdrew money throughout my life. i withdrew money from the bank, yes. >> cash? did you go to a bank or an atm and take cash out? >> either that way or you go to publix and overpay or go to another store and overpay. both through that, yes. they would reflect that at times. >> so those records, if we had them, would show that? >> throughout the course of my life -- >> i was very specific. >> i would have taeken money out, yes. >> do you have a problem with -- you don't want the bank records to be made available for the court and the court alone? >> objection to the relevance. >> improper line of questioning.

it's the purpose of harassment. >> i'm just going to sustain it on relevance. that's something you want to follow up privately, you can do that. >> last area. you had contact with mr. wade in the year 2020, correct? >> i had some contact with mr. wade. >> would you explain when you say some contact, please tell us -- i'm talking about 2020. >> i had some contact with mr. in 2020. one of the reasons your allegations are so preposterous is -- >> i didn't ask you about the allegations. i asked you about your contact. that's all i ask you. appreciate that you want to say something. i'm interested in did you have contacts in 2020 and your answer so far has been yes, correct? >> very limited contact because

mr. wade had a form of cancer and makes your allegations somewhat ridiculous. >> i do appreciate the characterization. >> i'm not going to emasculate a black man. did you understand that? >> next question. >> i'm trying to, your honor. would you tell us on the occasions in 2020 that you had contact with mr. wade. >> i thought i had answered that. there were times in 2020 i had contact. but 2020 was a year i was running for office. it was a year he was going through some serious medical issues. and i did not have much contact. i certainly had contact with him in 2020. >> did you go out to eat with him? >> maybe. probably. >> did you visit him in any location, his office or did he visit you in your office in

2020? >> am sure -- that's a very good question. i'm sure he came to 750 in 2020. >> that was my office. not often, but maybe once or twice. maybe went to his office once or twice. maybe once. >> and the purpose for going to his office would have been what? >> maybe we would have went to pizza or he would have come for lunch. i'm sure we went by each other's office. not a lot. we were both grinding. trying to make a liing. >> i understand what you said about the cancer. i'm not going into that. but had when you were going out with him to restaurants, when he would come to your office, those were not sterile environments. >> very sterile. >> restaurants were sterile

environments? >> a lot of times we wouldn't eat there. we would pick up something. >> i'm listening to you. >> you maybe eat at our office. that didn't happen much. and my office in 2020, nobody was coming in. i was stir crazy. would still go into my office. if you remember when i started this, i said i am not even sure if we came to each other's offices, but i'm trying to be overcautious. so i think i can recall him at 750 a couple times. actually, i recall once, but let's say twice. i have seen his office -- i remember all the awards in the lobby. but i'm not sure in 2020 i went. i'm not sure i went in 2020 all the all. i just want to tell you yes because i'm not sure.

but i have a distinct recollection at 750. i don't have a distinct recollection of me at his office, but maybe i did. maybe. >> did you have ongoing phone conversations during 2020 with mr. wade? >> i talked to him, yes. absolutely. >> no question about that? >> no question. i talked to him on the phone in 2020. >> i understood and maybe i was confused. the belize trip was for -- >> his 50th birthday. >> that was in march? >> march of 2023. if you look at the dates of the trip, i think we were there about six days. we stayed at two different locations. >> you paid for it? >> 100%. he said -- i paid for the hotel, i paud for the flights, i had a birthday luncheon for him. i paid for massages.

i paid for everything. >> were those payments be reflected on your credit card? >> i paid cash. i was telling you all the different things. >> and i'm asking whether or not those payments would be reflected on credit card bills of yours? >> there was about $500 that is reflected on a debit card. my recollection is i took about $4,000 in cash. but i handed him $2,500. the rest was just the money we spent i probably gave $400 to this guy who was a taxi driver. he would drive us every day. took him to eat. it was my trip money. >> and you had -- to be clear, the $4,000. >> i didn't give it all to him. i gave the $2500 to him. >> i didn't ask you that. that $4,000 is part of your cash that you had collected over

time. >> i'm afraid i wouldn't say that. >> back on track. >> i would not classify it in that way, but i have money at my house, yes, sir. >> the money when you had money at your house -- >> i'm speaking too loosely. i had money wherevers i was staying. so i was not referring to my house at 750. i'm saying i had money wherever i was laying my head, yes, sir. that was my fault. i wasn't clear. >> so when you were at the condo during the time period we have always discussed, that's where you would keep your cash. >> when i stayed there, yes. >> that's all i have. thank you. >> let's see if we can get through a few more defense counsel possible before breaking for today. mr. stockton?

>> i don't think we have had the pleasure of meeting. >> it's a pleasure to meet you, sir. >> madame da, you described these various trips and he was asked about going to washington. did you and mr. wade go to new york? >> i have gone to new york. you have gone to new york twice since i have been district attorney. i'm trying to think two or three times. i went to do a domestic violence thing there ands i was honored and i went to the apollo there. those are the two trips. i went. he was not with me. >> you also said he was went. he was not with me. >> you also said that he was a world traveler and been on many of the continents. >> been to six. >> have you been on any of these continents with him?

beside this one? >> where is belize? what continent? i'm not being funny. been to belize, bahamas, aruba with him. don't embarrass me, i'm not sure what continents those are. whatever continents those are that's where i've been. i'm sure if i gave it thought i would tell you. whatever continents those are, i've been to those locations, sir. >> not to australia or -- >> i don't want to australia. i do know he took a trip in december to australia. i have no idea, you know -- i don't know anything about that trip. >> when mr. wade began working with your office -- >> yes? >> he had two other gentlemen that worked in his firm with him. is that correct? >> yes. terrence bradley worked for him, and chris campbell work -- not for him, they worked with each other. >> did you understand what their partnership arrangement was? >> i -- no. >> did he ever make you aware of how fees were divided or

anything? >> no. >> now, since you have been district attorney, the two gentlemen that worked with mr. wade in his firm, they also had contracts with your office. is that correct? >> i probably had -- >> we already -- i don't know if we've covered this, but i don't know what the relevance would be of her testifying to this. >> i've had about ten -- i'm sorry. do you want me to answer? >> judge, respectfully, i think based on mr. wade's testimony, he had an interest in those contracts. >> sure. and then how has that been imputed to ms. willis? >> i don't know if -- whether or not she knew she was giving him that benefit. that's what i was trying t explore. >> maybe we can start with that question. if she doesn't know about it, the ins and outs of the contract won't be quite as relevant. >> judge, to lay a foundation for that -- >> go ahead. >> the two gentlemen that were in mr. wade's office, did they

