Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 15, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

07:58:29

Fani Willis Hearing LIVE STREAM! Is the Day of Reckoning Here? Viva Frei

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'm tickling him right now.
	That's Nathan Wade on the bottom right.
	Who do we have here?
	Let's see who the players are, people.
	Okay, there's a lawyer.
	I can't see too good, man.
	I gotta take my glasses off.
	Alright, so hold on.
	What we'll do right here.
	Until...
	Oh, oh, oh!
	Who's that?
	That's Nathan Wade.
	It's a nice-looking suit.
	I wonder how much that suit cost.
	I don't judge.
	He's entitled to wear nice clothing.
	Okay, let's see here who we got.
	Good morning, everybody.
	Hold on.
	The dog needs to go.
	dramatic zoom.
	Okay.
	Dramatic Zoom 2. We're looking at you.
	Oh, this is going to be fantastic.
	Get that out of there.
	This is going to be fantastic, people.
	Well, look at my hair here.
	You might hear my stomach grumbling because I haven't eaten yet.
	Oh, I invented avocado egg salad.
	Dude, that's what I want to eat right now.
	Oh, Nathan Wade is looking awful comfortable.
	What are the pins?
	What are the pins, people?
	Let's pay attention to all the details.
	He's done a full Windsor.
	That's a beautiful knot in his tie.
	I don't like the pattern of the tie on the stripe on the checkered, but that doesn't matter.
	Who's that?
	Dog the Bounty Hunter's in the crowd, people.
	I don't know who that is.
	That's not nice.
	Kind of does look like Dog the Bounty Hunter.
	So, good morning, everybody.
	For those of you who don't know, today we have the evidentiary hearing.
	On Big Fanny Willis's, it's not her motion to disqualify, it's Michael Roman's motion to disqualify.
	That I believe is Ashley Merchant, unless I'm not seeing properly.
	We've got an evidentiary hearing to determine if Big Fanny Willis is going to get DQ'd from the Trump and other prosecution.
	Motion brought by Michael Roman under the tutelage esquireship of...
	Ashley Merchant.
	Is that her?
	I can't see.
	Too good, Bill.
	Is that...
	That was a half Windsor?
	Damn it.
	I was going to say a full Boston.
	No, it was a full...
	The full dimple.
	Half Windsor.
	What's a full Windsor if that was a half Windsor?
	No, that's not Ashley Merchant.
	Where's Ashley?
	I'll get the names of the lawyers as we do this.
	There are quite a few people streaming this today.
	This is like the good old days, people.
	I think Govea is streaming.
	Nierman is streaming, so good logic.
	Watching the Watchers.
	And, um, okay, I love these dramatic zooms.
	Who's working the camera?
	This guy has seen some stuff in his life.
	It was at that moment that he began wondering, what have I done to end up here?
	Oh, my phone is texting.
	I'm going to put that on pause.
	All right, so let me just make sure that we're live everywhere.
	That's me.
	That's me.
	I hear myself in the background.
	Okay, that's good.
	So we're live on the tubes of the U. Are we live on the Rumbles?
	Is Trump going to attend, says Likamo.
	There was a rumor that he would.
	But man, if he does, I mean, he's got to come in with Secret Service.
	A bunch of other security issues might be very important.
	Are we live on Rumble?
	Why isn't it...
	Yeah, we are.
	Okay, good.
	TrumpChamp says...
	And I'm going to make sure we're good on Locals.
	And I'm probably going to...
	Pay a lot of attention to the chat on Locals today.
	Here, I'm getting an ad for somebody pouring Chivas Crown Royal into their car on Rumble.
	Okay, we're live on Rumble.
	And vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Mighty Pest as we are live.
	Isaac David Waxman says, good, good.
	And this is fantastic.
	Now, we're going to see what the audio levels are like when they start having the hearing.
	It's Judge McAfee again.
	Oh, yeah.
	We're going to look up who appointed Judge McAfee.
	Here, guys.
	Locals link right here.
	Boom.
	I'll keep putting that out there periodically.
	Come on over to Locals.
	We got a diagonal in the house.
	I'm not using Rumble Studio today because I didn't know if I was going to invite a guest, and you can't share the screen easy enough with a guest.
	So I can only bring up chat, highlighted chat, from YouTube, unfortunately.
	Door S, what is this about?
	This is the evidentiary hearing to determine whether or not Fanny Willis...
	Is in a conflict of interest in the persecution of the various Rico Trump defendants in the Trump indictment in Fulton, Georgia.
	Unfortunately, I can't share screen in screen here because I'm already sharing a screen, but I pulled up an article from five months ago.
	You know what, hold on, I'll show it while we're doing this because it's worth looking at what a difference five months makes.
	Here, hold on one second.
	I'll bring this up and make sure my...
	Where is it, dude?
	I know I posted.
	Here we go.
	This is it right here.
	So check this out.
	Stop screen.
	We'll come back to it.
	I hear it in the background, so I'll know if we're going to go live.
	This was the article from the BBC.
	No, this is from The Guardian.
	Look at...
	If ever I pose in such a pretentious, self-serving, self-aggrandizing way, I want the collective internets out there to give me a digital butt-slapping.
	Say, Viva.
	Quit taking yourself so seriously.
	I don't think it'll happen, but who knows?
	I don't like posing for photos for that very reason.
	But this is Fanny Willis standing in front of a library of books.
	Let me see what they are.
	Law books.
	Look at her.
	She's looking forlorn, solemn, like she understands her duties.
	Duties.
	This article's over five months old.
	He's going to be very surprised Georgia DA Fannie Willis prepares to face off with Trump.
	Legal watchers say the Fulton County District Attorney's entire career has prepared her for the prosecution of Donald Trump.
	And my goodness, has that aged badly?
	Because yeah, maybe her entire career of being a corrupt hack of a political tool has in fact prepared her for this.
	Okay, let's go back to the hearing here.
	All right.
	It's a full courtroom.
	I do not see a Donald Trump in there.
	So if anybody knows the names of the players, because I'm not good with names, that might be Anna Cross.
	That, I think, was Anna Cross.
	Oh, Judge McAfee.
	Let's look that up while we're waiting.
	Georgia...
	Spell it properly.
	Georgia Judge McAfee.
	Who appointed?
	Was he elected?
	Okay, Governor Brian Kemp appointed McAfee State Inspector General.
	That doesn't answer the question.
	I'm looking up the wrong.
	Is it Scott McAfee or is it John McAfee?
	It's his first name.
	Scott McAfee.
	Okay, so he was appointed by Brian Kemp, by the looks of it.
	Let me know if the audio...
	I'll go to Rumble.
	Locals, you'll tell me if the audio is good.
	Yes!
	This is like the Rittenhouse days, boys!
	...in a Roman's motion to dismiss and disqualify, filed January 8th, adopted and supplemented by several co-defendants.
	So, first, if we could have counsel for the record identify themselves, starting with the state, and then we'll go through the defendants in the listed order.
	I'm excited here.
	Good morning, Your Honor.
	I'm Anna Green Cross for the state.
	I got Anna Cross, okay.
	I missed his name.
	Damn it.
	Good morning, Your Honor.
	Andrew Evans for Nathan Wade.
	Andrew Evans for Nathan Wade, okay.
	Nathan Wade, look at him.
	He doesn't get up for the judge.
	And beginning with, from the order of, on the notice, you inform President Trump.
	Good morning, Your Honor.
	Steve Sadow and Jennifer Little for President Trump, and he waves his presidency.
	Ah, so Trump's not coming.
	Boo!
	Alan Stock for one of the other co-defendants.
	Mr. Meadows.
	The Honour Jim Durham on behalf of Mr. Meadows.
	Meadows' attorney is doing it remotely.
	On behalf of Mr. Clark.
	I believe we had Mr. Clark on the channel.
	Let me go back to Mr. Durham.
	Mr. Durham, does your client also wave his presence as well?
	Yes, Durham.
	Did I catch that for Mr. Giuliani?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	All right, on behalf of Mr. Chooley.
	Their volume's a little low.
	Let me see if I can bring it up.
	I don't think I can bring it up.
	I'll just, I'll take my volume down.
	On behalf of Mr. Roman.
	Roman.
	Ashley Merchant is killing it.
	Mr. Schaefer.
	Good morning, Your Honor.
	Craig Gillum and Anthony Lake for Mr. Schaefer.
	Mr. Schaefer is president.
	I can lower my volume a little bit.
	I can't bring up the court volume.
	Unless I can.
	I can't.
	Okay.
	I didn't do...
	We also have Ms. Latham.
	Okay, guys.
	Stop making me touch things here.
	Okay, so the defendants aren't showing up.
	I didn't see...
	Did we see Michael Roman?
	Who was the former Speaker of the House that looks just like that guy?
	I see Mr. Floyd as president as well.
	All right.
	Let's get started, people.
	I think we saw her remotely in the video that I put out the other day.
	New comments get to the bottom.
	Anyone else present who believes they may need to be on the record or address any issue coming up in the proceeding?
	Oh, Nathan Wade is in so much trouble, and he knows it.
	I'm here, Dave Banks.
	I've been subpoenaed as a witness, but I also represent Christopher Tandy.
	Dude, this is going to be so much fun today.
	YouTube, let me know if the chat, if the audios are decent.
	I can't get it.
	No, it doesn't look like Newt Gingrich.
	It looks like the guy who was just removed from speaking to the house.
	Sir, can we have you spell your name for the record?
	First name E-I-M-A-L, last name C-H-O-P-R-A.
	E-I-A-M-A-L?
	Amal.
	Okay, that's cool.
	Rumble, is the audio you can hear?
	And if I talk like this, it's not too loud?
	Just a little housekeeping in terms of presenting the evidence this morning.
	My thought was, as witnesses are called, this being Mr. Roman's motion, that counsel for Mr. Roman would be the first.
	Kevin McCarthy.
	And any witness that they call, then in order of a list of defendants, there would be the opportunity for additional direct or cross-examination, however you want to characterize it, and then the state on the tail end of that.
	So, with that, I will turn it over to Ms. Murchin.
	Is there anything that we would need to take up before calling the first witness?
	Alright.
	So, expel the witnesses while the others testify?
	I would ask that any witnesses subpoenaed or expected to testify at the hearing today that they should remain outside the courtroom until called.
	And they shouldn't discuss their testimony with any other witness or watch any kind of live proceeding or recording of testimony until the evidence is excluded or they're excused from She wants
	to rectify what they talked about?
	of President Wade, that would be Mr. Terrence Bradley, and what the state would like the court to understand
	understand and realize is that in preparation for this hearing and speaking to witnesses and doing the additional research as relates to the comments that were represented by a council specifically Counselor for mr. Roman miss merchant That see what's he testifying for this guy that the claims that the defendant has Asserted and did assert and during the last hearing on Monday are not only legally meritless, but actually unsupportable
	Well, then get the guy to testify.
	what I would say are patently false.
	Then get the guy to testify.
	They are egregious misrepresentations of what is believed that Mr. Bradley would say or Then get him to testify and prove it.
	And my speaking of defense counsel for Mr. Bradley, Mr. Chopra, is that anything that he, any knowledge of anything he would have would be protected under the attorney-client privilege.
	He would assert that.
	And that privilege has not been waived by Mr. Wade.
	More importantly, the representation was made to the court that Ms. Merchant spoke to Mr. Dude, just get the guy to testify.
	What are you doing here?
	The judge is being very patient.
	prior to Why are you testifying?
	He was appointed a special prosecutor and that there was issues with prohabitation that he would be able This guy's about as confident as a 12-year-old kid.
	Oh, that's false.
	Those are misrepresentations that are not true.
	They are for the purpose of harassment and a new burden to the district attorney.
	And we'd ask to renew our motion to quash.
	And the only hearing we should be having is the hearing as it relates to sanctions for the defense counsel's...
	Do I pause this and explain what the hell?
	by not only statutory law, the professional rules of responsibility and case law.
	And we asked if we move into a hearing that is related to the sanctions due to the misrepresentation and blatant Oh, flagrant.
	Okay, shut your face, Moyer.
	Get Bradley to testify.
	Well, the judge heard you on Monday, and he said no.
	That's our request.
	That's your request.
	You just testified.
	Ms. Merch.
	You just testified for someone who didn't testify yet.
	The witnesses haven't been sequestered, so I just asked that they be sequestered before we argue this or...
	Yeah.
	Oh, thanks for...
	They hadn't been sequestered yet.
	Good.
	Let's start there.
	Get the witnesses out of the room.
	Mr. Boni?
	Well, I have to grieve when testimony starts that the rules of sequestration...
	No, you started testimony, dude.
	Foreign on behalf.
	Yeah, good.
	because and speaking testimony from the objecting attorney this is a very important issue and we need to have witnesses I have a good I have a good faith basis, learn I have a good faith basis, and Mr. Bradley is not my only witness to this good faith basis.
	It is just happens to be the evidence I proffered at the hearing when the state first tried to keep all of the other witnesses off the stand.
	I was forced to proffer certain testimony to get over the hurdle to refute their motions to quash.
	I did that, I used Mr. Bradley's testimony to do that.
	Like what's, okay let.
	Get Bradley up to testify that he knows nothing, that they're slanderous accusations, and that'll be it.
	What's this lawyer testifying for him for?
	Look at this guy.
	He's going to poop his pants right now.
	He's holding it in.
	Male Speaker: This is an official argument or a matter to be brought up.
	If we want to do it, I can stand up and grant the nation to us.
	Male Speaker: This guy hasn't got a mic, so it's not going to get up.
	Sure, so I think at this point we just need to take these issues one at a time and as you've joined the motion I think defense counsel would have the opportunity to weigh in but again at any point if I'm just hearing the same thing over and over again from each separate defense counsel I'm going to reserve the right to say thank you.
	I appreciate that.
	I always ask for the opportunity to be heard on the involuntary religion, the burden being on the individual raising the privilege to prove that a privilege in fact wasn't existence before we get to the climate.
	That's what I ask for today.
	Sure, understood.
	So, Ms. Merchant, I do want to put it back to you, though.
	The issue raised by the state this morning is that the, essentially, as I would summarize it, the good faith basis that you did put forward on Monday, Did not exist, right?
	So why wouldn't we start with Mr. Bradley and see where we go from there?
	Sounds good.
	So you basically have them saying it's not true and me saying it's not true.
	So we both, they think they have a good faith basis.
	I think I have a good faith basis.
	I'm just looking to see if I can find a better one that has better audio.
	The reason I don't want to call Mr. Bradley first is from hearsay objections, quite frankly.
	And, you know, normally we don't have to disclose how we're going to present evidence.
	Okay, I got one.
	It might be a little better.
	I'm okay doing that here.
	But based on the rules of evidence, hearsay, and privilege issues, what makes the most sense, and we've spent a lot of time thinking about this, what makes the most sense is for us to have Ms. Yeardy testify.
	And if you want me to proffer what I anticipate she's going to say, I talked to her last night.
	She's going to say that there was a personal relationship.
	That began in October of 2019.
	She's going to testify to that.
	And she has personal, direct knowledge of that.
	It's not hearsay and it's not privilege.
	She's going to take the stand.
	She's terrified.
	But she's going to take the stand and tell the truth.
	And then I plan on calling Mr. Wade.
	Because at that point, I can overcome their motion to quash and bring Mr. Wade.
	Bring him to come.
	Then I can go through privilege issues with him.
	And then I can have Mr. Bradley testify.
	And we won't have to have an objection to every single question I ask Mr. Bradley.
	An objection to hearsay, an objection to privilege.
	But that's how I plan on presenting the evidence because it makes the most sense.
	And I think I'll be able to overcome any privilege objections.
	We can talk about that when Mr. Wade takes a stand.
	All right.
	Mr. Abadi.
	Okay, I think I might have found a better one here.
	Last words.
	Give me one second.
	Give me one second.
	Here.
	Here.
	Let's try this one.
	Okay, doing that here, but based on the rules of evidence, hearsay, and privilege issues, what makes the most sense, and we've spent a lot of time thinking about this, which makes the most sense, is for us to have this year to testify.
	Her answer was yes.
	I can definitively tell you the answer is no.
	And Ms. Merchant has not spoken to Mr. Bradley, according to his counsel, V.C. Chopra, who is outside and can represent to the court the things that I've represented.
	And he has maintained and represented that everything that she plans to go into or ask is protected by attorney-client privilege.
	And the only point of this process and this procedure, as it relates to the motions that were filed, is to create a spectacle and to create harassment to the district attorney of Fulton County.
	And we request that the only hearing we move forward is sanctions for counsel's lack of duty of candor to the court and to counsel.
	All right.
	Well, I think you certainly put her on notice if that is actually the case.
	But at this point, I have someone saying yes, and I have another person saying no.
	And so I think that conflict in the evidence that we noted on Monday still exists, and that's where we are.
	And we'll see how the evidence presents itself.
	So with that, Ms. Merchant, are you ready to call your first witness?
	Let the games begin, people.
	I've been called Ms. Yurdy, and I know Mr. Partridge had emailed before, and I frankly couldn't keep up about Zoom, so I don't know if she's on Zoom or in person.
	She's under subpoena to be here at 9.30.
	She may be on Zoom.
	I'm not really close.
	Ms. Partridge, sorry, Mr. Partridge was joining us by Zoom, but Ms. Yurdy is here in person, right?
	Mr. Partridge, I believe, represented that his client would be more comfortable if he were here in person, and that, due to his conflict in Richmond County this morning, couldn't occur until this afternoon.
	I think that is a reasonable request, but not the state's business.
	The witness is here.
	If her attorney is able to join right now, perhaps that can be something that is addressed to Mr. Partridge in the court.
	But I want to alert the court that that was the representation that the witness would prefer not to go forward without the client present, and that's certainly a reasonable request.
	Sure.
	I think the latest I'd seen, though, was that Mr. Partridge was going to be able to join by Zoom.
	I didn't know that Mr. Partridge had affirmed that, but perhaps that was an email this morning that I missed.
	I don't know either.
	The state seems to know that Ms. Yerdy is here, so I guess she's not appearing right now.
	Okay, so the audio's better here, but the angle sucks.
	So what do we want to do, people?
	Is Mr. Partridge here?
	We'll find out.
	Do we want this or the other view?
	Everyone, okay, do we want to do Zoom or other feed?
	I'm going to see if I can find another one that has a better audio on the other feed, but this is terrible.
	What am I looking at?
	Am I looking at a chair?
	On the other feed, I'm looking at a chair now.
	Okay, I don't want to make any executive decisions.
	We might go back to the other feed.
	Let's just see what people have to say here.
	Audio and not video.
	Okay, fine.
	And maybe they'll get a good...
	Stay with this feed, Viva.
	Chill out and stay with this feed.
	I don't like staying in the same place.
	Thank you.
	I can't have both up.
	And mute the audio.
	I can only have one screen share.
	I'll see if I can find something good here.
	All right.
	So just for everyone's information, we did convey the Zoom link to Mr. Partridge this morning.
	I think the last exchange we'd had is that he can join us by Zoom.
	And apparently he's elected not to do so.
	So, I don't really know what else we can do with that.
	He was noticed at the hearing, we provided him a link, and we haven't heard from him at all.
	So I think we need to go forward.
	Your Honor, before we go forward, we have business documents that were certified and filed yesterday evening.
	Sorry, filed this morning, emailed to closing counsel yesterday evening.
	We wanted to make sure that this was part of the record before any statement.
	All right.
	And so, in your mind, this satisfies Fulton County's subpoena in this case?
	Okay.
	If you could hand that to Ms. Merchant, and we'll take it from there.
	Okay.
	And I don't know why I need a review of the case to submit it.
	Ms. Merchant, you can survive to Ms. Merchant, and if you could just stay on call, we'll let you know if we need you again, okay?
	All right.
	Will we bring in Ms. Yurdy?
	Okay.
	Hold on.
	Okay, hold on.
	Hold on.
	Stop.
	Stop.
	Hold on Thank you.
	I think it's this one.
	Yeah, this is the one.
	Okay.
	Audio's good, everybody.
	This audio's good, and the video's good.
	And we don't have to look at Midas Touch.
	Thank you.
	Okay, so we're on this one.
	That's good.
	And we're at live.
	That's good.
	What can I do?
	I have a plan.
	Okay, out.
	That's fine.
	Go back to comments.
	Here's the super chat.
	Can we get you and CallMeChris to talk expat stuff?
	screen This audio is good, right?
	The audio is good, we can hear their heartbeats.
	Okay, good.
	So as you notice, like that lawyer who comes up and says "Bradley doesn't need to testify" Slanderous accusation.
	Misrepresentation.
	You know the easiest way to get around that?
	Have them come up and testify that what merchants said was not true.
	Unlikely that it's not true.
	You need to turn your mic off.
	Hold on.
	Turn my mic off.
	Turn my mic off.
	Turn it off.
	Maybe the mic is quiet.
	Yeah, this is about as loud as my mic can go.
	I can lower the volume from the cord.
	If the cord of audio is still too high, I'll lower it afterwards.
	Is Fanny in the room?
	I haven't seen her yet.
	Dramatic.
	I'm a little quiet.
	I'll just bring my volume up as much as I think I can.
	Okay, how's that?
	Mic check one, two.
	Get out of here.
	Did he say where his client is?
	All right.
	And this is the...
	Was this a former or current employee at the VA's office?
	I think the courtroom base is taken away from...
	I know that she did not want to come without her later here.
	All right, well, Do you have any other witnesses available?
	Well, we have Mr. Bradley.
	We have him testify.
	But again, we're probably going to have a lot of objections with privilege and so I'd much rather come here to first but I know that Mr. Partridge, you were wrinkle in that this morning, right?
	Having a conflict with him.
	Sure.
	So...
	But I'm not sure.
	But what I can do is I can call Mr. Radley and then I can bring him back.
	Exactly.
	I think you can always recall and we can ping-pong back and forth if we need to based on hearsay issues.
	But at least we can use this time until Mr. Partridge chooses to join us.
	Is he on the Zoom?
	Or not Mr. Partridge or Ms. You're on the Zoom?
	No, not the way we're in.
	No, okay.
	Just wanted to check.
	Yeah, apparently Fannie made all employees sign NDA's non-disclosure.
	Please call your next witness then.
	All right, we call Terrence Bradley.
	Oh yeah, Terrence Bradley.
	Let's get this show started.
	Terrence Bradley is Nathan Wade's business partner, former or current, we're not sure yet.
	Bradley, Wade, and whoever the first.
	Campbell?
	Apple Bradley Ray.
	If we don't hear, and I don't want to...
	I don't know how the sheriff can pick anybody up or anything like that, but if we don't hear from Mr. Partridge with an hour or so, we're going to need to...
	Understood.
	Thank you.
	Is someone getting Mr. Bradley in?
	Yes, I believe so.
	PBS News out?
	Oh, the sheriff's been gone.
	Normally, I'm...
	Sorry.
	Are the sheriffs...
	When I call a witness, will the sheriffs not sound for them?
	I don't know if they're going to know where they are.
	So I think it'd be best if maybe someone from your team, and they're not going to know what they look like either.
	The PBS feed is not any better.
	The volume is very low.
	What kind of parents name their kid Fanny?
	It's Fanny.
	It's Fanny.
	It's probably supposed to have been spelled F-A-W-N-Y.
	Ramp your mic up, please.
	Hold on.
	If it's too loud, I'm just going to go and lower the courtroom volume to touch.
	Okay.
	I'll keep the courtroom volume about here.
	This should be good.
	We'll tweak this perfectly.
	McAfee's YouTube has a good sound.
	McAfee.
	The Judge McAfee?
	Oh, Atlanta News first.
	Maybe they got a good one.
	But the audio seems fine to me.
	All right, people, this is the last time we're changing, okay?
	We're going to go to the Atlanta News feed.
	We're not missing anything, don't worry.
	Last time we're changing.
	Atlanta News Feed here.
	Okay?
	End of story, people.
	I'm going to bring my volume back up.
	Sorry, up.
	No, I just...
	Okay.
	Okay.
	A hush fills the courtroom.
	Atlanta News Feed is the one we're going to stick with.
	It sounds nice.
	Not too tinny.
	Nice bass.
	You can enjoy the sound of my voice whispering sweet nothings.
	Smash those like buttons, everyone, and feed the algorithm for David slash Viva.
	Who told you my name, Donnie Baca?
	I'm joking.
	Don Baca.
	So the first witness that Ashley Merchant called, apparently they haven't heard from them yet.
	Maybe they got confused on the time zone.
	Who knows?
	Now they're calling Bradley.
	Nathan, not Nathan Bradley, whatever his first name is.
	Nathan Wade's partner, Bradley.
	What's the name of the law firm?
	Fanny just confessed to everything while Viva switched, says Astral Doge plays in our locals' community.
	No, she didn't.
	Okay, Fanny Willis, hold on.
	Google.
	Bradley, Wade, Campbell.
	I think it's Campbell, right?
	Yeah, Wade, Bradley, and Campbell is the name of the firm.
	Personal injury.
	Not now.
	Well, that's a different law firm.
	So it's Wade and Campbell now.
	Hmm.
	Hmm.
	Interesting people.
	Oh, I can't share the screen three times, but...
	Apparently now it goes by the name Wade& Campbell Firm.
	No longer any Bradley.
	And it looks like it's open.
	Atlanta, Georgia, people.
	Wade& Campbell is a law firm with lawyers practicing in four strategic areas of law.
	Contract law, family law, personal injury law, and boning people that you are working for.
	Joking, that's not what it says.
	And criminal defense.
	Our firm prides itself on working with the most prestigious corporations in Georgia and getting up close and dirty with the fanny.
	All right.
	Terrence Bradley.
	T-E-R-R-E-N-T-E.
	Bradley.
	B-R-A-D-L-E-Y.
	Your Honor, as Mr. Wade's counsel, before we start, we would request to talk about the 25th reference.
	Why does that need to be in camera?
	It doesn't necessarily, well, there's statements that could be made.
	I want to debate solicitor client.
	Why does he need to be in camera?
	So at the time a question is asked that you think implicates some of those statements?
	Object then.
	Object, and we'll handle it.
	Thank you, Judge.
	On behalf of Mr. Bradley, I apologize.
	This is not our proceeding, but it might be helpful to have a brief sidebar as opposed to something in chambers, at least so that we could let the court know our position.
	Rather than having to restate it repeatedly.
	Audio's good, everybody?
	We're not messing around anymore.
	I've carefully crafted my questions to avoid any privileged information, but if they think that I'm invading that, then I welcome an objection, and I'm happy to address it.
	Let's see how it goes.
	Objection!
	I'll ask if you can just give a pause in between each question to allow Council the opportunity to object before answering.
	Mr. Bradley, when did you know that Mr. Wade was a boning fan?
	I believe he was.
	Great.
	Thank you.
	I'm sorry.
	Good morning, Mr. Bradley.
	How are you?
	Good morning.
	Not happy to be here, I'm assuming.
	I am not.
	I understand.
	Thank you for being here.
	It wasn't by choice.
	That's right.
	It was a subpoena, man.
	You were subpoenaed to come and testify in this case.
	I was.
	No choice.
	Tried to caution.
	You and I have spoken previously about relevant facts surrounding Mr. Wade and Melissa's relationship.
	No, we have not.
	We have not?
	We have not texted about those facts?
	Through a third party, you were giving some information.
	You and I shared text.
	Our text.
	We're more so about my health.
	The question was whether or not you texted each other.
	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.
	Dude, what was the question?
	That's what my text change show.
	So no.
	So no what?
	We've never talked about Willis and Wade having a relationship.
	Think about it.
	Not directly you and I, no.
	We talked about my health.
	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.
	Did he just object?
	Not if she texted him.
	I've seen the text message that she's Solicit a client privilege of her communications with the witness.
	Ms. Merchant?
	Do you have text with Mr. Bradley?
	We've had these conversations.
	If I need to take the stand, I will.
	If I need to put my phone into evidence, I will.
	So the first objection was to privilege on behalf of the state.
	I'm sorry, I did not respond to that.
	Thank you, Judge.
	Privilege is only communications that are made in furtherance of legal advice.
	There's been no showing that whether or not they took a trip to California or took a trip or that Mr. Bradley and I talked about that, either in person or by text, that that's privilege.
	I'm not asking for any communications that Mr. Wade might have made to Mr. Bradley in furtherance of legal advice.
	Did we talk about this?
	Mr. Abadi, I believe, is the one asserting privilege.
	It would be your burden to show the necessary foundation there.
	Is that something you want to voir the witness on?
	Take up here on this specific question.
	I'm not going crazy.
	The witness did say I object, right?
	No, that's not what his answer was.
	My goodness, we all heard it.
	Well then what would be the privilege if he said he had no knowledge?
	This falls under the privileges of 491.6 of the rules.
	And the attorney-client privilege is not something that Mr. Bradley can waive.
	Only Mr. Wade can waive it, regardless of any information or communications being proffered That's a fair objection.
	It's not because Bradley told merchants that they can now talk about it.
	Sure.
	And so far, though, I haven't heard anything about a relationship, about an attorney-client relationship, about privilege or attaching.
	And I think that's going to need to be established before we can actually determine the scope of it and whether this falls inside or out of it.
	So I think either Ms. Merchant can take the lead if she wants to, but my understanding was that generally has to fall on the person who's asserting the privilege.
	Yep.
	Except for the attorney is not authorized to violate that privilege, and else he has, in fact, violated the bar rules, which we have in the Oh, they violated some bar rules, dude.
	Alright.
	Well, I still want to kind of see how we can go.
	So, Ms. Merchant, it sounds like you're going to need to lay a little bit more foundation to see whether this actually is...
	It's going to fall under privilege or not.
	That's not a problem, Judge.
	And what I can do, I was just told that Ms. Yurdy's in the waiting room, but I can, if the state wants to read my texts, if Mr. Bradley wants to read them to refresh his memory, I have absolutely no problem with that.
	I have my phone here, and you're welcome to do that.
	Such subtle needling.
	But I'll talk about some other things, and maybe if they're going to have a lot of objections to privilege and hearsay, what I can do is I can lay a foundation with Mr. Bradley, get him off the stand, put Ms. Yurdy up.
	And then Mr. Wade, so we can get through the privilege issues that might make the most sense.
	Thank you.
	Merchant is a skilled attorney.
	All right.
	Let's talk about something not controversial then.
	When did you and Mr. Wade first meet?
	Probably 1998.
	Okay.
	And did you all have a firm, a law firm together?
	We did.
	When did that firm start?
	Probably...
	I think it was 2010.
	We started...
	Exclusively working together as a firm, operating as a firm.
	Okay.
	And were you all actually incorporated as a firm?
	Not initially, no.
	When I passed the bar and I hung a shingle in '07, I think he had been practicing a few years prior to that.
	He had his own firm.
	We had two separate firms.
	Okay.
	At some point, did you all incorporate, though, together?
	We did.
	Do you remember about when that was?
	I do not at this particular moment.
	Give me an effing break.
	Do you remember if it was administratively dissolved?
	For not doing the annual filings?
	I've been made aware that it's been administratively dissolved, yes.
	I left the firm around two years ago.
	When did you leave the firm?
	August of 2022, I think it was.
	That would explain what he's...
	August of 2022, okay.
	We received August or September of 2022.
	No longer on it.
	Okay, August, September.
	Let me make a note.
	In October 2019, were you all incorporated as a firm?
	I think we were, maybe.
	And when Mr. Wade filed for divorce November 1st or 2nd, 2021, were you all incorporated as a firm?
	We should have been.
	I'm thinking that we We were.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Okay.
	When did Mr. Wade come to you to file the divorce action in Hough County?
	That's public knowledge.
	The timing and the beginning of the privilege, I don't believe that is overruled.
	So the timing was around 2018 and it was probably December 2018.
	Yes, he's Wade's divorce lawyer.
	I remember it specifically because I was Building a house.
	And I noticed that he wasn't wearing his ring.
	I asked him about it.
	I had invited him to the house because I was having a, not a housewarming, but people over.
	He wasn't wearing his ring.
	I inquired about it.
	That's weird.
	From there, we discussed what would happen.
	And we discussed the divorce and what would happen.
	What would happen with the divorce?
	What would happen over to me representing him for the divorce and when he would want to do it, yes.
	When did he retain you?
	Well...
	These are not particularly difficult questions.
	I remember being 2018 when he consulted with me about the divorce and told me what he would like to see done.
	Do you know when Fonny Willis and Nathan Wade met?
	specific dates no I know it was sometime at a conference municipal court conference correct and October 9th October 2019, if it's been represented in the state's pleadings before, that that's when they met?
	Does that sound familiar?
	If that's what they're saying, then absolutely.
	I know it was at a conference in 2000.
	I mean, it was at a conference.
	If you say it's 2019, I'll take you at your word.
	Okay.
	So what you're sure of, though, is it was at a municipal court judges' conference?
	Yes.
	When they were both municipal court judges?
	Yes.
	So it's fair to say, since she became district attorney, she was no longer a municipal court judge.
	So it had to have been before that.
	That they met?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	And he was teaching a class at that seminar, as far as you know?
	I'm going to object this to leading at this point.
	That's no direct.
	What was he doing?
	What was he doing at that time?
	To my knowledge, he was.
	And was Ms. Willis, to your knowledge, attending this seminar?
	Your Honor, I'm going to object.
	He has no personal knowledge.
	He wasn't present.
	Let him answer.
	Well, this is like a speaking objection.
	They put it in their pleadings.
	Like, we are going to be here all day.
	We are going to be here all day.
	If you can establish that he would have some personal knowledge, then that's a fair question.
	So, if you just need to preface it with that, then that's fine.
	Thank you.
	They're objecting to what they've alleged to their own pleadings.
	Are you aware of when their romantic relationship began?
	asked and answered.
	He's a privilege.
	He says that he began representing Mr. Wade in 2018.
	He met Ms. Willis in 2019.
	He's testifying for the witness with this injection.
	There's a, I understand Mr. Vati.
	So I think Ms. Merchant, you need to qualify that question.
	I'm not asking you to tell me what Nathan Wade told you in furtherance of legal advice, okay?
	So I want to be very clear.
	If he told you something asking you legal advice, I'm not asking you about that.
	I'm asking about what you observed, what you saw, and what you knew outside of what he told you when he was specifically seeking legal advice.
	Okay?
	This is too far afield.
	I apologize.
	I object again on behalf of Mr. Bradley.
	He's asserting that there is an attorney-client privilege associated with this case under Rule 1.6 for him to draw any influence, make any statements, or any other proffer of information after this relationship began between attorney and client December of 2018.
	would be improper and he would in fact be violating the rules of ethics associated with So the way the question was phrased was just saying what did he personally observe outside of the relationship not involving communications?
	How does that fall within attorney-client privilege?
	doesn't know whether we like it or not when we have a client there are a number of items associated with that relationship between attorney and client that come within your purview and they do you do further action with your program investigation further questions develop your strategy we can't talk about Oh, there's no way the judge is gonna On any level, it would be inappropriate to sustain this.
	The divorce was filed sometime thereafter.
	During that entire interlude, any of these issues could in fact have been the basis for their relationship to remain privileged.
	Ms. Merchant.
	Judge, his observations are not privileged.
	That's not what the privileged law says.
	And I can read you that.
	It's information disclosed in confidence.
	It attaches where?
	And this is the law.
	This is the rule.
	Information disclosed in confidence.
	There's an attorney-client relationship.
	The communications in question relate to the matters on which legal advice was sought.
	And the communications have been maintained in confidence, and there's no exceptions to the privilege.
	First, on number two, the second prong.
	This was not in furtherance of legal advice.
	That's not in furtherance of legal advice.
	What he witnesses as a human being is not in furtherance of legal advice.
	And if he witnesses them together, it would get rid of the attorney-client privilege because Ms. Willis is there.
	Additionally, though, exceptions.
	We can go all day about exceptions to this.
	Fraud to the court, that's an exception.
	Mr. Wade, we contend, has filed a false affidavit with this court.
	That is fraud to the court.
	If this witness has direct knowledge that that is not true, then that's an exception to attorney-client privilege.
	The judge is going to allow it.
	For God's sake, move on with it.
	All right.
	I'll see where this goes.
	If you could re-ask that question, again, qualifying it as...
	The judge is telling her how to do it.
	I think you qualified it as anything that...
	Outside of anything he learned or was told as a result of his representation, it was just any observations he made, which in my mind, as you phrased the question, would have included before December 2018 when this first consultation occurred.
	That's right.
	Can't be privileged before the...
	I think if you can go step by step.
	We can handle this.
	And Judge, I would just ask permission.
	We gave the state notice under 611 that all of these witnesses do not want to be here.
	They are adverse witnesses.
	Yes, so I'd like to have Lee Wayne to be able to...
	You get to treat them with leading questions if they're adverse.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Do you have knowledge that their relationship began in 2019?
	I do not have knowledge, but again, I have consulted.
	Why would you have done that?
	Your testimony is that you do not have independent knowledge.
	I cannot.
	I was advised by the bar.
	Rule 1.6 of confidentiality applies and that I cannot reveal anything that I saw or learned.
	Bullshit!
	That an immediate certificate of review should be asked.
	And so I'm not here to misrepresent to the court or to say anything inappropriate or anything.
	I am here because I also have a law license.
	And I'm not trying to lose that.
	And so, Mr. Bradley, can you finish that thought and saw or learned?
	Someone threatened him.
	Just period.
	Basically, that was law license.
	Judge, I'm going to refer to what I was told by the bar that Rule 1.6 of confidentiality applies.
	What a lying...
	And that I would be asking for an immediate review by the Supreme Court.
	Sure, but applies to what?
	Any communications is what the person at the bar told us.
	Any communications.
	What a load of crap.
	Any communications.
	What a convenient thing that they're friends.
	He did not qualify.
	If you talk to Mr. Wade, that's covered.
	Well, Judge, I don't know.
	He didn't go into those specifics.
	But this is what was told.
	This is what was told to me.
	I was sitting there.
	Bullshit is right.
	With my attorneys.
	And this is what was told to us.
	To state that Rule 1.6 applies.
	Basically, I'm pleading the fifth.
	Pleading the fifth under the guise of ethics.
	And this is what they told us to do.
	And this is what I'm doing.
	At this particular point.
	So I'm not answering the question.
	We have no knowledge if the bar was aware of the affidavit that Mr. Wade filed, but that significantly changes the privilege.
	He waived the privilege when he put that in the affidavit, so that's one of the reasons I wanted to call him.
	There you go.
	He put the relationship in the, when the relationship started, and put the relationship in his affidavit.
	He put a lot of information in that affidavit that would waive certain amounts of privilege.
	So he disclosed this relationship.
	So basically what we've got is we've got Mr. Wade being able to say what he wants about this relationship, but then we're not allowed to ask questions to qualify that.
	Pleading rule one, point six.
	So that's not how it works.
	They either get to admit it or they don't.
	We're just talking about a relationship, though.
	How does that open the floodgates to anything he's ever told an attorney during representation?
	He alleged it in an affidavit.
	End of story.
	Is not something that Mr. Wade specifically told him.
	I also think there's a fraud exception to a lot of this, even if there was a privilege, but I don't think there was for most of it.
	He testified to it.
	I don't think we've actually gotten anything to that extent yet.
	I think we're still making our way through it, which is, I think he's taking the position that he's not willing to share anything Mr. Wade ever told him.
	Period.
	Or anything he ever saw.
	That's a broader representation of attorney-client privilege than I've ever heard.
	Or that he ever had personal knowledge of outside of the relationship.
	I think that's what we're trying to parse out.
	If the relationship starts, I've never heard anything that said everything before that point is privilege.
	Absolutely.
	Do you have something that I should know?
	Yes, sir.
	That's fine.
	Yeah, and don't testify for him again.
	These questions aren't being established.
	It was 2018 December.
	The last question was directly related to a point in time after that.
	Oh, so after they mandate him, he can't talk about anything.
	He has an opinion from the State Board of Georgia.
	He's got an opinion?
	Let's see it.
	Provide the opinion.
	Oh, it was a verbal telephone call.
	Judge, I understand how delicate this is.
	You can phrase it in a thousand different ways to try to make him say something, but you can't unring a bell that he...
	He did that with his affidavit.
	say it actually go back six months from now and say oh we shouldn't have said that it's He did that when he signed that affidavit.
	Come on, read my mind, Ashley.
	We've done all the diligence we can as far as looking up the relevant laws, the relevant information.
	Yeah, the judge is going to make an answer.
	We don't have a waiver from the client.
	The client is present.
	Whatever.
	I...
	There's no question why we're not barreling ahead is because I recognize the privilege.
	What we have to determine is actually what that privilege, the scope of it, and when it started.
	And I don't think we've even gotten close to that yet.
	I apologize, Judge.
	I thought December 2018, Commissioner Bradley testified directly...
	Quit apologizing, lawyer.
	So we have a starting point, but does that necessarily foreclose anything from that point onward?
	if they started talking about something else entirely.
	Post-divorce, of course not, Your Honor.
	During the pendency, it would absolutely curtail that, especially as it has to do with observation, attendance, and function together, or other realizations that Mr. Bradley came into during the pendency of his representation.
	And they're parsing it.
	The judge is not falling for this crap.
	This is this is this is filibustering people Okay, just sit down.
	I think we're talking about two aspects of Arguably the attorney-client privilege There's the attorney-client privilege controlled by case law and statute which deals with communication requirements I don't hear that being the objection.
	The objection is that there are confidential matters under 1.6, which in some form or fashion mean that once you start a relationship with attorney-client, that everything from that point on is confidential between the two of them.
	There's no such case law in Georgia.
	That deals with confidential information at that time.
	Attorney client, yes, confidential information, no.
	And I believe what's being argued by counsel, Mr. Bradley, is that he has received, of course, we don't have anything in writing, but he's received some oral advice that under 1.6 confidential matters cannot be gone into,
	which is, according to them, everything that occurred between Mr. Bradley and It's such bullcrap.
	If I'm mistaken, I apologize.
	But I think what we're being told is, I don't have to say anything at all about Mr. Wade once I have an attorney-client relationship with him.
	Bullcrap.
	What's the rule?
	I want to see what the rule says here.
	And there's no such case law of that in Georgia.
	There is no bar rule to that in Georgia.
	The only thing the court has to do is say...
	Here we go.
	A lawyer shall maintain confidence.
	All information gained in the professional relationship with the client, including information which the client has requested to be held, inviolate.
	And then it's up to his counsel to decide whether he wants to have his client held in contempt.
	Dude signed an affidavit.
	That's an overstatement.
	We have not said that he can't testify to anything.
	The specific question on the table is what observations do you have from Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis?
	See if I can find his affidavit.
	Now, they, the defense and their teams, have made an allegation of some impropriety.
	That same impropriety could be related to a divorce proceeding on every level.
	We're not here to say we're not talking.
	We're going to say we're not talking about things that came into his knowledge associated with his representation.
	Associated with?
	Sorry, that's not how it works.
	And then I realized that there's a cornerstone of what we do, which is the Ball Rule.
	The State Ball Rule is on point six.
	We violate that, and the whole thing comes tumbling down.
	We're not saying that you can't ask about, did Mr. Wade enjoy a beer or a ball game?
	That wasn't a question.
	The question was specifically relating to some impropriety that they were trying to dig into.
	No, it's not.
	And then he also said I can't disclose anything because I've been told not to.
	Not a good faith basis.
	This guy's an idiot.
	All right, Ms. Merchant, last word.
	Yes, Judge.
	Judge, Mr. Bradley, if...
	Ordered, he's here by subpoena.
	If ordered to testify, it's not an issue with the bar.
	My question was not about attorney-client privilege and being very careful not to ask anything that Mr. Wade asked in furtherance, but I've been informed that Robin Yerdy is on the Zoom, and so if we want to start back on our original plan, we can call Ms. Yerdy and have her testify and then put Mr. Wade up, and we can go through the privilege issue with him.
	And then we won't have to have all these objections.
	Or else I'm happy to continue questioning.
	40 minutes?
	Nothing's happened yet.
	Alright, so Ms. Murchin, you're saying...
	I have to pee already.
	...your understanding of the evidence that you plan to present that these issues are affected by Ms. Yurdy in terms of the scope of the privilege and the relationship?
	No.
	I think...
	No, thank you for letting me clarify that.
	I think that Ms. Yurdy is going to give me enough to get Mr. Wade on the stand.
	Once I get Mr. Wade on the stand, because they file a motion file.
	Get Wade on the stand and then forget Bradley.
	Before I can put Mr. Wade on the stand.
	So once I present Miss Yurdy, I can put Mr. Wade up on the stand.
	And then I can put him up before I call Mr. Bradley.
	There you go.
	Punish Yerde for being late.
	All right.
	Let's do it.
	Judge, who just said that?
	I'm on Zoom, Your Honor.
	Attorney Durante Parker, Judge, on behalf of Ms. Yerde.
	Your Honor, when we were here for the motion to quash earlier this week, it's my understanding, as represented by Defense Counsel, that Mr. Bradley's testimony is, so to speak, the bridge that was built to involve my client, Ms. Yurdy, into this matter altogether.
	Now it seems as though that is being usurped.
	And now she is being the quote-unquote foundation for...
	Defense counsel's presentation this morning.
	This is why people hate lawyers, by the way, just so you know.
	You're not going to get your motion to quash.
	This is completely contradictory to what we had via the hearing earlier this week, Your Honor.
	Are you telling the judge what's...
	It's okay, Ms. Merchant.
	Mr. Partridge, as I recall, that did not apply to your claim as much.
	The original motion to quash that you filed said she had absolutely no knowledge about anything.
	What Ms. Merchant Crawford and what I didn't hear you saying was not the case is that at some point Ms. Yurdy lived in a residence and shared a residence with Ms. Willis and potentially Mr. Wade at some point.
	So I think she's directly involved in the center of this.
	I don't think that really needs much in the way of foundation.
	I apologize, Your Honor, to talk over the court.
	Well then don't that information however y'onor is my understanding came from mr. Bradley and that information was incorrect We call there was never any time that miss yurdy and miss Willis Why are you testifying for her?
	The judge should shut him up.
	That is exactly what it is.
	There was no overlapping or any time that they stayed together, nor does Ms. Yerdy have any information as it relates to Ms. Wade staying at that condo as well with that of Ms. Willis.
