>> hold on. it is number 24, 25, 26. >> it's supposed to be number -- i guess they're all numbered one. number one, one again, and then

the third number one. something about the pages. the page number is wrong. i don't know how to tell you what number one. when you responded to put number one on all of them. >> could you point to it? >> i'm talking about this number one versus that. >> okay. >> no case number but it is the second page. >> all right. >> asking if you have any receipts for restaurants, hotels, bars, things like that. >> the first number one? >> i believe it's the second number one. >> the second number one? okay.

>> it asks if you have any receipts for things like restaurants, bars, hotels, things like that, where you accompanied a member of the other sex, romantic partner, correct? >> it says identify any and all occasions. >> okay. and so -- it says to identify any and all occasions where you entertained a member of the other sex, right, who is not related by blood and included dining, drinking, restaurants, bars, pubs, hotels, all of that. what was your answer to that? >> none. >> none, okay. so may 30th, 2023, you prepared this document.

>> i did. >> submitted it. >> i did. >> and it says none as far as entertaining a member of the opposite sex. >> it does. >> no hotels, bars or restaurants. >> correct. >> you again updated that on december 22, 2023. i will mark that as defendant's number five and i have copies. is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and then you updated it once again on january 26, 2024, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> may i approach the witness again? >> is that what you are marking as six >> the january 26, 2024, interrogatories and number six. then number five is the december 22, 2023, interrogatories. >> are you tendering those at

this time? >> any objections in exhibits five and six >> so now that you have those let's talk about those for a minute. those were verified so sworn under oath. and one of them was december 22nd and then of this last year, last december. one was just recently submitted in january, right? >> uh-huh. >> okay. in may 20 -- may 10th, 2023, judge thompson heard a motion to compel in your divorce case as well, correct? and -- >> i will object to the relevance. >> his credibility. i think it is relevant to this court? >> how is that a prior false act

or allowed for impeachment under the rules of evidence? >> i'm not offering it towards his credibility, which you get to determine if he has made misrepresentations in these pleadings, you are here to determine whether or not he is telling the truth or not. if another court held him in contempt i think it's relevant. >> it can be for many different things. failure to produce is not a false act. >> he is welcome to explain that. >> he may not have to. >> object to the relevance. it is not a proper impeachment. we're going far afield into divorce matters that continue have direct evidence coming before the court. >> all right. i'm not seeing that being proper grounds for impeachment. sustained. >> okay. let's talk about the december 22, 2023, verification. i tabed it for you. they asked if you had any

documentations showing proof of any relationship, correct? >> object to the phrasing of the question. not an accurate read of the interrogatories. >> let's be precise. >> please read it. >> which number? >> this one has a number. i tabbed it for you and you should be able to open right to the page number 22. the question specifically is if you have any tangible evidence of any nature in your possession or control or any other person or entity which relates to any manner of your activities to any person with whom you have had a sexual relationship during whir marriage. notes, cards, letter, forms, video, receipts, invoices and other tangible evidence. >> yes. >> and you answered that you did not have any documents to that effect, correct? >> correct.

>> and that was on december 22, 2023? >> yes, ma'am. >> you updated those responses again after the motion to disqualify was filed, though, correct? >> when was the motion filed? >> january 8th, 2024, when i filed the motion to disqualify you and allege you had a romantic relationship with miss willis. a of that you updated these responses correct. your new responses you now changed your answer from you didn't have any of this you assert the privilege under 24.505. >> yes, ma'am. >> both are under oath. >> yes, ma'am. >> you updated your response to the question about spending time with someone other than that your spouse for dinner, drinks, things at restaurants, bars, hotels or the other person's home, correct? >>y, ma'am. >> in december of 2023 you said no to that that and in january

you said fifth amendment privilege. just to be clear was it >> i will object to the characterization. it was the statutory privilege and quite different. >> so that privilege covers infamy or fifth amendment privilege. correct >> privacy privilege once you filed a motion to intervene in my divorce action i figured that you were in talks with my former wife's divorce lawyer and because of that, i asserted a privacy privilege because i didn't want the proceedings of my divorce to beat over into the proceedings in this case, which is the case that you are involved in. >> your answers in december of 2023 that you didn't have any documents about any travel with miss willis. that wasn't true, though, correct? >> they didn't ask me about

