mr. sadow, let's start with your question, then we will see if we need to get copies in front of the witness. mr. sadow: all right. mr. bradley. mr. bradley: yes, i am here. mr. sadow: all of a sudden i have lost you on the screen. there we go, you are on the zoom. you are on youtube but not zoom itself. not that i can see. mr. bradley: i'm here and i can hear you. judge mcafee: his visuals may be different. hold tight, mr. sadow. mr. sadow: he was on when ms. merchant was asking questions. judge mcafee: we need to add a spotlight to the witness stand and mr. sadow, and we do not need the other boxes. mr. sadow: thank you very much. judge mcafee: now we are ready. mr. sadow: thank you, sir. mr. bradley, you have referred to mr. wade as your client, correct? mr. bradley: correct. mr. sadow: you understand that the court has ruled that communications that you had with mr. wade are not privileged, correct? mr. bradley: no, i'm aware that the court ruled that one specific dealing with the timeframe

mr. sadow. with us on zoom. >> thank you. i have a few questions. i'd like to know if the court reporter has defense exhibits from 26 and 27 from the last. >> we have a different court reporter. we have someone fill in on short notice. i can send them to you if you need them. >> i have working copies. i want to make sure the witness has a copy to look at. >> all right. we can try to work through that logistical challenge. this is 26 and 27? >> i believe that is correct. 26, i think, is the same text messages that mrs. merchant was just asking me about. two pages. i stapled it together. it is dated january 5 of this year. >> all right. i can print off a copy now. let's start off with the questions you want to ask. >> that's where i'm going to start. i'll see what i can do to work through it. mr. sadow, start with your question and then see if we need to get a copy of the exhibits in front of the witness. >> all right. mr. bradley. >> yes, i'm here. >> all of a sudden i lost you on the screen. th

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

mr. sadow if you're with us on zoom. >> thank you, ana, i do have a few questions. first thing i'd like to know is whether the court reporter has defense exhibits 26 and 27 from the last we have a different court reporter. this time. we had someone else fill in on such short notice, but i can potentially then those to you if you need them >> well, i think i have working copies, but i want to make sure that the witness has a copy to look at. >> all right. we can try to work through that logistical challenge. this, as you said, 26.27, i believe that's correct. in 26 i think is the same text messages that ms merchant was just asked me about. it was two pages. i stapled together and it is dated january the fifth of this year. >> all right. >> i can print off a copy now, but why don't we start off with the questions that you have? >> okay? because that's where i want that's where i'm going to start. but i'll see what i can do to work through it in order >> okay? >> all right. mr. said, i wanted we s

mr. sadow, you asked whether all communications with mr. wade were covered. that was not the extent of the ruling. the only ones that i deemed were not covered and that i had asked him about because those are the ones that were irrelevant. any communications mr. wade regarding the existence or nonexistence of a romantic relationship with miss willis. >> fine. thank you, your honor, i understand. so going back to this live inquiry. when you say you don't have personal knowledge, what i want to ask you to start with is very simple. did you have communications with mr. wade about the relationship between mr. wade and miss willis? it's a simple yes and no. >> yes. >> okay. and is it your testimony that during the time you were representing him, which i understood started sometime in 2018, is that correct? >> that's the time frame that i remember, yes. >> is it your testimony under oath that with regards to conversations with mr. wade and his relationship with miss willis that you only had one such

did you understand that >> i don't think mr. sadow next question, trying to, your honor would you tell us on the occasions in 2020 that you add contact with mr. wade? >> i'm sorry, i thought i had answered that, yes. yes. so there were times in 2020 i had contact, but 2020 was a year i was running for office it was a year that he was going through some serious medical issues and i did not have much contact, but i certainly had contact with him in 2021 out to eat with him maybe probably >> did you >> did you visit him in any location? his office or did he visit you in your office in 2020? >> i am sure he i'm sure >> that's a very good question. i'm sure he came to 750 in 2027, 50 years. what's my office. >> okay. >> not often, but maybe once or twice maybe i went to his office once or twice, but maybe once. >> the purpose for going to his office would have been what? >> maybe we would've went to mellow mushrooms for pizza or maybe he would come for lunch. i'm sure we were by judge's office though but not often, not a lot. we both grind