	So, again, Judge, I'm renewing.
	No, we don't need to hear it again.
	Ms. Merchant.
	Judge, luckily I don't have to tell them everything that I plan on introducing a witness for in response to their motion to quash.
	She has a lot of personal knowledge.
	Get her up!
	When we had a motion to quash, I had to get over a good faith basis, and I presented that to the court.
	And you did, and then you were adjudicated.
	Nothing's changed.
	Get Yurdy up.
	She has personal knowledge.
	And sanction the lawyer for having her be late.
	I think she's on Zoom.
	What I understand, Mr. Partridge.
	Mr. Partridge, is your client with us?
	She's on the Zoom platform, your honor, since I'm in Richmond County.
	Has she been listening the whole time?
	But she is on the Zoom platform at this time, Your Honor, in the waiting room.
	Has she been listening?
	I believe she may have been admitted.
	I see a robin on my screen.
	I'm assuming that that is my client to show you.
	Ms. Merchant, you want to examine her by Zoom?
	That's fine.
	My butt hurts already.
	We will waive any Sixth Amendment objections to her.
	That's fine.
	My only objection was the representation at Monday's hearing was the good faith basis was based on what...
	Nobody's testified yet.
	Will you just be quiet?
	That was not in regards to Miss Rudy.
	He did not grant it on Monday.
	Nothing's changed.
	Judge, she has personal knowledge of this relationship.
	The judge already ruled on it.
	As it relates to Ms. Yurdy.
	By the way, this guy looks like Barstool Sports' skinny brother.
	Ms. Merchant, I do believe that when we went through the motion to quash, there were, you grouped them into two categories, and each one of them we said that they were going to be impeached by Mr. Bradley.
	There were.
	Well, we took Ms. Yurdy outside of Fulton County, Judge.
	So we talked about Fulton County differently than Ms. Yurdy.
	We took Ms. Yurdy out separately.
	She was different than Fulton County.
	Because there wasn't...
	He already ruled on this on Monday.
	Nothing's changed.
	Get her on the stand.
	I responded to their argument on the motion to quash.
	Did I tell them that she's going to testify, that she's known Miss Willis for years, and that her middle name is Latrice?
	No, I didn't tell them everything she's going to testify to.
	Like, if you wanted me to, I could have.
	But that has nothing to do...
	There's a witness that contradicts what they have said in court.
	Done!
	Bring her up!
	And they're doing everything they can to keep her off the standings of the truth away from this court.
	Don't like that, Judge.
	You shouldn't like that.
	They filed a motion to quash.
	I showed a good faith basis.
	If my good faith basis is Mr. Bradley or Ms. Yeardy or texts I've seen, it's still a good faith basis.
	There's no law that says I have to tell them every single good faith basis I have ahead of time.
	If we did, we would never have trials.
	All right, Ms. Merchant.
	Appreciate the argument of counsel.
	I think...
	The standard on a motion to quash and a subpoena is not one where we're required to completely flush out and litigate every reason the witness may be relevant.
	And so we'll take these one at a time with Miss Yerdy.
	Let's do it!
	I'll deny the motion to quash.
	Again?
	If your election into proceeding your presentation of the evidence is to call her, then that's what we'll do.
	Thank you, Judge.
	You may be excused for now.
	Thank you.
	You're still under oath, by the way.
	Remind me.
	You're still under oath.
	Don't talk about your testimony with your lawyer.
	Bums.
	Bunch of bums.
	Look what I just found in my drawer here.
	I found my Blink-182 album, but I don't have a CD player anymore.
	Clean that off a little bit.
	Yeah, the judge is great.
	God, these lawyers, I've heard more testimony coming from the lawyers than any witnesses.
	Would you like me to swear her, Judge?
	Swear her in!
	I think we need to make sure...
	There we go.
	Yep.
	Why were you late?
	Ooh, she doesn't look very happy.
	Can you hear us?
	Yes, I can.
	All right.
	Oh, boy.
	Raise your right hand, ma 'am.
	Yes.
	Would you please state and spare your full name for the court?
	Robin Latrice Yerdy.
	Here comes the Yerdy Gertie woman.
	All right.
	Oh, she does not look like she wants to answer questions.
	Thank you for being here.
	Can you tell the judge when you first met Ms. Willis?
	Objection!
	I'm joking.
	I'm joking.
	Am I?
	No.
	In college.
	Okay.
	So, 19...
	probably 90 or 91. Okay.
	And have you been friends since 1990 or 91?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	When was the last time you spoke with Ms. Willis?
	March of 20...
	March of 2022.
	Okay.
	From 1991-ish till 2022, were you what you would consider good friends with Ms. Willis?
	Yes.
	What happened?
	And did you all share personal information regularly?
	Yes.
	And...
	Did you even come and work with her at the DA's office?
	Yes.
	And when she needed a place to stay, did you let her stay at your apartment?
	It was a condo, right?
	Condo, yes.
	Do you remember approximately when she moved into your condo?
	It was April of 2021.
	Okay, great.
	April 2020.
	You know that Ms. Willis and Ms. Wade met at a conference in October of 2019.
	Objection-leading question.
	I'm going to object to that.
	Your Honor would have a foundation for how this witness would know that.
	If Ms. Merchant can establish she has personal information of that, then certainly that's something the witness can testify to.
	But if it's...
	I understand, Ms. Cross.
	All right.
	Foundation.
	Do you have information that...
	Miss Willis and Mr. Wade met in October of 2019.
	Objection.
	I'm going to renew my objection, Your Honor.
	Information is not sourced to personal information.
	What do you know of the date that their relationship started?
	So, Judge, I just want to make sure that I understand.
	So, they've objected to me calling Willis and Wade.
	It's just a matter of foundation.
	He wants her to ask them.
	Do you have knowledge of when Willis and Wade met?
	There you go.
	I'm going to object again.
	No, it's going to be overturned.
	Overruled.
	Good.
	I'm doing pretty good with the commentary here.
	I'm predicting it.
	Do you have personal knowledge of when Willis and Wade met?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	She told me that they met at a conference.
	Oh, hearsay.
	Okay.
	I'm going to renew my objection, Your Honor.
	Clearly, this is not firsthand information from this witness.
	Dude, I'm doing good here, people.
	But she said she told me.
	Yep.
	Yes, it's a statement against interest.
	I'm not trying to prove the veracity.
	It's just that she told me.
	It's my experience.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Mr. Cross.
	The representation of the witness, the testimony of the witness, was that Ms. We heard her testimony!
	There is no statement against interest.
	District Attorney Willis is not a party opponent.
	Oh my goodness.
	The information that the witnesses testified to you came from Ms. Willis and we have a hearsay objection to that.
	Well, yeah, you got an answer.
	Asked and answered.
	Also, by the way, just FYI.
	What are you talking about, Willis?
	You lost, Mrs. Attorney.
	Quiet.
	Wait until they get into the NDAs.
	Ms. Murchin, I guess it's evolved into a hearsay objection.
	Yes, Judge, and we plan on calling Ms. Willis to the stand.
	She's under subpoena, so hearsay will be cured.
	Yeah, so take it at the probative value as hearsay.
	She answered it.
	What are you going to do?
	But we do still think that it's a statement against interest.
	Clean your ears out?
	Ms. Willis has filed a document that states that they met at this municipal court conference.
	So...
	Your Honor, let me streamline a little bit.
	The state will stipulate that District Attorney Willis and Mr. Wade met in October 2019 at the judicial conference that we've been talking about.
	So then let her answer!
	Secondhand from this witness, well, that's true.
	Oh, that's...
	All right, do you accept the stipulation, Ms. Murchin?
	Yes.
	Am I permitted then to ask questions about that?
	Yes.
	Because it's now...
	Stipulator fact.
	If it's just to a stipulation, if it's just to that basic fact, I don't think we need a question, but if there's a follow-up...
	No, she got a follow-up.
	Ms. Eardy, you have personal knowledge that...
	Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade began their romantic relationship soon after this time that they met at the municipal court.
	I'm going to object to that question.
	That certainly is a leading question.
	No foundation has been laid for how this witness would have personal knowledge of that.
	Or what the nature of the relationship was.
	I think you can do a yes or no and then follow up with how she knows it.
	Thank you.
	Do you know if Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade started dating in October of 2019?
	I don't know if it was October of 2019.
	Was it roughly?
	Could it possibly be November of 2019?
	Could possibly.
	Okay.
	And when we spoke, you said it was shortly after the Municipal Court Conference, is that correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So you know that their relationship, their personal relationship, began shortly after this Municipal Court Conference.
	That's what you call networking people.
	And when I say personal, romantic.
	I just want to make sure we don't get in an argument over what personal and romantic is later.
	When I ask you personal, do you take that to mean romantic?
	I don't know if it was romantic, but they were knocking boots.
	And do you understand it, that their relationship began in 2019 and continued until the last time you spoke with her?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	She doesn't want to say one word more than she has to.
	And you were essentially her best friend during this time, right?
	I don't know if I was her best friend.
	I was a good friend.
	Good friend.
	Okay, close friend.
	And so would you frequently socialize with her?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	And you saw her at work every day?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	So you had a chance to see them interact together on a personal level?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	And so from everything that you saw, heard, witnessed, Witnessed.
	It's your understanding that they were in a romantic relationship beginning in 2019.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	And when you left the DA...
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	Let me ask you.
	You said that Ms. Willis came to live with you in April of 2021.
	I'm sorry.
	April 1st, 2020 or 2021?
	I never lived with her.
	Okay.
	I'm sorry.
	She took over your lease in April 1st, 2020, correct?
	No, 2021.
	Okay, I had it both ways, so I'm glad you clarified.
	So when she took over your lease on April 1st, 2021, it's your understanding she moved out of the house that she was sharing with her father and started staying at the condo?
	Yes.
	And is it your understanding that that's because she needed to have her own space?
	Yes.
	Away from her father?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	When you left the DA's office, were you fired?
	No, I resigned.
	You resigned, okay.
	Okay, that's a question of perspective, but who cares?
	Did you resign after you were told you were going to be fired?
	Why did you resign?
	I'm curious now.
	Objection, relevance?
	Did you get threatened by Fannie?
	Can you tell us why you resigned to the DA's office?
	Objection.
	Someone should reject there.
	The number of things that was happening.
	The number of things that were happening?
	Can you be more specific?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Such as?
	What was happening that caused you to resign?
	This is so good.
	There's a spiral of things.
	Just give me one.
	Just start with one.
	I guess the last of all is I was put in a...
	The apartment that I knew had no knowledge about, something happened.
	What are you talking about?
	I didn't like it.
	They didn't like it.
	And that was it.
	Okay.
	Did you have any falling outs with Miss Willis?
	I don't know if you...
	Well, we never spoke after that.
	You never spoke after that.
	Okay.
	Oh, shit!
	This is good.
	And so you're, you know, without going into all the painstaking details, there is no doubt in your mind that from 2019 until 2022, Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade were in a romantic relationship.
	Yeah, I want to know what things she was...
	What's the question?
	You have no doubt that their romantic relationship was in effect from 2019 until the last time you spoke with her.
	Correct.
	No doubt.
	No doubt.
	And that's based on your personal observations.
	You don't need to ask that question.
	Speaking with them and seeing them together and things like that.
	Unnecessary.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	No other questions.
	Thank you.
	The other folks may have some questions.
	Dude, I got some questions.
	What happened?
	What did you see that made you unhappy?
	More than a couple questions, then sure.
	But if not...
	Can the court reporter hear me okay?
	Yeah.
	YouTube is undoubtedly messing with things.
	It doesn't matter.
	We're going to be very specific.
	It's going to make me work harder.
	Did you talk with Ms. Willis about her romantic relationship with Mr. Wade?
	Yes.
	Did Ms. Willis tell you on more than one occasion that she was engaged in a romantic relationship with Mr. Wade prior to you leaving the district attorney's office?
	Yes.
	Did she tell me or did I observe?
	Who's asking the question?
	I'm straight right now with the tell me.
	Did she tell you?
	Did she tell you that in the year of 2020?
	How the heck am I supposed to remember that?
	Probably.
	Yes.
	In the year of 2021?
	Yes.
	Are you certain that Ms. Willis told you about the romantic relationship with Mr. Wade prior to November 1st of 2021?
	Yes.
	Now, did you also have observations of Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis together prior to November 1st of 2021?
	Yes.
	And are those observations, were those in a social setting?
	Yes.
	And did you observe things that are common among people having a romantic relationship?
	Yes.
	Such as, can you give us an example?
	Okay.
	I couldn't figure out why the lawyer was asking these questions, but it's Trump's lawyer.
	Hugging, kissing, disaffection.
	All before November 1st of 2021, correct?
	Yes.
	Did you ever see them having sex?
	It sucks.
	I thought that was the lawyer for Wade.
	I was like, why would he be asking these questions?
	and Ms. Willis live together?
	No.
	Mr. Durham.
	Nothing, you're damn right!
	Nope, nothing.
	Oh, this is a co-defendant council.
	No.
	This is a council for one of the other defendants, I think, so this explains...
	These potentially prejudicial questions.
	Spending the evening together overnight?
	Ooh, yes.
	Oh, damn it.
	Mr. Gillen.
	No question.
	Mr. McCullough.
	And Mr. Cromwell.
	What questions do you want?
	Ms. Cross.
	I do have some questions, thank you, Your Honor.
	Okay, Ms. Cross is...
	The purity we haven't met before, is that correct?
	Objection leading the question.
	You're able to see and hear me okay?
	I'm joking, I'm joking.
	Yes.
	Alright.
	I want to start with a couple things.
	Now, I think you've made it clear that you never lived, and we'll call it the South Fulton address, the South Fulton condo that you were leasing.
	You never lived at that address with the District Attorney Willis, correct?
	Correct.
	And never at any time?
	Never.
	Alright.
	You never observed or have any information about District Attorney Wade and District Attorney Willis and Nathan Wade living together, correct?
	Correct.
	You don't have any information about that?
	They're coming back to her.
	No, I don't.
	Merchant's coming back to her on this.
	Anybody said that that information was sourced to you, then that's incorrect.
	That's incorrect.
	Merchant is coming back to her on this and redirect.
	Did District Attorney Willis pay rent at that establishment, at that condo while she lived there and you were living elsewhere?
	Yes.
	Who paid the rent?
	She did.
	Nathan Wade ever pay the rent?
	No.
	And you never told anyone otherwise?
	I didn't hear your answer there.
	Did you ever tell anyone otherwise?
	No.
	Alright.
	So let's talk for a second about your time at the district attorney's office.
	You were disciplined several times in the district attorney's office during your employment there, correct?
	They're throwing her under the bus.
	No.
	You weren't written up ever for poor performance, Ms. Yurdy.
	Once, not several.
	One time you were written up for poor performance.
	Were you counseled several times about your performance in the district attorney's office that was subpar?
	No.
	Did the district attorney tell you that your performance was insufficient and that you were going to be fired?
	No.
	That never happened?
	No.
	Maybe when we're at the end.
	What's the question?
	The question, Ms. Yurti, was did the district attorney ever counsel you on your poor performance in the district attorney's office and inform you that you were going to be fired?
	No, but I was written up.
	Now she might be more amenable to answering questions in redirect from merchants.
	I don't really know how to answer that.
	Well, it's not complicated.
	I'm looking for the truth.
	I don't really know how to answer that.
	I mean, a situation happened that wasn't my fault.
	And I either was going to resign or be let go.
	You understood that that was the situation.
	You could resign or you could be let go.
	Correct, yes.
	You were not welcome to stay.
	No.
	I think Merchant's going to have a few questions on redirect, guaranteed.
	And the conversation where you were informed that you could resign or you could be fired, that conversation was not the first conversation you had with the district attorney about your poor performance in the office, correct?
	Well, it was kind of a spiral, but no.
	Yeah, it was.
	Whatever the situation was.
	Yeah, commentary.
	Understood, Mr. Snyder.
	Ms. Cross.
	Ms. Yurdy, the circumstances of your leaving the district attorney's office ended your friendship with the district attorney, Willis, correct?
	Yes.
	You all haven't spoken since?
	No.
	They're going to...
	You've opened the door.
	I want to talk about the representations that you made here this morning, Ms. Yurdy, about any relationship between district attorney...
	Willis and Mr. Wade, I want you to tell me what was the first time any...
	Let me ask it this way.
	You said that District Attorney Willis personally informed you of a romantic relationship.
	Is that what you testified to?
	Yes.
	When did that conversation that you purport to recall, when did that happen?
	I mean, I don't have a month or a day.
	But there were lots of them.
	Just talking in general.
	This is going to turn badly for Cross.
	Everybody knew they were doing it.
	All right, thank you, Ms. Cross.
	Yes, you do.
	Yes, you do, Ashley.
	All right, on those points only.
	Yeah, the falling out.
	The state asked you a lot about when you were let go, when you resigned.
	Did something happen as far as purchasing that you didn't feel comfortable with, purchasing things through...
	Thank you for opening that door.
	Objection.
	No.
	And I didn't tell you how to testify here today though, right?
	Correct.
	Right.
	And everything you've testified to is from your personal knowledge?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And, um...
	You've told the truth here today?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Judge, I believe she's only under my subpoena, and I'm fine releasing her from that subpoena?
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	By show of hands from other counsel, starting with Mr. Sado.
	Your Honor, I believe the door has been opened out to ask this particular witness about statements that Ms. Willis made to her.
	She brought it up on cross-examination on a couple of occasions.
	Did Ms. Willis say this or inform you of that?
	So I'd like to now ask your questions correctly about what is it?
	Willis told her about her romantic relationship.
	Absolutely.
	And why she got fired.
	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 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.
	This is Trump's attorney now talking.
	The first time she told you, in whatever words were used, 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 an ongoing relationship between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade?
	So what's the question?
	I'll ask you again.
	Is the nature of your then relationship with Ms. Willis such that you were having these ongoing conversations, that is, best friend type conversations about her relationship with Mr. Wade?
	I don't remember.
	I'm not getting any further in too much detail.
	Is there any doubt at all that Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis had a romantic...
	This is a stupid question.
	This has already been established.
	Prior to November of 2020.
	She was already asked that question.
	Ask and answer, man.
	She said no.
	No doubt.
	No doubt.
	Any other defense counsel?
	And the judge picked up on that.
	Seeing none.
	Oh.
	Last recross from Ms. Cross.
	Anything else?
	anything time you're on it we've asked the witness remain under subpoena and subject to recall judge she's under my subpoena and i'm releasing it for my subpoena so if they want to subpoena her oh i like that I would prefer that the court keep under subpoena.
	I think given the representation of Ms. Marchant, given how she intends to proceed today, that this witness may need to be recalled.
	All right.
	Understood.
	In the interest of knowing that we may have to bring witnesses back and forth, I think it's in the interest of effective presentation of the evidence here.
	Miss Yurdy, you are still going to remain under the offices of your subpoena.
	But not under oath.
	So please stay in touch with your attorney.
	We may need you to rejoin us on Zoom at some point today or tomorrow.
	I've got my GoPro tripod.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Don't discuss your testimony with any other potential witnesses.
	Okay.
	Just a good reminder.
	All right.
	All right.
	You can log off.
	Judge, I'd ask...
	Can Mr. Partridge stay on for just one moment?
	The state made some allegations that I misrepresented some things to the court, and I'd just like the opportunity to clear that up, that Mr. Partridge is the one that told me that they lived together for a month.
	They've called me everything but a liar today, and so I just think that it's appropriate for everyone to know where that information came from.
	All right, Ms. Murchin, I think you've made your position clear.
	I don't think we need to get sidetracked on that.
	All right.
	Ms. Merchant, you can call your next witness.
	I would have asked...
	Judge, may I be excused as well, please?
	All right.
	Take care, Mr. Partridge.
	If the falling out had anything to do with the relationship, it sounded like it did.
	Ms. Cross.
	Maybe I'm...
	Motion to quash Mr. Way subpoena was held in advance waiting for the representation.
	I believe that the good faith faces that Ms. Merchant represented on Monday, I think that that's really not accurate.
	I understand the testimony that's now in the record.
	Mr. Wade is available, but we maintain that at this time the motion to take watch probably should be granted to understand the court's rolling.
	He's available.
	He's right there.
	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 again later.
	But for now, 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 that Mr. Wade filed.
	I don't see a way around.
	Bring it on!
	Bring it on!
	And so I'll deny the state's motion to quash the speed of Mr. Wade.
	She hasn't established a good faith basis.
	They're calling the judge an idiot liar when they say something like that.
	Morons.
	Oh, it's clear she hasn't established a good faith basis.
	First of all, the judge took it in abeyance on Monday, meaning, at least with respect to Wade, we'll see how it goes.
	And now you're going to say, well, it's clear there's no good faith basis for the testimony?
	Well, you just saw that?
	You're calling the judge a moron by doing that.
	Bring on the Wade.
	Oh, yeah, no, my client, Mr. Wade, is available.
	Yeah, we can see him.
	He's sitting right there, sweating balls.
	Oh, this is going to be good.
	I have to pee so badly.
	Do I do it?
	I'm going to hold it in.
	I'm going to hold it in.
	I had time to do it.
	I could have already been finished pink if I had just gone and done it.
	Pretty much we just heard the judge effectively say it seems that Wade may have lied in his affidavit.
	You can perjure yourself in an affidavit.
	What the heck is taking so long to get him to the stage?
	Oh, there he is.
	Here comes the Wade.
	Oh, yes, sir.
	Look at that.
	Okay, now I love body language.
	Strutting in.
	He's a well-built guy.
	He's in good shape.
	Give him that.
	He does the shaved head.
	Carries it well.
	My name's Nathan Wade.
	N-A-T-H-A-N-W-A-D-E.
	Feigning confidence.
	Good morning, Mr. Wade.
	A forced smile.
	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.
	I wear your shirts.
	My kids wear your shirts.
	Your personal opinions have no relevance.
	I mean that in the best way.
	That's completely fine.
	Thank you.
	You filed for divorce from your wife on November 2nd, 2021?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	And in that divorce proceeding, did you file...
	An affidavit.
	I did.
	Okay.
	And so interrogatories are where you're responding to things that...
	Interrogatories, depositions, discoveries.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	I've got your complaint for divorce.
	I'm just going to mark it for the record as it is Defendants Exhibit 2. The first interrogatories that you answered, those were December 27th, 2021.
	Is that right?
	Okay.
	And in those, you were asked different things, but those are sworn.
	You actually swear to those.
	Yes, yes.
	You can actually be held under perjury.
	And so that verification is where you're swearing under oath that everything in it is true?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	The gravy train is over, Wade.
	And let's see.
	This guy looks very unhappy.
	You were asked if you had any documents which relate to the purchase of gifts by you to any person other than the defendant with whom you have or had a relationship, romantic relationship, from the date of your marriage, correct?
	That's his wife.
	And you responded under oath that you didn't have any documents to that.
	That's correct.
	I didn't have the documents.
	You again responded to an interrogatory.
	You updated those responses on May 30th, 2023.
	And you actually sent those directly to opposing counsel?
	In the divorce?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	But in that one, you answered none against that question, correct?
	The tension builds.
	So, May 30th, 2023, you said that you didn't have any documents showing any purchase of anything.
	I didn't, because they were in my company.
	I believe the interrogatory was gifts.
	Okay.
	Not anything, gifts.
	And I have it, if you want to take a look.
	Oh yeah, refresh his memory.
	And I didn't have the documents.
	Wade, Campbell, and the other one.
	So just for the record, I've got your complaint for divorce marked as number two.
	I've got the verification and the interrogatories from 2021.
	I'm going to mark those as three.
	And then your May 30th, 2023, I'm going to mark as four.
	Judge me, I approach the witness.
	You're right.
	Thank you.
	But just wait for the defense to say, yeah, I didn't have those documents.
	It was my law firm, Campbell, Wade, and Bradley.
	Because apparently it was the law firm paying for some of the trips, paying for some of the expenses.
	Yeah, you asked if I had them.
	Prediction.
	I didn't have them.
	The company had them.
	So I didn't lie.
	All right.
	If you take a look at what I marked as two, three, and four.
	I should have peed.
	Don't get too close to him, merchant.
	We know his propensities.
	Bada bing, bada boom.
	Okay.
	I do.
	That's your divorce complaint.
	And then your 2021 interrogatory and your 2023 interrogatory, correct?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Okay, are they a fair and accurate representation of what is filed in that case?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	This is intense.
	And this is 2, 3, and 4?
	It's 2, 3, and 4, yes.
	All right, any objection from the state?
	The divorce?
	They're not going to object.
	I have no objection to 3 and 4 and subject to Ms. Merchant's representation that 2 is a filing of divorce.
	I just don't have the divorce complaint.
	I don't have that in front of me, but subject to that representation, no objection.
	All right.
	And by show of hands, any objection from other defense counsel?
	Seeing none.
	Dependents 2, 3, and 4. This should be Romans.
	Global just saw them.
	2, 3, and 4. Admitted without objection.
	So that interrogatory that you filed in 2023, that's the one where you said no, that you didn't have any documents relating to the purchase of gifts, that you had a romantic relationship with someone, right?
	Which interrogatory are you talking about?
	Number four, 2023.
	Which number in the interrogatory?
	Number four.
	So which number interrogatory are you referring to?
	It's defendant's exhibit number four.
	I have defendants exhibit four here.
	Which number in the laboratory are we referring to?
	Oh, which number out of the questions?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	It is number 24, 25, 26. All of us.
	Gross.
	He's in...
	Oh, this is going to be good.
	I hate the word interrogatory.
	Can you imagine what's going through his mind right now?
	A, my gravy train is over.
	The jig is up.
	No more cruises.
	No more lucrative contracts without transparency.
	Oh, goodness.
	By the way, and me and Fanny aren't staying together much longer.
	Oh, I get it.
	Nathan's hot dog.
	Okay.
	Just so long as we don't have a...
	I guess they're all numbered one, so...
	A Nathan's hot dog eating competition.
	Number one, number one again.
	And then the third number one.
	While we wait here.
	Kenzie 67. I don't know how to tell you what number one, because when you responded, you put number one on all of them.
	Can you just point to it?
	It was at that moment that Nathan Wade realized he messed up.
	Okay.
	Alright.
	They're asking if you have any receipts for restaurants, hotels, bars, things like that.
	I thought you said gifts, Nathan.
	The first number one?
	I believe it's the second number one.
	The second number one?
	Restaurants?
	Meals?
	Okay.
	Okay.
	So it asks you if you have any receipts for things like restaurants, bars, hotels, things like that, where you accompanied a member of the other sex romantic partner.
	Mm-hmm.
	Correct?
	Mm-hmm.
	I think I can see his pulse in the vein in his head.
	It says, identify any and all occasions.
	Okay.
	And so...
	Oh, God.
	He's really going to get in trouble now.
	It says to identify any and all occasions where you entertained a member of the other sex.
	And to provide.
	Who's not related to blood.
	And to provide.
	And including dining, drinking, restaurants, bars, pubs, hotels, all of that.
	And what was your answer to that?
	She's getting really close to the witness.
	I mean, I...
	What was your answer?
	Read it out loud.
	Please.
	And I bet they asked for receipts.
	None.
	None.
	Okay.
	So May 30th, 2023.
	You prepared this document.
	I did.
	Submitted it.
	I did.
	And it says none as far as...
	Entertaining a member of the opposite sex?
	It does.
	Okay.
	No hotels, no bars, no restaurants?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	You again updated that.
	Let's see.
	You updated it on December 22, 2023?
	And I'm going to mark that as defendants number five, and I have copies.
	Is that correct?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Okay.
	And then you updated it once again on January 26, 2024, correct?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Okay.
	That one.
	May I approach the witness again, Judge?
	Is that what you're marking as defense exhibit six?
	Yes, Judge, I'm marking number six as the January 26th, 2024 interrogatory.
	And then one...
	No, no, the problem is it's not even that he's proving that he's stupid.
	And then number five is the December 22nd, 2023 interrogatory response.
	All right, are you tendering those at this time?
	Yes, I am.
	Any objection from any counsel to defense exhibit five and six?
	It's not that he's proving that he's stupid.
	It's proven that he lied under oath because they have the receipts for restaurants, hotels, all that other stuff.
	So now that you have those, let's just talk about those for a minute.
	Those were verified, so sworn under oath.
	Okay.
	And one of them was December 22nd of this last year, so last December.
	And then one was just recently submitted in January, right?
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Um.
	Thank you.
	In May, May 20, let's see, May 10, 2023, Judge Thompson heard a motion to compel in your divorce case as well, correct?
	Yes.
	And you were actually held in willful contempt.
	I'm going to object to the relevance.
	Oh, no.
	His credibility is relevant, Judge, and if he was held in willful contempt for providing answers and documents, I think that's relevant to this court.
	Yeah, I think you're right.
	How is that a prior false act or crime of conviction or anything else allowed for impeachment under the rules of evidence?
	I'm not offering it as a prior bad act or something like that.
	I'm offering it towards his credibility judge, which you get to determine.
	If he's made misrepresentations in these pleadings, you're here to determine whether or not he's telling the truth or not.
	So if another court has held him in contempt and that's part of the divorce proceeding, I think it's relevant.
	But just contempt generally can be for many different things.
	A failure to produce is not necessarily a false act, right?
	Right, and he's welcome to explain that.
	He may not have to.
	Ms. Cross.
	I object to the relevance of that.
	That's clearly not a proper impeachment.
	We're going pretty far afield into divorce matters that don't have any direct relevance to anything that's pending before the court.
	I object to the relevance of that.
	All right.
	I'm not seeing that being a proper grounds for impeachment.
	It's sustained.
	Let's talk about this December 22, 2023 verification.
	I tabbed it for you.
	Again, they asked you if you had any documentations showing proof of this relationship, proof of any relationship, correct?
	I'm going to object to the phrasing of that question.
	I don't believe that's an accurate read of the interrogatory.
	Let's be precise, Ms. Merchant.
	Please read it.
	I want to make sure I'm accurate.
	Please read it.
	Which number?
	This one actually has a number.
	I tabbed it for you, so you should be able to open right to the page.
	It's number 22. The question specifically is if you have any tangible evidence of any nature in your possession or control or any other person or entity which relates to any manner of your activities to any person with whom you've had a sexual relationship during your marriage.
	Tangible evidence is notes, cards, letters, photos, films, recordings, documents, tapes, video recordings, receipts, invoices, and other tangible evidence.
	Okay.
	Yes?
	And you answered that you did not have any documents to that effect, correct?
	Correct.
	Correct.
	And that was on December 22nd, 2023?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	You updated those responses again after the motion to disqualify was filed, though, correct?
	When was the motion filed?
	January 8, 2024, when I filed the motion to disqualify you and allege that you had a romantic relationship with Ms. Willis.
	Which you denied, by the way.
	After that, you updated these responses, correct?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	And so your new responses, you now changed your answer from that you didn't have any of this to you're asserting the privilege under 24-5-505, correct?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Okay.
	And both of these are under oath?
	Yes, ma'am.
	You also updated your response to the question about spending time with someone other than your spouse for dinner, drinks, things at restaurants, bars, hotels, or the other person's home, correct?
	Yes, ma'am.
	So in December of 2023, you said no to all that, and then in January, after I filed my motion, you said privilege to all that, Fifth Amendment privilege?
	Yes, ma'am.
	And just to be clear, was it...
	I'm sorry.
	I'm going to object the characterization of Fifth Amendment privilege.
	I think it was a statutory privilege, and that's quite different.
	That's what I was just about to ask him.
	So that privilege covers infamy or Fifth Amendment privilege, correct?
	So it was a privacy privilege is what I've updated my response to do.
	Once you filed your motion to intervene in my divorce action, I then figured that you were in talks with my...
	I'm a former wife's divorce lawyer.
	Okay.
	And because of that, I asserted a privacy privilege because I didn't want the proceedings of my divorce to bleed over into the proceedings in this case, which is the case that obviously you're involved in.
	So your answer is in December of 2023.
	Or accurate.
	That you didn't have any documents about any travel that you took at this will.
	Those are still accurate.
	That wasn't true, though, correct?
	They didn't ask me about any documents.
	Regarding Ms. Willis?
	No, they asked about any woman.
	They asked you for documents regarding a romantic partner.
	So I'm sorry, I inserted Ms. Willis' name.
	Let me rephrase the question.
	They asked you for documents about travel with a romantic partner in December 2023.
	And you said you had none.
	And you under oath said you did not have any of those, correct?
	Correct.
	I did not.
	Okay.
	And they asked me about gifts.
	Right.
	Purchased a gift for Ms. Woods.
	And they asked you about receipts for dinner, receipts for drinks, hotels, bars, and restaurants.
	And you said you did not have any of those.
	I did not and do not have any receipts for any of those things.
	Okay.
	And part of the civil discovery, they say that even if you don't have it in your pocket, if it's within your purvy, you've got to get it.
	He's going to do what I just said he's going to do.
	I'm going to object again to the relevance of the questions about the scope of civil discovery.
	I think she's asked him about statements he made in pleadings.
	The answer is...
	No, the thing is, this fanny didn't pay for all of it.
	All right, to the extent you're trying to establish a prior mistruth, Miss Merchant, I'll allow you to ask a few more follow-ups, but if it's not there, we have to move on.
	Thank you.
	So in 2023, December, you said you didn't have any receipts.
	I did not have any receipts.
	I did not have any receipts.
	Who had them?
	But you did travel with Miss Willis in 2023.
	Correct, I did.
	I did.
	And you traveled with her in 2022, correct?
	And you ate dinner with her.
	I did.
	And you traveled with her in 2021, correct?
	No.
	So you only traveled with her in 2022 and 2023?
	2022 and 2023 is what I recall.
	That's what you recall?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So you just don't remember if you traveled with her in 2021?
	2022 and 2023.
	Is what I recall.
	Is what you recall.
	My question is, did you travel with her in 2021?
	I don't recall.
	I'm not recalling any travel in 2021.
	So it's not yes or no, you just don't remember?
	Yeah, I don't want to impeach myself again.
	I'm not recalling any travel in 2021.
	So you did not travel with her in 2021?
	Your Honor.
	This has been covered.
	Let's keep going.
	Thank you.
	I got out of that one good.
	Let's see.
	You filed an affidavit in this case, correct?
	I did.
	Okay, and I marked that already.
	I gave it to the state as number one.
	Is that number one?
	May I approach the judge?
	May I. Thank you.
	In that affidavit, you swore under oath, correct?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	And in that affidavit, you swore that...
	Well, first of all, do you recognize the affidavit?
	Yes, I do.
	I do.
	My affidavit.
	Did you sign the affidavit under oath?
	Yes, I did.
	I did.
	And you gave this affidavit specifically to refute the allegations that I had raised?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Nobody forced you to sign this?
	No, ma 'am.
	You chose to sign it?
	I did.
	And you signed it on purpose to admit into court to refute allegations?
	I did.
	You signed it specifically to prove that you were not in a relationship with Willis prior to November 2021, correct?
	Correct.
	And you were a lawyer when you signed it?
	Yes, I was.
	And you're still a lawyer today, correct?
	Yes, I am.
	When were you barred?
	2007.
	Oh, wow.
	And you believe that your relationship with Ms. Willis is subject to attorney-client privilege, correct?
	I'm going to object to that, Your Honor.
	I don't think that's actually correct.
	I don't think that's a relevant question, and I don't think it's appropriate to question this witness about the scope of his attorney-client privilege.
	He's got an attorney who can speak for him for that, but questioning the witness...
	Well, they wouldn't let him ask?
	No.
	All right, so a lot to unpack there.
	The question is simply that does he believe there's a relationship that exists in terms of attorney-client privilege between him and Ms. Willis?
	Is that accurate, Ms. Horsion?
	It was.
	I asked if he believed his relationship with Ms. Willis is subject to attorney-client privilege.
	Okay, I don't see why yes or no would be barred.
	Maybe I'm not understanding the question.
	If the question is, does Mr. Wade and District Attorney Willis have an attorney-client relationship?
	It is not.
	There's no foundation for that.
	If the question to the witness is, does his relationship with District Attorney Willis impact his attorney-client relationship with his divorce attorneys?
	That, I don't think, is an appropriate question for that witness.
	The first, I believe, is a proper phrasing.
	The second, I think there's been a representation that Mr. Wade preserves and doesn't waive anything, and so I think asking him particular questions in order to potentially backdoor a waiver is inappropriate, and that's my question.
	All right.
	If we're just trying to, again, assess where a privilege does or does not exist, and we're not actually getting into it, I think we can establish those, you know, parameters.
	But, Ms. Merchant, can you rephrase the question based on that concern and we'll see where we are?
	Yes.
	Do you believe, you, that your relationship with Ms. Willis is subject to an attorney-client privilege?
	Not if you and Ms. Willis have one, but do you believe that that relationship is subject to...
	I object.
	He's not there to testify in belief.
	Conversation with his attorneys is privileged.
	That, I think, is clear.
	What's not clear to me from that question is, is Ms. Merchant asking, in the context of your communication with your attorneys, is that?
	Or outside that context, is it?
	Right.
	And Ms. Merchant, I think we need to figure out what are we getting at with this.
	I'm just trying to figure out if he thought that their relationship is subject to an attorney- The judge is going to nod.
	I mean, it's been asserted.
	I think it's going to be asserted.
	That was all I was asking.
	I mean, the actions themselves wouldn't be an issue.
	It's more communications.
	If someone saw them, someone had knowledge of it, is that attorney-client privilege?
	I guess I would find a legal opinion on this.
	Yeah, irrelevant.
	Is it relevant?
	We can deal with that as it comes up.
	So, sustained.
	In 2022, in this affidavit, you swore that you and Willis developed a personal relationship.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	And you said that that didn't develop until 2022, correct?
	That's correct.
	And that's different from what you said in your pleading in May 2023 in the divorce case, correct?
	No, ma 'am.
	In May 2023 when you were asked if you had any affairs, essentially.
	And you said none.
	That's correct.
	It wasn't an affair.
	In May 2023 in the divorce case, you said you had not had a personal relationship, an affair, a romantic relationship with anyone.
	That's correct.
	But you told this court in the affidavit that you did have one that started in 2020.
	Let's see how he's going to get out of this.
	So that would have been ongoing at 2023.
	So...
	He's got an answer.
	Here I think there's a distinction.
	Ah, yes.
	If you'd allow me to explain.
	Please, please, go ahead.
	The interrogatory asks the question, during the course of your marriage...
	Or to date.
	It actually says, I'm going to request that the witness be committed to answer.
	Mr. Wade.
	So...
	My marriage was irretrievably broken in 2015, ma 'am, by agreement.
	My wife and I agree that once she had the affair in 2015, we'd get a divorce.
	We didn't get a divorce immediately because my children were still in school and I refused to allow them to grow up without their father at the time.
	So we waited.
	We waited until...
	The youngest graduated, and we dropped her off at college and...
	Got divorced.
	Didn't file for the divorce.
	So, if you're asking me about the interrogatory as it relates to having the 2022 relationship with District Attorney Willis, I want to say, because my marriage was irretruthably broken, I was free to have a relationship.
	The question was if you had had a relationship.
	Wow, what an absolute scumbag.
	And in 2023, you said you did not.
	And that is different than what you said in this affidavit, correct?
	No, ma 'am.
	I said during the course of my marriage.
	So in 2015, my marriage was irretrievably broken.
	So I did not have a relationship.
	So anything as of 2015, he could have answered that answer.
	During the course of my marriage.
	And in that interrogatory, they asked you if you had any receipts for travel with someone of the other sex up until the time you were answering it.
	Is that correct?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	And you said you didn't.
	You've already testified to that earlier.
	But in this affidavit, you said you swore that you had travel expenses and shared expenses on travel with Ms. Willis.
	It was business.
	It wasn't personal.
	During the course of my marriage.
	Which ended in 2015.
	I had no relationship or receipts.
	I'm not asking about during the course of your marriage.
	John, I'm going to ask the witness.
	Continue.
	I have no problem with him answering.
	Okay.
	As it relates to receipts today, I don't have any receipts, ma 'am.
	I don't.
	Where are they?
	Where are they?
	So you don't have any travel receipts available to you for any travel that you did with Ms. Willis?
	I don't have any receipts.
	No, ma 'am.
	Who has the receipts?
	So you used your business credit card for these trucks, correct?
	I used my business credit card for everything.
	Okay, yes.
	You used it for your kids' tuition?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Used it for personal travel with Ms. Welles?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	And you have receipts from those business credit cards that you have to file with your taxes, correct?
	No, ma 'am.
	No.
	I filed a statement.
	I turn over the statement and whatever is there on the statement, the accountant looks at it and the accountant says, okay, this is personal.
	It goes over here.
	This is business.
	It goes over here.
	I don't have the receipts.
	So you have those statements.
	We'll call them statements and set of receipts.
	You have those statements, correct?
	I have the statements, yes ma 'am.
	But when you answered the interrogatory under oath, you said you did not have anything to show the records of travel with Ms. Willis.
	I answered the question.
	I had no receipts, ma 'am.
	You had no receipts, but you had statements.
	This is the wordsmith that ordered the statement.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	You did order the statement.
	Okay.
	And so we're just talking to semantics between invoice and statements or receipt.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm going to object, Your Honor, to the argumentative tone of the question.
	I believe it's been asking.
	He's quite adverse.
	He gets to be triggered that way.
	In, let's see.
	You also, in this affidavit, said that no funds paid to you for compensation as your role as special counselor was shared with Willis, correct?
	That's correct.
	And that you never cohabitated with Willis, correct?
	That's correct.
	By cohabitation, does that mean that you never spent the night with Willis?
	I spent the night with her.
	Yeah, but my marriage is over.
	Okay.
	So I just want to qualify your use of the term cohabitation.
	That means you didn't live together.
	Yeah, it means we don't share expenses.
	But you did spend the night together.
	Oh, yeah.
	Yes.
	When was the first time you spent the night together?
	Your Honor.
	No, no, no.
	Date.
	We need a date.
	Right, but it might not be the subject of this hearing.
	So the question is the nature and extent of the relationship.
	And so if they just spent the night on a single occasion, I don't think we're going to...
	Document in detail every single time that happens.
	And I don't intend to do that, Judge, but I think what is relevant is when the relationship started.
	And that's what you had indicated on Monday.
	Why don't we start with that question and go from there?
	And that's what I asked, when the first time he spent the night with her.
	Imagine him thinking, well, I considered my marriage over in 2015, so I didn't lie under oath when I answered that.
	Bullshit.
	Let's not talk about when you spent the night.
	When did your romantic relationship with Ms. Willis begin?
	2022.
	When?
	In 2022.
	Early 2022.
	Yeah, we had to court each other.
	So you were appointed in November of 2021?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	And your relationship started early.
	What's early?
	January?
	February?
	Around March.
	Around March.
	He's a prepared witness.
	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.
	Relationship with whom?
	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 you talked to her?
	Didn't talk to her again, probably...
	Two years.
	Maybe a month or a month and a half had gone by.
	Okay, so you talked to her in November maybe?
	2019.
	Maybe.
	On the phone?
	On the phone.
	Okay.
	How regularly did you speak with her in 2021 on the phone?
	In 2021?
	In 2021?
	I'm sorry, 2019.
	I'm so sorry.
	2019.
	How frequently did you speak with her on the phone?
	2019, after the meeting, I probably talked to her.
	Two or three times.
	She would have questions.
	About what?
	I was the district rep for the particular district that I sat in.
	And the judges, when they would have questions, they sometimes would go to the rep.
	So she was outside of my district, but she would call me.
	She felt comfortable calling me to ask me the questions.
	I don't know if you know the...
	The racial makeup of certain benches but it wasn't very diverse so she felt comfortable calling me for advice and she did that and we had also in common that she was starting a private law practice at the time and I'd already had mine up and going and we talked about balancing the demands of the bench with That
	private practice.
	So we didn't talk that often, but when she had questions of mostly legal issues that would come up, she would call me.
	I just want to make sure, because my question was just how many times?
	And you said two to three times, right?
	Okay.
	And in 2022, how frequently did you speak in 2022?
	Oh, much more.
	This is before you were appointed.
	I'm sorry, perhaps as much as your timeline.
	2022?
	I'm sorry, 2020.
	2020.
	How frequently did you speak in 2020?
	2020, it was more frequent than 19, obviously.
	More frequent.
	Can you tell me approximately a month, how often you think you spoke with her on the phone?
	I'm going to object to the granular detail.
	I think Mr. Wakey can certainly answer it however you want to do that.
	We're going to go through every time this book on the phone as opposed to generally characterizing it.
	She's trying to establish now when they began their relationship.
	I'm not going to go through every time they spoke on the phone.
	I'm asking for generally how frequently they spoke.
	I think at that level that's fine.
	Thank you.
	About how frequently did you speak in 2020?
	Per month.
	I mean, if it was two or three times that entire year, you can tell me that.
	If it was more than that, then you can quantify it by month.
	No, no, no.
	We spoke on the telephone.
	Regularly?
	Often.
	I mean, I don't know how many, I couldn't give you an amount of time, because remember, COVID happened and the world was shut down.
	So we spoke on the phone more than 2019, Devin.
	Okay, let's qualify it.
	Before her election in 2020, how frequently did you speak?
	You mean as she was campaigning?
	Before the election.
	Before, yes, as she was campaigning, before she was elected.
	It's two different animals.
	As she was campaigning before she was elected.
	Okay, so during the course of her campaign, we didn't talk as much, obviously because she was busy.
	Fulton County is a large jurisdiction to cover, but we didn't talk a whole lot, but she did know.
	That I'd gone through the election process, so when things would come up, if she had questions about it, she would call me and ask me.
	And just to be fair, I only knew it.
	Judge, actually, he's not asked and answered.
	And, I mean, I don't mind him explaining, but I just wanted to know how many times.
	I mean, if we talk about every conversation they talked about, I...
	You've got to let him finish his sentence and then if you need to redirect him or have me direct him, I can.
	Mr. Wade, you can continue.
	So sometimes it would be like a three-second call.
	She would go, have you, during your election, have you ever seen this?
	And I would say, yes, no, maybe so.
	No, but here's what I would do.
	And we'd hang up.
	She had a lot of professionals working for her, but she trusted my judgment, so she called me.
	Oh, she trusted your judgment, all right.
	It would be a brief conversation, but she called.