documents regarding miss willis. >> a romantic partner. she asked you for documents regarding a romantic partner. i'm sorry i inserted miss willis's name. travel with a roman take partner in december of 2023 and you said you didn't have any of those, correct? >> i did not. they asked me about gifts. i never purchased a gift for miss willis. >> they asked you about receipts for dinner and drinks, hotels, bars and restaurants and you said you did not have any of those. >> i did not and do not have any receipts for any of those things. >> part of the civil discovery even if you don't have it in your pocket, if it's in your purview you have to give it to them. >> the questions about his -- she is asking about statements he made in pleadings. the answers are already in the record and -- >> to the extent you are trying to establish a prior mistruth,

miss merchant, i will allow you to ask a few more follow ups. if it's not there we have to move on. >> so in 2023, december, you said you didn't have any receipts. >> i do not have any receipts. i did not have any receipts. >> you did travel with miss willis in 2023, correct? >> i did. >> you traveled with her in 2022, correct? >> i did. >> you traveled with her in 2021, correct? >> no. >> you only traveled with her in 2022 and 2023? >> 2022 and 2023 is what i recall. >> that's what you recall? >> yes. >> okay. so you just don't remember if you traveled with her in 2021? >> 2022 and 2023 is what i recall. >> is what you recall. my question is did you travel with her in 2021? >> i don't recall any travel in 2021. >> so it's not yes or no, you

just don't remember? >> i am not recalling any travel in 2021. >> but you did not travel with her in 2021 >> this has been cover, let's get going. >> thank you. let's see, you filed an affidavit in this case, correct? >> i did. >> i marked that already as number one. may i approach, judge? >> you may. >> thank you. under oath, correct? yes, ma'am. >> you swore that -- first of all, do you recognize the affidavit >> i do. >> did you sign it under oath? >> i did. >> and you gave this affidavit specifically to refute the allegations that i had raised. >> yes, ma'am. >> nobody forced you to sign this. >> no, ma'am. >> you chose to sign it. >> i did. >> you signed it on purpose to

admit into court, to refute allegations. >> i did. >> you signed it specifically to prove you were not in a relationship with willis prior to november of 2021, correct? >> correct. you were a lawyer when you signed it? >> i was. >> bill: you are still a lawyer? >> i am. when were you barred? >> 1999. >> all right and you believe that your relationship with miss willis is subject to attorney/client privilege, correct? >> i'm going to object to that. i don't think that's correct, a relevant question and appropriate to question this witness about the scope of his attorney/client privilege. he has an attorney who can speak for him. the question of the witness isn't appropriate. >> all right, the question is simply does he believe there is a relayingship that exists in terms of attorney/client privilege between him and miss

willis? >> i asked if he believed his relationship with miss willis is subject to attorney/client privilege. >> maybe i'm not understanding the question. if the question is does mr. wade -- >> harris: we'll pull back from this right now. you see on the right hand of the screen former president donald trump talking about the hush money trial against him today. we do know he has a court date march 25th. that was just announced by the judge. the case against him will not be dismissed. and we'll show you those comments because we want to show them to you in their entirety in a moment. let's bring in in focus phil holloway, former assistant attorney to talk a little bit about what you see going on in the courtroom here. this is "the faulkner focus" and i i'm harris faulkner.

>> we are not getting into it. we can establish those, you know, parameters. but miss merchant, can you rephrase the question based on that concern? >> do you believe, you, that your relationship with miss willis is subject to an attorney/client privilege. not if you had one. do you believe that relationship is subject to one? >> i will object to that question as phrased. in what context? any conversation with his attorneys is privileged. that i think is clear. what's not clear to me from that question is that she is asking in the context of your communication with your attorneys, is that? or outside that context? >> miss merchant, we need to figure out what are we getting at with this? >> i'm trying to figure out if he thought their relationship was attorney/client privilege. it will be asserted and that's

