willis -- excuse me, mr. wade, when you were having this discussion, did you ask her, did you ask miss willis, do you have anything to support these cash withdrawals? >> no, sir. >> did you ask her where she got the cash? >> here -- this is the conversation. i produced my credit card statement that showed what miss merchant in her filing was representing. that was the conversation. >> ok. so when she would pay you back in cash, were you aware of what her financial situation was? did you know what -- >> no, sir. >> your honor, i object to the relevance. >> your honor, it's relevant because we have been bombarded with a book "find me the votes." >> what's at issue is the financial benefit and if it's a material interest in conflict of interest, i think it's relevant. >> had you read the book "find me the votes." >> i have. >> you have. >> i have. >> ok. now, in that book miss willis is telling the authors about how financially destitute she was or kind of hidden down on the bottom as she was running for d.a. >>

she saw fani willis. she conversed with fani willis. fani willis told her there was a romantic relationship. definitely on that, yes. i go back to interog tories where nathan wade tried to conceal by way of interrog tory ex existence of gifts and trips. there is evidence the judge has now that he did not have 24 hours ago. disqualification occurs if there is conflict or appearance. we learned a lot today, those two components have been met. >> kayleigh: follow-up. did the prosecutor make any progress in -- on the backside? >> you know as well as i do, sometimes if there is disgruntled employee, how many times have prosecutors and criminal and civil cases, someone testifying who may have a shady background on key component of the testimony whether or not that relationship existed, that evidence was solid, she has personal knowledge. fani willis lived with her. i think she can testify to that and i think the judge can separate those two issues. >> harris: emily, you want to ask a quick question? >> emily: no. >> harris: leo, we will let y

willis. again, judge, i'm renewing -- >> luckily i don't have to tell them everything i plan on introduing a witness for. she has a lot of personal knowledge and when we had a motion to quash, i had to get over a good faith basis and i presented that to the court. i did not spend four hours going through everything -- >> pull out of this for just a quick moment as you're watching msnbc's special coverage of the trials of donald trump, i'm ana cabrera with josÉ diaz-balart and our colleague andrea mitchell who's with us from washington, you were listening to this hearing in fulton county, georgia. >> the hearing could determine whether d.a. fani willis could be disqualified for potential ethics violations, something that could have major ramifications for the large eerie coe case. >> on the stand now is terrence bradley nathan wade's former business partner and former divorce lawyer. >> let's go to the courthouse, blayne alexander has been listening to the entirety of this hearing. help us mak

willis? >> let's start with the higher level whether he believes he answered truthfully we can drill down into why or why not a bee will end up exactly where you left us. ask again your honor the point of it is words matter we have to establish what did and did not happen. he can get whatever its explanation he chooses to to what apparently is a false answer but i would like an answer to my question production may get one i would like us to start at a high level before he drill down to specifics to see if he contradicted that interrogatory for making sense. >> the interrogatory is relatively direct and explicit. sexual relationships with a person other than your spouse during the course of a marriage including the period of separation. that is pretty simple. >> let's see if that something you can get them to admit. >> you did have sexual relationships with someone other than your spouse during the course of the marriage when during the period of separation which included up to may the 30, 202

willis and excuse me, that ms willis and mr. wade rule >> we didn't discuss how we were going to handle testimony of my question was, when you were discussing with ms willis in the conference room when you were discussing? what you perceive to be the situation concerning the benefits for the payments? yes, sir. >> was there anyone else present? no, sir. >> how long did the meeting take >> probably five or ten minutes >> if ms willis tell you what she was going to say? >> no, sir. >> did you ask her whether she had any bank withdrawals? it would corroborate the assertion that that she would pay you back and large sums of cash for these these trips to the caribbean believes california on and on and on. >> your honor, i object the processor of when the last mental projection was made was that mr. guillen needed to know who else is there are these? he witnesses that you can cross examine. that question, hasn't answered. >> okay. >> i think it's still exploring possible bias or motive to shape his testimony. so overrule on that groun