	So my question was, how frequently did you speak with her prior to her election?
	Frequently?
	I can only remember what she'd call me for, but I can't.
	More than 2019.
	And less than 2021.
	It wasn't an everyday thing, no.
	In 2021, before you were appointed in November.
	So January to November 2021.
	Only time I'm talking about.
	Right before he got the contract.
	How frequently did you speak with Ms. Willis on the phone?
	In 2021.
	A lot.
	Then it became frequent.
	Then it became a love affair.
	But you did not work at the DA's office at that point, correct?
	I did not.
	So the affidavit that you submitted, you showed on it, you submitted one record that showed that Ms. Willis had paid a couple hundred dollars for one flight, correct?
	Say again?
	The affidavit that you submitted to this court showed that Ms. Willis had paid for one flight.
	Several hundred dollars.
	Is that correct?
	No, ma 'am.
	I think that...
	Are you drawing a distinction for her paying for a flight or for her actually booking a flight?
	Those are two separate things.
	I will re-ask it.
	The affidavit you filed on this court, you alleged that Ms. Willis paid For one flight.
	Paid for one flight, correct?
	No, ma 'am.
	You did not allege she paid for one flight?
	No, ma 'am.
	What I allege is that our travel was split roughly evenly.
	So where you see I have booked the flight or I've paid for a flight with my credit card, what you don't see is that she covered her own flight with reimbursement to me.
	The flights that you see here are the flights that she would have booked with her own resources, with her own car.
	And there's one flight, correct?
	One flight reflecting that she actually booked, Ms. Merchant.
	Let him finish and then you can redirect him.
	One flight that she actually booked, yes.
	The other flights I booked, she paid for.
	How'd she pay for that?
	The affidavit.
	You submitted one flight that she booked and paid for.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	I'm going to object to the phrasing of that question.
	The line in the affidavit is not as Mrs. Merchant is representing it.
	It said examples of the District Attorney Willis purchasing plane tickets for she and I with her personal funds were attached to some exhibit.
	It certainly did not represent that it was the only example of the District Attorney purchasing flights for...
	Didn't he just say that, though?
	These speaking objections, they're really trying to manipulate the witness.
	It's now on the record, but also something you can take on for us.
	Thank you.
	And just so everybody is clear, all I ask you is your affidavit.
	You submitted proof of one flight that she paid for in order.
	That's all I'm asking.
	Correct?
	With the explanation, yes ma 'am.
	It's all I need.
	You said in the affidavit that you roughly shared travel, correct?
	Yes, ma'am.
	Okay.
	So this roughly sharing travel, you're saying she reimbursed you?
	She did.
	And where did you deposit the money she reimbursed you?
	Oh my goodness!
	Oh, what just happened there?
	Oh, he scoffed.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	He scoffed.
	And you purchased all of these vacations on your business credit card, correct?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	And you included those in deductions on your taxes, correct?
	He paid him cash.
	No.
	My ass.
	No, ma 'am.
	So she should have the cash withdrawals.
	She'll have the cash withdrawals from her bank accounts.
	Can you imagine that?
	Just a minute, then.
	Let's see.
	Thousands of dollars in reimbursement of expenses.
	Cash, not a check.
	So the only thing that you have...
	Actual documentary proof, not cash, is this one receipt that you're talking about, David?
	Is that correct?
	I object to that question.
	That is a mischaracterization of the...
	Oh, sit down, be quiet, Cross.
	...then he can deny it.
	I think he can bend for himself.
	Yeah, and stop testifying for him, Cross.
	Is this the only written proof that you have of a trip she paid for?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, other than cash?
	Yeah.
	So you submitted the one piece of written evidence that you have...
	That she paid for something.
	Did you declare the cash, Nathan?
	He expenses it and then takes the cash personally.
	Please tell me, what other receipts do you have to show that she paid for things?
	I don't have them.
	So, this is the only receipt that you have to show that she paid for travel.
	So, he would business expense the travel and then he would take cash as reimbursements.
	IRS, are you watching?
	The first one you filed was in January 2022.
	right oh my goodness this is this is the moment people and those are under oath yes and um holy you also filed corporate taxes in 2022 correct yeah okay and um tell me about your your business are you do you have a partnership or are you a solo practitioner always in cash never in writing says sushi hunter today on rumble so today um I have a separate
	PC.
	My law partner has his own separate PC.
	But we're under the same umbrella, under the same loop.
	So we share expenses.
	That's called a nominal partnership, by the way, in most places.
	Are you a partnership?
	A nominal partnership.
	We are a partnership in the sense of we share expenses, we share income.
	Are you registered with the state of Georgia as a partnership?
	No, nominal partnerships don't have to be registered, at least in Quebec.
	The WBC firm that included myself, Terence Bradley, and Christopher Campbell, we were registered with the Secretary of State as a partnership for a short period of time.
	When...
	It was dissolved, right, in 2023?
	I'm gonna object to the witness to answer this question.
	Mr. Wade, did you have something else to add there?
	I did.
	When...
	Things happen, and we excused Mr. Bradley from that partnership.
	Excuse Mr. Bradley from the partnership.
	Christopher Campbell and myself.
	So now you have two separate PCs under the same umbrella.
	You got PCs and something else.
	Sharing expenses.
	Private company?
	What is that?
	Okay.
	So let me just narrow down my questions then.
	Cash, people!
	Could you reimburse me in cash?
	And have you been registered at any time in the state of Georgia as Wade and Campbell?
	Wade, no ma 'am.
	You've never been registered as a partnership?
	As Wade and Campbell, no ma 'am.
	Wade and Campbell, yes, thank you.
	But as Wade Bradley Campbell...
	Yes, until we excuse Campbell.
	Wade Bradley Campbell was registered on April 1st, 2021 and administratively dissolved on September 8th, 2023, correct?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Other than that partnership, you have always been registered as law office of Nathan Wade?
	Yes ma 'am.
	Not with Chris Campbell?
	Correct.
	Thank you.
	So the affidavit that you filed in your divorce case, the first one in 2022.
	I think I'm up to number seven.
	I'm going to just show you, give you a group of exhibits.
	We don't have to go back and forth.
	I'm marking the 2022 as 7. I'm marking the 2024 as 8. I'm marking the credit card statements as 9. And your taxes as 10. I object to taxes, the relevance of them at this point.
	The relevance of this entire business structure doesn't seem clear to me.
	Writing off expenses and then taking cash as repayment personally without declaring that as revenue.
	Insofar as we're talking about tax returns and other things like that, certainly that should be redacted, and I would object to the relevance of it.
	I agree they should be redacted.
	I don't agree to the relevance, but I haven't tried to tender them yet, Judge.
	I'm just marking them right now so that everyone can follow.
	All right.
	And what is the eventual relevance that you're getting at here?
	Well, I'm going to ask him because one of the things that we have to show in this case is a personal and financial interest.
	And he's talked about how he was reimbursed for these things.
	And so I have a right to go into the graph and give those statements.
	All right.
	So let's see.
	Seven, eight, sorry.
	nine and then ten.
	Alright, so right now I'm just going to show you what I've marked as these exhibits.
	Can I see what you're showing us?
	Oh yeah, of course.
	They're all coming to home.
	They'll just be driving here.
	So I think unless I misunderstood what happened where the judge admonished that guy, I think someone scoffed at the cash answer.
	And the judge said, you do that again, I'm going to kick you out of here.
	Viva, how as a Canadian are you able to live in the U.S. for more than six months at a time?
	I got a visa.
	Poo Poon age productions.
	Can I approach touch?
	Poonage.
	I'm just telling you what I marked as 7, 8, 9, and 10. Proper scoff.
	Damn right.
	All right.
	So, um...
	No, dude, I had to go through a very costly visa process.
	I'm first going to ask you about the domestic relations financial affidavit.
	These are sworn.
	They're filed under oath, correct?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	And the most recent one that you filed was filed on January 26, 2024?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	So a few weeks ago.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	And in that one, you said that you made $9,500 each month, correct?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Not bad at all.
	You said that in 2022, well, in 2022, in this case alone, isn't it true you were paid $303,000?
	Over $303,000.
	I was paid?
	Yes.
	No, my firm was.
	Fulton County.
	By Fulton County.
	My firm.
	I see where you're going.
	He's got the answer here.
	And, Judge, I just asked him to answer the question.
	If he wants to explain it, I've got no problem with that.
	Mr. Wade, just listen to the question asked and just answer the question asked.
	In 2022, isn't it true you were paid over $300,000?
	No, ma 'am, that is not true.
	You were not paid over $300,000 by Fulton County.
	No, ma 'am, I was not.
	How much were you paid in 2022, then?
	I was paid nothing.
	So, what I was beginning to explain was...
	I get a salary for my company.
	Fulton County wrote...
	A check to my firm.
	There you go.
	What happens at that point is the checks are then deposited.
	As you have the bank statements, you see that.
	Smug snake.
	And then they are dispersed between the three of us.
	So there was Mr. Bradley, there was Mr. Wade, and there was Christopher Campbell.
	His answer is that the firm gets it.
	A third, a third.
	So when you ask me if I was paid, $300,000.
	The answer is no.
	I got a third of that that went to my personal firm.
	Now, once the money was distributed to my personal firm, obviously the expenses come out of that.
	And I get, at the end of the day, whatever the profit is.
	So I did not get $300,000.
	No, ma 'am.
	And let me just clarify.
	My question was not, did you put in your pocket $300,000?
	I know, but that's how a liar will misinterpret it.
	The law firm of Nathan Wade paid over $300,000 in the year 2022.
	Again, a third of that came to the law firm of Nathan Wade.
	So you're saying that the law firm of Nathan Wade did not receive checks from the Fulton County government over $300,000 in the year 2020?
	Who would receive the check, actually?
	He has to receive the check.
	That's a different question.
	A third of the $300,000 came to Nathan Wade.
	So he gets the check.
	He gets $300,000 from his sugar money.
	Again, not asking what went in your pocket.
	That's right.
	Who got the check?
	Who was the check made out to?
	Was the law firm of Nathan Wade paid over $300,000 in 2020?
	Well, we received the money.
	We received it, but then we have to divvy it up.
	Who was the check made out to?
	Just ask that question.
	That's fine.
	I can move on, Judge.
	Thank you.
	Who was the check made out to?
	So you said that they were dispersed amongst all of you, or put into an account with all of you.
	So it's your testimony that for 2022, every check you received from Fulton County government went into an operating account with you, Bradley, and Campbell.
	No, no, no, no.
	That's not what I testified to.
	So the Wade, Bradley, and Campbell firm...
	We established an account when we decided to purchase a building in 2022.
	At that point, every piece of income that came into the entity went into that account.
	And then after expenses were paid, it was split a third, a third, a third, right?
	Once that was dissolved, then the funds would go into a different account.
	My account, one of my accounts.
	And then I would disperse the funds between now, Attorney Campbell and myself, one half and one half.
	Who was the check made out to?
	Let me be more direct then.
	So the Synovus operating account that you had for Wade, Bradley and Campbell.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	The checks from Fulton County.
	From January of 2022 until June 17, 2022.
	What name?
	Those checks were deposited in that operating account.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Starting on July 15, 2022, the checks you received from Fulton County up until May 26, 2022, all went into an escrow account that you had at Fifth Third Bank, correct?
	No, not all of them.
	Not all of them?
	Some of them, yes.
	Why would it go into escrow?
	So it's your testimony that some of your checks from July 15, 2022 up until May 26, 2023, some of them went into an account outside of Fifth Third Bank?
	Your Honor, I'm going to check to the relevance of the financial transactions.
	How much money he made is highly relevant in this case.
	We're made, but you're saying made.
	How much checks was written to him?
	That's not English, but you don't say.
	I mean, it's just a follow-up on other things that he's testified to.
	And why is how much money he made relevant?
	Well, the financial benefit aspect.
	Because he represented in a...
	It's very relevant.
	He filed an affidavit with the court saying, with another court, he told another judge that he made $9,500 a month.
	That's what he swore to.
	So this entire inquiry is just to try and establish that.
	Prior and consistent statement?
	Yes.
	All right.
	I'll give you a minute or two more to try that, but we're going to have to move on.
	Thank you.
	So, I know you're saying that you only got a third of the $300,000, but the firm was paid over $300,000 in 2022, correct?
	Ms. Merchant, it's not what I'm saying.
	They're numbers.
	They're there.
	It's the truth.
	The funds were paid.
	They were divvied between the three of us.
	Going into an operating account.
	We pay the expenses out of it and take cash for reimbursement.
	At the end of that, the 9,000 figure is what you have.
	So that's where you got the 9,000 figure.
	That's interesting.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	He netted 10 grand after taking cash reimbursements for trips and stuff.
	Don't forget that part.
	I think everybody really has to understand.
	I hope that's clear.
	He's expensing through the company, so deducting the expenses, getting the tax benefit there, enjoying the personal expense, and then collecting cash reimbursement from Fannie even by his own testimony.
	Prior to being filed for divorce in November 2021, you would use Mr. Bradley's credit card to pay for things with Miss Willis, correct?
	And then pay him back in cash.
	I've never used Mr. Bradley's credit card.
	You've never used his credit card?
	Never.
	For?
	Transactions to...
	Mr. Bradley's or the Bradley firm?
	Out to dinner, anything like that.
	Hotels?
	I've never used Mr. Bradley's credit card.
	I've never used anyone else's credit card.
	Not even my father's, and we have the same name.
	And you'd pay back if you ever did use someone's credit card, you'd pay back in cash, though, correct?
	Ma 'am, I've never used someone else's credit card.
	That's not what she...
	Oh, he's going to be semantics again.
	Did the company pay for expenses?
	Did Bradley's firm pay for expenses?
	By the way, we're over 10,000 live on Rumble.
	Booyah!
	How many we got in locals?
	243.
	All right, let's see what the next question is, and maybe then the objection is going to be either off.
	She needs to be really specific and repeat the same question over until he answers it.
	It says Piran54.
	No, the question about the check is the big mistake.
	Like, who is the check made out to?
	Period.
	Is that an accurate copy of your Capital One statements that you provided in Discovery?
	What's in your wallet?
	Is that an accurate reflection of your Capital One?
	Dude, it's my statement.
	That I provided in Discovery to whom?
	To your divorce lawyers, or that you provided in the divorce proceeding.
	Is the question, does he recognize it by sight?
	I'm asking if it's his statement.
	I think that is the question.
	Well, I mean, it's a thick document, but I believe you if you say that this is what my wife's divorce lawyer gave you, I believe it.
	Your name's on every page of that document, correct?
	On every page?
	Pretty much every page.
	It's not every page.
	No, it's not on every page, no matter.
	They're all Capital One bank records.
	Show them.
	Okay?
	Okay.
	Just take your time.
	Look through it.
	Tell me if there's anything that you think is not yours.
	No, no.
	There appear to be.
	Okay.
	And those bank records show that you paid for travel with Ms. Willis.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	I'm going to object the relevance of these documents and the...
	Well, I think, are you tendering Exhibit 9?
	I'm going to, Judge, and they're highly relevant.
	Well, you've asked them a question about the contents of them, and they haven't been admitted yet, so why don't we start there?
	Thanks.
	Those show travel that you and Ms. Willis took.
	Well, so you're asking about the contents of something that hasn't been admitted yet, right?
	Well, I'm asking them if that's what it shows, because I know that they're going to object on relevance.
	Well, first we've got to see if you've authenticated it, perhaps.
	And before we get into other details of what's in it, I think it needs to be admitted.
	I've moved to admit him.
	All right.
	Object on relevance.
	On relevance.
	All right.
	He's going to let this in.
	This is directly relevant to contradict the witness.
	Those records demonstrate that you paid for travel with yourself and Miss Willis, correct?
	Yes.
	And she paid me back in cash.
	They should.
	Okay.
	They should.
	And let's just talk about that travel.
	Okay.
	Were you having sex when you did that?
	The first trip is Belize in March 2023.
	Is that a trip that you took with Miss Willis?
	Oh, Belize.
	That's what we made love under this.
	Did you take a trip with Ms. Willis in 2023 to Belize?
	I did.
	Did you have sexy time with her at that same time?
	Pay for those trips on that credit card?
	Yes, I did.
	I think.
	I used the credit card to book the travel.
	And then she paid me back cash.
	She paid you back cash.
	Well, let me say this.
	Let's take the Belize trip, for example, since you started there.
	That was a birthday gift.
	To me, so I paid nothing for that trip.
	Zero.
	Okay.
	So the charges that are on your card, she gave you cash for?
	She did.
	Okay.
	So all of the charges...
	Excuse me, the witness has finished answering the question.
	Oh, did you have more?
	I did.
	Okay.
	Please, please explain.
	I wanted to get into the charges on the card because so traveling with her is...
	Is a task.
	You can probably imagine the attention that happens.
	I doubt that.
	I highly doubt that.
	Fannie Willis is like, everyone's asking for autographs.
	She would limit her transactions.
	I mean...
	Oh my God, he's going to say that he had to book it for safety.
	...an airport or sit at a restaurant or do anything.
	So there was no attempt to...
	What's he talking about right now?
	That's not what I asked.
	What are you talking about?
	What question are you answering?
	She paid you back cash.
	Those are things she purchased to go with Miss Willis to Belize.
	Those are things that we booked with my card that she paid.
	Yes.
	Paid cash.
	After you expensed it.
	And you're saying that she paid you cash to reimburse you for all of that.
	Yes.
	She did.
	And she paid you cash for both of your...
	How much was it?
	Portions or just hers?
	Both.
	Okay, so that trip, Belize, just Belize.
	She paid you for everything on Belize.
	The entire trip.
	It was a gift.
	So the food, tattoo parlor, all that stuff, she paid for.
	Tattoo parlor?
	I'm good.
	Is there anything to hear the question?
	There was no tattoo parlor in Belize.
	The charges, there's a...
	There's a tattoo parlor on the charges.
	I'm not getting into what it was for.
	I'm just asking if everything that's on that card related to Belize, she paid you back for.
	The noise is not my end, by the way, people.
	Let's talk about California.
	California!
	You all went to California together.
	Yes.
	And you booked plane tickets.
	Yes.
	And her name was on those plane tickets.
	They were.
	And so, I know you said that you were worried about security and things like that, but that wasn't her name.
	When she traveled, she had to use her name.
	Oh, so the plane tickets?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Okay.
	And you paid for those plane tickets and you paid for a hotel.
	And she paid you back cash?
	Again, the card, yes.
	You used your credit card to book the hotel, the plane.
	I'm not asking about after what happened.
	I'm asking, did you use your credit card to book your flight hotel to California?
	I did.
	And there's a lot of Ubers on there as well for California.
	Did you pay for those Ubers as well?
	Yes.
	We were in Napa.
	Did she pay you back?
	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?
	Mm-hmm.
	She paid for the excursions.
	So the expenses sort of balanced out.
	I mean, there was never a time when...
	Give some cash.
	I would say...
	Keep it under the bed.
	Hey, I bought dinner.
	Dinner costs $25.
	No, it didn't.
	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.
	So she's going to insist that she carries her own weight.
	And it actually was a point of contention between the two of us.
	She is going to pay her own way.
	And I'm going to take it.
	Please.
	A California trip that you paid for, saying that she did not pay you back for cash.
	Instead, she paid for excursions, and you believe that was roughly half.
	She gave me some cash, yes.
	But what I'm saying is, everything that we did when we got into Napa...
	Such a sneaky little bastard.
	The trip that she booked on her credit card in Miami...
	Did you pay her cash back for your half of that?
	No.
	Why would I have done that?
	So you never paid her back for the ticket she bought for you?
	She's my sugar mommy.
	I did pay her back because there were times when I would pay for dinner.
	She would pay for dinner.
	It would balance out.
	But in a relationship, ma 'am, you don't, particularly men, we don't go asking back for...
	So you're not keeping a ledger of things that you pay for versus the thing that she's paying for.
	Especially not when it's in a slush of taxpayer dollars.
	It was a point of contention because she was very emphatic and adamant about this independent, strong woman thing.
	So she commanded that she pay her own way.
	But she's the district attorney of Fulton County and she has to file financial disclosures, disclosing any gifts with anybody that she does business with in Fulton County, correct?
	I don't know what she is.
	Okay.
	Let's talk about Tennessee.
	You booked a cabin in August 2023.
	I hear it's beautiful that time of year.
	And paid for a cabin in Tennessee.
	That's when you paid for it.
	I don't know when the trip was.
	Can you tell us about that?
	Were the mosquitoes bad?
	August of 2023?
	Mm-hmm.
	You booked a trip for $1,481.54.
	Did you go to Tennessee with Fannie Willis?
	Are you asking me, did I take that trip with Miss...
	Willis, are you asking me?
	First, I was just asking you to acknowledge that that is correct from the records, that you paid for a cabin in Tennessee.
	Do you recall, and hopefully you can do it from your memory, do you recall paying for a cabin six months ago, $1,400.81 in Tennessee?
	Where are we now?
	I'm just asking from your memory.
	Dude, did you book a trip to Tennessee?
	Did you book a trip to Tennessee?
	You can answer whether he remembers or not.
	Dude, how often do you book trips to Tennessee?
	Mr. Wade, I'm not asking you to go through a thousand pages of records.
	I'm asking if you remember paying for a cabin six months ago in Tennessee.
	No.
	You remember booking a cabin?
	I've booked lots of cabins.
	Oh my god, this guy's a pathological liar.
	Did you go to a cabin with Miss Willis?
	Ever.
	You book lots of cabins?
	Ever.
	Ever.
	It was at that moment he realized he screwed up.
	Dude, take a little longer.
	Take a little longer.
	The wheels are in motion.
	Sir, are you having a stroke right now?
	Mr. Wade, are you okay?
	Do you need medical assistance?
	No.
	Why the hell did it take so long to access that data bank?
	Yes.
	Oh!
	Okay.
	When was that?
	Look at him.
	Oh, you asked the right question, Ms. Merchant.
	That was around 2022.
	Hold on one second.
	Early 2022.
	She's cheating on Fannie.
	Early 2022?
	Define cabin.
	It was a...
	Oh, my goodness.
	A day trip.
	It was, if I can recall correctly.
	Okay, so you didn't spend the night.
	Oh, we spent the night.
	So it was a day trip.
	Did you spend the night?
	We would drive there, have lunch.
	We would drive there?
	What hypothetical is he living in?
	The reason we would do that is because...
	The hunting was very good that time of year.
	Attention.
	She couldn't get any peace of mind going locally, so...
	What a load of crap.
	Well, maybe not at that point, actually, with the Trump thing.
	At a cabin.
	Is that when you went to Fainting Goat with her?
	30-second pause.
	It's in Jasper, Georgia.
	No, that's in Georgia.
	I don't recall going to Fainting Goat with her.
	So the Tennessee day trips were not, were only Tennessee?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Did you ever do these day trips in Georgia?
	Yeah.
	Do we drive anywhere in Georgia?
	Yeah, you were talking about day trips going out.
	And I'm talking about outside of the metro area.
	Day trips that you were just talking about.
	These trips you were talking about.
	The ones that you were...
	I'm only asking about the ones you were just talking about.
	Are all of those in Tennessee?
	She needed her time off.
	No.
	We drove to Alabama before.
	Okay.
	You drove to Alabama?
	Mm-hmm.
	Did you go anywhere in Georgia?
	North Georgia.
	I'm going to object.
	If she wants to direct his attention in some way to a time frame or a location, then I think it might be easier for the witness to accurately answer.
	Ms. Murchin, I think if you don't have the specific details yourself, we need to start getting into specifics or more maybe broadly phrased questions.
	We can't just be exploring around indefinitely.
	Is it fair to say that you've taken so many trips with her you don't even really remember the places you've gone?
	So many trips.
	You're having trouble remembering if you went to North Georgia or not.
	Well, you're asking me about specific places, and I want to be candid in my responses, so I have to jog my memory because these are places that I have frequented, but...
	Not with her.
	With other women.
	Dude's in trouble.
	If there was ever a time that she accompanied me that I was candid in that response.
	Okay.
	Oh, if someone clips that part.
	October 2022.
	The 42nd stare into space.
	Maybe a little faster.
	But did you take a trip with her to Aruba in 2022?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	So that Aruba trip was, so there was a package deal there.
	My mother had recently retired, and I decided to take my mother on a cruise.
	Okay.
	Energy time, people.
	And the second leg, after the cruise concluded, D.A. Willis and I went to Aruba.
	D.A. Willis now.
	Oh, one trip, if you will.
	That my mother paid for.
	So my question was, did you go with DA Willis to Aruba in 2022?
	I did.
	Thank you.
	Did you make sexy time there?
	Did you have fornication relations?
	Using your business credit card, correct?
	Yes.
	I did.
	You got paid back cash for that.
	And you paid for a cruise as well, correct?
	Yes, I did.
	That's the cruise I was referencing with DA Willis, my mother, and myself.
	Okay, because there's two cruises, so let's just talk about the first one.
	The first one was, you took, that's the one with your mother.
	Yes.
	And so you introduced D.A. Willis to your mother.
	That trip, you all took a cruise together, the three of you.
	Yes.
	After the cruise was done, you and D.A. Willis flew to Aruba together, and your mom flew home.
	Yes.
	And you paid for all of this with your credit card, on your business credit card.
	I did.
	And you got paid back cash.
	Are you saying that Ms. Willis paid you cash back for that?
	Oh yes, yes she did, of course.
	This is going to be headline news for those who are paying attention.
	Because the...
	The number that you're looking at reflects the three people on the cruise ship.
	There were things that my mother and I did, just the two of us, that DA Willis didn't do.
	And I'm not attributing that.
	My math is not good, but I did not include anything with your mother on this.
	You wouldn't be able to see it because it's not separated out.
	It just shows a charge on the account when actually it would have been something with my mother and I. Judge May Approach with Exhibits 10 and 11, they're both certified business Dude's going to fill up his bladder if he keeps drinking like that.
	Dude, it's so...
	It's so bad.
	They're just like, hey, here's...
	The question is this.
	Do we believe that Fannie Wade paid him back in cash?
	I don't think we do, but it would make sense that he did because it's a double whammy.
	I get the trip, I expense the trip, and Fannie Wade gives me cash in addition to my contract.
	All right.
	Defense 11 and 12. Ms. Cross?
	Based on Ms. Mertens' representation that they are true and accurate as to the certification that was provided to her, we have no question.
	All right.
	Again, seeing no other objection there admitted.
	Go home to mommy since last.
	So just the trip to Aruba alone for UNDA Willis was $3,835.26, correct?
	For both of them?
	Just Aruba.
	I had a funny joke that I was going to make and now I forgot what it was.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	$3,835.26.
	And then the Royal Caribbean for just you and Miss Willis was $1,269.70.
	That's a good price.
	No, ma 'am.
	Uh-oh.
	Oh, he takes off his glasses.
	You don't understand.
	No, ma 'am, you don't understand.
	You're talking about the cruise.
	That was the one with my mother.
	My mother paid me back cash, too.
	I think you need to rephrase that as in the form of a question, Ms. Merchant.
	Did you do it?
	Did you pay Royal Caribbean for yours and Ms. Willis' cabin $1,269.70?
	That's what it says here.
	Where are we?
	Which page?
	Dude, do you not remember your life?
	Just a few pages of receipts on exhibit number 11. I book a lot of cruises.
	He might say it.
	Oh, I wish I could bring up the chat from Rumble.
	Rumble, that's what I wanted to say.
	I'm going to get to the Rumble rants when there's a break.
	I'm surprised they haven't paused yet.
	So I'll get to the Rumble rants.
	I'm going to get to the tips out and locals, and I'll give the love.
	Can you direct me to where you are?
	To the chat and locals?
	In Exhibit 11. The receipt for Royal Caribbean?
	This is the best advertising for Royal Caribbean.
	How was the cruise, Mr. Nate?
	It was fantastic.
	We made love while looking at the ocean and talking about my ex-wife, although I was still married to her.
	Wait a minute, was I?
	Yes, I was.
	But the relationship was over since 2015, so I wasn't cheating on anybody.
	I already asked you about Haruba.
	And just for the record, I blacked out their papers.
	And then Royal Caribbean may be on...
	Don't give her those eyes!
	Nathan's Wade's looking at Ms. Merchant with those fanny eyes.
	You recall paying around $1,269.70 for a Royal Caribbean cruise for you and Ms. Wallace.
	You don't remember that?
	That amount seems kind of small.
	I don't...
	It's an expensive cruise.
	Okay.
	While you were in Aruba, then you bought a cruise, a Norwegian cruise, right?
	And that was the New Year's Eve cruise?
	How much was that cruise?
	While I was in Aruba, no ma 'am.
	The credit card documents that were submitted earlier for the purchase date.
	When did you buy that cruise?
	You don't remember doing that in Aruba?
	I didn't purchase a cruise while I was in Aruba.
	That may be when the cruise company decided to run the invoice.
	When did you book it smarter than everybody, Nathan?
	Around the time you went to Aruba.
	You purchased a cruise for Norwegian for you and Ms. Wallace to take for New Year's, correct?
	Before I went to Aruba, yes ma 'am.
	Oh, you remember.
	How much was it?
	That was roughly $3,300.
	Yeah, so why would the Caribbean have been so much cheaper?
	The cruise to Aruba.
	I mean, the cruise to, I'm sorry, the Norwegian cruise.
	The Norwegian New Year's.
	So, that cruise was with my sisters.
	Okay.
	And the number that you are seeing would reflect my buying dinner for my sisters and their husbands or...
	I'm just talking about the cruise, the amount that was paid for the cruise ahead of time when you booked the cruise.
	This guy's got a pathological, unable to answer a question problem.
	That was a little over $3,000.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	And I understand you're saying you paid for other things, but I'm just talking about the cruise amount.
	And you paid for a Jeep and you paid for dinner while you were there in Bahamas.
	Did he expense the dinners with his sister?
	Did he expense the dinners with his sisters and their husbands?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	That's the one that Ms. Willis paid for a flight for, correct?
	That's one of the flights she paid for, yes, ma 'am.
	Actually, a document it paid for, not cash.
	I'm talking about a non-cash transaction.
	That's what she paid for.
	Did the state of Georgia expense her dinner with her siblings?
	Yes, ma 'am, that's that.
	So she booked that on her credit card and wasn't worried about, I know you said earlier that you were booking everything because she was worried about people knowing where she was traveling.
	She didn't have any fears booking that one, though, correct?
	I'm going to object to the phrasing of that question.
	Speculate as to what was the motivation of the district attorney.
	She wants to ask if that was the transaction.
	Oh, boy.
	I got to pee again.
	I think you can rephrase the question, but I'll just stand on that current phrasing.
	So she purchased that under her own name, correct?
	She did.
	Okay.
	Let's see.
	So I know we talked a little bit about the seminar where you all met.
	I had a dirty joke.
	Isn't it true that you would go to Ms. Willis' house in South Fulton County?
	For sex?
	Occasionally.
	I've never gone to her house in South Fulton County.
	You've never gone to her house in South Fulton County?
	I've never seen her house.
	The first time I even heard the address of the house was when...
	He's getting very defensive.
	Why is she so defensive about this?
	One of the individuals in the...
	The election for our case somehow doxed it and it got out.
	Why would he be so defensive about that, actually?
	That's curious.
	But you would go to the East Point condo, correct?
	What East Point condo?
	East Point, Hapeville, something like that.
	I've never been to East Point with Ms. Willis.
	Where did you have your relations?
	You've never gone to a condo in either the East Point or Hapeville area with Ms. Willis.
	Wait, that's different.
	I have gone to a condo in Hapeville.
	Okay.
	So Hapeville.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Hateville?
	So you have gone to a condo with Miss Willis in Hateville?
	I have.
	Hateville?
	Have you spent the night there?
	Never.
	Never spent the night there?
	Never.
	I was always done before the night.
	Is that the condo that was rented by Robin Yerdy?
	How long?
	I believe it was.
	And, um...
	Other members of the DA staff were there as well, correct?
	Sometimes.
	I've never been around other members of the DA staff at a condo in Eggville.
	There's never been any security for Ms. Willis?
	Not around me.
	Did you ever ride with Ms. Willis with her security detail to and from the house?
	No.
	You served on Ms. Willis' transition team, correct?
	Yes.
	And you were part of all of her interviews where she interviewed and re-interviewed employees?
	I would say probably 98, 99% of them, yes.
	Is it fair to say you took an active role in these interviews?
	Oh, very active.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Prior to this, you'd never worked at a DA's office, right?
	Have I ever worked in her DA's office?
	At the DA's office.
	Any DA's office.
	No, ma 'am.
	No.
	Why didn't you see what a sneaky little basket?
	I've never worked at her DA's office.
	Same answer.
	I mean, what we're trying to prove is that there's a personal and financial relationship, and it was improper.
	And so, you know, whether or not he had experience to serve on this transition team, I think is relevant.
	Right.
	I think I already said that we don't need the evidentiary hearing on that point.
	I'll move on.
	Terrence Bradley also received a contract for Fulton County, correct?
	Yes, he did.
	To the best of my knowledge.
	Oh, think about it.
	How to frame it.
	How to frame the answer.
	You're asking me about Terrence?
	I asked if Terrence Bradley also received a contract with Fulton County.
	I believe that he did.
	You were partners with him at that time, correct?
	I was.
	So under what you testified to earlier, you would get a third of that contract as well, correct?
	I would have.
	And Chris Campbell also had a contract with Fulton County.
	And you'd get a third of that, too?
	And so, under what you've testified to, you would also get a third of that, correct?
	So it's almost like he would get all of his payment from family.
	They both had contracts for what are called first appearance, which is where they would appear on behalf of the district attorney to do first appearance hearings, correct?
	What's a first appearance hearing, for those who don't know?
	It was at that moment he realized he couldn't keep track of his lies anymore.
	He thought back to what his mother said as a child.
	I believe they did.
	Okay.
	And they also had what's called a taint contract.
	They both entered into them January 25th, 2021.
	I have never seen Fannie Willis' taint.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Taint or filter?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	And that was your work in the anti-corruption unit?
	I don't know that it was anti-corruption.
	I think that it was...
	Civil rights, maybe?
	Taint.
	I guess bars are getting out, so we would move to admit the contracts.
	I've got those under that contract.
	What does Fannie Willis' taint look like, Mr. Wade?
	Have you ever seen any taint?
	Other than these documents?
	I'm planning on introducing all of the contracts and invoices, but I haven't had a chance to look at what Fulton County certified.
	So I'm planning on introducing those and then not much.
	Can we do the not much?
	We'll do the not much and then we'll get back to the contract.
	That's a canon.
	Yeah, definitely.
	7200 telephoto lens, 2.8.
	So this Taint contract, and we're not admitting these right now, but if I represent to you that they say anti-corruption unit, can you tell us what a Taint attorney for an anti-corruption unit would do?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	I need to know if all three of these separate contracts are the same amount because then it comes back to his question earlier.
	You signed a confidentiality agreement with the DA's office as well, correct?
	I did.
	When?
	I think I'm up to judge 13. I hope Ashley hears me.
	She is killing it and she's amazing.
	May I approach, judge?
	Showing you a copy of what I marked as number 13. If you could take a look at that and tell me if that is the confidentiality agreement that you've got.
	Taint review, by the way, for Rumble.
	Everybody seems to be grossed out by the taint.
	This basically says you can't talk about anything that happens inside the DA's office, right?
	They review potentially privileged information to see whether or not they withhold it from the prosecutor.
	So they don't taint the vibe.
	It doesn't say you can't talk about it?
	No, no, no.
	You said it basically says that I can't talk about anything that happens inside the DA's office, and that's not what...
	Are you tendering this exhibit?
	I am, yes.
	We would tender 13. Ms. Cross.
	Ms. Merchant, relevance to this?
	Judge, it's relevant to his testimony.
	If he signed an agreement that says he can't talk about things that happened in the district attorney's office, I think that's relevant to this.
	How?
	Because it's motivation in his testimony.
	I mean, whether or not he's going to testify to something.
	He's also been certified.
	I mean, it's part of the record as financial incentive.
	Oh, no, sorry.
	This is the NDA.
	Okay.
	He hasn't said that that's preventing him from testifying in any way today, is it?
	I can ask him about that.
	Mr. Wade, is this confidential agreement affecting your testimony today?
	No, sir.
	Okay.
	All right.
	When was it signed?
	Just get the date.
	Oh, please.
	Does anyone know what date it was signed?
	The contracts judge and the invoices that I wanted to admit, I wanted to admit all of his invoices and contracts.
	Fulton County.
	I have them certified.
	I guess I have them certified through Fulton County, so I wasn't sure if I needed to do that.
	I just wanted to know if the state had an objection to those before.
	Say it ain't so.
	So that's the sole remaining exhibit in line of questioning here?
	Yes.
	And in terms of the follow-up questions, would it just be for him to...
	Say what's reflected in these documents themselves?
	If they have an objection to the certificates that Fulton County has given, I would admit them through him because he could recognize them.
	Assuming they're admitted, would there actually be anything substantive that he would add other than the documents themselves?
	When was the NDA signed?
	Do you have any other questions of this witness?
	May I just have a moment?
	Sure.
	Thank you.
	Is it possible actually we take a quick break?
	Do I go into Govea's chat and ask him?
	Thank you.
	Ooh, maybe.
	I certainly have the opportunity over lunch to take a look at these documents and work Let's see if I can do something here, actually.
	Did you discuss your relationship with Ms. Willis in social settings?
	Help me understand your question.
	Did you discuss your relationship with Ms. Willis in social settings?
	No, I heard the question.
	I just need to understand what you're asking me.
	Like, what relationship when...
	Your personal relationship.
	Did you make it known that you were an item?
	Did you discuss your personal...
	I don't like the question.
	Your private, personal, romantic relationship.
	That's a silly question.
	With Ms. Willis in social settings.
	No, ma 'am.
	You've never discussed it in social settings.
	No, ma 'am.
	So you were hiding it from people.
	Did you ever discuss it in front of Robin Yerdy in a non-social setting?
	No, ma 'am.
	Ms. Willis is a very...
	Professional.
	She's a professional woman.
	We're private people.
	our relationship wasn't a secret it was just private so not at all I wouldn't have discussed my relationship with Miss Yurty or anyone else publicly I actually did have some questions just about the invoices.
	Oh, this is fantastic.
	Someone who's got the balls to make the shirt could say, say it taints so.
	Yes, that they say what they say.
	Just talk about them.
	That's fine.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	At this point, we'll take a break.
	I'll ask the parties to take a look at...
	Had you marked that as a defense exhibit?
	Yeah, they're not going to break.
	Oh, it's 12.15.
	I have this contract in his invoices that I'm about to mark.
	So before he leaves me, I just want to make sure that the state doesn't have any objections.
	Those are marked as...
	Ooh, we're almost at 12,000 in rumble.
	Booyah!
	Guys, we'll get to it during the break.
	Let me see what we got.
	Alright, so 14 through 18. Locals, gross the stream.
	Cross the streams if it do it, you and Gouveia.
	I'm trying to think of how to do it.
	Let me DM him.
	And then we'll address whether they are tendered for the record when we come back.
	And from there, then we would turn over to the remainder of Defense Counsel and then the state for any examination as well.
	So to that end, let's take 45 minutes.
	We'll be back at 1 o'clock.
	Mr. Wade, you're still under oath, and I'd ask you not to speak.
	Yes, sir.
	All right.
	We'll be in recess.
	I'm on mute.
	Okay, so what I'm going to do here...
	Oh, yes.
	Look at Fannie.
	Look at...
	By the way, this is funny.
	She's still the hero to Atlanta News.
	What does ANF stand for?
	Okay, so what we're going to do is we're going to take this out.
	I'm going to stop the share screen.
	I've got to remember which window that is in the background.
	It's that one.
	Okay, I've got a couple of windows that I'm not using.
	I've got the locals window up there.
	Let's see.
	Okay, we're going to go...
	Before we go to locals, people, we're going to take the Rumble France over on Rumble.
	Okay, so now we're obviously behind schedule here.
	Smug arrogance says plants heal.
	There's no...
	Smug arrogance because they are very well-prepared liars.
	And you can see the way he knows.
	He knows what questions he has his prepped answers to.
	Which one was the one that I found the sneakiest?
	Oh, jeez.
	Which one was the one that I found the sneakiest?
	I'll get to it in a second.
	Although if someone in the chat in Rumble can remind me, that would help.
	All right, but let's get to the Rumble rants.
	Where did Fannie's representation go?
	Ample diversity towards prosecuting the former sitting president, but not when being held accountable.
	Says Snuggle Struggle.
	I get it because she's got Caucasian attorneys.
	Uncle Kenny says, Viva some legal challenge wins in Quebec follow the disbarred lawyer at...
	I'm going to see what's up with that.
	Let me just put that up in here.
	And then we're going to go summarize what's going on here.
	I'm going to drop one of these windows because there's too many up here now.
	Yeah, we'll drop it here.
	Okay, boom.
	Shakalaka.
	I'll see who that lawyer is in a second.
	What was the other question that we had here?
	Okay, Kenzie says, please interview...
	Oh, that's the same place.
	Gloriane Blais, ex-lawyer from Montreal.
	She was charged for standing on a grassy knoll because COVID.
	She's taking her case to the Supreme Court.
	Unconstitutional.
	You will love her.
	Hey, we got a Canadian subject matter coming up tomorrow, so we'll see about that.
	Snuggle Struggle says, Come to the dark side, Viva.
	Being a crinkle bottom is the new trend.
	Many of the Swifties are doing it.
	It's moist, warm, and sexual.
	What's a crinkle bottom?
	I'm just gonna go Google that in real time and hope it doesn't get me in trouble.
	Crinkle Bottom.
	Crinkle Bottom.
	It's the perfect for a girl who wants minimal coverage with a little extra featuring a high...
	It's underwear.
	Okay, I don't need underwear.
	And now my eyes are dirty for actually having looked that up.
	Okay, no crinkle bottom for Viva.
	King of Biltong is back in the house.
	Good morning from Anton's in Roanoke, Texas.
	Free shipping for your Biltong with code Viva on www.biltongusa.com and www.antonusa.com.
	Something just came up in the backdrop here.
	Hold on, hold on.
	Let me finish reading this and then we're going to get yourself some healthy beef snacks.
	Hold on.
	Listen to this.
	Here.
	Let's just see if we catch something that's going to be a hot mic moment in real time.
	Okay, we're not going to.
	I'm going to put it on mute and then I'm going to go back.
	No, dude, we might have to leave this for a second and see if we capture anything.
	Yeah, on the hot mic.
	Let's see this.
	Let's stay here and see what we got.
	in real time because Did someone bring a baby to the court?
	Oh, shit.
	They got wise.
	Okay, I'll take that back out.
	Okay, so nothing there.
	I'll have that running in the backdrop.
	And let's go back to the Rumble.
	Mike, get your knees looked at.
	I just want to say hi to my mother, Pauline, who loves your channel.
	Mike, say hello to your mom, Pauline.
	Thank you very much for the support.
	I went jogging yesterday, and as I was jogging, someone said, I saw you on my TV last night, and I felt...
	I felt happy, actually.
	It was weird.
	Robert Wicks says, Viva, can you kick me out out of the chat?
	He is a racist.
	I kicked him out because he was just spamming relentlessly with rubbish, but I didn't notice it until you said that.
	And how has the judge been so far?
	Just joined.
	Okay, let me put that on pause.
	The judge has been very fair.
	The judge has been, I say, fair and, you know, hard on Ashley when she's, you know, meandering with the questions.
	The issue here...
	It has to be to show the conflict of interest that both Fannie and Nathan Wade, because of their relationship or whatever, they stood to gain financially from their arrangements.
	And so that's the bottom line of it.
	This is to disqualify Fannie from the prosecution and Nathan, because he's the external counsel that she hired.
	Oh, that's what it was.
	I get the payment.
	We split it a third, a third, a third.
	Okay.
	Understand the word games going on here now, because the evidence that has been adjuiced, Wade, Campbell, Bradley, they were once a partnership, but no longer.
	Then, you know, they're a nominal partnership because it's Wade and who's left in this now?
	They are sharing expenses, but they're not a partnership.
	All three have contracts with the DA.
	Taint, first representation, and prosecution.
	All three have contracts, and now we've seen, It's a very, very subtle sleight of hand in terms of how he can answer to the fact that, well, I didn't get $300 and some odd thousand dollars because I split it a third, a third, a third.
	It comes to me, and then we split it.
	Oh, and then Campbell gets his contract, his first appearance.
	And we split that a third, a third, a third.
	Oh, and then, who's the other guy?
	Bradley!
	Gets his taint review contract.
	We split that a third, a third, a third.
	Do you know what happens?
	All things being equal, you know what happens if you split a third, a third, a third three times?
	Everyone gets one whole.
	There's a dirty, dirty pun in there that I'm not going to go to, but I just went there.
	Disgusting, gross, and shame on me.
	So you basically have this accounting game where you're saying, yeah, I don't get all of that money from the prosecution contract because I split it a third, a third, a third.
	But then I go get another third from Bradley's first representation or taint.
	I get a third from Campbell's contract.
	So I basically get either all of my contract and I do question whether or not they even subdivide each specific contract up.
	All right.
	Oh, it was the bank statements.
	Everything that Nathan Wade answered was an elusive question.
	But chat.
	Remind me of what it was that I said, oh my goodness, this snake had the answer prepared for that particular question.
	I'm going to go to locals for this because I want to make sure that it'll be easier to follow the chat there.
	Chat.
	Oh, in the chat here, we got Lutka with a $1 tip says, it's Roanoke.
	It's like Roanoke.
	Okay, thank you.
	What was the answer that he had?
	That he answered and it was just like, oh, I knew you were going to answer that.
	I'm prepared.
	Rockahora in vivabarneslaw.locals.com says, Viva, crinkle bottom equals someone who wears diapers and acts as a baby, a.k.a.
	members of the ABDL community.
	What's an ABDL community?
	The term refers to the sound that comes from wearing the diapers.
	Well, now I can't pretend that I don't know the answer to that question in the future because now, unfortunately, I know the answer to that question.
	Great.
	Now I know what crinkle bottoms is.
	I'll get to some of the other tips in here while we're at it.
	Ginger ninja in the house, fanny spanking, but I'm ginger ninja.