all i'm asking. >> the actions themselves wouldn't be at issue. >> someone saw them, someone had knowledge of it. is that privilege? >> i would find this legal opinion on this isn't relevant. we can deal with it as it comes up. sustained. >> in 2022, in this affidavit, you swore that you and willis developed a personal relationship. >> yes, ma'am. >> you said that didn't develop until 2022, correct? >> that's correct. >> and that's different from what you said in your pleading in may of 2023 in the divorce case, correct? >> no rick ma'am. >> in may 2023 when asked if you had any affairs essentially. you said none. >> that's correct. >> right. so in may you said you had not -- may 2023 you said you had not had a personal relationship, romantic relationship with anyone. >> that's correct. >> you told when this court you

had one that started in 2022. it would have benon going in 2023. >> there is a distinction if you allow me to explain. the is interrogatories asked the question during the course of your marriage. >> or to date. it says -- we'll request the witness -- >> mr. wade. >> so my marriage was broken in 2015, ma'am. by agreement. my wife and i agreed that once she had the affair in 2015, that we would get a divorce. we didn't get a divorce immediately because my children were still in school and i refused to allow them to grow up without their father at the time. so we waited. we waited until the youngest graduated and we dropped her off at college and then filed for the divorce. so if you are asking me about

the interrogatories as it relates to having the 2022 relationship with district attorney willis i want to say because my marriage was broken, i was free to have a relationship. >> so the question though was if you had had a relationship and in 2023 you said you did not. and that is different than what you said in this affidavit, correct? >> no, ma'am. i said during the course of my marriage. >> you believe -- >> so in 2015, my marriage was broken so i did not have a relationship with anyone during the course of my marriage. >> and in that interrogatories they asked you if you had any receipts for travel with someone of the other sex up until the time you were answering it. is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and you said that you didn't. you've already testified to that earlier. in this affidavit you swore that

you had travel expenses and shared expenses on travel with miss willis. >> again, during the course of my marriage, i had no relationship or receipts. >> i'm not asking during the course of your marriage. >> continue. >> i have no problem with him answering. >> as it relates to receipts today. i don't have any receipts, ma'am. >> you don't have any travel receipts available to you for any travel you did with miss willis? >> i don't have any receipts, no, ma'am. >> no receipts that -- so you used your business credit card for these trips, correct? >> i use any business credit card for everything. >> yes. you used it for your kid's tuition and personal travel with miss willis. >> yes, ma'am. >> you have receipts from the business credit cards that you have to file with your taxes.

>> i filed a statement. i turn over the statement. whatever is on the statement, the accountant would vet it and he says this is personal, goes over here, this is business, goes over here. here are your taxes. >> so you have them on statements. we'll call them statements. >> i have the statement, yes, ma'am. >> so when you answered the interrogatories under oath you said you did not have anything for the records of travel with miss willis. >> i answered the question i had no receipts, ma'am. >> you had no receipts but you had statements. >> ordered the statements. >> okay. so we're talking semantics between invoice or statements or receipt? >> i'm going to object to the argumentative tone of the question. it has been asked and answered several times. >> sustained. >> in -- let's see, you also in this affidavit said that no funds paid to you for

compensation as your role of special counsel was shared with willis, correct? >> that's correct. >> you never co-has been tateed with her >> you never spent the night with willis? >> i spent the night with her during travel. yes ma'am. >> so qualify your use of the term cohabitation. you didn't live together. but you did spend the night together. >> yes. >> when was the first time you spent the night together? >> your honor, that's the subject of his affidavit, judge. >> it might not be the subject of this hearing. the question is, the nature and extent of the relationship and so if they just spent the night on a single occasion, i don't -- i don't think we'll document and detail every time that happened. >> i don't intend to do that. what is relevant is when the relationship started. >> start with that question and go from there. >> that's what i asked the first time he spent the night with her was. >> that's a different question,

isn't it? >> okay. want to talk about when you spent the night. when did your romantic relationship with ms. willis begin? >> 2022. >> when. >> early 2022. >> so you were appointed in november of 2021. >> yes, ma'am. >> your relationship started early, january, february? >> around march. >> around march. but you two met at an october 2019 judicial conference, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and describe your relationship at that point, then? >> which point? >> 2019. >> so i was at a judicial conference to teach a course, if you will, to newer judges. i did that in 2019. as i was exiting the conference,

another judge was standing outside who was a friend of mine. i stopped and exchanged pleasantries with her. and standing talking to her at the time was then judge willis. she introduced us at that time. we shook hands, exchanged business cards, and i got into my vehicle and left the conference. so that meeting was probably three minutes. >> when was the next time to talked to her? >> didn't talk to her again probably maybe a month or month and a half had gone by. >> you talked to her november maybe? >> maybe. >> on the phone? >> on the phone. how regularly did you speak with her in 2021 on the phone? >> in 2021 -- >> i'm sorry 2019.