have what i think's been referred to as a taint contract? >> so let me be clear, and i may get the names wrong. when i first became d.a., the office was not properly staffed. and so i did -- i'm surprised any lawyer would take it, but i did a contract for like $60 an hour to help us out with first appearance. that lasted a few months, okay. so i can't remember if bradley or campbell had that. i'm sure we can have records, and i can tell you which one, but i can't remember now. i liked their experience. one had been -- bradley had been a probation officer and a defense attorney. campbell had been a police officer and a defense attorney. there's a reason i'm telling you this. then that contract, like i said, didn't last long. it was just -- aggressively hiring, hiring, hiring, hiring. as soon as i got where i felt like i had first appearance, enough lawyers for that, i let them go. then we had what's called a

filter contract, but it was not filter for this particular case. i do have a lawyer who does the filter for this election interference case. when we're talking about filter the contract they had that neither one of them has any longer, i now have another lawyer that does that for me. it was only for police brutality cases. it's for what i call the -- when i first got to be the d.a., i had the whole unit was called anti-corruption. it dealt with both elections and police brutality cases. i actually took a trip to houston and visited the district attorney in houston. they divided their work up, and i thought the way she was doing it was better than me. so i made a civil rights unit. and so they did what we would classify as civil rights cases. those are specifically the police brutality cases. when first took over, i was told paul had not filtered five cases. that was a joke. it ended up being the 101 cases.

they weren't filtered, which is why i hired two of them. eventually we got it down enough that it was one of them. and then now i still have one lawyer that does it, but now i've been able to cut those cases down to like 30. >> can you tell me the -- help me understand what the purpose of the filter is? >> yes, sir. so what a filter is is police officers make statements in the line of duty, and you are not allowed as the prosecutor to know what those statements are, if they're done in the furtherance of their employment. and in fact, if you know what those statements are, you're basically disqualified from the case. you can't have it anymore. so what our policy is, i think i pay like a $50 flat fee, they pick the case up directly from the gbi, that's where those cases go to, and what they are to do is to go through the entire file. so the body cam, the -- which is important because sometimes

they'll make a statement to their supervisor on body cam, in the police reports where they write things. it would be easy if it was just some statement of the police officer, but what you find out is these statements are embedded in it. so what your filter lawyer does is they go through it, they either redact it out electronically, or they cross it out. and then once it is crossed out, then they provide it to my team, and then we're able to look at it. that was not being done appropriately when i became district attorney. i thought that it had only been -- mr. howard had some chinese wall thing that didn't think worked at all, where allegedly those cases were properly redacted. that ended up being a joke. and so the five cases really turned into -- i'm not going to say all 101 -- but a vast majority -- that is the work that mr. bradley and mr. campbell did for me. they did a good job. the cases are done, not just done for mr. bradley and mr.

campbell, they're done through my office. obviously life is not stagnant. there have been new police cases. i do have a lawyer that is doing that work now that doesn't work for me, that's same kind of deal. i have another lawyer that does filtering for this case, completely separate. >> so in the same private office you had a filter contract, then you had somebody else having -- handling first appearances and so forth. then you had a special prosecutor. is that correct? >> i'm -- i'm just not -- ultimately the answer to your question is yes. but i'm not sure that they did it at the same time. the first appearance contract was either $6 0 or $90, how i convinced them to take that. i think it was such a short amount of time. and then i think i paid my filter lawyers, which i still don't know how i get away with, about $150 an hour. and i want you to understand the ag pays special prosecutors

$1,000 an hour. so i'm a tough negotiator. paul was paying people up to $375 an hour. i won't pay anyone more than $250 is my max, i have a lot of lawyers that -- a lot for what i have that work at $250, and i cap them every month. you can't go past a certain amount of hours. >> would you agree that if mr. wade and the two other gentlemen that were in his firm were splitting fees in equal thirds, would you agree that he would benefit from the taint contract and also from the other first appearance contract? >> i would agree he would make money. to make money is a benefit. >> that's all i got. >> mr. durham, are you still with us on zoom? >> no questions, your honor. >> mr. mcdougal? >> i have a couple your honor, but it's awkward from back here. >> go ahead and make your way up.

>> good afternoon, ms. willis, how you doing? >> i'm very well. how are you, mr. mcdougal? i think this is our first in-person meeting, correct? >> second. >> i apologize for not remembering you more clearer. >> that's all right. i'm referring now to exhibit number 21. >> yes, sir. >> which was your financial disclosure form for 2022. >> yes, sir. >> and it has a question which requires you to disclose any gifts or favors from a single prohibited source in the aggregate amount of $100 or more. do you see that?

>> i don't, but i believe you. >> it would be on page two in the middle, paragraph number three. >> yes. >> and what is your understanding of a prohibited source for purposes of this form? >> i believe there's some classification of somebody who like don't have a personal relationship with that gives you $100. if -- >> if you look under there, subparagraph two, it defines it as someone that you know or should know is seeking to do or is doing business with the county. correct? >> yes, but i -- yes. let me -- yes. >> that includes mr. wade as of the date you filled out this form, correct? >> yes, but he never gave me a gift of $100 or more. the only thing that i would say maybe went over that but i don't think it ever did is if we went to dinner and my meal was $100.

but i don't think i've ever eaten $100 worth of food at a restaurant because i would not pay him back if we went to lunch or went to dinner. but trips, i paid him back for. you know, i never thought about the money until y'all brought it up. and i would be less than honest to say i was giving him the money back because i was the district attorney. i didn't take gifts for him. for a lot of personal reasons. anyway, i did not take gifts from him. >> and so your reason for not disclosing any gifts for mr. wade on exhibit number 21 is that the aggregate amount on a net basis was less than $100 in the year 2022, is that correct? >> i did not accept a gift of him of more than $100 in 2022.

one exception to that, if you -- i want us to be clear, is we probably went out to eat multiple times in the year, if you're considering eating a meal. you know, we went out multiple times. that probably went to the level of more than $100. if we're doing tit-for-tat like that, i probably paid for as many meals as he paid for. and so i did not receive any gifts from him. >> the question on the form -- >> i understand the question -- >> the aggregate, in excess of $100. and your testimony is that but not receive in aggregate more than $100? >> mr. mcdougal, you can sit down now. >> i don't believe she answered that question, your honor. she answered as to specific individual gifts -- >> i have to -- >> you're not listening to my answer either so we're done. >> very well. >> okay. mr. rice? >> no further questions, your honor. >> mr. gillen?

