, but mr. wade would like to insist on responding to interrogatories which were contrary to the information that mr. bradley would have, then i'm asking him whether he took steps as an attorney to say, i cannot be a part of that or countenance that. therefore i'm withdrawing from the case. >> i still see that as covered in the communications. i'll sustain that objection. >> thank you, your honor. that's all i have. >> anyone on behalf of mr. floyd still joining us? moving on, mr. kromwell. >> two brief questions, your honor. i think we've been -- [inaudible] when did you withdraw from mr. wade's divorce case? >> i don't have it in front of me, i don't have the file. >> but sometime in 2023? >> no, it would have probably been, well 2023, see, i left in 2022. it could have been anywhere between july of 2022 and maybe december. i don't have the accurate date. but it wasn't when i left. >> to make it easier. you were not his divorce lawyer at the time the interogger to responses were filed in 2023? >> n

, but mr. wade would like to insist on responding to interrogatories which were contrary to the information that mr. bradley would have, then i'm asking him whether he took steps as an attorney to say, i cannot be a part of that or countenance that. therefore i'm withdrawing from the case. >> i still see that as covered in the communications. i'll sustain that objection. >> thank you, your honor. that's all i have. >> anyone on behalf of mr. floyd still joining us? moving on, mr. kromwell. >> two brief questions, your honor. i think we've been -- [inaudible] when did you withdraw from mr. wade's divorce case? >> i don't have it in front of me, i don't have the file. >> but sometime in 2023? >> no, it would have probably been, well 2023, see, i left in 2022. it could have been anywhere between july of 2022 and maybe december. i don't have the accurate date. but it wasn't when i left. >> to make it easier. you were not his divorce lawyer at the time the interogger to responses were filed in 2023? >> n

i found mr. -- neither mr. wade or mr. bradley had met their burden on establishing the attorney client privilege -- privilege applied specifically as it relates to mr. bradley's knowledge with any relationship that existed between miss willis and mr. wade. and, particularly that it wasn't established that his specific knowledge came at further ends of legal advice. having made that determination, i did not see any choice but to allow the parties to have an opportunity to explore that topic. there is really, in my mind, it with that topic only, if there's anything else we have covered, i'm not here to do it again. with that, is there anything else we need to cover before kicking that off. >> mr. wade is still a potential witness. >> i believe mr. wade was released when we concluded his testimony at the last hearing unless he has been re-subpoenaed, i have no knowledge of that. >> i think, procedurally, that would be accurate. at this point i don't see a means where he would need to be recalled, but if it is, than that is s

. >> and then we spoke after mr. wade called your friend, and we talked about that as well, correct? >> that is correct. >> and at that point you didn't mention anything to me about being represented by mr. chopra. >> i didn't mention anything about mr. chopra or -- that is correct. >> that is my questions. okay. i'll show you two more texts. >> all right. mrs. merchant. >> last two weeks. >> 3 of 5 i'm cutting you off. >> thank you. may i approach? >> are these supposed to go together? two separate dates? >> two different dates. >> okay. >> i know you said the texts were about the foot note. do you recall me asking you, do you think it started before she hired him? you said absolutely. do you recall that? >> i see that in the text message, yes. >> and do you also recall me asking you how they would react? if they would attack me? you said no, they will deny it. >> your honor, objection as to speculation. as to how he thinks they will react. >> i think it goes to the motivations of the witness. overruled. >> you told me t

mr. wade got you this contract, dear rumor those questions? >> yes, i do. >> we were talking about a split for that $20 for that particular contract. you got 25 in front of you? what's the hourly rate on that one? >> 150. >> 150 on that one too? the same sharing went through the business the way you handled that contract as well? >> that is correct. >> who is austin? >> he was a probation officer that passed the bar and we hired him and another individual. the other person did not stay long. >> did they do some more funding for the contract? >> yes. >> that was pretty good for a younger lawyer to get courtroom experience? >> that is correct. >> 2020, you were aware that mr. wade had a serious illness during that time? >> i'm aware. >> you and mr. wade describe your relationship in a lot of details about specific circumstances. that your business partners by the time you left in summer of 2022. your business part -- you were business partners until that time? >> yes, that is correct. >> while y