how frequently did you speak with her on the phone >> i probably talked to her after the meeting two or three times. she would have questions. i was the district rep for that particular district that i sat in and the judges when they would have questions, they sometimes would go to the rep. so she was outside of my district but she would call me. she felt comfortable calling me to ask me the questions. i don't know if you know the racial makeup of certain been m muchs but it wasn't very diverse. we had also in common that she was starting a private law practice at the time and i had already had mine up and going and we talked about balancing

the demands of the bench with a private practice. so we didn't talk that often but when she had questions mostly legal issues that would come up she would call me. >> my question was just how many times. you said two to three times. in 2022 how frequently did you speak in 2022 before you were appointed? >> i'm sorry, your timeline, 20222? >> i'm sorry, 2020. how frequently did you speak in 2020? >> 2020 it was more frequent than 19 obviously. >> can you tell me approximately a month how often you spoke with her on the phone? >> i will object to this granular detail.

he can answer however he wants to but every time they spoke on phone is characterizing the relationship, it would be more detailed. >> i'm not going to go through every time on the phone. how frequently they spoke generally. >> overruled. >> how frequently did you speak in 2020? >> per month? >> if it was two or three times a year you can tell me that. if it was more than that quantify it by month. >> no, no, no, we spoke on the telephone often. i don't know how many -- i couldn't give you an amount of time. because you remember covid happened and the world was shut down but we spoke on the phone more than than 2019. >> let's qualify. before her election in 2020, how much -- how frequently did you speak? >> as she was campaigning. >> before the election, yes, as

she was campaigning before she was elected. >> it's two different animals. >> as she was campaigning before she was elected. >> during the course of her campaign, we didn't talk as much because she was busy, fulton county is a large jurisdiction to cover. we didn't talk a whole lot but she did know that i had gone through the election process so when things would come up, she had questions about she would call me and ask me. >> he is not -- i don't mind him explaining i wanted to know how many times. if we talk about every conversation they talked about. >> let him finish the sentence and redirect him or i can. >> sometimes it would be like a 3-second call. have you during your election have you ever seen this and i would say no but here is what i

would do. we would hang up. she had a lot of professionals working for her but she trusted my judgment so she called me. be brief conversations but she would talk. >> my question was how frequently did you speak with her prior to her election? frequently, infrequently? >> more than 2019. but it wasn't an every-day thing, no. >> in 2021 before you were appointed in november, so january to november 2021, the only time i'm talking about. how frequently did you speak with ms. willis on the phone? >> then it became frequent. >> frequent. you did not work at the d.a.'s office at that point, correct? >> i did not. >> so the affidavit that you

submitted, you showed on it you submitted one record that showed that ms. willis had paid a couple hundred dollars for one flight, correct? >> say again? >> the affidavit you submitted to this court showed that ms. willis paid for one flight several hundred dollars. is that correct? >> no, ma'am. i think that -- are you drawing a distinction or her paying for a flight or for her actually booking a flight? those are two separate things. >> i will reask it. the affidavit you filed in this court you alleged that miss willis paid for one flight, paid for one flight, correct? you did not allege she paid for one flight? >> no, what i allege is that our

travel was slight evenly. so where you see i have booked the flight or i have paid for a flight with my credit card, what you don't see is that she covered her own flight reimbursing it to me. the flights that you see here are the flights that she would have booked with her own resources, with her own card. >> there is one flight, correct? >> one flight reflecting that she actually booked the flight. >> let him finish. >> one flight she actually booked, yes. the other flights i booked, she paid for. >> so the affidavit you submitted one flight that she booked and paid for. >> yes, ma'am. >> i'm going to object to the phrasing of that question. the line in the affidavit is not as miss merchant is representing