mr. sadow >> mr. guild has been asked i like follow up >> let me just come let me just to keep it consistent, i'll go in order so that mr. sadow is deferring then i'll go to mr. stocks mr. durham on zoom >> your honor. all right. mr. mcdougald refer to mr. gil all right. mr. rice? all right. thank you. mr. galen. >> thank you, your honor >> good afternoon. this white good afternoon, sir. i'll do i'll follow up questions i like to start off with the exhibit number four that you should have up there. those are the interrogatories >> no, sir >> there they're not up there. remember i asked her to compile them all. now, grabbing if you wanted me >> yes, sir. okay. >> now, these are the interrogatories, the eu had filed on may the 30th, 2023, in your voice case, correct >> yes, sir. now, >> he went over in part some of those interrogatories but what i want you to do because i want to get down to the specific language to clear up exactly definitely what the interrogatories asked for. an exactly what you answ

mr. sadow. >> mr. honor, if the court will permit, mr. gillearn is going to ask some questions i was going to ask. i would like to just be able to follow up. >> to keep it consistent, i'll go in order. so mr. sadow is deferring, then i'll go to mr. stocks. >> i'll defer. >> mr. durham from zoom. >> no, your honor. >> mr. mcdougal. >> i will defer to mr. gillon. >> all right, mr. rice. >> defer to mr. gillen. >> thank you, mr. gillen. >> thank you, your honor. >> good afternoon, mr. wade. >> good afternoon, sir, a few follow-up questions. i'd like to start off with the exhibit no. 4 that you should have up there. those are the interrogatories. >> no, sir. >> remember, i asked her to compile them all. so now you can grab them. >> they're right here. >> yes, sir. >> okay, now, these are the interrogatories that you had filed on may the 30th, 2023, in your divorce case, correct? >> yes, sir. >> now, you went over in part some of those interrogatorinter. what i want you to do -- because i want to ge

so we weren't trying to keep anything a secret, mr. sadow. nothing secret or salacious of interesting a private life, nothing. >> i'm just asking the questions. when you went on the various trips outlined, did anyone in the district attorney's office know that the two of you were travelling on personal trips together? >> to my knowledge, no. >> and again, that was for privacy, according to your testimony? >> privacy, yes, sir. >> did you and miss willis go to the capeville condo prior to your relationship starting beginning of 2022? >> prior to having physical contact, prior to having intercourse, did we go to the hateville condo? >> you keep going to intercourse, i'm trying not to, but fine. the answer to that question would be yes. did you and miss willis go to the hateville condo prior to november 1st of 2021? >> yes. >> and the purpose for doing to the condo prior to 2021 would have been what? prior to november 1st of 2021? >> could have been any number of things. at that time -- >> that's what i'm asking, tell me. >> could have been any

. >> mr. sadow, i can take judicial notice that's what the rule says if you want to ask him follow-up questions. >> thank you. you are not claiming that your answer to number 4, interrogatory number 4 on january 25, 2024, incriminates you as in fifth amendment privilege, correct? >> correct. >> you are claiming the second part, that it would bring infamy, disgrace or public contempt, correct? >> object to that, i don't think that's the -- and the witness does not have it in front of him. he said several times privacy [indiscernible] >> overruled. >> i'm claiming privacy. >> the privilege you make reference to is to infamy, disgrace, or public contempt upon the witness, right? or party? that's the section that you were relying on, correct? >> if that's what it says, yes, sir. >> well -- i could show you but i think the court has already indicated he can take judicial notice of the statute. so assume what i'm telling you is accurate, ok? >> yes, sir. >> how would an answer of none bring infamy, disgra

>> that was authority provided by mr. sadow, our morning recess and that was indicated to go toward a potential argument, i don't think we have gotten there yet. it is fraud on the court. it is attorney-client privilege, 1.6. >> the case i had cited this morning showing distinction was tenant healthcare, that is where we were on the threshold issue, did you have something to address on that? >> i have not been able to review that. >> mr. ward, you are co-counsel with mr. bradley? >> no, i'm not here in that capacity. >> remind me why you are here. >> i am -- >> harris: it is never a dull moment. one point, fani willis's father says i don't mean to be racist, most black folks hide cash. i am from georgia, atlanta and i don't hide cash. welcome to "outnumbered," this whole thing in fulton county georgia courthouse with the d.a. on the line here, fani willis, and her lover nathan wade. this is what we're talking about here, her dad took the stand and she didn't, it was a twist. fulton county decided not to call her to the stand. s