>> mr. wade was hired as the special prosecutor on november 1st of 2021. you're aware of that, correct? >> i have my contracts to show when i started. no one showed me the contract of when he started, but so, but if he has a contract for november 1st of 2021, then that's correct. >> all right. i'm going to suggest to you that the record will reflect that the contract between miss willis and mr. wade was november 1st of 2021. correct? i want you just to accept that, okay? is it your testimony that you don't know under oath whether or not there was a relationship between mr. wade and miss willis before the contract? >> i do not recall any dates of when the relationship started. so whether you are pinpointing a date of when his contract started or not, i'm telling you i did not recall any specific date that he flat out said anything about a relationship with miss willis. >> now i want to go based on what you've just said, let's go to what was defense exhibit 26. okay? in defense exhibit 26, which i

mr. wade money through cash app? >> no. >> the only money you have given him outside of a contract is cash? >> i didn't give him money in a contract. that was cute. i didn't give him money in a contract. what happened -- we're going to answer it since you said it. he worked. he worked more hours than he was paid. the county paid him for the work that he did. so don't be cute with me and think you're not going to get an answer. >> i will ask you about the contract in a minute. i asked you about cash. did you ever pay him anything -- i'm trying to qualify my questions. i'm not talking about the contract with fulton county that was paid. i'm talking about outside of that, did you ever pay him anything other than cash? >> i've only given cash a few times in in the course -- >> let her finish. >> if we went to dinner, i wouldn't give him cash. i probably gave him cash four times. probably the most, $2,500. the least, between 500 and $1,000. >> you never wrote him a check? >> ma'am, i don't have che

what mr. wade personal business, otherwise, never. i've never been in the district of columbia with mr. way or maryland, virginia, the dmv as they call it so as i understand it, to be clear many trips that you would have taken deceit dc, as >> like, i was pretty clear answer as a pretty clear answer >> she just said no so you have a variation or something new to bring up >> i'll ask it and we'll see. >> did you take trips to dc that were non-business during the time period? that this case of this matter was under investigation? >> i'm going to object to relevance as relates to the matter that we're here. >> well, again, the question he asked take personal or business trips. >> she said, but i would that was that was with mr. wade. this i asked her alone whether she took okay. >> let's the random one would be the relevance trying to understand whether or not we have an ability to show a personal trip in which mr. wade is there at the same time i understand her answer. >> okay. i >> understand her answer, but we have documents. we have r

bradley, you have referred to mr. wade as your client, correct >> correct. >> you understand that the court has ruled that communications that you had with mr. way are not privilegedcorrect >> no, i'm i'm aware that the court ruled that one specific dealing with the timeframe of one specific conversation wasn't privileged >> then i'm going to ask, your honor, if sadow limitation the clarifying he made. sure mr. sadow, you asked whether all communications with mr. wade i think we're covered. that was not the extent of the ruling. the only ones that i deemed were not covered and that i'd asked about in the in camera hearing because those are the ones that were relevant were any communications mr. wade made regarding the existence or nonexistence of a romantic relationship with ms willis? >> fine. thanks, your honor. i understand. so, going back to line of inquiry, when you say you don't have personal knowledge, what i want to ask you to start with very simple did you have communications with mr. wade about the relationship b

mr. wade's testimony if mr. de testified he never used anyone else's credit card before. >> asked and answered, it was covered during the last hearing, knowledge of mr. wade used his credit card. >> i asked when. i didn't ask did he, i asked when did he. >> i do not have any dates of when mr. wade used my credit card. i testified that we used the card for business and that throughout the business we ordered paper or supplies or filing of depositions. the cost factor of cases is what i said. and that still applies today. did he use my credit card, he did. but i can't tell you who used that card, what the trip was for, i can't even tell you at this time where he went. >> but he used it for a trip. >> yeah, i mean, it was for a trip but i can't tell you where, when, why, or anything to that nature, correct. >> and he paid you back in cash. >> i never testified that he paid me back in cash. i said that he would either pay me back, you know, i said i couldn't remember, i do not recall. sometimes he would write checks,

mr. wade might have made to mr. bradley in furtherance of legal advise. >> mr. bradley is asserting privilege. it would be your burden to show the necessary foundation there. is that something you want to take up on this specific question? >> i don't object to foundation grounds. she has not provided any foundation he would have any knowledge of what she is requesting here. his answers were he had no knowledge and now she hasn't laid the foundation in order to continue to ask that question over and over. >> miss merchant? >> mr. bradley, would you abject it falls under the privilege of 106 of the rules and attorney/client privilege is not something that mr. bradley can waive. only mr. wade can waive it regardless of the communications or information improper. mr. wade would have to waive them in order for mr. bradley to continue to testify about any of this relationship until it has been established, when that privilege should have begun. >> so far i haven't heard anything about a relationship