it. examples of district attorney willis. it did not represent that it was the only example of the district attorney purchasing flights for mr. wade or for compensating other travel. >> understand miss cross. it is on the record but something you can take on in cross. >> just so everybody is clear, all i asked you is your affidavit you submitted proof of one flight that she paid for. that's all i'm asking. , correct? >> with the explanation yes, ma'am. >> that's all i needed. you said in the affidavit that you shared travel though, correct >> yes, ma'am. >> you are saying she reimbursed you. >> she did >> did you deposit the money? >> it was cash.

>> she paid you cash for her share of all these? yes, nam. >> all the vacations she took she paid you cash for. >> yes, ma'am. >> and you purchased all of these vacations on your business credit card, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and you included those in deductions on your taxes, correct? >> no, ma'am. >> you did not. >> no, ma'am. >> okay. we'll get to that in a minute then. let's see. so the only thing that you have actual documentary proof, not cash, is this one receipt you attached to the affidavit. >> that is a mischaracterization in the assertion in the affidavit. >> then he can deny it. he can fend for himself. >> is this the only written proof that you have of a trip she paid for? >> that i have?

>> yes. yes ma'am. >> you submitted the one piece of written evidence that you have that she paid for something. everything else is in cash, is that accurate? >> no. >> that's not accurate. okay. please tell me what other receipts you have that show she paid for things. >> i don't have them. >> so this is the only receipt that you have to show that she paid for travel. >> i have, yes, ma'am. >> okay. in your divorce case you filed a domestic relations financial affidavit, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> the first one you filed was in january 2022, right? >> there about, yes ma'am. >> those are under oath? >> yes. >> and you also filed corporate taxes in 2022, correct? >> yes. >> and tell me about your business? do you have a partnership or are you a sole practitioner? >> as it stands today?

>> yes. >> today i have a separate p.c., my law partner has his own separate p.c. so we're under the same umbrella. under the same roof so we share expenses, we share income, and we split it. >> are you a partnership? >> we are a partnership in the sense of we share expenses, we share income. >> are you registered with the state of georgia as a partnership? >> so wbc firm that included myself, terrance bradley and christopher campbell, we were registered with the secretary of state as a partnership for a short period of time. when -- >> that dissolved in 2023. >> mr. wade, did you have something else to add there?

>> i did. when things happened and we excused mr. bradley from that partnership, it left christopher campbell and myself so now you have two separate p.c.s under the same umbrella sharing expenses and income. >> okay. so let me just narrow down my questions then. are you registered and have you been registered at any time in the state of georgia as wade and campbell. >> no, ma'am. >> you have never been registered as a partnership wade and campbell. but as wade, bradley, campbell yes, ma'am. >> that was registered on april 1, 2021, and dissolved on september 28, 2023. >> yes. >> other than that partnership

you have always been registered as law office of nathan wade. >> yes, ma'am. >> not with chris campbell. >> correct. >> thank you. so the affidavit that you filed in your divorce case, the first one in 2022, number seven. i will give you a group of exhibits so we don't have to go back and forth. i'm marking the 2022 as seven, i'm marking the 2024 as eight, i'm marking the credit card statements as nine. and your taxes as ten. >> objection. the relevance of them at this point. relevance of this entire business structure it is clear to me as other impeaching and irrelevant to the issues under the court's consideration.

tax returns and other things like that certainly that should be redacted and i would object to those. >> i agree they should be redacted. i don't agree to the relevance but i haven't tried to tender them. i'm just marking them. >> what's the eventual relevance? >> one of the things we have to show in this case is a personal and financial interest. he has talked about how he was reimbursed for these things and so i have a right to go into the veracity. >> all right. >> so let's see, seven, eight, nine. and then ten. all right. right now i will show you what i've marked as these exhibits.

may have i approach, judge? >> you may. >> show you what i marked as seven, eight, nine, ten. i will ask you the questions. so these are sworn -- first ask you about the domestic relations financial affidavit. these are sworn and filed.

the most recent one that you filed was filed on january 26, 2024. >> yes, ma'am. >> a few weeks ago. >> yes, ma'am. >> in that one, you said that you made 9,500 each month, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> you said that in 2022 -- in 2022 in this case alone isn't it true you were paid $303,000, over that. in this case, by fulton county. >> i see where you are going. so -- >> if he wants to explain it i have no problem with that. >> listen to the question and just answer the question asked. >> in 2022, isn't it true you were paid over $300,000? >> that's not true.