	Let me see something here.
	Who made this beautiful chessboard behind me?
	Okay, so there's that.
	Let me get back to VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	We got Clifferman says, Viva, given the tyranny of Canada, you should apply for asylum.
	Dude, I can't say I'm not contemplating it.
	Forget that.
	Maybe I think too much of myself in that I might be any form of legitimate target for the government, but I get scared going back to Canada.
	I get scared the idea that, you know, giving my passport over to border agents.
	It's like, ah, ben, c 'est toi, David.
	Je pense que je t 'ai vu sur la télévision.
	You called François Legault, supreme leader?
	Let me just take your passport behind...
	Oh, you never gave me your passport.
	I'm joking that doesn't happen because corruption like that never happens.
	Of course not.
	S underscore Ren says, my dad and brother are CPAs.
	Chartered...
	Chartered...
	Chartered something accountant.
	Tax attorneys.
	Okay.
	Corporate and IRS laws.
	And accountants.
	They would ask, what the F is this BS accounting?
	And tell you to expect IRS problems.
	Oh, dude.
	There's no question about that.
	I don't know if I can read this.
	Tampered says...
	I can't read this.
	Tampered, it's a joke about accidents happening to people who are running in the street.
	Because...
	I don't know if that was in response to...
	Nathan Wade's testimony or Yurdy beforehand.
	But my goodness.
	Oh, Yurdy had her issues with Fanny Willis.
	Oh my goodness.
	I do wonder if it had to do with the relationship.
	I wonder if she made a stink about the relationship.
	This is my GoPro tripod.
	And that's it.
	Okay, we've got Roanoke.
	Okay, now.
	Chat.
	I'm going to be in the chat.
	The IRS is not going to dig in, says MP Schaefer.
	There's no question about that.
	So the question is this.
	Certified public accountant.
	Thank you very much.
	That's Salty Yankee.
	Updates on Prime Minister Blackface asks, my name is Trinity.
	No, but from what I understand, so I put out a video yesterday.
	By the way, people, I think I'm like, simplicity seems to be what's going to rain over.
	The amount of work I put into editing funny stuff and then it just gets totally buried is very, very discouraging.
	But that's what they want to do, people.
	YouTube wants to discourage people out of telling the truth and exposing the truth.
	It won't happen.
	But yesterday I did just a very summary, a very quick breakdown of a lawsuit.
	Amazing lawsuit, by the way.
	I'll share the link with everybody.
	I will because I don't think I put the link to the PDF in the chat.
	Because I can't post PDFs in comment sections.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com And I put the link to the decision yesterday.
	Here we go.
	I'm going to go now and I'm going to go to Twitter.
	So, by the way, everyone who's watching now, this is the link to Tom Morazzo, one of the multiple plaintiffs now suing the government.
	2024, it's shaping up to be a wild year, but...
	It's crazy.
	So, you know, we've had two good decisions coming out of Canada.
	One was the Alberta decision out of the summer that I never heard of that declared these public health orders that Dina Hinshaw issued ultra-virus, unlawful.
	And that opens the door to a claim in damages because people sustain damages now from unlawful government conduct.
	Same thing just happened federally, and now we've got our first batch of plaintiffs suing the Trudeau government for the damages resulting from their unlawful, unconstitutional, unwarranted...
	Invocation of the Emergencies Act, subsequent freezing of bank accounts, and subsequent damages resulting therefrom.
	So the lawsuit's amazing.
	And Tom Morazzo's an amazing guy.
	I had him on the channel.
	He's just an amazing guy.
	Like, there are good people on this earth, and there are people you're not sure about, and there are bad people, and there's, you know, everywhere in between.
	I like to think that I know that I'm a good person.
	And I think that I know that Tom Maratzo is a good person because some people, you know, they don't ask for the punishment that's doled out on them.
	And Tom Maratzo is a veteran.
	If you haven't seen him, go watch the sidebar or the interview when he came on the channel.
	He's an amazing person.
	He's one of the plaintiffs.
	Tamara Leach is one of the plaintiffs.
	And they're suing the government, Justin Trudeau, for, you know, a couple million apiece for the damages resulting from the unlawful invocation of the Emergencies Act, freezing of bank accounts.
	Tom Maratzo's got a special needs kids with autism and a heart defect.
	Freezes his bank account.
	He can't pay for stuff.
	Can't pay for insurance.
	Auto pays canceled.
	A load of shit.
	It's just outrageous.
	So they're suing.
	Lawsuit is good.
	And now you all have the link there.
	And I'll put it in over at Rumble as well.
	So go check it out.
	There are five lawsuits that I have copies of right now.
	I'll post all of those in Locals.
	But they're all...
	Mutatis, mutatis.
	The same type of lawsuit.
	They're just filed in different provinces and different plaintiffs.
	Now, okay, back to this.
	Back to the fanny thing.
	It's fantastic.
	But, Chad, I'm going to go to Rumble because I don't...
	What was the first well-scripted answer that Nathan Wade had?
	Oh, it's driving me crazy.
	I can't...
	Okay, someone has to help me with the answer.
	How has the judge been so far?
	He's been fair.
	He's been on point.
	He understands what's going on.
	Imagine, by the way, like Merchant, Ashley Merchant.
	It's David versus Goliath or it's Ashley versus Georgia.
	Trump has jumped on, asks his questions, but it's Ashley leading the charge and being bombarded.
	By Wade's attorney, by Bradley's attorney, by Yurti's attorney.
	Just like, it's wild.
	She got a little flustered at one point in time.
	And, you know, judge tells her to move on.
	Okay, move on.
	The bottom line is she's literally getting the receipts in.
	Encryptus says, Viva, you are talking about him smirking when he was asked, do you have the receipts?
	No, I do not have receipts.
	That's right.
	Oh, I don't, I just, I just go to my account.
	I don't have the receipts.
	No, it was the marriage question.
	Oh, there we go.
	It was the marriage and the receipts.
	Because you see, the man is...
	He's not...
	I guess he's...
	I don't know.
	I want to say he's not dumb.
	You wouldn't accuse Wade of being dumb.
	In fact, you'd accuse him of being smart because smart people can feign stupidity when they need to.
	Oh, I'm not allowed doing that?
	I didn't know that.
	No.
	The receipts.
	Technically, it would always be true.
	If you pay for everything through your business...
	You don't have the receipts.
	The business has the receipts.
	Okay, so I didn't have the receipts.
	And it'll be, in his, you know, dastardly mind, it'll be a true answer.
	He's not even lying.
	To quote George Costanza, it's not a lie if you believe it.
	It's not a lie if, semantically, it's true.
	So, yeah, and there you go.
	Angel RD, 2015.
	So, with the irreparable damage.
	Irreparable marriage, sorry.
	That's a lot of marriage.
	So he's like, oh yeah, I never had the receipts.
	It's not a lie.
	I had access to them, but I don't have to go get them.
	My accountant had them because I give my accountant all my business records, but I never had the receipts.
	Wade and Campbell did, or whatever the hell the name was.
	Okay, that's a fucking liar.
	I'm sorry.
	That is where I would qualify something as being a lie through omission.
	Sorry, something's driving me crazy here.
	First of all, I just had the greatest idea ever.
	They should make GoPro tripods that double as billy clubs.
	Yeah, there you go.
	Boom.
	Oh, look at this now.
	So that's a lie.
	That's a lie through omission, but it's also just like, you know, okay, I think I'd be able to pick up on that in real time and say, all right, Mr. Wade, so your statement right now is that you personally didn't have the receipts.
	Did the company that you had control over have them?
	Well, I don't need to go get documents.
	That's not what I asked you.
	You didn't have the receipts.
	Okay, is that because your company had them?
	Yes.
	All right.
	Okay, thanks.
	You're a liar.
	The marriage.
	When I answered that question, have I ever had a romantic relationship, gone to bars, dinners, restaurants, trips, whatever, with a woman of the opposite sex, a woman in the context of my marriage?
	Well, no, because as far as I was concerned, my marriage was over in 2015.
	I mean, on paper we were still married.
	But in my mind, I mean, that's like, by the way, you know how many times he's probably cheated on his wife by saying, in the moment, our marriage is over?
	Well, it's back together tomorrow.
	But it wasn't, our marriage was over last night when I was boning that other woman.
	So I'm not cheating on you because our marriage is over.
	Now our marriage is back on.
	Now I'm going to be loyal to you.
	It's like, it's just, it's actually just pathological dishonesty.
	So there's that.
	And what else?
	No, it's been going great.
	Can you imagine?
	It's like all of this occurred because Ashley got wind of some details in this divorce proceeding and she's like, we're going to blow the effing lid off of all of this.
	It's wild.
	Oh, now, okay, hold on one second.
	I actually have a, I got crinkle up in my search engine now.
	That's great.
	I'm going to go to rumble for one second.
	How many people are watching?
	Who are not currently subscribed on Rumble?
	That's the question.
	Because I've been stuck.
	The number is just driving me crazy.
	There's 11,400 people watching on Rumble.
	Surely you are not all subscribed.
	Although if you are, my goodness, that's a damn good ratio.
	Go hit the follow button.
	Or the subscribe.
	Let me unfollow for myself for a second.
	Okay, it says follow.
	The little green button right next to the join button.
	You can join on Locals if you want.
	But just hit that.
	Follow button.
	So I can get that damn number just to say 400.
	Even if it's just for the day.
	Ma...
	Ma...
	What does that say?
	Magel and...
	I Marco.
	Magelli...
	Magellandi Marco says what a subscribe.
	And then Diamond Clarity says, you can't pause marriage like you pause toast.
	No, and the thing is, they're married on paper.
	Whether or not they had an arrangement, no.
	The answer was a lie under oath back then, even if he believed it was true.
	The whole thing is, he knew that the marriage still existed.
	They didn't get divorced because of the kids.
	But he can bone around as though he's...
	No, sorry.
	It's not even that he can bone around.
	He says, I know that we're still married for the kids.
	But...
	We're still married for the kids.
	But for the purposes of answering that question, I get to provide a dishonest answer because for the purposes of that answer, I'm pretending our marriage is over.
	Our marriage is over for the answer to that question so I can lie under oath, but our marriage is still on paper so that we can preserve it for our kids.
	No.
	Now the question is going to be this.
	The judge is going to ask.
	I don't care if he lied under oath in that deposition.
	I don't care if he lied in that affidavit.
	So, how many cabins did he say he booked?
	So the judge might very well say, look, he's a liar.
	He may have perjured himself.
	It's irrelevant to the disqualification, but the rest of it most certainly is not irrelevant to the disqualification.
	Are they going to get Fannie to testify?
	That's going to be the real question.
	Holy crap, apples.
	I like the fact that the chat in both Locals and Rumble are very good.
	Viva Fannie says ADF, AD Flav.
	I don't want a Viva Fannie.
	Jeez Louise.
	I like, it's so crazy.
	Okay, so here's a little story time.
	I, for being, I'm always totally honest.
	In fact, I have a fear of not just a fear of lying.
	I have a fear of accidentally saying something that's not true and then people think of me as a liar.
	Because I can't really think of anything worse than being a liar.
	Like, if nobody trusts you, what greater curse is there?
	I'm very familiar with the confession through projection.
	And so when I say, like, I always say, you keep your schmeckle in your pants because if you cheat on your spouse, Expect to wake up, you know, with someone pointing a gun at you.
	What movie was that from?
	Oh!
	Goodfellas!
	Do I play the scene from Goodfellas?
	Expect to wake up with an angry wife pointing a gun at your face asking you about your extramarital affairs.
	And they would be within their rights, not legal rights, moral rights, to do that.
	Now, I also say this with no judgment to infidelity because I've been a lawyer for a long time.
	We know...
	By the time infidelity comes around, it's a symptom of a problem and not the cause of it.
	The marriage doesn't end because somebody was an infidel.
	Because someone cheated.
	The marriage doesn't end because someone's cheating.
	Someone's cheating because the marriage is basically emotionally over or there are serious problems.
	And that's a symptom, not the cause of the marriage falling apart.
	But by the time the spouse finds out about it, well, then nothing else matters.
	It doesn't matter what happened up until that point.
	That's the breaking point.
	What was I saying?
	Oh yeah, so when I say, like, you know, it may be wrong, but you're playing with your life when you cheat on your spouse, it's not because I have these reflexes of, like, confession through projection.
	It's just the reality of it.
	You're playing with your life, and you should know that.
	Now, what the hell else was I going to say?
	Keep your damn schmecker in your pants is the bottom line.
	Nathan Wade is basically admitting he's had affairs with other women throughout the course there.
	And from what I understand, by the way, like, not that it really matters for the disqualification.
	But from what I understand from the testimony from the marriages, what's the word?
	The opposite of rupture.
	Is they rekindled?
	Reignited?
	They rejuvenated?
	Hold on.
	What's the opposite of rupture?
	Google opposite of rupture.
	Opposite of rupture.
	Come on, Matt.
	What's the opposite of rupture?
	What the...
	Why is it to give me the...
	Oh, antonym for rupture.
	That's what I'm looking for.
	Synonym?
	They reconnected.
	They re-abducted.
	No.
	They re-established their marriage after the alleged incident.
	So, anyhow, the guy's a liar.
	But the bottom line, judgment, I say, okay, good.
	He perjured himself in the marriage case.
	What does it have to do with this?
	Bottom line in this is, holy crap.
	He's got a lucrative contract that he entered into.
	The day before he got divorced.
	All the divorce and the nastiness there is irrelevant to this.
	Getting paid up the wazoo.
	He's got taint review contracts.
	I'm trying to understand how that couldn't be a conflict on its own.
	Technically, they'd say, look, the prosecutor needs to hire external taint review.
	So that the external independent taint review team will say, oh, we're looking through the documents that have been seized under a whatever seizure.
	Prosecutor can't see them off the bat because we don't know if they're going to be privileged or confidential and the prosecutor shouldn't see them.
	So the taint review says, okay, this you get to look at, prosecutor, this you don't.
	That's fine.
	If it's truly independent.
	If she's boning one of the three partners of the external firm that got the taint contract, would that be a conflict of interest?
	Yes, I would dare say yes.
	I'm no American lawyer, but I do consider myself to be an ethical person.
	I would say yes.
	Then the argument, because Nathan Wade is not a stupid person, well, we're not partners in that.
	That's Bradley's gig.
	I have nothing to do with that.
	We're a nominal partnership.
	He's got the taint review.
	He gives me a third of it, but I don't have anything to...
	Dude, they're in big fucking trouble.
	Because even if that were going to be the argument, and Ashley, if you're listening to this, that will be the argument.
	Oh, I don't know if it's Bradley or Campbell, but oh, that's their contract, the taint review.
	I have nothing to do with that.
	We've got a China wall there.
	Mirage de Chien, as we say in French.
	So I don't have anything to do with that.
	I don't know what they're doing.
	But I get a third of the remuneration that they get for having that taint review contract, the man who's boning the prosecutor, who's not supposed to get the privileged communications documentation that the taint review team is looking over, where the guy that I'm boning is getting a third of the remuneration from that contract.
	Seems like a patent ethics violation on its face.
	Ethics.
	Seems like a conflict of interest on its face, but that might not have to do with the Trump.
	Taint review.
	That might not have anything to do with the Trump case.
	All right, so unethical, corrupt under other circumstances, but does it play towards disqualification of Nathan Wade and Fannie Willis from this prosecution?
	If they're going to establish, and this is sort of what it looks like, that they're basically just using this entire prosecution like a slush fund.
	And they're both just, you know, bathing naked in bathtubs of cash.
	Here's some cash, Nathan.
	You got paid.
	You paid for my trip.
	And I'm giving you cash.
	Where's Fanny coming?
	Where's she getting that cash from?
	Is also what I want to know.
	Here we've got Sliced Thought.
	Sorry, 2022 says, All Wade's extra explanations will sink him on cross-redirect.
	And when Willis...
	stop moving chat, has to save herself.
	Dude is a lousy lawyer and his testimony is a direct reflection of his attorney skills.
	He's definitely...
	I would say that Wade is the Dunning-Kruger effect in real time.
	It's a man who thinks he's a lot smarter than he is and thinks people are a lot dumber than they are.
	My dog just made a noise that indicates he agrees with me.
	So that 40-second pause where it looked like there was a glitch in the matrix.
	Dude, he looks like a smarmy, dishonest bastard.
	I think some of his answers are indicating as much, confirming as much.
	Oh, my question is if Ashley Merchant is taking notes or listening to me.
	He did talk about the Norwegian New Year's cruise.
	Oh, that was $3,000-some-odd because I paid for my sisters and their spouses.
	All right, good.
	Did your business expense that?
	And I asked the question, knowing the answer would be no.
	Did Fanny Wade reimburse you for that?
	And he's like, of course not.
	Why would she?
	Did your siblings reimburse you for that?
	Are you just bilking the business expenses that you're getting through the contract with the prosecutor to line your pockets by being reimbursed for what you're expensing as business through the business that's doing the DA's external prosecution?
	Certainly looks like what it is.
	I hear another dog whining outside.
	So that's that.
	Let's see what's going on in the chat in Rumble.
	If nothing else, she managed to make him look like he's not exactly operating in good faith, says Swampy Rumbles.
	Uh, let me make sure I don't read any chat that's going to get me immediately cancelled from the interwebs.
	Fannie and Wade both have ethics and moral issues.
	I don't see how they're going to get out of this.
	I'd be going on a $10,000 cruise.
	Oh, I took her to lots of cabins.
	Viva Las Vegas says ambient luxe.
	All right, now let's go back to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Down to the bottom of the chat here.
	Oh my goodness.
	I grew up and survived the hood.
	That's, okay, that's how I think, says Danny boy.
	I'm not reading exactly what this is because I'm trying not to get canceled in life, but a fur, okay.
	Jeez, guys.
	Stop!
	I don't want to get...
	Dandy boy.
	He thinks he's smarter than he is.
	LOL.
	That's the whole...
	Okay.
	Jeez, Louisa.
	Everyone's going to get me into trouble here.
	Fanny has access to Scrooge McDuck's bank money.
	She dies into it all the time.
	That one I can read.
	Thank you.
	Let me see if there's any more tips in our locals community.
	No more tips in our locals community.
	Oh, my goodness.
	Let me stand up.
	So...
	We're coming back at 1 o 'clock.
	We'll go do this.
	I think I've got an appointment this afternoon to fix my old iPhone.
	I've been feeling very naked because I'm down to the iPhone.
	I don't know if you can see this.
	Let's see here.
	Yeah, there you go.
	Wait, right there.
	You all see that crack on that lens?
	There, right there.
	Oh, God.
	Do you know what that's like for a perfectionist OCD man who doesn't like seeing any...
	Glitches in photos or videos?
	Oh, that's very upsetting.
	Living...
	Living...
	What does it say?
	Living to learn says, he said he's booked lots of cabins, but that doesn't mean it was only trips with her, possibly other women over time.
	Oh, no, there's the living to learn.
	That's exactly what I understood from that question.
	I book lots of cabins.
	With Fanny?
	Not...
	By the way, what do you think the chances are that Fanny and Wade are still together in a year from now?
	I'll place it at zero, and I'll place a bet.
	My prediction is they will...
	I mean, they're probably already effectively broken up in Nathan's mind right now, but...
	Can you imagine that?
	Like, their relationship is going to be over, and they've got to go back to working together?
	How the hell is that going to work?
	Let me see if I can find a video here.
	I might have to make another pause to go pee-pee, people.
	Just so you all know, I have a hyperactive bladder.
	It's a medical condition, so you can't make fun of me for it.
	But let me go.
	I'm joking.
	Nobody's going to make fun of me for that.
	But it is called a hyperactive bladder, I'm told.
	Of course, it's typically for older women who have given birth to multiple babies.
	But it was Fanny Willis' Don't Date Subordinates.
	Let's see if I can find this here.
	Now, we're getting a lot of live.
	Judgment here is, uh, no, uh, no.
	District attorney will be disqualified.
	Judge will make a big decision.
	That's five hours ago.
	Jeez, how hard is it?
	Fannie Willis dating office.
	Who can find the link to this?
	Oh, no, no.
	Dude, there's a lot of people live streaming this trial today.
	It's fantastic.
	A lot of exposure, baby.
	The D.C., oh, the D.C., the Georgia case is falling apart.
	The DC case is falling apart.
	The Florida case has never taken off.
	And you know what's funny, actually?
	This is actually so amazing.
	You know, one of the big catches of the Georgia state case was that it being a state case, Trump couldn't win the election and then pardon himself for it because it's a state case.
	And from what I understand...
	It's not even like the governor in Georgia could pardon the case, like they could in other states, so it was a particularly difficult one.
	The case is going to fall through the effing ground.
	The case is basically done already, they just don't know it.
	Fannie Willis, the guardian Trump prosecution.
	Let me see here.
	Wow.
	What's amazing is how the news, the search results are changing in real time.
	Yeah, it's amazing.
	We're seeing a shift in narrative in real time.
	It's actually phenomenal.
	I've got to get this case.
	This one's really old.
	God, look at this.
	Fannie Willis.
	Just the headlines.
	Look at this.
	You can't actually even find non-critical headlines anymore.
	They're no longer fawning over Fanny.
	That's not bad.
	The article that I put up on Twitter, which said, he's going to be very surprised.
	Let me just put that in there.
	He's going to be very surprised.
	I hear the dog whining.
	And it's noon.
	The dog is whining for dinner already.
	Hmm.
	How much should I give to the Guardian people?
	You know, listen to this.
	He's going to be very surprised.
	This is over five months old, people.
	Oh, my butt hurts.
	He's going to be very surprised.
	Georgia DA Fannie Willis prepares to face off with Trump.
	Well, she's facing off with...
	Listen to this fawning rubbish from barely five months ago.
	The synopsis for a Fannie Willis biopic would probably go something like this.
	In Fulton County, the first black woman to serve as district attorney takes on an unlikely case.
	Willis grew up attending court with her father, a defense attorney, and Black Panther.
	Now she sits on the opposite side of the courtroom, hoping to indict a former president who sought to overturn election results and often espoused white supremacist rhetoric while doing so.
	Hey, um, shitheads at The Guardian, can you update that, please?
	Let me go ahead and...
	Let me go ahead and screen grab this because that's enough to make you want to puke.
	Well, my goodness, how things have changed now.
	Here, let me do the update.
	Fannie Willis, a woman with no morality, engaging in extramarital affairs with a married man while taking government contracts to pay her boyfriend while taking cruises with him and then reimbursing him with cash, is now standing up for her life, her political life, as she defends against corruption, lack of ethics, and disqualification from the trial that...
	You know, it was so great.
	Whatever, I screwed it up.
	But you know I'm going with this.
	Wow, let's just see what else.
	The film's montage would pull from real life depicting a determined, unflappable Willis.
	Well, I think she's been flapped a little bit.
	Oh, ask Wade.
	She can be flapped.
	Relentlessly poring over documents leading her team that she's been boning.
	Long hours.
	Oh yeah, and working hard.
	Security risks that come with bringing an indictment against an often inflammatory...
	Can you believe that this is called news?
	This is the most editorialized propaganda I've ever seen.
	We'd watch her face.
	We'd watch her face racist threats and unsubstantiated rumors of misconduct.
	Oh my goodness.
	Uh, no, get out of there.
	Oh my goodness.
	Oh, my damn.
	According to some of Willis'callers who worked with her over 20 years, all of this would be...
	What did it say here?
	But she'd refuse to back down from the task at hand.
	She'd advocate for what she believed to be right when it wasn't popular.
	Holy shit.
	Did she pay them for this crap?
	Oh my god.
	Get that out of here.
	That's gross.
	I mean, that's gross even for propaganda.
	Hold on, guys, here, go.
	Someone, I think this has probably been archived, but let's just, here, take that, boom.
	Oh my goodness.
	I hope the judge is not a lib in sheep's clothing.
	Oh, what does it mean?
	The judge, the judge, but the problem is this.
	I mean, you could probably draft the...
	How would you steel man not disqualifying Fanny?
	That's the question.
	Whether or not you believe in it, steel man it.
	And I think I can.
	So let me think of how I would steelman it based on the evidence we have right now.
	But before I do that, let me go and read a chat here.
	B.S. Havers or B.S.H.
	Havers.
	He says, did I miss if he was asked, quote, when, end quote, he was reimbursed with cash by Fannie?
	I think he answered it or implied the answer was basically contemporaneously.
	But it might not be a terrible question to clarify.
	And then we got Sunbeam Valley says, remember Fanny's speech at church?
	Play a bit of it, Viva.
	Dude, do I remember it?
	Oh, Lord!
	They're gonna be angry at me when I call them out.
	Let's get that.
	Unbelievable.
	Unbelievable.
	Disgusting disregard.
	I mean, I say I'm not religious and then, you know, Fanny Willis.
	Let's play some of that.
	Fanny Willis Church.
	I even remember the timestamp.
	Fanny Willis Church.
	Here we go.
	Look at that.
	You can even...
	You can see where I stopped the last time because that's where it got good.
	Fanny Willis Church.
	I believe it's here.
	Yeah, it's here right there.
	Right about, oh, right about there.
	20 minutes in.
	Don't play an ad.
	Oh, it's StreamYards.
	Okay, well, that's fine.
	Hi, it's Vanessa from StreamYards.
	Are you tired of glitchy stuff here?
	Listen to this.
	Here.
	Days and nights that I would spend them in isolation because that was the safest place to be.
	unimaginable fear as I believe my oldest child was dead in my home Okay, no, no.
	Okay, it's about...
	Here we go, here we go, this is it.
	Let's just go back a little bit.
	Oh, God.
	You're humble.
	Question my decision in a special council.
	While you listen to this, I'm going to go pee-pee.
	Lord, you're flawed, hard-headed, and imperfect child.
	I'm a little confused.
	I appointed three special councilors.
	Is my right to do?
	Paid them all the same hourly rate.
	They only attack one.
	I hired one white woman, a good personal friend and great lawyer.
	A superstar, I tell you.
	I hired one white man, brilliant, my friend, and a great lawyer.
	And I hired one black man, another superstar, a great friend, and a great lawyer.
	Oh, Lord, they gonna be mad when I call them out on this nonsense.
	First thing they say, "Oh, she gonna play the race card now." But no, God.
	Isn't it them who's playing the race card when they only question one?
	Isn't it them playing the race card when they constantly think I need someone from some other jurisdiction in some other state to tell me how to do a job I've been doing almost 30 years?
	Guys, why don't they look at themselves?
	And just be honest.
	I mean, can't they keep it 100 with themselves?
	Why are they so surprised that a diverse team that I assembled, your child, can accomplish extraordinary things?
	God, wasn't it them that attacked this lawyer of impeccable credentials?
	The black man I chose has been a judge more than 10 years, run a private practice more than 20, representing businesses and civil...
	I ain't done, y 'all.
	Served as a prosecutor, a criminal defense lawyer, special assistant attorney general, won Chief Justice Robert Benham Award from the State Bar of Georgia.
	You know they ain't just giving this to black men.
	How come God, the same black man I hired, was acceptable when a Republican in another county hired him and paid him twice the rate?
	Oh, y 'all ain't hearing me.
	In another county...
	Has she gotten to the racist part yet?
	...has the authority to pay him twice the rate.
	Why is the white male Republican...
	They made it racist, though, people.
	...good enough, but the black female Democrats not.
	That was not a...
	I didn't do number two.
	I went to get carrots.
	Salt and pepper on carrots, people.
	Now, please heal me.
	I'm not criticizing his judgment.
	The people of his county elected him to make that decision.
	In fact, let me put it on the record.
	He's someone I respect because he was always willing to hire diversity.
	He was just looking for quality.
	I don't care, political party.
	They care about it.
	My only question is, why is it questioning me?
	I want to be clear, all three of these special counselors are superstars.
	But I'm just asking God, is it that someone will never see a black man as qualified?
	No matter his achievements.
	Oh, we've seen his achievements now.
	The other two have never been judges.
	But no one questions their credentials.
	I'm just saying.
	I'm just saying.
	Oh, it's much because they're white.
	Lord, I'm just asking.
	Is it that I, because of the shell you chose to put me in, would never be qualified in their eyes to make the decisions the voters put in?
	Well, you should be impeached, Fannie.
	Lord, never mind your flawed, imperfect servant has composed a team that wins, wins, and wins.
	Yeah, we can pause it here.
	All right.
	Oh, that noise was coming from the church.
	Jeez, I thought in the background, I thought my dog was, there was a baby crying in the back that I thought was, okay.
	So we're going to stop the screen here.
	I think we've heard enough of that rubbish.
	Disgusting is the word.
	I mean, it's disgusting.
	Lord, your hard-headed child, while I sit and freaking lie to a church full of churchgoers.
	I mean, that's unbelievable.
	Don't go golfing, Fanny, because you'll get struck by lightning.
	I mean, that's the karma that you bring into the world when you do things like that.
	And I'm not even religious.
	Okay, so it looks like we might be coming back live.
	I don't know how prompt the judge is.
	Hold on.
	I just saw another Hrumble rant and a chat.
	Here's the Hrumble rant.
	11,000 people watching.
	Give this man some likes.
	Thanks for what you do, Mr. Fry.
	Joke, UHL.
	Thank you.
	First of all, I love doing this.
	Let's take a break.
	People don't want to hear the chatter.
	They can watch it without my chattering.
	But my goodness.
	No.
	And first of all, I was on a roll this morning in terms of predicting what was coming.
	What did I say they have to do this afternoon?
	Oh, they better ask Fannie for some bank records.
	And by the way now, how the hell is Fannie going to get out of testifying?
	Hey Fannie, did you pay him back cash?
	Why, yes I did.
	Because that's totally normal practice.
	For a hard-headed...
	Child of God, when I want to be everything equal, I'm a woman.
	He's not going to pay for me.
	I always pay for it in cash.
	No checks, no Venmo transfers, no PayPal.
	Cash, of course, because I'm the DA of Georgia.
	I've got freaking briefcases of cash lying around my office.
	No, there's some questions there.
	There's some answers there that need to be provided.
	Then in our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	I see something here.
	Okay.
	Finboy Slick says, Viva Fry, new rule.
	If you're going to submit us to super cringe content, you can't run off to go pee.
	You have to watch it with us.
	Finboy, do you know how many times I watched that entire thing?
	I had to pull the clip from it for one of my vlogs.
	I had to sit there and then listen to it as I'm editing the video.
	God, you think it's annoying listening to me once?
	My wife's like, when I'm sitting there editing, she's sitting there listening.
	I rewind.
	I hear my voice.
	I try to cut like the right.
	Oh, God.
	Hearing me over and over and over again.
	But I had to listen to that over and over and over again.
	But by the way, I could hear it echoing in my head as I went pee-pee.
	But thank you for the chat, as always.
	How did I just close the window down here?
	Here we go.
	And then Dandyboy5 says, post some clips.
	I need a good laugh.
	Oh, what can we post that could make us laugh and distract us from this world of absolute corruption and rubbish?
	It's wild.
	Oh my, well, for the good laugh, we can go back to that Guardian article.
	By the way, this is the same media that's complaining about Putin portraying, sorry, no, Tucker Carlson portraying Putin as like a hero.
	These people, this news industry in America, I hear noise.
	Hold on.
	It's coming, people!
	I can't get them!
	Don't panic, people.
	Don't panic.
	Don't panic.
	Here we go.
	Yes!
	We're alive!
	This judge reminds me of my brother, by the way.
	Not Dan.
	Another brother.
	I'm going to go back to you and the character.
	I recognize and I don't have any objection to those that clearly came from Fulton County.
	However, that's exhibit number 14 contains several items that did not come apparently from Fulton County, and I'm standing next to Ms. Merchant to show them.
	But they're not in that group.
	I don't know.
	There can be three.
	I got them from the county.
	So if you could come back and say, "I'm going to go back to the county." I can't agree that the documents that are not in the certified bundle are properly admitted as part of the exhibit.
	Okay.
	Ms. Merchant, would you like to repackage and present to Ms. Cross at Defense Exhibit 14?
	They're exactly what I got from the county attorney.
	Apparently they didn't want to testify so they gave us a certification but didn't put these in so they're going to have to testify.
	I got them from them.
	The documents that the difference between the two document productions what is what is the difference?
	They didn't even get these.
	Bank records, credit card statements, things like that that wouldn't ordinarily be part and course of the records.
	But I got them from the open records portal.
	No, I understand.
	There's no way Fannie's staying on the case.
	There's no way this judge likes it.
	That's my prediction.
	You've taken a look at them, and they're actually material to your case?
	Yes.
	In what way?
	They're all of his invoices, Judge.
	This is what I got from them.
	It's all of his invoices, and one of the invoices is a reimbursement that he printed some things for the reimbursement.
	I don't really care if they take the reimbursement out, because they are actually already admitted in the other exhibit I did.
	I don't have any problem with the invoices.
	The invoices are clearly, the records are contained in the certification code.
	If we remove the items that are in dispute, then I don't have an objection to the...
	They're already in.
	So you're removing them?
	Yeah, that's fine.
	You want to take them off?
	All right.
	So again, let's have Opposite Council look at a revised Exhibit 14, and then I'll hear whether there's any objection.
	So I'm putting it on mute because no one wants to hear ASMR carrot crunching eating while we watch.
	The revised Exhibit No. 14 contains only the invoices that were submitted and the state has no objection.
	All right, then, not seeing any other issues from other counsel, we'll note Exhibits No. 14 through 18 have been admitted for the record without objection.
	I think at this point it would be good to make sure we've got, I think, 1 through 18. With the court reporter.
	Do you want me to give them to the witness?
	Well, if he's done looking at them, let's just get them all compiled and organized with the court reporter, in case other defense counsel are going to reference them.
	No, it wasn't for him to have the ball.
	We just need to have 1-18 organized with the court reporter.
	Also goes to show you why you have to file your documents.
	I think we ought to do that.
	Label your documents properly so they're easily retrievable and identifiable when you want to reference them as exhibits.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	All right, as Ms. Merchant is doing that, let me go down the list.
	Mr. Sadow.
	Mr. Governor, Mr. Gilles has been asking some questions that I was going to ask and I'd like to be able to follow up with anything that you can touch on.
	Let me just, to keep it consistent, I'll go in order.
	So, Mr. Sedow is deferring, then I'll go to Mr. Stocks.
	I'll defer to him.
	Mr. Durham, on Zoom.
	Interesting point.
	All right, Mr. McDougall.
	I will defer to Mr. Gillen.
	All right, Mr. Rice.
	All right, 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 number four that you should have up there.
	Those are the interrogatories.
	I hate this word.
	Remember I asked her to compile them all.
	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 interrogatories, but what I want you to do, because I want to get down to the specific language to clear up exactly what the interrogatories asked 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 two, the one that starts off, describe each instance in which you've had sexual relations.
	You see that one?
	Yes, sir.
	All right.
	Now, that interrogatory begins, describe each instance in which you have had sexual relations.
	with a person mother than your spouse go on during the course of the marriage the marriage including the period of separation you see that this is now yes these were filed on may the thirtieth 2023, correct?
	Yes, you little bastard.
	Now, at that time, you had had sexual relations with Ms. Willis, correct?
	Well, I'm going to...
	No, no, he's going to answer that damn question.
	Object to the question that's raised.
	You were boring her.
	At that time, certainly asked about his answer.
	You were stuffing her like a Thanksgiving turkey.
	I just ask you to rephrase, but I think you can make the same point.
	Your Honor, it's a specific interrogatory, and I would, you know, so the words do matter, and I would like him to answer whether or not he has sexual relations with Ms. Willis, because if he answered yes, then this is interrogatory.
	Oh, boy.
	We all know that he had sex with her.
	Yes, absolutely.
	Do it.
	Then no problem to do it one more time.
	and judges in a lot of it and judges and and just a lot of missile uh...
	allow me to this question one more but I think you are asking it in a different way.
	That's right.
	Sex.
	Sex.
	P to the V. May I ask the question that I...
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	As of May the 30th, 2023, you had had sexual relations with Ms. Willis, isn't that correct?
	Yes.
	The interrogatory, sir.
	No, no, just answer the question.
	During the course of the marriage and the period of separation.
	Excuse me.
	Just answer the question.
	I would ask the court, direct the witness to answer my question, yes or no.
	As of May the 30th, 2023, had you had sexual relations with Ms. Willis?
	Yes, Mr. Gillen.
	Let's start with...
	At the higher level, whether he believes he answered it truthfully, and then we can drill down into why or why not he doesn't.
	And maybe we'll end up exactly where you left us.
	Well, but again, Your Honor, the point of it is that the words matter and that we have to establish what did and did not happen.
	And then he can give whatever explanation he chooses to what apparently is a false answer.
	But I would like an answer to my question.
	And you may get one.
	I just would ask, I would like us to start at the high level before we drill down in specifics to see whether he actually contrary or wrong.
	Start at the high level?
	Judge, I don't think you know.
	I don't think it's making sense.
	There's a double entendre in there.
	The interrogatory is relatively direct and explicit.
	Sexual relationships with a person other than your spouse during the course of the marriage, including the period of separation.
	That's pretty simple.
	If that's something you can get him to admit.
	You did have sexual relationships with someone other than your spouse during the course of the marriage and during the period of separation, which included up to May the 30th of 2023.
	Isn't that correct, sir?
	My answer to this interrogatory is none.
	It's no.
	So you're saying that you did not have sexual relationships with anyone outside of your marriage.
	And the period of separation is during the period when you're answering the question to this interrogatory, correct, sir?
	I'm saying during the course of my marriage, I did not have sexual relations to anyone, and this answer is no.
	Well, again, Your Honor, we need a yes or no.
	Let's just get down to it.
	Did you or did you not, by May the 30th, 2023, have had sexual relations with Ms. Willis, yes or no?
	Yes or no?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Now, what you did is you answered no to that question, didn't you?
	Or none, correct?
	I didn't answer no to the question you just asked.
	I answered no to the interrogatory question.
	Read it.
	And the interrogatory stands that you answered as a pleading in a civil proceeding your divorce case, right?
	Yes.
	Now, excuse me.
	The next interrogatory...
	I didn't mean to bring that up.
	Sorry, I meant to bring this one up.
	That interrogatory states as follows.
	Identify any and all occasions in which you entertain a member of the opposite sex other than your spouse who is not related to you by blood or marriage.
	You see that?
	I do.
	Now, there are two parts to this.
	The second part is...
	I read on, or in which a member of the opposite sex, other than your spouse, not related to you, by blood or marriage, entertains you.
	And then it goes on to say, including but not limited to dining, drinking, in restaurants, bars, pubs, hotels.
	You see that, correct?
	I do.
	Now, as of May the 30th, 2023, when you filed this interrogatory, You had, in fact, entertained Ms. Willis on many occasions, had you not?
	Again, during the course of the marriage, the marriage was irretrievably broken in 2015.
	The answer is still no.
	Let's read what the interrogatory says about the time period required to answer the interrogatory.
	Because what it says is, it goes on to say, including you, including but not limited to dining.
	And or drinking at any restaurants, bars, pubs, hotels, or persons' homes from the date of marriage to the present.
	Do you understand what the word present means?
	Yeah.
	I do.
	And present means the filing on May the 30th, 2023.
	Isn't that right?
	It is.
	So, as of May the 30th, 2023, you had done a lot of entertaining of Ms. Willis, had you not.
	I had done some, yes.
	And in fact, under your testimony, you would have said that she had also entertained you.
	Isn't that correct?
	Yes.
	And so your answer to this interrogatory is false, is it not, sir?
	No, it's not false.
	Well, I hate to dance around.
	The answer is yes, you did entertain Ms. Willis, correct?
	Right?
	Yes.
	She's not your spouse at that time or any time, correct?
	That's correct.
	She's not related to you by blood or marriage, correct?
	That's correct.
	But she entertained her, right?
	Yes.
	And during the course from your marriage, the period of time up to the press, so the answer would have been, yes, I did entertain somebody, correct?
	During the course...
	Of the marriage, no.
	Including the separation period.
	I think we've made a point.
	I think it speaks for itself.
	There you go.
	Bam!
	The judge has got it.
	You're an effing liar and the judge knows it.
	You understand what the word present means?
	I think we did cover that already as well.
	It means a gift you get from Fannie Willis for prosecuting Trump.
	From the time that you file this court document in May of 2023, Let's go over some of the things that you had been involved in in terms of being entertained or entertaining.
	Prior to your filing on the answer on the interrogatories on May 30, 2023, we've already established, have we not, that you had paid for a Royal Caribbean cruise to the Bahamas with Ms. Willis, correct?
	That was a present.
	Yes, sir, with Ms. Willis and my mother.
	Well, your mother's not part of this interrogator I'm talking about, Ms. Willis, okay?
	So, you paid and caused to be paid approximately $3,335 on that trip, Bahamas trip from October the 28th through...
	October the 31st, correct?
	Yeah, no objection.
	I think we've said this ground several times already.
	Mr. Gillen, let's cover new ground.
	Well, I am trying to establish with specificity the things that he had done to entertain or be entertained prior to May the 30th, 2023.
	I'll try to move through it quickly.
	Sure.
	Well, that's already part of the record in terms of this prior testimony.
	So if you want to link those two things together, you can do that during argument.
	Well, so let me discuss this.
	You indicated that during the course of your explanation concerning the police trip, that Ms. Willis paid you all that money back in cash, remember?
	Oh yeah, here we go.
	Yes, sir.
	Now, the police trip had just happened, hadn't it?
	That occurred in March 18, 2023, right?
	Yes, sir.
	So, you're filing this...
	Maybe two months after you have gone to Belize with Ms. Willis, correct?
	And she paid you back cash.
	I think you might be getting somewhere new.
	We'll see.
	Oh, there we go.
	Judge likes it.
	Yes, sir.
	So, we've got the trip to Belize on March the 18th, 2023.
	Interesting.
	You and Ms. Willis, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	Now, two months later, you follow the interrogatories that speak for themselves that we've gone over a few minutes ago, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	Now, March the 18th, 2023, to state the obvious, is before...
	Oh, turn your phone off!
	I have to warn you again.
	Will you agree with me on that?
	I do.
	Okay.
	So, then you tell us that Ms. Willis paid you in cash.
	No.
	All the money for the entire trip.
	It was a gift for you for your birthday, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	And I'm sure you probably have the deposit slips.
	For the cash.
	Where you took the cash and deposited the cash into your account.
	No, sir.
	I put it under my bed.
	I did not deposit the cash in my account.
	You don't have a single solitary deposit slip to corroborate or support any of your allegations that you were paid by Mr. Willis and Cad.
	He's got an answer for it.
	He's got an answer.
	No, sir.
	Not a single solitary one.
	Not a one.
	When Ms. Willis would pay you a cash, would you scamper down to the ATM with her and as she drew money out of her account to pay you these thousands of dollars?
	Scamper down.
	Objective formulation.
	Look at the curl on his lip going up and down.
	Did you and Ms. Wade scamper down to the ATM machine and have her dry out?
	For example, on the police trip, just on...
	Your payment would have been $2,794.
	She's so screwed already.
	Pardon me?
	Ms. Wade and I didn't go to Belize.
	No, excuse me, Ms. Willis.
	I'm sorry.
	Yeah, my wife didn't come to me with Belize.
	That was Willis.
	$2,794 to pay you in cash.
	Did you go to the ATM with her?
	No, sir.
	She didn't go to the ATM.
	She carried the cash.
	Oh, and so she would give you the cash.
	Did you have a little place in your house where you just stack up all this I like this guy.
	Mr. Gillen, if I answered that, I'm putting myself in jeopardy.
	We know you got the cash, dude!
	It could be problematic.
	No, I don't.
	I want an answer as to whether or not you have a little cash hoard in your house.
	You don't deposit it.
	You dig it and bury it in the backyard?
	And went and put it somewhere.
	Where'd you put it?
	No, sir.
	Now, just put it on the hip and kind of walk around money?
	Did I put it on my hip and...
	Yeah, just walking around money where you would spend the cash yourself?
	It's either...
	Did I put it on my hip in Belize and walk around with it?
	When you got paid back...
	Would you take the money, the cash that she gave you, and would you just carry it around with you for spending money around town?
	So we have to break down each trip because, for example...
	No, what did you do with the money?
	For the cruise, she paid me the money before we took the cruise.
	So where'd you put it?
	I was here.
	Where'd you put it?
	I could put the money in my pocket or put it away wherever I wanted to do with it.
	Other trips, she would give me the money there.
	So at that point, I could either spend it or...
	Put it in my pocket or put it in the hotel seat.
	There's no special place that you would have all this cash that you would be getting from her that you've told us about.
	How much cash did he get from her?
	The benefits that you have bestowed on her?
	Ashley!
	The only special place that that cash would have gone would have been to one of my children.
	Okay.
	How much cash?
	Are you aware?
	Have you discussed these pleadings with Ms. Willis?
	Oh, yeah.
	No, sir.
	There's been no discussion between you and this Wilson about the allegation concerning the benefits that you have bestowed on her.
	Is that correct?
	I don't think that's an accurate reflection of the testimony, and I don't think that's appropriate.
	I think overruled.
	You can answer the question.
	Oh, the judge is not happy.
	Are you talking about the divorce proceedings?
	Because we were talking about the interrogatories.
	Oh, he's all confused all of a sudden.
	The answer is no.
	Go ahead.
	I'm sorry.
	Go ahead with your answer.
	I'll hear the complete answer, then I'll follow up.
	Okay.
	If you're asking me about this hearing, the proceedings of this hearing, have we discussed the financial peace based upon Mr. Roman's motion?
	Yes.
	Yep.
	So you have discussed the financial peace.
	He might have been an administrative judge, though.
	when did that where that discussion take place come true I didn't like his face right there.
	Look at the judge.
	Look at the judge, by the way.
	So I need to find out a little bit more about how suddenly we have this revelation about cash from the witness stand today.
	Overall.
	Nice.
	So we part company there.
	When you say no mention of cash, if I provided one receipt that didn't amount to what you would think was roughly equal, the rest of it is cash.
	Well, did you in your declaration, sir, it was filed.
	In this case, did you tell the court in that declaration that the expenditure that you had provided on behalf of Ms. Willis was paid for back by her in cash, yes or no?
	I believe that I did when I said that the expenses were split roughly evenly.