>> do 2020, mr. sadow? >> 2021. >> grab dating >> no no worries. no reason >> mr. okay. mr. stocks stocks, excuse me >> just real briefly you started at early 2022 so use the term personal relationship and there was no dating, no personal relationship prior to early 20. is that correct? >> helped me understand. i want to make sure i answer you. so so let let's let's be clear. 2022 was the start of any intimate sexual relationship with the district attorney. >> okay. and that's what i was okay. >> affidavit used the term >> personal relationship. >> it's got to use the term vague. >> and >> your testimony today is that that ince basically physical or sexual or intimate relationships that correct? >> yes, sir. >> and there was nothing corddry testimony there was none of that priority? >> that is correct. >> all right. not seeing anyone else across the redirect. >> all right. ms merchant can swim to excuse i'm did we ask ask for >> keeping motors might need him back after all right. >> are you misled down, mr. wade business discuss your testimony with the other witnesses. >> sh

. >> hello, mr. sadow. >> it has been a while. >> it has been a while. >> i hope you're doing well? >> just getting older. >> that applies to all of us, i believe. i think you indicated that if you had your calendar you would be able to pinpoint a day for us? >> i would. >> is there a way for you, for example, to break before you actually leave to contact your folks to see if you can get a date? >> i guess i could. i -- i don't know how far back we archive those, but i assume i could. >> would you be willing to give that a shot for us? if i ask the court and the court says go ahead and do it, that would be all right? >> i'll do whatever the court instructs and you should too. >> i try to live by those words. i'm not always successful, but i try. if i pinpoint a date, for example, i think the record is clear that mr. wade was hired for the position on november 1 of 2021. does that help you all? >> no, it does not. >> then let's go to the meeting. it sounds like it was just one meeting? >> yes. >> and could you tell us where that meeting took place, if you remember? >> in the conferen

. >> mr. sadow, it has been a while. >> i hope you're well. >> doing fine, just getting older. >> that's true. that applies to all of us. i think you indicated that if you had your calendar you would be able to pinpoint a date. >> i would. >> is there a way for you for example at a break before you leave to contact your folks to see if you can get a date? >> i guess i could. i don't know how far back we archive those. i assume i could. >> would you be willing to give that a shot? >> i'll do whatever the court instructs. >> if i asked the court and the court says do t. that's all right? >> i'll do whatever the court instructs. >> i hear you. >> you should, too. >> i try to live by those words. i'm not always successful, but i try. if i pinpoint a date, for example, i think the record is clear that mr. wade was hired for the position on november 1 of 2021. does that help you at all? >> it does not. >> let's go to the meeting. it sounds like it was just one meeting? >> yes. >> and could you tell us whe

>> i don't think >> mr. sadow next question, trying to, your honor. all right. mr. mcdonald, you can sit down now. >> i don't believe she answered that question, your honor. she answered as to specific individual gifts >> and you're not listening to my answer either. so we're done i mean, we're out. firstly, i don't think that he was even leaning to force her to testify before she walked into the courtroom. >> but as >> anyone helped by this judge's reactions, obviously there are poking a bit of a bear here you know, i actually think the judge did a great job today held both sides to a high standard, took them to task, made sure to try >> to force both sides to ask good questions to listen to his rulings, and to ultimately not retread ground that had already been treaded early clare in the hearing. so i thought he did a very good job ultimately, laura, he's creating a great record here i mean, candidly, we all agree everyone in this panel agrees that maybe fani willis, mr. way, didn't make the best choice here, but ultimately the legal standard is we've all discusse

fired from the firm but none of that has anything to do with the charge made by ms merchant and mr. sadow and these other attorneys into me. that is the most reckless conduct here. >> elie, you intimated that if it can be proven that the relationship between district attorney fani willis and her prosecutor, mr. wade, if that relationship started before she hired him that that would be a real blow for her. >> why >> would she lie about such a thing? does that relate more to are you supposed to hire somebody that you're having a relationship with or might that have to do with his divorce. >> so this goes to the heart of the whole dispute here. then narrative offered up by donald trump and the co-defendants, mr. roman was essentially this fani willis was in a romantic relationship with mr. wade first, mr. wade, a man who's never prosecuted a felony. criminal trial, was then chosen by fani willis, according to the defendants because of that relationship to lead this massive case. and then as a result of that, mr. wade has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, some of which have made the