>> you were not paid that by fulton county? >> i was not. >> how much were you gnat 2022 then? >> what i was beginning to explain was, fulton county wrote a check to my firm. >> okay. >> what happens at that point is the checks are then deposited, as you have the bank statements, you see that. and then they are disbursed between the three of us, so there was mr. bradley, there was mr. wade, and there was christopher campbell. a third, a third, a third. so when you asked me if i was paid 300,000, the answer is no. i got a third of that that went to my personal firm. now, once the money was distributed to my personal firm, obviously the expenses come out of that and i get at the end of the day whatever the profit is.

so i did not get 300,000, no, ma'am. >> let me clarify my question was not did you put in your pocket $300,000. was the law firm of nathan wade paid over 300 thought in the year 2022? >> again, a third of that came to the law firm nathan wade. >> you are saying that the law firm of nathan wade did not receive checks from fulton county government over $3 hundred thousand in the year 2022? >> that's a different question. a third of the 300,000 came to nathan wade. >> again, i'm not asking what went in your pocket. i am asking was the law firm of nathan wade paid over $3 hundred thousand in 2022? >> asked and answered. >> i think you are dancing around the point there. final time.

>> i will move on. thank you. so you said that they were dispersed amongst all of you or put into an account with all of you. it is your testimony for 2022 every check you received from fulton county government went into an operating account with you, bradley and campbell. >> that's not what i testified to. so the way bradley and campbell firm established an account, when we decided to purchase a building in 2022. at that point every piece of income that came into the entity went into that account. and then after expenses were paid it was split a third, a third, a third, all right? once that was dissolved, then the funds would go into a different account. my account, one of my accounts. and then i would disperse is

funds between now attorney campbell and myself one half and one half. make sense? >> it does. let me be more direct then. the operating account you had for wade, bradley and campbell, the checks for fulton county from january of 2022 until june 17th, 2022, those checks were deposited in that operating account. >> yes, ma'am. >> starting on july 15th, 2022, the checks you received from fulton county up until may 26, 2022 went into an escrow account that you had at fifth third bank, correct? >> no, not all of them. some of them yet. >> some of your checks from july 15th, 2022, until may 26, 2023, some of them went into an account outside of fifth third bank? >> object to the relevance of

these financial transactions. >> how much you made is highly relevant in this case. the personal financial business and where the money was and it is a follow-up on other things he testified to. >> why is how much money he made relevant? >> because he represented -- it's very relevant. he filed an affidavit with another court. he told another judge he 9,000 a month. >> this is to establish that prior inconsistent statement. >> yes. >> i will give you a minute or two more to try that. we have to move on. >> thank you. so i know you are saying you only got a third of the $300,000 but you were paid -- the firm was paid over 300,000 in 2022, correct? >> miss merchant, that's not what i'm saying. they are numbers, they are there. it's the truth.

the funds were paid, they were divided between the three of us, going into an operating account, expenses paid out of it. at the end of that, the 9,000 figure is what you have. >> that's where you got the 9,000 figure from. >> yes, ma'am. >> let's see. prior to when you filed for divorce in november of 2021, you would use mr. bradley's credit card to pay for things with miss willis, correct? pay them back in cash. >> i have never used mr. bradley's credit card. >> never used his credit card? >> never. >> for transactions to anything with miss willis, out to dinner

or anything like that? >> i have never used mr. bradley's credit card. i have never used anyone else's credit card, not even my father's, and we have the same name. >> you would pay back if you ever used it you would pay back in cash, correct? >> ma'am, i have never used son one else's credit card. -- someone else's credit card. >> can you take a look at the bank records that i gave you? it's the largest tab you have. >> which exhibit is this? >> it is exhibit 9. >> it should be the larger section. exhibit -- i maintain my relevant objections. >> let's see the next question and the objection may be highly relevant.