	If you could point to me any place in your affidavit, Where you used the word cash, I would appreciate it.
	I didn't use the word cash, no sir.
	No, you didn't use the word cash, did you?
	But I didn't say that she didn't give it to me in cash.
	No, you just didn't tell anybody that you allegedly got paid back in cash, right?
	No, I told everyone who asked.
	Today?
	Yes, sir.
	Now, who else was with you, if anyone else, when you and Ms. Willis were discussing?
	How you would be handling the financial component of the motion here today, that is the personal benefits.
	I'm going to object to the relevance of that, Your Honor.
	Let's go.
	Well, the relevance is if they know that they're going to be called as witnesses, they've been subpoenaed, and they are discussing what they're going to say, we need to know that.
	The court needs to know that.
	It goes to the veracity of Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade.
	We didn't discuss how we were going to handle testimony.
	My question was, when you were discussing...
	They're out of this case.
	There's no question.
	...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 when the last level of suggestion was made was that Mr. Dillon needed to know who else was there.
	These essential witnesses that he could possibly 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 this discussion, did you ask her, did you ask Ms. Willis?
	Do you have anything to support these cash withdrawals?
	No, sir.
	Did you ask her where she got the cash?
	This is the conversation.
	I produced my credit card statement that showed what Ms. Merchant in her filing was representing.
	That was the conversation.
	Okay.
	So, when the She would pay you back in cash.
	Were you aware of what her financial situation was?
	Do you know what?
	No, sir.
	Your Honor, I object to the relevance.
	Well, Your Honor is relevant because we've been bombarded with the book, Find Me the Votes, in which...
	What's at issue is the financial benefit, and if that plays a material interest in an actual conflict of interest, so I think that's relevant.
	No, the judge is basically giving the answer.
	Have you read the book, Find Me the Votes?
	I have.
	You have?
	I have.
	Okay.
	Now, in that book, Ms. Willis is telling the authors about how financially destitute she was or kind of hitting down on the bottom as she was running for DA.
	Do you remember that part of the book?
	So, let me qualify the response.
	I've read the book.
	In parts.
	I hadn't had the time to sit and read the book in its entirety.
	Sorry, I thought you just said you read the book.
	You sounded very proud.
	Did you read that part about how she's telling the authors about how little money she had and how financially she was in bad shape prior to when she was running?
	Did you read that part?
	No, sir.
	Did you ever have discussions with Ms. Willis about her financial situation?
	They're damned if they do, damned if they don't.
	Apparently in rough shape prior to her being elected DA.
	No, sir.
	Ms. Willis made it clear that her financial business was just that.
	It was her business.
	I know nothing about her financial status.
	I know nothing about how she was faring before or after the election, or even now.
	I know nothing about her finances.
	You're telling us that she didn't share that with you, but chose to share it with the authors of a book that's been published and printed and sold nationally.
	I think that's a fair question for Carl.
	I don't know that she shared it with the author.
	I don't know that the author is telling the truth.
	I don't know the author, so I don't know, sir.
	Okay, now, did you give an interview to the authors of that book?
	I've given no interviews, sir.
	So you haven't talked to them at all, correct?
	I haven't talked to any media, none.
	Now, as it relates to the...
	I'd like to, though.
	What's that supposed to mean?
	As it relates to...
	What the heck is that supposed to mean?
	Again, from your bank records that you're aware of, there'll be no cash deposit.
	We just hit 12,000 people on Rumble, people.
	12,000 people watching on Rumble.
	Are there cash deposits which line up with the money that you have allegedly received from Ms. Willis?
	No, he already answered that.
	He didn't deposit.
	So here's the thing.
	In my bank records, you will see cash deposits.
	Check deposits.
	I can't say that you look through the bank records and you won't see cash deposits because I have two sources of income, sir.
	Go on.
	Income comes from my private practice, my firm, and income comes from the contract here with Fulton County.
	During the course of private practice, occasionally I will have Cash.
	Occasion to deposit cash into my account.
	Oh, boy.
	In preparation for this hearing and your testimony, did you go through your bank records to find out if you could locate any cash deposits that would corroborate your testimony?
	No, sir.
	I didn't go through my bank records at all.
	And by the way, if a lawyer takes cash, unless it's different in Georgia, they've got to issue a receipt for taking cash.
	So what you would do, the money that you received...
	Of course, the money that you receive from your work for Fulton County, that's public funds, correct?
	No, sir, that's private funds.
	Public funds pay you to do work for Fulton County, correct?
	I don't know where the money's come from.
	Tell me what the definition of a public fund is.
	A public fund would be your funds.
	It comes from the government, Beons.
	...but funds money, public money, as in money from taxpayers by the Fulton County or the state of Georgia, pay you...
	To do the work that you're doing here in this case, yes or no?
	One or the other, I'm certain.
	You know which one?
	I don't know which one, no, sir.
	Now, you would take those public funds, and those public funds were then used, deposited in your account, and they were then used to pay on the credit cards for the trips that you would take.
	Ms. Willis, correct?
	I object to the question as far as the characterization of public funds.
	The witness didn't testify to that, and I believe there's been any evidence for that.
	I think the judge can take judicial notice.
	The point of it is that you got money.
	Mr. Gillis, rephrasing.
	The judge wants to let him answer.
	You got money from Fulton County for the work that you do here, right?
	Yes, sir.
	You would send in invoices, and they would pay you money, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	Private money.
	That money was money from either the citizens of Fulton County or from the state of Georgia, correct?
	That's what I mean by public funds.
	Agreed?
	I guess I'm having trouble with the notion that the citizens of Fulton County have paid me any funds.
	I'm not certain the funding source.
	I can tell you that either the state of Georgia or Fulton County has written me a check.
	So that would be, those two entities are public entities, correct?
	Yes.
	That would be public funds, right?
	Right?
	Yes.
	And those public funds are from the same source that you would then use to pay out on your...
	On your expenses for the trips that you took Ms. Willis on, correct?
	No, sir.
	As I testified to moments ago, I have income coming in from my law firm.
	I also have income.
	Coming in from the funds that we're here discussing now, either the state of Georgia or Fulton County, and or both.
	I'm not certain what it is.
	So to say that I'm paying a credit card statement with funds coming from Fulton County or the state of Georgia would not be an accurate statement because the funds could have very well come from my private practice.
	What percentage of your income in 2022 came from money where you're working on this case or from your partners working for the full family office?
	In 2022, I would say 50-50.
	Yes!
	Oh my goodness!
	What about 2023?
	Probably 60-40.
	Oh my goodness.
	Someone clip this just so that the world knows that I'm actually smart.
	At least 60% of those, in your view, would be public funds.
	Oh my goodness.
	Gravy trade.
	Oh my goodness.
	The Bahamas, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	Okay.
	How much cash did you get?
	How much cash above and beyond all of this?
	What you did...
	He's in so much trouble.
	It's unbelievable.
	When you signed on in November 1st of 2021, that's when you signed on to be counsel for the...
	He hid all of that from his wife, from what I understand.
	As you know, in your engagement letter, it doesn't say that you're signing on and your scope of work is to work on the Trump special grand jury investigation, does it?
	No, sir.
	It says that you're signing on to work on anti-corruption, the anti-corruption unit matters, correct?
	Well, that's ironic.
	Matters with a plural, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	So in your contract, there is no specific reference to any specific case.
	Isn't that right?
	That's correct.
	Okay.
	Now, but you didn't sign on for the duration.
	There was a period you'd have a contract, and then it would then expire, and then you would have a new contract, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	Now, of course, the extension that you received, the first one was in November.
	of 2021, and then you filed, excuse me, there was a renewal in November the 15th of 2022.
	Is that right?
	Sounds right.
	Drink that water, man.
	That was right after you got re-upped by Willis, right after you took Miss Willis to Aruba.
	Isn't that right?
	On that November the 1st, 2022 trip to Aruba and through November the 4th, 2022.
	What does REUP mean?
	Well, REUP means that you came back, your contract was up, and then on November the 15th you and this will signed a new contract for you, right?
	Yes, sir.
	Okay.
	When you were taking her to the Aruba and on the cruises, excuse me, the resort there, did you discuss your re-upping of signing an extension on your contract?
	Take those glasses off.
	No, sir.
	But you make an excellent point.
	I re-upped her many times.
	I'm glad you pointed that out.
	So the trip to Aruba, the contract...
	Was not in existence then.
	So you're saying that you were not...
	Under contract.
	In your contract, did you send any invoices in for work that you did after your first contract expired?
	No, sir.
	You didn't?
	No, sir.
	When that expired, that was it.
	So then you're saying that after the Aruba trip, you get re-upped with a new contract, correct?
	I signed a new contract.
	Was there any modifications on that contract?
	Did you get an extension on the cap that you were limited on the first one?
	Were there any modifications at all?
	Remuneration.
	Excuse me.
	I've done that again.
	I apologize.
	What did he do?
	I've been called worse.
	I'm sorry.
	I've been called worse.
	Now, were there any modifications on that?
	Yeah, money.
	Do you have the contracts in front of you where you could...
	I don't have it in front of me, but I think that...
	Because I believe, as the work gradually...
	Got more.
	He's going to justify his increased up salary.
	As the time of the work gradually increased, the hourly cap would increase.
	In other words, starting out the investigation, it was impossible to anticipate the level of cooperation during the course of the investigation from some of the witnesses.
	Is that what they call it now?
	So if you assume that there would be great cooperation, with the witnesses in terms of interviewing and speaking and being voluntarily speaking with you it doesn't take as much time so after getting into it realizing that most of the witnesses were not willing to speak or willing to turn over evidence or information Quickly,
	you figure out that this is going to take a little more time than originally anticipated.
	And because of that, you have to compensate for those hours.
	That's why there was a compensation on your extension?
	Yes, sir.
	The caps.
	Now, did Mrs. Willis review your invoices with you when you would submit them?
	Never.
	Did anyone ever question whether or not you worked 24 hours in one day and built 24 hours in one day?
	I've never worked 24 hours in one day and built 24 hours in one day.
	Here we go.
	I called it.
	I'm glad you asked me that question.
	Yeah, because I got an answer.
	I like the opportunity to talk about that.
	I accidentally didn't.
	If you look at that invoice where it says 24 hours in one day, it actually doesn't say one day.
	If you look at the top of the invoice, it says date completed.
	The date that's reflected on that invoice reflects the date that the work was completed.
	It doesn't say when it started.
	It just says this is the date that is completed.
	So if you go through the invoices, probably around the first five or six, you'll see that that's the billing format.
	I would bill only after that particular task has been completed.
	That's why you see a 24-hour period with the one day there.
	I kind of wish some of the experts who had opined on that had called me and asked me the question.
	But there was never a billing of 24 hours in one day.
	Yeah, of course there wasn't.
	Now, probably around the sixth or seventh invoice, you see the format change.
	I started using a range so that it got less confusing, right?
	I'm confused, so maybe you can correct it.
	Okay.
	In exhibit...
	Does part detail billing?
	You've got it.
	You've got it down a specific date.
	Mm-hmm.
	Prepared cases for prethraw.
	November the 5th, 2021, 24 hours at $250 an hour, $6,000.
	Now, this wasn't about a range.
	It was about the work that you did on November the 5th.
	Mr. Gillen, look at the top of the invoice.
	Let me go get the invoice.
	Where it says date completed.
	What I want you to do, Mr. Wade, is focus on the date that you have down there until the court, what you billed for on November the 5th, 2021.
	I thought it was already on.
	His answer is going to be...
	I didn't do detailed breakdown billing.
	Again, Mr. Gillen, it says...
	Completed date.
	Date completed.
	The dates that you see here are the dates that that work was completed.
	So on November the 5th, I completed the task of preparing the cases for pretrial.
	That's the date I completed it.
	Just read if you would.
	My question was, read out loud the entry for November the 5th, 2021.
	And how many hours you billed that day?
	Just do that for me, if you would.
	I can't do that.
	Excuse me.
	I believe the witness is entitled to answer his question.
	That certainly wasn't a question that Mr. Wade asked.
	All right.
	Well, the question now is to read a certain entry.
	I just read into the record, Mr. Wade, on November the 5th, 2021, how many hours did you bill the citizens of Fulton County for on that day?
	Just read it out, please.
	I completed the task on November 5th.
	2021.
	24 hours was billed at $250.
	I completed the task.
	And you knew this was going to be his answer, so it shouldn't come as a surprise.
	Some of it was detailed invoicing and others wasn't.
	Ms. Willis, and your testimony is that it began in 2022.
	Do you remember that testimony?
	Yes, I do.
	No, sir.
	Our relationship began in...
	Your romantic relationship began in 2022?
	Yes, sir.
	Is that your testimony?
	Yes, sir.
	Okay.
	Now, when you were re-upped on this contract, You had a romantic relationship already established.
	Yes, sir.
	With Ms. Willis.
	Yes or no?
	In 2022?
	When your contract was renegotiated.
	November the 15th, 2022, you had a romantic relationship with Ms. Willis.
	I signed the second contract.
	Yes, sir.
	Answer my question, please.
	I'm not going to use the words re-up.
	Signed up.
	On the re-up or whatever you want to call it, your contract on November 15, 2022, you had a romantic relationship already existing with Ms. Willis, yes or no?
	I signed the contract.
	The second contract, yes, sir, during the course of a romantic relationship.
	Yes or no, you had a romantic relationship with her at the time that you signed up the extension on November 15, 2022, yes or no?
	The answer to that question is yes.
	Thank you.
	Now, this was before the special purpose grand jury released a report.
	Isn't that correct?
	Correct?
	Are you asking me if it's before the work was completed or before the special purpose grand jury actually publicly released the report?
	When they released the report.
	Your relationship with Ms. Willis already existed when the special purpose grand jury released its report, correct?
	At the time the report was released, yes, sir.
	But you understand that the report, the work had been completed prior to the release of the report.
	You understand that?
	And your relationship with Ms. Willis, of course, was prior to the indictment in this case, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	The relationship was prior to the indictment in this case, okay?
	He renegotiated his contract up while boning the person.
	Did he negotiate with her?
	Like, how'd they negotiate?
	That's all the questions, Your Honor, I have.
	Thank you.
	Did they negotiate while making baby sex?
	This judge has seen enough.
	I think we went through.
	No, I had asked you for permission, but he was going to go first on this and then I was going to follow up.
	Well, I'll have you go first.
	That's what I thought I had asked before.
	All right, let me...
	All right, with the understanding, next time we're going to keep going in order and skip around the order.
	All right.
	That's why I brought it up, because I thought that's...
	Okay.
	All right.
	Did they negotiate when they were in Aruba?
	Yeah, so my prediction, by the way, is they're going to both get kicked out of this car.
	I'm going to try to keep my questions very specific.
	Yes, sir.
	And I'm going to also, of course, try not to go back into specific questions that have already been asked.
	Okay?
	Yes, sir.
	When did your relationship with Ms. Willis end?
	It hasn't.
	2023.
	Can you give us an approximation of, not by date, but by month?
	I can give you the date.
	Summer 2023.
	So they're done?
	Forgive me.
	I'm a man.
	We don't do the date thing.
	He's getting annihilated.
	No question.
	Summer 23, I would say...
	Shouldn't take this long.
	Using the euphemism personal relationship, did you have any personal relationship at all?
	With Miss Willis after the summer of 2023.
	Did you bone her after you broke up?
	I want to make sure that I'm answering your question.
	Did you have sex with her after you broke up?
	Let me rephrase it.
	The way it has been characterized in, for example, the response of the state.
	Make it uncomfortable for him.
	There's a difference between a personal relationship and a professional relationship.
	Correct?
	Yes, sir.
	I'm not talking about a professional relationship.
	I'm talking about personal relationship.
	Have you had a personal relationship at all?
	And you know what I mean by that.
	Sex.
	After the summer of 2023.
	Did you have any booty calls?
	Are you asking me if I had intercourse with it?
	Yes.
	I was trying not to, but I guess if you're going to characterize it as that, the answer would be no.
	Okay, did you have oral sex with her?
	It's been purely professional since the summer of 2023.
	So that's where we're having issues.
	Oh my god.
	Sorry, oh my gosh.
	You'll have to explain because I don't know what the issue would be.
	No, I will explain to you.
	Thank you.
	You say personal.
	Did she touch your peepee?
	We're very good friends.
	Probably closer than ever because of these attacks.
	But if you're asking me about specific intercourse, the answer is no.
	How about general intercourse?
	How about if I change it from intercourse to romantic?
	No.
	Okay.
	Did she touch your peepee since the summer of 2013?
	During the direct examination, you made a statement, at least I believe I heard it correctly, that your personal relationship, and now I'm talking about that characterized sexual romantic relationship, was not a secret.
	Is that correct?
	Wait.
	If you're asking me if people knew that...
	We were having sex.
	No, they didn't.
	I'm asking you whether the people knew that you were dating, whether you were romantically involved.
	You said that it was not a secret.
	No, it wasn't a secret.
	It was just private.
	My mother knew, obviously.
	Did anyone in the district attorney's office that has worked on this case know that you were dating or had a romantic relationship with District Attorney Willis?
	I don't know what they knew.
	Well, did you tell anyone?
	No.
	Do you have any knowledge of whether Ms. Willis revealed it to anyone?
	I have no clue.
	Okay.
	So as far as you know, as far as you know from personal knowledge, no one in the DA's team knew.
	Oh, they all knew.
	Oh, bullcrap.
	So if it was a legitimate relationship, is there any particular reason why it was kept secret or private?
	It wasn't kept secret.
	It was kept private.
	And the purpose for that was?
	It's what we chose to do.
	I'm asking you why, though.
	Not just because you chose.
	If you're dating someone, why keep it quiet?
	Oh, I see where he's...
	I'm so stupid.
	He's obviously going to the conflict.
	The first one is...
	No, to keep the conflict out of public sites.
	And I want to say this respectfully in the right way.
	There are some people who are in the public eye who just don't like it.
	Don't wish to be there.
	Is it not because you knew it would be a conflict?
	Shut up and just answer that.
	I can't count the number of people that would approach the table or would accost us as we're trying to walk into a restaurant.
	Or ask you whether or not it's an inappropriate relationship if you're both prosecuting Trump.
	Maybe that.
	It is not secret.
	It is private.
	We don't want the world, the world...
	You are so screwed.
	It's beyond words.
	That time.
	So we weren't trying to keep anything a secret, Mr. Seda.
	There's nothing secret or salacious about having a private life.
	Nothing.
	I'm not suggesting that there was.
	We might disagree.
	When you went on the various trips that have been outlined by both Mr. Gillen and by Ms. Merchant.
	Did anyone in the district attorney's office know that the two of you were traveling on personal trips together?
	To my knowledge, Mr. Sedal, no.
	And again, that was for privacy, according to your testimony.
	Purely privacy.
	Privacy, yes, sir.
	Did you and Ms. Willis go to the Hapeville condo?
	Prior to your relationship starting, beginning of 2022.
	Prior to having physical contact, prior to having intercourse, did we go to the Hapeville condo?
	Again, you keep going to intercourse.
	I'm trying not to, but fine.
	The answer to that, my question would be yes.
	Did you and Ms. Willis go to the Hapeville condo?
	This is utter liar, liar.
	Prior to, what I want to say, November 1st of 2021.
	Did you have sex with her there?
	Yes.
	And the purpose for going to the Hapeville condo with Miss Willis prior to 2021 would have been what?
	Prior to November 1 of 2021.
	Could have been any number of things, because at that time...
	That's what I'm asking, so tell me.
	Yeah, could have been any number of things, because at that time, she had a friend living in that condo.
	Miss Yerdy lived in that condo.
	Oh, okay.
	Oh, this is getting so good already.
	I think he just said it.
	Maybe it was my question that was poorly worded.
	Let me try again.
	Your answer is yes.
	Prior to November 1st of 2021, you would have gone to the Hapeville condo and been there with Miss Willis, correct?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	And you would have been there, as you indicated, for many reasons.
	Yes.
	Was one of them sex?
	Yes.
	Can you give me, just list a few of the reasons.
	Sex.
	Miss Yurdy resided there.
	Why would you be there with Wade?
	To visit her.
	Bullshit.
	Bullcrap.
	Maybe went to talk about a document that I received.
	Let's talk about you and me.
	You would go to the condo to talk about a document that you received?
	Absolutely.
	Okay, go ahead.
	That's a lie.
	I can tell that that's a lie.
	Any other reasons?
	Sex!
	Just ask it.
	Did you go there and have sex?
	None come to mind.
	No, sir.
	And would you say that was frequent?
	When I say frequent, do you think prior to November 1st of 2021, you were at the condo more than 10 times?
	No, sir.
	So it'd be less than 10 times?
	Yes, sir.
	So phone records were to reflect that you were making phone calls from the same location as the condo before November 1st of 2021, and it was on multiple occasions, the phone records would be wrong?
	If phone records reflected that, yes, sir.
	They'd be wrong?
	They'd be wrong.
	Okay.
	Where did you live during that time period?
	The same place I live now.
	Which is not in Hapeville, correct?
	Hapeville?
	It is not in Hapeville.
	It is north of Atlanta, the city of Atlanta, correct?
	It is.
	Okay.
	That's what I'm wondering now.
	Any other reasons why you would be in the Hapeville area on multiple occasions prior to November 1st of 2021?
	And that's why Yertie and Willis had the falling out.
	Let's see.
	The Porsche Experience is there.
	I'm sorry?
	The Porsche Experience is there.
	Okay, so that would have been one.
	Any other reason?
	Yes, sir.
	The airport is there.
	Airport in Hapeville.
	Yes, sir.
	Delta Airlines is there.
	Headquartered there.
	Let's see.
	Restaurants there?
	Is it Hatfields?
	If that's your recollection, that's fine.
	I'm not asking you to try to remember everything.
	Oh, wow.
	This is amazing.
	Did you discuss your affidavit filed in connection with the response with Ms. Willis?
	No, sir.
	I don't believe that, but who cares?
	Did you know, personal knowledge, whether Ms. Willis reviewed your affidavit before it was included with the response?
	I have no clue.
	So, as far as you know, personal knowledge, Ms. Willis did not know what you said in the affidavit.
	I didn't give it to her.
	That's what I said.
	You have no personal knowledge?
	No personal knowledge.
	And as far as you know, no one else has told you that she did or didn't?
	I hadn't asked anyone.
	We've kind of worked this up a little bit, and the numbers could be off.
	But according to our numbers, $10,000, give or take, would have been reflected on your credit card statement in connection with things...
	Trips.
	Of potential benefit to Ms. Willis, okay?
	I want you just to assume that.
	Assuming that there was $10,000 that you had on your credit cards, is it your testimony that Ms. Willis paid you back $10,000 in cash?
	Sit down, lawyer.
	I'm not finished my question.
	How much cash did Fannie Willis give you?
	Let's just simplify it.
	Simplify, she asked for it.
	Is that right, Mr. Sater?
	No, it's not joint travel.
	But all I'm trying to understand, I'll rephrase, because I don't want to get bogged down on it specifically.
	How much cash did Fannie Willis give her?
	You would have received thousands of dollars in cash from Ms. Willis, correct?
	Yes, sir?
	Okay.
	And the thousands of dollars in cash from Ms. Willis...
	Do you know, I'm not asking you whether she took it out of her pocketbook or she took it out of a suitcase.
	I'm saying, do you know the source of the cash?
	Just that, out of her pocketbook.
	You don't know where she was paying the cash?
	He is so screwed.
	And the whole time that she was paying you in cash, you never said, hey, why do you have this amount of cash?
	Mr. Sadeau, in my practice, people come into my law firm.
	All the time with cash.
	I never questioned where they got it.
	Yeah, but we're talking about the district attorney of Fulton County who I'm assuming receives a paycheck.
	She doesn't get paid in cash.
	So just like you assume, I assume she got it from her paycheck.
	I don't know.
	Okay, but of course it's already been and I'm not going to go back into it.
	You've not seen any records indicating withdrawals of cash from Miss Willis at all.
	Why would I ask her?
	I didn't ask her.
	All I said is you haven't, right?
	No, sir.
	Okay.
	And you were never with her at the bank when she pulled it out?
	Can you explain why you filed for divorce one day after you were hired by Ms. Willis?
	Yes, let's hear it.
	You filed on November 2nd of 2021, you're hired on November 1st of 2021.
	Why the day after?
	You mean one day before?
	You filed for divorce one day after.
	You were hired, right?
	Okay.
	I'll answer your question.
	Of course you're going to.
	You have to.
	Truthfully.
	In 2015, when my wife had the affair, we had a conversation that we would divorce.
	We wait until the kids are majors.
	Again, the better practice, at least for my children at the time, was to stay in place until the youngest could graduate.
	We heard this already.
	And matriculate into college.
	We did that.
	When she graduated, matriculated into college.
	At the time, my wife had moved back and forth to Houston, to Texas.
	So she's in Texas.
	We take our child off to college.
	We come back to Georgia for a brief period of time.
	The divorce gets filed.
	She gets served.
	There we go.
	Oh, so it's just a coincidence.
	That date was selected.
	Just a coincidence.
	That's what I actually...
	Yeah, but he had to mention his wife's affair.
	...that specific date was selected was because she was only in town for a brief...
	...and why do you have the right to object on his behalf for attorney-planned privilege?
	Shut your mouth and let him answer, basically, is what the judge just said.
	All right, there we go.
	Well, it's too late now.
	He was about to answer it.
	Someone was kicking that lawyer.
	I believe that he's already attempted to answer this question, and there was no privilege raised.
	So he's given a partial answer.
	Yes!
	And now he's about to finish that.
	So first of all, he's covered by attorney-client privilege, and I'll deal with that if you want me to.
	But otherwise, he's already answered.
	Answer the damn question and finish it.
	He doesn't have to say, now I'm going to stop.
	Well, it was a long preface, but I don't think it ever actually got to what might have been at issue there.
	So if you lay the foundation, we'll deal with the objection.
	Yep.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Oh.
	Someone was kicking that lawyer.
	Dude, you should be objecting right now.
	You realize that an attorney-client privilege is the privilege of the client, correct?
	your representation at least has been proffered to the court by Mr. Bradley that It's up to you to decide whether you want to raise the privilege, right?
	Yes, sir.
	It's not up to Mr. Bradley.
	Yes, sir.
	So you have the power, in order to get to the truth of the matter, you have the power to waive the attorney-client privilege.
	Whether he uses it or not, it doesn't matter why.
	I think if we're trying to get to the answer to your question, let's figure it out.
	Whether it covers the question you were trying to get to.
	Why did you serve her on November 1st?
	And your position is you have no intention of waiving your attorney-client privilege, correct?
	That's correct.
	All right, so now, can you answer the question why you waited until November 2nd, the day after you were hired by Ms. Willis, to file for divorce?
	I can.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Oh, God, my legs.
	Sorry.
	So, again, Joycelyn had...
	Relocated to Texas.
	After her affair, right?
	She had been in Texas for months.
	With another man.
	She was only here for a brief period of time to drive my daughter's car back with her.
	And when she came here to do that, I was able to then get her served.
	You're saying you couldn't have served her in Texas?
	Is that what you're saying?
	Okay, so your answer as to why you waited until the day after you were hired by Ms. Willis, which would be November 1st, 2021, to file the complaint for the divorce on November 2nd, 2021, your testimony under oath is because your...
	She was here.
	She had not been here in October, had not been here in September, had not been here in August of 2021.
	She had been in Texas taking care of her ailing mother and an aging father.
	So the first opportunity that I had...
	This is such a lie.
	It's unbelievable.
	Speaking with my lawyers to take care of that was the date it was filed.
	And serve because she happened to be here.
	It had nothing to do with...
	That was purely coincidental, that contract.
	I understand it's purely coincidence, your testimony?
	Yes, sir.
	And understand that this was by agreement between she and I, she being my wife and I, that we would divorce when the children matriculated out, and that there would actually have been an agreement attached to...
	The filing, it became apparent that the agreement wasn't going to happen, and things got a little contentious, so that's when the privilege would kick in, and I was forced to do it when I did it.
	Okay.
	So, if I understood correctly, again, you tell me if I'm wrong.
	Is it your testimony that your wife was not...
	Any time before?
	I guess the question is, why would he have had to do it the day before?
	No.
	In October of 2021, she was back and forth between here and Texas.
	So she was, at least on some occasions, in the Atlanta area.
	But that was during the time when we were working through the consent agreement that fell through.
	The other question is, what difference does it make?
	It's suspicious, but...
	Okay, so he did it.
	Understood, Ms. Cross.
	Did he disclose the contract?
	We're about to finish this area since I'm not going to be able to go any further about...
	If we want to call the ex, we'll call the ex for that.
	Did he disclose the contract?
	Well, we're going to have to discuss whether that's a collateral issue altogether.
	No, I'm just saying...
	I didn't say we will, but we'll...
	Okay.
	All right, so...
	You said that you were aware of the contracts that Mr. Bradley and Mr. Campbell had with the Fulton County District Attorney's Office.
	How much were they for?
	And how did you become aware of those?
	They paid me for them.
	Just through conversation.
	Through conversation with who?
	Mr. Bradley and Mr. Campbell.
	So you were discussing matters with Mr. Bradley which were not related to attorney-client privilege, correct?
	Related to the contract, yes.
	But you were having conversations that would not, even though, if I understood correctly, Mr. Bradley was your attorney at the time, correct?
	At what time?
	At the time that Mr. Bradley received his contract from Fulton County, which would have been beginning of January or in January of 2021, right?
	Is that the date of his contract?
	Pretty close.
	A step too far.
	I don't know what the date of his contract, but if it was after the date of the filing of divorce, then yeah.
	I'm not talking about after the date of the filing of divorce.
	It's been represented to the court that you had an attorney-client relationship with Mr. Bradley from 2015 forward, correct?
	Yes, sir, that is correct.
	When Mr. Bradley received his contract with Fulton County, that was in 2021, correct?
	And they talked about it?
	I don't know.
	We can prove that through other evidence.
	But at the time that Mr. Bradley was doing work for Fulton County, if I understand, you still had an attorney-client privilege, at least you're claiming one, with Mr. Bradley, correct?
	Yes.
	So when you talked to Mr. Bradley...
	About matters with his contract in Fulton County, those were not covered by your attorney-client privilege, correct?
	They were not.
	Okay, and that meant that not all communications with Mr. Bradley were covered by attorney-client privilege, correct?
	Correct.
	Well, those certainly weren't.
	My question was, not all communications with Mr. Bradley were covered by, at least as you've been represented to the court, by the attorney-client privilege, correct?
	Those communications were not.
	So there were communications outside of the attorney-client privilege, correct?
	With Mr. Bradley.
	If you're asking me if I ever communicate with him outside of the attorney-client privilege, the answer is yes.
	I've communicated with him outside of the attorney-client privilege.
	Stretching my legs again.
	Oh my goodness.
	Let's finish this up.
	How much were those contracts for?
	Did you call it Roman No.
	4?
	In defense exhibit No.
	4, Mr. Gillen went over with you your responses to certain interrogatories on May the 30th, 2023.
	Remember that?
	Yes, sir.
	Imagine how much money has been wasted on this prosecution.
	Not going back into those.
	The words interrogatories are already in evidence, so we're not going to do that.
	But the ones that we've gone into, there were two of them.
	And your answer to both of those was none, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	Okay.
	Now, on January 25th of 2024...
	Yes, sir.
	You again were in a position that you answered those same interrogatories, the two that we're talking about.
	I can get specific if we need to, but as long as we understand we're talking about the same two, right?
	Yes, sir.
	Okay.
	And they are in defense exhibit number six, and they are interrogatories number four.
	Oh, Fannie is watching this.
	And number five.
	And she's probably pulling a Hillary Clinton, like throwing shit at the television.
	No, I want you to be able to see it.
	So it's a defense exhibit number six.
	I don't...
	Does he have six up there?
	I'm told that you have six.
	They have the answer.
	But how much were the contracts that his partners had with Fannie Willis, the DA?
	Oh, and then he didn't disclose any of this to his wife, so that's irrelevant to the disqualification.
	But, oh my goodness.
	Relevance to the divorce.
	You would agree with me that in defense exhibit number six, and we're talking about interrogatories of January 25, 2024.
	Yes, sir.
	That as to interrogatory number four, that's the same interrogatory, same words that were in the interrogatory that Mr. Gillen went over, which was dated May 30th of 2023, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	And your original response in defense exhibit number six, You already answered.
	24-5-505, correct?
	That's correct, yeah.
	So I would like to retract my line.
	Do you know that 24-5-505 breaks down into two, two privileges, right?
	Which is why I was specific.
	I said I asserted the privilege of the Privacy privilege.
	Well, that's what I'm asking you.
	In your updated response, there's no reference to privacy, correct?
	Yes, there is.
	In the code section.
	24-5-505.
	Reference to privacy.
	Just go with me, okay?
	That code section says, does it not, no party or witness shall be required to testify as to any matter which may incriminate or tend to incriminate such party or witness.
	Or which shall tend to bring infamy, disgrace, or public contempt upon such party or witness.
	You'd agree with that, right?
	I'm not reading it.
	I'm sorry?
	I'm not reading it.
	I don't have it in front of me.
	If I may.
	Here, I'll give it to you.
	You can read it.
	I can take judicial notice.
	That is what the rule says if you want to ask him any follow-up questions.
	Okay, thank you.
	You are not claiming that your answer to number four, interrogatory number four, on January 25th, 2024, incriminates you, that is, as in Fifth Amendment privilege, right?
	That's correct.
	You're claiming the second part, that it would bring infamy, disgrace, or public contempt, correct?
	I'm going to object to that.
	I don't think that's the full thing, but also the witness doesn't have it in front of them, so I don't know how to respond to that.
	He has said several times privacy is why he involves that statutory.
	Overall, I'm claiming privacy.
	The privilege that you make reference to is to infamy, disgrace, or public contempt upon the witness, right?
	Or party.
	Privacy.
	That's the section that you were relying on, correct?
	That's what it says, yes, sir.
	I could show you, but I think the court has already indicated he can take judicial notice of the statute.
	Assume that what I'm telling you is accurate, okay?
	Yes, sir.
	How would an answer of none bring infamy, disgrace, or public contempt upon you?
	So, as I explained in direct of Mr. Roman's counsel, the minute she elected to intervene into my divorce proceeding, I then started to understand the bigger picture, which was that all the attorneys in the election interference case were colluding with Joycelyn's divorce lawyer.
	And because of that, I said, privacy.
	I don't want my divorce proceeding to bleed into this criminal proceeding.
	I'm not changing my answer.
	I just want to hide my answer.
	I didn't want that.
	So you raised a privilege, if I understand.
	That indicated that your answer would bring infamy, disgrace, or public contempt upon you.
	Right?
	I'm going to object to the relevance of this and ask an answer several times.
	Mr. Seda, where are we heading with this?
	I think I can finish that up by saying you didn't say none again.
	You asserted a privilege, correct?
	That's correct.
	And you did the same thing, did you not, with number five?
	That's correct.
	That is, you didn't say none again, right?
	Is the answer to the interrogatory number four, if you have it in front of you, is the answer none?
	Is that the truth?
	The answer is, to that interrogatory, is as I placed it at the time I responded, sir.
	I'm asking you now, is the answer to that interrogatory none?
	The answer is still privilege.
	So he's apparently electing to apply the same.
	Privilege, Mr. Seda, to that exact same question.
	And I have a case which indicates that we can get beyond that if the court deems that appropriate.
	And to what end?
	Hmm?
	To what end?
	That the privilege actually does not apply, and he must answer the question.
	And where does that get us, even if he answers the question?
	Has he already said everything he has to say about the nature of the relationship, how long it lasted, when it ended?
	No, I think it would prove...
	When it started.
	I think if he is...
	Forced or compelled to answer the question, he will either answer it falsely by saying none, or he'll answer it truthfully by saying yes.
	And that he lies then.
	That's what I believe.
	But that's the conclusion of the argument anyhow.
	The interrogator you're referring to, the question contained there.
	Two interrogatories, yes sir.
	It's the entertaining one, it's whether there are other relationships.
	I don't think we're seeing Fannie Willis testify today, people.
	With a specific language that's in the interrogatories.
	Sure.
	Haven't you already covered that in all the other questions?
	Yeah, you've proven it.
	It's now an argument.
	We have, but...
	I want to hear him say it.
	The court could, if I could require or compel an answer from him as to whether his answer would still be none, then we would know whether or not he was telling...
	The truth.
	Now, if the answer is no, then obviously there was a time in the past where he was not.
	It simply requires him to now answer under oath what he refused to answer and claimed, and I might suggest, is a bogus privilege, and that you can pierce that privilege because it's a material fact in connection with this case.
	Again, it's a call that Your Honor makes.
	I have case law that says you can do that, but it's your discretion.
	Miss Cross?
	Your Honor, Mr. Winkman has been on the stand now for several hours.
	He's been asked and answered very personal questions, but I believe it covers the issues He basically is caught in the lie, so he just wants to hear him definitively say it one more time.
	So as I see it, the only relevance these interrogatories have to this case really whatsoever would be as either prior inconsistent or consistent statements.
	And to that, and I think the question has been put to him again and again and again.
	He's answered how he believes he felt his answer should be.
	And I believe he's alive.
	And why he answered a certain way.
	And we can move on.
	And as it goes to credibility, I think at this point we're arguing weight.
	And I don't really see the value in pushing this issue further.
	Just for the record, the case that I was going to refer to is State v.
	Wakefield.
	At 324, Georgia Appeal 587.
	And specifically, it would be 590.
	The judge gets it.
	Oh my gosh.
	This is a 2013 case.
	And then they footnote to footnote 3. And footnote 3 says...
	There are times when the materiality of the evidence outweighs the testimonial privilege, and it goes and explains what that is.
	That's what I'm bringing up.
	And I see what you're saying, that we could say that you need to answer the question regardless of the privilege you asserted.
	At this point, though, I think we've covered that ground and we're ready to move on.
	Based on that, I have nothing else.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	Mr. McCullough, anything?
	Let's go back to this chair and see how this works.
	On behalf of Mr. Floyd.
	Moving through defense council.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	No, no, no.
	I'm looking behind you.
	Mr. McCullough, on behalf of Mr. Floyd.
	He's elbowing you, sir.
	Okay.
	Mr. Cromwell.
	This chair's a lot lower.
	All right.
	Ms. Cross.
	All right.
	Here we go.
	This is sort of cross, but redirect, but it's their witness.
	Mr. Wade.
	Oh, yeah.
	Let's hear it.
	Have you still got exhibit number 14 in front of you?
	I believe I have them all.
	All right.
	So you were asked Mr. Wade about...
	A couple of the invoice items.
	And your testimony, I think, was that the 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.
	Sometimes more, sometimes less.
	Probably more, but who knows?
	How about your time?
	I'm interested in the percentage of your time from...
	Good question, good question.
	I spent so much more than 50% of my time.
	It was day in and day out.
	You estimate for us the percentage of your time that was spent on Fulton County work versus other work.
	Oh gosh.
	Oh gosh, so much.
	99.1.
	99% of the time here in this building.
	They have to ask whether or not that includes boning fanny time.
	It was, as I understood your testimony, it was an intense period in terms of hours while that special purpose grand jury was meeting.
	Oh, it was intense.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Long, hard hours.
	Who was head or manager of the election integrity case during that time in the district attorney's office?
	I was.
	You were coordinating the efforts?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	And those efforts included not just the proceedings that were happening in this building, correct?
	That's correct.
	We don't need to go all through it, but is your representation that 99.9% of the time was restricted to 2022?
	99% of your professional working time was devoted to this case?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	And the remainder, whatever it was, was to some of your other cases that were ongoing?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	All right.
	2022, I want to focus on that a little bit because If we are looking at, I believe, the financial affidavits, do you have those in front of you as well?
	I do.
	The financial affidavit that was filed in your divorce case in January 2022.
	Hold on a second.
	So he only was working 1% for the income that represented 50%?
	In 22?
	That's interesting.
	January 22. Yes, ma 'am.
	January 23, where'd that number come to?
	9,000.
	What about 2024?
	I don't know.
	Is that there in front of you?
	That's not one of the ones that's there in front of you?
	No, ma 'am.
	All right.
	So as reflected in those financial affidavits, your income decreased as a result of your work in this case, correct?
	Significant.
	The structure of your firm, we talked a lot about that, and I don't want to go through it anymore than we need to, but...
	2022, the structure of your firm changed, is that correct?
	That's correct.
	In the early part of 2022, there were three of you, you and Mr. Campbell and Mr. Bradley, you split expenses, is that right?
	That's correct.
	And you profit shared among yourselves, correct?
	Correct.
	After Mr. Bradley left the firm, then there were just two of you, correct?
	That is the cause of the significant change.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	So now you have two people bringing in income, correct?
	Correct.
	And one of those people, you, is spending almost all of your time devoted to this election integrity.
	Yeah, it makes you wonder how he was billing his clients for 50% of his income.
	And your income from this election integrity case is less than what it was the year before.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	He's the victim in all of this?
	I never knew that!
	Oh my goodness, I feel bad for him now.
	We talked about the monthly cap that was included in your contracts, indicating there was a certain threshold that you could reach number hours a month, and over that amount you were not going to be compensated, correct?
	That's correct.
	All right.
	And you kind of smile when you said that.
	That's a little bittersweet there, isn't it?
	Why don't you feed him an answer a little more?
	That's bitter, bitter.
	Exhibit 14, is that still there in front of you?
	It is.
	I want you to take a look, please.
	That's a collection of exhibits that includes all of your invoices, as was represented.
	I want you to take a look at invoice number 9. Yes, ma 'am.
	Is that there in front of you?
	I have it.
	Invoice number 9, Mr. Wade, indicates that you performed hours of work that you were not compensated for because your cap had been reached?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	And what did you do in those circumstances?
	Oh, he worked so many hours.
	The hours that you worked per month were more than the cap that was in your contract that you were permitted to be paid for.
	I was forced to lose that time.
	I didn't get paid for it.
	Okay.
	And that's what Exhibit No. 9 shows?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	All right.
	And in Exhibit No.
	9, you've got a task, hours that were completed, and you just didn't bill for it.
	You noted the time and then a zero beside it because you didn't fill the county for that time.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	What about invoice number 13?
	Can you flip to that for me?
	I have it.
	Is that a similar situation?
	Yes, ma 'am, it is.
	And what is it on invoice number 13?
	Maybe he did.
	Maybe he's going to say, oh, yeah, I did work 24 hours that day.
	This invoice makes me cry.
	There are so many hours here that I worked that I couldn't.
	I couldn't get paid for.
	And you work those hours anyway, Mr. Wade?
	Oh, absolutely.
	This is not the type of job that you could walk away from just because you're not getting paid for it.
	I think there's some professional rules of responsibility to an attorney who's engaged in a case.
	You have to see it through.
	So it's not like I could just throw my hands up and say, well, I reached my monthly cap.
	I'm done.
	I can walk away.
	I can't do that.
	This is ongoing, it's constant, and I have to do the work.
	Can you look at invoice number 23 for me there in exhibit number 14?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Does that reflect a similar situation, the hours worked that you were not compensated for?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Invoice number 24 and 27, can you take a look at those and let us know if that reflects the same situation?
	Are you trying to depress me looking at the money?
	It's the same, yes.
	Okay.
	And there's no workaround to that?
	You didn't attempt to work around that contractual cap on your hours?
	Oh, no, ma 'am.
	All right.
	You were asked a lot of questions, Mr. Wade, about the affidavit that was submitted, correct?
	Do you recall those questions?
	I'm sorry.
	I'm stuck on this invoice.
	You know, if I was going to get a benefit, I'd like that benefit.
	That's the one I want.
	That didn't happen.
	That didn't happen.
	Okay.
	And there was no renegotiating your contract to reflect that those hours should be paid or anything?
	No, ma 'am.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Do you have your affidavit there in front of you?
	I do.
	The affidavit, of course, was attached to and provided in support of?
	The state's response to Mr. Roman's motion, correct?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	All right.
	And you prepared that affidavit?
	I did.
	You signed that affidavit?
	I did.
	All of the allegations and the representations in that affidavit are true.
	Is that right, Mr. Wade?
	Every one of them.
	Every one of them.
	You were asked a lot of questions about our line number 34. Can you turn to that for me, please?
	It's on page four of that affidavit.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Can you read it out loud for me please?
	The District Attorney and I are both financially independent professionals.
	Expenses for personal travel were roughly divided equally between us.
	At times I have made and purchased travel for District Attorney Willis and myself from my personal funds.
	At other times District Attorney Willis has made and purchased travel for she and I from her personal funds.
	Examples of District Attorney Willis's purchasing Yes.
	Does that include credit?
	Yes.
	Does that include reimbursements?
	Yes.
	You didn't represent in your affidavit, Mr. Wade, that...
	You were including all of the receipts from funds or travel expenses that were paid on your behalf.
	Objection.
	Leading question.
	That's correct.
	You had, I think, your conversation with Ms. Merchant was you produced the receipt that you had.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Are you aware of any other receipts?
	By the way, just I want to highlight something.
	The fact that he worked more hours than he could bill is a sign that he wasn't fit for the job in the first place.
	Not a sign that he's working so hard that he's not getting paid enough.
	It's like they say as a young lawyer, you don't get the bill for every hour you work in a file if you weren't fit for the job and you had to learn how to do it.
	Oh, shit.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Receipts on hand when you filled out the affidavit because they weren't from your possession.
	Are you aware now that there are receipts and that it reflects that the district attorney...
	Do you remember, Mr. Wade, approximately how much...
	Do you remember how much the flight was for you, your flight to Felice?
	And if you don't, I'm not tendering it through you, I'm just asking you to take a look at that and see if that refreshes your recollection as to the amount that that plane ticket cost that was extended by district attorney.
	You may keep it.
	I'm going to come back to that point not to belabor it, but like, he had never done a RICO case before.
	Of course he's got to have a learning curve.
	Does that refresh your recollection, Mr. Wade?
	It does, thank you.
	Approximately how much was the amount of the ticket that District Attorney Willis purchased for your travel two days?
	$87.35.
	Wow.
	And I'm not tenured yet, Your Honor, but I will leave it with the court reporter for our reference.
	Yeah, so he might have worked all those hours.
	Maybe he worked 24 hours in one day.
	Mr. Wade.