it was my plan to only live there. >> did mr. wade ever visit you at the condo that you leased from mrs. yearti? >> he visited that condo, yes. >> he did? >> yes. >> did he ever spend the night at that condo? >> no. >> just visited? >> yeah. he did visit for sure. >> did you ever go out to eat together other than the lunches you talked about during 2019 or 2020? >> i would think that we probably went to lunch. wouldn't have been -- let me think. 2019. i'm going to say i don't know. i'm going to say we probably broke bread someplace in 2019. i don't remember it. it seems like we would have broke bread in 2019. i'm going to say yes, although i have no recollection. it seem to me like -- i go out to eat and drink with everyone. i'm going to say yes. >> outside of the vacations that we have already talked about, did you ever go out to dinner with mr. wade? >> i mentioned to you that -- >> i object. as to what time period. we're asking very vague questions. i thought we were treating the witness as hostile. we're no longer doing that. so w

and mr. wade was there. >> it was at our office. actually, miss willis was there and there were other people there. mr. wade was not in that meeting. he was, he was -- in the back. i wasn't even in that meeting. >> why did she hold it at your office then? >> i have no idea. >> you also remember telling me about them spending time together at her law office before she took her job. >> i don't recall. do you -- i don't recall. do you have something to -- >> well, what i'm asking is, so let's back up a sec. so miss willis rented a law office from evans firm. or andrew evans and another lawyer, i think stacy evans. t you have knowledge of that, correct? >> object to hearsay. how does he know the information. that would be the correct question. >> okay. >> i don't really know how to even respond to that. hearsay. i'm asking if he knew she rented -- >> they may have been there. >> right. >> may have seen a business card at some point. >> i've never been to miss willis' office when she was in private pra

mr. wade's.fferent company or bank account and largely what it is a situation where it now stands documents are are ready in evidence so whether it's. >> why can't this use -- be used as a concert if and if mr. gillen says in closing hey i put all these together and here's my demonstrative. >> the characterization is the language that called that summary and if it's an accurate reflection of the record. there are so many records. >> we are describing things we have today. the documents really came from mr. wade so it's not like there's a -- that we would ask if the witness would be allowed to testify put it in the record and pithy summary charts in the record and have them admitted and that way it's a situation where we have a jury and they are for wound with a national misunderstanding here. they could look through this and determine whether the source is accurate or not. the second sheet of payments, this came from them so to say that they can't determine or decipher whether the documents they

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 over

. >> mr. wade saying some testifying when you assumed would be the next witness. >> only makes sense. >> did you listen to the arguments? >> i did listen to the arguments ridiculous that they lied on monday. i did listen to that argument. >> okay. that was it. just the argument. >> i thought they did an excellent job pointing out the courts on monday. the hearing continued in 60 days here i am. let's talk about what you did in preparation for today. did you meet with mr. wade it all? what's the motion was filed did you talk about emotion that i filed to disqualify you. >> yes. i don't know if you could say talked about. i probably had some choice words i don't know that it was a conversation, as you know, mr. williams is a gentleman. a substantive confirmation. reading this motion. skimmed it, more so. i probably said some choice things about the way things were told. used to be in a date and time we had 60 minutes. we had this great rapport. it is for all of the world to see. i just want to make s

i was living with my daughter. >> you said you met mr. wade -- you remember you met in 2023, right? >> correct. >> and i wasn't really clear you said something about meeting him with mr. isacoff-did. >> i was being interviewed by him. and he walked in. i met him. that was the first time. he walked into the office. >> where were you being interviewed? >> at the district attorney's office. >> mr. wade walked into that interview? >> yes. >> ms. willis had not told you about mr. wade prior to that? >> absolutely not. >> she didn't tell you anything about their relationship before you met him that day? >> no. but mr. wade remembers meeting you in 2020? >> he said that at my daughter's swearing-in -- i do remember that we having some banter about fraternities. other -- a. >> at your daughter's swearing-in. >> right. >> that's all i have. just one moment, judge. >> morning, sir. >> good morning. how are you, counsel? >> fine. >> try to ask you some specific questions if we could. >> i'll give specific answer it is i can. >> perfect. >> the driver's license address, i'm not going to publish.