>> is that an accurate copy of your capital one statements you provided in discovery to -- is that an accurate reflection of your capitol one records? >> discovery to whom. >> your divorce lawyers. that you provided in the divorce proceeding. >> does he recognize it by sight? >> i'm recognizing if he recognizes it. >> it's a big document. but i believe you if you say that this is what my wife's divorce lawyer gave you, i believe it. >> your name is on every page of that document, pretty much. >> not every page. >> they are all capital one bank records. take your time and look through it. tell me if you think it is not you are. >> it appears to be. >> those bank records show you

paid for travel with miss willis. >> yes, ma'am. >> i will object relevance of these documents and -- >> are you tendering exhibit 9 >> i will and they are highly relevant. >> why don't we start there. >> those show travel that you and miss willis took. >> well, you are asking about the contents of something that hasn't been admitted yet. >> i'm asking if that is what it shows. they'll object on relevance. >> first we have to say if you have authenticated it perhaps before we get into other details of what's in it. >> okay. i move to admit them. >> object on relevance. >> on that overruled. >> thank you. those records demonstrate that you paid for travel with yourself and miss willis, correct? >> they should. >> okay. let's just talk about that travel. >> okay.

>> the first trip is belize in march of 2023. is that a trip you took with miss willis? >> are you asking -- >> did you take a trip with miss willis in 2023 to belize? >> i did. >> did you take a trip with her in california in 2023? >> i did. >> did you pay for those trips on that credit card? >> i used the credit card to book the travel. but understand -- >> she paid you back cash. >> let's take the belize trip for example since you started there. that was a birthday gift to me, so i paid nothing for that trip, 0. >> all right. the charges that are on your card, she gave you cash for? >> she did. >> okay. so all the charges -- >> did you have more? >> i did. i wanted to get into the charges

on the card because -- so traveling with her is a task. you can probably imagine the attention that happens. so for safety reasons, she would limit her transactions. i mean, imagine trying to walk through an airport or sit at a restaurant and do anything. so there was no attempt to conceal the credit card. everything is here. >> that's not what i asked. >> okay. >> what i asked was the charges for belize in march of 2023 on that credit card, those are things you purchased to go with miss willis to belize. >> they were things we booked with my card that she paid, yes. >> did those show up on your

credit card? >> they do. >> you say she paid you cash to reimburse you for all of that? >> she did. >> she paid you cash for both of your portions or just hers? >> both. >> that trip just belize she paid you for everything on belize. >> the entire trip. >> so the food, tattoo parlor and all that stuff she paid for? >> i am going to -- >> there was no tattoo parlor in belize. >> there is a tattoo parlor on the charges. if everything on that card related to belize she paid you back for? >> she paid for, yes, ma'am. >> let's talk about california. in may of 2023. you all went to california together. >> yes. >> you booked plane tickets. >> yes. >> her name was on those plane tickets. >> they were. >> you said you were worried about security and things like that.

that was in her name when she traveled she had to use her name. >> the plane tickets, yes, ma'am. >> and you paid for those plane tickets and hotel. >> so again, the card, yes. >> you use your credit card. i'm asking did you use your credit card to book your flight and hotel to california? >> i did. >> and there is a lot of ubers on there as well for california. did you pay for those ubers as well? >> yes. we were in napa. >> and you are saying miss willis paid you back for that? >> yes. >> did she pay for the entire trip or did she pay for her half of the trip? >> the napa trip? she paid for the excursions. so the expenses balanced out. there was never -- let me be clear there was never a time when i would say hey, i bought

dinner, dinner cost $25. you need to give me $25. if you have ever spent any time with miss willis, you understand she is a very independent, proud woman. >> i object. >> she is going to insist that she carries her own weight. and it actually was a point of contention between the two of us. she is going to pay her own way. >> let me reask the question to make sure you answer it. the california trip that you paid for saying that she did not pay you back for cash instead she paid for excursions and you believe that was roughly half. >> she gave me some cash, yes. what i'm saying is the -- everything that we did when we got into napa, she paid for. >> the trip that she booked on her credit card in miami, did you pay her cash back for your

half of that? >> no. >> you never paid her back important the tickets she bought for you? >> i did pay her back because there were times when i would pay for dinner, she would pay for dinner. it would balance out. but in a relationship, ma'am, you don't particularly men, we don't go asking back for anything so you aren't keeping a ledger of things that you pay for versus the things she has paid for, which is why i said that it was a point of contention because she was very emphatic and adamant about this independent strong woman thing so she demanded she pay her own way. >> she is the district attorney of fulton county and she has to file financial disclosures disclosing any gifts with anybody she does business with in fulton county, correct? >> i don't know.