willis, are you saying that ms. 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? >> yes. >> she paid for the excursions. so the expenses sort of 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've ever spent any time with ms. willis, you understand that she's a very independent, proud woman. >> i object. >> so she's going to -- >> overruled. mr. wade. >> so she's going to insist that she carries her own weight. it actually was a point of contention between the two of us. she is going to pay her own way. >> so let me re-ask the question to make sure that you answer it. the california trip that you paid for, saying that she did not pay you back for cash, instead she paid for ex turgss and you believe -- excursions and you believe that was roughly half. >> she gave me some of cash. but what i'm saying is the -- everything that we did when we got into napa,

willis? >> in college. >> okay. so 19 probably 90 or 90 whether. >> have you been friends since 1990 and 91? >> yes. >> will miss it last time you spoke with ms. willis? >> march of 2022. >> okay so 1991 -- until 2022 for you what you consider good friends with ms. willis? >> yes. >> did you all share personal information regularly? >> yes. bucks and did you come and work with her at the das office? >> yes. >> and when she needed a place to stay did you let her stay at your apartment? >> it was a condo, right? alexa condo yes but. >> you remember approximately when she moved into your condo? >> it was april of 2021 too. >> okay, great. and you know ms. willis mr. wade met in the conference in octobeo object that for a foundation of how she that she had personal information of them and suddenly something the witness can testify too. >> all right miss merchant laid the foundation for. >> do you have information that ms. willis and mr. wade met in october 2010? >> 2010? >> renew my objection inf

willis? >> in college. so 19 -- that would be 90 or 91. >> and have you been friends since 1990 or 91? >> yes. >> when was the last time you spoke with ms. willis? >> march of 2022. >> okay. from 1991ish to 2022 were you what you consider good friends with miss willis? >> yes. >> and did you all share personal information regularly? >> yes. >> and did you even come and work with her at the d.a.'s office? >> yes. >> and when she needed a place to stay, did you let her stay at your apartment? it was a condo,y? >> yes. >> do you know when she moved into your condo? >> it was april of 2021. >> great. and you know that ms. willis and mr. wade met in a conference in october of 2019. >> i object to that for how this witness would know that. if miss merchant shay has personal information about that that's something the witness can testify to. >> all right, miss merchant. lay the foundation. >> do you have information that ms. willis and mr. wade met in october of 2019? >> renew my objection. informat

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. >>

you know fani willis, your friends with fani willis, do you know about fani willis's general use of cash but also how do you think that answer and that explanation will work with this judge? >> again, i think when you take the whole story and context, it makes sense. again, she and her father are very close, obviously, from the testimony. this is a man that is looking to protect his daughter at all costs. and if you think many of us, whether it's my relationship with my dad or any others, your dad's gonna give you the kind of advice to help you survive as an independent woman in the world. and i think her father has done a fantastic job in this case. you also heard through the testimony where she says she doesn't let any man feel as though she owes them for anything. and saw when unit those two data points together, it does lend itself to be a credible argument and in understanding why she's trying to honour her father's wishes as well as how it has helped shape her into becoming the independent woman's y'all got to see on the stand today. >> a man who who has a plan is the line of the d

willis.t is expected to resume tomorrow. >> so rule 615 out ask if any witnesses subpoenaed are expected to testify the hearing today they should remain outside the courtroom until called. they should not discuss her testimony in the other witness or launch any recording until the end is concluded or they are excused from being called today. are there any exceptions to this rule? any from the defense? >> yes your honor. prior to starting any testimony would like to address that matter is what was represented during previous hearings as it relates to witness testimony specifically the testimony of the former law partner of nathan wade. what the state would like the court to understand and realize is that in preparation for this hearing and in speaking to witnesses and giving additional research as it relates to the comments that were represented specifically. we have been able to claim the defendant has asserted and did assert to the last hearing on monday are not only legally meritless but fa