and i never looked at mr. wade or his attorneys. that sounds golf shirt all right. mr. brown, the question was put to you >> repeat the question, please. >> yes. so i showed you or i asked you, i'm sorry, the question. the last question i asked you was, what did nathan wade tell you about the relationship? >> objection. >> and that's already been ruled upon i. >> recall >> him stating >> that at some point they were dating i can't tell you what date that was. it was made in confidence. we were in the back of our office. our officers were the only two in the back. there was no one else present that is all i can tell you at this time. >> one time >> one time >> you only had a conversation with him one time about the relationship? >> objection. asked and answered. >> no. i think that's clarify for their own sitting cross, ms merchant? >> i do not recall any other time that he mentioned that they were in a relationship. know okay so other than so you talked about this one time and you said you don't know when it was that, correct? >> that is correct. >> was it before mr. wad

mr. wade. >> no, we have not. >> we have not texted about those facts? >> through a third party, you were given some information. you and i shared texts. our texts were more so about my health, more so about if i was okay with what was going on, that i would not be -- whether or not i was going to be subpoenaed or not, and that emphatically i would not have been sitting in this position as being called as a witness, so that's what my text chains show. so no. >> that we've never talked about willis and wade having a relationship? >> not directly you and i, no. we talked about my health. >> okay. >> we talked about as i stated before, other things, but not this, no. >> okay. did you text me about wade and willis taking many trips together? >> i object -- i'm sorry. >> there's been an objection. >> i'm going to object as it relates to attorney/client privilege, and i'm going to object because i haven't seen the text messages that she's attempting to impeach the witness with, and so he's made all

it wouldn't just be mr. wade. so i'm sure my security team has taken me to lunch probably been a time i've left here 07:00, going to get something to eat. and i don't even know that they would have taken him or if he would have driven himself but they've taken me to do that, but we are talking very few very far in between. most days, i don't even eat lunch. and when i do is because my assistant has heated up some bags, something and i eat through meetings and itamar office. it's not a practice of mind to go to lunch during the time period that you were dating? and your security team ever take you two together anymore? >> no. never >> if there was a lunch that occurred that i just described if there was a meal that i that i just described anything outside of that and it needs to be very clear not often. once, twice because i want to be overinclusive. i'm saying once or twice i'm not certain that it happened, but i'd rather be overinclusive. with you >> so your office objected to us getting delta records for flights

mr. wade was at that meeting? >> correct. >> he was with the district attorney interviewing you about taking this case? >> of course i have known nathan very well, as you do. and i exchanged molestianries with him but the conversation was with miss -- ms. willis. >> were you aware her team consisted it of brian watkins, shannon trouty, and john floyd. she reported that was her team? >> i know john floyd was involved. and she probably told me the others. listen, i barely remember what case i tried last year much less every work that was said in the conversation. >> i understand. fair enough. she said she was looking to hire more lawyers and investigators to work on this case? >> she told me it was to me, she said that would you be interested in being special prosecutor in this case? and i gave the reply that -- no. about hiring other lawyers or whatever, i don't know. all i can testify to is what she told me. >> did she tell you at all why she wanted to hire special counsel and not use someone

but the conference you have mr. wade could have been there. >> yes, i'm almost sure he was there. >> and miss willis obviously. and mr. desantos was there? >> i think mr. desantos was too. >> as far as whether there was anyone else there, you don't have any recollection? >> no. next time i'll take a picture so i'll have an exact -- >> next time hopefully you won't have to be here. >> hopefully not. >> mr. stockton? >> no questions. >> thank you. >> mr. durham? >> no questions, your honer. >> mr. mcdougal. >> no questions for the governor. >> mr. rice? >> no questions. >> mr. gillen? >> i've been waiting for this for years. >> i couldn't give up the chance getting up here, governor. good to see you again. >> good to see you. >> we have done some work in the past together, haven't we? >> i will say to you, i can understand why they came to see you, because you're the finest lawyer i've ever worked with. >> thank you. i next to put you in the next -- >> there you go. one or two more questions. you and i working together, wh