>> good afternoon. >> good afternoon, sir. >> a few questions here. i want to -- you saw the book here of "finding the votes," that was shown to you, correct? >> yes, sir. >> i want to tender this as an exhibit, number 22 -- >> your copi? >> it is. >> all right. what exhibit is that going to be? >> 22. >> all right. >> i'm making the evidentiary contribution here to this. now -- >> you're tendering it. is it -- position of the state? >> object to the relevance at this point as to -- there's no relevance at this point. >> mr. gillen, are you using this to -- prior statements -- >> statements she made concerning her financial situation and laying the foundation for that, and that

she gave these interviews to the authors. and so this would document that and get this in the record to ask her questions about it. >> we can market for impeachment purposes, i'm wary of entering an entire 300-page book because i don't know every lean if it would pass hearsay or relevance, et cetera. i don't think it needs to be admitted as an actual -- for the record for you to do what you need do with it. >> your honor, i understand. i just would -- >> it's marked 22, i'll let you -- we'll move from there. >> thank you, your honor. now, you were asked a little bit about this book before, correct? >> i think mrs. -- mrs. merchant asked me some questions, yes. >> and gave about, what, six interviews to the authors of this book in a sit-down? >> no, sir. >> you didn't? >> no. >> was it -- >> she answered how many interviews she gave in her opinion. >> how many in your opinion do you believe you gave, and how long did they last?

>> two to three, maybe 20 or 30 minutes. >> you say your testimony is at most you gave maybe an hour to an hour and a half's interview to the authors of this book? >> oh, you mean in total? >> in total, yeah. >> maybe, yeah. anywhere between -- definitely not more than two-ish hours. >> okay. but you also were telling -- when they were -- the title of the book, of course, is a hard charging georgia prosecutor, a rogue president, and the plot to steal american election. >> your honor, relevance -- >> i have -- >> why is the title of the book relevant, sir? >> i'm going ask whether or not that was the theme they gave her when they talked with her. >> objection -- >> the thing you gave her, what do you mean? >> they sat down and told her why they torpedo to interview her. >> and -- there to interview her. >> and why does that matter? >> they want her to give her version of what her life story is. this is a -- almost a life story of her. so that's why it's relevant.

but if the court thinks it's not, then -- >> no, no. it could be relevant to your issue of the forensic misconduct that has been alleged and maybe some of the motives at play when it comes to forensic misconduct. but i'm not seeing, again, what we're here for today was the relationship and/or any financial elements of it. >> correct. i think clearly relevant to the forensic misconduct. also relevant to the personal interest in terms of the finances. >> i didn't make ten cents off that book. >> pardon me? >> i didn't make ten cents off that book. >> i didn't ask whether you made any money. didn't ask whether you made any money. >> any other statements she hasn't been confronted by? >> other than i wanted to focus on when you were telling them about your financial straits and you were living month to month, that is what your financial status was back in 2018 after your -- >> we covered that at length. you're at the end of the line, i'm sorry about that. we've got to find new ground. >> well, you know, let me move

on to my point here. so the point is that what you're telling us is that you were in financial straits, but really your testimony today is you had a cash horde of up to $10,000 in cash where you laid your head at night so you would dip out and there would be no record of it, correct? >> that's not what i'm telling you, sir. that's not at all what i'm telling you. what i'm telling you is that throughout the course of my life i have always kept cash in my house. that cash has ranged from times, you know, my father would probably be ashamed of this because he would say it should be more, but that cash at times has ranged from $500 to maybe $9,000. and he would be like, that is not what i told you to do. i've always had that amount of money. what i've told you is that when i travel, you do better negotiating when you travel if

you have cash. you can -- you go to get the cab, they say, oh, we're going to charge you $300 for the day. i got american cash, will you take it for $150? so it's my practice to take money when i travel. we're not talking about a whole lot of money. we're going to the bahamas. $1,500 in cash is in my pocket, at the most $2,500. belize was actually probably the most money i've ever taken, and it was taken because it was a big deal. my 50th birthday sucked. his 50th birthday -- it sucked. it was terrible -- no. >> your honor, i'd like to get back to some questions here -- >> i'm trying to answer it. >> it would help if we had a question here -- >> let's move to the specific yes or nos here. have you told us today that you would keep a cash horde in your residence up to about $9,000, yes or no? >> throughout the course of my adult life. and so let's even be more specific than that. probably from the time -- >> i'm only asking for yes or

no. rather than -- >> we have already covered this. >> i'm trying to -- >> you're laying the foundation, but it's already been laid. >> the filibuster is here. i'm trying to move through the filibuster. >> we're not talking about a lot -- so it could be $2,000 it could be $1,500 it would be $7,500. it depends what you're doing at that time. what i am telling you is when i traveled i took cash. i find that when you travel especially to foreign countries, the american dollar does well, and it's good to have cash. you can negotiate with the taxi driver, with the jet skis, with the -- and it's not a lot of money we're talking about. >> your honor -- >> i understand, miss willis. let's -- >> have to cut off -- >> let's get to the question. >> so you have cash in your house, but you had a lien -- a cash lien on your property, is that satellite. >> i don't believe i had a tax lien on my property. >> you didn't have a tax lien -- >> you have to speak up -- we covered that. i need new ground here. >> i'm asking the question, trying to figure out how someone can have a tax lien --

>> then ask that question -- >> -- but not use the money that they allegedly said they have. >> i think miss merchant asked that exact question and said she didn't use the money it pay her tax lien. what's your question that's new? >> i'm trying to build on that to say -- >> no more building. it's already built. >> all right. >> the same way you pay a -- >> hop on it if you need to -- >> the same way you owe a bill and go shopping. >> have you ever used -- did you say earlier you used cash app? >> when i would pay robin bryant i used cash app. >> what is cash app for the record? >> i don't need to know that for the record. let's keep going. >> so if you're paying robin with cash app why aren't you paying, allegedly paying mr. -- >> there's no alleged here. >> why aren't you paying allegedly mr. wade with cash app? >> i don't think mr. wade does cash app. >> did you ask him? >> i think he's told me he doesn't do cash app. >> that's the reason you didn't use cash app. >> he's sitting next to me, i hand him the money.