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 showed you last time, was two pages of text messages between you and miss merchant, correct? >> correct. >> now, the first page starts off by saying, miss merchant, like just date don't hire him. do you think it started before she hired him? you see that? >> yes. >> and your response to that was absolutely. correct? >> i'm going to object. asked and answer. >> mr. sadow, i think we went through a lot of these texts. >> we didn't go through this whole one. >> just a second. all right. i'm sorry, you said we didn't go through this particular one? >> no, we stopped right there. i want to go -- >> i answere

willis? a simple yes and no. >> yes. >> and is it your testimony today that during the time you were representing him, which i understood started sometimes 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 about his relationship with mrs. willis that you only had one such conversation during the time you represented mr. wade? >> one conversation of what? i apologize. it broke up. >> the only thing i'm asking about is that area that the court said is not privileged, which is the relationship between mr. wade and mrs. willis. you've testified that during the time you represented mr. wade from 2018 on, that you only had one conversation with him in reference to the relationship between mrs. willis and mr. wade. is that correct? >> yeah, i think that's fairly accurate, yes. >> so out of the entire time, talking about could be 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, when did you stop representing mr. wade? >

willis and mr. wade? you didn't you didn't tell her that there was anything patently false in that because you didn't see anything patently false in that motion as it relates to the relationship repeat your question. >> i'm so sorry. >> you did not inform mrs. merchant that there was anything patently false? in that motion that was that you were presented with as it concerns the relationship because you did not see anything that was patently false, correct? objection. asked and answered. cumulative. >> our next question, mr. stockton? to stand. >> and you didn't see anything that was speculative in there either digital, an answer came within a sustained. mr. stockton >> i just want to ask you one more question i'm coming out from the other way that mr. sadow did. did anybody from the district attorney's office or any witnesses in this case contact you about ms merchant's motion from january the eighth of 2004 until today >> did >> anyone contact me about her motion? >> yes. from the district attorney's of

before willis took the stand, the first witness of the day directly contradicted waited willis's previous statements to the court, you have no doubt that there romantic relationship was in effect from 2019 until the last time you spoke with no doubt? >> that's three years earlier than with wade said in an affidavit, their relationship started, but wade holding firm to that date, when he took the stand, when he 22 was the start of any intimate sexual relationship with the district >> attorney as did willis. >> when did you start dating? >> when i started dating mr. way. it was right around then april 2020 22 around the i don't know. like, you know, it's not like when you're in grade school, when you send a little letter and it says, will you be my girlfriend and you check it. >> but then there's the money trail, defense attorneys pressing on whether or not weighed paid for willis, where the two vacation together trying to suggest that he used money he made from his taxpayer funded college track at the da's office on willis both maintained that they split their vacation expenses. >> so all

and ms willis have one. but do you believe that that relationship is subjected to i'm going, to object to that question as it phrased, in what contexts any conversation with his attorneys is privileged. >> that i think is clear what's not clear to me from that question is is that ms martin asking in the context of your communication with your attorneys, is that is that outside that context? >> right >> especially >> i think we need to figure out what what are we getting out with this. i'm going to try to figure out of he thought that their relationship is subject to an attorney-client privilege. i mean, it's been a started. i think it's gonna be asserted and that was all his asking. >> i mean, the the actions themselves wouldn't be at issue. it's more communication >> someone saw them, someone had knowledge of it. is that attorney-client privilege? i want to i guess i would fund his legal opinion on this is it relevant? we can deal with that as it comes up. so sustained >> in 2022, in this affidavit you swor

willis and -- excuse me, ms. willis and mr. wade. >> overruled. >> we didn't discuss how we were going to handle testimony. >> my question was, when you were discussing with ms. willis in the conference room, when you were discussing what you perceived to be the situation concerning the benefits for the payments. >> yes, sir. >> was there anyone else present? >> no, sir. >> how long did the meeting take? >> probably five or ten minutes. >> did ms. willis tell you what she was going to say? >> no, sir. >> did you ask her whether she had any bank withdrawals that would corroborate the assertion that she would pay you back in large sums of cash for these trips to the caribbean, belize, california, on and on and on. >> your honor, again, i object, the proffer was that mr. gillen needed to know who else was there. that question has been answered. >> okay. i think it's still exploring possible bias or motive to shape his testimony. so overrule on that ground. >> thank you. now, mr. willis -- excuse me, mr. wade, when you were having