. >> mr. sadow, it has been a while. >> i hope you're well. >> doing fine, just getting older. >> that's true. that applies to all of us. i think you indicated that if you had your calendar you would be able to pinpoint a date. >> i would. >> is there a way for you for example at a break before you leave to contact your folks to see if you can get a date? >> i guess i could. i don't know how far back we archive those. i assume i could. >> would you be willing to give that a shot? >> i'll do whatever the court instructs. >> if i asked the court and the court says do t. that's all right? >> i'll do whatever the court instructs. >> i hear you. >> you should, too. >> i try to live by those words. i'm not always successful, but i try. if i pinpoint a date, for example, i think the record is clear that mr. wade was hired for the position on november 1 of 2021. does that help you at all? >> it does not. >> let's go to the meeting. it sounds like it was just one meeting? >> yes. >> and could you tell us whe

. >> sure, so mr. sadow, i'd agree with you in the general sense of things but this this situation, ms. merchant offered to provide essentially her list of questions in advance giving us a preview of what she's going to say and that puts us in kind of a different posture in that respect where we can actually have some sense of what's going to come out, but ms. merchant, i think knowing what your next question may be, since usually we don't have that opportunity, does it presuppose some knowledge on his part that we have yet to establish is inside or outside of privilege? >> the first thing, judge, is i gave these questions so that we wouldn't be in a situation where we were objecting and having four different lawyers talk about privileged confidential every single question. i would hoping we would ferret that out ahead of time. this is the first i've heard that objection to question 18, trying to be completely transparent. i have to establish that his information, there have been statements in this court tha

the question by show of >> hands from other council, starting with mr. sadow i believe the doors that open down to ask this particular witness about statements as well as made to her she brought it up on cross-examination on the company patients in this willis say this or in phobia with that. so i have to now ask her questions correctly about what visible it was told her about romantic relationship i think we'll take those one at a time. >> question. my question that we can address those to see. i don't i don't know about a complete opening of the doorbell. >> we'll see where we go the first time that you spoke to ms willis about her relationship, romantic relationship with mr. wade. you haven't to remember what ms willis said, in essence, not word for word in essence, what you've said? >> no. >> do you remember the first time she told you whenever worked for you that there was a romantic relationship? >> is this the >> kind of conversation that you had with your best friend ongoing over a period of time in which it was common knowledge to you that there was a

. >> by show of hands from other counsel, starting with mr. sadow >> i believe the door has been opened to ask this particular witness about statements ms. willis made to her. she brought it up on cross examination on a couple of occasions. did ms. willis say this. i'd like to now ask her questions directly about what ms. willis told her about her romantic relationship. >> i think we'll take those one at a time, question by question, and we can address those to see -- i don't know about a complete opening of the door. we'll see where we go. >> the first time that you spoke to ms. willis about her relationship, romantic relationship with mr. wade, do you happen to remember what ms. willis said, in essence, not word for word, but in essence what she said? >> no. >> do you remember the first time she told you in whatever words were used that there was a romantic relationship? >> no. >> is this the kind of conversation that you had with your best friend ongoing over a period of time in which it was common knowledge to you that there was an ongoing relat

. >> this is a true judge and a lot >> mr. sadow. thank you. we're going to take five minutes. >> i mean, nic, think about that. moment bearing because at the core, remember what needs to be proven. it needs to prove there was a financial benefit derived from an improper relationship, leading to such a conflict that a defendant could not get a fair trial. she is indignant about the accusations and going into that particular aspect of it, the inferences that she needs a man to pay for her and she made it clear yesterday that a man is not a plan. it's not somebody who's going and to treat her or sort of be this savior in her life. she doesn't need that. she may have was that was important because of the finances, right? because the idea of whether the personal benefit was derived was tied to financial gain. >> i don't want to pick on this because there was an inference yesterday from defense attorneys means that her having these stacks of cash somehow is sort of nefarious or that should lead to some question marks. >> it might >> be a cultural th