>> this would be a record in cash app of you making payments, correct? >> yes, but i didn't think i was making a record in a personal relationship. >> because when you're filing your -- and i know i'm going to -- move into this financial statement here, you were asked just a second ago about your non-disclosure form or -- excuse me, your disclosure form of an exhibit 21 where we agree that mr. wade is a prohibited source, correct? >> i don't -- what i agreed to is i don't believe he's given me gifts. you would like to classify these trips as gifts, but i've always paid my fair share on these trips. so i didn't -- not look at them as gifts. i don't think that what this is disclosing and they can tell me if they mean something different, i don't think it means that if you go to dinner with somebody over the course of a year and gifts to $100 you're supposed to report it. if my understanding of that is

wrong, i probably been to lunches with a couple of people that over the course of a year they paid, i paid. >> prohibited source means -- >> we already went over there. mr. mcdougal -- >> i have to lay the foundation here before i can follow up with my next question. >> i don't know why you have to. the questions have been made. >> then your 2022 disclosure form did not list any of the thousands and thousands of dollars that mr. wade paid for on trips that you were on -- >> objection. asked and answered. >> that's because mr. wade was paid that money back, or he was paid due to the fact that i bought the plane ticket or i paid for the hotel. there were never money that he gave me. that wasn't the for nature -- wasn't the nature of our relationship. there are so many men, and he is

one, where the nature of the relationship is they're paying a woman. the for of our relationship is friendship and companionship. despite the way people want to paint certain women just not true. >> final question. not a single, solitary documentary piece of evidence -- >> asked and answered -- >> showing that you have withdrawn the cash to pay -- >> mr. gillen -- >> that's not accurate. >> thank you. >> okay. mr. mccullough on behalf of mr. floyd? all right. mr. cromwell on behalf of ms. latham. >> great thing about coming last is -- i have one question, can you hear me? >> yes, sir. >> in the time period between february, 2021, and january of 2022, while you were staying at the condo, did your father ever come and visit you during that time period at the condo? >> he did not. >> that's all i have. thank you, your honor. >> all right. ms. cross, i would imagine you have a number of topics to cover with ms. willis that will take

more than 10 to 15 minutes. >> i do. >> okay. then i think we've reached a stopping point for today. and so miss willis, you can step down now. and i also remind you that you're not to discuss your testimony or that of any other witness until tomorrow morning. we'll begin again at 9:00 a.m. we'll do 9:00 a.m. this time tomorrow. before we recess for today, i want to check in on logistics and i'll ask ms. merchant once the testimony of miss willis is concluded how many other witnesses you anticipate calling. >> then we subpoenaed records that the state objected -- >> we can handle that now. miss willis, you can step down.

you're done for the day. >> you want me to leave the courtroom? >> or you can sit at the counsel table. we don't need you in the witness box. all right. so two witnesses and then querying other defense counsel. i know mr. gillen, there was a potential witness that was objected to by the state. there's another one there. and we can talk about that. were there any other witnesses anticipated in any defense counsel? all right. seeing no show of hand. and then ms. cross, any witnesss on your behalf? >> i expect so, your honor. and i expect that to take several hours. >> how many witnesses would you imagine? >> about -- maybe my best guest at this point would be three to four. >> okay. all right. >> do we know who -- i gave them our witnesses. i know we're to give witnesses in evidentiary hearing i'm

guessing, but -- >> all right. no, i understand, miss merchant. however i don't think at this point there's any statutory requirement. we have the standing order for expert witnesses, and if state doesn't want to extend that courtesy, then i think you're stuck with it. all right? >> certainly happy to report that mr. floyd will be a witness, that the other witnesses will be -- >> okay. all right. let's take up these last couple of issues before we break then. the issue of the delta airlines records. miss -- the notion quash was -- >> hey, everyone, we have been watching an extraordinary moment unfolding in the fulton county interference case. on the stand an impassioned district attorney fani willis. she defended herself against allegations made by a co-defendant of donald trump that her personal relationship with lead prosecutor nathan wade

created a conflict of interest and that she should be disqualified from the case. here with me in studio we are joined by msnbc legal correspondent lisa ruben, plus, former rnc chairman and one of my weekend co-hosts here on msnbc, michael steele, andrew weissman is here, a former top prosecutor at the department of justice, and in atlanta, msnbc host and legal analyst katie phang outside the courthouse for us. let's start with you. most remarkable thing you saw today? >> reporter: fani willis on the stand. the district attorney of fulton county taking the stand as a witness in the case that she is prosecuting, but of course only within the framing of the pending motion to disqualify her. she came in hot. she was angry, and she wanted the opportunity to clear her name. in fact, she announced before she took the stand that she was waiving any objections to the subpoena that had been served on her to testify today. but what was more important than her demeanor was what she said

under oath, under penalties of perjury. and what nathan wade said also under penalties of perjury. remember, these are both members of the georgia bar. they're practicing attorneys. they have a lot at stake if they are found to have not told the truth to the court, but they both said a personal relationship did not begin until after nathan wade was appointed special prosecutor in and around march/april of 2022. he was appointed in november of 2021. there was a lot of personal information. frankly, unnecessary personal information that was brought out and drawn out when they were on the stand. but fani willis remains on the stand, and what's going to happen tomorrow at 9:00 a.m., she resumes being a witness. at this point in time she'll be cross, in quotes, she'll be cross-examined by one of the own attorneys from her office. a special prosecutor bay the name of anna cross. she is going to have the opportunity to ask one went even more questions. but fani willis even more questions. but fani willis has so far definitely taken some real

liberties in a positive way for herself, in a way that she's answered the questions from the defense attorneys so far. >> our colleague did a magnificent job of hacking through the level of minutia that we have spent watching today. let's take a big step back and make sure that we are not missing the forest for the trees. why are we here? >> so the judge had a motion made by fani willis' team to say this is all legally irrelevant. that there may be issues here, but they're not relevant to a disqualification motion. and he said they may be. and this is what i'm interested in. he said, what i'm interested in is not just did she have a relationship or technically even when it began. the main thing that he said he's interested in is the financial piece. is there some proof that she is in some way directly or indirectly benefiting from the contract that fulton county has with the lead prosecutor, mr.