willis, entertained him, well, that is, they were lovers, and willis at that. she was outraged by the assumption that she slept with her subordinate almost on the first night, that is, she slept, apparently, on the second, the very fact of the presence of a carnal relationship, she did not refute, everything would be fine, the matter, as they say, is everyday, but handsome nathan , who, by the way, has a legal wife and children, but we will also leave them out of the equation, having received the right to investigate the trump case, said that he needs the details of... donald trump. in general, the sweetest couple wade and willis are facing criminal charges case. and not the targeted use of budget funds, well, trump is preparing for the primaries , first the war, everything is going to the point that he does receive the nomination and his return to the white house is literally a stone’s throw away, our candidate, the kremlin’s candidate, biden, president putin also said the day before , apparently will lose, it is extremely insulting when they talk about you, w

willis? >> to my knowledge he was a part of the transition team. >> did he spend a lot of time at that office? during this transition period? >> he did. >> so from when ms. willis took office to when you left the firm, did mr. wade spend most of his time at the d.a.'s office? >> you say most of his time, just working business hours or -- >> working business hours. >> i would say he spent i would probably say he spent the majority of time, if you said 51%, i'd say, yes, he spent over 51% of his time. >> that was the entire time from when she took office to when you left the firm? >> i can't say that that was the entire time. but, yes, it was majority of -- it was -- i can't pinpoint specifically when the time that he would spend. i think if my memory serves correctly, getting to the majority of the time, it would have been whenever he started with this, maybe. >> as a special prosecutor? >> when you said majority of the time. >> right. so let's talk about the time before he became special pros

willis? >> to my knowledge he was a part of the transition team. >> did he spend a lot of time at that office? during this transition period? >> he did. >> so from when ms. willis took office to when you left the firm, did mr. wade spend most of his time at the d.a.'s office? >> you say most of his time, just working business hours or -- >> working business hours. >> i would say he spent i would probably say he spent the majority of time, if you said 51%, i'd say, yes, he spent over 51% of his time. >> that was the entire time from when she took office to when you left the firm? >> i can't say that that was the entire time. but, yes, it was majority of -- it was -- i can't pinpoint specifically when the time that he would spend. i think if my memory serves correctly, getting to the majority of the time, it would have been whenever he started with this, maybe. >> as a special prosecutor? >> when you said majority of the time. >> right. so let's talk about the time before he became special pros

you look at this fani willis case.sly be thrown out just like the rest of them. they have all been tainted by politics. this is about election interference just like every other indictment against donald trump right now. you just had the special counsel come out and say we're not going to actually charge joe biden with anything although he took documents that he wasn't supposed to have as vice president. you can't take classified documents and declassify them. only the president can do that, because this guy doesn't have all of his faculties about him, his mental a cutie is not there. let me remind people, this guy is the president of the united states. it is horrifying we're in this situation. they should of course drop the case against donald trump but you see, larry, they're not doing that. yes, we better be on guard, we better be ready to go. we need to have the most lethal and precise political fighting machine the country has ever seen and that is what we plan to do on the republican side of the aisle. this is a

the surprise moment when fani willis walked into the courtroom and volunteered to testify. on the stand, willis accusing the defense of lying about her romantic relationship with a prosecutor in the case a former friend testifying that willis' relationship began years before she acknowledged then willis accusing her of betraying their friendship our team at the courthouse >>> also, mr. trump back in court in new york when the judge has ordered his hush money trial to begin >>> the fbi informant charged with lying about president biden and his son hunter could it impact the gop's impeachment push >>> new reporting in the deadly shooting at the kansas city chiefs parade the dispute police say led to it. two juveniles in custody. the radio dj killed. more than 20 others injured. >>> israeli forces raiding the main hospital in southern gaza, saying hamas used it as cover inside smoke and chaos. and the doctor we've been following finally getting out. >>> the college basketball star caitlin clark. harry smith tonight on her shot at history. >> announcer: this is "nbc nightly new