mr. wade was at that meeting? >> correct. >> he was with the district attorney interviewing you about taking this case? >> of course i have known nathan very well, as you do. and i exchanged molestianries with him but the conversation was with miss -- ms. willis. >> were you aware her team consisted it of brian watkins, shannon trouty, and john floyd. she reported that was her team? >> i know john floyd was involved. and she probably told me the others. listen, i barely remember what case i tried last year much less every work that was said in the conversation. >> i understand. fair enough. she said she was looking to hire more lawyers and investigators to work on this case? >> she told me it was to me, she said that would you be interested in being special prosecutor in this case? and i gave the reply that -- no. about hiring other lawyers or whatever, i don't know. all i can testify to is what she told me. >> did she tell you at all why she wanted to hire special counsel and not use someone

mr. wade. >> good afternoon, sir, a few follow-up questions. i'd like to start off with the exhibit no. 4 that you should have up there. those are the interrogatories. >> no, sir. >> remember, i asked her to compile them all. so now you can grab them. >> they're right here. >> yes, sir. >> okay, now, these are the interrogatories that you had filed on may the 30th, 2023, in your divorce case, correct? >> yes, sir. >> now, you went over in part some of those interrogatorinter. what i want you to do -- because i want to get down to the specific language to clear up exactly what the interrogatories ask for and exactly what you answered, okay? >> yes, sir. >> now, if we look on the interrogatory that i believe as we indicated, they're really, i think, on page 2. the one that starts off describe each instance in which you've had sexual relations. you see that one? >> yes, sir. >> now, that interrogatory begins, describe each instance in which you have had sexual relations with a person other than y

now that mr. wade has testified there's a conflict of multiple different issues [indiscernible] on the first one is the reimbursement issue, the cash, that opens the door in and of itself to miss willis testifying. >> what's the conflict there? >> that he testified that he didn't have receipts but we don't know if miss willis has receipts. so, that's one issue. >> we don't know, so there's no conflict. don't know. >> so it's a question, not a conflict. what else. >> that is a question. and a lot of different issues with different reasons. first one would be the receipts. you know, whether or not these cash payments were payment receipts, belize trip, whether or not she paid for the entire thing in cash, mr. wade does not have knowledge of that. and a lot of things he could not remember so now it goes to miss willis, unfortunately. that he testified that she insists on paying her own way, gave him some cash, in quotes, some cash, miami trip, booked it, thought it would balance out. a couple of other tri

mr. wade's.erent company or bank account and largely what it is a situation where it now stands documents are are ready in evidence so whether it's. >> why can't this use -- be used as a concert if and if mr. gillen says in closing hey i put all these together and here's my demonstrative. >> the characterization is the language that called that summary and if it's an accurate reflection of the record. there are so many records. >> we are describing things we have today. the documents really came from mr. wade so it's not like there's a -- that we would ask if the witness would be allowed to testify put it in the record and pithy summary charts in the record and have them admitted and that way it's a situation where we have a jury and they are for wound with a national misunderstanding here. they could look through this and determine whether the source is accurate or not. the second sheet of payments, this came from them so to say that they can't determine or decipher whether the documents they ga

mr. wadesed to get exhibit number 14 in front of you? >> i believe i do. >> all right. so you are asking mr. wade about a couple of the invoice items, and your testimony i think was that percentage of income post special counsel appointment in november 2021. the percentage of income roughly after that time was about 50-50, fulton versus of income from your law practice, correct? >> roughly, yes, ma'am. >> sometimes more sometimes less? >> yes, men. >> how about your time? i'm interested in the percentage every time from november 2021 to let's say the close of the special-purpose grand jury when this would've been january 2023. you estimate for us the percentage of the time spent on phone county work versus of the work. >> oh, gosh. 99-199% of the time here in this building working on this case. >> all right. it was as i understood your testimony it was an intense time in terms of hours without special grand jury was needy, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and who was head our manager of the collecti

mr. wade is a southern gentleman. i very much want to be here so i'm not a hostile witness. >> it would be an adverse witness. your interests are opposed to miss merchant's. >> her interests are contrary to democracy, your honor, don't be cute with me in here and think you won't get an answer. you have been intrusive into people's personal lives. you think i'm on trial. these people are on trial for trying to steal an election. you have lied. you lied here, i think you lied right here. no, no, no, this is the truth, judge. it is a lie. it is a lie. mr. wade is used to women that as he told me one time, the only thing a woman can do for him is make him a sandwich. we would have brutal arguments about the fact that i am your equal. >> harris: she called nathan wade a southern gentleman, a southern gentleman who cheated on his wife with her. it was like a reality tv show. it was definitely real. constitutional scholar's jonathan turley's take how the judge ran the show. she was allowed to go on a