wade. because the allegation is that they weren't really split -- yes, they had a relationship, they've admitted that. but they weren't really splitting the proceeds, you know that he was paying for things and she was just benefiting from it. he said that's what i'm interested in. well, as you know, the hearing became sort of a free for all. but if you go to that specific issue, the one that he said he's interested in, you know, you do have, as katie said, you have both mr. wade and fani willis saying that they did split what was going on. now there has to be, you know, credibility finding that the judge has to make. but they said that some paid with credit cards, but she said i reimbursed either because i paid things directly or at times i took cash that i had at home and reimbursed him. if the judge credits that -- and there may be more testimony to come, including from fani

willis' father that she alluded to, but if that is resolved that the financial piece was roughly equal, that should end this. it is a huge distraction. it is salacious. but the legal reason for being here may become something that is relatively simple for the judge because there may not be contrary evidence in the record. >> we're going to unpack everything that you laid out. before we even do that, i want to take an even bigger step back. >> yeah. i'm always in the weeds. >> why does this matter, right? i think -- i think to that point there's the entire conversation about, you know, donald trump, and there's conversation about, as you said to me as we were watching, any time the attention is on the wrong table, that say problem. >> yeah. so you know, at trial, the defense wants the jury to be focused on the government table and allegations of government misconduct. the government wants the jury to be focusing on the charges and the evidence why the defendant's guilty. well, analogize this to what's

going on now. we're watching what's happening. the court of public opinion is looking at the prosecution going what in god's green earth is going on. it seems like is there an improper relationship -- by the way, that is not the issue for this court. this is not an issue for the court of just, you know, who was sleeping with who. it's not high school or college or pick your -- your juvenile forum. it's really about this potential financial conflict. why does it matter? because if -- big if -- the judge were to say that i do think there's a financial conflict and conflicts fani willis off the case, fani willis and -- there's a lot of support not just her, the whole office is off the case. that means this case is certainly gone for a while. somebody has to pick a new d.a. to take over this case. and that takes time. and then that new d.a. can do

whatever he or she wants with the case. >> if you were fani willis, are you reading the tea leaves based on what happened today and having the conversation in your head about whether or not it is time to step away from this case? >> i think the answer to that's no. i think there's no way given what happened today that she's thinking i'm backing down. i think she is as katie said, one thing that's really interesting is just before she testified, there was an argument about whether the defense had met the very high burden before you call an adversary -- let me back up on that. one side or the other doesn't just get to say, oh, i want to call michael, michael's going, what are you talking about? i'm a lawyer in the case. i'm not going to be -- so the law to call an adversary, you have to have -- meet a very high threshold. the argument was going back and forth, and the judge seemed -- you know, he never had to rule. but he seemed disposed to say you have not yet, defendants,

met your burden to call the -- the main lawyer for the other side. and fani willis shows up and says i'm good, i'm waiving that. in some ways it was strategically -- i don't think it was done strategically, but it basically sent the message of i have nothing to hide. this is about my reputation. and as she said, she was very emotional, as katie said. she was like, i'm taking the stand. i need to clear my name. this is not true. now obviously the judge will be the ultimate arbiter of what he thinks in terms of who is telling the truth here. >> she also underlined the stakes -- i want to play a moment from today when she reminded us who's actually on trial. >> your office objected to us getting delta records for flights that you may have taken with -- >> no, 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 trying to steal an elections in 2020. i'm not on trial no matter how

hard you try to put me on trial. >> i want to talk with you, lisa, about that legally. and then i want to talk, michael, with you about that politically. what did you make of that moment? >> i thought that moment was successful for fani willis. she harnessed the emotion and said peel back the onion and clarify why we're here. you've given the equivalent of a proctological exam on television. what you have done is what andrew mentioned, distract from what my office was doing. we had conversations about how much cash fani willis kept in her home at all times based on directions from her father and how she was raised. we could not have gotten any further afield from the allegations in her very sizable indictment. so at that moment to crystallize, wait a second, this is what we're really here, i thought was effective. i want to go back even further because you have to ask yourself if you're fani willis and her team, are you better off at 5

5 today than you were this morning based on the allegations made in the papers and judge mcafee's decision to have an evidentiary hearing. i think the answer mostly based on fani willis' own testimony is yes. that they are better off. yes, there was some unnecessary personal details. i know lots of things about nathan wade, for example, and fani willis' relationship including a dispute about whether it ended and how and why than i did today. >> and the utility of that -- >> fair enough. i think that fani willis gave us a picture of who she is. a person who is very proudly independent. nathan wade had set the stage for that. but somehow from her own mouth, describing how she was raised, why she kept cash in her house. to the dissolution of her relationship according to her because they had different attitudes about men and women and their roles in the world. all of that i thought enhanced her credibility even if at times she should have shut it, as

somebody else at the table commented while we were watching. >> michael? >> yeah. i was the one who said she should have shut it. she came in hot. she came it really hot. and you know, the one thing in a moment like that is -- because i've been in that situation where you're confronted by adversaries, and you want to set the record straight. you want to make it very clear. so you do come in a little bit hot. but you have to figure out -- and i think she eventually did -- to sort of dial it down. because you don't want to lose the very person in this case, the judge, that you're trying to convince that there is no there there, there is no nefarious shenanigans with money. it's just an affair between two consenting adults, yeah, probably shouldn't have engaged in. but it had nothing to do with the central thing which she brought everyone back to, we're here because donald trump's lawyers are trying to distract

us from the fact that donald trump is the one who violated georgia criminal law by engaging in efforts to overturn a duly constituted election. so with all of that at the end of the day, to answer your question, yes, at 5:25 she is much better off than she was at 9:25 this morning. and even more so from the time she first sat down because she came in a little bit warm. and i think people probably was like, okay, you hiding something, you're a little too defensive here. but then i think she kind of got in that sort of -- she got out of the prosecutorial mindset a little bit and then came back in it. and that was the important thing for her, i thought, to sort comfort back into it as -- sort of come back into it as not only someone defending herself but also defending her office at the various times she needed to do that. >> our friend andrew weissmann has kept us laser focused on remembering this is about the

judge. there's one person here who truly matters. we are trying to watch from afar for you being there. i wonder if you had a sense of the way that today broadly landed, but most specifically fani willis' testimony? >> reporter: yeah. so judge mcafee has a great poker face. i've seen him at every major substantive hearing we've had so far, even the smaller ones. he's very skilled at not really letting go in terms of his emotions on his face, expressing them in any way. i will note the following, and i'm sure andrew and others picked up on this. there was exasperation after a while because -- and understandably so -- when you aallow, and it's supposed happen, a litany of defense attorneys up to ask questions there's going to be repetition. he gave them a lot of leeway. after a point in time and you look at the clock and it becomes so repetitive, the judge says, enough, move on. there was also i think a very key moment when you heard judge mcafee basically say enough. enough about this particular