willis -- mr. wade and miss willis meeting at the evans office together?> object to asked and answered. >> we haven't had an evens answer. >> his answer may change. >> tip him off how to answer the question. >> i can't recall what the conversation was. i do -- i do recall knowing that they would -- that he would go down to the office or had been down to the office but i can't tell you in what capacity or when or any of that, no. >> mr. wade told you that they had sex at that office, though, correct? >> i don't recall him stating that, no. >> you don't recall it. >> no. >> so it's possible he did say that. >> you just don't remember one way or another. >> i don't remember him saying that. >> do you recall that he had a garage door opener to either a house or condo or something like that of miss willis's? >> i've never seen a garage door opener. i've never been to miss willis's house. i've never been to -- i'm trying to explain. i've never been, so no, i do not have any personal knowledge of him having a garage door opener. >> i didn't ask whether you had pe

with miss willis. >> okay. with miss willis. were you aware at the time that her team consisted of brian watkins, megan vargas, sonia alan, shannon trotty, fal chan and john floyd. she reported that was her team on this case? >> i knew john floyd was involved and she probably told me the others, but, listen, i barely remember what case i tried last year, much less every word that was said in the conversation. >> i understand, fair enough. but she said she was looking to hire more lawyers and investigators to work on this case? >> she told me it was, to me, and she said would you be interested in being special prosecutor in this case? and i gave the reply that i already -- 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 who is an ada, not have an actual employee? >> no. she did not. we did not discuss that. and but i would assume it was because the case as big as this

willis who was questioned about when this willis-wade relationship began. >> okay.o, you know that their relationship, their personal relationship began shortly after this municipal court conference? >> yes. >> and do you understand it, that their relationship began in 2019 and continued until the last time you spoke with her? >> yes. >> what motive would her friend have to lie about ms. willis' relationship with the prosecutor? the prosecutor, of course, that she hired to go after trump? it's unclear what motive she would have. but what is clear is that when fanny gets in trouble, fanny plays the victim. she stayed away for the most part from the race card today except for a few moments like this. >> did you have contacts with mr. wade in 2020? >> very limited contact because, um, mr. wade had a form of cancer that makes your allegations somewhat ridiculous. i'm not going to emasculate a black man. did you understand that? >> laura: what? again, her first instinct is to deflect and then try to engender some type of, in this case, racial sympathy. there were lots of

willis? >> no.as like, "i do not want to do this. i don't want to." but i had to do it. >> were you scared? >> i was still scared, yeah. >> what did you do? >> i unlocked the door and jumped out. >> this child being traumatized. that was the bit of evidence, i think, which locked them into a course that we couldn't turn the ship around. >> please rise. on count one murder guilty of first degree murder -- >> it almost seems unreal. we're looking at a guy that's a potential serial killer, that at a minimum has killed two people, was probably in line to kill a third. >> they never did a trial for your case. >> no. the prosecutor says it's a waste of their time, he's already going away for life. >> what would you have liked to have seen happen? >> i think i would've just liked to have the option of things. that's kind of a huge slap in my face. >> madison played a key role up to this point, but he had been convicted of two sperate counts of first-degree murder. so he's essentially going to die in prison

willis. she's leading georgia's election interference case against former president donald trump and others. c-span's live coverage will continue when the hearing resumes. on x at c-span wj. a combative and impromptu testimony that even surprised members of her own team. her and nathan wade became romantically involved but she paid her own way, often in cash and did nothing improper. as the relationship continued and she prepared for one of the most important criminal prosecutions in the country. she is expected to take this stand again today in georgia at 9:00 in c-span's covege will start at that time. if you want to follow along you can at c-span, c-span now and as always on the website at c-span.org. i'm here to take your calls for the first 45 minutes on this. for republicans (202) 748-8001, for democrats (202) 748-8000 and for independents (202) 748-8002 and georgia residents (202) 748-8003. here is a portion where she is being questioned by, accusing her of being a liar. [video clip] >