	Never done a RICO case.
	He's got to learn how to do it.
	Your testimony here in court today, and consistent with your affidavit, was that the personal relationship, I think we've called it dating today as well.
	We call it sex.
	The personal or dating relationship between you and the district attorney began sometime in early 2022.
	March, I think, was your testimony.
	Is that right?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	And that March date isn't included in the affidavit.
	The affidavit is less specific, but that was your testimony today?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	And that there was no personal or dating relationship prior to that time, right?
	No.
	No.
	I think that's a lie, but whatever.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm going to direct your attention to 2020.
	Yep.
	In 2020, were you dating the district attorney?
	No.
	2020, that was during the COVID pandemic, correct?
	It was.
	We weren't allowed kissing, so how could I have done that?
	Was there a situation for you, Mr. Wade?
	Go on.
	That made you particularly vulnerable during the COVID period?
	Oh, my goodness.
	Thanks for reminding me.
	In 2020...
	Someone died.
	And a portion of 21, I was battling cancer.
	And that prevented me from pretty much leaving the...
	Leaving environments that aren't sterile, and I just...
	I had health on my mind.
	You were particularly cautious during that time?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Were you dating anyone in 2020?
	No, ma 'am.
	So he didn't have sex with her because they would have exposed him to germs, basically, is what I understand.
	Thank you, Mr. Wade.
	That's all I have.
	That's terrible.
	Can we cross on those points only?
	Yes, thank you.
	All right, Mr. Wade.
	The state asked you about how much money you're making now versus before, and you said you're making significantly less since you started working for Fulton County, correct?
	Well, I did say that, but what we're talking about is because now, at this point, the splitting of the financial obligations in the firm are now that two people are carrying the weight of three.
	So that would scale back on the amount of income, right?
	Amount of profit or income?
	50, though, instead of one-third, correct?
	The profits, yes.
	Okay.
	So, but you did testify that you're making significantly less now.
	We heard about it for a few minutes.
	Significantly less now that you work for Fulton County, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Would you agree with me that $236,000, Yes, I would.
	Would you agree with me that $262,000 is more than $236,000?
	He didn't say what type of cancer it was.
	I'm curious.
	All of these years, despite you saying that you were a three-way partner with Wade and Campbell and Bradley and now a two-way partner with Campbell, all of your corporate tax returns are filed in the law firm of Nathan Wade, though, correct?
	My returns?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Yes.
	For your law firm?
	Well, for my law firm because I also have personal returns.
	Right.
	And I'm not talking about your personal returns.
	I'm talking about your business returns.
	Yeah.
	The question contemplates that my bring home money is more or less, so I want to be clear, that is reflected in my personal returns.
	I didn't ask you anything about bring home money, though.
	I'm not sure what you're talking about.
	That's right.
	What I'm talking about is, your question was the portion of my testimony dealing with earning significantly less money.
	No, no, my question is, and let me, I'll just break it down.
	During 2019, you filed your business returns.
	I'm not talking about your personal.
	Your business returns for the law firm of Nathan Waid.
	Correct.
	Correct?
	I filed personal and business.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	And even though you said you were partners with Bradley and Campbell, later on, you filed your business returns, not with them, but as a solo practitioner, correct?
	Ah, I see where you're going.
	There's a different return.
	And I'm not asking about that.
	What I'm asking about is during the years 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022, you filed a business return for the law firm of Nathan Wade.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	And it's going to show more income.
	And in 2019, you said that the law firm of Nathan Wade made $184,000, correct?
	No, I don't know.
	Well, I'll tell you.
	Does that sound familiar?
	Does that sound about like what you made in 2019?
	His firm is going to have made more money.
	If that's what's on the return, yes, ma 'am, you're right.
	And I'm happy I can bring those up.
	I'll jog your memory.
	All right, may I approach, Judge?
	Thank you.
	Don't get too close.
	Gross profit.
	$184,000.
	$184,000 for the law firm.
	$184,000.
	Let's see.
	Gross profit, not gross income.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	No, gross profit is not going to be net.
	That's more.
	insert flame emojis around his head.
	In 2021, you also filed as a solo Nathan Wade PC attorney at law, and your gross profit was $236,000.
	That's not bad.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	And then in 2022, you filed as a solo practitioner, Nathan Wade, and your gross income was $262,000.
	That's more.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	But nowhere in these documents do you document that you received cash payments from Ms. Willis, correct?
	Of course not.
	I hadn't looked through them.
	I would be surprised if there were something in there that said that.
	Do you want to look through them?
	Listen to the answer.
	I'd be shocked if there was something in there that said that I received some cash from Ms. Willis.
	Okay.
	But there is itemized expenditures for travel in here.
	You did itemize that.
	Yes, you expensed it.
	I didn't itemize anything.
	My accountant.
	My accountant.
	I hope so.
	But you're responsible for your taxes, even if your accountant files them, right?
	Yeah, the information, okay.
	And so you itemized your expenses for travel.
	You deducted them.
	But you did not itemize, you didn't put anything in there about you being reimbursed for half of the travel.
	Correct.
	Well, those are business returns.
	Yes, you used your business card to pay for the travel, right?
	But I wouldn't put a personal expense on a business return.
	Not an expense, a personal income.
	But you used a business card to pay for...
	I use a business card to pay for everything.
	And what I do is turn over the statement to the accountant.
	Okay, so on your personal return, did you mark the cash?
	Okay, this expense, that's personal.
	We'll put that over here.
	This expense, that's business.
	We'll put that over here.
	And they reconcile it.
	So, you wouldn't find a reimbursement from Ms. Willis on a business return.
	Show them it on your personal.
	Nor would you find...
	Well, go ahead.
	Is it on your personal?
	So there's nowhere for any of that cash to be reconciled there, right?
	On the business returns, no ma 'am.
	Okay.
	We talked a lot about the financial affidavits.
	I know the state asked you a couple questions about them.
	You filed one in 2022.
	In that one, you stated that you only had $5,000 in cash, correct?
	I believe you.
	That was sworn under oath.
	At the time of the filing, yes ma 'am.
	Okay.
	And then in January of 2024, you filed another one that also swore that you only had $5,000 in cash, correct?
	At the time of the filing, yes, ma 'am.
	Okay, so in 2022 and 2024, you only had $5,000 in cash?
	At that time, yes, ma 'am.
	At that very moment when I put the penalty.
	Because I had given it to my brother, you see.
	Then he gave it back.
	Every single interrogatory you filed, there are four of them, all verified ones.
	Every single one, you said you didn't have any cash stored in a safe, a safety deposit box or any other location.
	I spent it.
	Plaintiff rarely carries cash.
	If plaintiff does carry cash, it's a nominal amount, correct?
	That's correct.
	Okay, so we've got what?
	2021, you said you don't have cash.
	2023, you said you don't have cash.
	Again in 2023, you said you don't have cash.
	And then in 2024, you don't have cash, right?
	So you're assuming that I received the cash and I stored it.
	I received the cash and I saved it.
	So what did you do with the cash after you received it?
	What's wrong with receiving the cash, Ms. Merchant, and spending it?
	Nothing's wrong with it, but you didn't put it in the bank.
	That would contemplate.
	Notice how he's not saying that that's what he did.
	Because he knows that that's not what he did.
	Because before, when it was asked, you said you didn't want to disclose where the cash was.
	No, no, no, no, no, no.
	For privacy reasons.
	Yes!
	Oh, she's good.
	She got it.
	If I were to store cash in my home, then why would I share that with the world?
	Well, but if you don't have it in your home, you have nothing to worry about.
	I didn't say that I had some cash stored up in some place.
	Because that's not the truth.
	And you've talked a lot about this, I split with a third, I split with half.
	From, let's see, from the check you received from Fulton County July 15, 2022, so back, all the way back for July 2022, not a single check that you've received from Fulton County has gone into a joint banking account.
	Every single check has gone into your own personal banking account, correct?
	All of them, with the exception of the checks that were going into the WBC firm, went into I think the question right before that only needed a yes or no.
	It's still income.
	Absolutely.
	Double income.
	Firm accounts.
	Law firm accounts.
	Law firm of Nathan Wade PC?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	As a solo practitioner?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Okay, so they were not deposited into accounts with Campbell or Bradley?
	No, ma 'am.
	They were not.
	However, there were checks written to Campbell and Bradley that will reflect the third, the third, the third.
	And we've tried to get those bank records, but you've objected to those, correct?
	Yes.
	You've tried to get what bank records?
	We subpoenaed bank records, and you've objected to all of those, right?
	Your Honor, I'm going to object to the relevance.
	It's relevant if he's saying he has all these records, but yet we've tried to get them, and he's trying to keep them from us, but he doesn't bring all of the records.
	You can make an inference if he's...
	There's law that says you can make an inference if some documents are within the party's control and they won't provide them, that there's an inference that they're not positive.
	That's correct.
	Your Honor, there was no obligation...
	The judge is getting everything.
	...way to produce evidence that Ms. Merchant couldn't find an admissible way to produce.
	This is what I think, Bobby.
	But all of this BS is very good for excuses.
	Let's find some new ground here.
	Yep, we got the points.
	Are you willing to waive your privilege with Mr. Bradley so that he can testify?
	I am not willing to waive attorney-kind privilege.
	Okay, thank you.
	Good stuff.
	Yeah, health.
	What kind of cancer?
	And don't say some innocuous skin cancer.
	I want to get into the medical condition itself.
	Did I understand you to say that you had cancer in the year of 2020?
	What kind of cancer?
	Yes, sir.
	Malanoma.
	And you explained that because of that, in 2020, you kept yourself in a sterile environment?
	I tried, yes, sir.
	There's going to be some demonstrable lies.
	Now, what about 2021?
	2021, just focusing on my health, trying to get back to myself.
	Well, talk a cancer.
	Can we not ask that?
	Remember I asked you some questions about Kateville?
	Yes, sir.
	And the condo?
	Yes, sir.
	And you indicated that prior to November 1st of 2021, you had spent time at the condo?
	Yes, sir.
	With Ms. Willis, right?
	Yes, sir.
	And with someone else?
	You said Ms. Yurty?
	Ms. Yurty, yes, sir.
	You were not concerned that it's not a sterile environment, was it?
	Are you inferring that Ms. Yurdy and D.A. Willis is not sterile?
	Of course it's a sterile environment.
	It's a condo.
	But don't you remember that I followed up?
	You said restaurants.
	You said I was going to restaurants?
	Where else might you have been to show your cell phone records from Haightville and you said the airport?
	Yeah.
	Right?
	Restaurants?
	Not a sterile environment, though.
	The airport.
	Do you agree?
	It is not.
	Okay, what about restaurants?
	Not a sterile environment.
	Nailed, biatch!
	And the Porsche, you said something about a Porsche what?
	Porsche dealership.
	That doesn't sound very sterile to me.
	Is that a sterile environment?
	You're inside your vehicle.
	Yeah, but...
	You get there.
	You can.
	And you were doing all that in 2021 before November 1st.
	That's what you testified to, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	So there's no reason why you couldn't be dating in 2021, is there?
	Not the reason that he gave.
	Give me 2020, Mr. Saydown.
	No, say 2021.
	Good memory, lawyer for Trump.
	Or is that lawyer?
	No.
	Sexy time?
	No reason.
	No reason.
	Can we just ask what type of cancer it was?
	Mr. Gillen?
	No, I need to know.
	stocks stocks excuse me and there was no dating, no personal relationship prior to early 2010.
	Wow.
	Is that correct?
	Help me understand.
	I want to make sure I answer you.
	Help me understand.
	Dude, nobody can help you understand when you don't want to.
	Let's be clear.
	Let's be clear.
	2022 was the start of any intimate sexual relationship with a district attorney.
	Okay.
	in your affidavit you used the term personal relationship.
	Today you've used the term dating.
	And your testimony today is that that includes Yes, sir.
	And there was nothing, according to your testimony, there was none of that prior to early 20th.
	That is correct.
	That's all I've got to it.
	All right, not seeing anyone else.
	Miss Cross, any regrets?
	All right, Ms. Merchant, can this witness be excused?
	Well, that didn't go very well, Nathan.
	We have to ask to keep him under, so we might need him to come back.
	What?
	All right, how'd that go?
	The way you planned?
	Mr. Wade, please don't discuss your testimony with any other witnesses.
	She mentioned subpoena, Judge.
	Let me just say this.
	That was an inference made that I was somehow evading service of a subpoena.
	I don't think we need to have that on the record in this year.
	I wouldn't let him go, Judge.
	All right, Ms. Merchant, any other witnesses?
	Yes, we will call Fonnie Willis.
	All right, Ms. Cross.
	I am going to adopt and remove to the motion to class.
	There's been now lots of questions.
	How much cash did Fannie Willis give him?
	Only Fannie can answer that.
	Bring on the Fannie.
	for all of the reasons that we cited in the state's motion of the college initially, tremendously high burden to call opposing counsel.
	I believe it's been met, particularly given the cumulative nature that would be Oh, the oh, the Is the judge allowing it?
	How much cash did she give him?
	For one, listen, Ashley, please.
	How much cash?
	And let me put, let me stop there.
	Yeah, how much cash?
	Now that Mr. Wade has testified, there's a conflict in multiple different issues.
	Ashley's hair is also beautiful, but that's irrelevant.
	There you go, the cash.
	How much cash?
	Well, what's the challenge like there?
	That he testified that he didn't have receipts, but we don't know if Ms. Willis has receipts.
	Yes, that's one issue.
	So we don't know.
	So there's no conflict.
	We just don't know.
	We don't know.
	So that's a question, not a conflict.
	That is a question.
	And there's a lot of different issues with different reasons.
	Renegotiating the contract.
	While they're banging.
	How much work he put into the file.
	Only Fannie would know that.
	Some cash, that's the quote, some cash.
	I'm just going to put it on mute.
	Miami trip, I booked it, I thought it would balance out.
	Couple other trips that we didn't get any information about, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, all of those could be financial benefits.
	We don't know.
	He didn't know.
	He was very vague about that.
	Muri, her best friend, testified that it happened in 2019.
	And now Mr. Wade has testified that a relationship began to become romantic in 2022.
	So that is a conflict in and of itself.
	Right there.
	That's a big conflict.
	We've also got more receipts.
	But the biggest thing about the conflict is when the relationship started.
	He said he talked with Willis in the conference room after we filed our motion.
	He specifically didn't use cash, the term cash in the affidavit, but he told anybody who would ask about the cash.
	And he specifically discussed this with the Rich Office.
	We have a right to go over there.
	All right, so you've highlighted the areas you'd like to go into.
	I think the central question may be, what is it other than, I'm just really curious what she has to say, you have.
	To put on the record.
	So that's what I'd like to go through.
	Ms. Cross?
	I think you've identified.
	Ms. Murchin hasn't advised inconsistencies.
	She's identified areas of inquiry.
	The testimony in the record from Mr. Wade is not inconsistent.
	and it's unrebutted.
	And so I don't believe, given the testimony of Mr. Wade and the extent of the questioning of him, that there is any reason at this point to go into the district attorney herself.
	Again, I know the court's read all the pleadings.
	It really is such a compelling need, is the language of the case law, a compelling need to call a prison council.
	How much cash?
	Given the record that's now before the court, I don't believe it's been there.
	Your Honor, I would go on very briefly.
	Ms. Willis needs to testify.
	Her best friend or good friend has directly contradicted the declaration that was made by Mr. Wade attached to the government's response.
	And it wasn't just the declaration of Mr. Wade.
	It was filed by the district attorney by and through her assistance here.
	She owns that.
	And so, that affidavit is owned by her, and there are deep concerns that that affidavit is false, and that Ms. Willis knew it was false, and that she needs to come in here, and she wants to tell us about the cash.
	First time we've heard about the cash, oh yeah, we got cash.
	Don't have any deposit slips, don't have any record of it.
	Maybe Ms. Willis can say, here, all my records where I paid $10,000 in cash.
	That to Mr. Wade.
	We need to know that.
	Also, Ms. Wallace's financial disclosure.
	Let's not forget that.
	We're talking about two people who went to extraordinary lengths to hide their relationship.
	To hide the nature of their relationship.
	Extraordinary.
	The district attorney needs to take the stand.
	And she needs to tell this court and this courtroom why she filed financial disclosures in 2022 identifying prohibitive sources, which Mr. Waite clearly is a prohibitive source.
	Did you get gifts and benefits?
	Now, we've seen all this.
	We've seen the trips.
	We've seen all of the things that total up to around $10,000 in cash.
	On the financial declaration for 2021, which was filed in April of 2022, and the financial declaration for 2022, which was filed in April of 2023, there is no listing of any gifts whatsoever over $100 from a prohibited source.
	It cries out for her testimony.
	She needs to be able to get up here and say,...on the disclosure form so that people will know the nature of the relationship between prohibitive sources and the public official, in this case the district attorney, who happens to then make a decision to hire someone that ends up being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars or his firm and him, and none of that is revealed.
	And the answer is, "Oh, it's unrebutted?
	He's explained it's all in cash.
	Let her get up." And obviously, you know, we are advocates in our position.
	But that explanation of cash does not pass the smell test or the straight-faced test.
	She needs to go on the record.
	She filed this motion with his declaration.
	We've seen what happened here.
	Now, just two or three more sentences.
	We need to have the full picture as we've gotten through mr. Wade of his false interrogatory serious business for a lawyer Anybody and then suddenly he's changing she files her financial reservations same problem We need her in here to go over all of this and to explain exactly what happened He was asked the court
	The court allow is what was to be called interrogated on these matters and I would to your honor Just a moment, Ms. Willis.
	Ms. Gross, I don't know if you want to speak with Ms. Willis now.
	It's sounding like maybe they're withdrawing the objection to the motion.
	I believe the motion to...
	Or does Ms. Willis want to take the lead here?
	Is that the Ms. Gross?
	Okay, so the position of the district attorney at this point is that she's no longer contesting the subpoena.
	Ms. Mershan is...
	Call her as the next witness.
	All of that for nothing!
	Oh my good God, people!
	Christmas came early!
	Holy crap!
	Okay, I'll be quiet, I'll be quiet.
	I need three documents in front of me, and they're the three filings of Ms. Merchant.
	She's already coming off as a raging biatch, if I can be honest.
	She's frazzled.
	She's, uh, she...
	Oh, she doesn't look quite as good as she did on the church pulpit.
	Angry.
	She looks like she's gonna cry.
	Holy crap!
	Does the court have the three filings of Ms. Merchant?
	When you say the filings, you mean like the pleadings?
	The pleadings, yes, Your Honor.
	Okay.
	I think we can locate those for you.
	Oh my goodness, she's coming off like a demanding...
	She's splashing Satan.
	She's going to cry.
	Holy crap.
	Look at this attitude.
	The only copy I have is that have my notes on it.
	So if we don't have a clean copy.
	If we have a five-minute break, I'll get the document.
	All right.
	I'll sit here and wait for them.
	Oh my goodness.
	Entitled might be the word I'm looking for.
	Right here.
	Well, she also looks like she's gonna have a mental breakdown, but maybe I'm just projecting.
	You know, protecting your conscience.
	Holy crap, people!
	Did we elect someone who's actually making the copy?
	So Christmas came very early or very late.
	But this is going to get heated.
	I'm supposed to get my phone fixed at 5 o 'clock.
	I might have to...
	Oh, this guy can't believe what just happened.
	Okay, everyone, hold on.
	I'm gonna look at...
	Tissue.
	Someone just asked for a tissue.
	That's the judge.
	This is wild.
	I'm standing up again.
	Oh my goodness.
	I'm gonna jog in place and shake out the...
	shake out the butt cramps.
	Holy cows.
	Who just said what happened?
	Dude, where were you?
	So they spend 15 minutes arguing as to why they should quash Fannie's subpoena, why it's not absolutely necessary for her to testify, and then goes back to Merchant, who makes her arguments.
	Then it goes to Trump's attorney to make his arguments.
	Then Big Fannie comes in the house and says, I'm ready to do it.
	Let's roll.
	And then she sits down at the table, looking like she's going to have a nervous breakdown and birthed into tears, demanding, can I get the three filings?
	Give them to me.
	To the judge.
	I mean, I'm surprised the judge didn't say, who the hell do you think you're talking to, Fanny?
	You might be the district attorney, but this is my courtroom, so tone it down and show some respect.
	Holy cows!
	Well, this gives me a chance to...
	Everyone throw $10 a spot so Viva can get a new phone.
	No, I don't need it.
	I don't need it.
	I'm under AppleCare.
	So don't worry about that.
	I'm under AppleCare.
	I actually kept my old phone.
	I bought the phone unnecessarily.
	Like, I got it before I went back to Canada this summer because I wanted to have the good camera.
	And I said I'll keep my old phone so that when I do live streams, I can live stream off one phone and then be able to take calls with the other.
	Thank goodness I did that.
	So I got the phone.
	I just need to get it fixed.
	It's under Apple care.
	I just need to get down to the damn Apple shop.
	So don't worry about that.
	And even still, I wouldn't expect people to pay for my first world spoiled.
	Preferences that I need to have the good phone because it's got the good slow-mo camera on it.
	So when I take awesome slow motion, it's fantastic, which it is, by the way.
	Okay, so we're going to come back to that in a second.
	Oh, I'm lightheaded.
	This just got wildly, wildly entertaining.
	Let me bring up the Rumble rants that I've been holding on to for a little while here to thank everyone in the Rumble.
	As you see, we're behind schedule there.
	Lesquish says, So glad to watch this with you Viva and friends.
	Lesquish or lesquish or lesquish or lesquish.
	Thank you.
	Finboy Slick, I'm not sure if she's going to cry or if she's boldly going, hold my beer and check this out.
	We got Raluca W says, Viva, you rock!
	That should have been exclamation points and not question marks.
	Good, sir.
	Sorry, good ma 'am.
	I did not see your avatar.
	My eyes don't focus anymore.
	Then we got Crash Bandit says, Viva, can we demand a higher quality of lizard people from my commie overlords?
	No, no, no, we can't.
	This is what you got.
	Because nobody who would want to be a lizard person would be a qualified good person in the first place.
	So we all get to be governed by our inferiors because none of us want to get involved in this hellhole game of politics and law.
	Finboy Slick says, 50-50 income for 99-1 work.
	That's a very lucrative 1%.
	I tweeted that out.
	Great minds think alike, Finboy.
	Money is coming from Willis Fanny's.
	Willis is Fanny.
	I get it.
	Up her butt.
	Okay.
	And then we got Primus Fan.
	Primus Fan says, GoodLogic is pissed at that 12,000 live viewers.
	Well, now we're at 13,670 and, not that it matters, over 4,000 on YouTube.
	Those mems.
	Anyways, Govea is on YouTube crushing it and doing an amazing job.
	Oh, we're back.
	We're back.
	Welcome to the new...
	Welcome to the member, Jay Scarbus.
	Welcome to the club.
	It's an above-average team here.
	Okay, we're going to stop screen.
	We're going to go present.
	That's not it.
	That's the other one.
	Where is it?
	Is it this one?
	No?
	It's not this one.
	It's this one.
	I think it's this one.
	Yeah, this is the one.
	Okay.
	We are looking at the chair that is currently being seated by Eliyahu Hanavi.
	He will answer all of the questions.
	What's going on here?
	Bring on the water.
	Hot mic.
	Are we going to get a hot mic here?
	A&F.
	Gavin Newsom is a lizard person.
	Did she get sworn in?
	Not yet.
	Not yet, dude.
	Give me the documents.
	Oh my goodness.
	Has everyone seen that?
	Oh my goodness.
	Oh my damn.
	Oh my goodness.
	We're going ham.
	Oh, we've got a few more minutes.
	I'll go back.
	I won't bring up the chats.
	We got good logic is pissed.
	Okay, we got Jay Carbus.
	Welcome to the channel.
	Whoa, whoa, whoa.
	Did he just admit those statements are receipts?
	Says Sammy.
	And so where did Willis get the cash from Jokio?
	Now, in our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community, we've got a little refresh here because I haven't refreshed in a while.
	In our tip section...
	This is so...
	I mean, this is like the best part of the day.
	We're all nerds, so just hope everybody appreciates that.
	View tipped.
	Nils Berlin sent a $10 tip and it says, pure cringe but funny.
	Then we got MSM CPA says, just because I like seeing you have a good time, MSM equals initials and CPA accountants.
	Thank you very much, MSM CPA.
	Damn four hours, don't have the time, have to catch the highlights.
	Midwinter days or Michigan winter days, I'm taking notes and I'm going to do like a car vlog.
	Maybe I'll do a vlog at the Apple store.
	Highlighting it.
	So, so far the highlights I've got, in the chat on locals, maybe, let me know if I've forgotten any.
	I've got, he didn't cheat on his wife because they were irreparably broken since 2015.
	He didn't have the receipts because the company had them.
	He renegotiated his contract while boning Fannie Willis.
	He received cash reimbursements for her...
	He received cash reimbursements for her...
	Expenses, not experience.
	That's my problem.
	Expenses.
	And then I'm sure I got some more, which I'll get, and I'll do a summary later.
	Whoo!
	Dude, this stuff is getting real, real fast.
	The kids are gonna say, "My daddy's spending too much time on the internet." Whoo!
	Super sticker.
	It is on Rumble, but I don't like how the Rumble chat, it freezes on me.
	Look, Rumble, I still love the Rumble.
	Or did I miss anything in crumble?
	I didn't.
	Oh, Mother's Love One says, imagine the people watching this live.
	Obama, Hillary, the NATO overlords who want to stop Trump.
	Soros, what do you think?
	Soros is going to ask for his money back.
	And then Jokul, hold on, let me get this out of here.
	Jokel...
	I want to bring out the chat so I can see this here.
	Jokel, back on Rumble, says, if you won't take ten bucks for the phone, how about ten bucks to plug a fellow Rumblers channel?
	Jokel Gaming and Chat Z. Zomoid at 7pm.
	You rock, right?
	That I will happily do.
	Hold on.
	I'll come back to it in a second.
	Let's just make sure everybody can see the man's channel right here.
	There you go.
	Zoom in.
	Enhance.
	Joke...
	Uh-oh.
	Don't do that.
	I don't...
	Stop it.
	There you go.
	Joke UHL.
	I don't know what UHL stands for.
	Joke United Hound League.
	Okay, I don't know what that means.
	Gaming and chat.
	Zomoid at 7pm.
	You rock, Fry.
	Imagine people watching this.
	Okay, we got that.
	We got it.
	JPizzy.
	Thank you so much for giving us the Play by Play.
	So informative.
	I'm learning a lot about how corrupt these people are.
	Dude, we all are.
	You know what the thing is?
	No matter how corrupt No matter how cynical you get, it's hard to keep up.
	Okay, now I'm going to bring this out.
	We're not missing anything.
	I can hear it, and there's nothing going on, but let's see if we catch a hot mic.
	Hot mic right here.
	Booyah.
	Let me see.
	Is that the right one?
	Okay, that's the right one.
	The question is this.
	Could I possibly ask my wife to take the phone?
	I couldn't.
	That would be a bridge too far.
	Um, so let's see what's going on here.
	My back is really killing me.
	Okay, and then we got, so also people who are live.
	Joe Nierman, GoodLogic is live.
	Robert Gouveia is live.
	And, um, yeah, let's just watch.
	Ha ha ha ha.
	It's good.
	I got all the backdrop.
	Everybody who's live.
	Woo!
	Come on.
	It's been more than five minutes.
	Bring on the fanny.
	What time do you think this ends?
	Do you think this ends at 4:30?
	Oh, shit.
	She's going to start today, by the way.
	Okay, she's like, I don't want to give anybody any ideas, but she's screwing up because she's not finishing today, no question about it.
	So she's going to have to be under oath if the rules are the same.
	She's going to have to be under oath overnight until tomorrow.
	Not going to be able to discuss her testimony with her.
	Let me see here.
	Dave Langford says, Dave, do but put your ass in front of the public if you do not want the public to see.
	Well, that's a good question, you see.
	Hold on one second.
	Oh, God.
	You want to know what's really funny?
	I would need to be paid cash.
	No, I wanted to bring this one up anyhow.
	Oh, dramatic zoom.
	See that look from the female lawyer?
	Oh, crap.
	There was no question about it.
	Fannie, I think, is breaking.
	By the way, so I have a footstool that I stand on.
	See, look at this.
	Oh, now.
	All right, well, oh, that feels better.
	Actually, I could just do some...
	Is that Pete Buttigieg?
	No, it's not.
	Okay.
	Who is that?
	Why are they zooming in like they're at an uncomfortable wedding or something?
	Oh, this is going to be so bloody good.
	Viva, it's 8pm here in Ireland.
	Dude, I hope you're ready to stay up a little later.
	They focus.
	Oh!
	Judge is back.
	Let's do this.
	Down we go.
	Oh!
	Oh, this is like as much, not quite as much tension as when they were reading the verdict in Rittenhouse, but where is this going to go?
	Fanny steps back into the room.
	I've changed my mind, Your Honor.
	I've been talked out of it thoroughly.
	Got a call from George Soros.
	Send the wife.
	I could probably do this from the car as I...
	No, I can't.
	Dude, get the behavior panel.
	Get the behavior panel to break her down.
	She is...
	A tissue.
	Oh, she's going to cry.
	She's going to pull out the race card.
	How long?
	How long, people?
	Until she pulls out the race card.
	And I'm not trying to be mean or glib.
	She's going to do it.
	Five minutes?
	What is this?
	All right, we're back on the record.
	Okay, we're back on the record.
	5, 4, 3, 2, 1. I'm going to cry.
	Anna, first name.
	Do me a favor.
	She's in charge.
	I'm gonna make some leave glasses.
	After you split up.
	I need your glasses.
	I can swear, you can lay it in swear.
	'Cause I don't hold it before.
	You swear on the front.
	Yes, sir.
	Yes, sir.
	Okay, first name.
	District.
	District Attorney Fani, F-A-N-I.
	Last name is Willis.
	Ms. Willis, how did you know to come into the courtroom right then?
	There were people I was pacing in my office, and I heard someone yell, this testimony is done.
	It only made sense to me that I would be your next witness.
	And I've been very anxious to have this conversation with you today.
	Your next witness.
	So I ran to the courtroom.
	So as soon as you heard that Mr. Wade was done testifying, that's when you just assumed you would be the next witness?
	It only makes sense.
	Did you listen to any of the testimony?
	I've been in my office pacing, ma 'am.
	Did you listen to the testimony?
	Did you listen to any of the arguments?
	I did hear the arguments this morning.
	It's ridiculous to me that you lied on Monday, and yet here we still are.
	And I did listen to that argument.
	All right, so that was it.
	Just the argument.
	No testimony.
	Right.
	I listened to the argument this morning where Adam Abadi, I thought, did an excellent job pointing out how dishonest you were with the court on Monday.
	And I'm actually surprised that the hearing continued.
	But since it did, here I am.
	Great.
	So let's talk about...
	First, let's just talk about what you did in preparation for today.
	Did you meet with Mr. Wade at all?
	Once the motion was filed...
	Did the audio just get bad?
	The motion that I filed to disqualify you.
	On January, this first January motion?
	Yes.
	I don't know if you could say, talked about.
	Screamed.
	I probably had some choice words about some of the things that you said that were dishonest within this motion.
	So I don't know that it was a conversation.
	As you know, Mr. Wade is a Southern gentleman.
	Me, not so much.
	Okay, but my question was, did you have a conversation with him?
	I didn't have a substantive conversation.
	You did not.
	She's going to listen.
	I read this motion.
	Skimmed it.
	She's gonna lose it.
	And I've probably said some choice things to him about some of the lies they were told.
	Okay.
	And then put it in the media because, you know, we used to be in a day and time where you had 60 minutes and people did stories and they verified information and you had this great reporting.
	But it seems today that a lawyer writes a lie.
	And then it's printed for all of the world to see.
	Oh, we got great lawyers.
	I just want to make sure that you answer the question I asked, though.
	So my question was...
	The judge is not happy with her.
	I told you what happened.
	I read the motion.
	I am sure I told you what my opinion of it is.
	And past that, we had no substantive conversation.
	You did not.
	Is there something you didn't understand?
	No, I just wanted to make sure that you did not have...
	A meeting with him in the conference room to discuss the motion.
	Next question.
	So in the conference room of my office, within this week, you produced some financial document.
	That financial document was given to me, something, and I'm not even sure it was given to him by me, or Mr. Abadi gave it to me.
	And I think he showed me a document in our conference room.
	but as far as a substantive conversation I would not have I don't believe I've had any conversation with him that is substantive related to this but I have had conversations with him since you filed the motion but they wouldn't be substantive to this he's sent me very nice sermons that have been done.
	Oh, she's one of the religion.
	And so we've had conversations about, did you listen to that sermon?
	You know, things of that nature.
	And I would say they were in relationship to this because I think he did it to be kind.
	Okay.
	Let's start back in 2019.
	So you and Mr. Wade met in October 2019 at a conference?
	That is correct.
	I think in one of your motions you tried to implicate.
	I slept with him at that conference, which I find to be extremely offensive.
	I stayed at that conference.
	Mr. Wade was my teacher.
	I did not meet him when he taught the class.
	I was standing outside talking to Lisa Reads, who is a judge.
	Me and her were just having a conversation.
	Mr. Wade walks up.
	I think they hug each other.
	They have some brief conversation.
	She introduces us.
	Your Honor, I'm going to object.
	We kind of thought that when you ask a question, you can answer the question, not a speech, so I object to the speech.
	I agree.
	You're not able to explain my answers.
	I believe she's able to explain her answers.
	Ms. Merchant, that's okay.
	I can handle it.
	Ms. Willis, I'll ask you to just listen to the answer, or excuse me, the question, and keep the answers confined to the question as best you can.
	I think you'll have more than enough ample opportunity on When the state When someone lies on you and it's highly offensive when they touch implicate that you slept with somebody the first day You met with them and I take exception to all this will show you have a I wait before sleeping with them.
	Ask more open-ended questions.
	Ms. Merchant.
	Thank you, Judge.
	So again, my question was, you all met at that conference though, right?
	We did, the meeting.
	He, as I stated, he taught the class.
	I did not actually meet him when he taught the class.
	I walked out of the class, and I'm not sure if it was that exact class or we went to lunch, but we were standing in the vestibule, like, outside of the class.
	Me and Judge Reeves were having a conversation.
	She had worked at a law firm I worked at back in 1996.
	We're getting way afar.
	I mean, I don't mind her explaining her answers, but I literally just asked if they met at that conference.
	She's explaining how she met Mr. Wade, which was exactly the question asked by Ms. Merchant.
	Holy cow.
	Ms. Merchant, if you want more Concise answers, perhaps you could lead the witness.
	I will.
	Thank you, Judge.
	Isn't it true that you met Mr. Wade at October 2019 at the judges' conference?
	We haven't gotten to the point where Ms. Willis should be treated.
	The judge just said it.
	I very much want to be here, so I'm not a hostile witness.
	I very much want to be here.
	It's not so much that you're hostile, Ms. Willis.
	It's that you're not answering.
	Your interests are opposed to Ms. Merchants.
	Thank you.
	Ms. Merchants' interests are contrary to democracy, Your Honor, not to mine.
	Holy cow.
	Keep talking, Fannie.
	Keep talking.
	We can keep things moving.
	Ms. Murphy, next question, please.
	Okay, so we've confirmed when you met.
	And we've confirmed when you sexed it up.
	I need to explain this, and I think I get to explain my answers.
	When I met him, Judge Reeves introduced us.
	He handed me his business card.
	I'm unsure if I handed him my business card, but we exchanged information.
	He said, if you ever need any help, give me a call.
	And he walked to the parking lot.
	So after that, you started dating shortly thereafter, correct?
	That's a lie.
	That's one of your lies.
	Do you know Robin Yerdy?
	I know her as Robin Bryant.
	I knew her.
	So Robin did not go to my college.
	She went to the college of...
	I went to Howard University.
	She went to Morgan State.
	I met her through some people I knew.
	In college, we hung out a bit.
	Not much because she was in Baltimore and I was in Washington, D.C. But we hung out a bit.
	After college, I lost contact with her.
	I probably didn't see Robin again until maybe seven or eight years ago, a chance meeting here in Atlanta.
	But we did not have a consistent relationship from when I left college and came to law school here in Atlanta.
	But eight to ten years ago, just by happenstance, I ran into her.
	So she was in Atlanta.
	You have been friends with Robin.
	For 30-something years.
	Did you hear my answer, madam?
	Answer the question.
	I'm asking if you've been friends with her for 30-something years.
	I've known her for 30-something years.
	We certainly hung out and partied together in college.
	She was from the D.C. area.
	She would come home and party together.
	Wasn't close, but she was certainly in the girlfriends that partied together.
	And then, like I said, I ran into her about 10 years ago in Atlanta, Georgia.
	So we didn't talk throughout that time period.
	I didn't see her.
	I didn't even know where she was.
	When I ran into her, I was surprised she was in Atlanta.
	They spent all day Monday trying to quash the subpoena.
	Probably since 1990, 1991, but we have not maintained a consistent relationship that whole time.
	For the last 10 years or five, whatever you'd like to classify it as, have you been friends with her?
	I have not spoken to Robin in over a year.
	I certainly do not consider her a friend now.
	I think that she, you know, there's a saying, no good deed goes unpunished.
	And I think that she betrayed our friendship.
	So let's narrow it down the timeline now.
	So my questions are going to be from the time period of 2019 until she no longer was employed for you, the last time you all talked.
	So all of my next questions are just focused on that time frame, okay?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Up until she left your office.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	During 2019, you all were friends, correct?
	Yes, we knew each other in 2019.
	During 2020, you all were friends, correct?
	Yes, we were friends during that time period.
	During 2021, you all were friends, correct?
	Yes.
	And such good friends that when you needed a place to stay, you asked her if you could take over her lease.
	That's a lie.
	You did not move into her apartment?
	I did, but that's not the way you characterize it as wrong.
	I asked if you asked if you could take over her lease.
	I did not ask if I could take over her lease.
	Did you move into her apartment?
	I moved into her condo in April of 21. The circumstances around that were that Robin met her husband.
	They wanted to move into another and separate place.
	She wanted to get rid of her condo.
	So you took over her lease?
	My father was the police with me at the house.
	Because of this case and because of my stance on gangs, my life was being threatened regularly.
	My father urged me to leave our home.
	At the same time as luck would have it, Robin wanted to give up her lease because she wanted to move in with this new man she met who eventually became her husband.
	And so as life circumstances worked, my dad was begging me to leave the house.
	He was afraid for me, afraid for his grandchildren.
	She wanted someone to take over her lease so that she didn't, you know, have to pay a fee or get abandoned.
	And so, I don't remember when, but probably March or April of'21, I moved in and take over her lease.
	And did you pay her or did you pay the leasing agent?
	No, I don't even know who the leasing agent was.
	I paid her.
	So you took over her bloody lease!
	There were some times that I would give her cash.
	You got a lot of cash.
	Mostly, I paid her via cash app.
	That would be the most convenient thing.
	So I would not only give her her rent, but then...
	Oh, so she has a cash app.
	Whatever the utility was.
	What does she have, Venmo?
	It might be like, I need 70 bucks, I need $100.
	Venmo.
	Whatever it was.
	And we never had a problem with money.
	Whatever she told me it was, I never asked to see a bill.
	I never questioned her.
	She has a cash app.
	What percentage would you say you paid cash versus cash app?
	Oh, the vast majority was cash out.
	I don't know what percentage.
	I'm not going to guess that.
	So why did she pay Nathan Wade with cash?
	But there would be times she would say, you know, this bill came in at $70.
	Here goes $70.
	Here you go.
	Did you have a monthly rent amount that you paid her?
	I can't remember.
	It was $1,400, $1,500.
	I can't remember what it was.
	She just screwed herself.
	Which I don't understand to this day.
	But like I said, I never questioned her.
	Whenever she said it was, that's what I paid.
	I abruptly moved out in February, either late January or early February of '22.
	February 2022, is that what you said?
	January, February of '22.
	I believe it is January, but I paid her half the rent of February of '22, is what I remember.
	Because I was offering to pay the whole rent, even though I didn't live there, I didn't think it was right.
	I ended up just paying her half the rent.
	So that's after you moved out.
	You said you paid your house.
	Okay.
	And the time that you said you had to move out of your house because you were scared, did your dad stay there at your house?
	My father was concerned.
	Yes, we were both concerned.
	Okay.
	But he remained there.
	My father was 80 years old.
	He would have been 79. He was scared to death of COVID.
	You have to go back to when this was.
	My father's an older man.
	I wanted him to move out.
	We had some discussions about him moving out.
	What he decided was the risk of COVID was more dangerous than the risk of the people that were threatening.
	Typical man, more worried about his daughter and his grandchildren than his own safety.
	You'll get to meet him, and you'll understand he doesn't scare too easily.
	So his grandkids were living at the house as well at that time?
	Well, I don't know how old your children are, but when you have adult children, they leave and they come back.
	They leave and they come back.
	So there have been periods of time that they're there.
	They come.
	Whatever they want to do.
	Children do what children do.
	As long as their mother has a house, they'll come to it.
	Unfortunately, now the threats because of this case have gotten so extreme.
	I just pay a mortgage and no one lives there.
	And that's what I was going to ask you.
	So when you moved out in, I think you said April 2021, you left your dad and your two kids at the house?
	My dad and my two kids were not at the house.
	They were not.
	Okay, so they didn't still live at your house.
	My youngest daughter certainly did not live there.
	My oldest daughter would come back and forth.
	I can't say month for month when she was there or when she was not there.
	I know that she has been there post me moving out.
	At this time, no one is at my house.
	So at some point after you moved out for the safety reasons, at least one of your children did come back.
	Ms. Merchant, can we get to either the relationship or the financial benefit?
	Let's see, we were back at 2021.
	So you were still friends with Miss Yerdy then.
	Were you also friends with Mr. Bradley?
	I've never been friends with Mr. Bradley.
	You've never been friends with Mr. Bradley?
	No, I don't consider us to be friends.
	I don't dislike Mr. Bradley, but I don't consider us to be friends.
	Is he someone that you would have in your phone and you would message him?
	I might have text messaged him.
	Would you text message him and Mr. Wade on the same conversations?
	I don't recall doing that, but if it happened, it wouldn't surprise me.
	Okay, so that wouldn't surprise you, the three of you.
	How frequently would you think that the three of you would have texted?
	I wouldn't think very often, but you're asking me to recall.
	I don't even know what time period you're asking me to recall, but I'm not going to speak to that because I just really don't know the answer to that, so I don't want to speculate as to how often that would happen.
	But it's not...
	Out of my practice to text two people on one text message.
	So if you told me that happened and showed it to me, it wouldn't surprise me, although I have no recollection of it.
	But there would be some record of it in your phone.
	Oh, Ashley, if only I could DM her.
	Talk about, you know, you said that sometimes you paid Ms. Yerdy cash.
	Please, please.
	When you went on vacation with Mr. Wayne.
	Let's just go one by one.
	Let's start with the first one.
	What's the first time you went on vacation with Mr. Wade?
	I think the first time we went on vacation was around April of 22. And a vacation is a stretch, but I'm trying to be comprehensive.
	I bet the vacation was a stretch.
	I would call April of 22. His birthday is March the 18th.
	So that would have been his...
	What was it like listening to grandma talk here?
	I took him.
	I think we might have stayed the night.
	The hell's that supposed to mean?
	Elitist.
	I know it wasn't more than a day.
	Tennessee's hard.
	I was in Tennessee.
	It's beautiful.
	I think that we did.
	That's what I'm telling you.
	I think that there's a possibility that we stayed that night in April of 22. Who paid for the hotel?
	I think I did.
	It was his birthday.
	And would you have used a credit card?
	Probably, maybe a debt.
	Whoa!
	Whoa!
	Hold on.
	Did they all...
	Hold on.
	And you all start...
	When did you start dating?
	When I started dating Mr. Wade.
	It was right around then.
	Sorry, that wasn't me.
	That was the feed.
	22. Yeah, it was around there.
	I don't know, like, you know, it's not like when you're in grade school and you send a little letter and it says, will you be my girlfriend and you check it.
	I don't know the day that we started.
	Sexy time?
	Seeing each other, but it was early 22 is my recollection.
	Okay, early 22. And you all went to Florida on vacation as well?
	I don't recall going to Florida on vacation with him.
	You never went to Florida with Mr. Wade?
	When we went to get on the cruise ship, we went to Miami.
	That's the only time that you went to Florida with him?
	I think we went to Miami and spent the night.
	That's my recollection.
	I think we spent one night so that we wouldn't miss the ship.
	That's my recollection.
	You paid for that hotel?
	In Miami?
	I don't remember that.
	And how'd you get to Miami?
	We would have flown.
	And we've done that so that I'm clear.
	We've done that twice.
	I think one time we stayed.
	And I honestly can't tell you.
	I got one with better audio.
	Or did we stay when the ship came back?
	I also can't tell you.
	So there's two cruises out of Miami.
	There's one that's in that October time period that was with his mom.
	And then there was another that was a New Year's Eve trip.
	I know I paid for the New Year's Eve trip because the tickets were $6.97 each.
	And I thought this is ridiculous that the tickets are $700 to go to Miami.
	But when you travel during New Year's Eve.
	You know, they get you.
	So let's just back up and talk about the first time that you went to Florida with Mr. Wade.
	That was the time that you said you stayed in Miami at the hotel the first night?
	That's the time I told you.
	I am not sure.
	So I'm not sure of two things.
	So I want to make sure that my testimony is clear.
	I'm not sure if we stayed in Miami on the October trip.
	I'm not sure if we stayed in Miami on the December trip.
	I just can't remember that.
	And I also don't remember, so that the record is clear, I don't remember if the necessity was as we got on the ship or we got off the ship.
	But I do remember there was a nightspin in Miami because either whatever.
	I don't remember.
	But I think that there was a nightspin in Miami.
	That cruise is the one that you took in October, right?
	Ma 'am, if you have something to refresh my recollection, I'm intentionally trying to not be difficult with you, but I don't want to make up something.
	I know that on one of those two trips, you stayed in Miami.
	I am not sure right now.
	You're asking me about...
	Oh, I think...
	I'm sorry, you misunderstood.
	I wasn't asking you which...