line of questioning to mr. nathan wade about his answers to intering on torres, like a discovery vehicle used in a divorce case. he said i don't need to know more about this. i understand what you're trying to say. you're trying to say maybe it wasn't truth follow n a divorce case, that means he's not truthful here. they have to remember, all these lawyers have to remember that judge mcafee was a lawyer himself before he was on the bench. and so he's had experience dealing with cases, and in light of that i think what judge mcafee was trying to doofs keep everybody on the straight and narrow path. what are we here today. i think that's worth repeating over and over. this may have been the first time that we have now seen a district attorney and a special prosecutor take the stand to testify, and it may have sounded defensive, but as an evidentiary hearing you have to have evidence. you can't just have oral argument. you can't just have people allow innuendo and to fester and they took the stand to defend their

reputations. these are professionals, they are afforded this opportunity to do so. but georgia law is clear. it has to be an actual conflict of interest. in the absence of that, the standard is not met. the burden is on the defense, and they have not met it so far. >> andrew? >> yeah, to follow up on what katie's saying. one, i think that -- i think that fani willis helped herself. yes, she came in hot. but i think it was understandable. i think the judge will understand why she was angry. imagine if you were falsely accused and you're in a situation, you've been putting up with all of these allegations spread across the globe. you can understand why she said, you know what, i'm -- i know i have objections that i don't have to testify, i want to testify. i thought she did an effective job. at the end of the day the issue is did they split the cost. keep our eye on the ball. right now you have two witnesses who testified who said they did, mr. wade said they did, fani willis said they did.

there is no contrary evidence in the record. if as we suspect we're going to hear from ms. willis' father because she -- ms. willis said that on the stand, that you will hear from my father who talked about, you know, raising her daughter to have keep cash on hand and why she keeps cash on hand and why that's the source of funds for repayment that she said she used to repay mr. wade. if you have now three witnesses saying it and no contrary evidence to katie's point, it's hard to see how the defense has carried their burden on this issue. >> help me understand why so much emphasis on the timeline. >> because the timeframe of -- one, it would help show where they just like there's auto -- there's an affidavit that was submitted by mr. wade, any time that you can show that the lead lawyer and the d.a. may have said something false to the court, that's a kind of thing

that, you know, that's where you really don't want to know what the judge could do at that point. so there's that issue. also there are technically also deals with if there's a reimbursement period, it sort of extends the time period. if they were having this relationship for three years and there was money going back and forth during three years, that's different than one year. so it's a smaller timeframe. but i think that i can see the judge really keeping his eye on the ball. it will be -- i think by having fani willis testify, what for him to rule against them, he is going to i think at the end of the day, he's going to say they're wrong, he's going to have to make a credibility finding against wade, willis, and fani willis' father. that's three witnesses. and what's the contrary evidence? so maybe the defense has that contrary evidence, but just keeping it to what he said the

issue is right now with all of the salacious material, if you cut through it -- this is what lawyers do, they try and keep their eye on the ball, and the judge is a sober judge, right now the state is it. >> your eye is on the ball. you have us all focused. explain to me then, lisa, why we saw -- i counted two appearances of the isikoff book and how that then connects to all of this. are they actually trying to mine for something outside the parameters of what we were focused on today? >> look, i think punitively they took it out because they were trying to see whether she made any money from it, and she disclaimed that. to your point, yes, were they trying to create an impression that she was untruthful as to how much time she spent with isikoff, the wisdom of speaking with mr. isikoff and his co-author, whether or not she had been truthful about everything that they told. and then they were also trying to probe as andrew and michael and i were discussing with you while we were watching, to what

extent she spent time in meetings with the biden white house or with the january 6th committee. she was very clear that she hadn't, that mr. wade had gone to d.c. for work-related meetings. she didn't delineate what those were about. but they weren't about her. there was definitely some elements of fishing expeditions going on. they were fairly quickly shut down by mcafee, particularly because they occurred toward the end of the day where his patience had already been exhausted by some of the cumulative nature of the testimony. can i add one other thing? >> please. >> when i think about what got established during wade and willis' testimony, again if you credit both of them, here are the major points they got across -- there was never co-habitation between them. the relationship started in early 2022 after mr. wade had been hired. it ended in the summer of 2023. so it's not still going on. that goes to the motive of her hiring him and the period of time that andrew noted that she would theoretically financially

benefit from that relationship. she paid him back in cash. they were both emphatic about that. and i just want to say as someone who has litigated divorce cases before, if they were trying to hide their hardship at least vis-a-vis mrs. wade, they would have papered their expenses very differently. they had to know that during the course of the divorce and discovery in the divorce that how he spent his money on credit cards, through his bank account, et cetera, would become information that she and her attorneys would be privy to. conversely, if fani willis had made the expenditures and nathan wade had just doled out cash to her, his ex-wife or soon-to-be ex-wife would never be in possession of that information. clearly if they were trying to hide something either from the public or more generally for his soon-to-be ex-wife, they would have made different arrangements than the ones we have all seen attached to ashley merchant's motion papers. >> katie phang, let's get back to the big picture here which is donald trump and his

co-defendants in this fulton county case. talk me through the timeline -- tomorrow we're going to have, we heard, maybe three or four witnesses on the stand. what happens after that? and how could that then determine the timeline of the fulton county case? >> reporter: yeah. so the defense attorney for michael roman indicating to the court that once fani willis is off the stand, that she intends on calling at least two more witnesses. after that happens, the state has indicated that it has at least three witnesses that one of which would include fani willis' father who's going to appear via zoom. judge mac afee indicated there's going to be further litigation over the admissibility of records that have to do with delta. if there's any arguments, i'm not sure if we're going to see them tomorrow. we may roll into tuesday of next week. if you can believe it, on this evidentiary hearing, because monday is a holiday. but the judge will not rule from the bench. i mean, those of us that are trial lawyers that have been in

court, we would always love for a judge to put us out of our misery and rule and let us know where things stand. in an issue this important, you're not going to get a cursory ruling from judge mcafee from the bench, he's going to write a thoughtful order because it is going to be under scrutiny and review. this circus side show of completely salacious information that has been created now in fulton county has not stopped the train of this fulton county rico prosecution from forging ahead. although we have yet to have a trial date seen in this case. the case continues forward. and because of that, as soon as we get a ruling we'll know who ends up being the d.a. on this case. >> katie phang for us in atlanta. katie, as always. thank you. we're going to be talking with you again tomorrow. the panel is sticking with me. when we return, the other big legal story we're following today. donald j. trump will be the first ex-president to stand trial on criminal charges. a trial date in the hush-money case in new york has been set. we're going to have that next.