willis and mr. wade has nothing to do with whether trump and his codefendants tried to interfere with the election. some judges are extra cautious in part because they want to insulate any guilty verdict from appeal, but the judge in manhattan did not come to play. he's on to trump's games and he's ready for them. one drop the mic moment is when todd blanch was complaining it would interfere with trump's campaigning, the judge said, well, hey, last year, march 25th, 2024 looked a long way away. you wrote this letter that said if the trial date started on march 25th, that would be enough time for trump to effectively campaign. >> that's great. the other piece of it is how long it might take. because katie, the question of a six-week trial, you know, they have a star witness in michael cohen, who he's been right about a whole lot. i don't think he's been wrong yet. they have him. they're going to try to impeach him obviously, but given he wrote the check and has the evidence and went to jail for it, s

willis?your affidavit before it was included so as far as you know, i didn't get to her. no one else told you she did or didn't. >> $10000, give or take what often reflected on your credit card statements in connection with the potential benefit to its fullest, i want you to assume that. assuming there was $10000 on the credit cards ms. willis paid you back $10000 in cash? >> cannot object? the numbers have been provided for joint travel, is that right? >> it's not joint but all -- i'll rephrase. you know, i'm not asking whether she took it out of her pocketbook, i'm saying do you know the ports of the cash? and the whole time she was paying you cash, he never said why you have this amount of cash? >> people coming all the time with cash. >> we are talking not about people who come into your law firm but i'm assuming they received a paycheck, she doesn't get paid in cash to mark just like you assume, i assumed she got from her paycheck, lateral. >> i'm not going to go back into it, he'd not s

>> i had very little contact with miss willis. i knew her through my business of coming down to fulton. if that's what you're asking. yes. >> you knew her through the business. so you had met her prior to your contract. >> i'm going to object to relevance to this point. >> sure. >> judge, he doesn't remember much of anything right now and so i'm trying to create a timeline to hopefully piece this together. >> all right. well, i'm not seeing really the likelihood that that's going to have any success. i'll let you ask a few more questions but if he doesn't have a date, i don't know that you're going to be able to create one today. >> okay. thank you. so the time you had this contract from january 2021 until january 2022, did you come in and out of the d.a.'s office? >> yes. >> and so were you able to witness mr. wade and miss willis interact during that time? >> going to object. this has been asked and answered. it was addressed the last hearing about mr. bradley's access to and from a specific room to pick up files and mr. bradley

>> did you take a trip with miss willis in 20232 belize? >> i did. >> did you take a trip to california with her as well in 2023? >> i did. did you pay for those trips on that credit card? >> i use the credit card to put the travel -- understand. >> she paid you back half. >> let me say this, let's take the belize trip, for example, and start there. that was a birthday gift to me. so i paid nothing for that trip, zero. >> okay, so the charges that are on your card, she gave you cash for? >> she did. >> laura: cash? now, we are supposed to believe that fani willis was carrying around this large amounts of cash. of course, cash is not traceable. now, when the d.a. unexpectedly appeared on the stand today, she did address this or tried to. >> he initially paid for it. did you pay him back? >> for the cruise and the room, yes. >> you gave him cash before you went on the trip? >> mike >> laura: later in the afternoon steve seto revisited the question. >> i'm asking whether the payments would be reflected on credit card bills. >> there was $500 a