mr. wade have you still got exhibit number 14 in front of year all of that believe i have them all right >> so you were asked mr. wade about a couple of the invoice items and your testimony, i think was that percentage of income post special counsel appointment in november 2021, the percentage of your income roughly after that time was about 50. 50 fulton versus other income from your law practice, correct? >> roughly, yes, ma'am. okay. >> sometimes more. sometimes less? yes, ma'am. all right >> how about your time? i'm interested in the percentage of your time from sap term november 2021. so let's say the close of the special purpose grand jury when it was dissolved in january 2023, you estimate for us the percentage of your time that was spent on fulton county? versus other words. >> oh gosh 9091 99% of the time. here in this building working on this case >> it was as i understood your testimony, it was an intense period in terms of hours while that special purpose grand jury was meeting, co

wells i'm potentially mr. wadet some point she is directly involved that does not need much in the way of foundation. >> a judge, i apologize your honor that information however is my understanding came from mr. bradley that information was incorrect i inform the court earlier this week as well there is never any time they live livd together. there is a sublets of a condo that ms. willis resided in that it absolute nothing to do outside of her subletting it to ms. willis. she moved into a different residence per our conversation with ms. merchant yesterday that is exactly what it is there was no overlapping or any time they stayed together. nor did she have any information as it relates to mr. wade staying at that condo as well with ms. willis again judge. >> will be here to get ms. merchant question. >> luckily i do not have to tell them everything i plan on introducing the witness for and response of their motion to quash she has a lot of personal knowledge. when we had a motion to quash i had to get over good fa

mr. wade? once the motion was filed due to meet with mr. wade to talk about the motion filed? >> i probably has some choice words. i don't know that it was a conversation. as you know mr. wade is a southern gentleman. me, not so much. >> did you have a conversation? >> no, i did not. i probably said some choice things to him about some of the lies that were told within the media. we used to be in the state and time where people would verify information and we had great reporting. but as we've seen today a lawyer can lie and is printed for the world to say. >> i just wanted to ask -- >> we had no substantive conversation, we did not. >> i just wanted to make sure. you did not have a meeting with him in the conference room to discuss it? >> in the conference room in my office you could view financial documents. they were given to me and i think he showed me a document in our conference room. as far as a substantive conversation. i have had conversation since you filed the motion but they would n

he didn't want to admit things that would hurt mr. wade. at the same time, i think the judge understands what's going on here and i think the judge is going to be left with the conclusion that mr. bradley was not a very credible witness and it's more important to rely on the texts and the messages that mr. bradley sent rather than the stories that he told about not remembering a thing. >> charles: hold right there. i want to go to steve harrigan in atlanta for more details. steve? >> i think this was a takedown of the former law partner of nathan wade. started out low, meandering. by the end they asked him, do you lie about your friends? a lot of hesitation in his answers, this is basically about a gap. a gap between a text mess single some time ago when he said the relationship between wade and willis started long before wade was hired. now saying, oh, i don't remember. that is just speculation. he was hammered heard. you can see the frustration on the attorneys after a while. this is someone that didn't want to be there, who didn't want to

he would assert that privilege has not the way by mr. wade. more importantly, representation was made to the court that ms merchant spoke to mr. bradley and that mr. bradley represented that he had firsthand knowledge from speaking to a several witnesses, that he would be able to impeach with the statements she represented, that there was a relationship prior to mr. wade being appointed special process jeter and that there was issues with cohabitation that you would be able to directly impeach those witnesses. that is patently false because speaking with mr. chauffeur those are misrepresentations that are not true. they are for the purpose of harassment and undue burden to the district attorney. and lead asked to renew our motion to quash. and the only hearing we street having to the hearing as it relates to sanctions or the defense counsels lack candor. that's what wired by not only statutory law, the professional rules responsibility, and case law. and we asked to we move into our hearing that that is related to the sanctions. do to misrepres