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ mark your calendars. the first-ever criminal trial of a formula president will begin -- former president will begin march 25th. at a hearing today in the hush-money case brought by alvin bragg with the ex-president in attendance, not because he had to be there but because he chose to be there. judge juan merchant swiftly denied team trump's motion to

dismiss the 34 felony counts against trump and ordered the case to go full speed ahead. trump attorney todd blanch objected calling the march 25th trial date a, quote, great injustice, complaining that trump was, quote, put in an impossible situation given all the trials he faces. nbc news reports merchant indicated he is not interested in hearing that the trial date is unfair and blanch has known it was set for months. you know about this split case, merchan said. i had made clear this was a date certain. it you proceeded at your own peril. the hearing then proceeded to discuss logistics. it was decided that there will be 18 jurors including six alternates, and just before the hearing wrapped, there was one last objection from team trump. cnn reports, trump's lawyer said, quote, we strenuously object to what is happening in this courtroom. the fact that president trump is going to now spend the next two months working on this trial instead of out on the campaign trail running for president is something that should not happen in this country, he said.

what's your legal argument, the judge asked. that's my legal argument, he responded. that's not a legal argument, merchan said, telling lawyers he would see them on march 25th. joining us former u.s. attorney and co-host of "sisters in law" podcast barbara mcquaid. lisa, andrew, and michael all back with us. the date was one thing, right. but there's another part that's almost more interesting. >> i'd say the date is the most percent thing. >> okay. >> we're dealing with so many different cases and for so many people. it's when is there going to be accountability. and in many ways, you know, this was the first case brought. and so this is going to be the first case tried. so there's sort of a -- equity to that. but yes, a judge merchan decided a whole bunch of pretrial motions, almost uniformly in the state's favor. the one i found interesting is a lot of people in the press and certainly the defense here have said these are not really serious charges.

that this is something pretty minor, essentially who cares. and the judge really disagreed in his written opinion. this came up in connection with a motion saying that you'd wait too long to bring the case, what donald trump's lawyer said. the judge said no. and one of the factors is about the seriousness of the charges, and one of the things he points out is he relates the for of the charges, i'm looking at his opinion. and says, i completely disagree, and says that cannot find that this is not a serious case. he's like, these are severe felony charges. so this is actually the second judge who has said that. judge hellerstein, a federal judge who was asked to take the case federal by donald trump and rejected that, and he, too, said these are serious state charges. we now have both a federal judge and a state judge saying the people are thinking this is minor and dismissive, they may

be less than the other criminal charges -- i mean, you know, that's not -- that's not great standard in terms of yes these are still really serious charges that he faces. they're just not the same as overthrowing the election. but they're still going to be quite serious, and they're going to start really soon. >> part of the reason i wanted to start there is because i think it helps explain the frustration that was very clear coming from the judge when you talk about team trump's antics. >> yeah. you heard the quotations, some of those things that you read from the cnn reporting about some of the things that trump's layers were advocate -- lawyers were advocating. they aren't legal arguments. they're the kinds of things that might work in a political rally or court of public opinion talking about it's not fair, it's politically motivated, he won't have time to campaign -- none of those are legal arguments. the idea that he's because running for presidential all of these cases -- president all of these cases should wait until

he's done, every defendant can make that argument. i'm busy with my job, my family, busy with school. that's not a basis to stop a criminal case. he is a criminal defendant, and that case needs to go forward. so all of these arguments, you know, might sound good to supporters, but they're not going to carry the day with the judge. >> and as you pointed out, the d.a.'s office came ready. >> yeah. they did. and i have to say, being there was kind of stark because unlike the federal courtrooms in which the e-jean carroll trial was tried and the ceremony courtroom in which the new york attorney general's civil fraud trial was held, this is the most bare bones courtroom i would venture to see donald trump has been in in his post presidential or presidential life. there's chipped wood paneling, tape still on the walls, there are wires stuck together with bracketing. and yet, here's where we found donald trump today. and his lawyer, todd blanche made two ourmts to hope postpone the trial. he said one, we have a firm trial gate with judge cannon, a

may date. something we've been discussing as a dubious trial date in no smart small part because the pre-motion calendar cannot be accomplished where we are on the schedule by may 20th. putting that aside, he said to bash's point, between -- barb's point, when you propose to hold the trial there are 42 caucuses and you would have donald trump off the stand. and he brushed both away and said, yesterday they filed a pleading before judge cannon in which todd blanche himself as a signatory said judge cannon's prior orders do not suggest that the may 20th trial date is firm. and you could feel the air sort of go out of the gallery. then he says it's funny to me that mr. blanche is saying that this would be disruptive to donald trump's candidacy because on may 11th of 2023, shortly after donald trump was indicted

and arraigned, mr. blanche wrote us an email, and that email said and m mr. blanche's words, if we start on march 25th that will minimize disruption to mr. trump's ability to campaign. and just with one-two punch, they came armed and ready. and i was impressed. >> pretty impressive. >> yeah. >> so in the judge's decision anticipating that, he has deals with donald trump making this claim about this is prejudicing me in the election. and this is what the judge says, in fact, this claim runts contrary to -- runs contrary to defendant's repeated assertions that his running for the president has been bolstered by the criminal charges. he turned on its head the president saying you know what, bring it on, it's only helping me. i've only gotten stronger. he's like, great, your claim of

prejudice denied. >> that's important because throughout all of this i think a lot of americans have been sitting there wondering, you know, will the courts be manipulated. and could they be manipulated in a way to foster the very thing that donald trump wanted to have them ultimately do, and that is delay, delay, delay. and now what the judge is -- let's go back and see what counsel said. let's hear what donald trump said. and so you have trump out here bragging about how this is really helping him, you have polling evidence from independent sources if you really -- if the judge really wants to go there that will confirm that. and now you have within the court itself the judge turning back the argument on his attorneys.out. you know, i think some of the initial concern that even folks like me had about this, i'm like, you know, these guys are just going to get punked, and they're going to wind up bending over and giving trump exactly what he wants. they're actually -- there's a

pathway here, and i think it's being lit by the judges, and not by donald trump, and that's important for the american people to see. >> to your point about the judges, the judge made very clear today to the parties that he's talked to judge chutkan. he laid out the dates. he explained the general substance of the conversation, and he defended it, and he said, as i am allowed to do. the judges are unafraid to talk to one another to prevent themselves from -- >> help us understand. is that -- because i think a lot of us watch and wonder, is that conversation about timeline? >> that's exactly what it's about. >> can we read into it, then, when judge chutkan believes that her case will start? >> no. in fact, what he was doing was calling her up and saying, i have a march 25th trial date, and i want to make sure that if guy forward, i'm not stepping on your toes. if i start my trial, do i have any fear that i will incur on your ability to hold a full and fair trial on a calendar that will be feasible for you? and they both came away from