willis. mr. sadow: thank you, your honor, i understand. going back to live in court, when you say you do not 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 ms. willis? it is a simple yes or no. mr. bradley: yes. mr. sadow: and is it your testimony that during the time you are representing him, which i understood started in 2018, is that correct? mr. bradley: that is the timeframe that i remember, yes. mr. sadow: is it your testimony under oath that with regards to conversations with mr. wade about his relationship with ms. willis, that she had only one such conversation during the time you represented mr. wade? mr. bradley: one conversation of what? i apologize. mr. sadow: the only thing i'm asking about is that area the court said is not privileged, the relationship between mr. wade and ms. willis. you have testified that during the time you represented mr. wade from 2018 on that

willis closed with her testimony on the stand. i think fani willis did an exceptional yob.came across as being relatively personable. it's an understandable passion that she had. she did come in hot. a lot of people got upset when i said that. after that first break the judge gave her, she settled in, she hit a rhythm, and she was very, very clear in her testimony about what it was that she wanted to get out. despite the fact that she basically walked merchant around the courtroom in terms of her inability to control her as a witness, that's just a matter of lawyering and skill. ultimately she did what she needed to do, so now the defense has to put a witness on that's going to create a controversy. >> she had incoming from multiple defense attorneys because, again, these charges or this allegation, i should say was brought by michael roman, one of the co-defendants. trump's attorney was there questioning her. another attorney was there questioning her because some of these other co-defendants had sort of jumped onto this motion that she should be disqualified. chuck, i'm c

for me, willis and wade lied. she was having an affair, she appointed him special prosecutor and jo beg-- >> they were re romantically involved, they went on trips t together paid for by public taxpayer trough, they must both resign and be disqualified from the case, and case should be dismissed and rest should suffer a -- they knew all about it and did not raise their hand to pu publicly object, the whole tale of democratic corruption, should be a lesson to the country, that it is time for change. now, wade and willis spent a good amount of time in biden white house, undoubtedly getting coached about how from seed if their weapon i'd -- provide in their weapon size law fair attack on donald trump that is usually at the heart of this investigative journal estimate taibbi spelled it out. high called it a law fare election and noted you on democrats were planning to sabotage the 20er 24 election game. and d to contested election scenarios, they were ready for former president trump insurrection but, mr. trump did no

>> i had very little contact with ms willis. i knew her through my business of coming down to fulton if that's what you're asking yes. >> you knew her through the business. so had you had met her prior to your contract? >> i'm going to object to relevance at this point is to live with you today. >> sure. >> did. >> he doesn't remember much of anything right now and so i'm trying to create a timeline to hopefully piece this together. >> all right. well i'm not seeing really the likelihood that that's going to have any success. i'll i'll let you ask a few more questions, but if he doesn't have a date, then i don't know that you're gonna be able to create one today. >> okay. thank you. >> the time. that, you had this contract from january 2021 until january 2022, did you come in and out of the da's office? >> yes. >> and so were you able to witness mr. wade, ms willis interacts during that time? >> i'm going to object when asked and answered. it was addressed. the last hearing about mr. bradley's access to and from a specific room

wade said when he and willis traveled wade paid by credit card, willis returned cash to him. when it was challenged willis hit back hard. >> i don't need anything from a man. a man is not a plan. a man is a companion. and so there was tension always in our relationship, which is why i would give him his money back. i don't need anybody to foot my bills. the only man who has ever foot my bills completely is my daddy. >> the judge has said there won't be a ruling today and also cautioned there is a low bar in the case. the appearance of misconduct could be enough for disqualification. >> harris: that was an important part of all of this. setting the bar and find than out how low the bar was. we learned interesting details about fani willis. we'll get into it with my first guest. thank you very much. in "focus" now phil holloway, former assistant district attorney for cobb county, georgia. first of all i follow you on social media so i know some of your thoughts. but i want you to share with the audience to "the faulkner focus" what you thought about the job that judge did yeste