	I was not asking you which night you stayed in Miami.
	I'm asking if you took a cruise in October 2022 with Mr. Wake.
	Yes, and his mom.
	And his mother.
	That's what I was asking.
	Yes.
	Is that the first time you met his mother?
	Yes.
	It was on that cruise, and that was Royal Caribbean, I believe?
	I honestly don't remember what ship.
	I know.
	We've taken two cruises.
	I don't know what the ships were.
	But he paid for the flight and the cruise on Royal Caribbean that time.
	So yes, he paid.
	He is the original one that does it.
	He has something called...
	Mr. Wade is a world traveler.
	I'm not as versed as him.
	He's been to six of the seven continents.
	And so he has both a personal travel agent...
	And he also has a cruise travel agent.
	I don't know anything about either of those kind of travel agents.
	So he is the one that would book the travel.
	But we need to be clear when we're talking about just because he booked it doesn't mean...
	Like, I don't consider him having taken me anyplace.
	Let me just be honest.
	The only point that's ever taken somebody someplace is for his 50th birthday.
	I consider that I took him to Belize.
	And I took him to Belize because...
	You know, I don't want to discuss his personal business, but I'm happy Mr. Wade is still here with us.
	And I did 50 big.
	Very big.
	I did him 50 big.
	Very big?
	No, he had a travel agent.
	I'm sorry?
	If you do me a favor, I don't know what cruise ship what time.
	So if you'll help me in, say, October cruise with Mama or the New Year's Eve trip with his sisters.
	I'll be able to, we can communicate.
	I just don't know what ship.
	October Cruise with Mama.
	That's what I'm talking about.
	He paid for the cruise and the flights for that trip.
	So he called his cruise agent and he booked that through there.
	Because he has a cruise agent.
	He also has a regular agent.
	I don't know the cruise agent's name.
	So I wasn't asking about his travel agent.
	I was just asking if he paid for those.
	He did not, though.
	Because the reason I consider that he did not is I gave him his money back.
	And I was about to ask that.
	But initially, he paid for that.
	Yeah, he called his cruise agent.
	Like, I think they have his card on record.
	They do whatever.
	Okay.
	So initially, he paid for the cruise and the flight to Miami and the Royal Caribbean cruise.
	And my understanding of that October cruise is like it was a package the lady did for him.
	And I'll get to the reimbursements and all that.
	I'm just trying to confirm.
	He paid for the flight and the cruise in October.
	And I think that when you say things that way, I want this record to be abundantly clear that he calls his travel agent.
	He calls his cruise agent.
	They do whatever he tells them.
	He's like on a first-name basis with these people.
	They do it, and then he tells me how much it is, and I give him the money back.
	Just like you're asking me about the money with Robin, I don't do my friends like that.
	I don't do my friends like that?
	Whatever it is, I didn't ever make him produce receipts to me.
	Whatever he told me it was, I gave him the money back.
	Isn't it true that he paid for the cruise and the flight on his credit card?
	I'm not asking about reimbursement or after.
	He used his credit card to buy the cruise and buy the flight, correct?
	I have no idea how he paid for it, if it's a credit card, if it's a debit card, but certainly he called his cruise agent, you know, like how many people have a cruise agent?
	He calls his cruise agent, tells them where they want to go, they tell them what's booked.
	You have to remember, he didn't just, he paid for, that initial was me, him, and his mother.
	And then after that cruise, you all flew to Aruba and spent a couple days in a hotel there, correct?
	Sounds good.
	Right.
	And his mother was not happy.
	He initially paid for that.
	He initially paid for that.
	His mother wasn't happy?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	So let's talk about both of those.
	I know he initially paid for it.
	Did you pay him back?
	For the cruise and for Aruba.
	Yeah, I gave him his money before we ever went on that trip.
	You gave him cash before you ever went on the trip?
	Mm-hmm.
	Okay.
	And so when you got cash to pay him back on these trips, would you go to the ATM?
	No, lady.
	No, lady?
	No.
	Okay.
	So Fulton County pays you direct deposit, I assume?
	Yes.
	Fulton County and the state of Georgia both pay me direct deposit.
	So you took the money out.
	So the cash that you would pay him, you wouldn't get it out of the bank?
	I have money in my house.
	You have money in your house.
	So it was just money that was there.
	It's not just there.
	Where'd you get it from?
	He was going to tell you as a woman.
	As a woman.
	You should always have, which I don't have, so let's don't tell him that.
	You should have at least six months in cash at your house at all times.
	I don't know why this old black man feels like that, but he does.
	When we were growing up, my daddy had three safes in the house.
	So my father's bought me a lockbox, and I always keep cash in the house.
	Now where did the cash come from that my father would do it so he would probably be Ashamed with me, but I always have cash at the house that has been I Don't know all my life If you're a woman and you go on a date with a man you better have $200 in your pocket So if that man acts up you can go where you want to go So I keep cash in my house and I don't keep cash as good in my purse like I used to um This is a lot of bullshit that we're listening to right now.
	Where did it come from?
	You don't just have it.
	We've had cash for years in my house.
	Oh, for years.
	So for me to tell you the source of what it comes from, when you go to public and you buy something, you get $50, you throw it in there.
	This is such a load of shit.
	I took out a large amount of money on my first campaign.
	I kept some of the cash of that.
	Like, to tell you, I just have cash in my house.
	I just have six months of cash at home.
	Thousands and thousands of dollars.
	We just put money in.
	It's a very good practice.
	I would advise it to all women.
	Oh, women.
	I didn't say I couldn't identify it.
	Well, she asked you to.
	It gives me anything.
	I am sure that the source of the money is always the sweat and tears of me.
	What you asked me for is when did the money go in there?
	It's been there for years.
	No, no, no.
	It's important.
	You said where did the money come from, and I need to tell you where the money came from.
	And so for many, many years, I have kept money in my house.
	That money in my worst days has probably only been $500 or $1,000.
	At my best days, I probably had $15,000 in my house of cash.
	At all times, there's going to be cash in my house or wherever I'm laying my head.
	She's not as nervous as Nathan.
	It came from my sweat and tears.
	When did you take it out of the bank?
	It could have come from there.
	It could have come from there.
	What do you mean, I don't know where it came from?
	I understand the situation.
	We can move on.
	Okay, thanks.
	Oh, God, the judge got it.
	Same with Aruba.
	You don't know where that cash came from either, right?
	No, ma 'am.
	It's fungible.
	Cash is fungible.
	I'm not going to allow you to mischaracterize my testimony.
	Don't worry.
	No one needs to do that.
	You're doing that.
	I know that I keep money in my house.
	The amounts of money I gave Mr. Wade.
	It was never that serious.
	I don't think I've ever handed him more than $2,500 in a reimbursement.
	So I'm not talking about $20,000 in cash.
	I don't have $20,000 in cash.
	Well, he said it was $10,000.
	The most I ever gave him.
	I know I gave him $2,500 when we went to Belize because we went to one hotel and then we went to a second hotel.
	That $2,500 I actually gave him while we were still leaving.
	I know that the Aruba trip, the one that you described with his mom, I think I gave him about $2,000.
	So up to five grand.
	His mom went to Aruba with you?
	The Aruba trip.
	So I consider that to be one trip.
	So we got off of a cruise ship and then we went to Aruba, which is why I cannot remember is that the time that we had to stay in Miami to wait for the flight for Aruba.
	So I consider that one trip that we didn't come back to Atlanta and leave.
	We flew down to Miami.
	We got on a cruise ship.
	We spent a couple of days with his mama.
	We came back to Miami.
	When we came back to Miami, either that day or the next day, we flew to Aruba.
	We spent a few days in Aruba and we came back.
	That was really one trip.
	Even though we went two places, it was one trip.
	So let's talk about the California trip.
	Is that when you were moving your daughter out to California?
	When you all went, or did you have two trips to California?
	My daughter doesn't live in California.
	Did she ever live in California?
	I'm not discussing to you the location of my child.
	So how many times did you go with Mr. Wade to California?
	Once.
	And you all stayed in Napa Valley and he paid for the plane tickets and the hotel?
	He paid for the plane tickets and the hotel.
	And what did you pay for on that trip?
	I gave him much less cash that time, probably four or five hundred dollars, and then I paid for a bunch of stuff.
	I think we did.
	Two different wine tours that you do, which are pretty expensive.
	I think I bought him.
	So we're up for like 10,000 bucks now.
	To be honest with you, I like Grey Goose.
	Oh my God, is she going to shut her mouth?
	And the sippings that you do.
	I can't remember how many, like four or five different places you go.
	I remember we went to...
	How much was it?
	How much was it?
	someplace else.
	It's good to be PA.
	But that was the most expensive thing we did that trip and I paid for that.
	You pay cash?
	For us doing that?
	Yeah.
	But that trip did not cost me a lot of money.
	I might have took like $750 in cash on me because we weren't gone very long.
	I'd only ask if you paid in cash.
	I don't need anything else.
	When I travel, I always take cash.
	And is the cash that you keep in your house or do you keep it at the condo that you're working in?
	So at that point, it wouldn't be at my house.
	And I'm sorry if...
	I was not clear.
	The money would be wherever I laid my head.
	So I wouldn't leave the money at the house.
	At Nathan Wade's place?
	I was unclear.
	No.
	Money's gonna be where I stay.
	Holy crap.
	How much did you pay for your trip to Panama?
	To where?
	Panama, I believe.
	I didn't go to Panama.
	I may have the location wrong.
	I never went to Panama.
	That's the way he went to Panama with his frat brother.
	Oh, he went to Panama with his frat brothers.
	So tell me about, let's see.
	So I want to make sure I've got them.
	I've got Belize.
	You already covered Belize.
	You covered the...
	So let me tell you our real trips.
	In October, we went with, we went on the cruise with his mom.
	We got back from the cruise with his mom and we went to Aruba.
	I consider that one trip.
	Second trip.
	New Year's Eve, we went on a cruise to the Bahamas.
	That's the second trip.
	I want to make sure I get this right.
	Third trip.
	100% on me.
	I think he might have spent $200 on that entire trip.
	We went to Belize.
	That was my trip.
	That was, you know, his 50th.
	And then Napa Valley.
	We went around May.
	I don't know the dates, but it seems to me like it was close to Mother's Day.
	Does she really think she's coming off as good looking here?
	Like looking good?
	This is a disaster.
	So that the record is completed.
	I can remember one time driving to Where were we?
	South Carolina.
	We met my sister for lunch with her man.
	Where was that?
	I don't know, but we didn't stay the night there.
	But I guess people would consider that a trip if you drive somewhere and you come back.
	That was insane because it was like five hours to drive.
	We ate lunch and we drove right back.
	I can remember driving to some little town in Georgia.
	I don't even know where I was.
	I had never been there before or after.
	There's some boat you can get on over to, and there's like a slave thing, if that gives anyone any reference, we didn't do that.
	So she dropped the race card, but this was well into the testimony.
	I remember driving one time to Charlotte.
	We had lunch with one of my very close girlfriends.
	And again, we drove to Charlotte.
	Paid.
	cash so much and drove right back so that's a trip we didn't stay the night there but i just want to be completing my testimony we drove someplace had lunch drove back um um I don't remember another driving someplace distant for lunch and coming back to Charlotte to see a girlfriend, to meet my sister in South Carolina.
	We went by ourselves when I told you about that remote place in Georgia.
	We could have driven someplace else and had lunch and came back.
	That's all that comes to my recollection right now.
	There could have been another place we drove and had lunch.
	My security team was very clear to me.
	I'm not to be out and about in Atlanta without them.
	And so for me to do something just very normal that a normal person would get to do if they weren't prosecuting this case, I got to drive four hours to do it.
	And that's what I was going to ask you.
	Your security detail, did they take you to and from your house?
	They take, well, so I haven't been able to enjoy my home.
	Condo, I'm sorry.
	Where do you lay your head?
	Do they take you to and from where you lay your head?
	99% of the time.
	Would they take Mr. Wade to and from wherever you laid your head?
	That has never in the history of ever happened.
	Ever, okay?
	Your security team has never taken him?
	From my house?
	That's a lie.
	It's a question, you stupid psycho.
	That's never happened.
	So your security team has never taken Mr. Wade?
	My security team has never taken Mr. Wade from any place where I have lived and brought him here.
	Never.
	Not once.
	Has your security team taken him?
	Have they ever taken the two of you together?
	Anywhere.
	To where?
	Anywhere.
	We've left this building and gone to lunch, but I go to lunch so rarely that that is a very rare occasion, I am sure.
	And let me be clear.
	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, 7 o 'clock, 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're talking...
	Very few, very far in between.
	So the answer is yes.
	And when I do, it's because my assistant has heated up some bag, something, and I eat through meetings and eat in my office.
	It's not a practice of mine to go to lunch.
	During the time period that you were dating, would your security team ever take you two together anywhere?
	No.
	Never.
	If there was a lunch that occurred that I just described, if there was a meal that occurred that I just described...
	Anything outside of that?
	And it needs to be very clear.
	No, do it, please.
	Not often.
	Once, twice.
	Because I want to be over-inclusive.
	Over-inclusive.
	I'm saying once or twice.
	I'm not certain that it happened, but I'd rather be over-inclusive with you.
	So your office objected to us getting Delta records for flights that you may have taken with Mr. Wade.
	Well, no, no, no, look.
	I object to you getting records.
	You've been intrusive into people's personal lives.
	You're confused.
	You think I'm on trial.
	These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in the world.
	Oh, my goodness.
	Oh, is she a psychopath?
	Keep going, Fannie.
	Keep going, Fannie.
	This is the most disastrous thing I've ever seen.
	And I've seen a bird get stepped on.
	This is crazy.
	I'm not on trial.
	They're on trial for trying to steal an election.
	That's correct.
	And you filed your first one.
	So you filed two today?
	Is that right?
	Is it two or three?
	I probably would have filed 21, 22. Maybe I haven't filed 23 yet, because isn't it due like June of the next year?
	April, I believe.
	So you filed your first one.
	It looks like April 15, 2022.
	And your second one...
	April 17, 2023.
	Does that sound familiar?
	I don't remember the dates, but you're an officer of the court.
	I'm going to hope you're telling the truth now.
	May I approach this?
	Yeah.
	Thank you.
	Can somebody bring me some...
	Yeah.
	Can somebody I have to get a little old.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Those are the ones that you filed?
	This looks like me for sure.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Judge, we'd move to admit 20 and 21. I think you need to delineate which one's when.
	20 is 2021, so it accounts for the time period, Your Honor, January the 1st, 2021 through December the 31st, 2021.
	That is Defendants Exhibit 20. Defendants Exhibit 2021, it accounts for the time period January the 1st, 2022 through December the 1st of 2022.
	All right, any objection to Exhibits 20 and 21?
	Nope.
	Sorry.
	From other counsel, admitted without objection.
	Yeah um when did your relationship your personal relationship with Mr. Wade end?
	Our personal relationship ended in um this year so let's be let's be very clear so that we don't mix words I don't want to mix words in here Mr. Wade is my friend right now um Mr. Wade I would say has been my friend since 2020.
	I think he started out as like a mentor and a professional colleague um He became my friend and somebody that I really respected.
	I feel very indebted to Mr. Wade for taking on the task of this job.
	And he is certainly my friend and one of the people that I respect the most.
	So if you ask about a personal relationship...
	I consider myself to have a personal relationship right now, Mr. Wade.
	I consider myself to have a personal relationship with Anna Cross.
	I consider myself to have a personal relationship with Mr. Abadi.
	I consider myself to have a personal relationship with Andrew Evans.
	Okay, let me just clarify that.
	I have a personal relationship with him as we speak right now.
	I don't think that's what you're asking.
	I think that's what you're asking.
	When did your romantic relationship with Mr. Wade end?
	Did it end?
	Me and Mr. Wade, We are good friends.
	My respect for him has grown over these seven weeks of attacks.
	We are very good friends.
	I think but for these attacks, it would have been a friendship that as life goes, he would have.
	Stopped having.
	I think that you have cemented that we'll be friends to the day we die.
	Did we just have an answer to your question?
	She asked about a personal relationship.
	She asked when the romantic relationship ended.
	That's the question.
	Sometime in, I'd say late summer of 2023.
	But I don't believe men, because this is what you're really asking about.
	This is the salaciousness of all of this, right?
	No, I'm just asking about your romantic relationship.
	When you stopped dating.
	I think that me and Mr. Wade, so he's a man, he probably would say June or July.
	I would say we had a tough conversation in office.
	So that men in relationships at the end of physical intimacy, women in relationships when that tough conversation takes place.
	Did he come to, I guess, the condo?
	I'm not sure what you called it, condo apartment.
	Would he come and stay at that condo or visit you there?
	I'm sorry, visit you there.
	What condo?
	What apartment?
	I want to be clear.
	So, not your house.
	I know you classified one as house and one as condo, so I'm trying to use those terms.
	See, what you don't understand is because of this case, I've got to move.
	And so, I need to...
	If you could ask a more precise question.
	Yes, please.
	Give me the time period.
	Mr. Wade visits you at the place you laid your head.
	When?
	Has he ever visited you at the place you laid your head?
	So let's be clear, because you lied in this.
	Let me tell you which one you lied in.
	Right here.
	Let's hear it.
	Let's hear it, Fannie.
	I think you lied right here.
	No, no, no, no.
	This is the truth, Judge.
	It is a lie.
	It is a lie.
	Mr. Sainal, thank you.
	We're going to take five minutes.
	Five minutes?
	No!
	Let her melt down!
	Don't pause her to let her collect her cool.
	This is...
	She is a...
	I didn't realize how flipping crazy she is.
	Something's going to happen.
	Hot mic.
	Catch it.
	Catch it.
	Listen for the screaming.
	Good evening.
	Ashley!
	Please accept my invitation on Twitter.
	I'm waiting to be accepted.
	I'm waiting for my Twitter invitation to be accepted so I can follow you on Twitter.
	I could DM you the questions that I'd love to ask Fanny Willis.
	This is so freaking wild, people.
	I have postponed my AppleCare appointment.
	What happened?
	Oh, don't cut the mic.
	I can't be able to hear anything.
	Zoom in.
	1776.
	All right, people.
	Holy cows.
	Okay, so...
	Okay, I'm going to go over to Rumble.
	So the stream died on vivabarneslaw.locals.com because I think we reached the end of the time that we are allotted for...
	Oh my god.
	Rockahora in the house says, this is the clearest definition of, quote, verbal diarrhea, end quote.
	She really hates voters.
	She's dead set on burning up as much public money as possible.
	Might need to pull back on this stuck pig before it burns.
	Hence the five-minute break.
	I wouldn't give her a break.
	Let her melt down.
	Jeez Louise, I'm just like...
	It's like in a fight between a grappler and a striker, and the grappler gets the striker down on the ground.
	Like, hey, Conor McGregor getting Nurmagomedov on the ground, and then the ref puts him back up on their feet.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	No, no, no.
	You let Nurmagomedov...
	Wait a minute.
	Hold on one second.
	Nurmagomedov.
	Yeah, that's his name.
	You let him pound the crap out of the striker.
	You don't stand them back up.
	That's not fair.
	Primusfan92 says, I would like to see you and Joe discuss your thoughts on today's testimony.
	We'll probably do it tomorrow.
	Oh, they're back!
	I hear a noise.
	Hold on.
	This is so exciting.
	No, no, that's not the right one.
	That's not the right one.
	Is it this one?
	It's not this one.
	Holy crap, apples.
	I think this is it.
	Is this it?
	This is it.
	Okay.
	Bring on the stuck pig, people!
	Let's see if she's done squealing yet.
	Oh my goodness, I just clipped that part.
	They're the ones on trial for stealing an election.
	Sorry, Fanny.
	You're on trial now.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	Can you imagine saying that and thinking that you look good to say it?
	Like, oh yeah.
	Testify, Fanny.
	I don't know where I found this bracelet.
	I'm sure I kind of like it now.
	It's mine.
	All right.
	Fanny comes back.
	What have I said?
	What have I done?
	Have they been telling me to calm the hell down?
	Holy crap, apples.
	Dirty Fanny is getting wiped, says Colin on Twitter.
	She is off her rocker.
	Oh, my goodness.
	Her boyfriend lied under oath about when their relationship began.
	I hope she was really, really good at whatever they did together because he is fucked now.
	Whether he was then or not, says Aaron, with like an umlau under the E. Oh my god, McAfee can't believe what he's seeing.
	This guy's like, I'm getting too old for this shit, and he's only 39. Here you go!
	Oh, Ashley knows it.
	She's happy.
	Oh my goodness.
	2024, people, is turning out to be a fun year.
	Oh, we're now at over 16,000 on Rumble.
	Outrageous, people.
	Who would have thought that this was what this was going to turn into?
	I thought this was going to last an hour and a half and we were going to be done.
	The question that I had is, is everyone on Rumble subscribed?
	Please.
	I just need to see that number turn to 400 and then I'll never ask until 500.
	Refresh.
	Just make sure you're following on Rumble.
	Go to the little green button that says follow.
	Has it happened yet?
	It hasn't happened yet.
	It doesn't matter.
	Well, I was reading the chat there.
	Cash was reparations, says mother love.
	Okay.
	That's a joke.
	I can't...
	I read the super chats.
	I do not approve of the content.
	Look at that face right there.
	Holy cows.
	That's the thousand-yard stare.
	Look at the way she's sitting in that chair like a shlub.
	Sit up straight, Fanny!
	Jeez, you're...
	Oh, yeah, you turned your flag right side up now.
	At least it's not upside down.
	Holy cows.
	The entitlement.
	Exuding from her.
	It's palpable.
	I mean, she's right.
	Nathan Wade comes off as a southern gentleman compared to her.
	So then we got Jamie Young 714 over on Rumble says, Was she considered a bulldog in the courtroom to becoming the DA?
	Was she considered a bulldog in the courtroom to becoming the DA?
	Because she sounds like a real piece of work.
	I know nothing about law.
	Or did she check box?
	I don't know.
	She looks crazy.
	Her lapel isn't even on correctly.
	That tells me all I need to about this lady, says JP, JPizzy, I-40.
	All I hear from her mouth is shit, says Musy Diver.
	It's a poop emoji, not shit.
	He didn't swear.
	Mighty Megatron says she's got attitude.
	It needs to be clipped.
	Clip it all, people.
	Snip, clip, share away.
	Make it go viral.
	The truth shall set you free.
	She just took cash from her campaign, said Mother Love.
	Back on the record.
	I'm going to shut my...
	Tell us.
	one here.
	Calm the hell down.
	This being a room mostly full of lawyers who have spent their lives We do, we do.
	That's why I'm not there.
	And devoting ourselves to the rule of law and proper advocacy.
	I would urge everyone to keep those principles in their mind, starting with the fact that we won't talk over each other.
	I love this judge.
	We'll get through this.
	We'll get through this.
	Dude, I'm getting through it.
	Please, let him talk over each other.
	How often did Mr. Wade visit you at a place where you were living between 2019 and 2021?
	for sex.
	You wanna start with the lie that he lived with me in South Florida in 2019, the home he's never been to?
	That's one lie you told him in your document.
	Judge, I didn't ask her about that.
	Ms. Merchant, I want you to ask a very precise question.
	I think she's saying and answering that he did not live with her.
	So why don't we break that up into smaller parts?
	I didn't ask about living.
	While we're talking about professionalism, no, while we're talking about professionalism, she put in three different documents.
	The judge is going to get mad at her?
	Hold her in contempt!
	He's never been to South Fulton.
	In 2019, I lived in South Fulton.
	He has never been to my residence in 2019.
	He has never been in 2019.
	Okay, great.
	In 2019, he's never been to your residence.
	Anyplace.
	I lived in my home in South Fulton before I started getting the threats that...
	were here.
	She's a victim.
	I paid for with my own sweat and tears.
	I'm no longer a thing about all of November and all of December.
	Mr. Wade never came to my house in South Fulton.
	Let me help you out.
	I lived there in 2020.
	He never came to my house in 2020, let alone live with me as you put falsely in these documents.
	In the first three months of 2021 when I could still enjoy my home, Mr. Wade never came to South Fulton and it is certainly a lie that he lived with me.
	So he just banged you.
	Sorry.
	Did Mr. Wade ever Sorry.
	Not the question.
	Not the question, Fannie.
	Not the question.
	Oh, I'm sure he came to.
	Yes, she did.
	That's where I lived in 2020.
	In 2020, did he ever visit you at a place that you resided?
	Okay.
	I don't understand.
	In 2020, I lived in South Fulton.
	That's the only place I lived in South Fulton.
	That's before I had to abandon my home, Judge.
	We heard you.
	We heard you're a victim.
	He never came there, okay?
	Oh, he came there.
	If you don't come someplace, you can't live there.
	He came some places Woo and if this happens again and again, I'm gonna have no choice but to strike you testimony Someone clip that.
	Someone clip that.
	The judge is reprimanding the DA.
	Clip that.
	I did not live anywhere but South Fulton, Georgia in 2020.
	That is before I began my prosecution of this case.
	And it was my plan to only live there.
	Did Mr. Wade ever visit you at the condo that you leased from Ms. Yeardy?
	He visited that condo, yes.
	He did?
	Yes.
	Did he ever spend the night at that condo?
	No.
	Just visited?
	Yeah, but 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, but it wouldn't have been...
	Let me think.
	2019.
	No, she said 2020.
	I don't know.
	I'm going to say we probably broke bread someplace in 2019.
	I don't remember it.
	I think you broke something else.
	Broke bread.
	What a pretentious...
	Although I have no recollection.
	But it seems to me I got...
	I go out to eat and drink with pretty much everyone, so I'm going to say yes.
	Yeah, we know that.
	Outside of the vacations that we've already talked about, did you ever go out to dinner with Mr. Wade?
	I mentioned to you that I would...
	I'm going to object as to what time period.
	We're asking very big questions.
	I thought we were treating the witness as possible on 6-11.
	We're no longer doing that.
	Oh, shut up.
	We need to be more specific with our questions if we're going to treat her as possible.
	All right, Ms. Merchant, it's not so much.
	I think you can elect between leading and open-ended questions, but I think we are still wondering about, and I think we need to get back on track of focusing on the financial benefit or the relationship.
	The judge is telling you what to do, Ashley.
	Next question about if you did go out to dinner, who paid when you went out to dinner?
	He paid, I paid.
	You both paid.
	Okay, so let me be real clear.
	We didn't say, "Oh, the bill is $102.
	You get $51, I'll get $51." I don't operate like that with my girlfriends.
	I don't operate like that with anyone.
	He caught the bill, I caught the bill.
	Whomever.
	Did you ever pay him through Cash App?
	No.
	You only ever paid him through cash?
	Yes.
	We're talking about...
	I'm very confused now.
	Why would she give him cash?
	thousands contract is cash why give him money in a contract I was cute but I didn't give him money outside in a contract what happened it no we don't answer it since you said it he worked he worked more Why?
	So that's a contract.
	So don't be cute with me and then think that you're not going to get an answer.
	And I will ask you about the contract in a minute.
	I asked you about cash.
	Did you ever pay him anything and I'm trying to qualify my questions.
	I'm not talking about the contract with Fulton County that was paid.
	I'm not talking about that.
	I'm talking about outside of that, did you ever pay him anything other than cash?
	I've only given him cash a few times in the course of what we're talking about.
	Thousands and thousands of dollars!
	If we would go to dinner, I wouldn't give him cash because he paid for dinner or I paid for dinner.
	I've given him cash only a few times in life, probably four.
	Yeah, tens of thousands.
	The best money I've ever handed him is $2,500.
	Yeah, four times that's $10,000.
	Probably between $500 and $1,000.
	You never wrote him a check?
	Never.
	Outside of the contract?
	I don't have checks.
	You don't have checks?
	So you have no proof of any reimbursement for any of these things because it was all cash, right?
	The testimony of one witness is enough to prove a fact.
	That's a no.
	That's a no.
	I'm asking if you have any proof that you paid him any of these money.
	The proof is what I just told you.
	Oh, really?
	Take me, take me, okay.
	No written proof.
	No documentary evidence.
	So I have some probably some transactions like in Belize.
	I probably spent $500 on my card in Belize.
	I spent 800, I can't remember, 900 bucks on each of our tickets to go to Belize.
	I did the $700.
	I probably got some minor expenses in Aruba that would be on a card.
	But for the most part, for those trips, other than, so the two cruises, I gave him money for those before we ever left.
	Yeah, thousands of dollars.
	Let me answer.
	Well, the question was if you had any written proof.
	So I've answered you, that I've had written proof.
	We can move to the next question.
	If you've answered if you had any written proof, then that was my question.
	I want to make sure that we're clear that for the two cruises...
	Judge, I asked if she gave him written proof.
	We're not going to talk over the show.
	Ms. Merchant, she answered your question, so we can ask the next question.
	Yep.
	Ms. Cross will have plenty of opportunities to let you clarify.
	Judge, got it.
	Thank you, Judge.
	Knowing your role as district attorney.
	You know that public funds are scrutinized and money is scrutinized and things like that.
	You understand you're under a microscope.
	You have reporting requirements, all of those types of things.
	You have no record other than your testimony of the money that you've given Mr. Wake.
	You've already asked that question.
	Let's keep going.
	Yep.
	When you took office, you had a tax lien of $4,600.
	Did you pay that with cash when you made that tax lien hole?
	I probably paid through, uh, however you pay.
	Okay.
	So, but you were saying that you had amounts of cash.
	You still had that lien in 2022 when you were dating Wade and going on these trips.
	So, the cash that you gave him, that could have been used to pay this tax lien off?
	Are you going to tell me how to pay my bills?
	I'm going to object.
	This is not relevant as if it makes you.
	Mr. Merchant, um, are you trying to establish that she was insolvent in some way?
	Um, I...
	Definitely was trying to establish that she did not have these mass amounts of cash that she's talking about.
	Yes.
	All right.
	Ask the question.
	You had a tax lien in 2022.
	$4,600.
	Did you say I did?
	Oh, you don't remember?
	And you did not use this cash that you had to reimburse Mr. Wade to pay that off, correct?
	No.
	I went shopping, too, when I didn't pay it off.
	You probably should have said that.
	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.
	The finances are discussed in the book.
	I'll rule that.
	Thank you.
	Ms. Willis, you can continue your answer.
	Well, I came up with Mr. Wade as he released a hearsay statement that he was asked about in relation to what Ms. Willis may or may not have said in relation to an author.
	So it's not relevant to the testimony that's occurring at this time.
	I think Ms. Merchant has said that inside the book she also makes a statement as to her own finances, and that's that issue.
	So you gave interviews to the authors of this book, correct?
	Once or twice.
	Okay.
	Comprehensive.
	I don't know if it was three times.
	Two or three times, I think.
	You were quoted in the book, and I will give you a chance to say if this is a misquote.
	You were quoted, when they asked you about if you wanted to run for office for DA, you were quoted, I really don't want to be financially effed up again.
	Do you remember saying that?
	So what that refers to...
	My question first is if you remember saying that.
	I remember saying something similar to that, but I would like to be able to explain what that's in reference to.
	That's not...
	In reference to anything else.
	It was a huge sacrifice to be district attorney in Fulton County.
	Sacrifice.
	I was doing just fine.
	I had a municipal court judgeship that was paying me a hundred and something thousand dollars a year and like you gotta show up twice a week.
	Easiest thing I've ever done in life.
	I also had private clients that were paying me to represent them.
	So I was able to have a law practice and that.
	Raising two daughters by myself.
	There were times in life where things were hard.
	I was telling people, I don't really run for DA.
	I don't want to run for DA.
	I'm in a good position right now.
	I got this easy job that I enjoy being the chief judge of the city of South Fulton.
	I'm making money at the law firm.
	And I'm not sure that I want to make this sacrifice.
	And why does it always have to be me?
	Eventually, I prayed.
	I think that I was the appropriate person.
	I think that I did that.
	So when you're referring to that, what I'm saying is...
	Why should I make a sacrifice again?
	And what I was not talking about is being district attorney.
	Once you get elected district attorney, you're in a fine financial position.
	I make over $200,000 a year.
	What I was talking about is I ran for judge.
	When I ran for judge, I took $50,000 of my personal money out of my retirement.
	And that money...
	Ended up being lost.
	And I know when you bet on yourself, you're going to have to bet money on yourself.
	And so what I was talking about was not wanting to go through the personal financial expense of running for office.
	By no means did I think that I was going to be financially in a bad position once I won.
	Let's talk about what I was up against because it's important to understand that comment.
	I've been here for 24 years.
	No, no, no.
	It's very relevant as to what my mindset was about this, so I'm trying to answer your question.
	So what I was saying is I...
	Taylor, so it's a finance.
	Right, but it is about my finances.
	Nobody put me in this seat, so I had already run for office once.
	I had spent $50,000 of my own money running.
	And it was vamoose, nothing.
	And so when I'm talking to those authors, I'm talking about the contemplation of the sacrifice of the run, not the sacrifice of once you become DA.
	The odds were against me.
	I was likely going to lose the election based on who I was running against.
	So that needs to be in the appropriate context.
	Isn't it true that the authors also wrote, and you can dispute this if you'd like, that you were broke after that race?
	The 2018 race.
	Yeah, that was a hard race.
	I wasn't broke like I didn't have any.
	So broke is relative to depending where you are, but that hurt to lose that $50,000.
	So I'm sure my mental mindset was like, I just gave $50,000 away.
	Right.
	So they characterized it from their conversations with you that you were broke.
	You had poured your own money into the campaign and you weren't able to pay your own bills because of your, I'm sorry, your clients couldn't pay their bills to you and you had a paltry I would want to read that, but I don't remember clients not being able to pay their bills.
	May I approach this?
	You need to read your book.
	Guys, tell me if you...
	I lowered my mic a little bit.
	I have not read this book.
	The audio sounded fine to me, but how is this audio if I don't get too loud?
	Holy crap.
	This is like an implosion.
	This is like that submarine that went a little too deep into the ocean and then just collapsed under its own weight.
	So like this fact here, her ex-husband Fred had run into a financial...
	I have no information about that.
	I didn't ask you about that.
	I just asked about what they represent from their interview to me that it was broke and that you had clients that weren't able to pay their bills.
	Can you show me where that is?
	Because this is where you put the tab, so that's where I read.
	Broke.
	But didn't pay their bills.
	Broke.
	I'm sure I characterized myself as broke as leaving that $50,000.
	I don't know that I had her nascent law practice.
	I didn't have...
	I thought I had a law practice.
	So this is not correct.
	I'm sure it's just...
	I didn't have any asset for the two cases.
	So I had one case where they had took one of my client's money at the airport.
	That's...
	I don't know if that's what they're...
	I don't know.
	Paltry rate.
	I did have family law cases.
	I guess that's what they're talking about.
	And clients who couldn't pay their bills ain't clients, so no.
	Clients who can't pay their bills ain't clients.
	This was a fair and accurate representation where it says you were trying to make it month to month at that point.
	No, I don't think that that is actually a fair and accurate representation, but I am certain that after the 2018 election...
	I'm still not really happy about having given up that $50,000.
	You know when you paid your tax lien?
	I don't.
	You don't?
	No.
	You know if you paid it?
	Too long ago.
	I know I've paid some taxes.
	I don't know.
	I don't want to speculate.
	Did you tell anyone at Fulton County Board of County Commissioners about your relationship with Mr. Wade?
	Nope.
	No.
	Why would I?
	Did you disclose your relationship to anybody at Fulton County?
	No.
	Why would I?
	She's going to get defensive here.
	No, I don't think so.
	And as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of Fulton County, I assume that you're familiar with the county code and ordinances?
	I've said we're not going to cover that.
	This hearing was emerging.
	I'm sorry, Judge?
	We said we weren't going to cover the county regulations.
	Okay, and I won't.
	Let me ask you this then.
	So are you aware that you're required to disclose any relationship with someone that you contract with in Fulton County?
	Would this be different because it's potential for impeachment?
	Yes.
	What did you ask me?
	Did you know that it was a conference?
	Ms. Murchin, if you could re-ask the question.
	Okay.
	Are you aware that Fulton County requires you to disclose any relationship with someone that you're doing business with?
	I'm not aware, and I know often that things are confused with state constitutional officers in county, but I'm not aware.
	Okay, so it's your understanding that you don't have a duty to disclose the relationship.
	She's going to answer that question.
	Let's keep going.
	Did you keep track of this cash that you paid him at all?
	What are you talking about?
	I don't understand.
	Did you keep track?
	Did you keep a ledger?
	A ledger.
	Did you keep track of it?
	You know, like what they're charging Trump for in New York.
	Yeah, $10,000.
	There's no ledger.
	This is friends handing money off to each other.
	So the answer is no.
	I think you've already asked whether there was any written proof whatsoever, and she's answered that.
	Okay.
	So we covered this.
	Let's move on.
	Don't glitch out stream.
	Who were you referring to when you suggested that Mr. Roman's motion to disqualify was racially motivated?
	We already said we're not talking about the forensic misconduct that's been alleged.
	And just so the record is clear, I don't believe I said that his motion was racially motivated, so I don't want that to stay there.
	I've never said his motion was racially motivated.
	No, I just said I'm getting picked up.
	I think it would be best if we don't need to go down that road.
	We're going to save that for argument.
	Oh, yeah.
	You once said that you would not engage with a personal relationship with anyone that worked for Fulton County.
	Is that correct?
	Played the clip.
	An employee?
	Anyone that worked for Fulton County.
	Oh, he's an external contractor.
	So that's the qualification you give an employee?
	I think that's the statement that I made, so if you want to quote me, quote me accurately.
	So it's your position because Mr. Wade was not an employee?
	Or it's your position he wasn't an employee, correct?
	Mr. Wade is not an employee, and he will tell you that over and over again.
	It's all my affection.
	Thank you.
	I'm sorry, the statement is destroyed.
	Make sure I accurately quote you.
	What you said was you won't sleep with people who work under you.
	Do you not consider Mr. Wade working under you?
	I consider Mr. Wade to be an agent.
	He was working under her.
	An agent?
	Yeah.
	An appointee is what I really would think of him as.
	Your point, whatever merit it has, Ms. Merchant, is on the record.
	Next question.
	All right.
	Do we need any moments in a minute?
	Mr. Sadow.
	Okay, that's Trump's lawyer.
	He's gonna be good.
	Get your clips ready, people.
	This is wild.
	I'm gonna try to ask you questions that you can actually answer without having to explain, okay?
	Yes, sir.
	My comprehension skills are pretty good, so we should do all right.
	We shall soon see.
	If I heard you correctly, you...
	Moved into what I will refer to as the Yurti condo in either March or April of 2021.
	Is that correct?
	Sometime between late February and April, yes.
	Just so we're clear, yes.
	But in that time period, you're in the ballpark.
	We're in the ballpark.
	And is that Yurti condo, would you say that it is in Hapeville?
	It is in Hapeville, yes, sir.
	And you moved in there for safety reasons?
	My father...
	Yes, I moved in there.
	We were concerned.
	My father was terribly concerned about me continuing to live at the house.
	And so they were clear, people came to my house at 5 o 'clock in the morning about the brutality cases, saying I was going to have a wake-up call.
	There were security threats due to gang cases.
	And there were concerns due to the...
	That was at the very beginning of this, looking into that.
	All of those reasons and what was happening, my father wanted me out the house and begrudgingly I left.
	Okay, so the answer to the question was yes for safety reasons, correct?
	Those were all of the things that caused the safety concerns.
	So the answer is yes.
	I'm questioning whether they are or not safety concerns.
	I just ask that you move into this condo, the RT condo, for safety reasons, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	At the time that you moved into the condo, be it from February to April of 2021, was your father still living in your house?
	Right, because my father...
	No, no, was he?
	But I get to explain the answer.
	I don't know if there's an explanation.
	If I ask you, was your father still living at your house?
	Yes or no.
	The answer is either he was...
	Or he wasn't.
	Yes, but you are going to get to argue at the end of this, as we both know.
	I'm not going to argue anything.
	I would like to be able to explain why.
	And so, yes, because my father is an older gentleman, he was worried about COVID, and he stayed.
	I'm going to have to say that a second time.
	Second time.
	Whatever we have to put apart, we stop testifying, okay?
	You'll have a chance to explain yourself.
	The question was whether your father was not staying there at the time, You're clarifying that in your answer as well.
	You can have a brief clarification, but it shouldn't be something that reaches...
	A question that wasn't asked.
	All right, Mr. Sado, you can re-ask the question.
	We'll see where it takes us.
	Okay, thank you, Your Honor.
	Was your father still living in your house at the time you moved to what I would refer to as a Yurti condo?
	Yes, sir.
	He was due to his concerns related to COVID.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	The safety concern was that there was potential danger at your house.
	Is that correct?
	Yes, my address had been exposed, so yes, there was concerns about potential danger at my house.
	So anyone staying at your house in the time period after you went to the Yerty condo was still in danger, correct?
	No, no, no.
	It's your attorney, Ms. Willis.
	Sorry, Mr. Potty, your objection is speculation.
	Yes.
	To the question of...
	Look at her.
	Gosh, she's a wreck.
	Is someone still in danger at her condo?
	I can...
	Just let her answer the question.
	But you objective.
	I was able to understand it.
	I've got the objection, and then I have...
	I'll withdraw the objection.
	Oh, yeah, now you know her answer.
	So I can answer it.
	You can now that the objection's been withdrawn.
	Can you try to answer that question?
	Yes.
	Is there still a safety concern for people staying at the house?
	Yes, I was very concerned about my father still living at the house.
	However, if you have dealt with an older gentleman...
	He was not leaving the house, despite my urging him that I thought he should leave as well.
	He did not want to leave the house because he was particularly worried at his age about COVID.
	But that became...
	What the hell?
	That makes no sense.
	I don't want to say...
	I was not happy with that decision of my father's, but I can't ultimately make him leave, and he stayed there too long, in my opinion.
	Okay, thank you.
	During that period that you left to go to the Yeriti condo...
	Did any of your children stay at your house?
	Oh, that better be a no.
	That better be a no.
	I don't think that they were there at that point.
	Certainly my baby wasn't there.
	I'm talking about this entire period.
	We're talking about, if I remember correctly, and you'll correct me, I'm sure, you said that you stayed there at what I would call the Yerty condo until January of 2022.
	Correct?
	Yes.
	Okay, so I'm asking you in that period, February to April of 2021 until January of 2022, did any of your children stay at your house?
	Yes or no?
	You don't have to yell at me.
	Oh, she's a victim.
	She's a victim.
	So I would ask you to not yell at me.
	Oh, shut up.
	How about that?
	I don't actually expressly remember, but I can tell you since I have left my home.
	There have been times my oldest daughter came in.
	But I can't tell you with certainty the time window that you've said.
	What a flipping liar.
	So I don't want to speculate to that.
	But there was some time that my oldest daughter came back.
	Whether it was that period or after I left the Yodi residence, I'm not sure.
	Okay?
	Okay, so if I continue to go into more detail on this, you're not going to be able to give me an answer of whether or not, in fact...
	Any of your children were still at the house or stayed at your house during that time period, correct?
	What I can give you clarity of, so that we are clear, is from the time I moved out in February-ish of 2021...
	After I left there, there was a time period that my oldest daughter came back.
	But if you're asking me, was it in that window or after, I just don't have a recollection of that because, you know, your kids come and they go.
	You're trying to show that it's a bullshit excuse.
	So I don't remember the specific time period, and I apologize for that.
	Did your children ever stay with you at the Yurti condo?
	Uh, like maybe a night.
	Like for a girl's night or something, but live with?
	No.
	Did anyone else stay with you at the Yurti condo, including Ms. Yurti?
	Never.
	Ms. Yurti never lived in the condo.
	She met her husband, and they moved.
	They weren't quite married, but they moved.
	Nobody ever lived with me in the condo.
	My word was stay, not lived.
	Stayed with you at the condo.
	I guess I don't understand the distinction, but no one ever...
	I think my baby's my oldest child.
	I think she spent one night with me, maybe my oldest and my youngest.
	But I think that whole time I was in that place...
	I was alone.
	Other than that one night, I don't think anyone ever...
	That was a very lonely period in my life.
	I don't think anyone ever spent the night other than maybe one night.
	I remember a picture of my baby sitting on the couch in that place, and I'm thinking she spent that night.
	But just a very lonely time in life.
	Okay.
	We'll stay with the lonely theme just for a minute.
	Did Nathan Wade visit you at the Yerti condo?
	Ever.
	From the time you moved in until he was hired on November the 1st of 2021.
	So I moved out of that condo, but during that time period, yeah, I'm sure he came to visit.
	He came to visit.
	I can remember us going.
	I think the restaurant's lickety-split.
	I can remember him picking me up, going to lickety-split and ordering some food and coming and sitting at my table and eating.
	So I remember his hygiene excuses out the door.
	Because you give us an approximation of how many times Mr. Wade visited you at the condo between the time you moved in and prior to November 1 of 2020.
	I don't think often, but I don't want to...
	Speculate.
	Can we say more than five?
	More than ten?
	I'm going to tell you the problem I'm having here.
	Yeah, I can't.
	I don't want to get caught in a lie.
	Let's say more than ten, but I'm not sure that that's even accurate.
	He certainly has come and picked me up.
	He wanted to grab some food to eat.
	I don't remember him being in that condo a lot.
	A lot.
	I'm sorry.
	You want a number, and what I don't want to do...
	You're giving me your current and best recollection is all I'm asking for.
	That's all I can give you, sir.
	How many times did any of the prosecution team, how many times did Anna Cross come to that condo between the time you moved in and November 1st of 2021?
	I don't think Anna's ever been to that condo.
	What about any other prosecutor that's involved in the prosecution of this case?
	I don't think any of them have.
	Just Mr. Wade?
	That's correct, sir.
	But it was a lonely time.
	Oh, my God.
	Yeah, that 2021.
	I have a lot of guilt about this time period in my life.
	Because I left my dad.
	Yes, it was a lonely time.
	I was very appreciative to the citizens for giving me this responsibility and this duty.
	But what I very, very quickly learned is that this is a very isolating job.
	And 2021 was a lonely time.
	I turned 50 in 2021.
	That's probably one of the worst birthdays I've ever had.
	I've spent it alone.
	So I have a clear recollection of 2021 being lonely.
	Okay.