that conversation, according to marchand, believing that, no, even if the supreme court were to decide, for example, that there will be no stay and allow judge chutkan to retake the case and restart pretrial proceedings, there wasn't a danger of him bleeding into her calendar, much less the may 20th date that judge cannon currently has on the schedule. >> has anyone talked to judge cannon? she's on a whole different -- >> don't hold your breath. the idea that somebody would show up in court and say, but judge cannon -- talk about lack of credibility. the idea that that case is going to go forward, i think, that's going to be, like, never or when -- maybe when hell freezes over if that's even later. but to your point, we're still obviously waiting to see if what you said is true with respect to the supreme court, because that is the key timeline with respect to the judge chutkan d.c. case. if that case is ultimately green lit, the one thing, i think,

that we can read into the judge marchand state case, starting on the 25th of march, is that is going to be foot on the pedal. you know, the parties are going to be pushed full days to go as fast as possible, because he's going to be aware that he wants to get his trial over so that it is not, to lisa's point, conflicting with, and there's enough time for judge chutkan to hold her trial. >> barb, i want to know how long that will take. i also want to talk about jury selection. this is reporting from cnn about it. blanch objected to questions about whether prospective jurors are members of extremist groups. the manhattan district attorney's office said they'd be happy to add any left extremist groups trump's team wants to list. blanche argued a question about the election had no relevance to the new york criminal fraud case. the jury pool is tainted by the media saturation in this city

because of the coverage of the recent civil fraud trial and carroll trial. you get the idea, right, barb? you don't need me to read you the entirety of the reporting. talk me through this. >> i've got the gist. i think judge marchand said he expected the trial would last about six weeks. i don't know that it will last that long, frankly, and i'm sure they'll be pushing it, and it's a fairly discreet case with a fairly finite number of witnesses. six weeks sounds like the outer end of it. with regard to jury selection, so important in a case like this. there are people out there who believe when trump says things like, this is a witch hunt, this is politically motivated and controlled somehow by joe biden and the federal government even though this is a state case, that you have to weed out those people, because donald trump is out there every day pounding into them that that is true. and so, i think it's only fair

that both sides be able to ask jurors whether they have these beliefs and whether they can decide this case solely on the facts and the law that they learn about in court. i think all of that is fair game to weed out all those people who might be predisposed to decide in favor of donald trump, regardless of the evidence they see. >> so, the process that the judge is going to go through is one that we've seen, for instance, in the e. jean carroll case and the major supreme court case on this, to be a nerd, actually comes from one of my cases, which is the enron case where it involved jeff skilling and the claim that went up to the supreme court was jeff skilling saying, this -- my trial should not have happened in houston. it should have happened somewhere else, because in houston, everyone's read and knows about enron, and the supreme court said, what do you mean, in houston? everybody in the united states knows about enron. at the time, it was a big deal. now, it's only a big deal to me that still remember it, but at the time, it was a huge deal. so, what the court says is for

cases that are so notorious, the issue is not picking different location. there's no rock you can go under to find a location that hasn't heard about it. what you need is exactly what barb said. you're trying to weed out people, one side or the other, to make sure that it's not that you haven't heard about the case. that's fine. remember when the constitution came about, most people knew the parties involved. it's whether you can be fair and impartial. it's whether you can put aside whatever you have heard, and you can actually decide the case based on what happens in court. and so, judge marchand will be -- needs to and is legally required to be very thorough about that process. so, i could see this trial being one where the jury selection takes a little longer, frankly, than normal, but the trial itself, i completely agree with barb that this case, i think, will be pretty quick. remember, the trump org case, the trump organization criminal trial, which is the same team, also went very quickly. >> marchand today and goren

tomorrow. lisa ruben, andrew weiss man, barbara mcquade and my friend, michael steel, thank you so much for being with us. we'll sneak in a quick break. we'll be right back. with us. we'll sneak in a quick break we'll be right back. power e*trade's easy to-use tools make complex trading less complicated. custom scans help you find new trading opportunities, while an earnings tool helps you plan your trades

and stay on top of the market. e*trade from morgan stanley. ♪ i have type 2 diabetes, but i manage it well ♪ ♪ jardiance! ♪ ♪ it's a little pill with a big story to tell ♪ ♪ i take once-daily jardiance ♪ ♪ at each day's start! ♪ ♪ as time went on it was easy to see ♪ ♪ i'm lowering my a1c! ♪ jardiance works twenty-four seven in your body to flush out some sugar. and for adults with type 2 diabetes and known heart disease, jardiance can lower the risk of cardiovascular death, too. serious side effects may include ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration that can lead to sudden worsening of kidney function, and genital yeast or urinary tract infections. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. you may have an increased risk for lower limb loss. call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of infection in your legs or feet. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. ♪ jardiance is really swell ♪

♪ the little pill ♪ ♪ with a big story to tell! ♪ you want to see who we are as americans? i'm peter dixon and in kenya... ♪ the little pill ♪ we built a hospital that provides maternal care. as a marine... we fought against the taliban and their crimes against women. and in hillary clinton's state department... we took on gender-based violence in the congo. now extremists are banning abortion and contraception right here at home. so, i'm running for congress to help stop them. for your family... and mine. i approved this message because this is who we are. the economy is simply not working for millions of hard working families. they're working harder than ever and they still can't make enough to get by to afford food and medicine to even keep a roof over their heads. we need to build more housing that's truly affordable. we need to address this terrible epidemic of homelessness. we need to invest in good paying jobs, union jobs and investments in our future. this, this is why i'm running for the us senate.

i'm adam schiff and i approve this message. while we have been on the air, a development in yet another case involving donald trump. the one brought by special counsel jack smith on trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. just a short time ago, trump's team officially entered its reply to an earlier filing from smith's team. the special counsel wanted the supreme court to reject an emergency filing that would prolong the case while trump's team litigated his claim that the federal indictment should be dismissed on the grounds of presidential immunity. trump's team submitted its response asking the stay to be granted. the supreme court can now act on the stay at any time. it's a lot of legal news. thank you so much for spending part of your thursday with us. we are so grateful. our coverage continues now with who better,