>> let's talk about tennessee. you booked a cabin in august of 2023 and paid for a cabin in den see. that's when you paid for it. can you tell us about that? >> august of 2023? >> you booked a trip for 1484.51. >> are you asking me did i take that trip with miss willis or are you asking me >> i was asking you to acknowledge that it's correct from the records. you paid for a cabin in tennessee. hopefully you can do it from memory. do you recall paying for a cabin six months ago, 1,481 in tennessee? >> where are we now? what page is that >> do you remember paying for a cabin in august? >> he can answer whether he remembers or not. >> i'm not asking you to go

through a thousand pages of record. do you remember paying for a cabin six months ago in tennessee? >> no. >> do you remember booking a cabin? >> i book lots of cabins. >> did you go to a cabin with miss willis ever? >> ever? >> ever. >> no. >> you have never gone to a cabin with miss willis. >> no >> every gone to tennessee with miss willis? >> yes. >> when was that? >> that was around 2022, early

2022. >> early 2022? okay. >> it was a day trip. >> you didn't spend the night? >> it was a day trip. >> okay. >> we would drive there, have lunch, drive back. the reason we would do that is because the attention, she couldn't get any piece of mind going locally. so we would get in my car and drive to someplace off the beaten path and have lunch and drive back. >> is that when you went to fainting goat with her? it's in jasper.

>> that's in georgia. i don't -- i don't recall going to fainting goat with her. >> the tennessee day trips were only tennessee? >> yes. >> okay. did you ever do these day trips in georgia? >> did we drive anywhere in georgia? >> you were talking about day trips. i'm talking about outside the metro area. the trips you were talking about. the ones you were only asking about the ones you were just talking about. are all of those in tennessee? >> no, we drove the alabama before. >> you drove to alabama? >> uh-huh. >> did you go anywhere in georgia? north georgia? >> i will object. you want to direct his attention to a time frame or location. it might be easier for the

witness. >> if you don't have the specific details yourself, we need to start getting into specifics or more broadly phrased questions. you can't be exploring around indefinitely. >> is it fair to say you have taken so many trips with her you don't remember all the places you've gone? >> so many trips. >> you are having trouble remembering if you went to north georgia >> i want to be candid in my responses so i have to jog my memory. these are places that i have frequented but not with her. so i want to make certain that if there was ever a time that she accompanied me, that i was candid in that response. >> okay. aruba in october of 2022. was that business records? it might be a little faster. but did you take a trip with her

to aruba in 2022? >> yes, ma'am. so that aruba trip was sort of a packaged deal there. my mother had recently retired and i decided to take my mother on a cruise. >> okay. >> and the second leg after the cruise concluded, d.a. willis and i went to aruba. so that was all one trip, if you will. >> my question was did you go with d.a. willis in aruba in 2022? >> i did. >> you paid for that trip using your business credit card, correct? >> i did. you paid for a cruise as well, correct? >> that's the cruise i was referencing with d.a. willis, my mother and myself.

>> there are two cruises, let's talk about the first one. the first one was you took that's the one with your mother. >> yes. >> so you introduced ms. willis to your mother and took the cruise together the three of you. after that cruise was done you & miss willis flew to aruba. you paid for it on your credit card. you are saying miss willis paid you back for that. >> she did. let me make this distinction, though. the number that you are looking at reflects the three people on the cruise ship. there were things that my mother and i did, just the two of us, that d.a. willis didn't do. >> and i'm not attributing that. my math is not good but i didn't include anything with your mother on this. >> you wouldn't be able to see it because it is not separated out. it just sh