. >> how many times mr. wade visited you at the condo between the time you moved in and prior to november 1, 2020? >> i don't think often, but i don't want to speculate. >> can we say more than five, more than ten? >> let's say more than ten, but i'm not even sure that is accurate. >> what about any other prosecutor involved in the prosecution of this case? >> i don't think any of them have. >> laura: yeah, because a personal residence is not a typical venue for official meetings between government lawyers. >> i'm asking you whether or not prior to november 1, 2021, there was a romantic relationship with mr. wade? it is very simple. it is either a "yes" or "no." >> i don't consider my relationship with him before that to be romantic. >> you don't see the need to tell anybody on the prosecution team when you had established a romantic relationship with mr mr. wade that the lead prosecutor, that is the people -- the man that was basically giving orders to others was dating or having a romantic relationship with you

. >> when was the last time you spoke to mr. wade? mr. bradley: i have not spoken mr. wade personally in two years since i left the firm. >> ms. willis? mr. bradley: my interaction with ms. willis was never where i would pick up the phone and talk to her or anything like that. >> so you didn't hang out with ms. willis, did not have a personal relationship with her? mr. bradley: no, i never had any personal relationship. i mentioned before that i went to a dinner that was after she was elected that was at a steakhouse, but it was 75 200 people there. >> so you knew of her, you just did not have a business relationship or personal relationship with her, at least a close one? mr. bradley: she was in the das office and i had criminal cases, but i did not personally know her, no. >> not having known her, not really hanging out with her, you got a contract from her office. >> i am going to object. asked and answered. judge mcafee: i think you covered this ground on the 16th about the contracts. are you going somewhere else with this? >> i am, judge, if you would give me a lit

mr. wadeder to enrich herself with lavish vacations and other gifts mr. wade bought for ms. willis. in a legal filing two weeks ago d.a. willis admitted to having a relationship with mr. wade, saying it began only after she hired mr. wade to work on this case in 2022. now, today's hearing began with an explosive allegation from a former friend of d.a. willis who claimed willis has lied about when the relationship began. >> you have no doubt that their romantic relationship was in effect from 2019 to the last time you spoke with her? >> no doubt. >> did you observe them do things that are common among people having a romantic relationship? >> yes. >> such as? can you give us an example? >> hugging, kissing, just affection. >> that was a balk shell of the morning. fani willis and nathan wade potentially lied to the court in their filings about when their relationship began. the rest of the hearing mostly revolved around the question did fani willis benefit financially from her relationship with

>> that's because mr. wade has paid that money back, or he was paid due to the fact that i about the plane ticket. i paid for the hotel. there was never money that he gave me. that was not the nature of their relationship. there is so many men, and mr. wade is one of them, they are just paying for a woman. it is companionship and friendship. despite the way people would like to paint certain women, it is just not true. >> final question. not a single solitary documentary showing that you have withdrawn the cash to pay him back. >> that's not accurate. >> okay, mr. floyd. mr. cromwell. >> one question. in the time period between february 2021 and january 2022, did your father ever come and visit you during that time period? >> he did not. >> that's all i have. >> i would imagine you have a number of topics to cover with ms. willis. it will take more than 10 to 15 minutes. okay. then i think we have reached a stopping point for the day, and so, ms. willis, i ask if you can step down, and i also remind you you are

mr. wade, if mr. r daughter were dating, you wouldn't have known that unless your daughter told you? >> i did not know that they would at and when we're talking about the case, i didn't know that. i don't know what you're asking me. what i told my child from the time she was a child is always have some money always have to money. if you go on a date so that people don't try to stick you and you want to leave whoever always keeping okay. >> mr. floyd, i you answered the question that the attorneys prep you for that, so that's all i wanted to know >> i think he loves to surf that's it, your honor. all right. it's chroma. >> no questions. you're on. >> mr. body, either on it >> floyd. >> now, it wasn't common for your daughter yes, i can biden, you about romantic life at all? >> no i didn't. i haven't confided in her about mine when i had one. okay. >> and you wouldn't have known about her boyfriend that this could be abs objection. >> i think there might have just been a still off mute okay. let's keep g