	Did Mr. Wade ever come visit you at the condo, the time period I'm talking about, prior to November of 2021, when Ms. Yerty was at the condo?
	So Ms. Yerty and me, we didn't share the condo at the same time.
	So the answer would be no.
	Well, we never stayed there together, so it's an impossibility.
	It's an impossibility.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Now, Ms. Yerty, because we need to get clarification on this.
	Miss Yurty stayed in that place.
	There may have been a time that me and Mr. Wade visited, like went and saw Miss Yurty.
	But me and Miss Yurty never lived there together.
	Just so we're clear.
	Well, maybe that was clear, but I'm going to have to try again.
	Okay.
	Was Miss Yurty still living in the condo when you moved in?
	Not a day.
	Okay.
	So when I'm talking...
	That was another misrepresentation in this.
	Oh, shut up already.
	We never lived together.
	I never lived with Miss Yurty.
	My question, though, I'm trying to understand.
	Okay.
	After you moved in to the condo, Ms. Yurty had been, she was out of the condo, right?
	She got a house.
	The answer is yes.
	She's not in the condo.
	We never stay, Ms. Yurty and I, never stay a day together in the condo.
	All of her stuff was out of the condo, and all my stuff, some of my stuff, not all of it, obviously, was moved into the condo, so we never stayed there together.
	No, sir.
	All right.
	So when...
	I asked you about Mr. Wade visiting the condo when you were staying there.
	Yes.
	Ms. Yerty wasn't staying there, correct?
	That would be correct, yes.
	She wouldn't be at the condo, correct?
	No, she would not have been.
	It would be you and Mr. Wade alone at the condo, correct?
	Yes.
	That is, there weren't any other witnesses to Mr. Wade and you at the condo, correct?
	Yes.
	No security.
	None of your security detail.
	I don't object.
	She said it was just her and...
	Oh, no, no, no, no.
	You made your point, Mr. Sado.
	Let's move on to the next one.
	It's your honor.
	The judge gets it.
	Who in the prosecution team, prior to, I guess, the motion being filed by defendant Roman, who in the prosecution team knew of your personal relationship, and now I'm talking romantic, with Mr. Wade?
	Sexy time.
	So, sir.
	So, sir.
	I'm not answering that question.
	I am extremely private.
	All I ask is who knew.
	The answer is no one knew.
	That's fine.
	I ask you who knew.
	Who knew?
	Answer it and then explain this with us.
	I am very private.
	Answer it.
	I supervise Mr. Body and Mr. McAfee.
	They didn't know who I was dating, but I can assure you I was dating somebody.
	So that I kept something private, that's my private life.
	Who knew?
	Is not any mystery to anyone.
	Who knew?
	It's like a woman doesn't have the right to keep her private life private.
	And I'm speaking on this because there have been all these intimations.
	Is there anyone else who knew about it?
	And then you can explain.
	Who knew?
	I don't know.
	I don't think so.
	I certainly didn't go out telling my business to the world.
	The best of your recollection, you didn't inform anyone on the prosecution team that the individual that you had chosen to lead the prosecution team had a personal relationship with you.
	Is that correct?
	That's inaccurate.
	Your question is inaccurate.
	What?
	Because you stated that the person I chose...
	We had a personal relationship.
	So we had a friendship.
	We have all these distinguishing factors.
	Remember, when I chose him in November of '21.
	First of all, let's get this straight.
	Mr. Wade was not actually my first choice.
	That's no insult to him.
	Because of the way you raised the question, you said, when I chose him, I didn't inform people of a personal relationship.
	We have defined personal as romantic.
	It is an inaccurate way to state the question.
	Then I will certainly restate it so it is very accurate.
	Okay, and please do not yell at me.
	She can yell at everybody she wants.
	2021, correct?
	2021, yes, sir.
	Your testimony is, whether one accepts it or not, your testimony is that at the time you hired Mr. Wade, there had never been a romantic relationship with Mr. Wade before you hired him, correct?
	Yes, my testimony is that we were very good friends, but not...
	Well, we're talking about the sex, so let's just don't...
	Well, I'm not talking about...
	I'm saying romantic relationship doesn't necessarily have to be just sex.
	It can be dating.
	It can be holding hands.
	It can be any of those things that one might call romantic.
	I'm asking you whether or not prior to November 1st of 2021, there was a romantic relationship with Mr. Wade.
	That's very simple.
	Yes or no.
	It's either a yes or no.
	No sex.
	I don't consider my relationship with him to be romantic before that.
	I'm not a hand holder, so no.
	That's fine.
	Now, let's move beyond November 1st of 2020.
	When you renewed the contract, when you re-upped it.
	I understand your testimony.
	There was no romantic relationship with Mr. Wade until early in 2022, whether it be January or February or March, early in 2022, correct?
	I would say sometime between February and April.
	Yes, sir.
	Now, I'm asking you about that time period when it became romantic.
	Stop yelling at me.
	You're yelling again.
	Stop it.
	I'm very sensitive to a woman.
	You didn't see the need, if I understand, to tell any of the people on the prosecution team when you had established a romantic relationship with Mr. Wade that the lead prosecutor, that is the man that was...
	Basically, giving orders to others was dating or having a romantic relationship with you, correct?
	I'm going to object to relevance.
	You're going to get overruled.
	Just to prove or attempting to show that there is an issue on the credibility about the relationship, the failure to have informed anyone, anyone on her team that she was having a romantic relationship with the lead prosecutor, I suggest...
	It gives rise to that inference.
	That's the rub of this.
	The inference that...
	The inference that...
	That they were concealing this because it was not as...
	It's been characterized to the court.
	And that, in fact, it started earlier than what they say.
	All right.
	Overruled.
	Mr. Saydown.
	I just want to make sure that we're clear.
	From at least 2020.
	Me and Mr. Wade were friends.
	At least that time period.
	I want to be clear because my credibility is being evaluated here.
	We were friends.
	We hung out prior to November of 2021.
	In November of 2021, I hired him.
	I do not consider our relationship to have become romantic.
	until early of 2022 because I don't know what date and time I'm saying sometime between February and April of 2022 and very early April of 2022 because I know that trip that I discussed with you was like the first week of 2022 that the relationship had become romantic I hope that answered your question but I can't have it where you know we're saying something differently all right so you've established the timeline as you put it the question originally was at the time I
	never tell people at work who I'm dating.
	Did you take any trips to D.C. with Mr. Wade?
	Yes.
	Never.
	So do you have no, what I would call, personal trips or business trips to D.C. with Mr. Wade?
	I never went to D.C. with Mr. Wade.
	Personal, business, otherwise, never.
	I've never been in the District of Columbia with Mr. Wade or Maryland, Virginia, the DMV as they call it.
	So as I understand it, just to be clear, any trips that you would have taken to see D.C. That was a pretty clear answer.
	Huh?
	That was a pretty clear answer.
	She just said no.
	So do you have a variation or something new to bring up?
	I'll ask it and we'll see.
	Well, don't just say, has she been to D.C. without Wade?
	Did you take trips to D.C. that were non-business during the time period that this case or this matter was under investigation?
	I'm going to object as the relevance relates to the matter that we're here before, Your Honor.
	Well, again, the question I already asked is, take personal or business trips?
	She said.
	But that was with Mr. Wade.
	That was with Mr. Wade.
	This I asked her alone, whether she took.
	Okay.
	What would be the relevance of that?
	I'm trying to understand whether or not we have an ability to show a personal truth in which Mr. Wade is there at the same time.
	I understand her answer, okay?
	She understands her answer, but we have documents.
	We have records.
	Well, this could be something that's maybe not part of the record yet, but I think there have been other things discussed in this case, and they have evidence that Mr. Wade may have been in D.C. at the same time.
	Did you go down on a personal trip?
	How does she qualify person versus business?
	Sure.
	And so that's going to limit its merit and impact and credibility.
	So I'll ask the question.
	I understand your testimony is you never took a trip to D.C. with Mr. Wade.
	That's correct.
	Personal or business?
	That's correct.
	Were you ever in D.C. at the same time as Mr. Wade?
	I was not.
	Personal or business?
	No, me and Mr. Wade have not been to D.C. at the same time.
	However, since Mr. Wade has been on this case, he's been to D.C. Since Mr. Wade has been on this case, I've been to D.C. What has not happened is we have not been in the District of Columbia.
	At the same time.
	Now, the only thing I'm not sure about with what you asked me is if I've been to D.C. personally, because I got a lot of personal friends in that area, but I know that I have been to D.C. I did an interview at Howard University.
	I went to D.C. for that.
	Seems like I've been to D.C. one other time.
	Oh, I went to D.C. for the Global Summit.
	Actually, yeah, those were two separate trips.
	My next question is based on her opening the door and therefore I'll just ask it and your honor can decide whether or not it's appropriate.
	When you went to DC, did you go to the White House?
	I did not go to the White House.
	Well, apparently I'm gonna get the answer anyhow.
	There you have it.
	Next question.
	Okay.
	You indicated your best recollection was that your relationship with Mr. Wade, the romantic relationship, ended You left it in August of 2023.
	That sound right?
	That's the hard conversation.
	That's not the...
	We've covered this.
	Next question.
	And you characterized it as a tough conversation, correct?
	Yes.
	I'm not going to get into the conversation per se.
	You should.
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, if he doesn't want to, we won't go there.
	Do it!
	You know, it's kind of hard to say no when you've got that opportunity.
	All I'm going to say is, was it pre-indictment in this case?
	We know the timeline that the indictment was delivered.
	And so that it's clear, the physical relationship...
	The judge is paying attention.
	That's the best thing.
	And is that when you were talking about the tough conversation?
	They're good, in my opinion.
	I'm not sure that the tough conversation didn't happen until after, but the physical relationship, so I'm sure if you ask Mr. Wade, because he's 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.
	I just think women and men think differently.
	Meanwhile, she knows the date when they stopped knocking boots.
	I'm not sure that that was her answer, but see if I can get specific.
	That is what I said.
	That's what I said.
	I said what I said.
	Next question, Mr. Stato.
	Want to say one more?
	The romantic relationship ended before the indictment was returned.
	Yes or no?
	To a man, yes.
	To a man, yes.
	Do you know?
	She's explained this, Mr. Sato.
	She's explained this.
	And did the forthcoming indictment have anything to do with that?
	Or was it just a coincidence?
	Let her answer.
	Let's go on and have the conversation.
	I'll just ask you whether or not it was a coincidence.
	It had absolutely nothing to do with this.
	It's interesting that we're here about this money.
	Mr. Wade is used to women that, as he told me one time, the only thing a woman can do for him is make him a sandwich.
	We would have brutal arguments about the fact that I am your equal.
	I don't need anything from a man.
	A man is not a plan.
	A man is a companion.
	And 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's ever foot my bills completely is my daddy.
	Is there anything else you would like to add to that?
	No.
	Sure.
	But I'm sure we'll talk about it further.
	No, we're not going to talk about it further.
	All right, no back and forth.
	Let's stay down.
	Next question.
	My next question is something that has to do with the...
	What I've characterized as the church speech.
	Oh, yeah.
	Let me just tell you what the question is, because I know that's not something...
	Preserve it for the record.
	Huh?
	You can preserve the question for the record, but then we'll move on.
	That's correct.
	Thank you.
	When you gave what I've referred to as the Martin Luther King weekend church speech, you know what I'm referring to?
	A great honor of mine.
	That's a historic African-American church.
	Sorry, because it was on Martin Luther King Day.
	I thought you meant like...
	Did you have handwritten notes with you?
	That you were reading from during the speech.
	And on second thought, Mr. Sado, because you might have a number of questions about this, why don't we just bullet point what you would want to cover on this to preserve for the record, and then we'll move on to the next topic.
	Okay.
	Since I had laid out before that the forensic misconduct isn't a subject...
	Do I not get an answer for that?
	That's right.
	Okay.
	Did you read your speech?
	No, Mr. Sado, for everything related...
	Oh, you just want me to stay out of it now?
	We can do it in a bullet form if you just want to cover what you would have asked, but it's not in a question-and-answer format.
	Okay, so I should do that at this point or do it when you're ready?
	We can do it right now.
	I'm going to ask her about, did she prepare the speech?
	Did she have notes on the speech?
	Did she read the speech?
	When did she write the speech?
	Who was she referring to when she was talking about?
	Others, who was she referring to when she said they?
	Who she was referring to when she spoke in terms of their...
	I would love to answer those questions.
	Well, Ms. Willis, you could certainly do that in some other format.
	But for today, that's...
	Go back to the church.
	Who was she talking about that was playing the race card?
	And why she didn't tell the people at the church that she had had a personal slash romantic relationship with the...
	I'll do respect the way it was characterized.
	The black man that she was referring to and was the black man she was referring to was that Mr. Wade.
	Okay.
	That's that area of inquiry.
	Noted for the record, Mr. Saydown.
	Next topic.
	Okay.
	What's his name?
	Mr. Saydown?
	I like this guy.
	It looks like the hard ass.
	I realize that you testified that you have no records with regard to cash payments.
	Yes.
	Correct?
	Would your bank records reflect that you withdrew cash from your bank accounts during the time period of 2020, 2021, 2022, or 2023?
	I'm not asking you, I'm just asking whether they would reflect that you withdrew cash from any of your bank accounts.
	So the exact amounts?
	No, just that you did.
	Of course, I withdrew money throughout that time period, throughout my life.
	I've withdrawn money from the bank, yes, of course.
	Talking about cash, that is, that you go to a bank or you go to an ATM and you take cash out.
	Either that way or you go to Publix and you overpay or you go to another store and you overpay.
	I don't think they let you do that anymore.
	Both through that, yes, of course they will reflect that at times.
	Okay, and so those records, if we had them, would show that, correct?
	That throughout the course of my life, I took out money.
	I was very specific.
	Yes, during the course of that time period, I would have taken money out, yes.
	So, do you have a problem with...
	Absolutely, yes.
	You don't want the bank records to be made available for the court and the court alone.
	I'm going to object as to the relevance, and this has already been addressed earlier as it relates to other records.
	This is an improper line of questioning.
	doing it for the purpose of harassment.
	Oh, man, harassment, harassment.
	I was gonna stand it on relevance.
	Mr. Seidal, is that something you wanna follow?
	Guy looks like David Portnoy's younger brother, barstool sports guy.
	How you can do that?
	Last area, briefly.
	Yes, sir.
	You had contact with Mr. Wade in the year 2020, correct?
	Ooh, um, I had some contact with Mr. Wade.
	Would you explain when you say some contact?
	Please tell us.
	I'm talking about 2020.
	I had some contact with Mr. Wade in 2020.
	One of the reasons your allegations are so preposterous or mismerchants that you have joined is...
	Ma 'am, I didn't ask you about the allegations.
	I asked you about your contact.
	That's all I ask you.
	Good.
	Shut her up.
	I appreciate that you want to say something.
	But I'm interested in did you have contacts with Mr. Wade in 2020?
	And your answer so far has been yes, correct?
	Very limited contact because Mr. Wade had a form of cancer.
	What was it?
	It makes your allegations somewhat ridiculous.
	Prostate cancer?
	I do appreciate the characterization.
	I'm not going to emasculate a black man, but I'm just telling you.
	I'm sorry, what?
	I'm not going to emasculate a black man.
	What would be emasculating about having prostate cancer?
	I don't think we should discuss further.
	Mr. Seda, next question.
	Trying to, Your Honor.
	Would you tell us in the occasions in 2020 that you had contact with Mr. Wade?
	I'm sorry, I thought I had answered that.
	Yes, sir, there were times in 2020 I had contact, but 2020 was the year I was running for office.
	It was the 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 2020.
	Did you go out to eat with him?
	Maybe.
	Maybe.
	Probably.
	Yes or no?
	Did you visit him in any location?
	His office?
	Or did he visit you in your office?
	Emasculated.
	In 2020.
	What the fuck does that mean?
	I am sure he...
	I'm sure...
	That's a very good question.
	I'm sure he came to 750.
	In 2020?
	750 is?
	Was my office.
	Okay.
	Not often, but maybe once or twice.
	Maybe I went to his office once or twice, but maybe once.
	And the purpose for going to his office would have been what?
	Maybe we would have went to mellow mushrooms for pizza.
	Lickety split to mellow mushrooms.
	Maybe he would have come for lunch.
	I'm sure we went by each other's office, though.
	But not often, not a lot.
	We're both grinding, trying to make a living.
	I understand.
	You're grinding it.
	You're both grinding it all right.
	But when you were going out with him to restaurants or when he would come to your office, right?
	Those were not sterile environments, were they?
	Oh, very sterile because it was...
	The restaurants were sterile environments?
	A lot of times we wouldn't eat there.
	We would pick up something and go in, but they were...
	I'm listening to you.
	You pick up and take it to where?
	Maybe eat at our office.
	Maybe.
	It did not happen much.
	That's what I'm trying to explain to you.
	And my office in 2020, nobody was coming in.
	I was stir-crazy, so I would still go into my office.
	You remember, when I started this, I said, I am not even sure if we came to each other's offices, but I am trying to be...
	Well, I'm pretty sure you came to each other's offices.
	You know what I'm saying?
	So, I think I can call him at 7.50 a couple of times.
	I just think I can recall him at 750 once, but let's say twice.
	I have seen his office.
	I remember all the awards in the lobby, but I'm not sure in 2020 I went.
	I'm not even sure I went in 2020 at all.
	I just want to tell you, yes, because I'm not sure.
	But I have a distinct recollection of him at 750.
	I actually don't have a distinct recollection of me at his office in 2020.
	But maybe I went to his office in 2020.
	Maybe.
	Did you have ongoing phone conversations during 2020 with Mr. Wade?
	Oh, yeah, I talked to him.
	Yes, absolutely.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	No question about that.
	No question.
	I talked to him on the phone in 2020.
	I understood, and this is, maybe I was confused.
	The Belize trip was for his 50th birthday, and that was in March.
	He turned 50 March 18th, 2023.
	If you look at the dates of the trip, I think we were there about six days.
	We stayed at two different locations.
	And you paid for it?
	100%.
	He said, I mean, I paid for the hotel, I paid for the flights, I had a birthday luncheon for him, I paid for massages, I paid for everything.
	And would those payments be reflected on your credit card?
	I paid for the cash.
	You paid them in cash?
	Cabs.
	Cabs.
	I was telling you all the different things.
	And I'm asking you whether or not those payments would be reflected on credit card bills of yours.
	So there was about $500 that I think is reflected on a debit card.
	My recollection is I took about $4 in cash with me.
	$400 or $4,000?
	$4,000.
	But I remember I handed him $2,500 and then the rest was just...
	No, that's not at all what you said.
	I probably gave $300 or $400 to this guy who was a taxi driver who would drive us every day around the two or three days we went.
	It was my trip money.
	And you had, to be clear to end this up, the $4,000 that you just told us.
	But I didn't give it all to him, remember.
	I only gave the $2,500 to him.
	I didn't ask you that.
	You said you gave that well before you even went.
	$4,000 is part of your, my words, cash hoard that you had collected over time.
	What did you just call me?
	H-O-R-D-E.
	Oh, I thought you said something different.
	No, I'm afraid I wouldn't say that.
	Dude, am I good or am I good?
	Give me credit, people.
	A defensive woman who knows that she's engaged in extramarital affairs views herself that way.
	And the money, when you had money at your house.
	I'm speaking too loosely.
	I had money wherever I was staying.
	So I was not referring to my house in 750.
	I'm saying I had money wherever I was laying my head.
	Yes, sir.
	That was my fault.
	I wasn't clear.
	So when you were at, what we said, the Yerati condo, during the time period we've always discussed, that's where you would keep your cash?
	When I stay there, yes.
	That's all I have.
	Thank you.
	Are they going to pause it and come back tomorrow?
	All right.
	I want to see if we can get through a few more defense counsel, if possible.
	Before breaking for today.
	Mr. Stockton.
	This has been beautiful, people.
	I knew that she heard whore and not whore.
	Madam District Attorney, I'm Alan Stockton.
	I don't think we've had the pleasure of meeting you.
	No, we haven't, so I love your accents.
	Madam DA, you described these various trips, and Mr. Sadow asked you about going to Washington.
	Did you and Mr. Wade go to New York?
	I've gone to New York.
	I've gone to New York twice since I've been district attorney.
	I'm trying to think of this two or three times.
	I went to do a domestic violence thing there, for sure.
	And I was honored, and I went to the Apollo there.
	Those are the only two trips that come to mind.
	I went.
	He was not with me.
	You also said that he was a world traveler and had been on many of the continents.
	Yeah, he was six.
	Have you been on any of those continents with him?
	Besides this one.
	Where's Belize?
	What continent is it?
	I'm not being funny.
	I don't know.
	South America.
	Let's say with the exception of...
	I've been to Belize with him.
	I've been to the Bahamas with him.
	I've been with Farouba with him.
	Don't embarrass me.
	I'm not sure what continents those are on.
	Whatever continents those are, that's where I've been.
	I'm sure if I gave it some thought, I would tell you.
	But whatever continents those are, I've been to those locations.
	But not Australia or any other continents?
	I don't even want to go to Australia.
	I do know he took a trip in December to Australia.
	I have no idea, you know.
	I don't know anything about that trip.
	When Mr. Wade began working with your office, he had two other gentlemen that worked in his firm with him.
	Is that correct?
	Yes, Terrence Bradley worked for him and Chris Campbell worked not for him.
	They worked with each other.
	Did you understand what their partnership arrangement was?
	No.
	Why is he the first one to ask these questions?
	Now, since you have been district attorney, the two gentlemen that worked with Mr. Wade and his firm, they also had contracts with your office.
	Is that correct?
	I probably had two.
	Well, I don't know if we've covered this in Ms. Willis, but I still don't know what the relevance would be of her testimony to this.
	But I've had about 10 people.
	I'm sorry.
	Do you want me to answer her now?
	Let's figure this out.
	Answer it.
	Let her answer.
	Disrespectfully, I think based on Mr. Wade's testimony, he had an interest in those contracts.
	He did?
	Sure.
	And then, but how has that been imputed to Ms. Willis?
	Well, if she contracted...
	I don't know whether or not she knew she was giving him that benefit.
	That's what I was trying to explore.
	Okay.
	Uh well maybe we can start with that question and then if she doesn't know about it then the ins and outs of all the contracts wouldn't be quite as relevant.
	It goes to lay a foundation for that though.
	Go ahead.
	The two gentlemen that were in Mr. Wade's office Did they have what I think has been referred to as a taint contract?
	So let me be clear, and I may get the names wrong.
	When I first became DA, the office was not properly staffed, and so I did.
	I'm surprised any lawyer would take it, but I did a contract for like $60 an hour to help us out with first appearance.
	That lasted a few months, okay?
	So I can't remember if Bradley or Campbell had that.
	I'm sure we can have records and I can tell you which one, but I just can't remember now.
	I like their experience.
	Bradley had been a probation officer and a defense attorney.
	Campbell had been a police officer and a defense attorney.
	There's a reason I'm telling you this.
	Then that contract, like I said, it didn't last long.
	It was just I was aggressively hiring, hiring, hiring, hiring.
	As soon as I got where I felt like I had first appearance.
	Enough lawyers for that?
	I let them go.
	Then we had what's called a filter contract, but it was not filter for this particular case.
	I do have a lawyer who does the filter for this election interference case.
	When we're talking about filter the contract they had that neither one of them has any longer, I now have another lawyer that does that for me.
	Only for police brutality cases.
	It's for what I call the...
	So when I first got to be the DA, I had...
	The whole unit was called anti-corruption.
	It dealt with both elections and police brutality cases.
	I actually took a trip to Houston and visited the district attorney in Houston.
	They divided their work up, and I thought the way she was doing it was better than me.
	And so I made a civil rights unit.
	And so they did what we would classify as civil...
	cases those are specifically the police brutality cases when I first took over I was told Paul had not filtered five cases that was a joke it ended up being the 101 cases they weren't filtered which is why I hired two of them eventually we got it down enough that it was one of them and then
	Now I still have one lawyer that does it, but now I've been able to cut those cases down to like 30. Can you tell me, help me understand what the purpose of the filter is?
	Yes, sir.
	So what a filter is, is police officers make statements in the line of duty, and you are not allowed as the prosecutor to know what those statements are if they're done in the furtherance of their employment.
	And in fact, if you know what those statements are, you're basically disqualified from the case.
	You can't have it anymore.
	So what our policy is, I think I pay them like a $50 flat fee.
	They pick the case up directly from the GBI, because that's what...
	Where those cases go to.
	And then what they are to do is to go through the entire file.
	So the body cam, which is important because sometimes they'll make a statement to their supervisor on body cam in the police reports where they write things.
	It would be easy if it was just some statement of the police officer.
	But what you find out is these statements are embedded in it.
	And so what your filter lawyer does is they go through it.
	They either redact it out electronically or...
	They cross it out, and then once it is crossed out, then they provide it to my team, and then we're able to look at it.
	That was not being done appropriately when I became district attorney.
	I thought that it had only been, so Mr. Howard had some Chinese wall thing that I didn't think worked at all.
	That's racism.
	Where allegedly those cases were properly redacted.
	That ended up being a joke.
	And so the five cases really turned into, I'm not going to say all 101, but a vast majority.
	That is the work that Mr. Bradley and Mr. Campbell did for me.
	They did a really good job.
	All of those cases that we originally came with, they're done.
	They're not just done for Mr. Bradley and Mr. Campbell.
	They're done through my office.
	But obviously life is not stagnant.
	There have been new police cases.
	I do have a lawyer that is doing that work now.
	That doesn't work for me.
	That's the same kind of deal.
	I have another lawyer that does filtering for this case.
	Completely separate.
	Can you back up from the microphone?
	So in the same private office, you had a...
	filter contract then you had somebody else having handling first appearances and so forth and then you had a special prosecutor is that correct?
	Yes.
	I'm just not Ultimately, the answer to your question is yes, but I'm not sure that they did it at the same time.
	The first appearance contract was either $60 or $90.
	I don't know really how I convinced them to be able to take that, but I think because it was for such a short amount of time.
	And then I think I pay my filter lawyers, which I still don't know how I get away with, about $150 an hour.
	And I want you to understand, the AG...
	Pay special prosecutors $1,000 an hour.
	So I'm a tough negotiator.
	Paul was paying people up to $375 an hour.
	I won't pay anyone.
	More than $250 is my max.
	I have a lot of lawyers, a lot for what I have, that work at $250, and I cap them every month.
	You can't go past a certain amount of hours.
	Would you agree that if Mr. Wade and the two other gentlemen that were in his firm We're splitting fees in equal thirds.
	Would you agree that he would benefit from the tank contract and also from the other first appearance contract?
	I would agree he would make money.
	Yes, so to make money is a benefit.
	Judge is all good.
	Mr. Durham, if you're still with us on Zoom.
	No question, John.
	Mr. McDougald.
	Oh, please end it for the day.
	You have a couple, Your Honor.
	It's a little awkward from back here.
	Yeah, why don't you go ahead.
	Make your way up.
	Okay, and I might have to bolt quickly after this ends, people.
	I am going to do this again tomorrow.
	Holy cow.
	Wait until you see how the media frames her testimony.
	Stunning and brave.
	Fanny Willis stands up to the white man.
	They won't quite frame it like that.
	Holy cow, is this Judge Angeron's brother?
	I'm joking.
	Good afternoon, Ms. Willis.
	How are you doing?
	I'm very well.
	How are you, Mr. McDougal?
	I think this is our...
	First in-person meeting, correct?
	Second.
	Second.
	Well, I apologize for not remembering you more clearly.
	I like this guy's smile.
	I'm referring now to exhibit number 21. Yes, sir.
	Which was your financial disclosure form for 2022.
	Yes, sir.
	And it has a question which requires you to disclose any gifts or favors.
	From a single prohibited source in the aggregate amount of $100 or more.
	Do you see that?
	I don't, but I believe you.
	It would be on page two in the middle, paragraph number three.
	The second part of this, Robert, is definitely less damning than the first.
	Yes.
	And what is your understanding of a prohibited source for purposes of this form?
	I believe there's some classification of somebody you, like, don't have a personal relationship with that gives you $100.
	All right, if you look under there, it's subparagraph 2, Romanette 2. It defines it as someone that you know or should know is seeking to do or is doing business with the county, correct?
	Yes, but I, yes, let me, yes.
	That includes Mr. Wade as of the date you filled out this form, correct?
	Yes, but he never gave me a gift of $100 or more.
	The only thing that I would say maybe went over that, but I don't think it ever did, is if we went to dinner and my meal was $100, but I don't think I've ever eaten $100 worth of food at a restaurant.
	Now you understand why she has to make the repayment with cash.
	I would not pay him back if we went to lunch or went to dinner.
	But trips I paid him back for.
	You know, I never thought about the money until y 'all brought it up.
	And I would be less than honest.
	It says I was giving him the money back because I was the district attorney.
	I didn't take gifts from him.
	For a lot of personal reasons.
	Anyway, I did not take gifts from him.
	And so your reason for not disclosing.
	Any gifts from Mr. Wade on exhibit number 21 is that the aggregate amount on a net basis was less than $100 in the year 2022.
	Is that correct?
	I did not accept a gift of him of more than $100 in 2022.
	The one exception to that, because I want us to be clear, is we probably went out to eat.
	Multiple times in the year, if you're considering eating a meal, you know, because we went out multiple times, that probably went to the level of more than $100.
	But if we're doing tip for tack like that, I probably paid for as many meals as he paid for.
	And so I did not receive any gifts from him.
	The question on the form.
	I understand the question.
	The aggregate in excess of $100, and your testimony is that you did not receive in the aggregate more than $100.
	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.
	Very well.
	Okay.
	Mr. Rice.
	Mr. Gillen.
	Let's be clear, by the way.
	Guarantee that that comes before a lie.
	Trust me, I paid them all back for thousands and thousands of dollars.
	Good afternoon, sir.
	No trace.
	No Venmo.
	No payout.
	A few questions here.
	You saw the book here, Find Me the Vote.
	That was shown to you, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	I would like to tender this as an exhibit, number 22. Is that your copy?
	It is.
	All right.
	What exhibit is that going to be?
	22. All right.
	I'm making the...
	Evidentiary contribution here to this.
	Well, I guess you're tendering it.
	Is it with the position of the state?
	law joke here.
	I'm going to object just to the relevance of this point.
	That's it.
	Mr. Gillard, are you using this to confront her with a prior statement?
	No evidence of paying anything.
	And statements that she made concerning her.
	Concerning her financial situation and laying the foundation for that, and that she gave these interviews to the authors, and so this would document that, and we get this in the record and ask her questions about it.
	We could mark it for impeachment purposes.
	I'm a little wary of entering an entire 300-page book because I don't know exactly what every single line, if it would pass hearsay or relevance or et cetera, et cetera, but I don't think it needs to be admitted as an actual.
	Evidence for the record for you to do what you need to do with it.
	Well, Your Honor, I understand.
	I just would...
	It's March 22 and we'll move from there.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	Now, you were asked a little bit about this book before, correct?
	I think Mrs. Merchant asked me some questions, yes.
	And you gave about, what, about six interviews to the authors of this book in a sit-down?
	No, sir.
	You didn't?
	No, sir.
	She answered how many interviews she gave in her opinion.
	How many, in your opinion, do you believe you gave, and how long did they last?
	Two to three, maybe 20, 30 minutes.
	So your testimony is that most, you think you gave maybe an hour to an hour and a half's interview to the authors of this book?
	Oh, you mean in total?
	In total, yeah.
	Maybe, yeah.
	Anywhere between, definitely not more than two-ish hours.
	Okay.
	But you also were telling, the title of the book, of course, is A Hard-Charging Georgia Prosecutor.
	A rogue president and the plot to steal American election.
	Why is the title of the book relevant, sir?
	I'm going to ask her whether or not that was the theme that they gave her when they talked with her.
	The thing you gave her, what do you mean by that?
	Well, because they sat down and they told her why they were there to interview her.
	And why does that matter?
	Well, I think it matters because it shows that they want her to give her version of what...
	uh her life story this is a life story of her so that's why it's relevant but if the court thinks it's not then no no it's it could be relevant to your issue of the forensic misconduct that has been alleged and maybe some of the the motives at play when it comes to forensic misconduct but i'm not seeing again what we're here for today was the relationship and or any financial elements of it correct well i think it clearly relevant to the uh forensic misconduct Also relevant to personal interest in terms of the finances,
	let me...
	I didn't make 10 cents off that book.
	Pardon?
	I didn't make 10 cents off that book.
	Didn't ask whether you made any money.
	Okay, I just...
	Didn't ask whether you made any money.
	Do you have any other statements that you hadn't already been confronted with by Ms. Merchant?
	Well, other than...
	I want to focus on when you were telling them about your financial strength and your living kind of month to month, that is what your financial status was back in...
	2018 after your election.
	Mr. Gannon, we covered that at length.
	You're at the end of the line.
	I'm sorry about that, but we've got to find new ground.
	Well, let me move on to my point here.
	So the point is that what you're telling us is that you were in fact What did you just call me?
	So that you would dip out and there would be no record of it, correct?
	That's not what I'm telling you, sir.
	That's argumentative.
	That's not at all what I'm telling you.
	What I'm telling you is that throughout the course of my life, I have always kept cash in my house.
	That cash has ranged from times, you know, my father would probably be ashamed of this because he would say it should be more.
	But that cash at times has ranged from $500 to...
	Maybe $9,000.
	And he would be like, that is not what I told you to do.
	I've always had that amount of money.
	What I've told you is that when I travel, you do better negotiating when you travel.
	If you have cash, you go to get the cab.
	They say, oh, we're going to charge you $300 for the day.
	Well, I got American cash.
	Will you take it for $150?
	And so it's my practice to take money when I travel.
	We're not talking about a whole lot of money.
	We're going to the Bahamas.
	$1,500 in cash is in my pocket, or at the most $2,500.
	Belize was actually probably the most money I've ever taken.
	And it was taken because it was a big deal.
	My 50th birthday sucked.
	What are you talking about?
	Shut her up.
	I'm trying to answer.
	No, you're not.
	So let's move to the specific yes or no here.
	Have you told us today that you would keep a cash hoard in your residence up to about $9,000?
	Yes or no?
	And throughout the course of my...
	Adult life.
	And so let's even be more specific than that.
	Probably from the time...
	Your Honor, I'm only asking for yes or no.
	And we have already covered this.
	I know you're laying the foundation, but it's already been laid.
	The filibuster is here.
	I'm trying to move through the filibuster.
	But we're not talking about a lot of...
	And so it could be $2,000.
	It could be $1,500.
	It could be $7,500.
	It just depends on what you're doing at that time.
	What I'm telling you is when I traveled, I took cash.
	I find that when you travel, especially to foreign countries, the American dollar does well, and it's good to have cash.
	You can negotiate with the taxi driver, with the jet skis.
	We heard you, we heard you, we heard you.
	And it's not a lot of money we're talking about.
	Your Honor, we need to cut off the...
	Let's get to a question, Mr. Goethe.
	So, you have cash in your house, but you had a lien...
	A tax lien on your property?
	He already asked an answer.
	I don't believe I had a tax lien on my property.
	You didn't have a tax lien on your property.
	You've got to talk a little louder, Mr. Hill.
	Okay, we already covered that, Mr. Gillen?
	I need new ground here.
	Yes, it's 5 o 'clock, man.
	I'm trying to figure out how someone can have a tax lien.
	You can ask that question.
	It's argumentative.
	But not use the money that they allegedly said they had.
	Argumentative.
	I think Ms. Merchant asked that exact same question.
	She said she didn't use the money to pay her tax lien.
	So what's your question that's new?
	Build on that to say...
	No more bills.
	It's already built.
	All right.
	It's the same way you pay a bill.
	Just put the top on it if you need to, okay?
	It's the same way you owe a bill and go shopping.
	Well, now, you know, have you ever used...
	Did you say earlier that you used Cash App?
	Yeah.
	When I would pay Robin Bryant, I used Cash App.
	What is Cash App, for the record?
	I don't need to know that for the record.
	Let's keep going.
	The judge is not being a coward now, by the way.
	He's just trying to be expedient.
	Why aren't you paying, allegedly paying...
	There's no alleged here.
	Why aren't you paying, allegedly, Mr. Wade with Cash App?
	I don't think Mr. Wade does Cash App.
	Do you ask him?
	I think he's told me he doesn't do Cash App.
	Okay, so that's the reason why you didn't use Cash App.
	He's sitting next to me.
	I hand him the money.
	Because there would be a record in Cash App of your making payments, correct?
	Yes, but I didn't think that I was making a record in a personal relationship.
	Because when you're filing your, and I know that I'm going to move into this financial statement here, you were asked just a second ago about your non-disclosure form, or your, excuse me, your disclosure form of an Exhibit 21, where we agree that Mr. Wade is a prohibited source, correct?
	What I agree to is I don't believe he's giving me gifts.
	You would like to classify these trips as gifts, but I've always paid my fair share on these trips, so I did not look at them as gifts.
	I don't think that what this is disclosing, and they can tell me if they mean something different, I don't think it means that if you go to dinner with somebody over the course of a year and it gets to 100, you're supposed to report it.
	If my understanding of that is wrong, I've probably been to lunches with a couple of people that, over the course of a year, they paid, I paid.
	Let me, prohibited source means...
	We already went over this, Mr. Gillen.
	Mr. McDougald.
	Well, Your Honor, I have to lay the foundation here before I can follow up with my next question.
	I don't know why you have to.
	It's all the questions have been made.
	Then, your 2022 disclosure form...
	Did not list any of the thousands and thousands of dollars that Mr. Wade paid for on trips that you were on.
	Isn't that correct?
	That's because Mr. Wade was paid that money back or he was paid due to the fact that I bought the plane ticket or I paid for the hotel.
	There was never money that he gave me.
	That wasn't the nature of our relationship.
	You know, there's so many men, and Mr. Wade is one of them, where the nature of the relationship is they're just paying a woman.
	The nature of our relationship is companionship and friendship.
	Despite the way people would like to paint certain women, it's just not true.
	Final question.
	And not a single solitary documentary piece of that is showing that you have withdrawn the cash to pay them.
	That's not accurate.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	Mr. McCulloch, on behalf of Mr. Floyd.
	All right.
	Mr. Cromwell, on behalf of Ms. Leighton.
	The great thing about the coming last is most of your questions.
	I had one question, Ms. Willis.
	Can you hear me?
	Yes, sir.
	In the time period between February of 2021 and January of 2022, while you were staying at the Yurdy Conduct, did your father ever come and visit you during that time period at the Yurdy Conduct?
	He did not.
	That's all I have.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	All right.
	Ms. Cross, I would imagine you have a number of topics to cover with Ms. Willis that'll take more than 10 to 15 minutes?
	I did.
	Okay.
	Then I think we've reached a stopping point for today.
	Yes!
	And so, Ms. Willis, I'd ask you to step down now.
	Under oath.
	Don't talk about your testimony.
	Remind you that you're not to discuss your testimony or that of any other way.
	Good.
	Yeah, but what are the chances of her not doing that?
	Zero.
	9 a.m.
	We'll do 9 a.m. this time tomorrow.
	Before we recess for today, I want to check in on logistics, and I'll ask Ms. Merchant, once the testimony of Ms. Willis has concluded,
	How many other witnesses do you anticipate calling?
	We can handle that now.
	Ms. Wilson, you can step down.
	Do we want to hear the rest of this?
	Or you can sit at the council table.
	I'm going to need to run.
	All right, so two witnesses and then querying other defense counsel.
	I know Mr. Gillen, there was a potential witness that was objected to by the state, so there's another one there.
	And we can talk about that.
	Were there any other witnesses anticipated from any defense counsel?
	All right, seeing no show of hands.
	And then Ms. Cross, any witnesses on your behalf?
	I expect so, Your Honor, and I expect that to take four to five hours.
	Okay.
	And how many witnesses would you imagine?
	We're going more than tomorrow.
	Without committing myself to a final number, my best guess at this point would be three to four.
	Okay.
	It's going to go on through Monday.
	Alright.
	I gave them our witnesses.
	I know we're supposed to give witnesses for an evidentiary hearing from guessing the one in St. Floyd, but I don't know if he knows.
	All right.
	No, I understand, Ms. Merchant.
	However, I don't think at this point there's any statutory requirement.
	We have the standing order for expert witnesses, and if SAID doesn't want to extend that courtesy, then I think you're stuck with it.
	All right?
	I'm certainly happy to represent that Mr. Floyd will be a witness.
	That the other witnesses will be impeaching of this year.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Let's take up these last couple issues here before we break then.
	The issue of the Delta Airlines records.
	The motion to kawash was filed.
	By the state on behalf of Mr. Willis, I believe.
	I did file a motion, Your Honor.
	Oh, excuse me.
	My representation was that I had just gotten notice of them.
	I think it was yesterday.
	Okay.
	And so now that I've had the review of them, I object to the general fishing expeditions.
	I've introduced a new record today that was from Delta.
	To my knowledge, there's going to be no further new production in the Delta records.
	I don't want to burden the court with anything if the court wants to take a look at it and see if there's anything different than that.
	I don't have an objection.
	I don't like the idea that we're just looking for anything.
	I don't want to put an obligation on the court, but I'm happy to agree to any camera if that's important.
	And so, Ms. Merchant, I take it.
	All right.
	So, Ms. Merchant, I take it the purpose of the subpoena.
	I'm going to need you to step out.
	definitely Right.
	Is it because you suspect there are other travel records, or just you think there might be something else in there?
	Well, one is to prove some of the travel records that they traveled together.
	And so we have no problems, like I told the state.
	I mean, what I'm saying is that we've heard about the trips today in detail.
	Is there anything else that's in these records that you're saying is going to prove some additional trip, or is it just further corroborating what really is kind of uncontested at this point?
	There may be some additional trip, really.
	But you don't know of any specifically.
	You just think there might be any.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Well, then let's continue with that.
	Then if you want to send them or instruct Delta to send them to us in Chambers, we'll take a look.
	And I think essentially if there's...
	You can tell us, Ms. Merchant, what you think we should be looking for and what you think is relevant, and we'll do that.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	Please, end it for the day.
	End it.
	I've got to get out of here.
	When it comes to Mr. Schaefer's witness, there was an issue raised about this kind of being a summary versus an expert witness, and so I reviewed the motions, and I think there was the, essentially kind of the summary document that Mr. Gillen's witness would, the sole purpose of this witness to introduce.
	Was there something about, I don't know whether it's from Mr. Abadi or Ms. Cross, was there something about this attachment substantively that you think is inaccurate or is it just, is it literally just a summary document?
	I can't tell because the documents to support it were on a thumb drive and there's tens of thousands of those documents and so I just, I don't know.
	Okay people, I'm going to read a few of the, I can point to some of the recommendations on it that I would quibble with.
	Sure.
	I think the result is wrong but I just can't agree to I'm going to lower the volume here.
	I don't care about this.
	You guys can go watch it.
	I want to read a few of the locals' tips before I go.
	Quirky says her concern and reason for leaving her home should be that she didn't want to draw dangers to the house where her father and children were.
	Why would her father insist on her moving out to a place where she would be all alone?
	Makes absolutely no sense, and she knows that, and that is why she keeps bringing up COVID.
	Yep, she's a liar.
	Promise you she doesn't like being questioned by this guy.
	Here we go, says Glenn.
	Desert Dog Studio says Viva, as great as this is, I just can't take any more of this creature's ramblings.
	I eagerly await your highlights clips and thank you for your sacrifice.
	Forget the threats, she just invited home invasion.
	That's from vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Okay, I'm going to end this here and I'm just going to bring up the, let me just, let me run this here and I'm going to bring up some of the...
	Rumble rants and thank everybody for your participation, for your support.
	Viva, will you commit to buy a new chair at $400,000?
	Yes, Rockahora.
	In fact, maybe I'm going to go find one at the mall right now.
	Dozer Matt.
	Are we all seeing these?
	Dozer Matt.
	61 says, when you go Napa, your tasting fees are applied to your wine purchases.
	This much is true.
	We got Heather E74 is now a monthly supporter.
	Welcome to the above average VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community.
	Viva Frye.
	I get that joke.
	I've seen it.
	I don't want to get in trouble for saying it.
	It's hilarious.
	Mother Love says, before she said she didn't take out the cash, then she said she had the cash where she laid her head.
	Oh, shut the front door!
	Well, this is one way to end a show.
	Okay, guys.
	This is, um...
	This might be the craziest shit I've ever seen.
	Sorry, earmuffs.
	In my life, it's a literal shit show, earmuffs.
	This is why when you...
	This is who is trying to go after Donald Trump.
	You've got to be kidding me.
	That's from JamieYoung714.
	We're going to say, need a look at her rulings.
	This lady being the judge needs to be examined in depth.
	Rock a horror, less than 20,000.
	Away, Viva Frye.
	I believe in you.
	Less than $20,000 away, the Viva Frye.
	Has anyone been behind bars in Georgia that should be out immediately?
	Disgraceful.
	That's from XM.
	She paid the trip for Belize but messed up and said she gave him money in Belize.
	It was so fast you may have missed it.
	TravelMonk46, get it, clip it, and share it.
	Now, with that said, I just got these in the mail.
	One, take a stand.
	One is for auction, and one is for me from...
	The lectern guy, Adam Johnson.
	Dude, I'm keeping one of these, and it goes right here.
	And one of these, I'm now going to auction it for a charity of the lectern guy's choice.
	Everybody, I've got to wind it up because I've got to go do a message before this happens.
	Thank you all.
	I'll be live tomorrow, 9 o 'clock, maybe a little earlier.
	Mamacita!
	That was a big day.
	I'm going to end the stream and probably leave the chat open in locals, and I'll try to get into it while I'm driving, and I'll leave it open in Rumble for a little bit.
	What do I got there?
	Oh!
	I have no idea what this is.
	Okay, this is not clear.
	I don't know what this is.
	Okay, leave this here.
	Okay, we're doing it.
	I'm ending it now, everybody.
	Eight hours.
	Eight hours.
	Holy crab apples.
	I'd let it go to eight hours on the nose, but that would just be too neurotic.
	So, thank you all for being here.
	Thank you for the support.
	Snip, clip, share away, and I will see you all tomorrow.

▲