willis, this is the last question, did ms. willis tell you why she had sought you? why you had been her choice? >> no. i hadn't. i get consulted fairly often on major cases. >> would you believe, based on circumstances in which you were given the offer, it had to do with -- the fact you had handled complex and high profile cases in the past? >> it could have been. i know her very well. i tried a case against her. she worked for the j.q.c. i represented judge robert crawford. and she prosecuted him. i defended him. she beat me at the trial. i turned it around at the supreme court. >> you had some experience. >> i had plenty of experience with her. she's a very qualified -- everybody's young to me. but she's a very qualified young woman. >> after that one occasion, did you have any other contact with her in reference to the position itself or who she might be considering? >> hi some conversations -- i had some conversation was her or jeff desantis, but not really an in-depth about who she should hire or anything like that. >> did the name nathan wade come up in those

willis? >> no. >> sean: wow! he said fanni willis always repaid him in cash which isn't traceable. that's pretty convenient, isn't it? take a look. >> you used your business credit card for these trips, correct? >> i use my business credit card for everything. >> yes. you use it for your kids tuition? >> yes, ma'am. >> you used it for personal travel with ms. willis? >> yes, ma'am. >> you said in the affidavit that you roughly shared travel, though, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> okay. so this sharing travel you're saying she reimbursed you? >> she did. >> where did you deposit the money she reimbursed you? >> it was cash. it seems to me didn't give me any checks. >> sean: throughout his entire testimony wade seemed very uncomfortable. he was often seen wiping sweat off his face while taking questions and fanni willis took the stand after nathan wade and was pressed on these payments. here's what she had to say. take a look. >> where did that cash come from? >> cash is fungible. i've had cash for

according to wade and willis when they traveled together wade used his credit card and willis reimbursed him with cash. what challenged on that willis pushed back hard once again. >> i don't need anything from a man. a man is not a plan. a man is a companion and so there was tension always in our relationship, which is why i would give him his money back. i don't need anybody to foot my bills. the only man who has ever foot my bills completely is my daddy. >> he will not make a ruling on a disqualification by the bar for such a ruling is low. only the appearance of misconduct. dana, back to you. >> dana: thank you. >> attorneys are making statements right now. the judge is on the bench as well. scott mcafee. i will remind you is up for re-election in georgia in four months' time. newt gingrich joins us now. you used to live in marietta, georgia. what did you think of fani willis and her presentation yesterday and what the judge allowed to happen and not happen? >> you know, there is an old saying that a lawyer who represents themselves has a fool for a client. she should never have taken

fani willis, the person wh

willis, this is the last question, did ms. willis tell you why she had sought you? why you had been her choice? >> no. i hadn't. i get consulted fairly often on major cases. >> would you believe, based on circumstances in which you were given the offer, it had to do with -- the fact you had handled complex and high profile cases in the past? >> it could have been. i know her very well. i tried a case against her. she worked for the j.q.c. i represented judge robert crawford. and she prosecuted him. i defended him. she beat me at the trial. i turned it around at the supreme court. >> you had some experience. >> i had plenty of experience with her. she's a very qualified -- everybody's young to me. but she's a very qualified young woman. >> after that one occasion, did you have any other contact with her in reference to the position itself or who she might be considering? >> hi some conversations -- i had some conversation was her or jeff desantis, but not really an in-depth about who she should hire or anything like that. >> did the name nathan wade come up in those

of fani willis's and colleagues contradicted that, saying that willis and ways romance actually began in 2019 before she hired him to work on this case. >> you have no doubt that their romantic relationship was in effect from 2019 until the last time you spoke with her >> no doubt and then there's the key issue here about money. willis was peppered repeatedly with questions about how she reimbursed the prosecutor wade, for the many tropes that he took together they both testified she paid in cash so the cash that you would pay him, you wouldn't get it out of the bank. >> i have money in my house when we would run up, my daddy had three safely now, though my father's bought me a lot box and i always keep cash in the house weighed testified he didn't have any deposit slips to support those claims that she paid him in cash. she was intensely questioned about the subject as well at one point, the judge even got involved interjecting to try to determine what it was exactly the lawyer was trying to suggest here. >> are you trying to establish that she was insolvent in some way >> i definite