mr. wade is available, but we have maintained at this time the motion to quash should be granted to understand the court's ruling. >> i'll say, yes, on monday it did seem like the focus was that mr. bradley would be the hook that makes every witness potentially relevant. and we really haven't been able to explore that on the privilege issues that we'll likely have to tackle later. for now as the evidence in front of the court at the moment is that we have a witness who has said this relationship may have predated the affidavit mr. wade filed. i don't see a way around the relevance of the testimony. i'll deny -- state's motion to quash subpoena mr. wade. >> nathan wade, n-a-t-h a-n. wade. >> prior to filing this motion to disqualify you and i were friends, correct? >> yes. >> and in fact i supported you when you ran for judge in 2016. >> you did. >> miss merchant, your personal opinions have no relevance. i mean that in the best way. >> that's fine. i will move on. you filed for divorce from yo

secondly, though they already testified both fani and mr. wade that they were at that condo in hate ville more than ten times in 2021? if you even accept the explanation of the private investigator that nathan wade's phone pinging down in the neighborhood 35 times. that's not inconsistent furthermore, in the response of the da's office filed they were able to point out that fani was in a different place, upwards of ten times in those specific thing in specific times that the defense attorneys are trying to say nathan and fani are there together? so it doesn't even stand for the proposition that the defense is trying to offer it for it's not contradictory. it's corroboration of what's already been testified to all right. thanks. elie. thanks, charlie, appreciate it coming up next new york city's mayor breaking with decades of precedent, he says he wants a change in the sanctuary city policy there that developing news ahead the. lead with jake tapper, ron to you by empower, ke control of your financial future and >> empower what's next? get your fr

i'm sure if you asked mr. wadecause he is a male, he would say we ended june or july because physical contact ended then. just in my mind, being a woman, it's over when you have that, like, hard conversation. >> laura: now, chris, if this goes just to credibility of basic facts that, again, you are in a relationship, you know when it begins and ends and she kept saying well, for a man, you can see the lawyer's reaction like what are you talking about? she did that a lot today. in the end, chris, given what you have seen, where does this go from here? >> i think the judge -- the specific question for the judge is you should, willis, fani willis be disqualified from the case. and, if so, what happens to the case? is the taint from her involvement so significant that the entire case has to be dismissed? as mike just said, there's a very strong argument that she had a financial motive to bring this sprawling case so that she could get kickbacks from her secret lover. you know, i think the broader point here, laura, is

mr. wade? once the motion was filed due to meet with mr. wade to talk about the motion filed? >> i probably has some choice words. i don't know that it was a conversation. as you know mr. wade is a southern gentleman. me, not so much. >> did you have a conversation? >> no, i did not. i probably said some choice things to him about some of the lies that were told within the media. we used to be in the state and time where people would verify information and we had great reporting. but as we've seen today a lawyer can lie and is printed for the world to say. >> i just wanted to ask -- >> we had no substantive conversation, we did not. >> i just wanted to make sure. you did not have a meeting with him in the conference room to discuss it? >> in the conference room in my office you could view financial documents. they were given to me and i think he showed me a document in our conference room. as far as a substantive conversation. i have had conversation since you filed the motion but they would n

mr. wade you are still under oath i would ask you not to speak with any other witnesses about your testimony or testament is already done to correct yes, sir. >> we will be in recess. [background noises] are right we are back on the record. miss crosser jeff enough time to review the production of documents provided by fulton county question. >> i did. defense exhibit 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. and so far as exhibit 15, 16, 17, and 18 i do not have any objection to those. they clearly came from fulton county exhibit 14 contains several items that did not come apparently from fulton county. they are not in that group. [inaudible] >> i cannot agree the documents not certified or not properly admitted. >> this merchant would like to repackage and present defense exhibit 14? >> they are exactly what i got from the county attorney. the they gave a certification did not put them in. >> the documents the difference between the two document productions, what is the difference? >> bank records, credit car

this relationship started before mr. wade was hired and he's giving them specific details. here's when it started. here's this specific legal conference where they met, where they started, and then yesterday, mr. bradley gets on the stand and all we hear is i don't recall. not at all plausible when he's giving them details a month ago and that's speculation. i'm sorry. it's not speculation when you're giving specific details, so i think it badly undermines mr. bradley's testimony yesterday and, the timing of the relationship. she says, the trump attorneys says to mr. bradley, do you think their relationship began before she hired him? that's i'm paraphrasing. and he says absolutely why does that matter? why does it matter when the relationship between fani willis and mr. wade began >> right. so we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here. when the defendants challenged fani willis, their story was essentially fani willis was in a romantic relationship with nathan wade. and then while that relationship was ongoing, she appointed did him to lead the trump c